Sspx-Judgment Day, Sept 14

[MithLuin]

Look at the document, and then look at the previous declarations used to counter it. The document acknowledges that Muslims are monotheists. It doesn't say they 'got it right' - clearly, as Christians, we think they are quite wrong. But even the popes from the 1300's and 1400's knew that what was to be condemned was the reverence for [i]Mohammed[/i], the false prophet. Where do they say that the worship of Allah is the worship of a false god?

I think that when studying the Vatican II document on other religions, it's very important to do so in the context of [url=http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html]Dominus Iesus (1999)[/url]. Here, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarifies what is and is not meant by this document, and affirms that not all religions are equally good. In fact, the same congregation has been busy condemning Catholic theologians who have suggested that in the years since the Council.

I realize that for many traditionalists, Vatican II was the licence people took for an 'anything goes' approach to the Catholic faith. But in reality...that spirit of rebellion was present long before the Council and will have to be dealt with for some time to come. Lefebvre saw that there were rebels at the Council, and this deeply disturbed him. Fair enough. I do not agree with the actions he took as a result of this, nor do I think he 'got it right' while the Council was all wrong. The Church (in all ages) is in constant need of renewal. The apostles spent years with Jesus, and Peter, James and John saw him transfigured on the mountain...but still, in the garden, Jesus had to ask them, 'Could you not keep watch one hour with me?' So...work for renewal and vigilance at the same time


[b]Bernard[/b], language is a living thing. There will always be new words. If you study modern Spanish, don't expect to be able to pick up [i]Don Quixote[/i] and understand it as easily as a modern novel. We need footnotes to understand Shakespeare. But yes, Catholic priests are still called priests. If they are a pastor of a parish, they can be called pastor, but when addressing them, we say 'Father' as we always have.

[vee]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316269487' post='2305820']

No traditionalist I know thinks they are leaving the Church.
[/quote]

Well they are.

[vee]

Mithluin

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316269487' post='2305820']

No traditionalist I know thinks they are leaving the Church. I believe the Church has been hijacked and sabotaged and the faithful who stay there (in the Novus Ordo) are being led into apostacy. These VII documents are not the only reason I attend the SSPX, its everything, the new mass, the weird spaceship churches, the effeminate priests. I mean when I was home in Canada last year my mom said oh you don't call him a priest anymore there is a new name for him, can't remember the name. I want the same mass that all the other Catholics up until the 1960s had. Plus this weird Orwellian language, ordinary form, extraordinary form. How can the mass of all time be the "extraordinary form."
Why all these new names and new translations?
[/quote]

i find you being a Canadian more disturbing than you being a follower of the SSPX

[vee]

Canadians are just disturbing in general

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316269487' post='2305820']

No traditionalist I know thinks they are leaving the Church.
[/quote]

Neither do the womynpriests.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1316246238' post='2305773']
Also as a general rule of thumb, I think that if a Council CAN be read in the light of tradition then that is the way it MUST be read, that is as long as one wants to take seriously the notion that Christ has guided the development of and protected his Church over the last 2000 years and continues to do so.
[/quote]
Indeed, and this is the hermeneutic of continuity. HOWEVER, let us be clear, the intention of some of the Council Fathers was not one of continuity. For this reason there may be some problems within the Council itself, which it appears the 2 page preamble given to the SSPX will allow the SSPX to criticize.

here's a snippet from a 1927 book about ecumenical councils:
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2011/08/berry-ecumenical-councils-are-not.html

[Papist]

benard, I am not asking you to answer these here, but just to reflect on. Are you certain you have the interpretation of the documents correct? Are you reading those documents honestly or with a prejudice that the documents already state would you think?

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316017195' post='2304605']
Quick question to the general phatmasses: Would anyone here consider attending an SSPX chapel regularly if/when they get regularized?
[/quote]

I would definitely consider it, depending on my location. I find the average Novus Ordo parish to be too irreverent, un-serious, and heterodox to justify attending regularly. Of course, your mileage may vary.

