M
maurin
Guest
Where Josh, does His Holiness say schism exists. I repeat that unless internal and within now have opposite meanings…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Josh_Elzner
Guest
He doesn’t say schism exists because it is implied. He knew that the Society was in schism because his Predecessor said so. (See my post on the other forum, “A Disturbing Mass”.)
How do you “regain reconciliation and unity” if there is not division in the first place?
How do you “regain reconciliation and unity” if there is not division in the first place?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
He doesn’t say schism exists because it is implied. He knew that the Society was in schism because his Predecessor said so. (See my post on the other forum, “A Disturbing Mass”.)
How do you “regain reconciliation and unity” if there is not division in the first place?
It may be better Josh Elzner – to let the one who** now** sits in the Chair of Peter --to speak -as to who is/is not in schism—instead of trying to pulls things out of what he did not say.
J
Josh_Elzner
Guest
Will you please tell me where his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI said that the Society is not in schism?
It may be better Josh Elzner – to let the one who** now** sits in the Chair of Peter --to speak -as to who is/is not in schism—instead of trying to pulls things out of what he did not say.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Josh, SSPX has been accused of schismatic activities, they don’t accept the discipline of the Church, the priests are illicitly ordained, and the laity are warned not to attend every week lest they develop a “schismatic mentality”.Will you please tell me where his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI said that the Society is not in schism?
However, I don’t think that a schism has actually ever been declared.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
It may be better Josh Elzner – to let the one who now sits in the Chair of Peter --to speak -as to who is/is not in schism—instead of trying to pulls things out of what he did not say.
You --yourself made note that he didn’t say schism exists. What followed those words you start with – is what you put in to place the Society in schism.
J
Josh_Elzner
Guest
Sorry for the misunderstanding. That’s not what I meant. I meant that, yes, the pope doesn’t explicitly say that the Society is in schism, but he does not say that it is not either–because it is implied that it is. (Unless the Society has nothing to do with Marcel Lefebvre).
You --yourself made note that he didn’t say schism exists. What followed those words you start with – is what you put in to place the Society in schism.
Please read Pope John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei and *The Excommunications of the Followers of Abp. Lefebvre * by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, found here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269697
They both make it clear that those following Lefebvre are indeed in schism. Ecclesia Dei is especially clear, mentioning the “Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X”.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Sorry for the misunderstanding. That’s not what I meant. I meant that, yes, the pope doesn’t explicitly say that the Society is in schism, but he does not say that it is not either–because it is implied that it is. (Unless the Society has nothing to do with Marcel Lefebvre).
Please read Pope John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei and *The Excommunications of the Followers of Abp. Lefebvre * by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legal Texts, found here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269697
They both make it clear that those following Lefebvre are indeed in schism. Ecclesia Dei is especially clear, mentioning the “Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X”.
Because now you say --the Pope didn’t “explicitly” say —you place yourself in the position to speak for him --to say what he supposedly wanted to explicitly say.
You have to keep in mind — If not our current Pope --a future Pope can may well vindicate the Archbishop and the Society. So as I said prior —Let the Pope do the speaking for himself.
J
Josh_Elzner
Guest
Aren’t we supposed to understand what the Holy Father is saying? I don’t believe, as has been pointed out earlier, that he means the Society is not in schism. I don’t think he is contesting that.
Because now you say --the Pope didn’t “explicitly” say —you place yourself in the position to speak for him --to say what he supposedly wanted to explicitly say.
You have to keep in mind — If not our current Pope --a future Pope can may well vindicate the Archbishop and the Society. So as I said prior —Let the Pope do the speaking for himself.
Will you please look at something from the other documents on the page linked above, besides this paragraph from the current Holy Father. How do you refute John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei besides telling me to listen to the current Pope.
As you know, after a Pope dies his writings are still valid, or there would be no such thing as Tradition, if we started over with every Pope. Definitely we are working toward full communion but that doesn’t mean it already exists.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
**Aren’t we supposed to understand what the Holy Father is saying? **I don’t believe, as has been pointed out earlier, that he means the Society is not in schism. I don’t think he is contesting that.
Will you please look at something from the other documents on the page linked above, besides this paragraph from the current Holy Father. How do you refute John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei besides telling me to listen to the current Pope.
As you know, after a Pope dies his writings are still valid, or there would be no such thing as Tradition, if we started over with every Pope. Definitely we are working toward full communion but that doesn’t mean it already exists.
Well that depends on what our Holy Father said or Not. Can’t do much about what you don’t want to believe–don’t want to think. The main difference here – is I don’t bind our current Pope or a future Pope to the actions of our late Pope --something which you from what you express are intent on doing.
J
Josh_Elzner
Guest
Why are you intent on reading Benedict XVI apart from all the other documents treating on this subject?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
He is the one Now sitting in the Chair of Peter–is he not. What happens between the Church and the Society now is the concern of our current Pope.Why are you intent on reading Benedict XVI apart from all the other documents treating on this subject?
