brendan1104 Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 31 2005, 01:58 AM']hahaha thats funny. and I am still struggling with the SSPX well i suppose any true conversion is good news. I just started reading a book by Marcel Lefebvre called "Open Letter To confused Catholics." but still i can not decide who is right and who is wrong, and its really killing me. I barley have any Faith left in anything anymore. [right][snapback]841282[/snapback][/right] [/quote] sam, it's a very good book and was written before the consecrations- so you should read it through just as you would a liberal book written by congar, von balthasaar, chenou etc. and pray on it... may the Holy Spirit be your guide
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Dec 31 2005, 10:40 AM']sam, it's a very good book and was written before the consecrations- so you should read it through just as you would a liberal book written by congar, von balthasaar, chenou etc. and pray on it... may the Holy Spirit be your guide [right][snapback]841560[/snapback][/right] [/quote] ok I will read it. it is very anti-ecumenicism. and from the point of the New order, it goes against everything Vatican II stood for.
brendan1104 Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 31 2005, 11:51 AM']ok I will read it. it is very anti-ecumenicism. and from the point of the New order, it goes against everything Vatican II stood for. [right][snapback]841568[/snapback][/right] [/quote] interesting i just finished it two days ago....
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Dec 31 2005, 10:53 AM']interesting i just finished it two days ago.... [right][snapback]841570[/snapback][/right] [/quote] what did you think of it?
brendan1104 Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 (edited) it helped me to see that alot was wrong with the Council and the subsequent reforms, but the Archbishop was wrong in many respects. read it, and you'll find out.... Edited December 31, 2005 by brendan1104
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 (edited) what do you mean wrong with the council? are you talking about the ambiguity? Edited December 31, 2005 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
brendan1104 Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 the Council's documents that is... like on religious liberty, church in the modern world, etc.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 so lets paint a picture: Do you think that the sspx is in schism? but you also think that the vatican II documents contain ambiguity and are bieng misinterpreted by the concliar church and the Pope?
Myles Domini Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 31 2005, 05:58 AM']hahaha thats funny. and I am still struggling with the SSPX well i suppose any true conversion is good news. I just started reading a book by Marcel Lefebvre called "Open Letter To confused Catholics." but still i can not decide who is right and who is wrong, and its really killing me. I barley have any Faith left in anything anymore. [right][snapback]841282[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I find your concluding statements most troubling and a tale tale indicator that the Devil is at the root of your confusion. Expel his influence and place yourself under the Protection of Our Lady of the Rosary. Every time you feel confused about the truth dont spend your energy mulling it over, that allows the evil one to feed on your anxiety like a parasite, rather pray the First Joyful Mystery saying with the Virgin Queen 'be it done unto me according to thy word'. You will soon find the influence of Satan diminishing and the power of God leading you in green pastures beside the still waters to the place where He dwells.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 i guess a daily rosary would help especially becasue of the 15 promises of our lady.
brendan1104 Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 31 2005, 12:46 PM'] ...but you also think that the vatican II documents contain ambiguity and are bieng misinterpreted by the concliar church and the Pope? Sam let's define ambiguity- Doubtfulness or uncertainty as regards interpretation. The Council documents couldn't contain ambiguity. I think that there was contradiction of the Councils of Florence and Trent in some of the Vatican II documents, does that answer your question?
Myles Domini Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 31 2005, 05:14 PM']i guess a daily rosary would help especially becasue of the 15 promises of our lady. [right][snapback]841634[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, the safest way to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is through the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Dec 31 2005, 01:42 PM'] [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 31 2005, 12:46 PM'] ...but you also think that the vatican II documents contain ambiguity and are bieng misinterpreted by the concliar church and the Pope? Sam let's define ambiguity- Doubtfulness or uncertainty as regards interpretation. The Council documents couldn't contain ambiguity. I think that there was contradiction of the Councils of Florence and Trent in some of the Vatican II documents, does that answer your question? [right][snapback]841713[/snapback][/right] [/quote] sure. What i meant to say was that many documents (from what i understand are ambigious). I don't think Benedict XVI would think that
stuckinamo Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 [quote name='brendan1104' date='Dec 30 2005, 11:02 PM']As you all know so very well, I've been so bent on trying to prove that the SSPX isn't schismatic, etc. but- after ALOT of prayer and thought and study, I've come to the conclusion, that Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop De Castro Mayer, and the four newly-consecrated bishops, and all the formal adherents fell into grave seperation (schism) from St. Peter's successor and the Church... [right][snapback]840909[/snapback][/right] [/quote] pardon my ignorance, but what does ANY of that mean!? ...if i may ask?
brendan1104 Posted December 31, 2005 Author Posted December 31, 2005 episcopal consecrations without papal mandate are illicit.
stuckinamo Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 can you explain that in easier words to understand please? i dont know what that means. my family is not really into their faith... and perhaps it is partially my own fault for not looking more closely into it. but it has just been most recently i have gotten a thirst for church teaching & defending the faith, etc.
Ash Wednesday Posted December 31, 2005 Posted December 31, 2005 [url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sspx_fssp.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/sspx_fssp.htm[/url] Here's an introduction that explains it pretty well, I think.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now