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
(02-01-2012, 08:02 PM)Stubborn Wrote: [ -> ]SSPX answers Roman expert (Link is to a PDF File - I pasted it in it's entirety below)
It's taken me most of the week to get through this reply to Msgr. Ocariz's answer to the SSPX's request for clarification.  As the import of the arguments have begun to sink in, I find myself saddened, because it seems to me that the difference between traditionalism and the contemporary mindset of many in the Church is much greater than before.  In changing the meaning of the magesterium from the group of men whose duty it is to transmit the traditions received from Christ to the world,  to a "continuity," or ongoing relationship across time between the holders of apostolic succession and the People of God, the idea of tradition is reduced to one thing and one thing only:  obedience.  Traditionalists, in this view, sin because they refuse to obey.  There are not other real sins, because of invincible ignorance, baptism of desire, of the other notions set forth in the documents of Vatican 2.  Ironically, this position seems to vindicate Luther, although at least Luther and the Church had a dispute about real doctrine, like grace.
The passages cited by the SSPX from contemporary theology, to the effect that pronouncements of doctrine could be correct in one era and wrong for another were also alarming.  I was surprised to read the that the Pope had applied this to scriptural interpretation.  One one hand, if scripture can be reinterpreted to fiction, clearly the notion of tradition becomes attenuated in the extreme.  On the other hand, if this mutability of doctrine occurs, who is to say that the tide has not shifted against Vatican 2, and that it must be redefined into obscurity by the needs of the passage of time?  I suppose Msgr. Ocariz would reply that that is a function of holding the most valid apostolic succession, but this seems to me to me a more primitive idea - almost making a fetish of the episcopacy, masked with a tremendous amount of German philosophy, that the commitment to eternal, static truth.  While we at Fisheaters (and the SSPX) term this approach as modernism, I wondered whether it might not be a rebirth of gnosticism.  If Msgr. Ocariz, and Rahner, and Kung are correct, then we are left with a religion in which the "truth" that the vast bulk of Christians, vivendi et defucti have been misguided, because in their simple credulity, they believed God sent a man, and more than a man, to save them, and this man overcame death.  Mr. Brown of DaVinci Code fame was wrong:  the secret message is not to be found in the Mona Lisa's smile, it is to be found in Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup, or the splatters of Jackson Pollack, or other such works much closer to our own time. 
(02-03-2012, 11:52 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 02:15 AM)sarahraphael Wrote: [ -> ]I pray daily for reunification with Rome, but it won't do the Church and the Faithful much good unless Rome first reunifies with tradition and the Church Triumphant.

I never knew you were Eastern Orthodox?  And I'm not being funny.  Half the words spoken in this thread, and not just by yourself Sarah, could literally be copy-and-pasted word for word from an Eastern Orthodox discussion forum or apologetics site.

SaintSebastian posted this on another thread:

Quote:St. [sic] Symeon of Thessalonica (a 15th Orthodox century monk):

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).

Your position is no different from the Orthodox position.  Yet they're in schism and if I dare use that word for you and your fellows I'd be hunted down on this forum for my "neo-con modernistic liberalism".

Wrong. The orthodox refuse to accept that Rome even has full, supreme and universal power or that the Pope can speak de fide, the SSPX on the other hand subject obedience to truth, whereas you and others of your ilk invert this cornerstone of Catholic teaching and believe that truth is subject to obedience. The SSPX and indeed all catholics have the right to pass over the commands of priests, bishops and even the pope himself which endanger souls, contradict the truth of the sacraments or the creeds or Sacred Scripture itself or are intended to destroy the Church and can even hinder his commands from being carried out.
(02-03-2012, 01:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX and indeed all catholics have the right to pass over the commands of priests, bishops and even the pope himself which endanger souls, contradict the truth of the sacraments or the creeds or Sacred Scripture itself or are intended to destroy the Church and can even hinder his commands from being carried out.

But who decides what endangers souls and contradicts the truth?  This decision is not left in the hands of individuals.  If it were, there would be no point in having anyone in authority to begin with.
(02-03-2012, 01:11 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX and indeed all catholics have the right to pass over the commands of priests, bishops and even the pope himself which endanger souls, contradict the truth of the sacraments or the creeds or Sacred Scripture itself or are intended to destroy the Church and can even hinder his commands from being carried out.

But who decides what endangers souls and contradicts the truth?  This decision is not left in the hands of individuals.  If it were, there would be no point in having anyone in authority to begin with.

The Church itself, the SSPX judges Vatican 2 by the previous magisterium not as some have suggested its own private judgement.
(02-03-2012, 01:14 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]The Church itself, the SSPX judges Vatican 2 by the previous magisterium not as some have suggested its own private judgement.

But the SSPX is not the Church itself.  Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:14 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]The Church itself, the SSPX judges Vatican 2 by the previous magisterium not as some have suggested its own private judgement.

But the SSPX is not the Church itself.  Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.

I agree.  That's an important point.  However sometimes the magisterium says things that are so abundantly clear.  For example the prohibition on the ordination of women ... at least the fact of not ordaining women is clear.

So if my bishop tomorrow started ordaining women, I would be right to condemn the act.  It's not my private interpretation of the magisterium vs the bishop ... it's very very clearly what the magisterium has obviously said.

Now where's the line between the obvious teaching of the magisterium and the interpretation of it?  I don't know.
(02-03-2012, 11:52 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]I never knew you were Eastern Orthodox?  And I'm not being funny.

Neither funny, nor correct.

No-one here is a schismatic, stop the teatrics.
(02-03-2012, 01:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 11:52 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]I never knew you were Eastern Orthodox?  And I'm not being funny.

Neither funny, nor correct.

No-one here is a schismatic, stop the teatrics.

We do have at least one actual EO member on FE. 
(02-03-2012, 01:32 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:14 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]The Church itself, the SSPX judges Vatican 2 by the previous magisterium not as some have suggested its own private judgement.

But the SSPX is not the Church itself.  Their interpretation of the previous magisterium is by definition a private judgment.  Only the magisterium authentically interprets the magisterium.

The Catholic faith is knowable and discernible by the laity, otherwise it would be nothing but a gnostic religion whose doctrinal truths would be the product of the positive outpourings of the clery. That's not the case: our private judgement does come into play in the faith - to accept it, for instance - although it does not have the absolute role it has in Protestantism.

Saint Paul wrote to the Galatians saying: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal. 1:8 ), therefore admitting that not only the Apostles could be occasionally swayed by error - and therefore the magisterium after them - but that the deposit of faith was knowable and discernible by the people. He's making a plea to their own private judgement. The faith is not hidden knowledge.
(02-03-2012, 01:36 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 01:35 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 11:52 AM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]I never knew you were Eastern Orthodox?  And I'm not being funny.

Neither funny, nor correct.

No-one here is a schismatic, stop the teatrics.

We do have at least one actual EO member on FE. 

That was not whom Smurf was referring to. He was accusing Sarah and the rest of the people in this thread.
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