rkwright Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jan 8 2006, 06:35 AM']Ok, that quote is clearly a farse, there is no connection between the SSPX and Blood, period. I'm pretty sure the quote was intended to be humorous. Now, that does [i]not[/i] mean that the SSPX is a noble organization. One can sympathize with their love for the Old Mass and share their desire to increase its use, but that does not make a group that is disobedient to the Magisterium "noble." In fact, nothing could do that. [right][snapback]849367[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't understand why they get so much 'air time' on the internet. Or maybe it just seems lately theres so many threads and topics involving a small split off group compared to say discussing our protestant brothers.
journeyman Posted January 8, 2006 Posted January 8, 2006 [quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Jan 8 2006, 09:39 AM']That was me above...oops... [right][snapback]849414[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ora, you are really helping your Dad's post count . . . I hope he's properly appreciative . . . Back to the regularly scheduled discussion
OLAM Dad Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='journeyman' date='Jan 8 2006, 03:09 PM'] Ora, you are really helping your Dad's post count . . . I hope he's properly appreciative . . . Back to the regularly scheduled discussion [right][snapback]849649[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Look, I was just saying it was Ora, not OLAMdad. Excuse me. And as you saw before, I was origionally on topic. And as you can also see, you were too sensative and got off topic as well.....
Ora et Labora Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 And as you can see, I did it again...on accident. Back to the original topic.....
journeyman Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Jan 8 2006, 08:39 PM']Look, I was just saying it was Ora, not OLAMdad. Excuse me. And as you saw before, I was origionally on topic. And as you can also see, you were too sensative and got off topic as well..... [right][snapback]849904[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't and didn't have a problem . . . I go off topic as much or more than most anyone (NOT ) dUSt, we need an "off topic" smilie that is smiling Ora, please read what I said, don't just look at the graphic . . . your Dad's post count is way up . . . I hope he appreciates your efforts on his behalf back to our regularly scheduled discussion
toledo_jesus Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 7 2006, 01:33 PM'] the SSPX is a noble organization. [right][snapback]848856[/snapback][/right] [/quote] it's a schismatic organization. I think they are more Protestant than Catholic. I mean, selectively ignoring Church doctrine because they don't believe it...hmmmm. Sweet Irony!
Matty_boy Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 7 2006, 01:33 PM']I have to say that I am insulted. I hope that you were joking. the SSPX is a noble organization. [right][snapback]848856[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I thought SSPX was excommunicated for rejecting Vatican II.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 its debatable they do not reject vatican II they just see it as bieng hijacked by modernists.
ruso Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 9 2006, 07:22 PM']its debatable they do not reject vatican II they just see it as bieng hijacked by modernists. [right][snapback]850434[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Of course; As soon as the ransom is paid we released it. Do You want to contribute?.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 sure anything to free Vatican II from modernists
Guest Rick777 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Jan 9 2006, 10:22 AM']its debatable they do not reject vatican II they just see it as bieng hijacked by modernists. [right][snapback]850434[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Oh is that all? ..............
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 [quote name='Rick777' date='Jan 9 2006, 03:48 PM']Oh is that all? .............. [right][snapback]850799[/snapback][/right] [/quote] what are you saying?
Guest Rick777 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 How can anyone accept Vatican II if they think it was "hijacked" by modernists.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 the council as of today is hijacked by modernists. like so: mass is said in english vatican II called for the use of the Latin language the documentsare so ambigously written that they need to be interpreted in the context of tradition.
Guest Rick777 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 So, in other words SSPX doesnt accept Vatican II now, but they will in the future, when of course the texts are written so they can be interpreted in the context of tradition?
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 they accept it as a valid council. but ignore it because its ambigiously written.
Guest Rick777 Posted January 9, 2006 Posted January 9, 2006 How can you accept something but "ignore" it?
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted January 9, 2006 Author Posted January 9, 2006 its valid. none of it is dogmatic. Its completley ambigious, and can be interpretted incorrectly, its best just to ignore it.
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