I don’t understand what you mean. “[t]he phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est”. “With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church”.for one thing to subsist in another, Josh, implies two different entities. In order to reach the conclusion of the last sentence of what you posted above is definitely a case of the grass is blue and the sky is green.
St. Pius X, ora pro nobis.
Because for one thing to subsist inside another, 2 things are necessary. The mental gymnastics required to arrive at the second to last sentence’s conclusion are the same mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion that the sky is green and the grass is blue.I don’t understand what you mean. “[t]he phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est”. “With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church”.
How does that go against is?
One is not permitted to attend an Orthodox Mass, according to the innovations, Josh, unless NO OTHER MASS is available at all. In other words, you have not fulfilled your Sunday Obligation merely by attending an Orthodox Liturgy instead of Mass.We are allowed under conditions to attend the Divine Liturgy at Orthodox Churches, but that doesn’t mean that these Churches are not in schism.
.
Ok. My mistake. That’s what I meant by special conditions, but I wasn’t clear enough.One is not permitted to attend an Orthodox Mass, Josh, unless NO OTHER MASS is available at all. In other words, you have not fulfilled your Sunday Obligation merely by attending an Orthodox Liturgy instead of Mass.
No such condition is placed on assisting at an SSPX Mass, according to my understanding.
so, in other words, one fulfills one’s Sunday Obligation if one assists at the Holy Mass celebrated by a Priest of the SSPX. Which is not the case if one assists at a schismatic Orthodox Liturgy under the above mentioned circumstances.Ok. My mistake. That’s what I meant by special conditions, but I wasn’t clear enough.
This isn’t the understanding of the Pope and the Church. They make no distinction between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.Because for one thing to subsist inside another, 2 things are necessary. The mental gymnastics required to arrive at the second to last sentence’s conclusion are the same mental gymnastics required to come to the conclusion that the sky is green and the grass is blue.
It certainly is a brave new world.
Stop worrying about offending me, Josh. It should be clear to you that I take you at your word. I don’t ask you to agree with me if you don’t agree with me. I only ask you for your honesty. I admire you for your desire to seek out and to understand the truth. Your conclusions should be your own.This isn’t the understanding of the Pope and the Church. They make no distinction between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.
What I don’t understand is the mental gymnastics (i mean nothing rude by this) taken to say that a Society is not shismatic which has been called so numerous times in numerous documents.
But they do, Josh, by virtue of defending the new definition.This isn’t the understanding of the Pope and the Church. They make no distinction between the Church of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.
Ok. So you believe Pope John Paul II is a Modernist? I have given numerous obvious statements that explicitly say that the Society is in schism, but if you can reject them all at will saying that they come from Modernist, then there is nothing I can do.But Josh, the Society has not been said to be in schism. Yes it is true, according to the modernists, that the Great Archbishop committed a schismatic act by consecrating the 4 Bishops, and the Great Archbishop knew he would suffer the consequences. But so did every Martyr who died for the Faith, commit, in the enemies’ eyes, treasonous acts. But acts being declared schismatic is still a far cry from persons of the Society or the Society itself being declared schismatic. You have yet to provide a document which states unequivocally that there is a schism. Until you do so we will be going round and roundandroundandroundandroundandround. Neither of us has time for that, do we? We may, if you’d like, agree to remain in disagreement.
No Josh, you have not. You have shown statements that explicitly say that the Archbishop and Bishops took part in a schismatic act. If you don’t see the difference, there is nothing I can do.Ok. So you believe Pope John Paul II is a Modernist? I have given numerous obvious statements that explicitly say that the Society is in schism, but if you can reject them all at will saying that they come from Modernist, then there is nothing I can do.
You can show me a statement by the Pope–any Pope at this point would be acceptable–stating that the Society is in schism.I do not agree do disagree but I do not see anything else that I can show you. I will be praying for you.
cool off first. You sound angry.I’m off to Holy Mass to recieve the Bread of Life, not hard stones, from the hands of Christ through His spotless Bride the Catholic Church.
I wasn’t angry.cool off first. You sound angry.
You haven’t moved me by your arguments because you haven’t proven your point, only insisted upon your opinion. That, I hope, oughtn’t anger you. I’m actually impressed by the fire in your belly, Josh. It doesn’t anger me that you disagree with me. I respect your freedom in this aspect.
Of course, if you’re not angry, the above doesn’t apply–except the compliments, which are sincere.
No Josh, you have not. You have shown statements that explicitly say that the Archbishop and Bishops took part in a schismatic act. If you don’t see the difference, there is nothing I can do.
