FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CDF rejects SSPX second response
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 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(02-04-2012, 12:51 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:40 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]You realize that if priests and faithful had actually done this there would probably be no Traditional Mass, no FSSP, no "trad friendly" bishops, no hope for restoration. Pretty much everything we have today we owe to the priests and faithful who resisted the equivocal, watered down crap coming from the hierarchy and were labelled schismatic and excommunicated because of it.

No, I don't agree with that.  But even if it is true, it doesn't justify it.  We know the ends do not justify the means and God brings good even out of evil.

Why don't you agree with it? I can't see how anyone can seriously hold that there would be any traditional movement if it weren't for those willing to be labelled "schismatic" in order to preserve the Old Mass and doctrine and provide priests to offer it to the faithful. The whole momentum we see towards Tradition in the Church today would not exist were it not for those priests. Even the original FSSP priests and seminarians, let's not forget, existed as suspended and operating without approval for a long time before 1988. Would the Vatican have decided to revive the Old Mass out of the blue if it hadn't endured thanks to the efforts of those faithful priests and laity? I doubt it.

I think the Archbishop summed up why he did what he did beautifully when he wrote:

"This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this:  At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”
(02-04-2012, 01:14 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:51 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:40 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]You realize that if priests and faithful had actually done this there would probably be no Traditional Mass, no FSSP, no "trad friendly" bishops, no hope for restoration. Pretty much everything we have today we owe to the priests and faithful who resisted the equivocal, watered down crap coming from the hierarchy and were labelled schismatic and excommunicated because of it.

No, I don't agree with that.  But even if it is true, it doesn't justify it.  We know the ends do not justify the means and God brings good even out of evil.

Why don't you agree with it? I can't see how anyone can seriously hold that there would be any traditional movement if it weren't for those willing to be labelled "schismatic" in order to preserve the Old Mass and doctrine and provide priests to offer it to the faithful. The whole momentum we see towards Tradition in the Church today would not exist were it not for those priests. Even the original FSSP priests and seminarians, let's not forget, existed as suspended and operating without approval for a long time before 1988. Would the Vatican have decided to revive the Old Mass out of the blue if it hadn't endured thanks to the efforts of those faithful priests and laity? I doubt it.

I think the Archbishop summed up why he did what he did beautifully when he wrote:

"This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this:  At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”

This!
(02-04-2012, 01:02 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:39 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Could you have done that?  Could you really obey under those circumstances? 

Yes, I think so.  I guess you could say I have a by-the-book personality.  But who knows?  If I had lived in a different time, grew up in a different culture, lived through the changes, perhaps it would be different.  My grandparents were devout Catholics, and they simply gave up and never went back to Mass after the changes.  Perhaps I would have been like that.  I hope not.  But who can say?  I hope God shows mercy to all those faced with difficult decisions in those turbulent times.

Amen.  

The theology disputes are over my head, but I can tell that there is something really wrong with the NO Mass.  If the TLM were suppressed and it even seemed like it had been abrogated in favour of the NO, it would shake my faith.  I place a very high value on obedience but I suspect I would be questioning if it were a lawful command and/or leaving the Church.

I agree with what you are saying about obedience but I am not at all sure that I could have done it.  I can obey and be patient now because I have access to the TLM and it looks like recognition of the problems with the NO is growing.  
(02-04-2012, 01:14 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]Why don't you agree with it? I can't see how anyone can seriously hold that there would be any traditional movement if it weren't for those willing to be labelled "schismatic" in order to preserve the Old Mass and doctrine and provide priests to offer it to the faithful. The whole momentum we see towards Tradition in the Church today would not exist were it not for those priests. Even the original FSSP priests and seminarians, let's not forget, existed as suspended and operating without approval for a long time before 1988. Would the Vatican have decided to revive the Old Mass out of the blue if it hadn't endured thanks to the efforts of those faithful priests and laity? I doubt it.

I think the Archbishop summed up why he did what he did beautifully when he wrote:

"This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this:  At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.”

Basically, because speculating about what might have happened in the past if something had been different is pointless and impossible.  There were still priests who could licitly say the TLM after the NO was introduced.  Who knows who might have been inspired, who might have stepped up to the plate, what else might have happened if there had been no SSPX?  But I am sure that if it were God's will that the TLM continue, it would have happened, regardless of anything else.
(02-04-2012, 12:51 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:40 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]You realize that if priests and faithful had actually done this there would probably be no Traditional Mass, no FSSP, no "trad friendly" bishops, no hope for restoration. Pretty much everything we have today we owe to the priests and faithful who resisted ... the hierarchy and were labelled schismatic and excommunicated because of it.
No, I don't agree with that.  But even if it is true, it doesn't justify it.  We know the ends do not justify the means and God brings good even out of evil.
I believe that your position rests on several premises with which I cannot agree  -  but I want to make sure.  This relates to the post I wrote last night that disappeared.  You believe (1) that the new mass is the equivilent of the old mass, and (2) you believe the new teachings are equivilent of the old teachings, and (3) you believe this way because of a preconception that the magisterium cannot err. Therefore, because the magisterium cannot err, there is never any justification to disobey its orders.
Because I disagree with you on the first two points, and because I qualify the third based on my understanding of Church history, I cannot concede your fourth point.  Further, I find no ability to resist any action of the magisterium under your framework.  Your method of resistance boils down to waiting for a miracle, which strikes me as superstitious and not in accordance with the manner the Lord works in history, as shown in the Old Testament, in the Acts of the Apostles, or Church history.  Further, saying God brings good out of evil leads to a reductionism:  the SSPX could say that if they are acting evilly, then God can bring good out of it.  That is the problem of taking a "miracle based" approach:  it is subjective.
It has been mentioned on this thread that even the FSSP priests were suspended before the 1988 consecrations (when they weree SSPX priests), which is true. And certainly a certain amount of graditude should be shown toward the SSPX for ordaining them. But would we have been granted Summorum Pontificum if the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei groups not been started and approved by Pope John Paul ll? I give credit where it is due, and the SSPX priests who left after the 1988 consecrations went, in humility and trust, to the pope, and he granted them the FSSP. Now some will say that the only reason the pope allowed the FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei groups is to be a source of competition for the SSPX. While this may be partly true, I also believe that the pope truly wanted to give traditional Catholics a place in the Church. Okay, it wasn't a very big place, but it was a start. And TLM's are increasing, slowly but surely, in diocese all around the U.S. Some bishops still won't allow it, but that will change in time, and with patience, prayer, and fortitude, and hard work. Surely the Ecclesia Dei groups are a good example to all of us in this way.

