Lefebvrists: the agreement is closer

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

You are a modernist. You have a view of Papal infalability and Catholic obedience which does not correspond with those held by Catholics for the last 2000 years.

 

I think what you meant to say was, "Your a modernist. You have a view of Papal infallibility and Catholic obedience which does not correspond with those held by the Society of St. Pius X for the last thirty some years." Give me a break, If modernism is believing in the Catholic Doctrine of Obedience to the Roman Pontiff than you would be right. The SSPX have conceived their own doctrine on infallibility and obedience that allows the laity to privately judge and resist anything they don't agree with that comes out of the mouth of the man they hold to be the Vicar of Christ on earth. If Jacob is a modernist than so is every other Catholic for the last 2,000 years.

 

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).- Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull: Unam Sanctam

 

 ‘It would not seem permitted for any private person on his own authority to resist and not obey the Pope’s directives, however much these would contradict a Council’s decision.’ This is correct. For it would be a great act of irreverence and near-contempt for supreme authority if anyone were allowed to act towards a Pope in a way that would not be permitted towards a bishop, whose directive (however unjust) one may not disobey on private authority.”- Vitoria, De Potestate 22, Obras, 485

[M_Fidelis_Faustus]

As an unbiased (as much any human being can be) and usually quiet observer, I have to say that it tickles me that, with how unassailable Lumen's arguments in this thread and others are, how logical he is, and how reasonable he is in raising and responding to objections here and in general, he is nevertheless attacked routinely with such easily disputable, illogical, and unreasonable arguments (not to mention childish name-calling). 

Thank you Lumen for consistently and impressively elaborating on what many reasonable traditional Catholics feel but cannot explain as well as you are able to.  But I suppose I'm just a MODERNIST! They're lurking everywhere--even in the most seemingly traditional of chapels and internet forums! 

 

I find it sad that even when a tradational Catholic finds a forum of his peers - people with whom, he would assume, he might be able to relate and commiserate, and try to become holy, and the like - he cannot fully enjoy it, because even on this forum and similar ones (angelqueen comes to mind) he cannot escape judgement, generalizations, condemnations, assumptions, etc.  It seems like many on this forum rarely give others the benefit of the doubt, when it's places like this that we should be MOST willing to do so.

[AMDG]

As an unbiased (as much any human being can be) and usually quiet observer, I have to say that it tickles me that, with how unassailable Lumen's arguments in this thread and others are, how logical he is, and how reasonable he is in raising and responding to objections here and in general, he is nevertheless attacked routinely with such easily disputable, illogical, and unreasonable arguments (not to mention childish name-calling).  

Let's take a deep breath. Lumen is a layman and no more authoritative than you or me.

[Daniel]

Lumen

 

If I meant suspicion or inatention to detail, that is what I would have written. These are not my words, they are yours. I said interest and that is what I meant, despite what you had hoped I meant.

 

As for backing up what I have said, anyone can scan back over this thread and compare what you have said about obedience  with the article I posted.

Implying that I should be man enough to retract any of it makes me laugh. I did not publicly accuse you of being a heretic. If I did I would have used a word like........heretic, for example and did not. You have displayed a view of obedience which is in keeping with modernism and I will not retract it.

 

The Catholic Religion certainly is "my religion" and I would hope it was something everyone here would say. Once again you have clearly chosen to misinterpret my words. This was no freudian slip.  

 

As for what the Church has taught anywhere in history, I would say the details are contained in the article I posted previously and I'll stick with it.

 

It is common knowledge that the Arch Bishop signed that document reluctantly. You fail to grasp the stress and pressure felt by an old man who really only wanted to retire but found himself almost exclusively defending the Faith of our Fathers. His reluctance to sign it is common knowledge. You use of this is nit picking. Nit picking to prove a point is not a good look. It is also spreading falsehood about a very pious and saintly gentleman.

 

Ourladyofconsolation06

 

"I think what you meant to say was................."

 

This is the sum total of almost all of your posts. Time after time you intentionally misinterpret other peoples posts to suit your anti SSPX axe grinding agenda. If you've got something to say, say it. Don't pretend that someone else has said it for you when this is just not true.

 

If I meant to say........... I would have actually said it. What I meant to say is what I actually said. Perhaps that is something you might like to give some consideration as you do it over and over and over again.

 

M Fidelus Faustus

 

Being able to articulate a point well does not make you correct in what you say. The novus ordo, sede vacantists, and all others have people on their side that are well able to support their positions verbally.

 

Dominus Tecum is a great example of that. He takes up very little cyber space compared to Lumen yet is able to counter his arguements with consumate ease. The same could be said for Matthew. At the end of the day they are the ones that are showing obedience to the Faith as it was handed to them.

[Varus]

Come on! "Anti-SSPX agenda"?

