Excommunicated bishop Fellay renews attacks on Christ's vicar

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padua_Minded
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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;”

This is precisely what the Orthodox do. They reject articles of the Catholic faith which must be held by every person. Their “theological tradition” offers them no exemption. The article you’ve presented only confirms what I’ve been saying.
Canon law only applies this to those who are baptized within the Catholic Church. The Orthodox are not baptized within the Cathlic Church, even though their baptism is as valid as many Christian baptisms.

Spiller’s application is correct and consistent with the application as stated in the Catholic Catechism and the Canon Law of 1983.

JR 🙂
 
Canon law only applies this to those who are baptized within the Catholic Church. The Orthodox are not baptized within the Cathlic Church, even though their baptism is as valid as many Christian baptisms.

Spiller’s application is correct and consistent with the application as stated in the Catholic Catechism and the Canon Law of 1983.

JR 🙂
This is wrong. Absolutely nobody is free to reject the Catholic faith.
 
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.
Liberalism is a political ideology centred on individual liberty. It rejects any form of established religion.
 
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.
Yes, the rejection of established religion is part and parcel of liberalism.
 
=JReducation;3772166]Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI saw no reason to condemn Fr. Kung because his theology is done within the context of the academic world. This is not what he is preaching from the pulpit.
What John Paul II did was to forbid him to teach Catholic theology. Fr. Kung accepted the Holy Father’s orders and stopped teaching Catholic theology. It was his obedience to the Holy Father’s orders that kept him in good standing with the Church.

As long as Father Kung does not teach his thoughts as Catholic and is clear that these are this thoughts and are academic, not material for preaching
, he will not be excommunicated. **The Church does not excommunicate people for thinking.

No one may teach error, but everyone has a right to think and even write. **

But JR surely you know that Kung and fellow heretic Father Charles Curran were widely read in the seminaries in the 70-90’s.
They may not be preaching but they are being read. The fact that they have not been excommunicated implies that their views have some merit. It is said that the “spirit of Vatican II” was a toleration of error. This is surely the case with Kung and Curran

adoremus.org/Kung-598.html

"Kung accused the German bishops of “servile obedience” to the “Roman Kremlin”, and said that by accepting the pope’s decision, they had lost their “credibility” and their “apostolic franchise.” He called for “tenacious resistance” against the authority of Rome, which he said was based on “half-truths” and “camouflage”, and hinted that the German bishops were motivated by their desire to become cardinals.

Kung has accused the pope of imposing a “rigid, stagnating and despotic rule in the spirit of the Inquisition”. Two years ago** he called for a new pope** who would “save the barque of Saint Peter from sinking” by changing the teaching on women priests, married male priests, divorce and birth control."
 
Is this really a Trad Cath forum?

Its possible to be a heretic and a schismatic. A heretic is someone who denies any dogma of the Church; a schismatic believes everything the Church teaches but defies proper authority. The Orthodox deny infallibly defined Papal statements and refuse to submit to Papal authority.

And regardless of whether they are heretics or schismatics is irrelevant- the Church has infallibly defined that:

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal…”
 
Is this really a Trad Cath forum?

Its possible to be a heretic and a schismatic.
Haven’t you heard? The Pope says that any Church with apostolic succession is automatically immune from heresy. :rolleyes:

Now get off your high, arrogant horse, and repeat after me:

Check.
Your.
Brain.
At.
The.
Door.

Got it?
 
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal…”
Sadly, in trying to make a point about schismatics, you pointed out how different the way in which the teaching about “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” is presented nowadays.

Not your fault, or anybody’s fault, and I could be wrong, but the above quote. Kinda makes me sad, because the teachings contained in it are at the heart of this controversy.

This whole era is really upsetting when a person tries to understand it, regardless of how they feel about things.
 
But JR surely you know that Kung and fellow heretic Father Charles Curran were widely read in the seminaries in the 70-90’s.
They may not be preaching but they are being read. The fact that they have not been excommunicated implies that their views have some merit. It is said that the “spirit of Vatican II” was a toleration of error. This is surely the case with Kung and Curran

adoremus.org/Kung-598.html

"Kung accused the German bishops of “servile obedience” to the “Roman Kremlin”, and said that by accepting the pope’s decision, they had lost their “credibility” and their “apostolic franchise.” He called for “tenacious resistance” against the authority of Rome, which he said was based on “half-truths” and “camouflage”, and hinted that the German bishops were motivated by their desire to become cardinals.

