An Outlook on the upcoming Doctrinal Talks between SSPX and the Vatican
And once again there seems to be a real misunderstanding of what constitutes obedience...Obeying falsehood is not a virtue when you know it is falsehood.   Obeying to destroy the Church in the name of the new springtime is not something to aspire too.

It (What the SSPX has accomplished) could not have been achieved with the false notion of servile obedience being put forward by iggy and co.
(08-02-2009, 04:09 AM)iggyting Wrote: Well CL, setting up another church constitutes a schism for me. It is only my view and I don't want to 'hackle' with anyone who doesn't think likewise.

Exactly where is this other church, that you speak of?
I beat you by 2 minutes while you tried to balance books ;D
(08-03-2009, 10:49 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: I beat you by 2 minutes while you tried to balance books ;D

:realmad:  That's what I get for working...

Quote: 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.

Gglas, since we have had this discussion before, I am sure that you are aware that the Council itself declare it was NOT binding on the Church.  Why do you persist in rejecting the Council?

As far as the FSSP, I regularly attend the FSSP.  I am fully aware that the FSSP would not exist if it wasn't for the SSPX.  For that matter, the TLM would be wiped out if it wasn't for the courage and integrity of ABL.  He will be a saint some day.  We have to deal with reality.  The SSPX saved the TLM.
I think that we can all agree that Vatican II was truly "ineffable." In either the sense of "indescribable" or as in the coarser sense. Both work pretty well for both sides of the argument, really.
I'm frightfully amused by the flurry of postdictive counterfactual prophecy going on here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)