If you’re looking for a single sentence that says, “I now declare and proclaim that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is in schism,” I don’t think one exists, but there are others which are quite clear. I don’t know how open you are to this, but consider this one:You can show me a statement by the Pope–any Pope at this point would be acceptable–stating that the Society is in schism.
Pope John Paul II said and did a lot of things, not all of which were very well thought out, to put it mildly. You only have to look at his history to see that.I wasn’t angry.
If you’re looking for a single sentence that says, “I now declare and proclaim that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is in schism,” I don’t think one exists, but there are others which are quite clear. I don’t know how open you are to this, but consider this one:
“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence *to the schism *is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
Do you not agree that, referring to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, Pope John Paul II calls it “the schism”, warning people not to formally adhere to it under penalty of excommunication?
Do you not love the Church which Christ founded and trust in His promise to St. Peter? Sure the Pope may have made many mistakes, but formally excommunicating someone as the Vicar of Christ does not count as one of them.Pope John Paul II said and did a lot of things, not all of which were very well thought out, to put it mildly. You only have to look at his history to see that.
The SSPX acknowledges Pope Benedict as the Supreme Pontiff and Pope, and rejects groups that think otherwise. They write very clearly on their website that they are not the Church. However they are canonically irregular, which makes their sacraments illicit but valid.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?
yet, you are certain that even though one does not exist that your interpretation of the below text you cite is correct. There’s something wrong there, but let’s continue:I wasn’t angry.
If you’re looking for a single sentence that says, “I now declare and proclaim that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X is in schism,” I don’t think one exists
but there are others which are quite clear. I don’t know how open you are to this, but consider this one:
That the act of Consecrating 4 Bishops without the Pope’s approval, yes, according to the modernists it was a schismatic act. But a few years later, Josh, the head of E.D. gave the faithful the ok to assist at their Masses and donate to their collection plates. I continue to ask you and to consider WHY THE HEAD OF E.D. WOULD DO THIS JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER THE ABOVE STATEMENT if the SSPX is in schism.“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence *to the schism *is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
I don’t know why he would allow this, but it in no way invalidates the statement of the Pope. They are not contradictory, but under the present circumstances, it is allowable to attend. Can you give me statement you said you presented. I gave a quote but you didn’t give me one. You just said that someone said this. I believe you, but I would like to see the quote.yet, you are certain that even though one does not exist that your interpretation of the below text you cite is correct. There’s something wrong there, but let’s continue:
That the act of Consecrating 4 Bishops without the Pope’s approval, yes, according to the modernists it was a schismatic act. But a few years later, Josh, the head of E.D. gave the faithful the ok to assist at their Masses and donate to their collection plates. I continue to ask you and to consider WHY THE HEAD OF E.D. WOULD DO THIS JUST A FEW YEARS AFTER THE ABOVE STATEMENT if the SSPX is in schism.
you’re not thinking things through to their logical conclusion, Josh. And what you might think I"M thinking is the logical conclusion to be drawn might not be what you think.
But think it through Josh. you have presented one statement concerning the Society and I have presented another. Does the fact they appear to be contradictory not dawn on you?
This next part is all put in bold for emphasis:In effect no. 4. of the Motu Proprio explains the nature of the “doctrinal root of this schismatic act,” and no. 5. c) warns that a “formal adherence to the schism” (by which one must understand “the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre”) would bring with it the excommunication established by the universal law of the Church.
As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.
try these, Josh, all written after what you have linked:I don’t know why he would allow this, but it in no way invalidates the statement of the Pope. They are not contradictory, but under the present circumstances, it is allowable to attend. Can you give me statement you said you presented. I gave a quote but you didn’t give me one. You just said that someone said this. I believe you, but I would like to see the quote.
,Also, I am not interpreting this document by my own understadning
you’re not thinking things through to their logical conclusion, Josh. And what you might think I"M thinking is the logical conclusion to be drawn might not be what you think.
But think it through Josh. you have presented one statement concerning the Society and I have presented another. Does the fact they appear to be contradictory not dawn on you?
So then you would say that everyone, excommunicated by every Pope was rightfully and correctly excommunicated. That there were never ever less than pure theological reasons for any excommunications?Do you not love the Church which Christ founded and trust in His promise to St. Peter? **Sure the Pope may have made many mistakes, but formally excommunicating someone as the Vicar of Christ does not count as one of them.
**
You could just as well say this about any Pope’s decision and then the authority of the Church turns instead into the authority of men.