Give me a break!!!!    When reading through Lumen's posts, there is not a single one pointing in that direction. On contrary, he points out possible dangers to the SSPX position, which certainly is "abnormal." Otherwise, it would be "normal", which it isn't.

 

I remember a certain fellow who stood up with Father MacMahon (correct me if I spell it wrongly) and publicly fought against what is wrong in the church. That is more than probably most of the rest of us have done!

Don't call people names!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please realize that the orthodox territory is rather wide.

 

 

 

 

 

Lumen

 

If I meant suspicion or inatention to detail, that is what I would have written. These are not my words, they are yours. I said interest and that is what I meant, despite what you had hoped I meant.

 

As for backing up what I have said, anyone can scan back over this thread and compare what you have said about obedience  with the article I posted.

Implying that I should be man enough to retract any of it makes me laugh. I did not publicly accuse you of being a heretic. If I did I would have used a word like........heretic, for example and did not. You have displayed a view of obedience which is in keeping with modernism and I will not retract it.

 

The Catholic Religion certainly is "my religion" and I would hope it was something everyone here would say. Once again you have clearly chosen to misinterpret my words. This was no freudian slip.  

 

As for what the Church has taught anywhere in history, I would say the details are contained in the article I posted previously and I'll stick with it.

 

It is common knowledge that the Arch Bishop signed that document reluctantly. You fail to grasp the stress and pressure felt by an old man who really only wanted to retire but found himself almost exclusively defending the Faith of our Fathers. His reluctance to sign it is common knowledge.

 

Ourladyofconsolation06

 

"I think what you meant to say was................."

 

This is the sum total of almost all of your posts. Time after time you intentionally misinterpret other peoples posts to suit your anti SSPX axe grinding agenda. If you've got something to say, say it. Don't pretend that someone else has said it for you when this is just not true.

 

If I meant to say........... I would have actually said it. What I meant to say is what I actually said. Perhaps that is something you might like to give some consideration as you do it over and over and over again.

 

M Fidelus Faustus

 

Being able to articulate a point well does not make you correct in what you say. The novus ordo, sede vacantists, and all others have people on their side that are well able to support their positions verbally.

 

Dominus Tecum is a great example of that. He takes up very little cyber space compared to Lumen yet is able to counter his arguements with consumate ease. The same could be said for Matthew. At the end of the day they are the ones that are showing obedience to the Faith as it was handed to them.

[gladius_veritatis]

With all of the dismissals, promotions, and general re-arranging of the ecclesial "chess board" in Rome over the last several months, I have to say that Ratzinger/Benedict appears to have a definite, long-term strategy in mind - and I really think the SSPX is part of that strategy, or could be part of it, if they choose to be.

I have no doubt he has a plan - and a detailed one at that.

 

I noticed you said you go to an SSPX chapel.  I was wondering if you know how your local bishop feels about that, or do you trust him enough to have asked ask him?

[gladius_veritatis]

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.

You may (or may not) be surprised, but I believe this is an accurate statement, Jacob. 

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

This is the sum total of almost all of your posts. Time after time you intentionally misinterpret other peoples posts to suit your anti SSPX axe grinding agenda. If you've got something to say, say it. Don't pretend that someone else has said it for you when this is just not true.

 

Did I misinterpret something? Fact: The Church teaches that one must submit to the Roman Pontiff. Fact 2: The Church and it's Vicar cannot give error or evil. Fact 3: The Society of St. Pius X disobeys and rejects both of these. You said Jacob was a modernist (hereitc) because he has "a view of Papal infalability and Catholic obedience which does not correspond with those held by Catholics for the last 2000 years." You provided an article on "True" Catholic Obedience which teaches the Society's view on obedience which is "I will only obey what is in line with Tradition", and we all know that almost anything that come's out of Rome these days isn't in line with Tradition.

 

I would love to be able to just nod my head and obey every time the Pope opened his mouth but unfortunately, due to the things he says I can not obey and adhere to my religion at the same time.

 

So the Pope doesn't practice your religion?

 

 I would have actually said it. What I meant to say is what I actually said. Perhaps that is something you might like to give some consideration as you do it over and over and over again.

 

It's not what you said, it's what you meant.

 

Time after time you intentionally misinterpret other peoples posts to suit your anti SSPX axe grinding agenda.

 

I like how when someone in any way criticizes the SSPX they get the "You got an axe to grind" post in response. You might want to get a new catchy accusation because our axes are all grinded away.

 

 I did not publicly accuse you of being a heretic. If I did I would have used a word like........heretic, for example and did not. You have displayed a view of obedience which is in keeping with modernism and I will not retract it.

 

Ughhh, yes you did.

 

You are a modernist.

 

Do you think Pope Pius X would have made people take an oath against it if it wasn't a heresy.

[Daniel]

 

 

Did I misinterpret something? Fact: The Church teaches that one must submit to the Roman Pontiff.

