G
giuseppeTO
Guest
I love the way you guys hug on line … makes me feel like I’m at a Charismatic Mass!
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
What is your problem? You seem incapable of doing anything other than taking pot shots.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
My problem is you, Betts. You jump into this thread on SSPX vs Sedevacantism in posts 96 & 97 with a wise-*** remark about the fact that I look forward to the eventual canonization of Marcel Lefebvre. And you don’t give a ‘charitable’ opinion - you give a wise crack.
So whats up? Is your television broken or something today?
C
CWBetts
Guest
I call’em as I see em. You’re arguments are infantile remarks about the Cahrismatic movement, which was part of the Early Church. You accuse unnamed individuals at FUS of heresy. You refer to posters as “snorks.” If you do not like whay=t I say. IGNORE ME. Do not sink to playground behavior.
E
excubitor
Guest
Completely not so. The whole theme of the last few pages of this thread relates to the disobedience or obedience of the SSPX. Not once have even once mentioned the veracity of dogmatic statements on doctrine of the Pope.
This post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6874932&postcount=121 brought up the subject of papal infallibility with reference to his commands to the church (I think indefectability is more appropriate) which you then undermined by pointing out the narrow bounds of his infallibility.
Thanks for the link from Vatican 1 by the way. Here is a statement
“4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.”
And this is upheld and exhibited by the SSPX HOW?
Here also
“3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].”
And this is upheld and exhibited by the SSPX HOW?
And this
“4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.”
And this is upheld and exhibited by the SSPX HOW?
Furthermore
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.
And this is upheld and exhibited by the SSPX HOW?
Did you miss
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].
To which I add
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
Does the Pope govern the SSPX or does Msgr Fellay and the factions govern the SSPX?
How could I leave out
“2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
And so it goes. ON and ON and ON constantly affirming and reinforcing the continual and immediate power of the sovereign Roman pontiff to rule, govern and judge the church in ALL matters, not just matters of faith and morals but also including the DISCIPLINE and GOVERNANCE of the church.
Please pnewton. Read the whole of Vatican 1. SURELY the SSPX uphold Vatican 1 don’t they
Of all people, the traditionalists surely must uphold Vatican 1. But how do they uphold Vatican 1 in a visible immediate way? I just can’t see it.
E
excubitor
Guest
Indeed as we have seen from our reading of Vatican 1 the hopelessness of the SSPX cause rests on the far off distant and impossible notion that one day ABL will be declared a Saint. For them this would vindicate their immediate and visible disobedience. Sorry. That’s not how Vatican 1 works. That council requires immediate and visible obedience, that’s the kind of visibility which we tell protestants about when we talk about the visibility of the church.
Now these statements of Vatican 1 completely confound the great modern heresy of the SSPX, this false and destructive butchering of the concept of obedience. They carve up obedience into farcical notions of false and true obedience. Sorry. Show me in the scriptures, or in tradition, or in Vatican 1 any reference or any notion of “false obedience”. There is none. This is a fond innovation of the SSPX to justify disobedience and to bamboozle themselves and others into thinking that their disobedience is some kind of obedience. How perverse is that?
Vatican 1 talks about only one kind of obedience. That is “immediate and visible obedience” read it for yourself.
The notion of “false obedience” is easily as novel as the protestant innovation of sola scriptura, just as the other heretical innovation of the hyper-traditionalists which I call sola traditio (maybe someone can help me with my latin) . Which seeks to uphold tradition without the guardianship and guidance of the magisterium. Or as Cardinal Kasper calls it “petrified tradition” (I love that).
We must reject the modern heresies of “false obedience” and “sola traditio” otherwise we will lose the guidance in the way of salvation which outside of the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff cannot be found.
Now these statements of Vatican 1 completely confound the great modern heresy of the SSPX, this false and destructive butchering of the concept of obedience. They carve up obedience into farcical notions of false and true obedience. Sorry. Show me in the scriptures, or in tradition, or in Vatican 1 any reference or any notion of “false obedience”. There is none. This is a fond innovation of the SSPX to justify disobedience and to bamboozle themselves and others into thinking that their disobedience is some kind of obedience. How perverse is that?
Vatican 1 talks about only one kind of obedience. That is “immediate and visible obedience” read it for yourself.
The notion of “false obedience” is easily as novel as the protestant innovation of sola scriptura, just as the other heretical innovation of the hyper-traditionalists which I call sola traditio (maybe someone can help me with my latin) . Which seeks to uphold tradition without the guardianship and guidance of the magisterium. Or as Cardinal Kasper calls it “petrified tradition” (I love that).
We must reject the modern heresies of “false obedience” and “sola traditio” otherwise we will lose the guidance in the way of salvation which outside of the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff cannot be found.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
My remarks on the Cahrismatic movement came AFTER your wisecrack. Not sure what you are doing hanging around this board since most traditional Catholics abhor the shenanigans you engage in.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have.
C
CWBetts
Guest
I made no wisecrack, any who has caused as much damage to the garment of Christ as the founder of the SSPX should not be canonized.
C
catharina
Guest
C
catharina
Guest
SO:
“MOM! He started it!”
Code:
You imagine you can speak for "most traditional Catholics" - that's off the charts.
Please desist.
M
maurin
Guest
Mental and acdemic strenuous bcalisthenics aside, the infallible statements of VI completely counfound the pastoral statements of VII and especially your presentation of them.
