Speechless!!.
#11
(10-06-2012, 02:09 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 02:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 11:42 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This is, quite frankly, mind boggling. The SSPX is the largest trad group on Earth. A former apostolic delegate, seminary rector, and superior general of a large order, with years as a respected missionary, founded this order. Yet, according to the man who is responsible for maintaining Catholic orthodoxy, they're not worth wasting a breathe. Yet, animists, pagans, Buddhists, Muslims, all sorts of schismatics, and Anglican false clergy masquerading in episcopal robes are often invited to Vatican functions.

The head of the Greek schismatics even gets to participate in half of a liturgy every feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.


Something is not clicking here.

Hmmm.  So you're saying if the SSPX were invited to participate in half of a liturgy every feast of Sts. Peter and Paul and other Vatican functions they would attend?  Really?  So all the caterwauling about "Modernism" and "Conciliarism" and "Novus Ordoism" all boils down to being pissed about not receiving an invite?  Huh.  It's that simple.  Wow.

Is this a serious post?

It has nothing to do with scorned lover syndrome.  This wasn't brought up because the SSPX would like to attend Assisi IV.  It was brought up to highlight how Rome has no problem inviting Protestants even into its Mass, but acts like some stalwart of doctrine and practice that cannot even engage with the Society at this point unless they accept the entire premise of the post-Conciliar Church.  Do the Protestants?

Come on, Doc.  You're an intelligent guy.  It's hard for me to believe you aren't purposefully twisting this when the point is so obviously completely different than what you're saying it is.

Rome is a stalwart of doctrine and practice.  The Deposit of Faith resides in Rome I must inform you, not Econe. 

I prefer to point out rank hypocrisy and logical inconsistency whenever I see it.  I feel it's my duty. If the SSPX is part of the Catholic Church (and I believe they are) then what prots do or don't do is not a valid comparison since prots don't claim that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff.  We don't obey only when we agree with our superiors.  We obey in all things not contrary to morals.
Reply
#12
Did I hear right?

The head of the Holy Office [CDF] say that the Church has more in common with Protestsnts, than the FSSPX, and we should not worry about the Prots??!!!
Reply
#13
(10-06-2012, 02:27 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 02:09 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 02:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 11:42 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This is, quite frankly, mind boggling. The SSPX is the largest trad group on Earth. A former apostolic delegate, seminary rector, and superior general of a large order, with years as a respected missionary, founded this order. Yet, according to the man who is responsible for maintaining Catholic orthodoxy, they're not worth wasting a breathe. Yet, animists, pagans, Buddhists, Muslims, all sorts of schismatics, and Anglican false clergy masquerading in episcopal robes are often invited to Vatican functions.

The head of the Greek schismatics even gets to participate in half of a liturgy every feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.


Something is not clicking here.

Hmmm.  So you're saying if the SSPX were invited to participate in half of a liturgy every feast of Sts. Peter and Paul and other Vatican functions they would attend?  Really?  So all the caterwauling about "Modernism" and "Conciliarism" and "Novus Ordoism" all boils down to being pissed about not receiving an invite?  Huh.  It's that simple.  Wow.

Is this a serious post?

It has nothing to do with scorned lover syndrome.  This wasn't brought up because the SSPX would like to attend Assisi IV.  It was brought up to highlight how Rome has no problem inviting Protestants even into its Mass, but acts like some stalwart of doctrine and practice that cannot even engage with the Society at this point unless they accept the entire premise of the post-Conciliar Church.  Do the Protestants?

Come on, Doc.  You're an intelligent guy.  It's hard for me to believe you aren't purposefully twisting this when the point is so obviously completely different than what you're saying it is.

Rome is a stalwart of doctrine and practice.  The Deposit of Faith resides in Rome I must inform you, not Econe. 

I prefer to point out rank hypocrisy and logical inconsistency whenever I see it.  I feel it's my duty. If the SSPX is part of the Catholic Church (and I believe they are) then what prots do or don't do is not a valid comparison since prots don't claim that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff.  We don't obey only when we agree with our superiors.  We obey in all things not contrary to morals.

