Posted on 09/20/2005 10:26:43 AM PDT by NYer
Of course not everyone would agree with this statement of yours, I do, but I am curious why you hold this to be true. What reasons do you have for believing the SSPX is a "strong orthodox order", and what do you think that they do differently that causes them to be strong and orthodox as compared to other orders that you think are not "strong and orthodox"? Just curious.
*Yes. My goal is, other than what I already posted, to act like a Traditionalist rather than to label myself a Traditionalist while acting like a liberal because actions speak louder than words
It seems to me, that the Pope's goal is to achieve reunion, or fuller communion, or however one wants to describe getting the SSPX back into a regular (in both senses) relationship with the Vatican. In that sense, yes I do have a different response: I trust and endorse, and imitate, the Pope's approach.
* I also trust the Pope and when my prayers he would be elected where answered I was delighted and as a Catholic Traditionalist I will, of course, accept any and all decisions taken by the Pope. That is what we Catholic Traddies have always done :)
But, I can't imitate the Pope because he is acting the diplomat in those negotiations with the sspx and I am not. And, I am not sure what the intent of the Pope is. I am sure of what the intent of tghe sspx is
Do you only try and correct the behavior of those in union with Rome? I am sure I haven't read all of your posts but, off the top of my head, I don't recall any posts directed at those in the schism telling them to quit attacking the Pope, the Magisterium, The Council, and the Mass because that is guaranteed to frustrate all attempts at an agreement while continuing to endanger the souls held captive by the schism? Or, is it only the Faithful who must be silent?
For what it is worth, I don't think the Pope is going to spend too much time on this schism. It is clear to me (I can't speak for the Pope) this schism is permanent and I want no part of these schismatics being welcomed back into the church corporately unless they first publicly renounce their many hersies and antisemitism. The worst thing that could happen is to invite them back into the church. That is an invitation to more mayhem and madness and the turmoil which follows every Council is subsiding. We have turned a corner and are headed for relatively smooth sailing and steering the Barque of Peter into the teeth of the Category 5 Schism will only bring more upheavel, destruction, and unhappiness.
The Schism wants no reunion. The Schism goes to Rome seeking surrender. Period. The Pope, I am confident, knows this.
Of course I pray for individual reconversions..
* It is the Catholic Church, not a Schism from the Catholic Church, which is correct. And, yes, I agree your inability to distinguish which is correct is unfortunate although I don't recall any posts from you suggesting the schism is wrong in its scandlaous behavior and charges against Pope, Council,and Mass, so, maybe you really are less conflicted than you think?
"It is the Catholic Church, not a Schism from the Catholic Church, which is correct."
Yes, but the question is, who is in schism: the Mahoneys of the Church, or those who hold to tradition as it was before the Modernists gained so much power?
"although I don't recall any posts from you suggesting the schism is wrong in its scandlaous behavior and charges against Pope, Council,and Mass"
Perhaps if you gave me an example.
"God's genius at allowing evil in order to bring about a greater good is awesome."
Absolutely, but I'd get a lot more sleep if I had a script.
Q: What is the Catholic Church?
A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
10 Q: Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?
A: The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.
11 Q: Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church?
A: Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thee shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever the shallot loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." And again: "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."
12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
13 Q: How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?
A: From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
14 Q: Why is the Church called One?
A: The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.
...............
"although I don't recall any posts from you suggesting the schism is wrong in its scandlaous behavior and charges against Pope, Council,and Mass"
Perhaps if you gave me an example.
* I was asking you for an example of when you corrected the schims's supporters
That's a catechism, and it doesn't (in the section you posted) deal with such matters as heretical or schismatic priests or popes. I very much doubt that Saint Pius X would agree that Mahoney should be obeyed when commanding endorsement of the abomination of sodomy.
"I was asking you for an example of when you corrected the schims's supporters"
Actually, what you said was that you hadn't seen an example, so I asked you for an example of something that needed correcting. If you give me such an example, I'll address it--tomorrow. I'm on Yokohama time.
