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
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...
Shes obedient.....not blindly so. That is hwere your judgment is rash.
(02-05-2012, 01:09 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...
Shes obedient.....not blindly so. That is hwere your judgment is rash.

Not from what I've seen.
(02-05-2012, 01:31 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 01:09 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...
Shes obedient.....not blindly so. That is hwere your judgment is rash.

Not from what I've seen.
well the burden is on you. PU or SU
(02-05-2012, 02:35 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 01:31 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 01:09 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...
Shes obedient.....not blindly so. That is hwere your judgment is rash.

Not from what I've seen.
well the burden is on you. PU or SU

No.
(02-04-2012, 12:46 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]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

That's a vague statement.  I believe that the new Mass is a valid Mass, and not in itself un-Catholic, harmful to Catholics, or offensive to God.  However, I do believe that it is a less good expression of Catholic faith and worship than the TLM, and as such represents a step backward in liturgical development.  I don't really see the point in its existence, and I would like to see it gone for good.

Quote:and (2) you believe the new teachings are equivilent of the old teachings

I believe there are no new teachings (official, that is) that cannot be reconciled with the old teachings.  However, I also believe that they have been presented in a confusing way, and I am certain there are those who want to take advantage of that to introduce new teachings that cannot be reconciled with the old teachings.

Quote:(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.

I believe the magisterium cannot err insofar as infallibility applies, which certainly does not cover everything.  But our obedience is not limited only to things covered by infallibility.  Therefore, no, I do not think that there is never any justification for disobedience because the magisterium cannot err, because inability to err is not the source of our duty to obey.  Also, I would point out that there are things we are required to believe and then things we are required to do (or are forbidden from doing), and we don't want to confuse those.

Quote:Further, I find no ability to resist any action of the magisterium under your framework.

The faithful always have the right to make their needs and concerns known to the leaders of the Church.  And it is entirely licit to resist the actions of, say, your bishop if he is illicitly tries to impose something on you.  For example, if a bishop tries to force a priest to stop saying the TLM, he does not need to obey, because at this time he has the right to the say the TLM and his bishop cannot interfere with that.  So yes, there are legitimate cases when one may resist the actions of a heirarch.

Quote: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.

I don't understand your point.  Yes, the SSPX could say that if they are acting evilly, then God can bring good out of it.  But so what?  That wouldn't excuse acting evilly.

Quote:But you are speculating

Yes, to make the point of the pointlessness of speculation.  And to come up with a possible scenario to answer the point in question.  For example:

Quote:we know that the vast majority of priests were not permitted to say the old mass.

But SOME were.

Quote:We know that none were inspired to "step up to the plate," except one group.

But we do not know what would have happened had that one group not existed.

Quote:We also know what happened to them: they were suppressed and excommunicated.

I object to this point.  None of the SSPX priests or faithful who attended their Masses were ever excommunicated.  And those who were excommunicated were not excommunicated for being traditionalists, but for participating in illicit episcopal consecrations in direct defiance of the pope's orders.

Quote: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.

No, wait, we DO know what God's will is inasmuch as he has revealed to us, and we DO know that God will not destroy the visible Church or replace it with a massive SSPX.  We know his will for the Church in general.  We know this because he has said he will be with us to the end of time.  We know that he established the Church and we know what purpose he had in mind for it.  We know that among the marks of the Church are visibility and indefectibility.  Therefore, we know the visible Church can never be destroyed, because then it would not be the Church anymore, because it would not be visible.  We also know that this visible Church cannot defect from the faith, and this includes the particular Church of Rome (and ONLY this particular Church).  And it's pretty clear why God set things up this way.  Without these guarantees we could never be sure of anything.  The Church cannot operate in a state where there is constant doubt like this.  It would be chaos.  This would not serve the salvation of souls.  There would be no point in even having a Church if this were the case.

Quote: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.

How have you extrapolated this from my statement?  I didn't say anything about saving people who were lost.  I said I hope God would have mercy on those who were faced with difficult decisions in those difficult times.  We were speaking about Catholics who chose the SSPX and Catholics who chose to remain obedient to the commands of the leaders of the Church.  None of those people were outside the Church, so statements about salvation outside the Church are not applicable.
(02-05-2012, 02:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 02:35 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 01:31 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 01:09 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...
Shes obedient.....not blindly so. That is hwere your judgment is rash.

Not from what I've seen.
well the burden is on you. PU or SU

No.
then your just spewing accusations.
(02-04-2012, 07:56 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Are you serious?

Manifest heretics are no longer members of the Church ipso facto, without need for any declaratory sentence, and therefore cannot hold offices or jurisdiction in her, much less demand our obedience. It would be absurd to imply otherwise.

Could you please provide a Magisterial document saying that we do not owe lawful obedience to lawful superiors regardless of their state in relation to the Church?  That is, please provide a Magisterial document stating that manifest heretics lose their authority to command obedience in lawful things.

No, actually, please provide at least three Magisterial documents attesting to this.
(02-05-2012, 03:16 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 02:53 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 02:35 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 01:31 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 01:09 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 11:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 10:08 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2012, 05:18 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]That may of course be Jayne because you are the one often accused of blind obedience, which often turns out to be true.

I have never acted out of blind obedience.  How could you possibly make that judgement about another person?
Really? That would be mighty odd considering the number of posts where you demonstrate it...
Shes obedient.....not blindly so. That is hwere your judgment is rash.

Not from what I've seen.
well the burden is on you. PU or SU

No.
then your just spewing accusations.

If you say so
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