SSPX leader calls Jewish people ‘enemies of the Church’
#41
(01-05-2013, 10:43 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Quote from: Vox
There's that sloppy language again:  "accept Vatican II." That says and means nothing. Accept what about Vatican II? These things need to be laid out very clearly and succinctly. Sloppy talk like that gets us nowhere.

Well, it lacks precision but I think if you consider the state of most Catholic churches, "communities" and dioceses, I think it's pretty obvious that "accepting" VII means implementing it's practices and errors.  What's the difference between the society and your average diocese, besides liturgy?  The dioceses are the ones that hold interreligious prayer services, advertise rallies for religious freedom, and reinforce the errors of VII collegiality via the USCCB.  That is what changed in Catholic dioceses after the council, and that is what didn't change in the society.

I don't think it all "obvious" that "accepting Vatican II" means implementing what goes on in the "average diocese." There is a huge difference between the documents of Vatican II and "the spirit of Vatican II" which some allege allows for anything. Vatican II has no "practices," and its "errors" are a question of fact; some say the Councils documents contain error, some say they don't and cannot but that the documents are ambiguously written and have been abused for revolutionary purposes, and the debates go on among people who are Latinists and theologians and far more educated in these matters than you or I.

(01-05-2013, 10:43 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The NO program "officially" considers the TLM and NO to be on the same plain, so theoretically the mass is not the issue for them when dealing with the society.  It's doctrine.

There's no doubt that what is being taught by too many in the human element of the Church now is not doctrinal. But it's still a question of fact as to whether these are because of the documents of Vatican II in themselves or "the spirit of Vatican II", which is why talk of rejecting or accepting "the Council" is meaningless until the documents are clarified once and for all.
Reply
#42
I only wish Bishop Fellay had said this years ago. I would have been spared the wasted time praying for their corporate return to the Church, which will never happen. I also find that he goes hot and cold in a very bizarre way, and I am not surprised that a more unified personality like Bishop Williamson would have had problems with his leadership.
Reply
#43
Is there word yet that verifies this as an accurate and true quote?
Also, has a further statement that clarifies or denies this quote been issued?
Reply
#44
(01-05-2013, 11:04 PM)maldon Wrote: I only wish Bishop Fellay had said this years ago. I would have been spared the wasted time praying for their corporate return to the Church, which will never happen. I also find that he goes hot and cold in a very bizarre way, and I am not surprised that a more unified personality like Bishop Williamson would have had problems with his leadership.
+Fellay is one person and his beliefs are certainly solid and fixed. It is the Church (in her human element on earth) that is not united.
Reply
#45
(01-05-2013, 07:01 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 12:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: If the NO is deficient in some respect, and I believe that it is, then it would not be incorrect to say that there are evils in the NO where particular goods are lacking...

I think this is his point. I agree that perhaps he could have qualified it by saying "containing" evil; but, then again, there is a big difference between the claim that something which is by nature defective contains evil and the claim that something which is by nature indefectible contains evil. The latter is somewhat of a paradox, I think. The Church, being indefectible, cannot admit of any evil in her public liturgical activity; for it is by the Church's public liturgical, legal, and doctrinal activity that she proves herself to be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic and manifests her divine origin to the world. A church whose institutional activity admitted of any measure of evil in any of these marks of material visibility would prove false its claim to be of divine origin.

It is inconceivable that the spotless Bride of Christ could give her faithful a Mass containing any measure of evil, and, in this case, containing a significant measure of evil. If the Church is spotless, as Christ promised she would be, then she proves it through the institutional--that is: disciplinary, doctrinal, and liturgical--means by which she sanctifies and communicates with her members. The foundational principle for this certainty is found in Scripture itself (cf. Matthew 7:9-11) and expounded by the theologians throughout the ages. To claim on the one hand that she is spotless and on the other that she can give us any measure of that which is unholy is to claim that she is only spotless in theory but not in practical reality.
The Church is immaculate in Her Essence Which is basically God. Your understanding of the Church is woefully mistaken. It is the true and real Church who sins when her members, Catholics, sin. The true Church in her human element on earth can be covered with blemishes. In fact this is often the commentary that the Saints put on our Lord's words on the Cross: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
Reply
#46
(01-05-2013, 10:10 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 10:43 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Quote from: Vox
There's that sloppy language again:  "accept Vatican II." That says and means nothing. Accept what about Vatican II? These things need to be laid out very clearly and succinctly. Sloppy talk like that gets us nowhere.

