CDF Müller: Catholics ought to avoid extremes
#61
(12-20-2012, 04:11 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 04:05 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 04:00 AM)Whitey Wrote: Here is what the pope said in the letter to the Bishops after he lifted the excommunications.

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

That's pretty much the bottom line. If the Society and Rome are to come to some sort of agreement, then both sides have to accept what the pope said there.

Muller said nearly the same thing here.

For the past 50 years, we've been told differently, that we are singing a new Church into being.

So now that we are finally seeing some in the Curia admit all is not well, and a pope who lifted the unjust excommunications, we are to ignore all of that and pretend it's too late and there is nothing left to do but hand the modernists Rome on a silver platter ?

Count me out. I don't have nerve enough to doubt Christ's promise.

One pope says the Council was a break with the previous Church, a new pope says the Council is in complete harmony with the Church.

Which is it? 

How can it be both?  It either is or isn't.
Reply
#62
(12-20-2012, 04:00 AM)Whitey Wrote: Here is what the pope said in the letter to the Bishops after he lifted the excommunications.

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

Thats all well and good, but there needs to be more concrete action from Rome showing that the entire doctrinal history is still in place. From where I am standing it looks like lots has changed.
Reply
#63
(12-20-2012, 04:30 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 04:11 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 04:05 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 04:00 AM)Whitey Wrote: Here is what the pope said in the letter to the Bishops after he lifted the excommunications.

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

That's pretty much the bottom line. If the Society and Rome are to come to some sort of agreement, then both sides have to accept what the pope said there.

Muller said nearly the same thing here.

For the past 50 years, we've been told differently, that we are singing a new Church into being.

So now that we are finally seeing some in the Curia admit all is not well, and a pope who lifted the unjust excommunications, we are to ignore all of that and pretend it's too late and there is nothing left to do but hand the modernists Rome on a silver platter ?

Count me out. I don't have nerve enough to doubt Christ's promise.

One pope says the Council was a break with the previous Church, a new pope says the Council is in complete harmony with the Church.

Which is it? 

How can it be both?  It either is or isn't.

My theory is they are trying to confuse the heck of of the remaining Catholics and scatter the flock. That is what it looks like to me.

If they destroy what scant credibility the Church has left, then increasing numbers of people will leave until the only people left will be the ignorant who cannot see the contradictions because they don't know or understand either the orthodox position or the modernist one.

Honestly I cannot see my children keeping the faith if this goes on.  A cold hard look at the Church of today shows something that has departed from its past and is rather embarrassed about it.  If the new religion is your bag and you like folk guitars then you can chose it from the many religions on offer.  But the Church can hardly claim credibility as a result of its longevity, or consistent teachings, when it has not been consistent and is to an objective and honest external observer a different religion with different beliefs.
Reply
#64
(12-20-2012, 07:18 AM)ggreg Wrote: My theory is they are trying to confuse the heck of of the remaining Catholics and scatter the flock. That is what it looks like to me.

If they destroy what scant credibility the Church has left, then increasing numbers of people will leave until the only people left will be the ignorant who cannot see the contradictions because they don't know or understand either the orthodox position or the modernist one.

Honestly I cannot see my children keeping the faith if this goes on.  A cold hard look at the Church of today shows something that has departed from its past and is rather embarrassed about it.  If the new religion is your bag and you like folk guitars then you can chose it from the many religions on offer.  But the Church can hardly claim credibility as a result of its longevity, or consistent teachings, when it has not been consistent and is to an objective and honest external observer a different religion with different beliefs.

I think the problem is a little different.  Many of the leaders in the Church just do not believe what you and I believe; they doubt.  To soothe their doubt, they have attempted to rationalize the beliefs so that they seem less miraculous.  It does not work.

The effort was tried in the past, famously by Ovid.  Augustus Caesar, whose census of the world had such impact on the holiday we're about to celebrate, was in the midst of a "family values" campaign in Rome.  Ovid's lifestyle put him rather on the wrong side of policy, and he attempted to placate the emperor by writing a poem that would exalt the gods.  The result was the Metamorphoses, which Christian monks assiduously copied and preserved, though the barbarians destroyed the civilized world around them.  Why did they preserve it?  Because the effort was a signal failure:  the poem actually made the gods look worse than the Romans Augustus was striving in vain to reform.  The result was comedic, except for Ovid.  The emperor was enraged, and banished Ovid to some barren pile of rocks in the Black Sea.

Freud famously derided religion as wish fulfillment.  Those were brave words, coming from a man who committed physician assisted suicide.  If he was wrong about Catholicism, his ideas are right when applied to Catholics who hope to make the religion less shocking by shearing away the mystery.  That is wishful thinking, of a very base kind.  They are sawing off the branch on which they perch, hoping the tree will fall instead. 

Your children, though, will believe because you believe.  They will believe because you will  teach them that the best Englishmen have all been Catholics.  Churchill was great, but not as great as King Richard.  Clive won an empire, but it was not worth having, nor as durable, as the realm won by William.  Oxfam is charitable, but 500 years hence, it will be forgotten, while Friar Tuck will still be remembered, even, I think, if the minarets cast their reflections in the Cherwell and the Cam, as in Gibbon's vision.  The best saints lived and died in the faith that you hold,  and your children will want to be numbered in that "white robed company" and not among the dispirited stragglers who largely run the Church today. 

