The Vatican and the Lefebvrists: Not a Negotiation
#31
(11-19-2009, 11:10 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Indeed.
The tamest post from DK, in DK history.
Reply
#32
Weigels an idiot pay him no mind. Like DK said he is a NOtard par excellence.
Reply
#33
(11-19-2009, 11:23 AM)Tradchick Wrote: I don't like it when people say "Lefebvrist" as if it were some kind of cult.  ::)

I'm not a Lefebvrist,

I'm a Roman Catholic who adheres to tradition through the Priestly Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X and is thankful for Msgr. Lefebvre's  efforts to keep the TLM alive. ;)

So am I. Without the dear Archbishop tradition can almost forget about surviving.
Reply
#34
(11-19-2009, 11:28 AM)JonW Wrote: Which brings me to my real question.  (Apologies if this is now common knowledge.)  Does anyone actually know the state of the talks?  Where might we go to find out more details?  If this is merely an opinion piece of Weigel's based on his understanding or misunderstanding of the way he thinks the talks might go, do we have a more authoritative source?  Maybe I should just await the outcome?  If so, any ideas on when that might be?  Thanks.
If ANYONE involved in those talks, on either side, learned ANYTHING from V2, it's got to be "No leaks. No reports until it's final."

What's written down in the documents of V2, as a general rule, aren't terribly, uh, bizarre. What happened is that people got wind of something, got all caught up in the spirit, and started making changes before anything was final. No where does it say that guitars and bongos were approved. Nowhere does it say rip out the altar rails. V2 ended in the 1960s. The Canon Law regarding veils was still in effect until 1983!! (Don't digress into whether that's abrogated, that's not the point of this thread) I don't recall seeing women wearing veils much, except the old ladies, since maybe... 1971? Somewhere 'round there, anyway...  What happened?

People had one or two statements, and they interpreted them the way they felt, irregardless of context - very Protestant of them, by the way.

The best thing is for everyone involved to clam up. Unless they want to speak out publicly against speculators like Weigel. Then they should shout .     
Reply
#35
SoCalLocal


You have the best avatar EVER


I could kick myself for not thinking of that guy.  Especially as the General in "Kelly's Hero's"
Reply
#36
I think Weigel doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the two sides are not equivalent, but the reason that the SSPX and the Vatican are discussing issues is because the critque proposed by the SSPX is an extreme embarassment to the Vatican.
It doesn't matter which side has more power --- it depends on which side has the truth.
Also, Weigel goes on to say that the Vatican is inviting the SSPX to accept settled doctrine, this shows his ignorance because the whole issue here is that settled doctrine has been unsettled by V2 and that the SSPX has been consistently asking for the Vatican to settle it.
Of course the great advantage of forcing these talks is to give an opportunity for the Holy Ghost to act.
When a definitive statement is made it HAS to be traditional, the Holy Ghost cannot act otherwise and this the SSPX is relying on.
Reply
#37
(11-19-2009, 10:09 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: I think Weigel doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the two sides are not equivalent, but the reason that the SSPX and the Vatican are discussing issues is because the critque proposed by the SSPX is an extreme embarassment to the Vatican.
It doesn't matter which side has more power --- it depends on which side has the truth.
Also, Weigel goes on to say that the Vatican is inviting the SSPX to accept settled doctrine, this shows his ignorance because the whole issue here is that settled doctrine has been unsettled by V2 and that the SSPX has been consistently asking for the Vatican to settle it.
Of course the great advantage of forcing these talks is to give an opportunity for the Holy Ghost to act.
When a definitive statement is made it HAS to be traditional, the Holy Ghost cannot act otherwise and this the SSPX is relying on.

Also Weigel goes out of his way to say that these are not "discussions" he says it like three times, while the Vatican has called them discussions.
Reply
#38
Here's the way it is as I see it. Weigel is a NOtard who has spent the last 30 some years being an apologist for the NO and its new religion. If these talks prove fruitful than his whole career has been a waste. Look for the Notards to get very vocal during these discussions. Alot is riding on the line for the hermeneutic of continuity smells and bells crowed.
Reply
#39
(11-19-2009, 10:09 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: I think Weigel doesn't know what he is talking about.
Yes the two sides are not equivalent, but the reason that the SSPX and the Vatican are discussing issues is because the critque proposed by the SSPX is an extreme embarassment to the Vatican.
It doesn't matter which side has more power --- it depends on which side has the truth.
Also, Weigel goes on to say that the Vatican is inviting the SSPX to accept settled doctrine, this shows his ignorance because the whole issue here is that settled doctrine has been unsettled by V2 and that the SSPX has been consistently asking for the Vatican to settle it.
Of course the great advantage of forcing these talks is to give an opportunity for the Holy Ghost to act.
When a definitive statement is made it HAS to be traditional, the Holy Ghost cannot act otherwise and this the SSPX is relying on.


Beautifully stated.
Reply
#40
Just for fun, a comparison between Weigel's article and the recent articles by Chris Ferrara and John Salza show who is actually a writing substantive articles worth reading. 


http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...a-sspx.htm


http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...ussion.htm

I suspect Weigel does not want to admit that JPII and Paul VI were terrible Popes who did enormous damage to the faith and mislead millions of people (Weigel included.)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)