Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
#11
The SSPX should ask if the "submission of will and intellect" is any different than the formulation of Vatican I in defining the required obedience as "true hierarchichal obedience" which was originally formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas.  

And also, the question is raised, "Is it moral to submit the will and intellect to an exercise of the Magisterium that is fallible?"  Don't you require the intellect to determine if the criteria for infallibility and consequently submission is there?  If not, why bother to have infallibility at all?  You become obligated to respond in a servile way whether it's by the power of the Holy Ghost working through the papacy or the power of the Devil working through the man who happens to be Pope.  

Reply
#12
The document sounds like its full of the same vague cautious words.
Sure, its agreeable. But what happens when, interpreting in the light of continuity, you discover the text of a magisterial teaching to be a definite break?  This is what the SSPX and indeed all of us are dealing with, that Rome seems blind to.
Reply
#13
Quote:Why not call them "Faithful Catholics"


Because the author's writing for an Italian secular newspaper, not an SSPX newsletter.

Quote:or "Traditional Catholics"

Because that could also mean FSSP/ICKSP/IBP... etc.

Quote:or Priestly Society etc.

Because that's long-winded.

Quote:"Lefebvrians" is a new one on me and it makes them sound like  they are part of some non-catholic sect.

Like the Dominicans, Franciscans, Salesians, Augustinians, Camilians...?
Reply
#14
None of these points should be a problem to any Catholic and in fact we all have to accept them.

The Magisterium of the Church is infallible and the Magisterium at VII only redefined what the Church has always taught.
I do not see these criterion, if they are the ones, to be any problem for Bishop Fellay.

Any good Catholic be he living in the year 1200 or 2100 must believe this truth on the Magisterium.
There is nothing of comprimise to the Faith here.
Reply
#15
this is a smoke screen. smoke and mirrors lads. same old NO machinations.
i would be very shocked if the sspx falls for this trap
Reply
#16
(09-15-2011, 12:30 PM)archdiocesan Wrote:
(09-15-2011, 12:20 PM)Stubborn Wrote: This letter is a complete joke. Who here has ever heard of a "Doctrinal Preamble" anyway? - another fresh novelty of the NO?

You have the text? Please share.

Stubborn didn't say he/she had the text.  He/she did not seem to be commenting on the "text" at all.  He* said, "this letter" - which I took to mean the Tornielli piece, although perhaps I'm wrong.  When Stubborn said "Who here has ever heard of a "Doctrinal Preamble" anyway?", first, he is asking a question.  The question, "Who here has ever heard of a "Doctrinal Preamble" anyway?" does not imply in any way that he thinks he knows what's in the super-secret "preamble."  In answer to his question, I never heard of one until yesterday. 

I'm getting sick of this two-bit retort, "You have the text?  Please share."  Those who say it seem to think, "ha ha, I got you there!" when usually it follows a comment that in no way implies that the other poster assumes they know what is in it.    I saw another comment where someone said, "this could be the answer to all our prayers!" (meaning this "offer" Rome is making and the hope that the SSPX will accept), and someone replied, "it's not the answer to all my prayers" or something like that.  And the two-bit rejoinder was very much the same:  oh, you've seen the contents of the preamble?    The other poster should have replied, "so, you know the contents of my prayers?"    I notice that when the speculation is that the SSPX will accept, they don't get this two-bit reply.    ::)




*I'm sick of typing he/she, so I'll use the generic "he" with apolgies if Stubborn is female.
Reply
#17
(09-15-2011, 12:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: this is a smoke screen. smoke and mirrors lads. same old NO machinations.
i would be very shocked if the sspx falls for this trap
There is no trap.
It is all straight forward common sense.

Trust God and by extension His Heirarchy in this case.
Reply
#18
this is a trap. the NO isnt even doing its best to even hide it.
Reply
#19
(09-15-2011, 12:49 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-15-2011, 12:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: this is a smoke screen. smoke and mirrors lads. same old NO machinations.
i would be very shocked if the sspx falls for this trap
There is no trap.
It is all straight forward common sense.

Trust God and by extension His Heirarchy in this case.


From the OP...........

It is a short and mediated document, which follows the “Professio fidei” published in 1989 by the former Holy Office ..........so what in Rome has changed since 1989? Nothing. No way they sign.

and that states three different degrees of assent that the faithful must meet. In essence, a Catholic strives to believe “with firm faith” all that is “within the Word of God” and that the Church defines as “divinely revealed”. .........Which Church? The pre or post V2 church? 



Secondly, a Catholic agrees to accept all dogmas stated as such to this day. ........What? Since when does the NO even mention dogmas - those are soooo pre-V2.



Finally, and this is the difficult point for Lefebvrians, a Catholic is required to comply “with religious submission of will and intellect” to the teachings that the Pope and College of Bishops “set when they exercise their authentic Magisterium”, even when they are not stated in a dogmatic fashion, that is final..............Here is where they MUST swear obedience to heretical / modernist bishops. Oh boy, I bet they can hardly whip that pen out fast enough.


This is the most significant role of the magisterium, to which, for example, the encyclicals belong. And many Vatican II documents come from it and they should be read, as all the magisterium teachings – the Holy See explains – in the light of tradition and as a development, and not as a breaking point, from previous doctrine, according to hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI..................Nobody, I mean nobody can possibly stretch the true faith far enough to be able to read anything from V2 "in the light of tradition" - - - did you catch the next part - - - -  "and as a development"? How does one understand anything in light of tradition and as a development? A development of what?

The whole thing reeks of NO double talk. SSPX cannot agree to this - supposing the OP article is accurate.
Reply
#20
(09-15-2011, 01:02 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: this is a trap. the NO isnt even doing its best to even hide it.
This is as much of a trap as the nose on the end of your face.
A trap implies sometheing that is hidden to ensare a prey.

These statements are to be believed by all Catholics, everywhere.
The authentic Magisterium at VII was only used to define what had had been always and everywhere taught in the Church, not to justify any of the novelties in the documents.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)