A Problem of Traditionalism
(11-09-2009, 07:42 PM)petrelton Wrote: Sure there is a use for the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI. Just as there was a use for the Lutherans.

I feel a little sick to my stomach that you could say such a thing. In all charity, I think you're being attacked so much you're just saying outrageous things now but please remember, you are a Catholic.
Reply
(11-10-2009, 12:11 AM)kimbaichan Wrote:
(11-09-2009, 07:42 PM)petrelton Wrote: Sure there is a use for the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI. Just as there was a use for the Lutherans.

I feel a little sick to my stomach that you could say such a thing. In all charity, I think you're being attacked so much you're just saying outrageous things now but please remember, you are a Catholic.

Reply
(11-10-2009, 12:46 AM)petrelton Wrote: In hindsight the example was not really helpful to my argument.

It took hindsight,hindsight to realize that saying that  St er... Archbishop Lefabvre  ordained 4 courageous men out of necessity because the Church proper has fallen into modernist heresy Protestants. Wow I see why DK calls you pissiltron.
Reply
(11-10-2009, 01:01 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-10-2009, 12:46 AM)petrelton Wrote: In hindsight the example was not really helpful to my argument.

It took hindsight,hindsight to realize that saying that  St er... Archbishop Lefabvre  ordained 4 courageous men out of necessity because the Church proper has fallen into modernist heresy Protestants. Wow I see why DK calls you pissiltron.

I think Petrelton was comparing the fact that both +Lefebvre and Martin Luther argued that their disobedience was necessary because of problems in the Church. Just as +Lefebvre was concerned about modernism and liberalism entering into the Church, so Martin Luther was concerned by corruption entering into the Church (i.e. sale of indulgences, worldiness and sinful actions, such as fathering children and then helping said children ascend to the Papacy or high ecclesiastical rank--origin of the word nepotism, of certain Popes and other members of the Hierarchy). Further, I think he is comparing the results (i.e. the universal indult and the allowing of TLM-only orders after +Lefebvre's disobedience; Council of Trent and the 'Counter-Reformation' as result of Luther's disobedience).

I am not saying I agree withe comparison, but I think that is the one he is making.
Reply
I hav my doubts as to pisseltron being a catholic. Maybe he's as much a catholic as luther or calvin or obama. what kinda catholic pisses on ttadtion?
Answer
A non catholic. Pissiltron might claim to be catholic but post after post after post aftrr post says otherwise. Really its become pretty clear his grudge against the SSPX is rooted in his pychilogical need to hate and piss on those who have possess what he lacks
Courage and faith.
Sip
Reply
(11-10-2009, 02:05 AM)nsper7 Wrote:
(11-10-2009, 01:01 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-10-2009, 12:46 AM)petrelton Wrote: In hindsight the example was not really helpful to my argument.

It took hindsight,hindsight to realize that saying that  St er... Archbishop Lefabvre  ordained 4 courageous men out of necessity because the Church proper has fallen into modernist heresy Protestants. Wow I see why DK calls you pissiltron.

I think Petrelton was comparing the fact that both +Lefebvre and Martin Luther argued that their disobedience was necessary because of problems in the Church. Just as +Lefebvre was concerned about modernism and liberalism entering into the Church, so Martin Luther was concerned by corruption entering into the Church (i.e. sale of indulgences, worldiness and sinful actions, such as fathering children and then helping said children ascend to the Papacy or high ecclesiastical rank--origin of the word nepotism, of certain Popes and other members of the Hierarchy). Further, I think he is comparing the results (i.e. the universal indult and the allowing of TLM-only orders after +Lefebvre's disobedience; Council of Trent and the 'Counter-Reformation' as result of Luther's disobedience).

I am not saying I agree withe comparison, but I think that is the one he is making.

Here's some differences, as I see it:

1) Luther was trying to destroy the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre was trying to preserve it.

2) The Church acknowledged the corruption and the danger it posed to the Faith that had taken hold in Luther's day. In fact ,as I recall, the Church agreed with about 62 of his 95 Theses. The Church, particularly Pope Paul VI, in spite of his "smoke of satan" remark, did not condemn the heresies running rampant in the Church in ABL's day, and really hasn't dealt with it the way it should.

3) Luther was as corrupt as they come, and he had no use for the Papacy, certain books of the Bible, the prophet Moses, and he blasphemed the Holy Ghost, which ABL did not. I urge anyone who's interested in finding out more about Martin Luther get the book "The Facts About Luther" by Msgr. Patrick F. O'Hare, published by TAN books.   
Reply
(11-10-2009, 10:07 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-10-2009, 02:05 AM)nsper7 Wrote:
(11-10-2009, 01:01 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(11-10-2009, 12:46 AM)petrelton Wrote: In hindsight the example was not really helpful to my argument.

