Tradition?

[Cam42]

James,

You are officially absurd.

[quote]You assert that pedophile priests, "have no bearing on" this conversation but insist that obedience be addressed.[/quote]

The obedience issue is not dealing with pedophile priests, that is what you bring to the table in this thread. I will not discuss it. If you want to, start a thread about it.

[quote]I've made a valid point.[/quote]

According to whom?

[quote]Once again, it is a person's actions which places them in a state of schism not a statement from Rome.[/quote]

Archbishop Lefevbre....illicit consecrations....need I say more? I don't think so.

Schism not officially reconginzed until Rome recognizes it. It is part of the internal forum. Once it is proclaimed, it then becomes part of the external forum and is binding outside of one's conscience.

[quote]You're playing a not-so-clever game here....[/quote]

You are responding with softballs, try something of substance, Skippy.

[quote]Your allegation that liberals, many who have no faith in the divine presence, are incredulous at worst reveals a serious misunderstanding.[/quote]

Your error is the assumption that many liberals have no faith in divine presence. You cannot possibly know the heart of any one person. Traditional or not. Many of the mafioso were traditional Catholics, but clearly did not have a Catholic mindset as they were out breaking every law.

[quote]You are blurring reverence with acceptability and combining it with that old "holier than the pope" chestnut.[/quote]

Ahhh, the old chestnut game......that reminds me of a song and a parrot.....

[quote]Many people in places of high authority today in Rome publicly embrace errors which Christian martyrs gave their lives fighting against.[/quote]

So do many "Traditional" Catholics....SSPX, SSPV, CMRI....want more?

[quote]Kneeling is more reverent than standing.[/quote]

Earth to James, Earth to James, WE AGREE!!!!!! Read my statements....gee whiz....

[quote]I'm surprised that you would attempt to associate St. Thomas with this nonsense.[/quote]

Then you need to go re-read your Aquinas....I said the same thing.....

[quote]Sparky... that name is commonly associated with pet dogs, isn't it?[/quote]

Actually, I was thinking of Clark Griswald, because you are making about as much sense as he did....Poor Aunt Edna!!!! And therefore the remainder of your ad hominem is in the same ballpark.

Cam42

[james]

"Sparky", "Skippy," "officially absurd" ... Is this your "understanding" of charity? I suppose I should thank for the insight into Opus Dei member behavior.

You have descended into the mud. I'm not following you.

[quote name='Cam42']Your error is the assumption that many liberals have no faith in divine presence.[/quote]

This is not an assumption. I've provided statistical evidence already.

"a New York Times poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus."

[url="http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html"]http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html[/url]


I'm waiting for a response to this point:

[quote]Some "bishops" who make public statements which betray their lack of faith in the divinity of Christ are promoted to the position of "cardinal."[/quote]

This is why I say that the church is in a grave state. I have offered additional statistical proof of the crisis the church is in.

I once again must ask, how do you think those who stand by as the church crumbles will be judged? How do you think Christ will judge those who attack the few people who oppose the destruction of the Catholic religion?

[StPiusVPrayForUs]

James,

Haven't you heard? Bishops like Mgr. Bruskewitz run around and call the SSPX "excommunicated" and "schismatic" for ordaining bishops to preserve the Catholic faith. Yet, when Bishop Bruskewitz or any other bishop for that matter goes around and puts the seriousness of the Catholic faith in jepeordy by attending a Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, et al. consecration of their so called "bishop" then that is in the name of eccumenism and good and dandy according to them. Then again, earlier Popes would disagree with the stance they are taking. The SSPX letter to Bishop Fabian speaks for itself. [color=red] We don't link to schismatic sites [/color]

I'm personally waiting for the Vatican to crack down on Cardinal Mahoney like they did to Archbishop Levebre. Lord knows people there are counting the days on another forum until he retires.

Edited March 1, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Cam42]

[quote]You have descended into the mud. I'm not following you.[/quote]

Right....you don't have to follow, you are doing just fine getting dirty yourself.

I will stop the name-calling though. You clearly can't take a joke.....

You are still being ubsurd, here and on other threads...you state things that are contrary to the teaching of the Church, then misinterpret what the Church teaches to spin it your own way....typical SSPX tactic.

I am not saying that you are SSPX. I am saying that you are using a tactic that is typical of them.

I don't trust anything that the New York Times puts forth, let alone anything having to do with the Catholic Church. Try using Vatican numbers. And you call yourself Traditional, relying on a liberal rag like the Times?

[quote]I'm waiting for a response to this point:[/quote]

You'll not get one from me. I will not speak against a decision of the Holy Father.

[quote]I once again must ask, how do you think those who stand by as the church crumbles will be judged?[/quote]

Here is the difference between you and I; I realize that it is not my place to judge. I will not respond further to those questions.

Cam42

[Cam42]

[quote]Haven't you heard? Bishops like Mgr. Bruskewitz run around and call the SSPX "excommunicated" and "schismatic" for ordaining bishops to preserve the Catholic faith.[/quote]

Bishop Bruskewitz is simply echoing the sentiment of the Pope. Who excommunicated Archbishop Lefevbre and the consecrated bishops.