Vatican II has both Pastoral and Dogmatic documents. The documents on the the Church, and Divine Revelation are dogmatic. The documents on the Formation of Priests and the Modern World and the like are Pastoral. The documents on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism are a mix of dogma, prudential policy, and pastoral guideance.
Archbishop Lefebvre and Co. are liberals in ecclesiology and discipline - picking and choosing on this topic just like the rest.
I will paste the final paragraph below:
Il faudra faire admettre aux autorités romaines que nous ne pouvons suivre sans de sérieuses restrictions l’interprétation que l’on donne du concile et l’œcuménisme tel qu’il est pratiqué. Au fond, ce que nous espérons, c’est de faire comprendre un jour la raison d’être de la Tradition.
Here is how I would translate it:
It is necessary to get the Roman authorities to admit that we cannot follow without serious restrictions the interpretation given the council or ecumenism as practiced. Beneath it all what we hope is someday to make understood Tradition's raison d'etre.
If I were to regard this as merely a restatement of a general opposition to notions such as those expressed in Dei Verbum 8 and Sacrosanctum Concilium 21, would I be far off?
Freepnet Neo-Catholics notwithstanding, the liberal Bishops (98% of American Bishops will go into Schism if the the SSPX is allowed back or if any sort of universal Indult is granted.
The chances of Pope Benedict XVI getting murdered are getting very high at this point. Better double up on the Swiss Guard ... I think his days are numbered.
It does not mean "to get the Roman authorities to admit" but "An admission must be made to the Roman authorities"--a somewhat indirect way of saying, "we have to make it clear to the Roman authorities".
Dear aposiopetic,
Your translation seems roughly the same as what my own admittedly rudimentary efforts would bring about.
However, I wouldn't translate it as, "...to get the Roman authorities..." I'd still go with, "...to make the Roman authorities...," as that's actually the more straightforward translation. But there are nuances that I may well be missing. I haven't communicated regularly in French for over 20 years.
As to what Bernard Fellay is referring, I'd only be guessing.
However, I find this statement of his to be somewhat alarming:
"Then Benedict XVI pointed out that there can only be one way of belong to the Catholic Church: it is that of having the spirit of Vatican II interpreted in the light of Tradition, that is in the intention of the Fathers of the Council and according to the letter of the text. It is a perspective that frightens us greatly…"
To me, this suggests that even interpreted in the light of Tradition, the Council is generally to be rejected. Else, why would it frighten him? I sense a little more than a quibble with this or that specific problem with some of what came from the Council, and more of a rejection of the Council, per se.
That saddens me, in that I don't believe that the Catholic Church will reject an Ecumenical Council, and if that is a requirement for the return of the SSPX to the Catholic Church, then sadly, I believe that the schism will be permanent.
sitetest
You've got to be kidding. SSPXers give as good as they get. All the vituperation should cease but to portray the SSPX as poor little victims is ridiculous. Invective has been part of the Lefebvrist movement from the start.
LOL, like the neos aren't picking and choosing which things by which particular Popes to believe...
Physician, heal thyself.
I'll try to make this easy for you dsc; the group that is holding to the 19+ centuries of tradition and are perplexed at what happened to the Church in the last forty years are the ones in schism*. The ones who have NOT done anything that the Pope would excommunicate them for, right up to spending diocesan donations on a homosexual lover are the ones in union with the Church. I mean come on, this isn't rocket science. As you can see by many posters on this forum, it's so simple to see the right and wrong. You must be willingly deciding to remain ignorant.
*The ordination of the four bishops was a schismatic act for which the church blessedly used her rightful authority. The traditions of the church are not the reasons why they are excommunicated.
A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
Do you believe this? Just curious.
But I thought this whole thing was all about Obedience to the Pope. You can't be serious!
If you think that has happened you have no reason to be Catholic. Pick a sect that makes you feel comfortable
I believe everything and I believe nothing
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.