Head of CDF on record: Four SSPX bishops should resign and close their seminary
#61
(07-05-2012, 06:59 PM)lumine Wrote: I'm not looking for someone to care what I think.  It is just quite ironic that so many people who consider themselves traditional Catholics hold the SSPX in higher regard than they do the papacy.

Why did you "papacy" and not the name of a particular Pope?
Reply
#62
(07-05-2012, 09:01 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(07-05-2012, 06:59 PM)lumine Wrote: I'm not looking for someone to care what I think.  It is just quite ironic that so many people who consider themselves traditional Catholics hold the SSPX in higher regard than they do the papacy.

Why did you "papacy" and not the name of a particular Pope?

For a few reasons.  There has been more than one man as pope who has dealt with Archbishop Le Febvre and the SSPX.  While the papacy is an office held by one man at a time, there are certain things that apply to the office of pope, no matte who it is.
Reply
#63
(07-03-2012, 06:59 AM)Adelbrecht Wrote: The 70's is calling, they want their Bishop back.

And they've even found a couple of baby blue leisure suits for him to wear!!! :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
Reply
#64
(07-06-2012, 12:25 PM)lumine Wrote:
(07-05-2012, 09:01 PM)Gerard Wrote: Why did you "papacy" and not the name of a particular Pope?

For a few reasons.  There has been more than one man as pope who has dealt with Archbishop Le Febvre and the SSPX.  While the papacy is an office held by one man at a time, there are certain things that apply to the office of pope, no matte who it is.

The plural of "Pope" isn't "papacy" it's "Popes."  There is obviously a difference between holding the office iin regard and holding the occupant of the office in regard. Read Fr. Ralph Wiltgen's "Rhine flows into the Tiber" and all of the quotes from LeFebvre show him defending the "papacy" at the council and warning that collegiality is a veiled attack against the "papacy." 

And here's one man who was Pope who had nothing but praise for LeFebvre.  [Image: Lefebvre-and-Pope-Pius-XII.jpg]
Reply
#65
Take it for what it's worth, but I read that Pope Pius XII sought to name Archbishop Lefebvre a Cardinal, but died before the next scheduled consistory.
Reply
#66
(07-07-2012, 10:17 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(07-06-2012, 12:25 PM)lumine Wrote:
(07-05-2012, 09:01 PM)Gerard Wrote: Why did you "papacy" and not the name of a particular Pope?

For a few reasons.  There has been more than one man as pope who has dealt with Archbishop Le Febvre and the SSPX.  While the papacy is an office held by one man at a time, there are certain things that apply to the office of pope, no matte who it is.

The plural of "Pope" isn't "papacy" it's "Popes."  There is obviously a difference between holding the office iin regard and holding the occupant of the office in regard. Read Fr. Ralph Wiltgen's "Rhine flows into the Tiber" and all of the quotes from LeFebvre show him defending the "papacy" at the council and warning that collegiality is a veiled attack against the "papacy." 

And here's one man who was Pope who had nothing but praise for LeFebvre.  [Image: Lefebvre-and-Pope-Pius-XII.jpg]

Gerard, I am referring to the office of pope, the papacy, no matter which man is pope at the time.  The SSPX talks out of both sides of it's mouth, claiming allegiance to the pope and yet directly disobeying whoever the pope may be at the time. It can't be both ways and it looks like the SSPX is realizing the consequences of their actions.....
Reply
#67
Yeah, the consequences of THEIR actions.  It's totally their fault that the pope just appointed a man whose mentor is a guru of liberation theology.

Totally.  Don't see how anyone could think otherwise.
Reply
#68
(07-08-2012, 04:48 PM)lumine Wrote: Gerard, I am referring to the office of pope, the papacy, no matter which man is pope at the time.  The SSPX talks out of both sides of it's mouth, claiming allegiance to the pope and yet directly disobeying whoever the pope may be at the time. It can't be both ways and it looks like the SSPX is realizing the consequences of their actions.....