[bernard]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1316281393' post='2305883']
benard, I am not asking you to answer these here, but just to reflect on. Are you certain you have the interpretation of the documents correct? Are you reading those documents honestly or with a prejudice that the documents already state would you think?
[/quote]

My reasons for attending traditional parishes stem mainly from the destruction of the mass which can be established quite easily by comparing the old rite and the new rite and by looking at the man who created the new mass, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. I don't have timee to dig up everything I've read on Vatican II but two things come to mind in regard to what I posted earlier.

1. The Church, historically, has always been very clear and in what it teaches. A good example of what I mean is PIUS XI's encyclical on marriage (Casti Connubi). After reading the encyclical I had a very clear idea of what was expected of me as a Catholic husband as there was no room for misinterpretation. Since Vatican II however, everything is vague and ambiguous. Many of the documents can be interpreted as liberal to one group and conservative to another. I think it was done by design giving the authors plausible deniability, ie "it wasn't intended to be interpreted this way or that way." Regardless if it was by design or not, if it is being widely misinterpreted then obviously it wasn't clear and unambiguous enough to begin with and should be abandoned.

2. John Paul II held an interreligious meeting at Assisi in 1986 (the details of which are covered in the video below starting at the 1 minute mark) and again in 2002. Pope Benedict XVI plans a similar event on Oct. 27th. I think this indicates how these two popes interpret these VII documents which is clearly in opposition to what other popes have taught.

Pius XI explicitly condemned interreligious meetings in his encyclical Mortalium Animos


The details of which are covered in the video starting at the 1 minute mark.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcgm0Jiy5jA[/media]

Edited September 18, 2011 by bernard

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316346582' post='2306194']Regardless if it was by design or not, if it is being widely misinterpreted then obviously it wasn't clear and unambiguous enough to begin with and should be abandoned.
[/quote]
Oh you mean like the Bible?

[bernard]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1316357940' post='2306234']
Oh you mean like the Bible?
[/quote]

Exactly. Only thing is we need the Bible.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316359992' post='2306240']

Exactly. Only thing is we need the Bible.
[/quote]
Oh that's weird, cause you just said to get rid of the Bible.

[vee]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316346582' post='2306194']

My reasons for attending traditional parishes stem mainly from the destruction of the mass which can be established quite easily by comparing the old rite and the new rite and by looking at the man who created the new mass,
[/quote]

If the parishes dont recognize this guy as a valid pope then they arent traditional

[img]http://topnews.in/usa/files/Pope-Benedict-XVI_1.jpg[/img]

He is a valid pope because

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mFMb7mCKHu0/TOXbsg3p7yI/AAAAAAAAALo/zpFDXKrFM_M/s1600/Christ+the+king+image.jpg[/img]

and

[img]http://metrobibleblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/cathedra-holyspirit1.jpg[/img]

say so.

Go to confession and come back to following Christ in His Church. We arent perfect so you will fit right in There are 22 or so valid rites in the Catholic Church (meaning the one fully obedient to Pope Benedict16) go to a Melkite, Chaldean, Maronite, Ukrainian etc rite if the Latin rite parishes arent reverent enough for you.

[dominicansoul]

vee, i love how you use pictures to illustrate your ideas... that makes this thread so much better... :D

[Amppax]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316346582' post='2306194']

My reasons for attending traditional parishes stem mainly from the destruction of the mass which can be established quite easily by comparing the old rite and the new rite and by looking at the man who created the new mass, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. I don't have timee to dig up everything I've read on Vatican II but two things come to mind in regard to what I posted earlier.

1. The Church, historically, has always been very clear and in what it teaches. A good example of what I mean is PIUS XI's encyclical on marriage (Casti Connubi). After reading the encyclical I had a very clear idea of what was expected of me as a Catholic husband as there was no room for misinterpretation. Since Vatican II however, everything is vague and ambiguous. Many of the documents can be interpreted as liberal to one group and conservative to another. I think it was done by design giving the authors plausible deniability, ie "it wasn't intended to be interpreted this way or that way." Regardless if it was by design or not, if it is being widely misinterpreted then obviously it wasn't clear and unambiguous enough to begin with and should be abandoned.

