Lefebvrists: the agreement is closer

[maryetal]

Veritatis used the word "legitimate" re: the products of Vatican II, if memory serves me.  Sadly I hear and understand what all of you are saying, but I don't hear anyone addressing the question of whether or not the actors are legitimate.  I believe there is ample proof that under at least two canon laws all of our popes since 1958 have been illegitimate along with a great many other upper echelon clergy.  That they were in fact excommunicants.  As such, none of their acts were valid under canon law 1331.  We are told that they can neither hold office nor make any acts of governance.  And by another pope we are told not to follow or obey them.

 

So you have the schism right there and not of our own making.  The really sad, even horrifying, part of this is just what Lumen said---we have been put in the unenviable position of the Protestants.  The sheep have no choice but to seek out the true shepherds from the false.  It would be a great help if someone were to cut to the bone of this by printing the pertinent laws and the evidence proving that these people have incurred excommunication--or any evidence clearing them of these charges. 

[fiatvoluntastua]

Shouldn't this thread be moved to the Wild West forum?

 

I wonder what is Catholic about an attitude thinks that it's polemics to speak out against the abandonment of evangelism, a rejection of Christ as King, and the disaster that is most Catholics' Sunday morning liturgy.  Seems to me that the real Catholic attitude is grave concern about these things, the Council that spawned them, and the Pope who is advocating for or condoning them. 

 

It's not a desire to be seperated from Rome (and we're not, anyways) but a grasp on reality to acknowlege the fact that this pontificate has shown no signs of a move towards Tradition.

[lumengentleman]

I believe there is ample proof that under at least two canon laws all of our popes since 1958 have been illegitimate along with a great many other upper echelon clergy.

Nope, not gonna go there.  This isn't the right forum for that debate anyway.  Suffice it to say that if it a novelty of Modernism to sift the documents of an Ecumenical Council and decide which parts one will keep and which parts one will ignore, it is also a novelty (unless you count Martini Luther) to take current papal teachings in one hand, Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma in the other, and declare the pope to be a heretic.

 

If we're serious about stopping a "regime of novelty" here, we cannot take up the weapons of novelty and expect to succeed.

[VoxClamantis]

 This isn't the right forum for that debate anyway.  Suffice it to say that if it a novelty of Modernism to sift the documents of an Ecumenical Council and decide which parts one will keep and which parts one will ignore, it is also a novelty (unless you count Martini Luther) to take current papal teachings in one hand, Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma in the other, and declare the pope to be a heretic.

Martini Luther? Oh, lawzy, don't make that guy an Italian! But if that was a Freudian slip, I have gin and vodka. Take your pick.

[lumengentleman]

I wonder what is Catholic about an attitude thinks that it's polemics to speak out against the abandonment of evangelism, a rejection of Christ as King, and the disaster that is most Catholics' Sunday morning liturgy.

 

 

"Polemics" is the word (or a variation thereof) that was used in the 1988 protocol which Ratzinger drew up and Lefebvre was supposed to sign.  Nobody pretends that these arguments are not polemical.

 

What is Catholic about this, you ask?  I would agree ... we should speak out against the "abandonment of evangelism," against the "rejection of Christ the King," and against disasterous liturgies.  What is un-Catholic is blaming all of these ills on an Ecumenical Council and a Church-approved Mass; again, our Tradition does not leave room for criticizing an Ecumenical Council, nor does it allow us to hold that the Church can produce a dangerous liturgy.

 

It's not a desire to be seperated from Rome (and we're not, anyways) but a grasp on reality to acknowlege the fact that this pontificate has shown no signs of a move towards Tradition.

 

Well, again, this is begging the question and not getting to the heart of the matter; in particular, this statement presumes that true "Tradition" is currently not in the possession of Rome, but is possessed somewhere else or by someone else.  It's the logic behind such statements as "Rome must return to Tradition before the SSPX will reconcile"; excuse me for finding such a sentiment a little more than troubling.  If Rome lost Tradition - if She could lose Tradition - then I need to find another indefectible Church, because the Catholic Church obviously doesn't fit the bill.

 

The argument I'm hearing here actually is very close to what Landmark Baptists argue: the one true faith has passed from one group to another throughout history, but it has always existed untarnished, and wherever it has existed, there has been the "true Church."  That is what seems to be implied by saying that Rome has lost Her guardianship of Tradition, that the SSPX now fills that role, and the Church must "return" to that which the SSPX is currently preserving.

[maryetal]

OK, so which is the correct sub-forum to bring this up in. 

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

Wild, Wild, West

 

[Marty]

Food Drink and Tobacco

[lumengentleman]

Martini Luther? Oh, lawzy, don't make that guy an Italian! But if that was a Freudian slip, I have gin and vodka. Take your pick.

 

 

You know what?  I'm leaving it in there just the way it is.  It was a Freudian slip.  I need a Martini; the only true "glory of the Olive."

[gladius_veritatis]

Nope, not gonna go there.  This isn't the right forum for that debate anyway. 

 

'However, I am just gonna go there anyway, making my little debate-like comments...'

 

Suffice it to say that if it a novelty of Modernism to sift the documents of an Ecumenical Council and decide which parts one will keep and which parts one will ignore, it is also a novelty (unless you count Martini Luther) to take current papal teachings in one hand, Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma in the other, and declare the pope to be a heretic.

 

'And, for my final "supposedly not going there" comment, ...'

 

If we're serious about stopping a "regime of novelty" here, we cannot take up the weapons of novelty and expect to succeed.

 

Jacob,

 

Is this what you call "not going there"?   If so, it is a rather "novel" approach to doing so.