J
Actually the SSPX are in schism. Obviously if you ask the SSPX they will deny this but it is not for them to decide, it is the Church and the Holy Father who make this determination.then why did a bishop allow the SSPX to use one of his churches for a TLM,without the conditions of the 1988 indult? Becuase they’re not schismatic. I have had a friend that asked the SSPX in Italy if they said Mass in that diocese under the indult and they replied no! See this bishop considers his faithful to be good enough to be put under these “schismatics”[yeah] spiritual care.
Actually the SSPX are in schism. Obviously if you ask the SSPX they will deny this but it is not for them to decide, it is the Church and the Holy Father who make this determination.
As for the answer to your question, it is correct but not for the reasons you think. The SSPX act without approval from the Bishop of the Diocese they act in because they do not ask for it. If they did ask for it they would be denied.
It goes something like this. You cannot be born into schism. The Orthodox and Protestants were at one time considered schismatics. From what I can tell the big turning point is 50 years. After 50 years they are no longer schismatics. If SSPX remains in schism for 50 years then they will also no longer be considered schismatics and they will have the same status as the Orthodox and the Protestants. BTW, SSPX are also deniers of Catholic dogma.I truly have a question to you. How is the SSPX in schism but the Orthodox aren’t?
The Orthodox curse filioque, Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the SSPX doesn’t. Please explain the logic that deniers of Catholic dogma are not schismatic yet disobiendient bishops aren’t? I’ve asked you this question about 5 times now nad you haven’t answered. Please answer.
bear06 has it so I will not address the schismatic part but I must say that the Orthodox do not “curse filioque, , and the Immaculate Conception of Mary”.katolik:
It goes something like this. You cannot be born into schism. The Orthodox and Protestants were at one time considered schismatics. From what I can tell the big turning point is 50 years. After 50 years they are no longer schismatics. If SSPX remains in schism for 50 years then they will also no longer be considered schismatics and they will have the same status as the Orthodox and the Protestants. BTW, SSPX are also deniers of Catholic dogma.I truly have a question to you. How is the SSPX in schism but the Orthodox aren’t?
The Orthodox curse filioque, Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the SSPX doesn’t. Please explain the logic that deniers of Catholic dogma are not schismatic yet disobiendient bishops aren’t? I’ve asked you this question about 5 times now nad you haven’t answered. Please answer.
Then you’ll have to explain yourself to me. At the local Ukrainian parish I hear “i Syna” sung extra loud.bear06 has it so I will not address the schismatic part but I must say that the Orthodox do not “curse filioque, , and the Immaculate Conception of Mary”.
Their stand is the same as us Byzantine Catholics. We do not recite the filioque nor celebrate the Immaculate Conception (we celebrate the Conception of St Anne).
Common sense tells me - he never would have made the change - 1st he was too old and 2nd he loved it too much … that’s all! Just plain common sense!So basically if you are a priest who says the Pauline Mass you don’t love the Mass above all things and you are a modernist that is anxious to throw out the old and invite the new at all costs? Let’s see, I think that there are a few priests I can think of that might disagree with you…Ratzinger, Fessio, Groeschel, etc., etc., etc. It would seem that these and many more have devoted their lives to the Mass and what do you know? They say the Novus Ordo!
That’s funny!!!why must people use the saints as ammo, there is no such thing as a traditional or liberal catholic, you are roman catholic or you are not a catholic simple as that
Common sense tells me that he would have made the change if he’d been directed by the Holy See to do so. Love and obedience are what makes a saint.Common sense tells me - he never would have made the change - 1st he was too old and 2nd he loved it too much … that’s all! Just plain common sense!
Not above God - are you saying he was banned from saying the TLM?Common sense tells me that he would have made the change if he’d been directed by the Holy See to do so. Love and obedience are what makes a saint.
Yes you are right about studying the saints and living as they lived.That’s funny!!!
The Saints are the way of the Church - We are all called to be saints - we are expected to study the Science of the Saints. The Saints are MORE than ammo they are our example! If you are doing things that the Saints would never do that is enough to say you shouldn’t be doing it!
So I guess you can go ahead and call it ammo!
I’ll load my gun with Saint ammo any day!!!
Hmmm, there are multiple examples where the Saints were obedient to the Bishops even when the Bishop was in error. Like Fatima, the seers were told to be obedient to the Bishop by Mary.Not above God - are you saying he was banned from saying the TLM?
Common sense tells me that he would have made the change* if** he’d been directed by the Holy See to do so. Love and obedience are what makes a saint.*Not above God - are you saying he was banned from saying the TLM?