It took hindsight,hindsight to realize that saying that  St er... Archbishop Lefabvre  ordained 4 courageous men out of necessity because the Church proper has fallen into modernist heresy Protestants. Wow I see why DK calls you pissiltron.

I think Petrelton was comparing the fact that both +Lefebvre and Martin Luther argued that their disobedience was necessary because of problems in the Church. Just as +Lefebvre was concerned about modernism and liberalism entering into the Church, so Martin Luther was concerned by corruption entering into the Church (i.e. sale of indulgences, worldiness and sinful actions, such as fathering children and then helping said children ascend to the Papacy or high ecclesiastical rank--origin of the word nepotism, of certain Popes and other members of the Hierarchy). Further, I think he is comparing the results (i.e. the universal indult and the allowing of TLM-only orders after +Lefebvre's disobedience; Council of Trent and the 'Counter-Reformation' as result of Luther's disobedience).

I am not saying I agree withe comparison, but I think that is the one he is making.

Here's some differences, as I see it:

1) Luther was trying to destroy the Faith, Archbishop Lefebvre was trying to preserve it.

2) The Church acknowledged the corruption and the danger it posed to the Faith that had taken hold in Luther's day. In fact ,as I recall, the Church agreed with about 62 of his 95 Theses. The Church, particularly Pope Paul VI, in spite of his "smoke of satan" remark, did not condemn the heresies running rampant in the Church in ABL's day, and really hasn't dealt with it the way it should.

3) Luther was as corrupt as they come, and he had no use for the Papacy, certain books of the Bible, the prophet Moses, and he blasphemed the Holy Ghost, which ABL did not. I urge anyone who's interested in finding out more about Martin Luther get the book "The Facts About Luther" by Msgr. Patrick F. O'Hare, published by TAN books.   
nsper correctly summarised my point which was appreciated although it was a pity he did not agree with me. Clearly Luther added to his sin of schism with the sin of heresy. I do not believe that ABL was a heretic. Therefore I was comparing his schismatic tendancies not his heresies. Nor am I trying to suggest that ABL is as openly schismatic as Luther was. No I think his schism is far more subtle. But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous.
Reply
(11-10-2009, 11:43 PM)petrelton Wrote: nsper correctly summarised my point which was appreciated although it was a pity he did not agree with me. Clearly Luther added to his sin of schism with the sin of heresy. I do not believe that ABL was a heretic. Therefore I was comparing his schismatic tendancies not his heresies. Nor am I trying to suggest that ABL is as openly schismatic as Luther was. No I think his schism is far more subtle. But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did an act contrary to the commands of the Pope. He was officially reprimanded for it by the Pope.  Is that dangerous? Is that schismatic? The Church does not think so.

However, it is not that dangerous. What is more dangerous however are those who are in "good standing" with Rome, which are openly disobedient. That is what is dangerous. People are cautious about the SSPX because of what happened. Many latch onto whatever modernist, feminist, or otherwise not Catholic teaching of an individual priest, bishop or other religious who is ignored by the authorities at the moment. How many SSPX masses show irreverence for the Blessed Sacrament? How many diocesan masses? The dangers are more subtle than the legal standing of the SSPX.

Everyone knows that he did something against the commands of the Pope. Even they know, although they think they were justified (which is not for me to judge). However, they have lead no one astray, unlike those who teach in the name of the Church heresy.
Reply
There was no schism you dope...this has been covered before....Card. Ratzinger's own words were that "they are not in schism in the proper sense."

Oh, so then they're in schism in the improper sense???...LOL


And Luther was not in Schism...he was in Apostasy....he left the Church and made up a new pseudoreligion...the religion you might be part of.


Schism is separating yourself from the primacy of Peter.



And further...if prottyelton knew anything of Luther he'd know all this to be false...Luther was not concerned with problems in the Church...Luther was only worried about doing what Luther wanted rto do...the reasoning and excuses he used were a smoke screen to the stupid...and peterelton...you bought it...LOL

Luther was by all serious accounts...even Prot ones...a vulgar, and foul person who was more interested in getting some box than ever getting one soul to Heaven...and became more glutenous and licentious as time passed

ABL on the other hand...denied himself and maintained the life proper to a bishop until he died....he slept in a cell with just a few things about him...his bed did not look comfortable...and his ONLY concern was to get as many souls to Heaven as possible...in this quest he traveled the globe over and over...while sick with cancer...this cannot be said of his detractors which is obvious from the way they operated and continue to operate....and you can take that to the bank and follow the logic all the way out.


Rosarium.....+1
Reply
(11-11-2009, 01:03 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: Rosarium.....+1

Scipio_a agreeing with Rosarium? Am I reading this right?  ;)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)