A
Auntie_M
Guest
AND you still believe in the tooth fairy!!!
But I really hope you’re right about the Pope condemning the “false” interpretations (As the SSPX sees it), then the SSPX will have a glorious eye opener
- Status
But I really hope you’re right about the Pope condemning the “false” interpretations (As the SSPX sees it), then the SSPX will have a glorious eye opener
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Has anyone stopped to ponder the oxymoron of the thread title?
C
catharina
Guest
Since you are given to verbosity, perhaps you’ll finally explain the meaning of “not practicing the faith” as opposed to “leaving the Church.” If you were not practicing the faith, then it’s hard to imagine how you were “in the Church.”
Also, how long did that falling away from “practicing” go on?
P
pnewton
Guest
Surely you must realize by now that this is just rhetoric. I know that you see logic in the position of the SSPX. I do not. I do not claim that you are being stubborn in not seeing things as I do.
C
catharina
Guest
Yes - from the moment I first saw the thread.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
Dear, How on earth can you honestly make an intellegent decision on the SSPX if you have never been to their masses. Just reading their sites (most of which is from the same people using different named “companies” to make it seem they are really being supported) If you carefully read the sites about the “Traditional Latin Masses” you will soon see the same words from all the sites. Almost word for word.
Don’t go by what OTHERS tell you, go to their masses and see for yourself the :“hate” that is being spread, it is NOT the NO crowd.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
GOOD POINT
L
laudamus_te
Guest
Believe it or not, I am not trying to hurt you, catharina. I am not “truth.”
I have yet to see you respond to me or anyone who holds opinions or ideas different from your own with anything other than contempt and anger. People deserve more respect than that, catharina.
I admire saint rafael for his restraint, for not lowering himself to the level of his attackers. He sets a good example that we should all try to emulate.
P
pnewton
Guest
At 12:30 pm today on post #84 this thread, to JReducation:
“No one is going to take your silly nonsense seriously.”
This was in response to:
JR
L
laudamus_te
Guest
I would like to see some proof to your claim of “same people - different ‘companies’”. A lot of websites use the same sources, but that doesn’t equate to a Traditionalist Conspiracy of some sort, which you seem to be implying.Dear, How on earth can you honestly make an intellegent decision on the SSPX if you have never been to their masses. Just reading their sites (most of which is from the same people using different named “companies” to make it seem they are really being supported) If you carefully read the sites about the “Traditional Latin Masses” you will soon see the same words from all the sites. Almost word for word.
Don’t go by what OTHERS tell you, go to their masses and see for yourself the :“hate” that is being spread, it is NOT the NO crowd.
Also, please document some of the “hate” which is being spread. I had a beautiful sermon yesterday on Sts. Peter and Paul, and today on the Seven Ages of the Church as revealed by St. John. Very informative and interesting; nothing hateful. You are being very uncharitable to brand the SSPX in that way. By the way, do you attend their Masses?
E
ethelzguy
Guest
Perhaps you confuse the words “attack” with “defend”. Said poster has made numerous posts attacking the HMC and her clergy. Most or the responses have been to defend the HMC and her clergy against his attacks.
Calling Popes names hardly qualifies as “restraint” or “good example”.
L
laudamus_te
Guest
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Leaving the Church means I left for another church or I joined another religion. I did not do that. I was always Catholic. I did not practice my faith, so I was a lapsed Catholic.
Confession restored me to a state of grace.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
I said it was “silly nonsense” to state the I am going to be ex-communicated for heresy. It is nonsense to state that many traditional Catholics are going to be ex-communicated for heresy.
That is a attack that has no basis in reality. No traditionalist has written any heresy on this thread. It is silly to state that those of us who love the Magisterium and the Church hold “heresy”.
J
JReducation
Guest
Sometime during the late 70s the USA converted to internatinal traffic signs across the country. Everyone had to follow them, to this date.
They are not in the Constitution of the United States nor in the Constitution of any state. Nonetheless, they are traffic laws.
Should we assume that they are not binding, because they are not constitutional law?
The rules and expectations laid out by Vatican II were not dogmas. Like the traffic signs, they were based on the a priori assumption that the Church has the right to make pastoral rules and its members have to accept them as authoritative, because there is a dogma that says that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, headed by the Vicar of Christ. If the Vicar of Christ approves such pastoral decisions, then they are authoritative.
Just like when the government approves laws based on the power given it by the Constitution. You don’t need a Constitutional Convention to ammend the Constitution everytime you want to enact law. You assume that the Government has such authority.
