Belgium's Most Conservative Bishop, Selected by the Pope, Personally
#31
(01-14-2010, 08:43 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-14-2010, 08:36 AM)franklinf Wrote: [I agree that 'as is' they are both enemies of God. But more truth is always better than less truth. To say otherwise is conjecture on your part.

The conjecture is on your part, actually. There is no "more truth" and "less truth": there is truth and falsehood. A conservative, just like a liberal, believes in falsehood.

As for my expectations, I only expect that bishops and priests be catholic, nothing more. A rather reasonable expectation, yet very hard to meet in the new church.

Yes, if you look at the context of what I was saying there is more truth. Can you please explain how someone on the way to conversion doesn't possess / believe more truth than someone who isn't ? Or, do you expect converts to go from heathen to Catholic immediately?

Last I checked, this bishop is catholic. Please explain how he isn't.
Reply
#32
(01-14-2010, 08:47 AM)franklinf Wrote: Yes, if you look at the context of what I was saying there is more truth. Can you please explain how someone on the way to conversion doesn't possess / believe more truth than someone who isn't ? Or, do you expect converts to go from heathen to Catholic immediately?

Last I checked, this bishop is catholic. Please explain how he isn't.

Your context is erroneous because it paves the way for the prevalent concept of the degrees of truth. A concept fundamental to ecumenical activity, nonetheless. In order to have the faith, one needs to accept and believe in 100% of what is held and believed by the Church. If one just accepts and believes 99% of the articles of faith, then one has no faith at all and is in no better position than the one who only believes in 0,1% of the articles of faith.

I said nothing as to expecting people to convert immediately, the assumption is yours. God will convert anyone in His due time. I don't see the conservative as "more advanced" and therefore "more susceptible" to accept the faith, than the liberal. Both reject the Church in their own way. The liberal outright denies dogmas, the conservative maintains that he believes in them but, however, he believes that they can change and have indeed changed. He can be more insidious and, in fact, he is.

I don't know the bishop in question but if he is a conservative, he will accept the conservative position. In short, conservatism is nothing more than a sophisticated sell-out to modernism.
Reply
#33
I can't see how you can condemn the man for accepting or tolerating the new mass.

After all the Pope says the new mass and in four years has not even said the old mass once.  You still consider him to be the Pope and the bishop of Rome albeit neither of us will be calling for his canonisation.  If everyone who tolerates the new mass is a "right bad-un" then we might as well call a spade a spade and declare ourselves Sede Vacantists and elect Bishop Williamson as Pope.

Anyone more Traditional than the Pope has to be a net gain for the Traditional cause especially if it is true the B16 picked him out for his conservative/traditional leanings.  Though personally I doubt that is true.  It sounds like showboating on behalf of the Vatican source who was interviewed to me.

It is a small victory, nothing to get excited about unless you live in his diocese.  I sure hope that God has a better plan than to slowly creep our way back to tradition over several hundred years one bishop promotion at a time.  I'm looking for Rome to be destroyed and a greater part of the Roman Hierarchy slaughtered.  That way nobody is under any illusions about the reform of the reform working.  Traditionalists are vindicated and the apostates and weaklings pay with their blood for their betrayal.  If the appalling changes we've seen don't call down the wrath of God on the hierarchy then God owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Reply
#34
(01-14-2010, 09:24 AM)ggreg Wrote: I can't see how you can condemn the man for accepting or tolerating the new mass.

After all the Pope says the new mass and in four years has not even said the old mass once.  You still consider him to be the Pope and the bishop of Rome albeit neither of us will be calling for his canonisation.  If everyone who tolerates the new mass is a "right bad-un" then we might as well call a spade a spade and declare ourselves Sede Vacantists and elect Bishop Williamson as Pope.

The Pope is a conservative as well. No one should have any illusions whatsoever regarding this.

It's just that neither I or anyone else here has the authority to declare the Holy See vacant so, in the meantime, we're left in the expectation of a miracle.
Reply
#35
Yep
Reply
#36
(01-14-2010, 09:14 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(01-14-2010, 08:47 AM)franklinf Wrote: Yes, if you look at the context of what I was saying there is more truth. Can you please explain how someone on the way to conversion doesn't possess / believe more truth than someone who isn't ? Or, do you expect converts to go from heathen to Catholic immediately?

Last I checked, this bishop is catholic. Please explain how he isn't.

Your context is erroneous because it paves the way for the prevalent concept of the degrees of truth. A concept fundamental to ecumenical activity, nonetheless. In order to have the faith, one needs to accept and believe in 100% of what is held and believed by the Church. If one just accepts and believes 99% of the articles of faith, then one has no faith at all and is in no better position than the one who only believes in 0,1% of the articles of faith.

I said nothing as to expecting people to convert immediately, the assumption is yours. God will convert anyone in His due time. I don't see the conservative as "more advanced" and therefore "more susceptible" to accept the faith, than the liberal. Both reject the Church in their own way. The liberal outright denies dogmas, the conservative maintains that he believes in them but, however, he believes that they can change and have indeed changed. He can be more insidious and, in fact, he is.

