Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:24 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  tornpage on Sat May 14, 2011 9:42 pm

JPII, PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM 
AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF 
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.

138. Because of developments in society, the rapid growth of population and urbanization, and for financial motives, where there is a good ecumenical relationship and understanding between the communities, the shared ownership or use of church premises over an extended period of time may become a matter of practical interest.

139. When authorization for such ownership or use is given by the diocesan Bishop, according to any norms which may be established by the Episcopal Conference or the Holy See, judicious consideration should be given to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, so that this question is resolved on the basis of a sound sacramental theology with the respect that is due, while also taking account of the sensitivities of those who will use the building, e.g., by constructing a separate room or chapel.

Here's a problem I keep butting up against with certain decisions of the Conciliar Church which are "disciplinary" in nature. It may indeed have the power to do it, but what does the particular exercise of that power say about the power? In other words, even if you come down on the side of the Church having the power, as here, or in the serious case (for me) on the changing of the Canon of the Mass in the Latin Rite, is the exercise of that power in the specific action at issue consistent with the behavior of the inviolate Bride of Christ? Or does the action (within the power and sphere of the Bride) turn the Bride into the Whore of the Apocalypse?

My bride can go to lunch with whomever she wishes (that is lawfully within her power), but at some point her going to lunch with so and so may in fact betray her identity as my bride, and turn her into something else.

What I'm getting at is that this question of sedevacantism may not resolve on clear cut issues of "heresy" or a case of clear and obvious logical inconsistency in a sphere where the law of contradiction, when applied, resolves the question (the Church cannot contradict herself on a point of doctrine or dogma and therefore if she has what we are seeing is not the Church), but a cumulation of separate and discrete actions that impugn the present character and signal two disparate entities.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  Roguejim on Sat May 14, 2011 11:55 pm

tornpage wrote:
JPII, PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM 
AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF 
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.

138. Because of developments in society, the rapid growth of population and urbanization, and for financial motives, where there is a good ecumenical relationship and understanding between the communities, the shared ownership or use of church premises over an extended period of time may become a matter of practical interest.

139. When authorization for such ownership or use is given by the diocesan Bishop, according to any norms which may be established by the Episcopal Conference or the Holy See, judicious consideration should be given to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, so that this question is resolved on the basis of a sound sacramental theology with the respect that is due, while also taking account of the sensitivities of those who will use the building, e.g., by constructing a separate room or chapel.

Here's a problem I keep butting up against with certain decisions of the Conciliar Church which are "disciplinary" in nature. It may indeed have the power to do it, but what does the particular exercise of that power say about the power? In other words, even if you come down on the side of the Church having the power, as here, or in the serious case (for me) on the changing of the Canon of the Mass in the Latin Rite, is the exercise of that power in the specific action at issue consistent with the behavior of the inviolate Bride of Christ? Or does the action (within the power and sphere of the Bride) turn the Bride into the Whore of the Apocalypse?

My bride can go to lunch with whomever she wishes (that is lawfully within her power), but at some point her going to lunch with so and so may in fact betray her identity as my bride, and turn her into something else.

What I'm getting at is that this question of sedevacantism may not resolve on clear cut issues of "heresy" or a case of clear and obvious logical inconsistency in a sphere where the law of contradiction, when applied, resolves the question (the Church cannot contradict herself on a point of doctrine or dogma and therefore if she has what we are seeing is not the Church), but a cumulation of separate and discrete actions that impugn the present character and signal two disparate entities.

Yikes! The "sede" word always gives me the chills. Oftentimes, tornpage says what I don't have the gall to even suggest, even though I am often thinking the same thing. The Conciliar Church seems, at times, to present black as white to us, but then reconciles the apparent contradiction or rupture, in language that confuses even Her own theologians. (Peruse this site if you are not familiar with what I am speaking of
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/?eng=y)
I don't really know what to think anymore. I plead incompetence, and simply try and make better use of my time in the Eucharistic adoration chapel at my Novus Ordo parish. Yes, I'm aware of what the sede will claim about the "Novus Ordo cookie" that I am worshipping, but I think I've reached the point where I've about given up trying to make sense of things which defy any sense that I can muster. I am tired, confused, and hope that I am not worshipping some diabolical cookie.

I will only add that your bride going to lunch with someone else, no matter what improprieties might ensue, does not change her status as your bride.
avatar
Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  tornpage on Sun May 15, 2011 9:16 am

Jim writes:

I don't really know what to think anymore. I plead incompetence, and simply try and make better use of my time in the Eucharistic adoration chapel at my Novus Ordo parish. Yes, I'm aware of what the sede will claim about the "Novus Ordo cookie" that I am worshipping, but I think I've reached the point where I've about given up trying to make sense of things which defy any sense that I can muster. I am tired, confused, and hope that I am not worshipping some diabolical cookie.