 

When he speaks infalably on matters of Faith and Morals.

 

 

Fact 2: The Church and it's Vicar cannot give error or evil.

 

When speaking infallably on matters of Faith and morals

 

Fact 3: The Society of St. Pius X disobeys and rejects both of these.

 

Not when their meaning is truely understood they don't.

 

You provided an article on "True" Catholic Obedience which teaches the Society's view on obedience which is "I will only obey what is in line with Tradition", and we all know that almost anything that come's out of Rome these days isn't in line with Tradition.

 

The view of obedience held by the SSPX is the view of obedience held by Catholics for 2000 years and yes, you are right, not much coming from Rome these days is in keeping with Tradition and this is a very sad reality.

  

So the Pope doesn't practice your religion?

 

This is a good question, which unfortunately I don't think anyone here can answer with any great certainy. It certainly looks, sounds and feels different. Perhaps in essence it is not. I guess I'll have to wait until I die to be sure. Untill then I will show the Pope obedience on matters which do not contradict the Faith as Catholics always have and, of course continue to pray for him daily, which is more than can be said for people who have adjudged him not to be Pope. I guess when you have 15 of your own Popes you have no need for a dodgy one.

 

I like how when someone in any way criticizes the SSPX they get the "You got an axe to grind" post in response. You might want to get a new catchy accusation because our axes are all grinded away

 

If you continually misinterpret other people and force feed your own words in to their mouths, don't be surprised to see someone making the call with equal continuity. If your axe is all ground away it is obvious you have found the time to replace it. If you continually do it. It should be safe to assume that it will be continually noticed.

 

Do you think Pope Pius X would have made people take an oath against it if it wasn't a heresy.

 

Possibly not.

[lumengentleman]

...he is nevertheless attacked routinely with such easily disputable, illogical, and unreasonable arguments (not to mention childish name-calling).

Well, I appreciate your saying so - but I do my fair share of dishing it out, too.  Living through a Church crisis like this tends to make some of us a bit cranky.

Let's take a deep breath. Lumen is a layman and no more authoritative than you or me

Amen to that.  But then again, isn't that my whole point?  That only the Church (the Pope and Magisterium) has any authority in these matters anyway?

As for backing up what I have said, anyone can scan back over this thread and compare what you have said about obedience  with the article I posted.

Somehow I figured that would be the response.  I'll take that as an implicit vindication.

Implying that I should be man enough to retract any of it makes me laugh.

Then you have an odd sense of humor.

I did not publicly accuse you of being a heretic. If I did I would have used a word like........heretic, for example and did not.

Ah.  So a Modernist is not a heretic?  What odd breed of Traditionalist are you? 

Now, this is just my Modernist attachment to the popes speaking, but I seem to remember St. Pius X saying that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies; therefore, if I am a Modernist, this means I represent the sum total of all the heresies.

I think that pretty much makes me a heretic.

You have displayed a view of obedience which is in keeping with modernism and I will not retract it.

Ah, yes.  So easy to make gratuitous assertions; so difficult to back it up with substance.

Let me do a little tit-for-tat here, and match your gratuitous assertion with one of my own:  nuh-uh.

The Catholic Religion certainly is "my religion" and I would hope it was something everyone here would say.

Actually, what I meant is what Ourladyofconsolation clearly understood: you stacked "my religion" up in contrast to the religion of the Pope.  Are they not the same religion?

As for what the Church has taught anywhere in history, I would say the details are contained in the article I posted previously and I'll stick with it.

I asked two very specific questions, neither of which are answered by that rather lengthy article you posted.  So if you ever come up with answers to those questions, by gum, you let me know.

It is common knowledge that the Arch Bishop signed that document reluctantly.

Spare me.  Now you're going to tell me the poor old Archbishop was just too weak and stressed out, and he didn't really mean it when he agreed to work at reconciling Vatican 2 with Tradition? 

It is also spreading falsehood about a very pious and saintly gentleman.

On the contrary, I would think that saying he agreed to statements he didn't really accept is a bit more of a smear on his piety and sanctity.  But by all means, say what you will - you're making a great case for your cause.

Dominus Tecum is a great example of that. He takes up very little cyber space compared to Lumen yet is able to counter his arguements with consumate ease.

Speaking of taking up too much cyberspace ... maybe next time you could just provide a URL instead of posting all 5 pages of an article?

The same could be said for Matthew.

Matthew's cool.  He at least engages the points, supplies relevant quotes, answers specific questions, etc.  You might take a few pointers.

At the end of the day they are the ones that are showing obedience to the Faith as it was handed to them.

Assert, assert, assert, and never support a thing.  Are you going to answer my two questions or not? 

1) Where has the Church handed on the teaching that a layman can reject the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, or condemn them as being in error? 

2) Where has the Church handed on the teaching that the Church Herself can give the faithful all over the world a liturgy that is harmful to souls?