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
Weird.  One of my posts just disappeared. 
(02-03-2012, 08:40 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 08:26 PM)City Smurf Wrote: [ -> ]There's a difference between not knowing with of two men are the rock, and saying that the rock no longer exists as a visible thing.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make, the point is that the Western Schism was unprecedented, noone would dare offer the possibility before, and it happened, and we haven't had our worst crisis yet. I brought up sedevacantism because it is mostly from that position that  it is argued that the NO Sacraments are intrinsically invalid.
Quote:I don't really know much about that.  Though I do remember that Saint Alphonsus said in one of his books, I believe on the Holy Mass, that at some time in the future there will be a period when Mass will not be celebrated on earth for a short period.  Now even if you want to argue that this is the period, that's ignoring all the Masses celebrated according to the traditional missal, all the valid Masses celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox, etc.

And I'm not arguing that, I don't believe this is the period, but I do believe it could happen.

There have been theologians who, using the Great Western Schism as an example of an unprecented crisis, go on to theorize that worse crises yet could befall the Church, and that such crises, as terrible and distressing as they might be, wouldn't necessarily mean that Christ's promises were false. One in particular even connects this to the very idea of a papal interregnum spanning multiple decades.

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, a noteworthy theologian who lived at the time of Vatican I, wrote after Vatican I that it would not contradict the teachings of the Church were God to leave the Church without a pope for (at least) 39 years – e.g., during the entire span of the Great Western Schism (1378-1417). Here is what he writes:
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly Wrote:“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882.

In fact, on page 287 of the same book, Fr. O'Reilly continues with what could be likened to a prophecy:
Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly Wrote:“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical [absurd]. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by His promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."

Fr. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, p. 287.
(02-03-2012, 04:33 PM)sarahraphael Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Smurf, don't insult your own intelligence by making such comparisons. It is obvious to anyone with a working knowledge of the state of the Church and a reasonable amount of critical thinking skills that my position, and that of others in this thread holding similar ideas, is very different than that of the Eastern Orthodox. This is obvious from the paragraph above alone, and much moreso to anyone who's conversed with me.

I know that you have a different take on the Church crisis situation than I do and I think no less of you nor of your faith for it, but please be intellectually honest and thoughtful if you engage in debate on the topic.

I love the Church very deeply, and it is because I love the Church that I do not attend or support the NO. It is because I love the papacy and the great papal saints that have blessed our history that I follow the prelates urging our current Holy Father to the valor and truth of our Catholic past. Our Lord never said that we would never have problems, or even false prophets, within the Church. The Scriptures are clear on that. But just like Tradition can never contradict Scripture, neither can new Church teachings contradict Tradition. God's Church is one of Truth, and Truth cannot contradict itself.

And that's really all I have to say on the matter, aside from urging all to pray! For the freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother Church.

Very well said!
(02-03-2012, 11:56 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]This is a little different than the theoligical issue, but obviously related.  Let me ask, when the old mass was suppressed, what should the priests have done?  Continued to say it?  What should the people have done?  Refused to go to the New Mass, or sit there in total silence?  Refuse to support the Church?  There was no opt out permitted.  So what was the Society to do? 

This is exactly why I do not think that I can judge the SSPX.  I do not know what I would have done in that situation.  It is all very well for me, who discovered the TLM after Summorum Pontificum to be obedient.  I have never had to choose between the Mass and the Pope.
(02-03-2012, 11:56 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]Let me ask, when the old mass was suppressed, what should the priests have done?  Continued to say it?

Not without dispensations to do so.

Quote:What should the people have done?  Refused to go to the New Mass, or sit there in total silence?  Refuse to support the Church?  There was no opt out permitted.

They should have attended Mass, however they could, while making their preferences and their reasons known to their bishops and to the pope.

Quote:So what was the Society to do?

Whatever it was legally within their power to do.  Let me be clear, I have no objections to the circumstances surrounding the beginnings of the SSPX; I think they were doing good work, and I have great sympathy for how they were treated by several bishops during that time, which surely was not right.  If I were alive then and interested in pursuing a priestly vocation, I would have been most interested in attending that seminary.  However, in ordaining priests and consecrating bishops and continuing to operate as a group despite their dissolution, I think they started down a path that can ultimately lead to  nowhere.  That is what I object to, not the existence of the group in the first place.  And I even understand why they did it - it is hard when you feel like your back is against the wall and everyone is against you.  So I don't even lay a lot of subjective blame on them for that.

Quote:As far as the highest authority making mistakes, this happens in history.  King Saul consulted the witch of Endor.  King David killed his loyal servant in order to steal his wife.  St. Peter tried to impose superceded ritual on the gentile Christians.  The Old Testament shows that the Lord keeps the covenant regardless.

I don't contest the highest authority has made mistakes.

Quote:In secular life, we know that high authority breaks the law:  the Supreme Court did not have the legal right to strike down laws forbidding abortion, but it did so anyway in contravention of the Constitution and the will of the majority of citizens.

True, but the situation is a little different when you have an absolute ruler who both makes and interprets the laws.  Also, we have no divine assurances in civil rule.
(02-04-2012, 12:34 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 11:56 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]Let me ask, when the old mass was suppressed, what should the priests have done?  Continued to say it?

Not without dispensations to do so.

Quote:What should the people have done?  Refused to go to the New Mass, or sit there in total silence?  Refuse to support the Church?  There was no opt out permitted.

They should have attended Mass, however they could, while making their preferences and their reasons known to their bishops and to the pope.

Could you have done that?  Could you really obey under those circumstances? 
(02-04-2012, 12:34 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 11:56 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]Let me ask, when the old mass was suppressed, what should the priests have done?  Continued to say it?

Not without dispensations to do so.

Quote:What should the people have done?  Refused to go to the New Mass, or sit there in total silence?  Refuse to support the Church?  There was no opt out permitted.

They should have attended Mass, however they could, while making their preferences and their reasons known to their bishops and to the pope.

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.
(02-04-2012, 12:40 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 12:34 AM)cgraye Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-03-2012, 11:56 PM)Warrenton Wrote: [ -> ]Let me ask, when the old mass was suppressed, what should the priests have done?  Continued to say it?

Not without dispensations to do so.

Quote:What should the people have done?  Refused to go to the New Mass, or sit there in total silence?  Refuse to support the Church?  There was no opt out permitted.

They should have attended Mass, however they could, while making their preferences and their reasons known to their bishops and to the pope.

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.
THIS
God bless the FSSPX
(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.
(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.
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