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html"]Motu Proprio: Ecclesia Dei[/url]

[quote]In itself, [u]this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.[/u] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Ecclesia Dei no.3)[/quote]

[quote]The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."

[b]But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops.[/b] It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church. (ED no. 4)[/quote]

Notice that Bishop Bruskewitz is one of the Body of Bishops. He has every right to defend the position of the Holy Father. Bishops Williamson, Felay, Tissier, and de Galerretta must return to full communion.

It is incumbent upon those who are excommunicated to reconcile with Rome. It is incumbent on those who are participating in the SSPX to go to confession and regularize their condition within the Church.

Cam42

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 1 2005, 12:16 AM']


I don't trust anything that the New York Times puts forth, let alone anything having to do with the Catholic Church.  Try using Vatican numbers.  And you call yourself Traditional, relying on a liberal rag like the Times?



[/quote]
Actually, the only reason I am aware of the NY Times poll is because it was reprinted in an article in "Latin Mass" magazine, and I do call Latin Mass magazine traditional. You can read the article here:

[url="http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html"]http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20031208.html[/url]

Latin Mass has no reason to doubt the NY Times figures and neither do I. They reflect reality.

Try using Vatican numbers? They're the ones who claim that the church is undergoing a "new springtime" of "spiritual renewal." This is their interpretation of a 350 percent decline in new ordinations to the priesthood over the past 30 years. This is a renewal? I'm sorry but the Vatican's take on these matters is not in keeping with reality.

Edited March 1, 2005 by james

[Cam42]

[quote]Actually, the only reason I am aware of the NY Times poll is because it was reprinted in an article in "Latin Mass" magazine, and I do call Latin Mass magazine traditional.[/quote]

And if the editors told you to jump how high would you? Latin Mass Magazine is hardly an authoritative source. While I don't disagree with everything that they say, I wouldn't use it as a definitive source.

It would be like me saying, the PGA tour is undergoing major reforms this upcoming year. How do I know? I read a poll about it in Golf Digest. Therefore it must be true.

While Latin Mass Magazine has some very good things, it is hardly a definitive source. It is mainly opionion.

[quote]Latin Mass has no reason to doubt the NY Times figures and neither do I. They reflect reality.[/quote]

They reflect one aspect of reality. The indult. They don't reflect all of it. However, that is acceptable, because they are addressing a niche. It is their business to promote one aspect, which is precisely what they do. They deal with the Traditionalist movement within the Church (one that I have already said that I support).

However, I am not concerned with what Latin Mass Magazine thinks, I am more interested in what you think, when it comes to the New York Times. I contend that there is no credence in it because they are baised against the Catholic Church. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, how can you quote them? If not, how can you call yourself Traditional? It is a progressive rag, IMHO.

Cam42

[Cam42]

[quote]I don't need to read an article in Latin Mass magazine or see a poll in the NY Times to confirm reality. There is a serious crisis of faith in the church in the laity and in the clergy all the way up the hierarchy.[/quote]

Then why quote it? Why use quotes from Latim Mass Magazine at all? You are contradicting yourself.

[quote]I believe that for the Vatican to state that we are experiencing a "new springtime" is insane. The church is, in large part, in a state of apostasy.[/quote]

It is great to know your position.....finally. It is a heretical statement to say that the Church is in a state of apostasy. I would assume that the small part of the Church that is ok, is the "traditional" movement, including the SSPX, SSPV, and CMRI. Those who do not recognize the full authority of the Holy Father, are they the part of the Church that is ok?

To state that the Church, at large, is in a state of apostasy is a heretical statement.

That statement rings of the truth that is contained in CCC 675. You are persecuting the Church in a way that can only veiwed as putting the Church on trial.

[quote]Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth575 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. (CCC 675)[/quote]

By definition, it is ubsurd to state that the Church is in a state of apostasy. Unless of course you think that Jesus Christ is totally repudiating Himself.

[quote]....apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith.... (CCC 2089)[/quote]

The Catechism goes on to say about the unity of the Church:

[quote]In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. [b]But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church[/b] - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. (CCC 817)[/quote]

Notice it doesn't say anything about the Church being to blame. And to hold the Chruch responsible for the actions of certain men is an incorrect notion.

Finally, to confirm that your notion of apostasy is incorrect, is confirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[quote]Conversion to Christ, the new birth of Baptism, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the Body and Blood of Christ received as food have made us "holy and without blemish," [u]just as the Church herself, the Bride of Christ, is "holy and without blemish."[/u] (CCC 1426)[/quote]

Cam42

[Cam42]

[quote]Once again, this is bull.[/quote]

Why? Because Rome has excommunicated the bishops of the SSPX, therefore making every sacramental action illict.....or the fact that phatmass is faithful to the Magisterial teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Oh, the last I checked Cardinal Ottaviani never entered into schism....I can't say the same for Archbishop Lefevbre.

Cam42

[dUSt]

I've deleted the last half of this thread and closed it because [b]phatmass is not the place to debate the trad vs n.o. mass.[/b]