tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post7196630458080860571..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: ONE CAN DISAGREE WITH THE SSPX ON THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER AND YET STILL UNDERSTAND THEIR DISAGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN ASPECTS OF VATICAN II BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THE MENTALITY OF THOSE WHO ARE RIGID "sPIRIT OF VATICAN II" PROPONANTS OF A CERTAIN AGEFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-15801120863225445492016-11-08T17:26:24.176-05:002016-11-08T17:26:24.176-05:00I do not support the SSPX. I do not support the L...I do not support the SSPX. I do not support the LCWR. I do not support Donald Trump. I do not support Hillary Clinton. <br /><br />I support sacred liturgy that is both noble and simple. I support politics that is both just and merciful. <br /><br />Is there a place in this era for people like me? Rood Screenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09816036539243214384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-1010970590275805932016-11-08T12:45:26.011-05:002016-11-08T12:45:26.011-05:00The SSPX is probably the core of the small Church ...The SSPX is probably the core of the small Church Benedict XVI anticipates the Catholic Church of the future. The present day tradition friendly Cardinals and Bishops in our Church -a minority among their colleagues- would feel quite comfortable within the SSPX now and vice versa.<br /><br />The SSPX are not the reckless protesters of settled Catholic teachings today but the modernists prelates or theologians. Funny thing is when Cardinal Muller calls them to repent of their heterodox teachings it is he who gets rebuked or ignored. So, yes, the SSPX are well within the norms of catholic Tradition. They can critique ecumenism as practiced today, while Cardinal Kasper et al., encourage far more doctrinal deformations such as on the "right" to receive the eucharist while living in adulterous or same sex "marriages".<br />Anon-1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-79060864083823989572016-11-08T08:36:52.842-05:002016-11-08T08:36:52.842-05:00Why in god's name would the SSPX trust Francis...Why in god's name would the SSPX trust Francis about anything. The moment they are regularized Francis will appoint someone to "oversee" them and then he will try to destroy them. But newsflash for Francis the members of the SSPX don't fool around. Let one of Francis' henchmen try to impose something nutty on them. I guarantee the locks will be changed the moment that guy sets foot out the door. <br /><br />On second thought I take back what I said. I hope the SSPX is formally recognized by Rome at least someone in the Church will speak up against the evil, sorry I meant to write HERESY, coming from the Vatican these days. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-27861277038091198392016-11-08T08:20:16.448-05:002016-11-08T08:20:16.448-05:00I'll raise my hand: No, the Church would be no...I'll raise my hand: No, the Church would be no worse off. Would it it be better off? Only insofar as the changes done with Vatican II cited as the directive would have to find another rationale. However, a lot of the changes in Litugical practice, e.g. Standing for prayers and communion, removal of communion rails, etc. the reasons were mined from alleged ancient practices as justification. So many bishops feel justified in the current state without the need for Vatican II. rcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661998350597126663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-49488908070583638842016-11-08T06:47:06.549-05:002016-11-08T06:47:06.549-05:00Dignitatis Humanae (the decree on religious libert...Dignitatis Humanae (the decree on religious liberty) was the most controversial document of the Second Vatican Council. Originally authored by the American J Courtney Murray, it was forced through at the close of the final session, despite substantial opposition, and has been debated ever since. Some (Wojtyla included) saw it as defending the rights of believers under Communist governments. Note that the greatest issue of the 1960s, the spread of atheistic communism and the threat it posed to the Church was deliberately left off the Council's agenda - so much for its much-vaunted claim to be engaging with the modern world.<br /><br />If it moves beyond the accepted principle of religious toleration (which is regarded as the hallmark of a free society) and appears to advocate a sort of relativism, then the SSPX is entitled to reject it, if necessary in toto. Since the strongest supporters of DH do indeed regard it as a new departure, then the SSPX has every reason to be suspicious.<br /><br />'If every single document of Vatican II were to be declared null and void tomorrow, would the Church be any worse off? Discuss.' John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.com