FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bishop Williamson- Rotten Apples
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(05-16-2011, 12:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 11:47 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Here we have Pope St. Pius X supporting the point I was making. He said that we have to leave out the internal disposition of the soul of which God alone is the judge.  That means we cannot speak of their goals and motivations, only their stated  beliefs and actions.  And these latter are very wrong and destructive.  I completely agree with what he has written here, but not the implications you are drawing from it.

Yes, but the external achievements are present. The "implications" have not only come to fruition and manifested themselves, they've been the norm for the last 45 years - why do you deny this?

I am denying that you know the motives of the modernists.  I am denying that they are in control.  They have been far too influential but their power is waning now.

(05-16-2011, 12:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The words you place in my mouth do not represent my view.  I think that the modernism we face today is just as pernicious and dangerous as it has ever been.  The very fact that Summorum Pontificum was promulalgated shows that it does not reign.

Can you understand (not "believe") that the  Summorum Pontificum as offered is actually nothing new? That the same thing (tho worded differently) has actually been offered before?

IOW, "Accept the OF and we will grant the EF" ---which is the same as saying: "accept (what has proven itself as) the destruction of the faith and we will grant the promulgation of the true faith - so long as it's destruction is the ordinary form".

I see SP as a first step in restoring the the TLM to its rightful place.  I also see getting rid of the horrendous ICEL translation of the OF as a move in the right direction.  I think that things have turned around and are now getting better.  This does not make me an modernist.  It makes me an optimist.  Clearly you disagree with me and I may well turn out to be wrong in my assessment.  But optimism is not a heresy.  So stop claiming that my hope is a sign of modernism.  Hope happens to be a theological virtue.
(05-16-2011, 12:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 12:04 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 11:47 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Here we have Pope St. Pius X supporting the point I was making. He said that we have to leave out the internal disposition of the soul of which God alone is the judge.  That means we cannot speak of their goals and motivations, only their stated  beliefs and actions.  And these latter are very wrong and destructive.  I completely agree with what he has written here, but not the implications you are drawing from it.

Yes, but the external achievements are present. The "implications" have not only come to fruition and manifested themselves, they've been the norm for the last 45 years - why do you deny this?

I am denying that you know the motives of the modernists.  I am denying that they are in control.  They have been far too influential but their power is waning now.

I see! So the reality is that you deny the reality of the destructiveness of modernism.


(05-16-2011, 09:59 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I see SP as a first step in restoring the the TLM to its rightful place.  I also see getting rid of the horrendous ICEL translation of the OF as a move in the right direction.  I think that things have turned around and are now getting better.  This does not make me an modernist.  It makes me an optimist.  Clearly you disagree with me and I may well turn out to be wrong in my assessment.  But optimism is not a heresy.  So stop claiming that my hope is a sign of modernism.  Hope happens to be a theological virtue.

In reality, what, in all likely hood you are seeing is SP as being the final blow - not restoration. Afterall, you already showed that you are confused in regards to the ferocity of modernism.

You confuse optimism with reality. While Hope is a virtue, Hope depends on faith - the very same faith which is in process of being destroyed via Modernism as dictated by Pope St. Pius X.
(05-16-2011, 11:55 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]What's more, then-Fr. Wojtyla was taught by none other than the 20th century's greatest Thomist, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange.

And that should tell you something.

Fr. Lagrange said of Wojtyla, "Writes much; says little."  Hah, boy did he call that one or what?
(05-16-2011, 05:21 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 12:21 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 11:14 AM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]No one is the head of two Churches.  You are either Catholic or you are not - that's the essence of being Catholic.  You're either in or you're out - there's no half way.

If the Pope is a material heretic, he could be the head of the Catholic Church while propagating a heretical version at the same time. 

You are preaching to a Sedev...  I do hope you realize that!!  And anything you do tell him about the Pope(Or any Popes post 1958) will most likely not change his stance!

Actually, I was careful not to mention specific people in this statement.  Quite frankly, even if I did recognize BXVI as a true Catholic pope, my statement would still stand.  There is no such thing as being in two churches.  You are either Catholic or you're not.  It's so simple a moron should be able to understand it.
(05-16-2011, 10:37 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 05:21 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 12:21 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 11:14 AM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]No one is the head of two Churches.  You are either Catholic or you are not - that's the essence of being Catholic.  You're either in or you're out - there's no half way.

If the Pope is a material heretic, he could be the head of the Catholic Church while propagating a heretical version at the same time. 

You are preaching to a Sedev...  I do hope you realize that!!  And anything you do tell him about the Pope(Or any Popes post 1958) will most likely not change his stance!

Actually, I was careful not to mention specific people in this statement.  Quite frankly, even if I did recognize BXVI as a true Catholic pope, my statement would still stand.  There is no such thing as being in two churches.  You are either Catholic or you're not.   It's so simple a moron should be able to understand it.

Exactly.  This idea has nothing to do with being Sede.  It is the traditional Catholic understanding of the nature of Church.
(05-16-2011, 11:13 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 10:37 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 05:21 AM)crusaderfortruth3372 Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-16-2011, 12:21 AM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2011, 11:14 AM)NorthernTrad Wrote: [ -> ]No one is the head of two Churches.  You are either Catholic or you are not - that's the essence of being Catholic.  You're either in or you're out - there's no half way.

If the Pope is a material heretic, he could be the head of the Catholic Church while propagating a heretical version at the same time. 

You are preaching to a Sedev...  I do hope you realize that!!  And anything you do tell him about the Pope(Or any Popes post 1958) will most likely not change his stance!

Actually, I was careful not to mention specific people in this statement.  Quite frankly, even if I did recognize BXVI as a true Catholic pope, my statement would still stand.  There is no such thing as being in two churches.  You are either Catholic or you're not.   It's so simple a moron should be able to understand it.

Exactly.  This idea has nothing to do with being Sede.  It is the traditional Catholic understanding of the nature of Church.

Well, if I were to walk into the NO service I'd be just as completely lost as a NOer who walked in on a TLM. Simple enough to understand that there are two different lex orandi's going on. Since when does the One True Church have two (or more depending on the service) different lex orandi's?


stub dyou consider the eastern liturgies to be a differeny lex orandi?
(05-17-2011, 07:33 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: [ -> ]stub dyou consider the eastern liturgies to be a differeny lex orandi?

I'm happily ignorant of the Eastern Church entirely - also happy to remain so. We do have what I believe is an Eastern Seminarian at my SSPX chapel for whatever that's worth. He makes the sign of the cross backwards lol - what does that tell you? LOL (j/k)

I know we attended the Byzantine back in the early 70s two or three times, beyond that, I am all but totally clueless in that department.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10