Be careful. You’re trying to ham-fist through something that is very nuanced. Like the filioque, the orthos don’t necessarily reject the teachings/reality – but they firmly reject the need for the filioque to be spelled out as we do it or for the Pope to infallibly teach the Immaculate Conception – a mystery they are already well aware of. What we call the Immaculate Conception is one thing. A man infallibly proclaiming it is some altogether different to them…
The Orthodox reject explicitly defined doctrines of the Catholic Church. One of these is that the Pope is infallible under certain conditions. There is absolutely no way around the conclusion that the Orthodox are heretics.
He is using the word “liberal” as if it were a disease. Very few people would call Benedict XVI a liberal. But even if he were, it’s not a disease nor is it immoral, since the Holy Father has not preached or done anything immoral in public.
Obviously he does not understand the founding principles of the United States, especially the Bill of Rights. If you look at the US Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there is nothing in these documents that is in conflict with Catholicism. The Holy See at the time never condemned the content of these documents, nor have they ever been condemned by the Magisterium as being in conflict with our faith and morals.
If a revolution against tyranny is a revolutioin against God, then the SSPX has a real problem, because they claim that John Paul’s actions against Archbishop Lefebvre and their movement were tyranny and they felt they had the moral right to rebel by disobeying.
The Church believes that real faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit that is freely accepted by the receiver. The Bishop fails to understand that there can be no free acceptance of grace, if there is no freedom of religion. Would he like to see a theocracy as they have in Muslim countries?
Iran is a confessional state. Does the Bishop believe this is the ideal state?
These were the same things that the Jews said about Jesus when he said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God’s.”
I’m sure that the Pope slept better that night, knowinng that the Bishop said that he has some redeeming qualities.
Christ is a mystery, so is how he works.
You are wrong. Your personal view contravenes the official Church position. You should stop posting inaccurate comments like this.
Is this what you are talking about?
Do the Orthodox believe the Pope is infallible under certain conditions, or do they not? This is not an issue of jurisdiction. We’re discussing a reality. Does the Holy Spirit descend upon the Pope to prevent him from teaching error or does he not?
The First Vatican Council, defining Papal Infallibility:
Of course it can! Where do you get this idea?
Again, this is the main problem with the SSPX. They do not read thing as they are intended. There is no teaching that there is salvation in other religions, but that by virtue of the truth that they know, those in good faith may be saved by virtue of Christ and their relationship to his body. As you have said, this has always been the case. This does not deplete the missionary zeal because we do not know who is in good faith–we must evangelize all to earnestly seek and follow the will of God (and this has always included Catholics as well–as many saints testify.) The salvation of those have always been related to the work of the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church (which is why Baptism by desire is often called Baptism by fire).
But, it IS a disease in a sense…a disease that has contributed to the destruction of the Catholic Faith…and it IS immoral, since Liberalism is a SIN.
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;”
Liberalism as a philosophy is in error.
One who proposes that liberalism means freedom of association and belief, with a state which proposes no religion as true.Again, who in their right mind would think of Benedict XVI as a liberal?
JR
Even here, Bishop Fellay, with all due respect to his Excellency, has made a serious error. The United States does believe in religion. It certainly believes in a Creator and his Divinity. In fact, it’s the point of reference for ridding itself of tyrrany. It was the belief of the founding Fathers that the Creator did not intend for men to live under the tyranny of another.
That’s the definition of liberalism. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. This is just a matter of definition.
Join the crowd. But I think you finally got it. A mathematical equation is truly a fact, not opinion. Now we can try something new. If you represent your self as presenting logic, and not rhetoric, can you tell us the name of the dictionary that states JR has the right definition for liberalism, as you state in post 114. I refer to the idea of not having a state sponsored religion.
I’m not sure if the state not adopting an official religion is the definition of liberalism. Liberalism as I understand it is an anhilistic philosophy that concludes that everything is relative and circumstantial.