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
(02-03-2012, 04:55 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 04:33 PM)sarahraphael Wrote: [ -> ]but please be intellectually honest and thoughtful if you engage in debate on the topic.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest or insulting anyone's intelligence.  I'm calling it like I see it.  I won't be so sleazy as to say you're all Protestants.  That's clearly not true.  But I find a disturbing similarity with the positions held by many on this forum and Eastern Orthodoxy.  But even at that such comparisons are unnecessary.  I honestly believe many members here are out-right schismatic, regardless of the flavour you want to attach to their brand of schism with the majority more being border-line schismatic.  Not because they assist at the Extraordinary Form.  Not even because they assist at the Holy Sacrifice offered at SSPX "apostolates" for I am aware there are various reasons for doing so (no licit TLM in reasonable distance).

But rather because of the blatant anti-Roman attitudes that are prevalent.  The belief that Rome is teaching error and promulgating invalid Sacraments.  Impossible.  Crisis?  Crooked priests selling indulgences and Masses.  That's a crisis in a parish or even in the entire Church if it's widespread.  Rome teaching error and giving the Church invalid and evil Sacraments?  That's not a crisis because for a Catholic such a thing is impossible.  It's approaching the Church from a non-Catholic position.  A Catholic knows such a thing isn't going to happen.

Is the Ordinary Form an inferior liturgy compared to the Extraordinary Form?  Yea.  The Divine Office has lost its beauty.  Catechisis sucks.  Parish priests are a disgrace.  There is widespread error amongst the Church faithful.  No one's going to Mass.  The majority of so-called Catholics can't say a rosary to save themselves.  Every sin under the sun seems to be given free reign.

Everything's fucked up.  We get it.  But Peter is our rock.  There's a reason for that.  We're safe when we anchor ourselves to Peter (Rome).  That's the be all and end all for a Catholic.

A long time ago Catholics used to get called papists, such an accusation was false because Catholics knew they were limits to papal power, they did not commit 'Papaltory', however these days I'm afraid the term is true for some people. Essentially what you are saying 'The Popes spoken, its over, who cares about whether what he's said is wrong or right, its over, bye', this is simply unreasonable and un-Catholic behaviour.
(02-03-2012, 05:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I understand your perplexity but that is (still) an unwarranted conclusion.

Because...?

Quote:Blame is just secondary and proceeds from the perverted will of the ecclesiastical authorities in Rome. If they had the faith, they wouldn't persecute traditional Catholicism and befriend heretics, would they?

In the end, it's rather simple.

No, that is a gross oversimplification that fails to make important distinctions.  But it still isn't the point.  Even if the SSPX were completely right, we still have the dangerous precedent being set of settling disputes with Rome by striking out on your own.  The precedent that private judgment and interpretation justifies that.  The amount of damage that could be done by rogue groups with valid bishops is immense.
(02-03-2012, 06:38 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 05:50 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I understand your perplexity but that is (still) an unwarranted conclusion.

Because...?

Because:

1. The SSPX is not the Church but part of it. No-one ever claimed otherwise;
2. The indefectibility of the Church hasn't been put into question yet, to my mind, despite the massive amount of damage and errors spread by priests, bishops and popes since the council. The Church's infallibility is yet to be enganged in formally defining something heretical.

Quote:
Quote:Blame is just secondary and proceeds from the perverted will of the ecclesiastical authorities in Rome. If they had the faith, they wouldn't persecute traditional Catholicism and befriend heretics, would they?

In the end, it's rather simple.

No, that is a gross oversimplification that fails to make important distinctions.  But it still isn't the point.  Even if the SSPX were completely right, we still have the dangerous precedent being set of settling disputes with Rome by striking out on your own.  The precedent that private judgment and interpretation justifies that.  The amount of damage that could be done by rogue groups with valid bishops is immense.

You keep forgetting that the Society was ostracised by Rome to begin with and not the other way around. And your focus on the SSPX "irregular" status dismisses an even more vital question: the spread of heresy by the Church's authorities. It's against this calamitous background that the situation must be assessed. It's not a question of private judgement versus the Church's judgement but of the Church's infallible judgement versus the current churchmen's fallible judgements that contradict in word and deed the pre-conciliar Church. The fruits of this revolution are obvious to anyone with eyes to see. It's a painful situation.
(02-03-2012, 07:00 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]Because:

1. The SSPX is not the Church but part of it. No-one ever claimed otherwise;
2. The indefectibility of the Church hasn't been put into question yet, to my mind, despite the massive amount of damage and errors spread by priests, bishops and popes since the council. The Church's infallibility is yet to be enganged in formally defining something heretical.
THIS
(02-03-2012, 06:38 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]Because...?
Even if the SSPX were completely right, we still have the dangerous precedent being set of settling disputes with Rome by striking out on your own.  The precedent that private judgment and interpretation justifies that.  The amount of damage that could be done by rogue groups with valid bishops is immense.

Because being incorrect is not the same as ceasing to exist. The fact that new things are being taught that are wrong does not mean that there is no Church.  It just means that wrong ideas are held and put forth.  

The SSPX did not set any precedent.  It just stayed the same.  The precedent was set by the magisterium, when it sought to redefine certain doctrines in a manner that are inconsistent with prior doctrines.  This is not a question of private judgment:  it is not a question of preferring St Paul over St James, or not liking the Book of Maccabees.  In the case of salvation, it is straitforward question of comparing one pope's writing with the new writings.  They say different things, and no amount of verbal gymnastics can change that.  In the case of the mass and the sacraments, it is a straitforward matter of observation.  The Church has never aksed people to believe something is both true and not true at the same time.

