Posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer
Agreed! Some, as you well know, are holier than the pope.
The Church could make very good use of the SSPX because it is a strong orthodox order that will be solicitous for the salvation of souls and the glory of God.
Quite true! However, the SSPX must eventually come to grips with VCII, and its dissent with the teaching authority of the Church. THAT will be the greatest challenge.
"Now I'll probably be accused of being arrogant."
Oh, sooner or later. It's a standard ploy.
So true.
Excuse me?
"Excuse me?"
I'm hoping that's a translation problem, and what he means is using the force of reason.
And don't expect Fellay to dress Williamson down for his hateful antisemitism. The society will conctinue to become eeven more insane having gulped the hate-the-Jews kool aid
the sspx is a quintessential liberal outfit. It choses when to accept or reject authority; it chooses what doctrines to accept and what doctrines to reject; it is the quintessential liberal cafteria catholic outfit; it is different from other liberal outfits because it hides its liberalism beneath the Thurible's smoke.
Fellay labelling the mass evil (that's debatable?) is only one of many heresies he must repent of.
Whatever.
*I watch the sspx savagely attack the Body of Christ.I know the sspx has caused those weak in Faith to abandon their fidelity to their Confirmational promises/ duties and to break with the Church Jesus established. I know how that endangers their immortal souls.
*I wonder how silence or timidity in the face of savage attacks is "successful" in winning back souls for Christ. I rather think it might convince onlookers of the "justice" of this schism and further erode the Faith and confidence of Christians in union with Rome that the Church Jesus established has not apostasized and been taken over my Satan's henchmen.
*It is Tradition that silence in the face of evil is complicity.
*In any event, I don't delude myself I am the instrument of the Holy Spirit in re reconversion. That is solely the action of the Holy Spirit. I imitate the Early Church Fathers in their reaction to schism. They didn't suffer silently the savage, hateful and public attacks against she they loved. In my neck of the woods, silence or inaction in the face of savage attakcs against loved ones is considered, well, unmanly.
*I am one of the few on here who acts like a Traditioanlist when it comes to a schism. Read your Bible. Read the Early Church Fathers; read what they said to schismatics
Ranting used to give me pleasure. It didn't actually accomplish anything, but it did give me the pleasure of hearing my own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.
*Mike, I hope it really isn't your arguement the Early Church Fathers were acting out of ego-gratification not love for Holy Mother Church.
*One acts like as Christian not because one can see tangible results in his lifetime. One acts like a Christian because he is a Christian; and it is Christian to publicly and forcefully stand in opposition to those attacking his Church. As to experiencing pleasure in defending one's Faith, is that now sin?
* I have yet to publicly take to task those who don't act like Traditionalists in the face of a schism but I have been taken to task for acting like a Traditionalist in the face of a schism. It is rather odd that timidity, pacificism, and silence is now thought a useful approach towards schism.
* Maybe the critics of the Church who claim the Church in the West has been "feminized" to such an extent that the female values of compromise and non-confrontationalism now so predominate and, subsequently, weaken men that the Church in the west is in mortal peril are more right that they imagine.
Once in a while, it attracted to me people who also loved hearing their own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.
Now I'll probably be accused of being arrogant.
* Brother mike, I don't know you but from reading your posts I'd have to say you are a very knowledgeable and intelligent man but there is no doubt we see things differently when it comes to a Christian response to schism.
"but I have been taken to task for acting like a Traditionalist in the face of a schism"
When Russia was a monarchy, the communists were in rebellion against the government. Then the communists became the government. According to the reasoning you are using here, to rebel against the communist government would have made one a communist.
You simply refuse even to acknowledge the argument that the SSPX's disobedience to some men who occupied high office in the Church, and used that power to damage the Church, is loyalty to the higher authority.
"I wonder how silence or timidity in the face of savage attacks is "successful" in winning back souls for Christ. I rather think it might convince onlookers of the "justice" of this schism"
I never even heard of the SSPX before I came to FR. Tabula rasa, no knowledge, no opinion.
It was watching the vicious ranting of its detractors and the calm, measured responses of its defenders that first piqued my interest in the controversy. It was clear which side was acting like liberals.
Unfortunately, seven years down the road, I'm not any closer to seeing which side is correct.
There are very strong arguments in support of the necessity of Lefebvre ordaining bishops. On the other hand, this episode hasn't played out yet, and may not in my lifetime, so I just don't know.
One thing I am sure of, though: the vituperation of some of the society's detractors does a lot to create sympathy for them, and little or no harm to them.
The Catholic Church is unique and we know from the promises of Christ it cannot fail.
Dear aposiopetic,
In the French, it reads, "Il faudra faire admettre aux autorités romaines..."
It's been a lot of years since I took French, but "faudra" is one of the future tenses of a verb that translates as "to be necessary" or "must." "Faire" is "to do," or when combined with other verbs, it can mean "is" (As in, "Il fait chaud," "It is hot," literally, "It does hot."), or also translates at times, "to make [something happen]," or "to cause," when used in conjunction with another verb, as it is here, with "admettre." "Admettre" is the verb "to admit."
So, I'd string it together as roughly, "It is necessary to make [the Roman authorities] admit..."
I think that to translate it as "force" might be a little strong, but there may be idiomatic reasons for it of which I'm blithely unaware. But I think it's reasonable to say "to make admit."
sitetest
"The Catholic Church is unique and we know from the promises of Christ it cannot fail."
In the end, it will be victorious. That doesn't mean that there won't be battles along the way. And we have certainly seen that it in no way guarantees against bad bishops and even bad popes.
You are not the only one. Many defenders of the SSPX have been contacted privately by lurkers for just those reasons.
One thing I am sure of, though: the vituperation of some of the society's detractors does a lot to create sympathy for them, and little or no harm to them.
God's genius at allowing evil in order to bring about a greater good is awesome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.