Kung has accused the pope of imposing a “rigid, stagnating and despotic rule in the spirit of the Inquisition”. Two years ago** he called for a new pope** who would “save the barque of Saint Peter from sinking” by changing the teaching on women priests, married male priests, divorce and birth control."
Regardless of what you and I think, Benedict XVI respects him very much and likes him. He has entrusted a ministry to him. We can either accept the Holy Father’s judgement and believe that he has a bigger picture of the situation or we can correct the Holy Father, if that’s even possible.

JR 🙂
 
Did you read the document?

JR 🙂
The document does not say that Apostolic succession guarantees doctrinal Orthodoxy.

If you would care to quote the part you mistakenly think says this, I would be happy to correct your misconceptions.
 
Regardless of what you and I think, Benedict XVI respects him very much and likes him. He has entrusted a ministry to him. We can either accept the Holy Father’s judgement and believe that he has a bigger picture of the situation or we can correct the Holy Father, if that’s even possible.

JR 🙂
It’s very possible, if we are Protestants. They don’t believe in the authority of the Chair of Peter. 🤷
 
This is wrong. Absolutely nobody is free to reject the Catholic faith.
You’re not only the Pope’s judge and jury, you’re also a Canon Lawyer?

Therefore Fellay stands vindicated while you convict the popes. I can see where your fidelity is placed and it’s not with the Church. It’s with one man’s opinion of himself, Fellay’s

JR 🙂
 
The document does not say that Apostolic succession guarantees doctrinal Orthodoxy.

If you would care to quote the part you mistakenly think says this, I would be happy to correct your misconceptions.
Why don’t you let me correct your miscnceptions?

JR 🙂
 
=JReducation;3772418]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. …What the USA does not do is have an official religion. ‘’’. There is a rejection of theocratic politics, to avoid what happened in England and what still happens in England, where the government must be Anglican or in Muslim countries or in Israel or even Communist countries.
What I think Bishop Fellay is saying is that the traditional teaching of the Church was that it is an error for the state to be separated from the True Church. Pope after Pope has said this. To separated the state from the True Church is to guarantee that the state will become Godless which is exaclty what has happenned in every country in the world.
This may be the text of Pope Benedict that has Bishop Fellay saying he is liberal compared to pre-vatican II Popes because he is speaking positively on the concept of a secular state which previous Popes would have never done.
Bishop Felly may be wrong in his interpretation of what Pope Benedict is saying but that is not for me to determine.
"What I find fascinating in the United States is that they began with a positive concept of secularity, because this new people was composed of communities and individuals who had fled from the State Church and wanted to have a lay, a secular State that would give access and opportunities to all denominations, to all forms of religious practice. Thus, an intentionally secular new State was born; they were opposed to a State Church. But the State itself had to be secular precisely out of love for religion it its authenticity, which can only be lived freely. And thus, we find this situation of a State deliberately and decidedly secular but precisely through a religious will in order to give authenticity to religion, “ L’Osservatore Romano April 23,2008 pg. 22
 
You’re not only the Pope’s judge and jury, you’re also a Canon Lawyer?

Therefore Fellay stands vindicated while you convict the popes. I can see where your fidelity is placed and it’s not with the Church. It’s with one man’s opinion of himself, Fellay’s

JR 🙂
I have no idea what could have given you this impression. Canon Law does not exempt anyone from the Catholic faith. Every person is bound to assent to the Catholic faith. That’s Catholic doctrine.

You explicitly contradict a doctrine of the Church, while calling me disloyal. I can’t imagine a more glaring contradiction.
 
I’m not sure if this is what Bishop Fellay is objecting to either. But if it is, he’s read it differently than how it was said.

