Pope Benedict: Why can't we all just get along?
(01-08-2010, 11:37 AM)glgas Wrote:
(01-08-2010, 01:50 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: And it IS a competition between opposing teams...the false teachers of the rabid NO (coserv AND liberal) and us.  It is a fight for the Church...make no mistake, and it is a fight we will win at some point.

This is your problem Scipio. You think about the rites as to be matter of competion, instead of centering of what the liturgy is: the offering our hearts (as it is opposed to the words) through Jesus Christ to God.

The words are nothing related to the value of the Sacrifice of our Lord, and in our part Gos expect the sincere hearts not the proper words.

For quite a while I was thinking like you. Someone asked me the question: what was the sin of the pharisee, and advisded to read Matthew. My answer is: the pharisee believed that keeping the ritual washings and the Sabbath Law will bring down God to their side. They were proven to be wrong, they missed their opportunity to be stewards of the Son of the Living God. No formalism can be substitute to the required full obedient submission to God.

Now I would take issue with this, glgas. You are implying that the sin of the Pharisee was rooted in the opinions of the Pharisees about formalism, and implying that the Traditional Catholics, by insisting on the proper form of the Liturgy, are being pharisaical.

But the sin of the Pharisees was in fact that they were illegitimate priests. The occupying armies of Caesar had eliminated the true  Israelite priesthood and had installed puppets. The Pharisiees. like Bishop Nourrichard in Thiberville, were working harder to stop traditional Jews from following their old ways than they were working for hte actual spiritual welfare of the Jews.
Reply
And the Pharisees lacked charity.  They used the law to beat people instead of to save people.

One needs both the law and charity - just as one needs justice and mercy.  It's not an either/or proposition.
Reply
(01-08-2010, 07:20 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(01-07-2010, 08:56 PM)salome Wrote: It should be noted that Scipio's views are truly his own.  His opinions in no way represent the SSPX, where I am assuming he attends by his signature line.  Perhaps Scipio could include that in his signature. 

Considering you have to be a priest to be in the SSPX (third order aside), it should be clear that Scipio does not and cannot represent the SSPX, nor does he claim to.

He and I both support the SSPX and we have some very different views on things.  There's all kinds of opinions in the pews.

I understand.  But his strong and often overbearing views could give someone just lurking here or someone just passing by, who is unaware of the in's and out's of the SSPX, that what Scipio is spouting is what he is hearing while sitting "In the pews" of an SSPX chapel.  So I just wanted to put that out there.  I'll say no more about it though. 

pax 
Reply
Lol yeah such is life
Sip
Reply
(01-08-2010, 01:14 PM)salome Wrote: I understand.  But his strong and often overbearing views could give someone just lurking here or someone just passing by, who is unaware of the in's and out's of the SSPX, that what Scipio is spouting is what he is hearing while sitting "In the pews" of an SSPX chapel.  So I just wanted to put that out there.  I'll say no more about it though. 

pax 

I am unaware of anything that I say being out of line with the SSPX stance on anything.  There is a great deal of latitude in thre SSPX on certain issues....such as probable validity of the NO.

The only position any SSPX priest must hold...is that it is posible for an NO to be valid...that can mean a lot of things....as quis said...we part ways a bit here.  I make sure to err on the side of there are many fewer with each passing year....he stays on the side of..."If you can't prove it...it's valid" if I understand him properly...the fact is that we could both be right...and no one is the worse off for it...the legal aspect is correct if you can't prove invalidity...it's valid...but that sidesteps other issues which might be as important...like what are you learning there.

Every SSPX chapel I have ever been to stresses avoiding the NO like the plague....and the fact is that I am one of the more open attendees of the SSPX...

I do state my views strongly....if short and concise is strongly....but my views are never overbearing...precisely because I do not demand people follow me where I go.  I make sure to tell everyone to do as much as they are comfortable with....perhaps you should read what I say...and not what you think I say.


If I ever say anything out of line with what ABL taught...tell me...I may readjust what I said....and in all probability it would just be a miswording of something in line.
Reply
(01-08-2010, 11:22 AM)littlerose Wrote: We need to welcome all Catholics who are following N-O and let threm find their way to the truth in these boards. Some will defend their beliefs, especially upon first encounter with the news that "it ain't so", but except for the most stubborn and aggressive partisans of N-O, in my opinion we should receive them all with Charity and understanding and patience.

I already do this...so what are we talking about.
Reply
How true NOtards are always given the benifet of the doubt here. The last NOtard I remember being banned was nsper because his head exploded
Lol
Ok carnabore but he had to push it for like 20 pages until he finaly got it.
That's charity.
Sip
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)