Regarding the supposed problems with the NO, I think that the NO still has all the main aspects of the TLM, except that it's very watered down. It's still Catholic, though. I see it as a good thing that the TLM had to go underground, so to speak, after the Council, for awhile, because it was kept safe from tinkering from the minimalists who changed the Mass. Our beloved TLM (1962 missal)hasn't changed much since the Council, which is a really good thing.
(02-04-2012, 12:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Basically, because speculating about what might have happened in the past if something had been different is pointless and impossible.  There were still priests who could licitly say the TLM after the NO was introduced.  Who knows who might have been inspired, who might have stepped up to the plate, what else might have happened if there had been no SSPX?  But I am sure that if it were God's will that the TLM continue, it would have happened, regardless of anything else.

But you are speculating - we know that the vast majority of priests were not permitted to say the old mass.  We know that none were inspired to "step up to the plate," except one group.  We also know what happened to them: they were suppressed and excommunicated.  We also know that they persisted, and that based on their persistence, the FSSP was formed and S.P. was promulgated.  We know that the number of practicing Catholics has decreased by as much as fifty percent in the Catholic heartlands.  We know that the SSPX has been one of the few entities to grow during this time.  Those are the facts.  We cannot know what the Lord's will is, really.  For all we know, God wills the total destruction of the visible Church in order to end the world.  Likewise, for all we know He will destroy the magisterial Church through sex and money scandals, and replace it with a massive SSPX.  We cannot divine God's will because we cannot see the future.   Hence, the best we can ever do is deduce the will of God from the traditions of the Church.  This is a major point of departure under Msgr. Ocariz's framework, which he says, is based on the "hermenuetic of continuity," which suggests that we can know the will of God by what the magisterium teaches simply through the act of teaching at a particular historical time.  

One thing that you wrote is noteworthy:  your hope that the Lord will save the people who have been lost as a result of the action (or inaction, if you prefer) of the contemporary Church.  This is fantasy.  The Fathers are clear, and Christ is clear:  outside the Church there is no salvation.  Based on what tradition teaches, those souls are probably lost.  The thinking that they are lost not sources to Nostrae Aetate, where is found the quote about the Muslims you asked about earlier.  Its oft quoted because it is clearly written (unlike much of V2 texts) and is clearly new.  I do not see any power to change tradition within tradtion itself.  
 
(02-04-2012, 01:02 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:39 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Could you have done that?  Could you really obey under those circumstances? 

Yes, I think so.  I guess you could say I have a by-the-book personality.  But who knows?  If I had lived in a different time, grew up in a different culture, lived through the changes, perhaps it would be different.  My grandparents were devout Catholics, and they simply gave up and never went back to Mass after the changes.  Perhaps I would have been like that.  I hope not.  But who can say?  I hope God shows mercy to all those faced with difficult decisions in those turbulent times.

Chris: Just want to say I agree 100% with all your posts.  Keep fighting the good fight man, you're spot on and not alone.    

God Bless.
(02-04-2012, 01:00 PM)Meg Wrote: [ -> ]While this may be partly true, I also believe that the pope truly wanted to give traditional Catholics a place in the Church. Okay, it wasn't a very big place, but it was a start. And TLM's are increasing, slowly but surely, in diocese all around the U.S. Some bishops still won't allow it, but that will change in time, and with patience, prayer, and fortitude, and hard work. Surely the Ecclesia Dei groups are a good example to all of us in this way.

I agree with what you wrote, in the main, though I distinguish different problems with the N.O. than simply being watered down, as you said. But this is a question of whether we look at V2 (and its legacy) as positive error, or passive omissions.  The question, to my mind, is mainly semantic.  But under the Msgr. Ocariz's framework, if traditionalists have a place in the Church, then to deny them a place in the Church was an injustice, and the bishops and priests who won't allow a place are out of step with the will of the magisterium, and in a state of functional schism themselves.  Isn't it easier, and more in accord with common experience, to concede that the magisterium can make errors of judgment like any other human institution, and that it can act unjustly, and that people can resist it when it does within certain degrees, based on justice?  What we can then debate is the degree, or form, resistance can take.    
(02-04-2012, 01:11 PM)Guardian Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 01:02 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:39 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Could you have done that?  Could you really obey under those circumstances? 

Yes, I think so.  I guess you could say I have a by-the-book personality.  But who knows?  If I had lived in a different time, grew up in a different culture, lived through the changes, perhaps it would be different.  My grandparents were devout Catholics, and they simply gave up and never went back to Mass after the changes.  Perhaps I would have been like that.  I hope not.  But who can say?  I hope God shows mercy to all those faced with difficult decisions in those turbulent times.

Chris: Just want to say I agree 100% with all your posts.  Keep fighting the good fight man, you're spot on and not alone.    

God Bless.

Indeed mindless obedience is always to be praised  :eyeroll:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25