Dissident website - www.drbo.org

I am surprised at how many people have links to www.drbo.org in their signatures, or use that site as a source in their posts.

That website clearly supports SSPX and claims that Archbishop Lefebvre was fully within his rights to consecrate bishops without the approval of Rome. Here is a link to their dissident page.

I just wondered if people knew this or not.

If a pro-choice athiest was in charge of the site, I would probably still use it. It is a great online Douay-Rheims Bible, so I use it to quote biblical passages.

I will probably burn in hell for that…:rolleyes:

Nah, probably not…:slight_smile:

“But though we [Apostles-those of maximum authority], or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” Galatians 1:8]

Ya gotta wonder if that has any meaning at all. After all, if it’s Impossible, the whole verse is a useless and unecessary statement.
The question becomes:
If you can detect Orthodoxy, how can it be that you cannot detect heresy? They are 2 sides of the same coin.
Anyway, that’s what I got from the last link you posted.

The latest out of Rome the last few years is the SSPX is not in schism and their sunday service fulfills sunday obligation. So thinking that the Archbishop was okay to consecrate is not such a terrible sounding proposition.

It would be one thing if the SSPX were preaching something that is not part of the Catholic faith (like female priests are ok, Christ is not body, blood, soul and diviinity in Eucharist, Mass is not a sacrifice etc) then you’d should worry.

But we get that enough from the average supposedly fully Catholic priests these days. I think the site is okay.

(non SSPX’er who has never been to their services).

Exactly…and people are concerned about the SSPX…doesn’t make any sense.

I never even looked beyond the fact that they have a rather easily accessible on-line Douay-Rheims Bible.

As another person above posted: I’d use still use it, even it fit were run by a pro-life atheist.

Even if www.drbo.org supports the SSPX, does it really matter?

When you put it into context, to refuse patronage because of it is rather rediculous.

How do you know the person you bought your house or your car from isn’t a protestant? Or your mailman isn’t a violently anti-Catholic atheist? Or your dry-cleaner supports Joan Chittister? Or the owners of any of the stores you regularly shop in are sede-vacantists? How about other websites other than drbo.org? What about the people who run the servers those websites are on?

To put drbo’s affiliations under a microscope and criticize them and yet give everything else we use in our lives a free pass from such scrutiny is intellectually dishonest.

We’re free to spend our money or time on whatever we please, but to be as strict with every last little thing as you propose with drbo.org is impractical. We should have standards as to whom we decide to patronize, but to criticize drbo.org and still patronize other places that could have far worse beliefs or views is unfair.

I’d rather have my money or website traffic go to the SSPX than to, say, someone who supports Richard Dawkins.

To boycott drbo.org based on their affiliations means you must do the same for everything else that enjoys your patronage. You must hold the same standard for all.

I agree. Good post. After all, we are called to the spirit of ecumenism, aren’t we?

Archbishop Lefebvre seriously thought it was a necessity because he had already expressed the concern that Rome was losing the Faith. Therefore, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because a person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity. If one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), nor would he incur any automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

So, Pope John Paul II’s statement is incorrect.

The above is a quote from the so called “dissident page.” I understood from other discussions and exchanges on this forum that Catholics don’t believe that outright publically speaking against the Pope this way is unacceptable?

Re:

Catholics don’t believe that outright publicly speaking against the Pope this way is unacceptable?

The “against” is referring to the “statement”, not the pope as a person or as an office in the church.
The pope’s Catechism states that criticism in this way is not only permitted, but encouraged where deemed appropriate.
PS
Aren’t you suppose to be in church today?

Yes, the Scriptures is one of the elements of truth found outside her visible structure that the Church of Christ claims as belonging to her and which impel those separated towards unity.

Likewise, as Leo XIII said in his encyclical on Scripture, Providentissimus Deus “the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student.”

[Leaving aside any question of SSPX-ity]

Frankly what I find disappointing in that site is that the Latin Vulgate bible provided is neither the *Nova Vulgata *(which is the Church’s current translation) nor the *Vulgata Clementina *(which was for the previous several hundred years, and of which D-R is a translation), but rather is the Stuttgart Vulgate, which though of scholarly interest has never been approved for use by the Church.

If anyone feels ooky using the site, there are other sources for the Douay-Rheims. The Unbound Bible, which seems non-denominational, has it as well as both Vulgates. IntraText also has the Douay-Rheims.

tee

This is a common misconception. To deny the papacy would be unacceptable. To publically disagree with a dogmatic/infallible teaching of the Church (e.g. Birth Control) would be unacceptable. However, we can disagree with other statements.

For example, Pope John Paul II spoke out very much against the death penalty, but good Catholics can differ on the death penalty (the official Church standing is that states are allowed to have the death penalty, but it should be “rare or non-existant.”)

If you are some newly appointed Adventist Religious Police, then state your qualifications, and I will answer this question. :thumbsup:

:smiley: :smiley: I wonder…

Not I.

It is a great online Douay-Rheims Bible, so I use it to quote biblical passages.

I agree.

I will probably burn in hell for that…:rolleyes:

I very much doubt this statement.

:slight_smile:

Good points, if not in schism there should be no cause for alarm.

The Stuttgart Vulgate, or alternatively titled Biblia Sacra Vulgata or Biblia Sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, is actually an earlier Vulgate text much closer to that which Jerome translated some 1,600 years ago. What is critical though is the source of this text being the Codex Amiatinus, the highly-esteemed 8th century manuscript, regarded as the best medieval witness to Jerome’s original text. So I would guess it is a good website if you consider that St Jerome translated the Original manuscripts into the Latin Vulgate.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.