2. John Paul II held an interreligious meeting at Assisi in 1986 (the details of which are covered in the video below starting at the 1 minute mark) and again in 2002. Pope Benedict XVI plans a similar event on Oct. 27th. I think this indicates how these two popes interpret these VII documents which is clearly in opposition to what other popes have taught.

Pius XI explicitly condemned interreligious meetings in his encyclical Mortalium Animos


The details of which are covered in the video starting at the 1 minute mark.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcgm0Jiy5jA[/media]
[/quote]

Oh ok, that's why you don't like the new mass. thanks for the extremely relevant points bro.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Amppax

[bernard]

Thanks, and I don't suppose you could tell me who is right on the whole interreligious thing? I mean it is either forbidden as expressed by Pius XI in 1929 or it is fine as demonstrated by JP II and the VII documents seem to imply.

[Papist]

"And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matthew 28:16-20

"All power"... See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ's church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. St. John 14.

[dominicansoul]

bernard,

Do you read Pope's hearts, minds souls?

Could it be possible that Pope John Paul II was soooo opened to meeting people of other faiths because he realized that no where else in their lives would they ever have a chance to be in the Presence of Jesus Christ? Perhaps the whole time Pope John Paul II was calling upon the Almighty God to shower graces upon these lost sheep who are outside the fold? Perhaps the whole time during these assissi prayer conferences, Pope John Paul II was calling on St. Michael to crush the demons of these other false religions and God give them the grace to open up their hearts minds souls to the one true Faith in Jesus Christ? We know that we haven't been reaching out to these other religions, we know in the history of the Church we kept ourselves isolated from them...well how is that supposed to save them???

Pope John Paul visited Israel, and the weeks before he went there, hundreds of Jews scoffed at his visit, several prayed Psalms against him, and people didn't want him there. During the week of his visit, he visited synagogues and spoke to those people of other faiths. At the end of the week, those calling for the Pope's head were left in tears, many had been to the Mass at the site of the Sermon on the Mount, and they soon discovered that the Mass was very beautiful, and that it seemed to fulfill a longing in their hearts that they didn't even know could be fulfilled in their lifetimes...

[bernard]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316397914' post='2306573']
bernard,

Do you read Pope's hearts, minds souls?

[/quote]

No, only God can do that. We can only judge by outward actions. And to many this prayer meeting in Assisi can only be interpreted as an act of public heresy.

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316397914' post='2306573']

Could it be possible that Pope John Paul II was soooo opened to meeting people of other faiths because he realized that no where else in their lives would they ever have a chance to be in the Presence of Jesus Christ? Perhaps the whole time Pope John Paul II was calling upon the Almighty God to shower graces upon these lost sheep who are outside the fold? Perhaps the whole time during these assissi prayer conferences, Pope John Paul II was calling on St. Michael to crush the demons of these other false religions and God give them the grace to open up their hearts minds souls to the one true Faith in Jesus Christ? We know that we haven't been reaching out to these other religions, we know in the history of the Church we kept ourselves isolated from them...well how is that supposed to save them???

[/quote]

It's not impossible, it's pretty unlikely though. Regardless, we judge by outward actions and what he did was clearly condemned.

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316397914' post='2306573']

Pope John Paul visited Israel, and the weeks before he went there, hundreds of Jews scoffed at his visit, several prayed Psalms against him, and people didn't want him there. During the week of his visit, he visited synagogues and spoke to those people of other faiths. At the end of the week, those calling for the Pope's head were left in tears, many had been to the Mass at the site of the Sermon on the Mount, and they soon discovered that the Mass was very beautiful, and that it seemed to fulfill a longing in their hearts that they didn't even know could be fulfilled in their lifetimes...
[/quote]

In other words they became emotional much like when people used to see Michael Jackson in concert or listen to one of Obama's "yes we can speeches."

How many converted? that's the question.

Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone I just see how you can accept contradictions.

Edited September 19, 2011 by bernard