But you're still missing the point.  Why does the Church see no scandal in having intimate relationships with those who reject the Church and Her teachings (especially in a time when the vast majority of the world does this), but it suddenly becomes above cross-theological dialogue when it comes to groups which even you admit are a part of the Church.

The SSPX doesn't need to submit to the Holy Father any more than Protestants do.  If he's truly the Holy Father and submitting to him is truly required to be fully Christian then that goes for everyone, not just the SSPX.  

And the thing is, you know what I'm talking about.  Rome treats the Society like a naughty boy while it treats everyone else like co-heirs in the work of Christ.
Reply
#14
Yep! watch the video from GloriaTV News that I posted!.  He says in his interview with the National Catholic register that the SSPX want to live in a sort of "frozen tradition". I guess the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox also want to live in a "frozen tradition". Hence why Byzantine or Coptic Chant hasn't been replaced with guitar music or the priest facing the people during the Divine liturgies. Or the Eastern deacons dancing up the aisle twirling around with 21st century looking icons raised high. But according to him we have more in common with the protestant heretics than the Orthodox or the SSPX.  Here is another interview with him and the NCR (National Catholic Register).

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/arc...-fortress/   (Part 1)

Quote from article:  " But if it does present such a comprehensive view of ecclesiology, why are there groups such as the Society of St. Pius X who want to stick to “frozen tradition,” as it were, rather than come into full communion? Does this suggest errors in this comprehensive vision?

We have breakaway groups, not only on the traditionalist wing, but also on the liberal wing. I think that some have developed sets of ideas, which they have formed into an ideology, and then they judge all things in the context of this one set of ideas. The traditionalists, for instance, focus heavily on the liturgy. But we cannot say that there is only one form in which the liturgy can be celebrated, that the extraordinary form is the only form of the Mass (You mean Roman Rite). We also cannot change the content of the holy Mass — it’s the same content — but some elements of the liturgy have developed  (LA Liturgical Congress Development.  ). We have had a lot of rites, Roman, Byzantine, etc., and all are valid, and all have had a certain growth." (True but they have a problem with the Ordinary form of the Roman Rite)

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/arc...-writings/  (Part 2)





Reply
#15
Amazing!. Not sure what to think anymore!.
Reply
#16
(10-06-2012, 02:41 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 02:27 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 02:09 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 02:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-06-2012, 11:42 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: This is, quite frankly, mind boggling. The SSPX is the largest trad group on Earth. A former apostolic delegate, seminary rector, and superior general of a large order, with years as a respected missionary, founded this order. Yet, according to the man who is responsible for maintaining Catholic orthodoxy, they're not worth wasting a breathe. Yet, animists, pagans, Buddhists, Muslims, all sorts of schismatics, and Anglican false clergy masquerading in episcopal robes are often invited to Vatican functions.

The head of the Greek schismatics even gets to participate in half of a liturgy every feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.


Something is not clicking here.

Hmmm.  So you're saying if the SSPX were invited to participate in half of a liturgy every feast of Sts. Peter and Paul and other Vatican functions they would attend?  Really?  So all the caterwauling about "Modernism" and "Conciliarism" and "Novus Ordoism" all boils down to being pissed about not receiving an invite?  Huh.  It's that simple.  Wow.

Is this a serious post?

It has nothing to do with scorned lover syndrome.  This wasn't brought up because the SSPX would like to attend Assisi IV.  It was brought up to highlight how Rome has no problem inviting Protestants even into its Mass, but acts like some stalwart of doctrine and practice that cannot even engage with the Society at this point unless they accept the entire premise of the post-Conciliar Church.  Do the Protestants?

Come on, Doc.  You're an intelligent guy.  It's hard for me to believe you aren't purposefully twisting this when the point is so obviously completely different than what you're saying it is.

Rome is a stalwart of doctrine and practice.  The Deposit of Faith resides in Rome I must inform you, not Econe. 

I prefer to point out rank hypocrisy and logical inconsistency whenever I see it.  I feel it's my duty. If the SSPX is part of the Catholic Church (and I believe they are) then what prots do or don't do is not a valid comparison since prots don't claim that they are subject to the Roman Pontiff.  We don't obey only when we agree with our superiors.  We obey in all things not contrary to morals.