It's not about "whoever" the Pope is.  It's about obeying or disobeying what the commands are.   There is no talking out of both sides of their mouth.  The SSPX is being consistent.  Just as the post-Vatican II Popes have been consistently liberal, consistently opposed to tradition, consistently trying to foist that bad egg of Vatican II down everyone's throat and no matter how much honey they mix in there with it , it's stil a rotten egg.  
As long as the rotten egg is there, the SSPX is going to spit it out.  If John Paul the first had developed a plan to restore the Church and do away with the Novus Ordo, do you think the SSPX would have resisted him in the way they have to resist the Popes that want to continue the auto-demolition of the Church?  If any subsequent Pope had made it his goal to restore the Church to tradition, do you think the SSPX would be resisting him or would the liberals who have been enjoying this demonic treat for the last 4 decades?  

You want the SSPX to be obedient?  Well, the Popes have to be obedient to the reality of the crisis in the Church and their responsibility in causing it through their failures in their duties as Pope Pius X warned.  

This insistence on obedience as a non-contingent virtue is actually perverse.  Obedience is contingent upon Justice and Charity, if either one of those is compromised by obedience, it must be suspended and the superior resisted.

Reply
#69
(07-08-2012, 05:30 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(07-08-2012, 04:48 PM)lumine Wrote: Gerard, I am referring to the office of pope, the papacy, no matter which man is pope at the time.  The SSPX talks out of both sides of it's mouth, claiming allegiance to the pope and yet directly disobeying whoever the pope may be at the time. It can't be both ways and it looks like the SSPX is realizing the consequences of their actions.....

It's not about "whoever" the Pope is.  It's about obeying or disobeying what the commands are.   There is no talking out of both sides of their mouth.  The SSPX is being consistent.  Just as the post-Vatican II Popes have been consistently liberal, consistently opposed to tradition, consistently trying to foist that bad egg of Vatican II down everyone's throat and no matter how much honey they mix in there with it , it's stil a rotten egg.  
As long as the rotten egg is there, the SSPX is going to spit it out.  If John Paul the first had developed a plan to restore the Church and do away with the Novus Ordo, do you think the SSPX would have resisted him in the way they have to resist the Popes that want to continue the auto-demolition of the Church?  If any subsequent Pope had made it his goal to restore the Church to tradition, do you think the SSPX would be resisting him or would the liberals who have been enjoying this demonic treat for the last 4 decades?  

You want the SSPX to be obedient?  Well, the Popes have to be obedient to the reality of the crisis in the Church and their responsibility in causing it through their failures in their duties as Pope Pius X warned.  

This insistence on obedience as a non-contingent virtue is actually perverse.  Obedience is contingent upon Justice and Charity, if either one of those is compromised by obedience, it must be suspended and the superior resisted.

Do people really believe that any pope is going to agree with the SSPX about Vatican II and that the Novus Ordo is going to be done away with? Really?
Reply
#70
(07-08-2012, 04:48 PM)lumine Wrote:
(07-07-2012, 10:17 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(07-06-2012, 12:25 PM)lumine Wrote:
(07-05-2012, 09:01 PM)Gerard Wrote: Why did you "papacy" and not the name of a particular Pope?

For a few reasons.  There has been more than one man as pope who has dealt with Archbishop Le Febvre and the SSPX.  While the papacy is an office held by one man at a time, there are certain things that apply to the office of pope, no matte who it is.

The plural of "Pope" isn't "papacy" it's "Popes."  There is obviously a difference between holding the office iin regard and holding the occupant of the office in regard. Read Fr. Ralph Wiltgen's "Rhine flows into the Tiber" and all of the quotes from LeFebvre show him defending the "papacy" at the council and warning that collegiality is a veiled attack against the "papacy." 

And here's one man who was Pope who had nothing but praise for LeFebvre.  [Image: Lefebvre-and-Pope-Pius-XII.jpg]

Gerard, I am referring to the office of pope, the papacy, no matter which man is pope at the time.  The SSPX talks out of both sides of it's mouth, claiming allegiance to the pope and yet directly disobeying whoever the pope may be at the time. It can't be both ways and it looks like the SSPX is realizing the consequences of their actions.....

"All the intermediaries through which faith comes to us are above suspicion. We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles, as Mark (16:20) says: '…and confirming the word with signs that followed.' And we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Truth, Vol. 2, Questions X-XX, Question 14, Article 10, Reply, Answer 11


Do we have to list all the things recent Popes have accepted in Vatican 2 that departs from what the apostles and prophets have left in their writings? Our obedience to the Pope is limited and is measured with obedience to faith and tradition.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)