Those who prefer the Indult
#31
Immaculata001 Wrote:

What percentage of Catholics, would you say, are monarchists?




Even if I could answer this question, and I'm sure it's a fairly small percentage, what would that prove? What percentage of Catholics are traditionalists? Truth is not determined by majority vote. Nevertheless, from the French Revolution until after World War I, Europe's faithful Catholics overwhelmingly did identify with monarchism. Prior to the French Revolution, a monarchist consciousness in the modern sense was not necessary, because Catholics (like everyone else) simply accepted that monarchy was part of the natural order.






Quote:Constitutional Republicanism was not a rebellion against the Church, in this country, but a rebellion against the English monarchy...


Actually in a sense the American Revolution was a rebellion against the Catholic Church. Christopher A. Ferrara explained this in his excellent article "Rebels Without A Cause" (The Remnant, May 15, 2006).



Chris Ferrara Wrote:The Revolution was driven at its core by its radical leaders' hatred of the remnants of Catholic social order as represented by a monarchy allied to an established Church. ... As John Adams argued, America was meant "for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth," including Catholic Europe, but unless the colonists united against the Stamp Act "there would be established in [America] the same civil and ecclesiastical tyranny from which men had freed themselves by the Protestant Reformation."



Immaculata001 Wrote:This most damning edictment of monarchism is its complete incapacity for self-reform...

Nonsense. The monarchies of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain have shown themselves to be endlessly adaptable, perhaps too much so from a traditionalist perspective.
Reply
#32
Quote:
What percentage of Catholics, would you say, are monarchists?
 
Who cares? This question could be easily manipulated. If you'd asked it 200 years ago you would have gotten a very different answer from what you'd get today.
 
Bummer
Reply
#33
Quote:This most damning edictment of monarchism is its complete incapacity for self-reform...
 
This is rubbish. Queen Isabel of Spain TOTALLY reformed the Monarchy (with the help of King Ferdinand) after her half-brother Enrique IV had totally destroyed it. (One of the things he did was ride around with a bodyguard of Muslims, and encouraged Muslim expansion into Spain). Perhaps one of the greatest reforms of any Monarchy was the one that Isabel gave Spain during her reign. In fact this reform included kicking the Muslims and Jews out of Spain, [Image: ani_clapping.gif][Image: cheerleader.gif]and funding Columbus' expedition to discover THIS country.
 
Bummer
Reply
#34
Immaculata001 Wrote:

The SSPX has good hierarchy, orthodoxy, and orthopraxy, but I would definitely agree with this point...


In the talks of the reconciliation with Rome, it seemed to me that people in their hierarchy are proudly clinging to their irregular status, as a means of self-definition and a litmus test which, IMHO, is the hallmark of schism, and has nothing to do with what the Archbishop had in mind.


It might, rather, be that Fellay betrays the goals of Lefebvre, and eventually will attempt to sell out the society. There's been the suggestion of that, already. They've apparently elected him for a reign of many years, which itself suggests an unbalanced and confused situation at the top. I doubt with him at the helm that the society will last that long in its present state. He will inevitably attempt to embrace the 'new order', and some will split away, even if they have to seek out new properties.



The problem faced by the SSPX, obviously, is the sense that they compromise with error, with something which is foreign to Catholicism. It's said they approve the new canon law, which itself it quite problematic. It's said they are unsure about the validity of the consecration in the 'new church'. They also confess the legitimacy of Benedict, and of course therefore are not sedevacantist. For my part, that would not prevent me from attending, nor receiving the Eucharist, nor going to Confession, nor receiving any Sacrament from the SSPX - nor has it prevented me from doing so. But I also understand, at least, the unease some have with this; with the doubt and uncertainty of the SSPX. But such are the times, and open-ended questions. And I agree with their fear and worry over Fellay heading the organization.


Lefebvre himself seemed to have mixed opinions, one way one minute, another the next. Perhaps it's the symptom, repeated by Davies and others, of attempting to compromise with a leftism that understands only conquest and total victory as a goal. It's difficult to know what to think, in these times. But I like to think Lefebvre would have approved the SSPV, which he tossed off from himself, had he lived to 2006, and that the SSPX would not be a foe of theirs, but an eager ally to spread Catholicism far and wide as Catholics were once eager to do.

