Full discussion: kzread.info/dash/bejne/haqFtsGBj6-YkrQ.html

@lanbaode

Жыл бұрын

Until the SSPX fully receives the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and live in full communion with Holy Mother Church, no theological or canon law gymnastics and media P.R. campaign by SSPX members, sympathetic bishops and media celebrities can rescind the consistent papal judgment that the SSPX is "not in full communion with the Church" (JPII, Ecclesia Dei; BXVI, Ecclesiae Unitatem; and Francis, Traditiones Custodes). In the July 16, 2021 letter accompanying Traditiones Custodes Pope Francis mentions the status of the SSPX going back to JPII: "The faculty - granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 - was above all motivated by the desire to foster the healing of the SCHISM with the movement of Mons. Lefebvre."

I get what you are saying (I think). Thank y'all for making these videos. I find them thought provoking and challenging in the right ways. Pray for this poor Jesuit!

@hunter1029016

2 жыл бұрын

I will, Father!!

@widdershins7628

2 жыл бұрын

You got it, Father Brown.

Until one appreciates and embraces his own Church's presentation of Tradition, he need not listen to any of the new perspectives offered by philosophers and theologians of the past few generations. Whether openly friend or foe, there is more than enough to suggest that their take on things will only serve the enemy's goal to complicate or obfuscate or confuse right now.

I would make a comment, but I think I have to grow a beard first to have any creditability. Back in 6 months!

The basis of Latin trinitarian theology (Augustinian) is love, the basis of Eastern theology is mystery.

@TheMeaningofCatholic

2 жыл бұрын

The issue is their lack of distinction between resourcement and antiquarianism, as it seems to me

I do not agree at point of theosis, in western theology, deification is its integral part, so the concept is familiar to catholics. But with the rest 100% agree. I have enough of discarding latin theology in favor to be more eastern among roman catholics (EO biases and generalizations have unfortunately strong impact). We differ, but essentialy are the same.

"They live more of the passion in their daily lives..." Always struck me as odd how Catholics and even Protestants evangelized the world, bringing souls to Christ and eternal joy, while the Orthodox make absolutely NO movement to evangelize. Not very passionate about Christs command to his Church to make disciples of all nations.

True and legitimate development of doctrine should never be able to be called a shift in paradigm. Yet Vatican II clearly and inarguably represents such, especially since its utility and purpose was very much sold in terms of making the faith more palatable to the world. To do that, it supposedly needed a paradigm shift (in reality, all we welcomed in were guitar masses and priests who no longer fear their position and engage in all kinds of abuse liturgical and otherwise - things more or less unheard of in comparison to the actual ancient Catholic faith). If the reforms of Vatican II were intended to make the faith more palatable to those outside the Church, why was someone like Archbishop Lefebvre, forever faithful to the Church's faith, punished for not adopting the novel formulations of the faith which were so novel as to seem heretical? He denied no part of the faith. In fact, that's literally the reason he insisted on providing priests - when he felt like even Rome were worshipping idols, he feared the transmission of the untainted Catholic faith would cease (after all, if the Vicar of Christ is LITERALLY holding idol worship conventions on purpose, who knows what he will do next?) even despite the consequences, since he believed it his spiritual duty to obey God rather than men, as the Apostles did with their high priest. 'Too long; didn't read' version: You know you're on the wrong side of the Church's history when you punish a bishop in good standing for not saying a Mass you made 5 minutes ago and not agreeing to wishy-washy (at best) framings of the Catholic faith pumped out by nothing less than an Ecumenical Council of the Church (albeit without quote "the note of infallibility").

@mosesking2923

2 жыл бұрын

Pius X created a new breviary in 1911 and expected all bishops to submit and use it. That has never been new in the tradition of the Church. When the Pope gives an order, you obey. By rejecting the Mass reform, Lefebvre proved himself to be out of the church.

@BelovedSon

2 жыл бұрын

1. Levebre himself signed the council documents, which meant that he had no quarrel with them at the time they were written. 2. The vatican 2 docs are apostolic constitutions, which are the highest classification of ordinary magisterial teaching. Every catholic is obligated to follow them even if they arent infallable. 3. Bad behavior from the Vatican does not automatically mean that we can disobey legitimate orders like changes to the missal or consecrating bishops without permission. 4. Despite growth in the TLM, only about 4% of parishes in America offer them, and that was BEFORE Francis’ traditiones custodes ban. This means that about 96% are exclusively holding the novus ordo. You’ll find the same statistics around the world. I doubt the Church as a whole is going to return to the TLM except in special groups like the FSSP.

@1907jdee

2 жыл бұрын

it is true that the Archbishop signed all Vatican II documents although he seems to have gone to his grave thinking that he did not sign DH and GS. His explanation: I signed the others out of respect for the Holy Father. Given his role in the Coetus Internationis Patrum and the letter and spirit of the interventions at the Council, it is hard to take seriously any contention that he accepted the letter and spirit of the Council in some general sense. In a letter written in 1975, the Archbishop indicated that Pope Paul VI had asked him for a public act of submission to Vatican II and the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies in which the Pope was involved.

@1907jdee

2 жыл бұрын

Why? The traditional mass was not abrogated? Unless of course we are speaking of a new mass for an ecumenical council that was founded on a new theology and new ecclesiology?

@larryzach7880

4 ай бұрын

All true but Vatican 2 instituted zero ”reforms" it just set the stage for multiple abuses.

It is not difficult for a Western Catholic to begin to 'understand' Theosis. And anyone who studies Aquinas will easily find Theosis and Deification in the Summa and in early ROMAN CATHOLIC WORK like Clement, Justin, Boethius, and Augustine. Whatever happened to the 'both/and' of Catholicism? We pray both the Glorious AND Sorrowful mysteries. We are both an Easter people, AND a fasting people. Both Ember days AND feast days. We are both East AND West. Stop putting down a canonized Saint's teaching and lifting up a disobedient order like the SSPX. So many good Traditional Catholics are given a bad name by sectarians who fancy themselves as the remnant, but end up becoming modern day Judaizers.

How is sspx "apostolic" if it rejects any of the authority of the local bishop?

@AnnulmentProof

2 жыл бұрын

@@drjanitor3747 is sspx "apostolic?"

@hunter1029016

2 жыл бұрын

Loaded question... 1) they are apostolic because their bishops and priests can be traced in lineage back to the apostles (along with their teachings). 2) The SSPX does not deny the authority of any local ordinary over his diocese.

@AnnulmentProof

2 жыл бұрын

@@hunter1029016 if the local ordinary tells the parishioner x and the sspx bishop tells the parishioner y, which Bishop has authority over the parishioner?

@hunter1029016

2 жыл бұрын

@@AnnulmentProof Depends. For example...the novus ordo bishop will tell the faithful to attend the novus ordo mass and the SSPX bishop will tell the faithful to exclusively attend the traditional Latin mass. In this instance, the novus ordo bishop is wrong.

@AnnulmentProof

2 жыл бұрын

@@hunter1029016 since the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, which Bishop should everybody in the diocese obey?