ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
#11
I honestly don't give two shits what the eastern schismatics think. They reject the Keys, and thus Christ, so their opinions mean nothing to me.
Reply
#12
(05-12-2012, 06:48 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: This is full of contradictions: If traditionalists have become separatists for disobeying the Pope (who according to this hetetical schismatic writer is the source of tradition), what does that say of the Easterners who to this day claim to excommunicate the Holy Father? 

The author's point is that the SSPX is in a difficult position because Catholics supposedly view the Pope as the ultimate authority in the Church. In contrast, the Orthodox see tradition as the ultimate authority. He is saying that members of the SSPX contradict their own core beliefs as Roman Catholics. Obviously, if you do not accept papal infallibility and supremacy in the first place, then you are not contradicting yourself when you break of from him in order to defend tradition.

The problem is he is wrongly stating that the SSPX "separated themselves."  They did not.  Disobedience is not "separation."
Reply
#13
(05-12-2012, 08:35 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 06:48 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: This is full of contradictions: If traditionalists have become separatists for disobeying the Pope (who according to this hetetical schismatic writer is the source of tradition), what does that say of the Easterners who to this day claim to excommunicate the Holy Father? 

The author's point is that the SSPX is in a difficult position because Catholics supposedly view the Pope as the ultimate authority in the Church. In contrast, the Orthodox see tradition as the ultimate authority. He is saying that members of the SSPX contradict their own core beliefs as Roman Catholics. Obviously, if you do not accept papal infallibility and supremacy in the first place, then you are not contradicting yourself when you break of from him in order to defend tradition.

The problem is he is wrongly stating that the SSPX "separated themselves."  They did not.  Disobedience is not "separation."

But it doesn't matter to an Easterner who, confirmed in his own breakaway, seeks endlessly to undermine the Primacy of Peter by supporting true renegades who sadly have control of the Church's apparatus in our times.  Incidentally many of the 'new apologists [who lack any credentials]' go wild with Eastern wares as a 17 year old girl swoons for Tom Brady, in part because implicit to the Novus Ordo is a sterile, cultureless wasteland.  But there is a degree of the two being fellow travelers: both reject, in word and in deed, the authentic Faith.

Well-intended Eastern Orthodox reject Vatican II's spirit and identify it as a major problem.  The mission in the case of these people is to pound home the point that it was not an infallible council and therefore does not contradict the exclusive teaching right of the Catholic Church.

Reply
#14
(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: Easterners have a massive pride problem that approaches the blindness of the Jews. 

Aww, you just had a pot/kettle moment!
Reply
#15

Not his authority, they rejected his accuracy concerning the facts.  Had JPII excommunicated Hans Kung for virtually anything he believes, they would have understood and recognized it as a legitimate use of papal authority. 

The SSPX didn't "separate themselves" from anything.  The post-conciliar Popes have separated themselves from their duty to confirm the brethren and uphold the faith and they have separated themselves from their willingness to invoke the Magisterial authority of the Church.   In essence, the Pope likes a policy that is akin to social engineering, he gives a speech that is mainly political with religious words thrown in, it gets passed on mistakenly as authentic teaching and the Pope does not want to contradict his personal interests with his papal authority.  So, he leaves the magisterial element out of the equation and allows the errors to fester as policies.   That is why there will be no magisterial syllable on incorrect interpretations of Vatican II.  He doesn't want to correct the errors.  The errros are bound by human respect for the person of the Pope, not the keys of Peter.
[/quote]

THIS.
The popes since Vatican II have never declared anything infallibly and they never will  because it goes against the modernist principle- specifically the 3rd modernist pillar of evolving dogma. The SSPX would go sede before they accepted heresy as being infallibly declared by the pope- which obviously can't happen. The problem is that both the Ecclesia Dei and Sedevacantist stance exaggerate the infallible authority of the pope or the obedience owed to him. Yes, he is the supreme head of the Church on earth but Truth and its sources are still above him. The SSPX is obviously not in Schism since the pope remitted the accused excommunications... this means that they either were never truly excommunicated or that they still are and the pope does not have the power to remit sins.

Unam, the answer is you cling to both the Fathers and the visible structure, like the SSPX has been doing since 1970!

St. Robert Bellarmine states:      "Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. "(De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)
Reply
#16
Quote:The problem is that both the Ecclesia Dei and Sedevacantist stance exaggerate the infallible authority of the pope or the obedience owed to him.

This is false. The sad fact of the matter is that since the early 1970s, there has been a tendency to limit and de-emphasize infallibility so much, in order to avoid the NO etc. The Bellarmine quote is not being read in context. It refers to resisting an evil command of the pope, not resisting liturgy, laws, discipline, encyclicals, and so on.

The next big falsehood is that VII was a "fallible, pastoral Council."
Reply
#17
(05-12-2012, 09:22 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
Quote:The problem is that both the Ecclesia Dei and Sedevacantist stance exaggerate the infallible authority of the pope or the obedience owed to him.

This is false. The sad fact of the matter is that since the early 1970s, there has been a tendency to limit and de-emphasize infallibility so much, in order to avoid the NO etc. The Bellarmine quote is not being read in context. It refers to resisting an evil command of the pope, not resisting liturgy, laws, discipline, encyclicals, and so on.

The next big falsehood is that VII was a "fallible, pastoral Council."

It was a fallible, pastoral council.  Pope John XXIII said as much.  The documents themselves sometimes begin with conspicuous disclaimers that the contents do not contract what has been already taught.

Show me where it was claimed that this was an infallible ecumenical council.  We can show, in the words of those who supported this contorted monstrosity, otherwise.
Reply
#18
(05-12-2012, 09:15 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-12-2012, 06:39 PM)kingtheoden Wrote: Easterners have a massive pride problem that approaches the blindness of the Jews. 

Aww, you just had a pot/kettle moment!

Respectfully, Melkite, you know I am refering to the Eastern schismatics.  The sui juris bodies within the Catholic Church are in communion with the universal Roman Church.  With that said, many have become nests of neo-Eastern Schismatism or Eastern Novus Ordoism.  But that is for a different discussion. 

No one who is of the Tridentine Rite is saying that, for example Greeks, need to drop the Divine Liturgy in favor of the TLM.  Rites of direct Apostolic lineage are beautiful elements of this garden of life, which is the Church.  But your statement is unfair because I am relying on facts, not emotion, which is an unfortunate trait of those who seek to undermine the Petrine Mission and the Primacy of Rome.
Reply
#19
No, CP the next big falsehood is that the pope isn't the pope because someone doesn't understand how things are and what is meant by the spiprit and the letter of the law.  Eye-roll
Reply
#20
(05-12-2012, 09:44 PM)mga Wrote: No, CP the next big falsehood is that the pope isn't the pope because someone doesn't understand how things are and what is meant by the spiprit and the letter of the law.  Eye-roll

Banned topic.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)