You can't go wrong there: prayer and humble address to the Lord - and Our Mother - will resolve this for you. And while you're trying to resolve it, you will be where you need to be.

I'm reminded of the wisdom of Shakespeare: "There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so." The Devil - and many men - can make darkness look like light with their "reason."

None of the elect shall be lost. And all who seek find. The fact that you're genuinely seeking is the warrant of your ultimate finding.

During these days I think we must take to heart Our Lord's injunction, "judge not lest ye be judged." We all have to work this out, and recognize that these are very, very bizarre times, and respect the fact that as brothers and sisters in Christ we are all in the same boat and struggling to make sense of it. Of course that doesn't preclude taking a stand - we should take a stand. We must, however, note the confusion and turmoil and respect the situation our fellows (and we all) unfortunately labor under.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  Guest on Sun May 15, 2011 9:58 am

The SSPX actually has an excellent booklet that defends the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Ordination. Adam Miller's book on the New Rite is pretty good as well. Also Vin Lewis has a good audio on the Novus Ordo.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  Lourdes on Mon May 16, 2011 2:35 pm

I don't really know what to think anymore. I plead incompetence, and simply try and make better use of my time in the Eucharistic adoration chapel at my Novus Ordo parish. Yes, I'm aware of what the sede will claim about the "Novus Ordo cookie" that I am worshipping, but I think I've reached the point where I've about given up trying to make sense of things which defy any sense that I can muster. I am tired, confused, and hope that I am not worshipping some diabolical cookie.

As we used to say back in the sixties, I can relate.

Think of it this way. Do you really think Our Lord would let the members of His Church be so duped? That would mean that the gates of hell had prevailed. If so, then the Church is dead by this point as there would be no visible hierarchy left after all these decades. The sedes do not have it nor do the SSPX - their bishops have no apostolic jurisdiction and were not "sent" by the Vicar of Christ. If my understanding of what I have read is correct, they have in effect broken the apostolic line. And that would throw the First Vatican Council documents right out the window.

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  Lourdes on Mon May 16, 2011 2:35 pm

RashaLampa wrote:The SSPX actually has an excellent booklet that defends the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Ordination. Adam Miller's book on the New Rite is pretty good as well. Also Vin Lewis has a good audio on the Novus Ordo.

There's that Adam Miller fellow again...will someone please tell me who he is?

Lourdes

Posts : 156
Reputation : 162
Join date : 2011-02-19
Location : USA

Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  Guest on Wed May 18, 2011 8:21 am

Adam Miller is a Catholic apologist and author:

Here is his storefront on LuLu:

http://stores.lulu.com/tower7

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  Guest on Wed May 18, 2011 8:23 am

Here is his website: http://www.oocities.org/adam_todm/todm.htm

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  DeSelby on Wed May 18, 2011 2:37 pm

tornpage wrote:
JPII, PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM 
AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM
DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF 
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.

138. Because of developments in society, the rapid growth of population and urbanization, and for financial motives, where there is a good ecumenical relationship and understanding between the communities, the shared ownership or use of church premises over an extended period of time may become a matter of practical interest.

139. When authorization for such ownership or use is given by the diocesan Bishop, according to any norms which may be established by the Episcopal Conference or the Holy See, judicious consideration should be given to the reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, so that this question is resolved on the basis of a sound sacramental theology with the respect that is due, while also taking account of the sensitivities of those who will use the building, e.g., by constructing a separate room or chapel.

Here's a problem I keep butting up against with certain decisions of the Conciliar Church which are "disciplinary" in nature. It may indeed have the power to do it, but what does the particular exercise of that power say about the power? In other words, even if you come down on the side of the Church having the power, as here, or in the serious case (for me) on the changing of the Canon of the Mass in the Latin Rite, is the exercise of that power in the specific action at issue consistent with the behavior of the inviolate Bride of Christ? Or does the action (within the power and sphere of the Bride) turn the Bride into the Whore of the Apocalypse?

My bride can go to lunch with whomever she wishes (that is lawfully within her power), but at some point her going to lunch with so and so may in fact betray her identity as my bride, and turn her into something else.

What I'm getting at is that this question of sedevacantism may not resolve on clear cut issues of "heresy" or a case of clear and obvious logical inconsistency in a sphere where the law of contradiction, when applied, resolves the question (the Church cannot contradict herself on a point of doctrine or dogma and therefore if she has what we are seeing is not the Church), but a cumulation of separate and discrete actions that impugn the present character and signal two disparate entities.

One thought that comes to my mind -- continuing with the analogy of your out to lunch bride -- perhaps it's the in-laws that are the problem; perhaps it is they who are setting up these dates, making the bride look like a whore. Perhaps even your older brothers as well.
avatar
DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Not a question of "can," but a question of "what" and "why"?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum