Dissident website - www.drbo.org

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicmessage
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicmessage

Guest
I am surprised at how many people have links to www.drbo.org in their signatures, or use that site as a source in their posts.

That website clearly supports SSPX and claims that Archbishop Lefebvre was fully within his rights to consecrate bishops without the approval of Rome. Here is a link to their dissident page.

I just wondered if people knew this or not.
 
catholicmessage said:
I am surprised at how many people have links to www.drbo.org in their signatures, or use that site as a source in their posts.

That website clearly supports SSPX and claims that Archbishop Lefebvre was fully within his rights to consecrate bishops without the approval of Rome. Here is a link to their dissident page.

I just wondered if people knew this or not.
Click to expand...
If a pro-choice athiest was in charge of the site, I would probably still use it. It is a great online Douay-Rheims Bible, so I use it to quote biblical passages.

I will probably burn in hell for that…:rolleyes:
 
rlg94086 said:
If a pro-choice athiest was in charge of the site, I would probably still use it. It is a great online Douay-Rheims Bible, so I use it to quote biblical passages.

I will probably burn in hell for that…:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Nah, probably not…🙂
 
catholicmessage said:
I am surprised at how many people have links to www.drbo.org in their signatures, or use that site as a source in their posts.

That website clearly supports SSPX and claims that Archbishop Lefebvre was fully within his rights to consecrate bishops without the approval of Rome. Here is a link to their dissident page.

I just wondered if people knew this or not.
Click to expand...
“But though we [Apostles-those of maximum authority], or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Galatians 1:8]

Ya gotta wonder if that has any meaning at all. After all, if it’s Impossible, the whole verse is a useless and unecessary statement.
The question becomes:
If you can detect Orthodoxy, how can it be that you cannot detect heresy? They are 2 sides of the same coin.
Anyway, that’s what I got from the last link you posted.
 
catholicmessage said:
I am surprised at how many people have links to www.drbo.org in their signatures, or use that site as a source in their posts.

That website clearly supports SSPX and claims that Archbishop Lefebvre was fully within his rights to consecrate bishops without the approval of Rome. Here is a link to their dissident page.

I just wondered if people knew this or not.
Click to expand...
The latest out of Rome the last few years is the SSPX is not in schism and their sunday service fulfills sunday obligation. So thinking that the Archbishop was okay to consecrate is not such a terrible sounding proposition.

It would be one thing if the SSPX were preaching something that is not part of the Catholic faith (like female priests are ok, Christ is not body, blood, soul and diviinity in Eucharist, Mass is not a sacrifice etc) then you’d should worry.

But we get that enough from the average supposedly fully Catholic priests these days. I think the site is okay.

(non SSPX’er who has never been to their services).
 
PepeRoni said:
The latest out of Rome the last few years is the SSPX is not in schism and their sunday service fulfills sunday obligation. So thinking that the Archbishop was okay to consecrate is not such a terrible sounding proposition.

It would be one thing if the SSPX were preaching something that is not part of the Catholic faith (like female priests are ok, Christ is not body, blood, soul and diviinity in Eucharist, Mass is not a sacrifice etc) then you’d should worry.

But we get that enough from the average supposedly fully Catholic priests these days. I think the site is okay.

(non SSPX’er who has never been to their services).
Click to expand...
Exactly…and people are concerned about the SSPX…doesn’t make any sense.
 
I never even looked beyond the fact that they have a rather easily accessible on-line Douay-Rheims Bible.

As another person above posted: I’d use still use it, even it fit were run by a pro-life atheist.
 
Even if www.drbo.org supports the SSPX, does it really matter?

When you put it into context, to refuse patronage because of it is rather rediculous.

How do you know the person you bought your house or your car from isn’t a protestant? Or your mailman isn’t a violently anti-Catholic atheist? Or your dry-cleaner supports Joan Chittister? Or the owners of any of the stores you regularly shop in are sede-vacantists? How about other websites other than drbo.org? What about the people who run the servers those websites are on?

To put drbo’s affiliations under a microscope and criticize them and yet give everything else we use in our lives a free pass from such scrutiny is intellectually dishonest.

We’re free to spend our money or time on whatever we please, but to be as strict with every last little thing as you propose with drbo.org is impractical. We should have standards as to whom we decide to patronize, but to criticize drbo.org and still patronize other places that could have far worse beliefs or views is unfair.

I’d rather have my money or website traffic go to the SSPX than to, say, someone who supports Richard Dawkins.

To boycott drbo.org based on their affiliations means you must do the same for everything else that enjoys your patronage. You must hold the same standard for all.
 
Unitas said:
Even if www.drbo.org supports the SSPX, does it really matter?

When you put it into context, to refuse patronage because of it is rather rediculous.

How do you know the person you bought your house or your car from isn’t a protestant? Or your mailman isn’t a violently anti-Catholic atheist? Or your dry-cleaner supports Joan Chittister? Or the owners of any of the stores you regularly shop in are sede-vacantists? How about other websites other than drbo.org? What about the people who run the servers those websites are on?