But you're still missing the point.  Why does the Church see no scandal in having intimate relationships with those who reject the Church and Her teachings (especially in a time when the vast majority of the world does this), but it suddenly becomes above cross-theological dialogue when it comes to groups which even you admit are a part of the Church.

The SSPX doesn't need to submit to the Holy Father any more than Protestants do.  If he's truly the Holy Father and submitting to him is truly required to be fully Christian then that goes for everyone, not just the SSPX.  

And the thing is, you know what I'm talking about.  Rome treats the Society like a naughty boy while it treats everyone else like co-heirs in the work of Christ.

Are you going to treat your kids the same way you treat your neighbor's and friend's kids?  Of course not.  You can whack your kid upside the head when he or she misbehaves but try that with a friend's kids and you'll have a lawsuit or a punch in the nose from an angry parent.  

The SSPX are Catholic.  The Church is not going to treat them the same as outsiders.  The Lord chastises those he loves, as a wise man once said and so does the Church.  The SSPX should be flattered.

And anyway, if the Church is in such bad shape now, maybe it's best to just wait for a canonical agreement.  Getting in an uproar because some bishops say mean things is hardly worth the effort.  If the SSPX is doing God's work they'll be around for awhile no matter what some bishop says.
Reply
#17

Wow. That worked out very nicely. Sometimes it works that way. You make a statement, you get a response, and you drive the point home. All done in short, yet concentrated and meaningful posts by all involved.

Bombay is correct.
Reply
#18
Continuing DrBombay's analogy, it appears that the Church hugs and kisses the neighbors' kids (non-Catholics) much more than she does her own children (i.e. the SSPX).  That's pretty creepy.
Reply
#19
I doubt there will be any form of canonical agreement. Especially if the German Bishops threat of schism, if the SSPX are reconciled,  is true. We have absolutely no control over what will happen to the Roman Rite in the future. So why care anymore?!!. 
Reply
#20
(10-06-2012, 03:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Are you going to treat your kids the same way you treat your neighbor's and friend's kids?  Of course not.  You can whack your kid upside the head when he or she misbehaves but try that with a friend's kids and you'll have a lawsuit or a punch in the nose from an angry parent.  

The SSPX are Catholic.  The Church is not going to treat them the same as outsiders.

I think this analogy is very beautiful if it's taken as a way of 'making excuses' for what seems like bad behavior.  I like how personal it is, and sensible.  I hesitate to disagree with a Doctor, but Dr., don't you see the vast difference between how a father behaves with kids (his own, or other's) and how a pope behaves?  The former is usually not done in public, especially any admonishments.  The latter is not only almost always done in public, but is also done by the Supreme Head of the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation. 

But even by your own analogy, shouldn't the Holy Father be chastising the liberals in his own Church with just as much vehemence?  I think you agree he should be.  I'm just showing that your analogy isn't so good on this point.  Unless you're implying that the Holy Father already realizes that the liberals are the neighbor's kids and not his own.
Quote:The Lord chastises those he loves, as a wise man once said and so does the Church.  The SSPX should be flattered.

Well, I don't know if anyone should be flattered, but I agree strongly that it's best to suffer injustice patiently.  I think most of them do this already, but I guess we could all use some improvement in that area. 
Quote:And anyway, if the Church is in such bad shape now, maybe it's best to just wait for a canonical agreement.

Yes, it's best to wait.  It's hard when the Holy Father invites you to talk, though. 
Quote:Getting in an uproar because some bishops say mean things is hardly worth the effort.  If the SSPX is doing God's work they'll be around for awhile no matter what some bishop says.

That's for sure.  Some people seem to get into an uproar almost weekly, if not daily.  That's too much for me, at my age, but I probably would have been the same way if I'd been a trad at a younger age.

Dr., why do you yourself seem to get into an uproar over other people getting into same?  I'm going to imagine it's because it's your vocation to save them some wear and tear on their adrenalin glands, and heart.  Good work, Doctor!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)