I don't know the bishop in question but if he is a conservative, he will accept the conservative position. In short, conservatism is nothing more than a sophisticated sell-out to modernism.

How is my context erroneous? I am not disputing that one needs to accept and believe 100% of what the Church teaches. I am not saying that the conservative is more advanced. I am saying that it is better for someone to believe some of the truths then none at all. If someone is on the active path to conversion then they believe some of what the Church teaches. That is a good thing. I don't expect them to believe everything right away. It is good that they believe some, so that what Truth they possess may lead / guide them to the fullness of Truth.

I am baffled by your responses as they aren't addressing what I am saying. You keep stating that one must believe everything to be saved. Duh. That isn't what I'm talking about however. The path to conversion is long and it is preferable that one starts believing some Truth than remaining a heathen.

On another note, I don't understand your lack of happiness that this bishop is at least open to tradition. We know that the TLM is superior to the NO. So, if this bishop celebrates the TLM in addition to the NO, wouldn't it stand to reason that over time he would stop celebrating the NO and exclusively celebrate the TLM? He may or may not, but there are definitely reasons why he would - grace from God, additional graces from celebrating the TLM, objective comparison gained simply through celebrating the TLM. Personally I would rather err on the side of hope (virtue) than despair (sin).
Reply
#37
(01-14-2010, 07:42 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(01-14-2010, 05:17 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: No Vetus you are just the perfect example of the very angry Rad Trad that will never be happy with anything except for returning the Church to the Middle Ages which in it of it self would not be bad I think most people here including my self would like to see a strong West, but its over time passed the reformation happened faith is no longer important in the west as a matter of the State.

The Church does not turn on 90 degree angles, and when it does its never permanent hence the Novus Ordo and how it will not survive the next 50 years in its current form.

To whom will you run Vetus when VII gets clarified and reaffirmed and the SSPX is reconciled to the Church and every church in the world celebrate the Tridentine as well as a reformed Novus Ordo? What fringe group will run to?

Wherever he runs if I were God I'd have a hard time condemning him for it if it were done out of a state of utter frustration and confusion.  If Vatican II just gets brushed under the carpet, or airbrushed from history, then why should any Catholic really care about things going wrong with the faith?  In time it will all get fixed and worked out so why worry about it.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of the Church shuffling paedo priests around and covering up their nafarious activities for fear of scandal.  It is like the Russians refusing to acknowledge or make reparation for the 40 million people they murdered in the gulug system.   The whole Vatican 2 disaster must have cost at least 100 million souls at a bare minimum.  If that is just airbrushed from history by the hierarchy and they carry on regardless then I would not want to be part of any church they were in charge of.  I'd lapse.

I can't see how the Catholic Church will retain any credibility unless the whole Vatican II mess is exposed for what it was and there is a blood payment made for wrongs that have been perpetrated in its name.  Frankly if your scenario were to happen above I'd lose any belief in the lives of the saints because I'd wonder whether they were just all made up or tidied up for the sake of the good reputation of the Church at the time.  After all the Church had the power to do that in the past.  One thinks that it had the justice to make sure that the stories we were told were not utter fabrications.

The truth matters, justice matters and if nobody is held to account in this life after what has happened in the last 50 years then frankly I'll seriously begin to wonder whether God cares about what happens on this Earth to His Church.

Well I think that is my point. Vatican II has already been exposed there is enough information out there and inconsistencies acknowledged by high levels in the Curia that there are steps being taken to fix many of the problems. The Vatican would not be talking to the SSPX if they did not recognized the problems with the council.

As far as I see there are only three outcomes, VII gets clarified and the Litrugy is reformed, VII gets suppressed and many leave or there is a Third Vatican council and you create SSPX like organizations except these would be the Novus Ordo version of them. 
Reply
#38
Unum spoit
It wasn't vetus who ran to any group from the catholic faith.
But the church and vpoo certainly should answer that question dpnt u think?
To who did most of its bishops and the last frew popes run when they tried and nearly did completely demolish and reengeneer the church. From who's whispers did they listen?
Sip
Hint
Wasn't the holy ghost that's forsure
Sip
Reply
#39
(01-14-2010, 01:15 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Unum spoit
It wasn't vetus who ran to any group from the catholic faith.
But the church and vpoo certainly should answer that question dpnt u think?
To who did most of its bishops and the last frew popes run when they tried and nearly did completely demolish and reengeneer the church. From who's whispers did they listen?
Sip
Hint
Wasn't the holy ghost that's forsure
Sip

I am saying you are not correct, what I am saying is that as bad as things are the fact remains is that those things happened and with them they brought consequences that stretch out a generation and simply making a 90 degree turn will not fix the problem but would create a semi-schism out of shear confusion.
Reply
#40
A scism of near confusion? I'm sorry r u speakin abour the revolution during and after vpoo? Cuz that was more then a near schism of confusion
That was (think about it)
And btw I'm saying I'm right
Sip
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)