Reply
#35
To accuse Bp. FEllay of selling out is a gross rumour, gossip and calumny. He will not accept anything but what Abp. Lefebvre demanded, and even more. Abp. Lefebvre accepted Vatican II "in the light of tradition", but Bp. Fellay demands to retain the right to criticism and official Dubia.
 
The SSPX is not "uncertain". Uncertainty would be seeking no regularization from Church authorities one recognizes and instead remaining in a vagant state so many have been in and eventually succumbed to (e.g. sedevacantists, even if they cannot be compared to the independent Catholics and the Old Catholics).
Reply
#36
1. As HMiS said, it's gross calumny to accuse the SSPX of "selling out," or whatever. Somebody I know has been reading too much of Traditio's confused rantings. Bp. Fellay has made it clear many times (I heard it from his mouth myself at the Winona ordinations this June) that any contact with Rome is not for "sell out" or "reconciliation," (he is not stupid, he sees what happened to Campos!) but rather to convert Rome to tradition, something that is very much necessary in our times. He wants reunion (as should we all!) but only when Rome preaches orthodoxy, not heterodoxy, giving us bread and milk, rather than stones and poison.
 
2. I would merely point out to Immaculata that most of her "Ideals of Catholicism" are both not canonized, and are relatively modern-day examples. Therefore, it's certainly not inconceivable that they succumbed, in some way, to either Americanist ideals, or to the modernism which has been festering in the Church for these last couple of centuries. On the other hand, all of the glorious "rightist saints" which she appears to disfavor came from eras and locales that were completely Catholic, and had been so for centuries. Therefore, as repellant as some of their ideas might seem in our tolerant and "enlightened" time, they are nonetheless quite true and ought to be recognized as such by everyone.
 
Remember, if truth and error are placed on an equal plane, truth will not always win out. It will usually be swallowed up by the error and eventually die, due to man's fallen nature and his tendency to embrace Original Sin. In our time, the faith itself is under attack from all sides. Heresy is rampant. My town should ideally be 100% traditional Catholic, yet in this city of 4,000 people, I am quite alone in the Holy Faith. Consequently, for all of us, keeping the faith is a constant battle, and naturally figures more prominently than it has in other times. St. Francis of Assisi, for example, was by practicality far more concerned with succoring the poor and combatting abuses within the Church and his wholly Catholic society than he was with preserving the Apostolic Faith in its entirety, because he lived in a time when God's wisdom decreed that the faith should for the moment be largely inviolate. We are called not only to do what he did, as best we can, but also to hold onto our very faith and preserve it, as well.
 
 
Reply
#37
DominusTecum Wrote:

1. As HMiS said, it's gross calumny to accuse the SSPX of "selling out," or whatever. Somebody I know has been reading too much of Traditio's confused rantings.

Rather it is "gross calumny" to accuse the authors at traditio.com of "confused rantings".

They spotted the 'secret meetings' before these happened. They alerted the rest of the SSPX to what was going on, and not many were thrilled.


DominusTecum Wrote:

Bp. Fellay has made it clear many times (I heard it from his mouth myself at the Winona ordinations this June) that any contact with Rome is not for "sell out" or "reconciliation," (he is not stupid, he sees what happened to Campos!) but rather to convert Rome to tradition, something that is very much necessary in our times.

He's going to convert the 'new church', is he?

Then why doesn't he put in the time to convert its parishioners? I don't hear a peep from the SSPX attempting to go into that mission field. If he wishes to actively convert, he needs to act the part.


DominusTecum Wrote:

He wants reunion (as should we all!) but only when Rome preaches orthodoxy, not heterodoxy, giving us bread and milk, rather than stones and poison.

The complaint that apparently those in the SSPX have with Fellay is that he wants "reunion", regardless of "milk" and "stones".


DominusTecum Wrote:

Remember, if truth and error are placed on an equal plane, truth will not always win out. It will usually be swallowed up by the error and eventually die, due to man's fallen nature and his tendency to embrace Original Sin.

Thus the questions with Fellay, correct, unless he is somehow immune?



Why you give him the benefit of the doubt, after what he has done, I don't know. Do you believe that his re-election 'for life', or a very long time, somehow is vindication? Do you believe he enjoys much support among various SSPX priests and faithful?