To put drbo’s affiliations under a microscope and criticize them and yet give everything else we use in our lives a free pass from such scrutiny is intellectually dishonest.

We’re free to spend our money or time on whatever we please, but to be as strict with every last little thing as you propose with drbo.org is impractical. We should have standards as to whom we decide to patronize, but to criticize drbo.org and still patronize other places that could have far worse beliefs or views is unfair.

I’d rather have my money or website traffic go to the SSPX than to, say, someone who supports Richard Dawkins.

To boycott drbo.org based on their affiliations means you must do the same for everything else that enjoys your patronage. You must hold the same standard for all.
Click to expand...
I agree. Good post. After all, we are called to the spirit of ecumenism, aren’t we?
 
Archbishop Lefebvre seriously thought it was a necessity because he had already expressed the concern that Rome was losing the Faith. Therefore, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because a person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity. If one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), nor would he incur any automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
Click to expand...
So, Pope John Paul II’s statement is incorrect.
Click to expand...
The above is a quote from the so called “dissident page.” I understood from other discussions and exchanges on this forum that Catholics don’t believe that outright publically speaking against the Pope this way is unacceptable?
 
Protestant101 said:
The above is a quote from the so called “dissident page.” I understood from other discussions and exchanges on this forum that Catholics don’t believe that outright publicly speaking against the Pope this way is unacceptable?
Click to expand...
Re:
Catholics don’t believe that outright publicly speaking against the Pope this way is unacceptable?
Click to expand...
The “against” is referring to the “statement”, not the pope as a person or as an office in the church.
The pope’s Catechism states that criticism in this way is not only permitted, but encouraged where deemed appropriate.
PS
Aren’t you suppose to be in church today?
 
paramedicgirl said:
I agree. Good post. After all, we are called to the spirit of ecumenism, aren’t we?
Click to expand...
Yes, the Scriptures is one of the elements of truth found outside her visible structure that the Church of Christ claims as belonging to her and which impel those separated towards unity.

Likewise, as Leo XIII said in his encyclical on Scripture, Providentissimus Deus “the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student.”
 
[Leaving aside any question of SSPX-ity]

Frankly what I find disappointing in that site is that the Latin Vulgate bible provided is neither the *Nova Vulgata *(which is the Church’s current translation) nor the *Vulgata Clementina *(which was for the previous several hundred years, and of which D-R is a translation), but rather is the Stuttgart Vulgate, which though of scholarly interest has never been approved for use by the Church.

If anyone feels ooky using the site, there are other sources for the Douay-Rheims. The Unbound Bible, which seems non-denominational, has it as well as both Vulgates. IntraText also has the Douay-Rheims.

tee
 
Protestant101 said:
The above is a quote from the so called “dissident page.” I understood from other discussions and exchanges on this forum that Catholics don’t believe that outright publically speaking against the Pope this way is unacceptable?
Click to expand...
This is a common misconception. To deny the papacy would be unacceptable. To publically disagree with a dogmatic/infallible teaching of the Church (e.g. Birth Control) would be unacceptable. However, we can disagree with other statements.

For example, Pope John Paul II spoke out very much against the death penalty, but good Catholics can differ on the death penalty (the official Church standing is that states are allowed to have the death penalty, but it should be “rare or non-existant.”)
 
TNT said:
Re:

PS
Aren’t you suppose to be in church today?
Click to expand...
If you are some newly appointed Adventist Religious Police, then state your qualifications, and I will answer this question. 👍
 
PepeRoni said:
The latest out of Rome the last few years is the SSPX is not in schism and their sunday service fulfills sunday obligation. So thinking that the Archbishop was okay to consecrate is not such a terrible sounding proposition.

It would be one thing if the SSPX were preaching something that is not part of the Catholic faith (like female priests are ok, Christ is not body, blood, soul and diviinity in Eucharist, Mass is not a sacrifice etc) then you’d should worry.

But we get that enough from the average supposedly fully Catholic priests these days. I think the site is okay.

(non SSPX’er who has never been to their services).
Click to expand...
Good points, if not in schism there should be no cause for alarm.
 
tee_eff_em said:
[Leaving aside any question of SSPX-ity]

Frankly what I find disappointing in that site is that the Latin Vulgate bible provided is neither the *Nova Vulgata *(which is the Church’s current translation) nor the *Vulgata Clementina *(which was for the previous several hundred years, and of which D-R is a translation), but rather is the Stuttgart Vulgate, which though of scholarly interest has never been approved for use by the Church.

If anyone feels ooky using the site, there are other sources for the Douay-Rheims. The Unbound Bible, which seems non-denominational, has it as well as both Vulgates. IntraText also has the Douay-Rheims.

tee
Click to expand...
The Stuttgart Vulgate, or alternatively titled Biblia Sacra Vulgata or Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, is actually an earlier Vulgate text much closer to that which Jerome translated some 1,600 years ago. What is critical though is the source of this text being the Codex Amiatinus, the highly-esteemed 8th century manuscript, regarded as the best medieval witness to Jerome’s original text. So I would guess it is a good website if you consider that St Jerome translated the Original manuscripts into the Latin Vulgate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top