E
excubitor
Guest
Interesting use of different font sizes.
Having a little dig at me pnewton are you? Fair enough.
I admit my last post was overly stylised.
What did you think of my post by the way? Did you agree with my take on how the sovereign pontiff should be immediately and visibly obeyed? Do you think that the SSPX immediately and visibly obey the sovereign Roman pontiff?
Honestly now.
To be quite frank. I don’t.
What an irony it all is. The SSPX in their enthusiasm to denounce Vatican 2, shoot themselves in the foot by completely disregarding and ignoring Vatican 1.
How tragic is that?
E
excubitor
Guest
How?
C
CWBetts
Guest
I am pretty sure that VII does not contradict anything from any previous council. It would be wise to consider your response carefully. All councils contain both fallible and infallible statements.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Hi excubitor.
You raise some good questions.
Q: What is wrong with the document?
A: The document is generous and reasonable.
Q: What does Bp. Fellay expect of Pope Benedict?
A: I am not sure. I would hope for something similar.
Q: What has changed in the twenty years since?
A:
- Four relatively youthful bishops have replaced one dying bishop.
- “Springtime of Evangelization” promises can not be taken seriously.
- The Fathers of the late Vatican Council are dead and their hopeful periti are aging.
- It is beginning to dawn on thoughtful Catholics that “Modern Man” doesn’t like watered-down Catholicism any better than Traditionalists. Thoughtful Catholics are beginning to understand that it might be prudent to approach “Modern Man” as just plain “Man” again.
- No one can say that the Traditional Latin Mass was ever suppressed. The bludgeon with which the modernists beat on Abp. Lefebvre, and the main reason for the original suspension of SSPX priests is resolved in favor of the position of Abp. Lefebvre.
Excubitor,
I can see that you have carefully examined the history behind today’s story and I appreciate your evaluation. I sense your genuine concern for us. I do not take issue with your judgment that Abp. Lefebvre should have accepted the solution offered by Rome in 1988. Clearly, he was troubled with indecision, so how can someone else in a different time and place be blamed for not knowing for sure, or disagreeing with his action? But it helps to recognize how vilified he was at the time; Many influential bishops had long been hoping to snuff the movement out and the Traditional Mass with it. In the shadow of the unthinkable Assisi Prayer Meeting of Oct. 1986, he feared that upon his death, his enemies would find a way to snuff out what seemed to him like the lone light in a diabolical darkness. The episcopal consecrations assured they could not do that, and we must also not forget that there was a clause discovered in the 1983 Code of Canon Law without which, it seems he would have conceded. But from his perspective in 1988, there was an emergency in the Church, which gave him the moral obligation and legal right to move forward with the consecrations.
Twenty years later, the Traditional movement has grown as you point out. The SSPX is bigger, and several other strong and growing Traditional orders/fraternities have spun off as a result. Perhaps honoring his signature would have yielded equal or even better results. Only God knows. A little candle has become a small blaze that could potentially burst into such a state of heat as to be a refiner’s fire to purify the Holy Catholic Church of our grandchildren, and to put our differences of opinion about 1965-1974-1988-2010 far behind us.
If Rome indicates an assurance that Tradition will be permitted to appeal to the faithful without interference from its enemies, I would hope to be with those priests and bishops who believe that the dawn is finally breaking. It seems to me, that under the changed circumstances of 2010, a repetition of the offer like that of 1988 could be considerably more acceptable. If Abp. Lefebvre came so near as to sign the document and change his mind under the prevailing conditions of 1988, I don’t see why we should be less inclined toward it today.
Thanks again Excubitor for your zealous and well-intended warnings. Be assured of my appreciation. I do not lightly dismiss them. At this time, and where I live, I still perceive a “local emergency” that results in supplied jurisdiction being applicable to the Sacraments received by anyone at our chapel. I am sure you will pray with me that all such subjective judgments will in the near future be resolved in favor of clear indications that no faithful Catholic anywhere could make a similar claim. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Regards,
Rory
C
catharina
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
As a rule, yes. The one exception being the one allowed by conscience, as per the Catechism.
Not always. I do believe there are those withing that organization that are trying to correct this. After all, I have not read much of anything the SSPX has said while these talks are on-going. They seem to be keeping the low profile that the Holy Father has asked for. I also think it appropriate to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt while these talks are in progress. Let the Vatican deal with this organization. The issues are above my pay grade.
Oh, font sizes. I am glad you used a
. I really just meant it as a joke. God only knows we all could use more humor than rhetoric here.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
In the past 20 years, how many times has the SSPX disobeyed an order of the Pope?
The only order I know of came in the year 2000, when John Paul II asked them to come to Rome. When Bishop Fellay was asked how he responded to this request, he said “I ran [to the Pope].”
The only order I know of came in the year 2000, when John Paul II asked them to come to Rome. When Bishop Fellay was asked how he responded to this request, he said “I ran [to the Pope].”
C
catharina
Guest
Surely, many prayers for the Holy Father are in order - always.As a rule, yes. The one exception being the one allowed by conscience, as per the Catechism.
Not always. I do believe there are those withing that organization that are trying to correct this. After all, I have not read much of anything the SSPX has said while these talks are on-going. They seem to be keeping the low profile that the Holy Father has asked for. I also think it appropriate to give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt while these talks are in progress. Let the Vatican deal with this organization. The issues are above my pay grade.
Oh, font sizes. I am glad you used a
- Status