You mentioned, even ridiculed, traditio.com. But you forget to mention what they said:


"The TRADITIO Network called it once again. As we previously reported, the fix was in, and Bernard Fellay managed to appoint enough electors to get himself elected on July 11 to a virtual dictatorship over the Society of St. Pius X for 24 years! By this act he turned his back on the example of Archbishop-Founder Marcel Lefebvre, who was prudent enough to step down after only one (already lengthy) 12-year term. By this act, Fellay has merely confirmed that the SSPX liberalist faction intends to retain its autocratic hold on what remains of the Archbishop's original group. Not even St. Francis presumed to control the Franciscans for a quarter of a century!

Unlike the experienced Archbishop, Fellay was hardly out of diapers at age 4 when Vatican II commenced. It only remains to be seen whether internal forces will start disintegrating the SSPX, which already suffered one major schism in 1985 when some of the SSPX's best priests left to form the more traditional Society of St. Pius V. It is no secret that a number of SSPX priests are not happy with the autocratic and "cultish" direction of the Society under Fellay's management and/or with Fellay's recent approaches to become part of the New Order at Rome."

[LINK]

Reply
#38
Sevry wrote:
 
Quote:
Rather it is "gross calumny" to accuse the authors at traditio.com of "confused rantings".
 
and then posted this:
 
Quote:
The TRADITIO Network called it once again. As we previously reported, the fix was in, and Bernard Fellay managed to appoint enough electors to get himself elected on July 11 to a virtual dictatorship over the Society of St. Pius X for 24 years! By this act he turned his back on the example of Archbishop-Founder Marcel Lefebvre, who was prudent enough to step down after only one (already lengthy) 12-year term. By this act, Fellay has merely confirmed that the SSPX liberalist faction intends to retain its autocratic hold on what remains of the Archbishop's original group. Not even St. Francis presumed to control the Franciscans for a quarter of a century!

Unlike the experienced Archbishop, Fellay was hardly out of diapers at age 4 when Vatican II commenced. It only remains to be seen whether internal forces will start disintegrating the SSPX, which already suffered one major schism in 1985 when some of the SSPX's best priests left to form the more traditional Society of St. Pius V. It is no secret that a number of SSPX priests are not happy with the autocratic and "cultish" direction of the Society under Fellay's management and/or with Fellay's recent approaches to become part of the New Order at Rome."

 
[Image: laff.gif][img]/images/boards/smilies/rofl.gif[/img][Image: laff.gif][img]/images/boards/smilies/rofl.gif[/img][Image: laff.gif][img]/images/boards/smilies/rofl.gif[/img]
 
Contradiction of the year so far. Better than Hogan's Hero's and Faulty Towers put together.
 
 
Reply
#39
I really am of the opinion in some of these debates that we have receded to the 1960's and are revisiting the hot issues of that decade.
 
The SSPX poses a problem to Catholics because they attempt to stand firm against the excesses of the past 40 years and in so doing force us to undo what our parents accepted as a newage Catholicism. And I don't think that we really have the collective will to do so. The vast majority of Catholics can now say that something went wrong but it was this or it was that but it was not self-indulgence. We want to keep the "fun" of the new in the old Catholicism.
 
I honestly don't think that can be done. Rock music is anathema to Catholic senses. Television undermines the Church. Feminism destroys the family structure. Etc. Are they intrinsically evil? Even if they weren't they should be avoided because our priests tell us that it is better to do without them than trust our fallen nature to their exposure because they can at least be a near occasion of sin.
 
Am I content as a woman with being called intellectually inferior to the male? If that is what it takes to save my soul by reminding me of my place and God's plan for His creatures then yes. Whatever do we think when we pray for the virtue of humility. "Yes, but not that humble." Hmm.
 
At some point in our existance this reality will all fade away: no TV, rock music or parties. We will be ultimately where we have willed ourselves to be: Heaven or Hell. The Society maps out a strategy to get to Heaven - where we were created to be: the Sacraments and a life of self-denial. That is the description of Holy Mother Church throughout the ages. Each age brought its own pleasures remember whether it was a fabulous court life or testing the black waters of the occult and perverse practices. In each age Catholics had recourse to the Sacraments and a life of self-denial to overcome these temptations. Ours is really no different from any age.
 
Each day, no matter how difficult, I can't help but thank God for supplying His flock with these priests who are willing to face the hostility of even their fellow Catholics in order to serve their Master Jesus Christ.
 
~In JMJ
 
 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)