Reply
#65
(12-19-2012, 07:40 PM)Nat682 Wrote: Has he ever cared to mention what "errors" the SSPX are in?  Old Salt, how does the SSPX tell the faithful to break the first precept of the Church (going to Mass on Sundays and HDOs)?

Dying Flutchman, this argument of "he said this, which is heresy, so he's a heretic, so he can't be Catholic, etc." is the same schismatic way of thinking used by sedevacantists to defend their position.  Speak respectfully about Church prelates, even if you disagree however strongly with things they say.
Their priests tell the faithful to miss Mass on days of Obligation if they cannot get to an SSPX Mass.
I have heard this first hand.
Reply
#66
(12-20-2012, 12:13 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(12-19-2012, 07:40 PM)Nat682 Wrote: Has he ever cared to mention what "errors" the SSPX are in?  Old Salt, how does the SSPX tell the faithful to break the first precept of the Church (going to Mass on Sundays and HDOs)?

Dying Flutchman, this argument of "he said this, which is heresy, so he's a heretic, so he can't be Catholic, etc." is the same schismatic way of thinking used by sedevacantists to defend their position.  Speak respectfully about Church prelates, even if you disagree however strongly with things they say.
Their priests tell the faithful to miss Mass on days of Obligation if they cannot get to an SSPX Mass.
I have heard this first hand.

I'm curious, did they say to miss Mass if no SSPX Mass was available or if no TLM was available?
Reply
#67
(12-20-2012, 12:13 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(12-19-2012, 07:40 PM)Nat682 Wrote: Has he ever cared to mention what "errors" the SSPX are in?  Old Salt, how does the SSPX tell the faithful to break the first precept of the Church (going to Mass on Sundays and HDOs)?

Dying Flutchman, this argument of "he said this, which is heresy, so he's a heretic, so he can't be Catholic, etc." is the same schismatic way of thinking used by sedevacantists to defend their position.  Speak respectfully about Church prelates, even if you disagree however strongly with things they say.
Their priests tell the faithful to miss Mass on days of Obligation if they cannot get to an SSPX Mass.
I have heard this first hand.

It's a situation that each priest makes his opinion known.  And it's relevant to the area.  If outright sacrileges are being committed at the only local Novus Ordos then, it's quite legitimate to tell someone to bag it.  If it's a matter of pick and choose, the priests will often say "make a visit" provided you don't feel you are endangering your faith. 

They will also tell you if you commit a mortal sin, better to go to a Novus Ordo priest for absolution during the week than to wait for an SSPX priest to show up on the weekend. 
Reply
#68
(12-20-2012, 12:13 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(12-19-2012, 07:40 PM)Nat682 Wrote: Has he ever cared to mention what "errors" the SSPX are in?  Old Salt, how does the SSPX tell the faithful to break the first precept of the Church (going to Mass on Sundays and HDOs)?

Dying Flutchman, this argument of "he said this, which is heresy, so he's a heretic, so he can't be Catholic, etc." is the same schismatic way of thinking used by sedevacantists to defend their position.  Speak respectfully about Church prelates, even if you disagree however strongly with things they say.
Their priests tell the faithful to miss Mass on days of Obligation if they cannot get to an SSPX Mass.
I have heard this first hand.

I have also been told this first hand, by an SSPX priest, that it's fine to just stay home and read the missal, if there's no SSPX Mass available (I asked him about it, since I was going on vacation). I think thst this is a common stance by SSPX priests.

Another even more extreme SSPX priest told me after I told him that I attended an Mass offered by an FSSP priest that I shouldn't attend, because they offer incense to moloch, since the Mass is of doubtful validity, due to thier ordination being doubtful (ordination of FSSP priests is doubtful validity). I think the more extreme priest's views are not that common, but it shows the nuttiness which does exist in the SSPX. Just an example of a couple of the many things which caused me to finally leave the SSPX chapel.
Reply
#69
(12-20-2012, 12:18 PM)Servulus Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 12:13 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(12-19-2012, 07:40 PM)Nat682 Wrote: Has he ever cared to mention what "errors" the SSPX are in?  Old Salt, how does the SSPX tell the faithful to break the first precept of the Church (going to Mass on Sundays and HDOs)?

Dying Flutchman, this argument of "he said this, which is heresy, so he's a heretic, so he can't be Catholic, etc." is the same schismatic way of thinking used by sedevacantists to defend their position.  Speak respectfully about Church prelates, even if you disagree however strongly with things they say.
Their priests tell the faithful to miss Mass on days of Obligation if they cannot get to an SSPX Mass.
I have heard this first hand.

I'm curious, did they say to miss Mass if no SSPX Mass was available or if no TLM was available?
They told us not to go to an indult TLM if it was available.
Only to go to SSPX Mass if it is offered, otherwise stay home and pray.

This might not be the case for all SSPX priests, but I heard it from more than two priests at the SSPX Mass I have been to.
Reply
#70
In South Africa, certainly, the SSPX has told its faithful never to attend a non-SSPX Mass, even a non-SSPX TLM, even if it is the only option for Sunday obligation purposes - not just "no Novus Ordo" but "no non-SSPX TLM".

We are told rather to go say the Rosary together and boycott the non-SSPX (approved) TLM.

Incidentally, we are visited in our home city at most twice a month (sometimes less). We have been told never to confess to non-SSPX priests. If conscious of mortal sin, we should rather make an act of perfect sorrow and wait for the next SSPX visit. This in a small diocese with several orthodox priests, ample confessional opportunities and three priests who regularly offer the TLM.

Makes one think...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)