The Vatican and the Lefebvrists: Not a Negotiation
#21
(11-19-2009, 02:13 PM)glgas Wrote: What I am surprisedthet when the talk between the representatives of the Apostolic See and SSPX started, many of you expected his/her hope that the talk will last for very very long tiem.

Now someone just says, that no immediate outcome is expected, and he is called 'sick'.

\What happened since the behinning of October?


Maybe I'm missing something but who called him "sick" because of the timetable.  From what I gather most people consider his false reporting  and opinions sick. 
Reply
#22
(11-19-2009, 02:13 PM)glgas Wrote: What I am surprisedthet when the talk between the representatives of the Apostolic See and SSPX started, many of you expected his/her hope that the talk will last for very very long tiem.

Now someone just says, that no immediate outcome is expected, and he is called 'sick'.

\What happened since the behinning of October?

NB : In Europe people are not  using abbreviations, unless absolutely necessary.  They use names. Lefevbrist is the accepted name in France, sice the 'Fraternal Society of St Pius X' would be too long for regular use, and hard to distinguish from other Fraternal Societies


Do you purposely miss points...?

No one said  he was sick for thinking talks would take a long time...we all know they will.


He is sick...like you are sick...because despite all the evidence to the contrary, you and he hold fast to things that are false.


The rest of your post is horseshit...you know it's an attempt to be insulting.
Reply
#23
Rosarium Wrote:
timoose Wrote:I'll bet you a pack of Lucky Strikes the wannabe cardinal George Weigel will be singing a new tune when the announcement comes from Rome. 12mm rosaries from the SSPX and following hard it's heels 12mm rosaries from Fr. Gruner and me too. As we used to say in the hood the jig is up.
tim


I do not get the 12mm rosaries reference. Is there a particular significance I'm missing?

12 million, not 12 millimeter.
Reply
#24
(11-19-2009, 02:51 PM)Scipio_a Wrote: Do you purposely miss points...?

No one said  he was sick for thinking talks would take a long time...we all know they will.


He is sick...like you are sick...because despite all the evidence to the contrary, you and he hold fast to things that are false.


The rest of your post is horseshit...you know it's an attempt to be insulting.

You same to be nervous, otherwise you will be arguing not cursing.  What is your problem?

This style above fir to the kindergarten if the teacher is not present.
Reply
#25
(11-19-2009, 01:37 PM)Gerard Wrote: Weigel writes:

" Nor is this about mutual enrichment; it is not easy to see how the Catholic Church is to be theologically enriched by the ideas of those who, whatever the depth of their traditional liturgical piety, reject the mid-20th century reform of Catholic thought of which Joseph Ratzinger was a leader. The pope is under no illusions on this score; his purpose is to invite the SSPX back into full communion, thus preventing the schism of 1988 from becoming a permanent wound in the Mystical Body of Christ. "

This is a sign of truly diabolical disorientation.   

The fact that he thinks someone could even believe for a second that this is about "mutual enrichment"  as if doctrinal confusion, impiety, sacrilege, blasphemy and heresy are enriching ingredients to the Deposit of Faith is stunning.

Aside from the usual misunderstanding of what "schism" is, the laiety are "confused" and have nothing to bring despite their "liturgical piety."  Who is Weigel trying to fool?  Himself? His readers? He certainly isn't fooling God or anyone with a brain. 

I suspect that a great deal of Weigel's nonsense comes out of the fact that he has nowhere near the level of access to Pope Benedict as he did to John Paul II. He has a sort of sense of entitlement. His reaction to Caritas in Veritate was similar: riddled with petty misinformation.

Quote: And notice how the splendor that is the Church today  (Ratzinger 2005 described it "as a ship that is sinking") is part of the "reform of Catholic thought"  Amazing!  Where the Hell did Vatican II claim to "reform Catholic Thought"? 

Catholic thought is precisely what has been missing for 40+ years.  Maybe he thinks Catholicism is a part of so-called "reformed Christianity"   if that's the case he's at least aware of a second Protestant Reformation which has not had the courtesy of the previous one to actually be clear about things and leave. 

Is this guy afraid to tell the truth or to even just get a job that actually produces something of value? 

Clearly, he does not understand who Benedict XVI/Joesph Ratzinger is/was. Or what the Council said for that matter. He exhibits a clear hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture. I don't think he's afraid to tell the truth so much as I think he is ignorant of it. Your thoughts?
Reply
#26
(11-19-2009, 11:54 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Comminmg from wiegal what do u expect.
He's the NOtard par excelance

Is the notard rhiming to retard? 
This is the wat you argue outside of this forum too?