D
DrumminFool91
Guest
After having read this article, “Holier Than Thou”, it seems to me that these SSPX types are more like Protestants than they think… leaving Rome for what they claim is the “true church”… umm I’m pretty certain Luther and Calvin thought something similar. This article also mentions how the SSPX fit the very definition of what it means to be “schismatic” perfectly. I’m all for fighting abuses within the Church and the liberalism that has plagued us, but I can’t see leaving the barque of Peter to save the barque of Peter. As to their current state within the Church, I know it has changed some, but I’m not sure how and I need to research it more, other than the document that was mentioned a little earlier, which I will read, are their any others issued from the Vatican on this issue?
M
maurin
Guest
Josh, that’s clever, but it isn’t honest. You have declared that schism exists. The Pope would be the best source for an answer. You have the burden of proving your point, especially in light of all Pope Benedict has said and done.Will you please tell me where his Holiness Pope Benedict XVI said that the Society is not in schism?
Now, because I don’t mind a bit of honesty, I will tell you this. If you said, “that’s right, there is no schism,” it doesn’t mean that the Canonical situation of the Society is regular. Nothing has changed, Josh: there is no schism, the Pope has lifted the excommunications of our Bishops, the Priests are still suspended. One may still assist at the Society’s Masses, according to His Grace Hoyos, as long as one does not do so with the intent of denying Papal supremacy, and further it is not, according to His Grace, inappropriate to contribute to their collections.
In other words, Josh: situation normal, still screwed up. But you could n’t get me to step foot in a NO Parish for a NO Mass for all the tea in China. Strike that, I don’t like tea. Make it for all the coffee in Colombia.
M
maurin
Guest
I know you need to research it more too, Mr. Fool, because making comments such as those you made when you admit you are uninformed really is quite foolish.After having read this article, “Holier Than Thou”, it seems to me that these SSPX types are more like Protestants than they think… leaving Rome for what they claim is the “true church”… umm I’m pretty certain Luther and Calvin thought something similar. This article also mentions how the SSPX fit the very definition of what it means to be “schismatic” perfectly. I’m all for fighting abuses within the Church and the liberalism that has plagued us, but I can’t see leaving the barque of Peter to save the barque of Peter. As to their current state within the Church, I know it has changed some, but I’m not sure how and I need to research it more, other than the document that was mentioned a little earlier, which I will read, are their any others issued from the Vatican on this issue?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Thank you for your honesty. I have felt the same way at times about certain parishes.In other words, Josh: situation normal, still screwed up. But you could n’t get me to step foot in a NO Parish for a NO Mass for all the tea in China. Strike that, I don’t like tea. Make it for all the coffee in Colombia.
However, I have to say, the overall tone of your responses here is that you have no desire to be in communion with the Church. You desire the Church to be in communion with SSPX.
In this and other threads I am trying to get to the bottom line. What do you want? Where do you see the Church in ten years? If SSPX was regularized tomorrow, what would you say would be in the impact on the Church (not the Society)?
M
maurin
Guest
Quote John Paull II declaring that a schism exists please. We are looking for the truth. If you are going to make a claim such as “his Predecessor said so,” please provide the precise quote.He doesn’t say schism exists because it is implied. He knew that the Society was in schism because his Predecessor said so. (See my post on the other forum, “A Disturbing Mass”.)
How do you “regain reconciliation and unity” if there is not division in the first place?
M
maurin
Guest
I have no desire to be in Communion with the modernists, Paul, you are correct. Why do you?Thank you for your honesty. I have felt the same way at times about certain parishes.
However, I have to say, the overall tone of your responses here is that you have no desire to be in communion with the Church. You desire the Church to be in communion with SSPX.
In this and other threads I am trying to get to the bottom line. What do you want? Where do you see the Church in ten years? If SSPX was regularized tomorrow, what would you say would be in the impact on the Church (not the Society)?
P
pnewton
Guest
How about for Jesus Christ?But you could n’t get me to step foot in a NO Parish for a NO Mass for all the tea in China. Strike that, I don’t like tea. Make it for all the coffee in Colombia.
M
maurin
Guest
I wasn’t able to find Him in the NO Parishes, pnewton. Every sexual sin I confessed to the NO Priests were mocked as old-fashioned (I could count on one hand how many Priests in 10 years of NO life actually took me seriously in this aspect), and that “pretty soon” those types of transgressions won’t be transgressions at all. No, I was dying and many of the Priests were eager to convince me I was not sinning at all. But I will repeat that I was at times lucky enough to find a NO Priest who was still faithful to the Church’s timeless teachings on Morality. Unfortunately for me, they were far and few in between.How about for Jesus Christ?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.