An Outlook on the upcoming Doctrinal Talks between SSPX and the Vatican
#11
(08-01-2009, 11:14 PM)Baskerville Wrote: As one who thinks Lefabvre is the modern Athanasius I agree. When these talks are done if and thats a big if the Vatican is honest it is going to throw mud all over the past 50 years of the Church and especialy Paul VI and JPII which is why I dont think the Vatican will be honest they can not admit that JPII ever did anything wrong. Including the current Pope.

I couldn't agree with you more, Baskerville.  I also think that His Late Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to be a modern St. Athanasius (one of my all-time favorite saints!).  I believe that when the Church finally finds her identity once more, the papacies of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II are going to be held under a strong lense.  I also think that Archbishop Lefebvre, due to his courageous stand concerning Tradition and his obvious love for Holy Mother Church, will be declared a Doctor of the Church - maybe even one day a saint.

I hope that these "talks" between the SSPX and the hierarchy in Rome will begin to resolve the vast problems, ambiguities and outright errors of the Second Vatican Council.  I pray that the Holy Ghost is working strongly during these talks - that the hierarchs in Rome will see that the last 40+ years of the new regime have been a departure from tradition - and most importantly the Mass!  The Holy Mass is the most important thing in the life of a Catholic - and the acceptance of a pre-heretical rite and the unlawful suppression of the true Latin Rite have been most dispicable.  It is truly the New Mass that has caused the decay in modern Christianity --- and Vatican II somewhat allowed the New Mass to be formed, under the declaration "UPDATE."
Reply
#12
(08-02-2009, 01:39 AM)DarkKnight Wrote: There's a reason his Cause has been slowed down.

His "Cause" having been slowed down!!!

The Vatican II liberals and neo-cons have done everything in their power to canonize this man earlier than anyone else!  I believe the only reason why he hasn't already been canonized is due to the Holy Ghost, despite the advances of the libs and neo-cons.

Iggyting:   I was once under the same idea as you, thinking that Vatican II was purely legit but only misunderstood and misrepresented.  As that is true in part, there can be no denying that there are passages within the text that represent a complete departure from the Faith and ancient teachings of the Church.  Stating that the Muslims worship the "one true God" along with us is clearly one of them.  The declaration of Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) is another clear example of this.  At the time, Msgr. Lefebvre refused to sign it.  In this case his objections were doctrinal. The documents of Vatican II come within the category of the Church's Ordinary Magisterium which can contain error in the case of a novelty which conflicts with previous teaching.  The Declaration contains a number of statements which it is not easy to reconcile with traditional papal teaching and in Article 2 there are two words, "or publicly," which appear to be a direct contradiction of previous teaching.  Read the encyclicals of Leo XIII (Libertas Humana, Immortale Dei), Pius XI (Quas Primas) and tell me that the Vatican II documents on Religious Liberty aren't a complete contradiction of those writings of the pre-conciliar popes - Popes who held the Chair just a few decades before this horrid council.

My friend, understand that Vatican II is NOT an infallible council - the only things that are infallible within the documents of this "Pastoral" council are declarations from previous infallible documents hidden cleverly within Vatican II's documents.  This was done for a reason, for it has always been Satan's plan to mix truth and error so as to cause complete confusion - and thus get the false obedience that we are dealing with today, which is indeed Satan's masterstroke (sowing disobedience to all tradition through obedience).  Vatican II departed from the previous councils in that it was NOT Dogmatic, but "Pastoral."  This should be a "red-light" to us all, but the liberals used this to declare revolution, thinking well off that the common Catholic will believe that the council's documents will be infallible and require solemn obedience.  In this matter their schemes were more successful than they imagined.  Vatican II was an infiltrated, subverted council - and the texts and the following revolution proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt - due to how much the religion changed in the tumultuous 1960's and 70's - the time directly after the council, when revolution was in the air.
Reply
#13

Quote from Nic:

"I hope that these "talks" between the SSPX and the hierarchy in Rome will begin to resolve the vast problems, ambiguities and outright errors of the Second Vatican Council."

Well, I hope too. I understand what you said about the partisans of aggiornamento and of ressourcement (the former representing the 'progressive' and the latter the 'conservative' elements in Vatican II) in the dialectic of the Church's Renewal. I accept whatever the outcome of these "talks". But if I have to choose it could only be one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church.
Reply
#14
Quote: James02, my concern is unity in the Church and be faithful to the one true and holy Catholic Church. The problem with Vatican II was not that it is a 'false' council but with how the declarations of the council were distorted or misunderstood or misapplied. I agree that some bishops succumbed to Modernist tendencies and relativism. They were just poor servants of Christ. I do feel that matters will resolved within the Church with time and perspectives, as in the past. I do not want to get into details of differences or argue 'hot and cold' over who is right or wrong. Yeah, I do think some things should be better explained or done and some bishops should have the courage to defend the Church.

You didn't answer my question.

gglas,
Jesus and His Church also said you need to be baptized to be saved.  A bishop preaching otherwise is an heretic.  This is also proven by the fact that the American bishops had to remove a section from their catechism that said the Old Covenant of Moses can still save you.  Now when it comes to individuals, I judge no one.  God can baptize them, even water baptism, and you would not see it.
Reply
#15
OK, I tried to be an honest fellow and read all through the existing replies, but I'm feeling very much blunted by it all, when I'd rather be honed like a fine sword.  I think I will appeal to Chesterton who said "the next best thing to being entirely within the Church is to be enitrely outside it".  The summary of all I've heard concerning the history of SSPX is that a valid branch of apostolic succession was established without permission of Peter's successor; and that the same branch has obstinately persisted in willful Canonical disobedience to Peter's successor. I've heard *of* these doctrinal disagreements between SSPX and --- well, I can't quite make out what authority they'd say they disagree with, actually, will someone please clear that up? --- but otherwise, the REST of the visible communion; and I'm similarly unclear about the specific complaints they make.