Here is from the article:

1. The conversations between leaders of the SSPX and the Holy See are just that: conversations. These are not negotiations, for there is nothing to be negotiated; nor is this a dialogue between equal partners. On the one hand, we have the bishop of Rome and those curial officials whose work is an extension of his papal office; on the other hand, we have a society of clergy who have been living in disobedience to the Roman pontiff for decades, and their lay followers, many of whom are more confused than willfully schismatic. The purpose of these conversations is to make clear what the Second Vatican Council taught (especially about the nature of the Church), to listen politely to what the SSPX has to say, and to invite the SSPX back into the full communion of the Catholic Church, which the SSPX broke in 1988 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed the schismatic act of illicitly ordaining bishops without the authorization of the Roman pontiff (and against the direct, personal pleas of Pope John Paul II).

Adults would say what is sentence is wrong and why. Or if not in this paragraph, then quote what is sick on his statement.  Simply calling names is childish.
Reply
#27
(11-19-2009, 11:54 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-19-2009, 11:42 AM)JonW Wrote: It will, however, be hard for me to stop reading Weigel, if only because I find it useful to dip into the neo-con frame of mind now and again so that I can the more readily engage neo-con Catholics in conversation.  Weigel is one of their great heroes, so we should be aware of him.

We ARE aware of him! He's utter trash. You don't need to read trash over and over again to know it's trash, you'll only become infected with it.

The neo-con's frame of mind is a modernist frame of mind, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable whilst trying to appear "modern" and "pious". If you want to know about modernism, you can start with St. Pius X Pascendi Dominici Gregis which will be much more useful to you than to waste time and get drowned in these "weigelian" verbose, trashy and sometimes heretical writings.

(11-19-2009, 11:42 AM)JonW Wrote: Don't we share quite a bit with neo-con Catholics?  Certainly more than the dissident liberals?  Can't our shared ground be useful for purposes of conversion to tradition, as well as expulsion of heresy and Modernism within the Church?

Quite frankly, no.

Most of the time it's quite useless to discuss with neo-cons. The only way they'll be convinced of the truth is a real, modernist-free exposure to the traditional teachings of the Church through the grace of God. The information is out there, it's readily available, the only thing they need is the will and the grace to understand. We must pray and do penance so that more may be converted.

You see, they see "traditionalists" as bitter dissenters, cultish, backwards and paranoid, so their defenses won't let them see the truth, no matter how hard we hit them in the head with it. You have real examples here in the forum that can testify it.

My impression of most neo-con Catholics is that they are mostly ignorant of true traditionalist concerns, and that what little time is spent actually thinking about us is on common ground.  I think that they associate us almost exclusively with the TLM, and most of them take a posture that it's OK for us, but they're just fine with the NO.  I think that this attitude is there and reinforced because of their pastors, who share the same viewpoint, but might actually have a more or less hostile view towards us.  These are my impressions from direct personal experience, and the reasons why I think they are susceptible to conversion, if approached honestly and as human beings, and not as poisonous evil scum infecting the Body of Christ.
Reply
#28
(11-19-2009, 03:59 PM)JonW Wrote: as human beings, and not as poisonous evil scum infecting the Body of Christ.

Of course they are humans beings, I never said the opposite. In fact, even infidels, Jews and Freemasons are human beings! We all are human beings, children of Eve, deplorable sinners, begging for divine mercy. What I said was that I find that most discussions with these people (neo-cons) are rather fruitless to begin with and I maintain that.

However, be who they may: "conservatives", "neo-conservatives", "progressives", "libertarians", "Jesuits", etc., all those who subscribe to modernist beliefs under the cloak of Catholicism are doing incredible damage to the Church. All of them must be relentlessly fought and, God willing, converted.
Reply
#29
Well, I can't argue with that.
Reply
#30
(11-19-2009, 10:32 AM)JonW Wrote: http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/2952

The SSPX has to agree to things that are not dogma?  That's how I read Weigel's interpretation.

The number of the dogmas about 20, in less strict interpretation is less that 100 statement. The disciplinary statements of the Church, based on the binding and loosing power of the Magisterium, fill up long volumes. Catholics accept dogmas as dogmas, disciplinary statement as disciplinary statement, facts as facts, courtesy as courtesy.

As an example: People can agree that they don not call names for each other, although there is no such dogma.

The only thing the SSPX is expected to agree with, that they broke the 1917 Canon Law and as a formality, and now they have to ask for removing the automatic suspension. After this, the negotiations could start about their legal status, and at the end they all can recite the Apostolic Creed, and the Nicea Constantinaple Creed together, as dogmas.  The Canon Law, neither the 1917 Law, nor the 1983 Law are not dogma. Still that binds the Catholics together.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)