A
Arnobius
Guest
You realize a continual flow of invective and ad hominem does nothing for your credibility, don’t you?
- Status
A
AlexV
Guest
I suggest you hone in on HER attacks on me, which don’t seem to have aroused your criticism, rather than my self-defense.
C
catharina
Guest
You are one person; they are of another ilk. Since they (WH and A-V) have turned to endless and circular personal attacks on me, I have little choice but to dismiss any notion of theological sincerity on their part.
If as you say, you believe the Chair of Peter is vacant, then indeed, I feel greatly saddened for you and will pray for you. Your path is one of the ones that leads to the taxing (and unanswerable?) question: “Lord, to whom shall we go?”
A
Arnobius
Guest
Those born into schism are not schismatics in the proper sense, as they did not choose to break away. There is certainly a difference between Martin Luther who chose to break away, and your average Protestant of today who was born into a Protestant family and was taught that their understanding was the truth.
The first case is culpable, the second is not.
A
Arnobius
Guest
I imagine if you were to simply stop, there would be no further reason for her to do anything.
However, objectively I find your attacks far more vitriolic
C
catharina
Guest
Now you, JReducation and I have given the same answer.
Those born into schism are not schismatics in the proper sense, as they did not choose to break away. There is certainly a difference between Martin Luther who chose to break away, and your average Protestant of today who was born into a Protestant family and was taught that their understanding was the truth.
The first case is culpable, the second is not.
I do wonder if perhaps A-V will hear you.
A
AlexV
Guest
That’s your opinion. As for people “born” into schism, there are plenty of SSPX’ers who are born to their large, non-birth control-using families, so I’m glad you find none of them culpable for the “schism”.
F
Four_Marks
Guest
Dear Walking Home,
I see. Well, what you must understand is: the adherents of Benedict XVI are going to walk all over the defenders of the SSPX, the adherents of the SSPX and the SSPX clergy. Why? Because they have right on their side. The SSPX claim Benedict is the valid pontiff. Ergo, they are intrinsically subject to his papal mandate. Ergo, they cannot deny the excommunication of the recognized (by them) authority, nor can they disobey his legitimate commands. Do you seriously expect Catharina to view the gross disobedience as anything other than schism? (rhetorical question) Btw, I fully accept that she views that I’m in schism.
C
catharina
Guest
sspx is one thing. Those who chose the Lefebvre separatists are another. Any and all sspx-ers are free to chose Rome. The situation is yet unfolding. (All children are exempt.)
A
Arnobius
Guest
Presuming you mean children who were born into families already separated or else too young to decide for themselves when the family joined the SSPX, you would be correct, they would not be culpable.
Those who had full knowledge and consent of their actions, however, would be.
A
AlexV
Guest
Well the cardinal who is appointed by the pope to be in charge of all SSPX issues says the priests and laity (at least) aren’t in schism. I trust him more than an internet ranter.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
People tried claiming, & proved to their own satisfaction, that Vatican I was not a true Council either. So the disobedience & rebellion of those who presume to say otherwise is not new - only the council they presume to reject is new: this spirit of rebellion is as old as Nicea; indeed, as old as the fall.
The temptation to reject Vatican II is just that - a temptation. Temptations are always plausible - otherwise they would deceive no one. A temptation that can deceive an Archbishop & lead to rebellion & schism & perpetual disobedience to a man recognised as legitimate Pope is a mighty temptation indeed, & it shows its character by its success & its fruits; so it must be rejected.The two Councils stand together: both are legitimate, both are ecumenical Councils, both bind in conscience. Nicea I was rejected too - & schism lasting centuries was a result.
It’s not heresy - not quite: but it is the rejection of a dogmatic fact; that is, of a fact which if not truly a fact, amounts to denying the perpetuity of the Church. Other dogmatic facts are that a man alleged to be Pope is truly Pope, & that a person canonised is in Paradise.
A
Arnobius
Guest
But you do not trust the Pope’s Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei declaring Lefebvre and the four bishops excommunicated?
That is rather inconsistent.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
It is obvious – you have little experience with catharina.
C
catharina
Guest
Those who choose Rome are not.
Those who choose Lefebvre are.
All have been warned (at the time that L was declared in schism).
F
Four_Marks
Guest
Dear Catharina,
Thank you for your prayers. I know you are sincere in mentioning that you will pray for me. As you are aware, despite the intention not being applicable, prayers never go astray.
I don’t think there is any value in discussing theological matters with you. And if you think that one decides that the Chair of Peter is vacant due to heresy and apostasy of the claimant on a whim, please think again. I am a Catholic. I fully understand that the opinion I hold has eternal ramifications if I’m wrong. Yes, I’m that confident that I’m not wrong, because I’m confident that 2000 years of Church teaching cannot be wrong.
A
AlexV
Guest
What exactly does “choose Lefebvre” mean legally?
Sorry, charges as serious as schism require a wee bit more buttress and foundation than a vaguery like “choose Lefebvre”.
As for Cardinal Castrillon, he is the pope’s official spokesman for Lefebvre matters.
Sorry, charges as serious as schism require a wee bit more buttress and foundation than a vaguery like “choose Lefebvre”.
As for Cardinal Castrillon, he is the pope’s official spokesman for Lefebvre matters.
A
AlexV
Guest
And Catharina, where’s my apology for false accusations and false witness?
C
catharina
Guest
So I shall indeed pray for you.
At the age of 62 years, I am so confident of God’s protection of His Church that I can only be grateful for that grace, that gift from Him. It is very much in line with my upbringing where portraits of Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII were placed and held in honor in my parents’ home. The one truth taught: pray to do the will of God in all things. As an adult through the Vincentian charism, I also fully learned be faithful to the Church. I’ll pray to St. Peter for you.
My favorite quote from Peter:
“It is a holy God Who has called you and you too must be holy in all the workings of your life.”
P
pnewton
Guest
I have responded to many of your posts. I do not respond to all. I started trying to find context for some of the quotes. The first three I looked up through google came back to SV sites exclusively. This could be coincidence. The only reason I mention this a second time is to give others a good way of testing the waters
I have always posted the same way. You are only the second person to object. I make no secret of the fact that those who reject our Holy Father and seperate from him, I believe to be separate from the Church and thus no longer Catholic. Again, where the Bishop of Rome is there is the Catholic Church. So, no, I do not consider you and your fellow SV’s to be Catholic.
As to my opinion of the “Wacky World of Sedevacantism”, (This, BTW, is CA’s term they use in This Rock a few years back. They had on the cover a pope made out of Mr. Potatohead.)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3180607&postcount=65
I used the term “sharks” to describe you because I believe you to undermine the Catholic Church and feed on the weak.
- Status