Well, it lacks precision but I think if you consider the state of most Catholic churches, "communities" and dioceses, I think it's pretty obvious that "accepting" VII means implementing it's practices and errors.  What's the difference between the society and your average diocese, besides liturgy?  The dioceses are the ones that hold interreligious prayer services, advertise rallies for religious freedom, and reinforce the errors of VII collegiality via the USCCB.  That is what changed in Catholic dioceses after the council, and that is what didn't change in the society.

I don't think it all "obvious" that "accepting Vatican II" means implementing what goes on in the "average diocese." There is a huge difference between the documents of Vatican II and "the spirit of Vatican II" which some allege allows for anything. Vatican II has no "practices," and its "errors" are a question of fact; some say the Councils documents contain error, some say they don't and cannot but that the documents are ambiguously written and have been abused for revolutionary purposes, and the debates go on among people who are Latinists and theologians and far more educated in these matters than you or I.

This is all a bit of a red herring.  There was a Second Vatican Council, and the overwhelming majority of the Catholic world has interpreted it is as this "Spirit of VII" as you call it.  Whether or not this spirit is inspired by the actual documents isn't actually relevant to the topic (for the record, I would say this spirit derives it's power from the council and leave it at that, I know most would disagree) because your question was what "accepting VII" means as a demand from the "regular" part of the Church to the "irregular" part of it.  It is obvious that most of the Catholic world believes in these errors (three main ones: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality) which are all addressed in the council, and the council is cited as the source for these teachings by the USCCB and from the pulpit.  Again, in terms of understanding the demands of the conciliarists to the traditionalists, whether or not the council documents themselves are in error is beside the point, because the majority of Catholic leaders believe that these errors are "truths," that they were taught at the council, and that they must be accepted in order for one to be a full member of the Church.

Catholics might think that VII was completely orthodox and free from error, that doesn't change the fact that everyone from the top to the bottom, with very, very few exceptions has accepted those three errors as teachings of the Catholic Church.  They are de facto teachings of the council, as far as the clergy is concerned. 





(01-05-2013, 10:10 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 10:43 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The NO program "officially" considers the TLM and NO to be on the same plain, so theoretically the mass is not the issue for them when dealing with the society.  It's doctrine.

There's no doubt that what is being taught by too many in the human element of the Church now is not doctrinal. But it's still a question of fact as to whether these are because of the documents of Vatican II in themselves or "the spirit of Vatican II", which is why talk of rejecting or accepting "the Council" is meaningless until the documents are clarified once and for all.

Again, it can be deduced from reality that the conciliarsits mean accepting those three errors (and all that follows) when they demand acceptance to the council.  They are wrong, of course (that these errors must be obeyed) and maybe they are wrong that the council taught them, but it's a matter of fact that the human element of the Church regards the council to have taught these errors-- they just don't believe them to be errors.  Or don't care.  Out of curiousity, what scholars and theologians and latinists are you waiting for to clarify the council "once and for all?"  Did the Church suddenly run out of them after VII?  Virtually every "regular" Catholic clergyman holds these errors, and holds them because he believes the council taught them.  Where are these scholars and theologians that are to set everything straight?  Have they not been the ones interpreting the council for years already?  What about the popes?  The power of the papacy dwarfs any theologian or scholar.  They're just there to help apply the doctrine and do intellectual exercises.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#47
(01-06-2013, 02:47 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: This is all a bit of a red herring.  There was a Second Vatican Council, and the overwhelming majority of the Catholic world has interpreted it is as this "Spirit of VII" as you call it.  Whether or not this spirit is inspired by the actual documents isn't actually relevant to the topic (for the record, I would say this spirit derives it's power from the council and leave it at that, I know most would disagree) because your question was what "accepting VII" means as a demand from the "regular" part of the Church to the "irregular" part of it.  It is obvious that most of the Catholic world believes in these errors (three main ones: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality) which are all addressed in the council, and the council is cited as the source for these teachings by the USCCB and from the pulpit.  Again, in terms of understanding the demands of the conciliarists to the traditionalists, whether or not the council documents themselves are in error is beside the point, because the majority of Catholic leaders believe that these errors are "truths," that they were taught at the council, and that they must be accepted in order for one to be a full member of the Church.