You do not have to make a dogmatic statement to have authority. The authority is assumed by an existing dogma that speaks about the authority of the Church and the leadership of Peter.
While the decrees of Vatican II were not dogma, they are authoritative, because they come are approved by the person who has the authority to approve them, Peter himself. That is dogma. Peter has the power to bind and unbind both in ordinary and ex cathedra situations.
JR
P
pnewton
Guest
If any person reads the post about, they will notice that the word is not as relevant as the person it is used against. Specifically, “heretic” was used in a subjunctive “if” in a hypothetical situation. “Silly nonsense” was used to describe a poster’s question. The point is that when accusations of lack of charity are made, 99% it is against one who disagrees with you, while tolerance is encouraged for similar remarks made by those who agree with you. If this keeps up, I wouldn’t be surprised if the subject of SSPX are not suspended again. I have truthfully try to change my tone on this subject without changing the substance of what I wish to say. I can speak for no one but myself on this.Yes, “silly” is quite a stinging attack vs. “heretic.”
If you re-read his post, that is not what he said. He proposed a case in the subjuctive, based on statements that came out of Rome. It is not an impossibility and asked a valid question. Would the threat of excommunication, just or unjust affect your (or anyone’s) actions. I can say that for me it would. I would re-examine the things consider heresy very seriously.
S
saint_rafael
Guest
Traditionalists including me, have not attacked Holy Mother Church. The Church is supernatural, holy and infallible.
We have attacked the agents of the Church, the clergy, who do not uphold the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
The clergy have not been following the teachings of the Church. Traditionalists will criticize those who do not their their job and do not take seriously their responsibility in upholding dogma and doctrine.
**
No matter how hard we traditionalists are on the human agents of the Church, God is a hundred times more harsh.
No human being can be as tough, harsh, angry, and just as God himself when the clergy fail his flock. The judgement seat of Christ the King is extremely frightening. God holds the clergy more accountable than any other human being because they have more responsibility. They are held to the highest standards. **
S
saint_rafael
Guest
The decrees fall under the “Authentic Magisterium” which is not infallible and non-binding.Sometime during the late 70s the USA converted to internatinal traffic signs across the country. Everyone had to follow them, to this date.
They are not in the Constitution of the United States nor in the Constitution of any state. Nonetheless, they are traffic laws.
Should we assume that they are not binding, because they are not constitutional law?
The rules and expectations laid out by Vatican II were not dogmas. Like the traffic signs, they were based on the a priori assumption that the Church has the right to make pastoral rules and its members have to accept them as authoritative, because there is a dogma that says that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, headed by the Vicar of Christ. If the Vicar of Christ approves such pastoral decisions, then they are authoritative.
Just like when the government approves laws based on the power given it by the Constitution. You don’t need a Constitutional Convention to ammend the Constitution everytime you want to enact law. You assume that the Government has such authority.
You do not have to make a dogmatic statement to have authority. The authority is assumed by an existing dogma that speaks about the authority of the Church and the leadership of Peter.
While the decrees of Vatican II were not dogma, they are authoritative, because they come are approved by the person who has the authority to approve them, Peter himself. That is dogma. Peter has the power to bind and unbind both in ordinary and ex cathedra situations.
JR
From the definition at fisheaters:
fisheaters.com/101.html
Authentic Magisterium:
“Teaching by Pope, Bishop, or anyone with the proper authority to teach, that does not fit into the above two categories.[extraordinary, ordinary]
** All authorized teaching is owed proper, intelligent, prayerful religious assent, but must be resisted if it leads to sin, compromises the Faith and the salvation of souls, or contradicts the above two levels of Magisterium, the Sacred Deposit of Faith, Scripture, and Tradition.”**
The teaching is authoratative because it came from the Church, but it is not binding and if it goes against prior teaching, we have a duty to resist it.
A Catholic is free to accept or reject it. It is advice. This advice is non-binding on any Catholic.
C
catharina
Guest
You are completely incapable of hurting me because I do not accept your words as “truth.”
You admire s-r. So be it. He admires no Pope of living memory. (Granted, he’s young.)
I have lived under six papacies. I admire all six of those Popes.
You admire whomever you chose.
I’ll coninue to admire (and defend) those whom I find to be admirable.
Case closed.
C
catharina
Guest
**
Priests who gather to stand against the Holy Father are not traditionalists - unless their traditionalist leader is Martin Luther. All Catholics of a certain age KNOW this.**
- Status