T
thistle
Guest
Wake up and smell the coffee. Whether you like it or not SSPX is officially a schismatic movement.
- Status
S
saint_rafael
Guest
The teaching of the Catholic Church has been clear:But the Magisterium can change these rules, because they are matters of discipline, not dogma. To use an example, the fact that a group is Lutheran, does not change their status, because a Catholic or Catholics pray with them. They are still Protestants and not in full communion witht he Church. No one has said that they are.
Also, the Magisterium feels very strongly that charity must prevail in matters of prayer. It is not permmissable for a Catholic to receive the sacraments of a Protestant Church or even the Orthodox churches, which do have valid sacraments, but it is considered an act of charity to pray together, especially for souls, peace, unity, and the salvation of the world.
JR
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/noncath.htm
Prior Popes have taught we are not supposed to pray with non-Catholics.
Pope Pius XI stated the only valid ecumenism was conversion to the Catholic Church in his encyclical on Christian Unity- catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/reunity.htm
By praying with non-Catholics, we are denying the dogma of no salvation outside the Church because their religion is seen as valid.
Catholics need to pray for non-Catholics so they can be converted.
olrl.org/doctrine/eens2.shtml
“The greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. The Catholic Faith is a gift from God, one that can be shared, one that gives life and salvation. Mother Church, being solicitous for the welfare of all mankind, has always sought to bring all into the One Fold (John 10:16), and to unite all in the profession of the one Faith given to us by Christ through the Apostles. If She were to hide the truth, or be content to leave others in their error, She would be cruel and indifferent.”
J
JReducation
Guest
You cannot play one pope against another in matters of discipline. This is not the way the Church works. These commentaries and statements are not binding on the successors of these holy men. These holy men would take great offense to seeing them used as an excuse to teach over the head of the current pope.
It is not a matter of what we like or want. As saint Francis said in his rule to the Secular Franciscans, “If you want to build a house, take your time. Go slowly. Smaller steps and humulity save more souls than the best preached sermon. To attempt to change the world or the Church, without the support of the Church is to place oneself above the Bride of Christ and to displace her Divine Spouse.”
It is not our job to change the Church without her support and her approval. Such is a lack of humility and an attempt to be the Church’s spouse instead of a child of the Church as St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Vincent de Paul said.
JR
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Hold on here! What do you define as being “Subject” to the Pope?Do you define being Subject as being obedient? Because if so, then how could there be the possibility of salvation for an excomunicated Bishop??
Your argument refutes you!
E
ethelzguy
Guest
C
consumedconvert
Guest
You cannot play one pope against another in matters of discipline. This is not the way the Church works. These commentaries and statements are not binding on the successors of these holy men. These holy men would take great offense to seeing them used as an excuse to teach over the head of the current pope.
It is not a matter of what we like or want. As saint Francis said in his rule to the Secular Franciscans, “If you want to build a house, take your time. Go slowly. Smaller steps and humulity save more souls than the best preached sermon. To attempt to change the world or the Church, without the support of the Church is to place oneself above the Bride of Christ and to displace her Divine Spouse.”
It is not our job to change the Church without her support and her approval. Such is a lack of humility and an attempt to be the Church’s spouse instead of a child of the Church as St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Vincent de Paul said.
JR
S
saint_rafael
Guest
The SSPX leaderrs or bishops are part of the SSPX.
The SSPx leaders are ex-communicated for now, but they are not schismatic.
In short, The SSPX bishops are not schismatic and the whole SSPX is not schismatic.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
I am not pitting a Pope against a Pope, the modern Popes are doing that themselves. They are in contradiction with the prior Popes.You cannot play one pope against another in matters of discipline. This is not the way the Church works. These commentaries and statements are not binding on the successors of these holy men. These holy men would take great offense to seeing them used as an excuse to teach over the head of the current pope.
It is not a matter of what we like or want. As saint Francis said in his rule to the Secular Franciscans, “If you want to build a house, take your time. Go slowly. Smaller steps and humulity save more souls than the best preached sermon. To attempt to change the world or the Church, without the support of the Church is to place oneself above the Bride of Christ and to displace her Divine Spouse.”
It is not our job to change the Church without her support and her approval. Such is a lack of humility and an attempt to be the Church’s spouse instead of a child of the Church as St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and St. Vincent de Paul said.
JR
It is not dsicipline. The prior Popes did not allow interfaith prayer or contact with non-Catholics because of the dogma of no salvation outside the Church.
Interfaith prayer is the rejection of the dogma no salvation of outside of the Church.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
There is true and false obedience. A Catholic does not obey the Pope when the Pope orders sin or his order would lead someone to deny the Catholic faith.
In the case of Lefebvre, the actions of Pope John Paul II were unjust and will be corrected bby the Church. God is the one who judges the soul of a man.
Under your erroneous thinking, St. Joan of Arc would not be a saint and would be in hell because she died ex-communicated.
J
JReducation
Guest
Pope John Paul II has declared that Vatican II had as much authority as the Council of Nicea and other councils to authentically interpret Church Tradition
a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II.
In addition John Paul II did say there is a schism. I too thought that he had not, BUT I WAS MISTAKEN. Those who formally adhere to the schism incur excommunication.
c) 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.(8)
Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in these deliberations. Obviously he obeyed what he was told to do by John Paul II. It is unlikely that he would have done so, had he believed it was immoral.
Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;
There was already a plan to restore the EF during John Paul’s papacy and an agreement between Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre.
Therefore, there was no justification of fear or emergency, if an agreement to restore the EF had already been reached.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
JR
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Pope John Paul II could have said anything he wanted, but it is all his opinion.Pope John Paul II has declared that Vatican II had as much authority as the Council of Nicea and other councils to authentically interpret Church Tradition
JR
The fact is the Pope John XXIII said in his opening speech that it would be a pastoral Council and not a dogmatic Council.
He is in contradiction with Pope Paul VI who said that Vatican II issued no dogmatic pronouncements or infallible decrees.
Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966
Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965
C
catharina
Guest
Sorry, young man. As usual regarding sspx, etc., you are in error.
From Ecclesia Dei:
“Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)”
S
saint_rafael
Guest
You can quote Ecclesia Dei and Pope John Paul II all you want, I could care less because the SSPX had a valid defense, unjustly rejected by Pope John Paul II and his disasterious pontificate.
We will see in a couple of years who is right.
C
catharina
Guest
Rest assured that I KNOW the truth rests with the chair of Peter.
It’s a matter of faith confirmed. It comes with faithfulness.
J
JReducation
Guest
- Pope John Paul II never said anything contrary to either John XXIII and Paul VI. He said the Council had the authority to interpret Tradtion. He didn’t say it was dogmatic.
- I’m not so sure why you are citing Pope John XXIII. The SSPX has said that Pope John XXIII had no credibility and Bishop Williamson denies the validity of John’s Beatification. Therefore, his statement is of no consequence to you, since he is not to be trusted and much less worthy of any kind of veneration by Catholics, according to your leaders.
- I’m not sure why you trust the judgement of Paul VI when you deny his judgement when he lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox Churches and stated that they were no longer in schism, but declared them Sister Churches. He got the dialogue going for an eventual reunification between East and West.
- Pope Benedict XVI agrees with John Paul II and you love him because he restored the EF.
JR
P
piouswoman
Guest
You are proclaiming to be more faithful than others?
How corny, how narrow minded, and what grave error to believe the pope is God…that is not Catholic, that is foolish.
cfnews.org/MarraPop.htm
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Well first of all, Pope John Paul II said Vatican II was the same as Nicea, which is ridiculous because Nicea issued the first dogmas on the trinity, condemned Arianism, and was an infallible Council with infallible decrees. Vatican II did not do none of those things.All of us need to accept that we cannot have things the way we want them. The sooner we learn this, the sooner we will have reconciliation.
- Pope John Paul II never said anything contrary to either John XXIII and Paul VI. He said the Council had the authority to interpret Tradtion. He didn’t say it was dogmatic.
- I’m not so sure why you are citing Pope John XXIII. The SSPX has said that Pope John XXIII had no credibility and Bishop Williamson denies the validity of John’s Beatification. Therefore, his statement is of no consequence to you, since he is not to be trusted and much less worthy of any kind of veneration by Catholics, according to your leaders.
- I’m not sure why you trust the judgement of Paul VI when you deny his judgement when he lifted the excommunication of the Orthodox Churches and stated that they were no longer in schism, but declared them Sister Churches. He got the dialogue going for an eventual reunification between East and West.
- Pope Benedict XVI agrees with John Paul II and you love him because he restored the EF.
JR
- I am not a SSPX member and I believe Pope John XXIII was a Modernist, but he was a valid Pope and got some things right. Why would he lie about his own Council?
- Pope Paul VI lifted the orginal ex-communication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. All Pope Paul VI did was lift the 1054 ex-communication.
That does not mean the Orthodox Church is no longer schismatic, because they are still outside the Catholic Church. - I love and admire Pope Benedict, he did the right thing with the TLM, but I know he is still infected with the liberalism of his youth. He is not perfect, but is a transitional Pope paving the way for the future.
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
Since I think it’s safe to assume that none of us here are psychic, I would think that one would consider it much safer to remain firmly in line with the Vicar of Christ than follow leaders who have been excommunicated, all in hopes that some day someone may rethink things and possibly declair a whole slew of popes in error.
Reason would tell us there certainly is no guarentee this will ever happen, on the contrary, most likely will never ever happen. And yet, a lot of people are placing a lot of faith on the assumption of such a thing. Does anyone here really think this is smart?
I’d personally never take that kind of a chance.
Reason would tell us there certainly is no guarentee this will ever happen, on the contrary, most likely will never ever happen. And yet, a lot of people are placing a lot of faith on the assumption of such a thing. Does anyone here really think this is smart?
I’d personally never take that kind of a chance.
C
catharina
Guest
That I believe that only the Pope is graced as the Pope is no surprise. That other Catholics believe differently from that speaks to their abnormal irregularity. Again, no surprise.
C
catharina
Guest
You say: “… Pope Benedict, he did the right thing with the TLM, but I know he is still infected with the liberalism of his youth.” I say, may God forgive you. Benedict’s youth was spent in a nation under the total domination of Nazism. His youth concluded with his conscription into the Nazi armed forces. The more you talk, the more you reveal your actual ignorance.
That revelation must be seen as a very good thing.
- Status