|
choy
|
 |
« Reply #45 on: November 05, 2012, 02:11:20 PM » |
|
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.
True tradition won't. Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance. Without men like +Williamson it will. Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously. I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do. In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included. While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Maria
|
|
« Reply #46 on: November 05, 2012, 03:22:12 PM » |
|
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.
True tradition won't. Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance. Without men like +Williamson it will. Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously. I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do. In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included. While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy. moi aussi. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
|
|
|
|
Peter J
|
|
« Reply #47 on: November 05, 2012, 04:23:07 PM » |
|
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.
True tradition won't. Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance. Without men like +Williamson it will. Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously. I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do. In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included. While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy. moi aussi. And me. I have found that traditionalists are very good at getting me to see the problems with neo-conservative Catholicism (e.g. Peter W. Miller's A Brief Defense of Traditionalism, but not as good with respective to offering an alternative. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #48 on: November 05, 2012, 04:40:27 PM » |
|
And me. I have found that traditionalists are very good at getting me to see the problems with neo-conservative Catholicism (e.g. Peter W. Miller's A Brief Defense of Traditionalism, but not as good with respective to offering an alternative. I believe they are the same problem packaged differently. They have the externals that are appealing to those disenfranchised by the modernization of the Roman Church, but their spirituality is just as bad. I haven't met an SSPXer who has argued well for Traditionalism (maybe the book you linked does, I don't know). Every rhetoric and polemic is out of hubris. You wouldn't hear anything but "we're right, you're wrong." I've even had one ultra trad tell me that Orthodox are heretic schismatics whose god is Satan, and that Eastern Catholics are nothing more than half-way houses that proves how wrong the modern ecumenist mindset is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #49 on: November 05, 2012, 05:07:48 PM » |
|
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.
True tradition won't. Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance. Without men like +Williamson it will. Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously. I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do. In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included. While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy. Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome. Strange days indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Papist
|
|
« Reply #50 on: November 05, 2012, 05:13:18 PM » |
|
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.
True tradition won't. Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance. Without men like +Williamson it will. Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously. I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do. In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included. While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy. Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome. Strange days indeed. Oh geesh, it's Bishop Williamson against the world. rrrrrrrrrrright.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
|
|
|
|
Alpo
|
|
« Reply #51 on: November 05, 2012, 05:22:03 PM » |
|
Martel, why don't you come home inside? It must be terribly lonely out there to be the lone last proper Christian. We have cozy beards and baklava!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2012, 05:23:54 PM » |
|
and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics.
An SSPX supporter calling someone else a schismatic? The irony! PS: it was the west which schismed from the east, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 05, 2012, 05:24:54 PM by Cyrillic »
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2012, 05:43:33 PM » |
|
Martel, why don't you come home inside? It must be terribly lonely out there to be the lone last proper Christian. We have cozy beards and baklava!
Baklava most defintely, but you can keep those scruffy beards.  Thanks for the offer anyway.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2012, 05:47:05 PM » |
|
Tradition will never slip into irrelevance.
True tradition won't. Thus, the SSPX will slip into irrelevance. Without men like +Williamson it will. Bishop Williamson is the greatest reason why not to take the SSPX seriously. I have yet to meet someone form the SSPX to even make me think about what they teach and do. In fact, the only thing the SSPX has led me to think about is the validity of teachings of the Catholic Church, themselves included. While I was never a Traditionalist, the SSPX has played a good part in pushing me towards Orthodoxy. Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome Strange days indeed. Oh geesh, it's Bishop Williamson against the world. rrrrrrrrrrright. Not really, but mostly a few fanatical Modernists and Judaizers in and out of the Vatican. I'm sure the rest of the world would support +Williamson given the facts. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2012, 05:50:15 PM » |
|
and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics.
An SSPX supporter calling someone else a schismatic? The irony! PS: it was the west which schismed from the east, not the other way around. Um, yea, sure they did, if you say so. And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2012, 05:51:06 PM » |
|
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.
