CDF rejects SSPX second response
#61
(02-03-2012, 07:57 PM)cgraye Wrote: [quote='Warrenton' pid='968691' dateline='1328311051']
The SSPX did not set any precedent.  It just stayed the same.

No it didn't.  It went from existing under ecclesiastical structures and laws to completely ignoring them.[quote]

This is not a precedent.  It has happened many times before.  The closest analogy to the present state of affairs in the past thousand years is probably the Western Schism. 
Reply
#62
(02-03-2012, 08:03 PM)Warrenton Wrote: No, because part of the Church continues to teach the truth.  There can be teachers of error within the Church.  There can be bishops who teach error.  This does not constitute the defection of which you speak.

Yes, but the particular Church of Rome (and only that particular Church) is supposed to be indefectible.  If that Church has taught error, the show's over, so to speak.

Quote:But let's narrow the scope, and see where we agree or don't agree.  Do you think that Vatican 2 changed any docrtines, or that it announced any new ones?

I do not think that, no.
Reply
#63
(02-03-2012, 08:00 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Not a precedent, St Athanasius did it, as did others, the theory behind it is well supported by church doctors and theologians an the alternative, abandoning the true faith and accepting a false one is unacceptable.

No, the situations are not the same.  St. Athanasius did not operate under explicit disobedience of the highest authority in the Church.
Reply
#64
(02-03-2012, 08:16 PM)cgraye Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 08:00 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Not a precedent, St Athanasius did it, as did others, the theory behind it is well supported by church doctors and theologians an the alternative, abandoning the true faith and accepting a false one is unacceptable.

No, the situations are not the same.  St. Athanasius did not operate under explicit disobedience of the highest authority in the Church.

Actually...

Regardless if you think that V2 changed nor intended to change nothing then we cannot discuss anything regarding the society, there is simply no point.
Reply
#65
(02-03-2012, 04:55 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 04:33 PM)sarahraphael Wrote: but please be intellectually honest and thoughtful if you engage in debate on the topic.

I'm not being intellectually dishonest or insulting anyone's intelligence.  I'm calling it like I see it.  I won't be so sleazy as to say you're all Protestants.  That's clearly not true.  But I find a disturbing similarity with the positions held by many on this forum and Eastern Orthodoxy.  But even at that such comparisons are unnecessary.  I honestly believe many members here are out-right schismatic, regardless of the flavour you want to attach to their brand of schism with the majority more being border-line schismatic.  Not because they assist at the Extraordinary Form.  Not even because they assist at the Holy Sacrifice offered at SSPX "apostolates" for I am aware there are various reasons for doing so (no licit TLM in reasonable distance).

But rather because of the blatant anti-Roman attitudes that are prevalent.  The belief that Rome is teaching error and promulgating invalid Sacraments.  Impossible.  Crisis?  Crooked priests selling indulgences and Masses.  That's a crisis in a parish or even in the entire Church if it's widespread.  Rome teaching error and giving the Church invalid and evil Sacraments?  That's not a crisis because for a Catholic such a thing is impossible.  It's approaching the Church from a non-Catholic position.  A Catholic knows such a thing isn't going to happen.

Is the Ordinary Form an inferior liturgy compared to the Extraordinary Form?  Yea.  The Divine Office has lost its beauty.  Catechisis sucks.  Parish priests are a disgrace.  There is widespread error amongst the Church faithful.  No one's going to Mass.  The majority of so-called Catholics can't say a rosary to save themselves.  Every sin under the sun seems to be given free reign.

Everything's fucked up.  We get it.  But Peter is our rock.  There's a reason for that.  We're safe when we anchor ourselves to Peter (Rome).  That's the be all and end all for a Catholic.

I'll play the sedevacantist card and bring in the Western Schism... I bet noone saw that coming but it happened, that people would had been like "you know, he's the Rock for a reason, we should trust our pope" to which the reply would had been "which one?", and we had not arrived to the great apostasy yet

Now I'm not saying that the Sacraments as they stand are invalid, but Daniel 9:27 comes to mind; it can indeed happen, as a temporal chastisement for our iniquity.
Reply
#66
(02-03-2012, 08:18 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: I'll play the sedevacantist card and bring in the Western Schism... I bet noone saw that coming but it happened, that people would had been like "you know, he's the Rock for a reason, we should trust our pope" to which the reply would had been "which one?", and we had not arrived to the great apostasy yet

There's a difference between not knowing with of two men are the rock, and saying that the rock no longer exists as a visible thing.

Quote:Now I'm not saying that the Sacraments as they stand are invalid, but Daniel 9:27 comes to mind; it can indeed happen, as a temporal chastisement for our iniquity.