Catholics might think that VII was completely orthodox and free from error, that doesn't change the fact that everyone from the top to the bottom, with very, very few exceptions has accepted those three errors as teachings of the Catholic Church.  They are de facto teachings of the council, as far as the clergy is concerned. 

It isn't a red herring at all; it's a very important question, especially since, with the SSPX, the very question is a matter of "accepting Vatican II." Those words have to mean something in order for the question "Should we accept Vatican II" to be answered with any accuracy and meaning. And it's a big question as to whether the Council did, in fact, teach error (through its documents) and whether it even can teach error.

Second, I don't think it's the case that"everyone from the top to the bottom, with very, very few exceptions" has accepted the three errors you mention.  I think the exceptions are more numerous than you think. The Council's documents mean something; determining that meaning, their level of authority, and whether those meanings are consistent with Tradition and, therefore, whether they can be accepted have to be done in order for talk of "accepting" or "rejecting" the Council to have any meaning whatsoever. 

Third, saying, for ex., "I'm against clown Masses so I, therefore, reject Vatican II" makes no sense because Vatican II didn't push for clown Masses. IOW, what's gone on in the human element of the Church either comes directly from the documents or it doesn't, and that is why what I say in the previous paragraph is important. Chalking up all the problems, from clown Masses to sacrilege that stems from CITH to altar girls, to "Vatican II" just because it's convenient shouldn't cut it for people who take the religion seriously -- especially Bishops and priests. I mean, we're talking about the Faith here; logic and correctness are pretty important. Such a thing is in no way "beside the point"; they are the very point in question as to whether the SSPX should "accept Vatican II" and be reconciled or not.


(01-05-2013, 10:10 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Again, it can be deduced from reality that the conciliarsits mean accepting those three errors (and all that follows) when they demand acceptance to the council.  They are wrong, of course (that these errors must be obeyed) and maybe they are wrong that the council taught them, but it's a matter of fact that the human element of the Church regards the council to have taught these errors-- they just don't believe them to be errors.  Or don't care.  Out of curiousity, what scholars and theologians and latinists are you waiting for to clarify the council "once and for all?"  Did the Church suddenly run out of them after VII?  Virtually every "regular" Catholic clergyman holds these errors, and holds them because he believes the council taught them.  Where are these scholars and theologians that are to set everything straight?  Have they not been the ones interpreting the council for years already?  What about the popes?  The power of the papacy dwarfs any theologian or scholar.  They're just there to help apply the doctrine and do intellectual exercises.

I don't think it can be "deduced from reality" that "conciliarists" (whatever that means exactly) mean that one has to accept the three errors you mention in order to "accept Vatican II." I've never seen it spelled out that way. Maybe such things are laid out in that preamble Bishop Fellay wrote about, but I've not seen any such thing laid out myself anywhere.

I never said that there are "scholars and theologians and latinists that are to set everything straight." I intimated that there should be. What is needed, IMO, is total clarification as to what the Council's documents mean, what their level of authority is, and so on so we can know what the deal is and so the meaningless, sloppy talk about "accepting" or "rejecting" " Vatican II" will stop and meaningful conversation can be had.
Reply
#48
What I find HEEFREAKINLARIOUS about this whole thing is Bishop Fellay expelled Bishop Williamson for being "anti-semitic" and now he has de facto labeled himself anti-semetic by saying this.  :LOL:  The SSPX needs a real leader. Fellay is so wishy washy he could be a New Church prelate.
Reply
#49
Vox, if I went to a typical NO mass today in Europe or North America, Australia and shared my view of Original Sin, Birth Control, the mass being a Sacrifice, Christ being a King, Sodomy being a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance, other religions being non salvic, error having no rights. Would the vast majority or a tiny minority of diocesean priests and laity agree with me?

If they did not agree what would they justify their enlightened thinking with?  What watershed moment would they refer to that made my views old fashioned or out of date?
Reply
#50
(01-06-2013, 06:57 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: What I find HEEFREAKINLARIOUS about this whole thing is Bishop Fellay expelled Bishop Williamson for being "anti-semitic" and now he has de facto labeled himself anti-semetic by saying this.  :LOL:  The SSPX needs a real leader. Fellay is so wishy washy he could be a New Church prelate.

I wouldn't go that far.

But for a man who called Williamson radioactive uranium he has certainly made a Fukishiming mess out of this whole debacle.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)