The magisterium attempted to close the SSPX in order to end criticism about the novelties it introduced.  There was no other reason.  For the rest of us, this turn of events presents a simple choice:  are new doctrines being taught or not?  If they are, then we have to decide whether we resist the new doctrines within churches that remain legally united to the magisterium or that are not.  Reasonable minds may differ.  However. based on Msgr Ocariz's  framework, whether we remain in (like me) or out (like SSPX) the sin is the same, because we both withhold religious assent to the new teaching.  The withholding is the sin -  not the legal separation.  In the framework set out by Msgr. Ocariz, one is no less culpable than Bishop Fellay if he or she say the old mass is better than the new mass, or  that based on tradition, non believers can not be saved.   Given this requirement of assent and acquiesence, what alternative do you suggest?  It seems to me that you must either deny their has been a change in teaching, or you must agree there has been a change but that it is for the better (itself a hard position to take under the hermanuetic of continuity).  If you don't take one of these options, you're in the crisis also, and under present teaching, are in a worse spiritual state than a Protestant, a Jewish person, a Muslim, or a pagan.    

(02-03-2012, 07:00 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]1. The SSPX is not the Church but part of it. No-one ever claimed otherwise;

Sometimes SSPX supporters here use language that seems to assume that the SSPX is the Church, rather than a part of the Church.  I really appreciate you stating this so clearly.  I also liked the recent talk by Bishop Fellay.
(02-03-2012, 07:00 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]2. The indefectibility of the Church hasn't been put into question yet, to my mind, despite the massive amount of damage and errors spread by priests, bishops and popes since the council. The Church's infallibility is yet to be enganged in formally defining something heretical.

But that's the exact justification you just gave for the SSPX operating completely outside of ecclesiastical structures and laws!  You said:

Quote:The only dangerous precedent here was set by Rome herself who has been going about in the last few decades obscuring and even outright denying Catholic truths in order to make peace with laicism and achieve "union" with non-Catholics. That is what is truly worrisome! Rome has been actively persecuting divine tradition and those who still cling to it. The "crime" of the Society was not the consecration of bishops and the exercise of priestly functions. No, their "crime" to this very day is the perpetuation of a Church that should have been long gone and strictly confined to history books.

If "Rome" is trying to confine Catholic teachings to the history books in favor of erroneous teachings, how does that not constitute having defected from the faith?  And if the answer is only in that the magisterium has not yet officially promulgated something contradictory to something that has come before, then how do you justify operating outside of ecclesiastical structures and laws?  If they haven't officially taught anything in erroneous, then no one should have any problem delivering orthodox Catholic teachings.  And if individual bishops attempt to block this, there are channels one can go through that are made for handling this kind of situation.  If they go to the top, the pope, and are still prevented from teaching authentic Catholic teaching in favor of false novelties that contradict the authentic teachings, in what way has the Roman Church not defected?  And if it hasn't, how does indefectibility have any useful meaning at all?

Quote:You keep forgetting that the Society was ostracised by Rome to begin with and not the other way around.

Even if this is true, it is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.  This is again just pointing fingers.

Quote:And your focus on the SSPX "irregular" status dismisses an even more vital question: the spread of heresy by the Church's authorities. It's against this calamitous background that the situation must be assessed. It's not a question of private judgement versus the Church's judgement but of the Church's infallible judgement versus the current churchmen's fallible judgements that contradict in word and deed the pre-conciliar Church. The fruits of this revolution are obvious to anyone with eyes to see. It's a painful situation.

The problem is that by doing this you are implicitly substituting your personal judgment for the Church's when coming to this conclusion, because coming to this conclusion necessitates interpreting Scripture and/or Tradition.  And you can't do that.  If you could, the Church would have no reason to even exist as a visible institution.  You cannot brush aside the details by labeling things as obvious and simple - that is precisely what they are not; if they were, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

And anyway, this STILL does not address my point, which is the incredibly problematic precedent of handling disagreements with Rome by striking out on your own, even if you are completely right in what you claim.
(02-03-2012, 07:17 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]The SSPX did not set any precedent.  It just stayed the same.

No it didn't.  It went from existing under ecclesiastical structures and laws to completely ignoring them.

Quote:The precedent was set by the magisterium, when it sought to redefine certain doctrines in a manner that are inconsistent with prior doctrines.

If it did that, then the Church has defected, and whole question is irrelevant, because Catholicism is not and never was the religion instituted by Christ.
(02-03-2012, 07:53 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]And anyway, this STILL does not address my point, which is the incredibly problematic precedent of handling disagreements with Rome by striking out on your own, even if you are completely right in what you claim.

Not a precedent, St Athanasius did it, as did others, the theory behind it is well supported by church doctors and theologians an the alternative, abandoning the true faith and accepting a false one is unacceptable.
(02-03-2012, 07:57 PM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]If it did that, then the Church has defected, and whole question is irrelevant, because Catholicism is not and never was the religion instituted by Christ.

No, because part of the Church continues to teach the truth.  There can be teachers of error within the Church.  There can be bishops who teach error.  This does not constitute the defection of which you speak.

But let's narrow the scope, and see where we agree or don't agree.  Do you think that Vatican 2 changed any docrtines, or that it announced any new ones?
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