I don't really know much about that.  Though I do remember that Saint Alphonsus said in one of his books, I believe on the Holy Mass, that at some time in the future there will be a period when Mass will not be celebrated on earth for a short period.  Now even if you want to argue that this is the period, that's ignoring all the Masses celebrated according to the traditional missal, all the valid Masses celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox, etc.
Reply
#67
(02-03-2012, 08:12 PM)cgraye Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 08:03 PM)Warrenton Wrote: No, because part of the Church continues to teach the truth.  There can be teachers of error within the Church.  There can be bishops who teach error.  This does not constitute the defection of which you speak.

Yes, but the particular Church of Rome (and only that particular Church) is supposed to be indefectible.  If that Church has taught error, the show's over, so to speak.
Quote:But let's narrow the scope, and see where we agree or don't agree.  Do you think that Vatican 2 changed any docrtines, or that it announced any new ones?
I do not think that, no.

Alright, we're getting someplace.  You and I disagree on the effect of teaching error.  In my view, the show is over when the Church ceases to exist.  It is not over when an individual sins publicly, which is a kind of teaching.  It is not over when a priest sins, or teaches error.  It is not over when a bishop teaches error, or even a group of bishops do, or even if a group of bishops persist in error for a number of years.  Why?  Because the Lord keeps His promise.  There continues a large number within the Church resisting the new doctrines, the new forms of the sacraments.  The Lord is keeping His promise.  The Church maintains her teaching of traditions, though many in power seek to deny them or change them.   Under your line of reasoning, the Church would have defected when many bishops went Arian, or when many, if not most, practiced simony, or lived in sin.  This was Luther's argument.  The sinfulness of individuals does not attach to the existence of the Church.  The template is Noah and his family.

Turning to your second answer, that Vatican 2 announced no new doctrines, under your analysis, how do we account for statements that Muslims worship the same God that we do, or that Catholics ought not convert Jews,  or that Protestants are part of the Catholic Church?  How do we account for the novus ordo?
Reply
#68
(02-03-2012, 08:26 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 08:18 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: I'll play the sedevacantist card and bring in the Western Schism... I bet noone saw that coming but it happened, that people would had been like "you know, he's the Rock for a reason, we should trust our pope" to which the reply would had been "which one?", and we had not arrived to the great apostasy yet

There's a difference between not knowing with of two men are the rock, and saying that the rock no longer exists as a visible thing.

Not really.  Half the Church was wrong about its authority.  That half was without authority to do any sacramental act - that half was legally excommunicated.  But, because the Lord maintains the Church, sufficient grace was dispensed to the flocks even through the half of the Church that was in a state of sin.  That is indefectability.  That is what Luther denied in the early 1500s. 

Reply
#69
(02-03-2012, 08:34 PM)Warrenton Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 08:26 PM)City Smurf Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 08:18 PM)Jesusbrea Wrote: I'll play the sedevacantist card and bring in the Western Schism... I bet noone saw that coming but it happened, that people would had been like "you know, he's the Rock for a reason, we should trust our pope" to which the reply would had been "which one?", and we had not arrived to the great apostasy yet

There's a difference between not knowing with of two men are the rock, and saying that the rock no longer exists as a visible thing.

Not really.  Half the Church was wrong about its authority.  That half was without authority to do any sacramental act - that half was legally excommunicated.  But, because the Lord maintains the Church, sufficient grace was dispensed to the flocks even through the half of the Church that was in a state of sin.  That is indefectability.  That is what Luther denied in the early 1500s. 

You know I never thought about this before but you're right, the Western Schism was downright ugly and lets not forget that as a result we got the heresy of conciliarism which lingered on for close to a century expressing itself in the Councils of Constance and Florence.
Reply
#70
(02-03-2012, 08:26 PM)City Smurf Wrote: There's a difference between not knowing with of two men are the rock, and saying that the rock no longer exists as a visible thing.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make, the point is that the Western Schism was unprecedented, noone would dare offer the possibility before, and it happened, and we haven't had our worst crisis yet. I brought up sedevacantism because it is mostly from that position that  it is argued that the NO Sacraments are intrinsically invalid.
Quote:I don't really know much about that.  Though I do remember that Saint Alphonsus said in one of his books, I believe on the Holy Mass, that at some time in the future there will be a period when Mass will not be celebrated on earth for a short period.  Now even if you want to argue that this is the period, that's ignoring all the Masses celebrated according to the traditional missal, all the valid Masses celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox, etc.

And I'm not arguing that, I don't believe this is the period, but I do believe it could happen.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)