Strange days indeed.
You can say I am a true Traditionalist. I am looking for something more traditional than Trent, which is only 500 years ago. I think that is one of the biggest holes of Traditional Roman Catholicism and the SSPX, to claim tradition and yet only go as far back as 500 years ago. It is as if the Church never existed in the First Millennium. Something that is very clear when you look at Orthodoxy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Peter J
|
|
« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2012, 07:39:54 PM » |
|
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.
Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #58 on: November 06, 2012, 01:07:50 PM » |
|
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.
Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 01:08:56 PM by Cyrillic »
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #59 on: November 06, 2012, 01:32:28 PM » |
|
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.
Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition. Ooohhh burn! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #60 on: November 06, 2012, 02:15:27 PM » |
|
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.
Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Papist
|
|
« Reply #61 on: November 06, 2012, 02:17:37 PM » |
|
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.
Strange days indeed.
You can say I am a true Traditionalist. I am looking for something more traditional than Trent, which is only 500 years ago. I think that is one of the biggest holes of Traditional Roman Catholicism and the SSPX, to claim tradition and yet only go as far back as 500 years ago. It is as if the Church never existed in the First Millennium. Something that is very clear when you look at Orthodoxy. No. No. I'm more traditional than you, and my dad is more traditional than your dad! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #62 on: November 06, 2012, 02:20:55 PM » |
|
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.
Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition. The topic here is the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054. Let's try and stay focused here. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #63 on: November 06, 2012, 02:26:47 PM » |
|
Which bishop?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #64 on: November 06, 2012, 02:42:37 PM » |
|
Which bishop?
The one in the subject you silly  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #65 on: November 06, 2012, 02:42:46 PM » |
|
Sooo, what were you then, a Modernist? Are you still? You say you never met someone in Tradition to make you even think about it yet it is this very tradition that caused you to wonder about the validity of Church teachings and now you are seeking answers from Eastern schismatics. All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.
Strange days indeed.
You can say I am a true Traditionalist. I am looking for something more traditional than Trent, which is only 500 years ago. I think that is one of the biggest holes of Traditional Roman Catholicism and the SSPX, to claim tradition and yet only go as far back as 500 years ago. It is as if the Church never existed in the First Millennium. Something that is very clear when you look at Orthodoxy. No. No. I'm more traditional than you, and my dad is more traditional than your dad! Funny you mention that because the word pope is Latin for papa (father). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #66 on: November 06, 2012, 02:44:05 PM » |
|
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Peter J
|
|
« Reply #67 on: November 06, 2012, 02:44:36 PM » |
|
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.
Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us. Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #68 on: November 06, 2012, 02:45:03 PM » |
|
Funny you mention that because the word pope is Latin for papa (father). Do you pray Pope Noster? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #69 on: November 06, 2012, 02:46:01 PM » |
|
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".
Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Papist
|
|
« Reply #70 on: November 06, 2012, 02:46:28 PM » |
|
Funny you mention that because the word pope is Latin for papa (father). Do you pray Pope Noster? Pater noster qui est in caelis. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #71 on: November 06, 2012, 02:46:58 PM » |
|
All this while condemning a great man like Bishop Williamson who now stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome.
