Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

  • Thread starter Thread starter TrueLight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
That God did not exist, that He does not keep His promises, perhaps that He really is not om(name removed by moderator)otent.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn’t mean that. It’s not like Rome is the only Church.
 
Sirach2 said:
Baptism being the most important sacrament whereby man receives the Holy Spirit, we recognize that the Church never baptizes a convert who was previously baptized in another denomination. They are very definitely part of the Mystical Body, yet not in full communion.
Click to expand...
I love Sirach2. Concise and to the point.
 
Julia_Mae said:
No, it wouldn’t mean that. It’s not like Rome is the only Church.
Click to expand...
I think the question was intended for me, and what options I had left. As I said, the doctrine of the Church and the Papacy is a matter of faith. The reason I limit my real choice to atheism is a matter of apologetics, first things, that is and better suited to another venue.
 
casual_visitor said:
It is not a Protestant mindset. If they belong to the mystical body of Christ, it would imply that there is nothing more in terms of grace that the Protestant is missing.
Click to expand...
You think being Catholic guarantees you all the Grace you need? It does not. If it did we would have to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
 
Blessed Pope John Paul II, the Great

In prayer, then, the true protagonist is God. The protagonist is Christ, who constantly frees creation from slavery to corruption and leads it toward liberty, for the glory of the children of God. The protagonist is the Holy Spirit, who “comes to the aid of our weakness.” We begin to pray, believing that it is our own initiative that compels us to do so. Instead, we learn that it is always God’s initiative within us, just as Saint Paul has written. This initiative restores in us our true humanity; it restores in us our unique dignity. Yes, we are brought into the higher dignity of the children of God,the children of God who are the hope of all creation.

Crossing the threshold of hope

The catholic life is a life of prayer. The prayer begins in heaven. We have this treasure in earthen vessels. When your enemy prays it is evidence of the prompting of The Holy Spirit of God. Do not quench the smoldering wick. The pinnacle of prayer is mass. The pinnacle of mass is the tangible Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

When we sin gravely we join all those whose prayer is imperfect. If you have the Grace of perfect communion you should have a burning desire for the salvation of every soul on earth. Keep pointing to the Eucharist in thought word and deed. To understand Holy, Mother, Teacher, Church you must receive that Peace which is beyond all understanding. You need the utter fullness of God. The indwelling, sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 5:44But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. 46For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors* do the same? 47And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same?* 48So be perfect,* just as your heavenly Father is perfect.Those who are led by the Spirit He has given the power to be children of God. The hope of all creation. Deep peace to you in time and eternity.

peace
 
“Blessed Pope John Paul II, the Great”

I know where the "Blessed " comes from but where does the “Great” come from?
 
casual_visitor said:
When MCC was released, it was doctrine. Its easy for you to say just accept what came now. But what about someone who defended that prior doctrine with zeal? Do you realize how much of a shock it is to then be told that the only thing worthy in that whole encyclical was that Christ was the head?

The point is not whether teachings against same sex marriage are moral or not. My point was that they are also doctrinal and it seems like doctrinal matters are always in flux.
Click to expand...
There was a former nun who was the Sacristan at our Parish for decades, I guess. She was a teacher. She told kids for years they’d go to hell if they ate meat on Friday. When it changed, she felt completely betrayed. She felt like she lied to those kids and the Church lied to her.

But what had happened was: she didn’t understand what that was, she didn’t understand eating meat on Friday wasn’t some mortal sin.

It seems like you feel sort of like she did. Thing is, you thought something was something it just wasn’t. A lot of people probably thought what you did, including some priests. But it never was. Go back to Jesus in Scripture when the Apostles say, “Those people are baptizing in Your name but aren’t part of us…” What did Jesus say? There are enough rooms in heaven for us all. Rejoice! God wants all to be saved and they can be.

The Mystical Body of Christ is not all visible. Just like the soul is not visible. Jesus told us about the shepherd who leaves his flock to go get that one stray. They are still part of the flock, even wandering around in the dark.
 
Old_Salt said:
“Blessed Pope John Paul II, the Great”

I know where the "Blessed " comes from but where does the “Great” come from?
Click to expand...
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at Pope John Paul II’s funeral.
Many have begun calling this man “Great” because he was.
 
Lormar said:
Please believe me that I am not trying to be a smart aleck when I ask this question, because it is the first thought that popped into my head when I read the above. Would this include the sedevacantists as well? I know this is a verboten topic, and I am not trying to start one up, just a simple answer would suffice. If it is “no”, an explanation of why not would be wonderful too.

Thank you! 🙂
Click to expand...
I have no idea. :confused:
 
Timothysis said:
“”[t]he phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all, it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church".3

This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4

“Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. This can occur only once and** the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended.** With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church”.5

There is no ambiguity. You simple do not fully comprehend what the Church has said.
Click to expand...
this has been presented to me before in response to the objections to the change in definition of the Church. And it is a whole lot of sentences and paragraphs to explain what what 9 simple words explained well and without ambiguity: the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.

