CDF rejects SSPX second response
#41
(02-03-2012, 04:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: And that's exactly what traditional Catholicism does. It anchors itself to infallible Peter, not the doubting one.

Very witty, Vetus.
Reply
#42
(02-03-2012, 05:03 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 04:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: And that's exactly what traditional Catholicism does. It anchors itself to infallible Peter, not the doubting one.

Very witty, Vetus.

And very true.

Unless you want to anchor your faith to quick sand.
Reply
#43
Those behind Vatican Council II developed a new, vacuous interpretation of the Dogmas and Traditions of The Church.
They then created a new Mass out of thin air to emphasize the new theology.
Then they designed a new Catechism which authorizes and supports the Conciliar documents.
Just as was stated in one of the early responses to the SSPX from a Priest in Rome who said that the pre Vatican II Tradition must be read in light of Vatican II. What a wonderful job of double speak to say that what has gone before MUST be interpreted by what we now say. And we have this Catechism to back us up! this is a circular firing squad and i find it difficult to believe that this hoax has succeeded to this level.
It is not a stretch to wonder just how deep this fight will go. Are we in a new Arian crisis? Do we need to run for the desert?
Pope St. Pius X, pray for us.
Reply
#44
(02-03-2012, 04:15 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The SSPX didn't separate themselves from the Church. They didn't do anything. It was the Roman authorities that went out of their way to try and supress a legitimate fraternity of priests erected in Switzerland that hung on to the divine tradition of the Church. This antagonism culminated in the "excommunications" of 1988 and the status quo ever since.

A profound injustice has been perpetrated against the Society and traditional Catholics. The antagonism remains to this day.

So glad to see Vetus back.  This is what I love about him.  Gets right to the heart of the matter, simply.  Clearly.



p.s. to Vetus:  who is that in your avatar?
Reply
#45
(02-03-2012, 05:07 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 05:03 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 04:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: And that's exactly what traditional Catholicism does. It anchors itself to infallible Peter, not the doubting one.

Very witty, Vetus.

And very true.

Unless you want to anchor your faith to quick sand.

Indeed.  The post-conciliar Church wants us to "obey" the man, not the office - they want us to obey a specific pope in all he says and does (unless of course it is actually Catholic), not the perpetual papacy.  This is where a lot of people get mixed up these days.
Reply
#46
(02-03-2012, 05:12 PM)FHM310 Wrote: p.s. to Vetus:  who is that in your avatar?

Bossuet, the theologian of Providence, the great advocate of royal absolutism and one of the greatest orators to ever bless the Church.
Reply
#47
(02-03-2012, 04:52 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The only dangerous precedent here was set by Rome herself who has been going about in the last few decades obscuring and even outright denying Catholic truths in order to make peace with laicism and achieve "union" with non-Catholics. That is what is truly worrisome! Rome has been actively persecuting divine tradition and those who still cling to it. The "crime" of the Society was not the consecration of bishops and the exercise of priestly functions. No, their "crime" to this very day is the perpetuation of a Church that should have been long gone and strictly confined to history books.

If that is true, then either the SSPX IS the Church or the Church is not indefectible after all.

Again, you are continuing to make this a question of blame, but that isn't the point.  Regardless of the missteps the Church authorities may have taken in dealing with the SSPX situation, the point is, we are here now, and it's a problem.  Because we do NOT want this to be the pattern when disagreements with Rome occur in the future.  Even if the SSPX gets everything it hopes for, the damage is done.
Reply
#48
(02-03-2012, 05:22 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Bossuet, the theologian of Providence, the great advocate of royal absolutism and one of the greatest orators to ever bless the Church.

I didn't know royal absolutism and Catholicism were compatible?  This isn't a snide attack.  I've genuinely always had an understanding that the two were opposed to one another.
Reply
#49
(02-03-2012, 05:34 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 05:22 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Bossuet, the theologian of Providence, the great advocate of royal absolutism and one of the greatest orators to ever bless the Church.

I didn't know royal absolutism and Catholicism were compatible?  This isn't a snide attack.  I've genuinely always had an understanding that the two were opposed to one another.

They're certainly very much compatible. Royal absolutism is rooted in genuine and timeless Christian concepts of authority, paternity and sacredness. While some monarchs did wish to overstep their bounds when it came to the Church's rights, eventually good sense prevailed in most cases. It's a wonderful subject when it comes to political theory and religion. I'd encourage you to study it more in-depth if you're interested and have the time.
Reply
#50
(02-03-2012, 05:32 PM)cgraye Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 04:52 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The only dangerous precedent here was set by Rome herself who has been going about in the last few decades obscuring and even outright denying Catholic truths in order to make peace with laicism and achieve "union" with non-Catholics. That is what is truly worrisome! Rome has been actively persecuting divine tradition and those who still cling to it. The "crime" of the Society was not the consecration of bishops and the exercise of priestly functions. No, their "crime" to this very day is the perpetuation of a Church that should have been long gone and strictly confined to history books.

If that is true, then either the SSPX IS the Church or the Church is not indefectible after all.

I understand your perplexity but that is (still) an unwarranted conclusion.

Quote:Again, you are continuing to make this a question of blame, but that isn't the point.  Regardless of the missteps the Church authorities may have taken in dealing with the SSPX situation, the point is, we are here now, and it's a problem.  Because we do NOT want this to be the pattern when disagreements with Rome occur in the future.  Even if the SSPX gets everything it hopes for, the damage is done.

Blame is just secondary and proceeds from the perverted will of the ecclesiastical authorities in Rome. If they had the faith, they wouldn't persecute traditional Catholicism and befriend heretics, would they?

In the end, it's rather simple.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)