FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Eleison Comments - Faith Killers
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
FAITH KILLERS

But if Rome offers the Society of St Pius X all that it wants, why should the SSPX still refuse ? Apparently there are Catholics still believing that if a practical agreement fulfilled all the SSPX’s practical demands, it should be accepted. So why not ? Because the SSPX was brought into existence by Archbishop Lefebvre not for its own sake, but for the sake of the true Catholic Faith, endangered by Vatican II as it has never been endangered before. But let us see here why the Newchurch authorities will seek any practical agreement as much as the SSPX must refuse it.

The reason is because the Newchurch is subjectivist, and any merely practical agreement implies that subjectivism is true. According to the new Conciliar religion, dogmas of Faith are not objective truths but symbols that serve subjective needs (Pascendi, 11-13, 21). For instance if my psychological insecurity is calmed by the conviction that God became man, then for me the Incarnation is true, in the only sense of the word “true”. So if Traditionalists have their need of the old religion, then that is what is true for them, and one can even admire how they cling to their truth. But in justice they must agree to let us Romans have our Conciliar truth, and if they cannot make that concession, then they are insufferably arrogant and intolerant, and we cannot allow such divisiveness within our Church of luv.

Thus Neo-modernist Rome would be happy with any practical agreement by which the SSPX would even only implicitly renounce its radical claim to the universality and obligation of “its” truths. On the contrary the SSPX cannot be happy with any agreement that in an action speaking louder than words would deny the objectivity of “its” religion of 20 centuries. It is not “its” religion at all. To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity. To insist on objectivity, I cannot accept any terms at all proposed by subjectivists, unless they renounce their subjectivism.

These Romans are doing no such thing. Yet another proof of their crusading insistence upon their new religion came in the form of their recent “Note on the conclusions of the canonical visit to the Institute of the Good Shepherd” in France. Readers will remember that this Institute was one of several founded after the Council to enable Traditional Catholicism to be practised under Roman authority. Rome can wait for a few years before closing in, to make sure that the poor fish is well on the hook, but then -

The “Note” requires that Vatican II and the 1992 Catechism of the Newchurch must be included in Institute studies. The Institute must insist on the “hermeneutic of renewal in continuity”, and it must stop treating the Tridentine rite of Mass as its “exclusive” rite of Mass. The Institute must enter into official diocesan life with a “spirit of communion”. In other words, the Traditional Institute must stop being so Traditional if it wants to belong to the Newchurch. What else did the Institute expect ? To keep to Tradition, it would have to get back out from under the Newchurch’s authority. What chance is there of that ? They wanted to be swallowed by the Conciliar monster. Now it is digesting them.

So why, in Heaven’s name, would it be any different with the SSPX ? Rome’s temptation may be rejected this time round by the SSPX, but let us be under no illusions: the subjectivists will be back and back and back to get rid of that objective truth and objective Faith which constitute a standing
rebuke to their criminal nonsense.

Kyrie eleison.
Bishop Williamson and apparently the other two bishops who are in agreement with him will provide a good measure by which the intentions of Rome can be tested.  If Rome cannot placidly accept that position and get back to doctrinal issues, but instead turns from carrots to sticks, we'll know what kind of brokers they are. 

The music of Rachmaninoff was never popular with the elite critics who supposedly knew so much better.  It was supposed to be consigned to ash heap shortly after he died, since it was believed the music was popular because of his own skills as a performer, conductor and his own kind of solemn charisma.  Years later the critics were still offended and one commented "It just stubbornly refuses to go away."  Similarly with traditional Catholics, the TLM, and the clear truths of the faith. 
"Rome's temptation may be rejected this time around". Interesting.
(05-12-2012, 02:11 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]"Rome's temptation may be rejected this time around". Interesting.

We noticed that line too and wondered if it was a subtle glimmer of hope.
(05-12-2012, 02:13 PM)wallflower Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2012, 02:11 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]"Rome's temptation may be rejected this time around". Interesting.

We noticed that line too and wondered if it was a subtle glimmer of hope.
I am kind of torn between the two positions. What Bishop Williamson is saying makes a lot of sense to me. We have seen all of this before in the other groups that were regularised. They take the deal and slowly but surely they are muzzled one way or the other. On the other hand, if the Pope is willing to give them the go ahead with no string attached, then I wonder if it would be wrong for them to resist. The New Order and the Modernism that has taken over the Church is a public scandal. Public scandals should be resisted publicly. To me, and I could be wrong as I am just an idiot on a keyboard, to be recognized by Rome without them renouncing their errors that are surely dragging souls to Hell, is at least implicitly turning the other way while the madness continues.
(05-12-2012, 02:37 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2012, 02:13 PM)wallflower Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2012, 02:11 PM)JMartyr Wrote: [ -> ]"Rome's temptation may be rejected this time around". Interesting.

We noticed that line too and wondered if it was a subtle glimmer of hope.
I am kind of torn between the two positions. What Bishop Williamson is saying makes a lot of sense to me. We have seen all of this before in the other groups that were regularised. They take the deal and slowly but surely they are muzzled one way or the other. On the other hand, if the Pope is willing to give them the go ahead with no string attached, then I wonder if it would be wrong for them to resist. The New Order and the Modernism that has taken over the Church is a public scandal. Public scandals should be resisted publicly. To me, and I could be wrong as I am just an idiot on a keyboard, to be recognized by Rome without them renouncing their errors that are surely dragging souls to Hell, is at least implicitly turning the other way while the madness continues.

We're torn too. We have to be wary of resisting change just for the sake of resisting change and you never know --  many orders went through change and their missions evolved over the years -- this could be that time for the SSPX and very much within God's Will. But, there are many buts, none to be taken lightly, that make me lean heavily the other way. 
Quote: To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity.
To separate yourself from the Pope is schism.  Schismatics go to hell.  That is objectivity.  Either the Pope is the Pope, or he is not.
(05-12-2012, 02:55 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity.
To separate yourself from the Pope is schism.  Schismatics go to hell.  That is objectivity.  Either the Pope is the Pope, or he is not.

There's a difference between separating yourself from the Pope as Pope and resisting his destructive policies.  Popes are fully capable of sending themselves to Hell. Trying to impose a policy and making a false accusation of schism will send someone to Hell also.  There's no such thing as absolute obedience to a Pope.  That's the mythological "SuperPope" that many of the sedevacantists and the Neo-Catholics believe in.
(05-12-2012, 02:55 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity.
To separate yourself from the Pope is schism.  Schismatics go to hell.  That is objectivity.  Either the Pope is the Pope, or he is not.
You could be right.
(05-12-2012, 04:38 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2012, 02:55 PM)James02 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: To come to an agreement with subjectivists, I have to stop insisting on objectivity.
To separate yourself from the Pope is schism.  Schismatics go to hell.  That is objectivity.  Either the Pope is the Pope, or he is not.

There's a difference between separating yourself from the Pope as Pope and resisting his destructive policies.   Popes are fully capable of sending themselves to Hell. Trying to impose a policy and making a false accusation of schism will send someone to Hell also.  There's no such thing as absolute obedience to a Pope.  That's the mythological "SuperPope" that many of the sedevacantists and the Neo-Catholics believe in.
Is he imposing anything if he allows the SSPX to continue as they have been?
Pages: 1 2