This is a good example of what Holy Archbishop Lefebvre came to refer to as time bombs in the Council documents. The changes are subtle, but can be manipulated later so that even good Catholics could reach a stage where they don’t see the difference between being a part of the Church and having only a certain relationship to Her.
 
" I suppose it depends on what your definition of ‘is’, is."- Mr. Relativistic Pluralism himself.

:rolleyes:
 
Julia_Mae said:
But what had happened was: she didn’t understand what that was, she didn’t understand eating meat on Friday wasn’t some mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin. Not because of the meat its self but because the Church prescribed abstaining from meat on Fridays as a penance for all Catholics of a certain age, health, etc. To then knowingly eat meat on a Friday in disobedience of the Church was a mortal sin.

The disobedience was the sin.
 
maurin said:
this has been presented to me before in response to the objections to the change in definition of the Church. And it is a whole lot of sentences and paragraphs to explain what what 9 simple words explained well and without ambiguity: the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The given explanation affirms that the “Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.” If the number of words or the intellectual level of discourse proves to be an obstacle to some, then the problem lies not with the document but with those who fail to understand the truth that it relays. It has never been suggested that the Church reduce the meaning of scripture or the constant traditional teachings of the Church to the bare, succinct essential words necessary for the faithful. Indeed, the numerous encyclicals and writings of past popes have always been additions to further explain and enumerate a better understanding of the Church’s teachings. The ultimate reduction of Catholic teaching could perhaps be stated as “God is love,” but it does not go very far in an explanation and understanding of the faith.
maurin said:
This is a good example of what Holy Archbishop Lefebvre came to refer to as time bombs in the Council documents. The changes are subtle, but can be manipulated later so that even good Catholics could reach a stage where they don’t see the difference between being a part of the Church and having only a certain relationship to Her.
Click to expand...
A good example of irony is that Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the Council documents.
 
Laudate_Dominum said:
Pope Saint Pius the Fifth doesn’t even get that epithet.
Click to expand...
This is WAY off topic, but…

Only 2 other popes have this “title” - Leo I (Died 461) and Gregory I (Died 604).

“The Great” It is not a title that the Church bestows, but one of general aclimation of the people.

As for Pius V, more power to you! If you want, begin calling him Pius the Great. It will either catch on or not.
 
Timothysis said:
The given explanation affirms that the “Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.” If the number of words or the intellectual level of discourse proves to be an obstacle to some, then the problem lies not with the document but with those who fail to understand the truth that it relays. It has never been suggested that the Church reduce the meaning of scripture or the constant traditional teachings of the Church to the bare, succinct essential words necessary for the faithful. Indeed, the numerous encyclicals and writings of past popes have always been additions to further explain and enumerate a better understanding of the Church’s teachings. The ultimate reduction of Catholic teaching could perhaps be stated as “God is love,” but it does not go very far in an explanation and understanding of the faith.
Click to expand...
. Your explanation of the explanation of the change in the definition of the Church is almost as long as the explanation of the reason for the change in the definition of the Church is itself.

The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. 9 words. 1 sentence. 0 ambiguity.
A good example of irony is that Archbishop Lefebvre signed all the Council documents.
Click to expand...
That’s not an example of irony. That’s an example of naive filial trust by a man who never dreamed that 9 words, 1 sentence and 0 ambiguity could be changed to something that would require 1000 words, 97 sentences and 3 paragraphs to explain how nothing changed at all.
 
maurin said:
. Your explanation of the explanation of the change in the definition of the Church is almost as long as the explanation of the reason for the change in the definition of the Church is itself.

The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. 9 words. 1 sentence. 0 ambiguity.

That’s not an example of irony. That’s an example of naive filial trust by a man who never dreamed that 9 words, 1 sentence and 0 ambiguity could be changed to something that would require 1000 words, 97 sentences and 3 paragraphs to explain how nothing changed at all.
Click to expand...
Maurin, you make an excellent point.
 
maurin said:
. Your explanation of the explanation of the change in the definition of the Church is almost as long as the explanation of the reason for the change in the definition of the Church is itself.

The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church. 9 words. 1 sentence. 0 ambiguity.
Click to expand...
Strange, then, that when I read the same statements I am able to grasp, unambiguously, what it is that the Church wishes to express, which is “that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church”. Your position reveals more about your personal prejudices and beliefs than it does about any ambiguity of the Church.
maurin said:
That’s not an example of irony. That’s an example of naive filial trust by a man who never dreamed that 9 words, 1 sentence and 0 ambiguity could be changed to something that would require 1000 words, 97 sentences and 3 paragraphs to explain how nothing changed at all.
Click to expand...
It is a curious thing that a man who excommunicated himself, four bishops and supplied a host of suspended priests who act in disobedience every time they celebrate Mass with no ministry in the Church can be held as some sort of hero to any faithful Catholic who desires communion with Holy See.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top