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
LOL she tossed dat boy like a salad!
(02-12-2012, 03:45 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]The Church's universal disciplinary laws are infallible and cannot give evil, so the N.O. Mass is therefore inherently orthodox and holy, and giving Holy Communion to Protestants who haven't abjured their errors as well as liturgically praying with heretics cannot be evil because the Church herself has authoritatively approved of such disciplinary practices. 

Is the first part of this accurate?  And with respect to V2 and its aftermath, is the inherent quality of something relevant?  For instance, the conversion of a non believer is inherently good.  However, the conversion of a non believer under pain of torture is practically evil.  The excesses of application, or the deficiencies in practice, it seems cannot be whitewashed with the truth of the general rule under which they occur.  This would appear explicitly to have been covered by our Lord in St. Mark, where the pharisees are condemned for their practices and hypocrisy regarding the commandment, "honor thy father and thy mother."   
(02-12-2012, 09:06 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 03:45 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]The Church's universal disciplinary laws are infallible and cannot give evil, so the N.O. Mass is therefore inherently orthodox and holy, and giving Holy Communion to Protestants who haven't abjured their errors as well as liturgically praying with heretics cannot be evil because the Church herself has authoritatively approved of such disciplinary practices. 

Is the first part of this accurate?  And with respect to V2 and its aftermath, is the inherent quality of something relevant?  For instance, the conversion of a non believer is inherently good.  However, the conversion of a non believer under pain of torture is practically evil.  The excesses of application, or the deficiencies in practice, it seems cannot be whitewashed with the truth of the general rule under which they occur.  This would appear explicitly to have been covered by our Lord in St. Mark, where the pharisees are condemned for their practices and hypocrisy regarding the commandment, "honor thy father and thy mother."   

Yes, I'm quite sure that it is (I could cite theologians who assert as much;  the SSPX writes this off, however, as the mere speculation of pious theologians: http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/cathol...linarylaws).  What I said about the Novus Ordo Missae is in relation to the SSPX's claim that, "The indefectibility of the Church does not prevent the pope personally from promoting defective and modernist rites in the Latin rite of the Church" and that, "The constitution Missale Romanum does not engage the Church's infallibility" (http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novus_ordo_missae.htm).  The Novus Ordo Missae, however, is a universal rite (not confined to one territory) and therefore cannot be defective, nor can it not be "truly Catholic" (as the SSPX claims).  Lastly, there's the SSPX's advice, "If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation," which directly contradicts the Code of Canon Law:  "A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass" (Can. 1248 §1).

I cannot comment any further on this topic (I already promised not to discuss Canon Law anymore... hopefully I will be allowed this one exception).
(02-12-2012, 09:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]I cannot comment any further on this topic (I already promised not to discuss Canon Law anymore... hopefully I will be allowed this one exception).

Thank you for your reply - I did not pose the question to get anyone censured - it is an area that I simply do not know much about.  I am trying to learn, and appreciate your help.

(02-12-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I really dislike the sede bashing that goes on here.

That's the least a Catholic should do after the hideous "bashings" the sedevacantists do here to the Pope.
Those people take cheap shots at the Pontiff at first chance they can get.

Have some backbone Jaynek.






(02-12-2012, 11:06 PM)Tapatio Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I really dislike the sede bashing that goes on here.

That's the least a Catholic should do after the hideous "bashings" the sedevacantists do here to the Pope.
Those people take cheap shots at the Pontiff at first chance they can get.

Have some backbone Jaynek.

I really think you're unfairly generalizing all sedevacantists together into some pile of refuse because you don't like what they have to say. I know a great many sedevacantists who don't take "cheap shots" at all; they don't have to in order to make their point. There are indeed some sedevacantists who take cheap shots, in much the same way that there are liberal Catholics who deny teachings of the Church, SSPX parishioners who espouse a schismatic attitude, and "Catholics" who have abortions. So what's the point? That not everyone is a saint? Well, of course! To say that all of these groups are defined by what some of the extremists of the group do would be the undoing of the Church's mark of sanctity. But the irony here is that you seem to be doing to sedevacantists on this forum what you accuse them of doing to the pope: taking cheap shots. They can't really debate the topic here anyway, so they can't do much in the way of defending themselves. You don't have to agree with them, but you should at least be fair.
(02-12-2012, 11:06 PM)Tapatio Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I really dislike the sede bashing that goes on here.

That's the least a Catholic should do after the hideous "bashings" the sedevacantists do here to the Pope.
Those people take cheap shots at the Pontiff at first chance they can get.

Have some backbone Jaynek.

When I see inappropriate comments about the Pope I report them.  I have no intention of defending the Pope by insulting a group of people. 

Most sedes are good people trying to make sense of a confusing situation.  I think they have come up with the wrong solution.  That does not make them scum.
(02-12-2012, 11:06 PM)Tapatio Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I really dislike the sede bashing that goes on here.

That's the least a Catholic should do after the hideous "bashings" the sedevacantists do here to the Pope.
Those people take cheap shots at the Pontiff at first chance they can get.

Have some backbone Jaynek.

That is an incredibly ignorant and uncharitable thing to say. Even if it's true that "all" sedes bash the pope (which it is not), did not Christ say to turn the other cheek? Such crass generalizations are ridiculous, false, and beneath the dignity of an educated Catholic to utter. I am not a sedevacantist, but know many, and I have found most to be very charitable and sincere people, who love the Church very deeply.

We all of us need to strive to speak more respectfully of the hierarchy, if not for respect of the persons, than for respect of the offices they hold. And we also need to be more respectful of eachother, and not encourage strife and division. We are not protestants and should not behave as such.
(02-16-2012, 03:12 AM)sarahraphael Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 11:06 PM)Tapatio Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I really dislike the sede bashing that goes on here.

That's the least a Catholic should do after the hideous "bashings" the sedevacantists do here to the Pope.
Those people take cheap shots at the Pontiff at first chance they can get.

Have some backbone Jaynek.


We all of us need to strive to speak more respectfully of the hierarchy, if not for respect of the persons, than for respect of the offices they hold.
THIS
(02-16-2012, 03:24 AM)Tapatio Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-16-2012, 03:12 AM)sarahraphael Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 11:06 PM)Tapatio Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-12-2012, 07:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.  I really dislike the sede bashing that goes on here.

That's the least a Catholic should do after the hideous "bashings" the sedevacantists do here to the Pope.
Those people take cheap shots at the Pontiff at first chance they can get.

Have some backbone Jaynek.


We all of us need to strive to speak more respectfully of the hierarchy, if not for respect of the persons, than for respect of the offices they hold.
THIS
Well said!
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