As far as Bishops vs. Councils, I know of only one Bishop granted the grace of infalible moral or doctrinal declarations.  On the other hand, Nestorius bishop of Constantinople around 428~9  preached against Mary's title "Mother of God"; which preaching was later condemned at a council he himself largely organized; so while heretical preaching among the bishops certainly *irks*, it isn't *new*.  Church Councils, on the other hand, declaring by unanimous consent are supposed (help me here?) to reflect the unanimous belief of all the bishops, which *is* infalible.

And about living outside Tradition: we can't possibly know what proportion of the baptized or the Church in visible communion were living properly within Tradition in 1910 or 1950 or 1962 (or 1066 for that matter); and if anything, what's happened since has clarified what *bishops* and *priests* have a good understanding of Tradition, which ones don't, what the layfolk imagine "enough" Tradition to be; it couldn't possibly have happened without willful ignorance on the part of ALL THREE sets prior to the "changes".  And the worst scandal of it, actually, is the open toleration of poor catechesis among those unhappy souls of the new generation (like me!) who have died early (unlike me!) without seeing the full glory of liturgical and catechetical Tradition properly rejuvenated.
Reply
#16
Quote: As far as Bishops vs. Councils, I know of only one Bishop granted the grace of infalible moral or doctrinal declarations.  On the other hand, Nestorius bishop of Constantinople around 428~9  preached against Mary's title "Mother of God"; which preaching was later condemned at a council he himself largely organized; so while heretical preaching among the bishops certainly *irks*, it isn't *new*.  Church Councils, on the other hand, declaring by unanimous consent are supposed (help me here?) to reflect the unanimous belief of all the bishops, which *is* infalible.

THAT is the point I was trying to get at.  Vat. II was NOT infallible, and it was NOT binding.  The Council declared that it was ONLY pastoral, and not binding on the Church.  Pope Paul declared that the Council was fallible.  The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that Vat. II was fallible.

By the way, a PASTORAL Council is entirely new to the Church.

Since these are established facts, then the Pope has great leeway in these talks.  He can even declare the documents so ambiguous, that they are put on the Index of Forbidden Books.  That is possible (though highly improbable).
Reply
#17
(08-03-2009, 05:29 AM)James02 Wrote: THAT is the point I was trying to get at.  Vat. II was NOT infallible, and it was NOT binding.  The Council declared that it was ONLY pastoral, and not binding on the Church.  Pope Paul declared that the Council was fallible.  The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that Vat. II was fallible.

By the way, a PASTORAL Council is entirely new to the Church.

Since these are established facts, then the Pope has great leeway in these talks.  He can even declare the documents so ambiguous, that they are put on the Index of Forbidden Books.  That is possible (though highly improbable).

The infallible is something extraordinary and very rare. However the Church had to be governed in ordinary way, so even fallible rules are binding, and the conscientious disobedience is sin, in grave matter mortal sin.

The typical example is the investiture issue.  Just before Vatican II the common opinion was that after the council of Trident the only infallible dogmas were the Immaculate Conception, the Papal infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra related to the faith and moral in accordance with the college of bishops, and the Assumption/Coronation of the Blessed Virgin. Three over 400 years.

In the high Medieval eves the Frech and Hungarian Kings practically exercised the nomination of the bishops requiring obedience to the King, however when the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire tried it, Germany was put under interdict for the disobedience in a purely legal issue. The Church is theocracy, and the Pope and the college of Bishops are the rulers, whom shall be obeyed, regardless of they are infallible in a particular question or not.

The SSPX was right keeping the Tradition of the Holy Mass alive, but this does not justifies the disobedienve of the 1917 Canon Law. The exitence of the FSSP proves, that the goal could be achieved with odedience.

laszlo

As a matter of fact the is no Index any more
Reply
#18
Quote from gigas:
"The SSPX was right keeping the Tradition of the Holy Mass alive, but this does not justifies the disobedienve of the 1917 Canon Law. The exitence of the FSSP proves, that the goal could be achieved with odedience."

:tiphat: A Fish for you, gigas!
Reply
#19
(08-03-2009, 10:12 AM)iggyting Wrote: Quote from gigas:
"The SSPX was right keeping the Tradition of the Holy Mass alive, but this does not justifies the disobedienve of the 1917 Canon Law. The exitence of the FSSP proves, that the goal could be achieved with odedience."

:tiphat: A Fish for you, gigas!

WHAT!!!

If it wasn't for the SSPX, the FSSP would haved NEVER existed, GUARANTEED!  No Ecclesia Dei, and STILL no tradition up into the present day.  Remember, the FSSP was brought forth from the SSPX.

God Bless the SSPX, for standing up against false obedience and remaining obedient to our FIRST priority -- God.  Just as His Late Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre once stated, one of his most famous quotes:  "Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience." (ie. false obedience).
Reply
#20
Who set up another church?  One was set up but I bet you can't guess where.

Additionally, these people that run around saying "see, see, see...the SSPX was not needed, the Vat came to it's senses and let use have a little piece of our birthright in the darkest closet they could find..."


Well, you know...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)