Hmmm, I think you just inadvertently disclosed your real identity to us. Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome". You know what I'm getting at, no need for semantics. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Peter J
|
|
« Reply #72 on: November 06, 2012, 02:49:23 PM » |
|
Funny you mention that because the word pope is Latin for papa (father). Do you pray Pope Noster? Wikipedia says "pope (from Latin: papa ...)". So I guess we could say that "pope" is English for papa. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #73 on: November 06, 2012, 02:50:13 PM » |
|
Funny you mention that because the word pope is Latin for papa (father). Do you pray Pope Noster? Pater noster qui est in caelis. that is....... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Papist
|
|
« Reply #74 on: November 06, 2012, 02:56:43 PM » |
|
Funny you mention that because the word pope is Latin for papa (father). Do you pray Pope Noster? Pater noster qui est in caelis. that is....... que? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #75 on: November 06, 2012, 02:58:23 PM » |
|
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein. Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #76 on: November 06, 2012, 02:59:06 PM » |
|
Isn't coelis ecclesiastical latin for caelis?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
Papist
|
|
« Reply #77 on: November 06, 2012, 02:59:31 PM » |
|
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein. Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed. We Catholics believe he is a bishop, just not a bishop in good standing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #78 on: November 06, 2012, 03:02:06 PM » |
|
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein. Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed. Latin Sacramental theology states that the mark of ordination is indelible and someone outside the Church retains their ordination. A priest is still a priest, a bishop is still a bishop, and they can perform Sacraments validly but illicitly as they are outside the Church. The Sacraments are at the command of the priests and bishops, not something that is bound to the Church itself. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #79 on: November 06, 2012, 03:05:01 PM » |
|
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".
Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net? I wouldn't be surprised. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #80 on: November 06, 2012, 03:12:17 PM » |
|
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".
Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net? I wouldn't be surprised. Why here? CAF would be a better place for him |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #81 on: November 06, 2012, 03:16:00 PM » |
|
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".
Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net? I wouldn't be surprised. Why here? CAF would be a better place for him I imagine he's been banned there at least 9000 times. The mods on the traditional catholicism subforum are tough as iron. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
choy
|
|
« Reply #82 on: November 06, 2012, 03:20:54 PM » |
|
I imagine he's been banned there at least 9000 times. The mods on the traditional catholicism subforum are tough as iron.
In fairness though, I do know someone who speaks as higly about Bishop Williamson and he is not Bishop Williamson. He does have quite a following within the SSPX. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #83 on: November 06, 2012, 03:30:04 PM » |
|
Having read quite a bit of Traditionalist (the Latin variant) forums, I think they're quite obsessed with apparitions and private revelations.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
Peter J
|
|
« Reply #84 on: November 06, 2012, 04:04:39 PM » |
|
Well, your screenname here says Charles Martel, not Williamson; but if you weren't Bishop Williamson there's no way you would say that he "stands alone in resisting the errors in Rome".
Are you saying that Bishop Williamson is trolling in OC.net? I wouldn't be surprised. Why here? CAF would be a better place for him Actually, not all traditionalists like the traditional-wing of CAF -- in much the same way that not all Eastern Catholics like the eastern-wing of CAF. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #85 on: November 06, 2012, 04:18:42 PM » |
|
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.
Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition. The topic here is the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.I see what you did there |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #86 on: November 06, 2012, 05:03:11 PM » |
|
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.
Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition. The topic here is the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.I see what you did there 22 posts later and now the light goes off.......not much gets by you eh? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #87 on: November 06, 2012, 05:09:19 PM » |
|
Which bishop?
Take a wild guess Einstein. Are we assuming Williamson is a bishop now? That's a point I wouldn't conceed. Would you even concede Benedict being the Bishop of Rome? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
Cyrillic
|
|
« Reply #88 on: November 06, 2012, 05:15:25 PM » |
|
And it was post VII Rome that parted with Tradition, not the other way around.
Wrong. It was post-1014 AD Rome which parted with Tradition. The topic here is the good Bishop's expulsion from the SSPX, not the Eastern Schisim of 1054.I see what you did there 22 posts later and now the light goes off.......not much gets by you eh? I'm very slow.
Would you even concede Benedict being the Bishop of Rome?
I'm one of those hipster sedevacantists. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 06, 2012, 05:15:34 PM by Cyrillic »
|
Logged
|
On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
|
|
|
|
Charles Martel
|
|
« Reply #89 on: November 06, 2012, 05:21:41 PM » |
|
Funny you mention that because the word pope is Latin for papa (father). Do you pray Pope Noster? Pater noster qui est in caelis. that is....... que? And what? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
|
|
|
|