Let’s look at the pieces sytematically.
"What I find fascinating in the United States is that they began with a positive concept of secularity, because this new people was composed of communities and individuals who had fled from the State Church and wanted to have a lay, a secular State that would give access and opportunities to all denominations, to all forms of religious practice.
The Holy Father is expressing admiration for how justly the US has treated people of all religions. He’s not saying that other religions are the same a Catholicism. His statement is a compliment to our sytem of justice to people of all faiths. They are treated equally and they all have opportunities to prosper, regardless of their faith. This is an example of Christian justice. This is actually a very Catholic concept. No pope has ever denied that people of other faiths should not have “access and opportunities” which are the Holy Father’s words.
Thus, an intentionally secular new State was born; they were opposed to a State Church.
This goes back to not having an official state religion, which the Church has always taught. The Church wants governments and its citizens to embrace the truth taught through the Catholic Church, but not by force. It must be done through consent to the gift of grace. Again, the Holy Father praises the fact that our system leaves the door open for grace and for man to freely accept grace rather than impose a belief system that would not bear any fruit, even if it were Catholic, because it would not be freely embraced. This was a problem in the Catholic colonies, as it probably is in many Muslim countries. I wonder how many of these Muslims are really believers. It’s hard to tell when the State imposes the faith on you, such as was done to Iran.
But the State itself had to be secular precisely out of love for religion
What he is saying here is that our founding fathers actually loved and respected religion enough, not to interfere with it. Again, he is praising their respect for all things religious. Not supporting a faithless society. He is supporting a leadership that respects religion.
it its authenticity, which can only be lived freely.
This ties in again with the idea that the faith must be freely accepted. This is based on Pope Benedict’s strong belief that faith and reason cannot be separated. It is unreasonable to believe that faith can authentic, when there is not freedom to do otherwise, but to practice a particular faith, whatever that may be.
And thus, we find this situation of a State deliberately and decidedly secular but precisely through a religious will in order to give authenticity to religion, “
Here he is paying a very high compliment to people of faith in the United States. We have faith, not because it is imposed on us, but because we freely accept the gift. Therefore, our political system has served to authenticate our faith. Because those of us who have faith, have it through our own choice, not the choice of the State. Without meaning to do so, our political system has actually helped. People have had to think about matters of faith and make their own choices without some higher authority making it for them. Therefore, our faith has credibility, because it is free.

The Holy Father is praising this credibility and in a rather subtle way telling the government that they have really pomoted faith by staying out of the business of faith. He’s sending a message to other nations of the world to do the same. Let people discover faith on their own, because it has more credibility that way.

L’Osservatore Romano April 23,2008 pg. 22

Again, I’m not sure if this is the point that His Excellency is concerned about. But if it is, he missed the boat. There is no defence here of other faiths at the expense of the Catholic faith.

JR 🙂
 
I have no idea what could have given you this impression. Canon Law does not exempt anyone from the Catholic faith. Every person is bound to assent to the Catholic faith. That’s Catholic doctrine.

You explicitly contradict a doctrine of the Church, while calling me disloyal. I can’t imagine a more glaring contradiction.
Canon law defines the term “heretic” and it says that it does not apply to those who are born in other faiths. That’s the point that I’m making.

It applies to Catholics, just as was posted above in the list of defintions that someone posted from the EWTN website.

The same with apostolic succession. No one says that the Churches with apostolic succession cannot make mistakes. The Roman Catholic Church has too.

What is said is that they are no longer excommunicated or anathemized and we are not longer excommunicated by them either.

Remember, they have always had validly ordained bishops too. Their bishops also had the power to excommunicate us and did so.

Just as some of our bishops have excommunicated. It’s not only the Holy See who can excommunicate. A bishop can do so too. I can’t remember the name of the group. I believe it’s A Call to Action or some such name. It’s a very liberal Catholic group that one of the Midwestern bishops excommunicated.

Just as our bishops can excommunicate, so can and did the Eastern Patriarchs excommunicate us.

All of those mutual excommunications and anathemas are now lifted. The logic behind lifting them included several ideas.
  1. We are sister Churches, part of the saem Mystical Body
  2. We want to return to union with each other.
  3. The excommunications were due to mistakes of hermaneutics on both parts. Neither side really understood what the other side was trying to say.
  4. Pope Benedict’s desire to put the past behind us, including all of the things that were said to each other or about each other by popes and patriarchs.
  5. The Pope’s desire to fulfill the will of Christ, to bring all into union as Christ and the Father are united…
  6. Our circumstances today are not the same as 1,000 years ago. There is no disobedience on either side, such is not the case with the SSPX. Those who disobeyed are still around. In the case of the Orthodox, those who disobeyed and excommunicated the Western Catholics are no longer around. Those who are around today, want to work toward unity. While Bishop Fellay continues to find fault rather than look for opportunities for unity.
In conscience, it is very difficult for any faithful Catholic to lend support to Bishop Fellay, because he’s not looking for union with the Vicar of Christ. He finds fault at every turn. Last year when the Motu Proprio was issued he said that he was waiting to see what else Rome was going to offer the SSPX. Read his comments in the interview that’s listed on CAF’s main page. He is waiting for Rome to offer him something. But he is not offering Rome anything but criticism.

Where is the desire for unity in this manner of acting and speaking?

JR 🙂
 
Unity will be achieved by individuals and groups being brought to acceptance of Catholic doctrine precisely as it has been dogmatically defined by Ecumenical Councils and Infallible Papal Statements. Any other sort of unity is inauthentic.

As far as the SSPX goes, they are clearly no longer impeded from declaring full unity with the Church. The Mass is liberated and they may interpret the Second Vatican Council in the light of Sacred Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium. There is nothing that prevents a Catholic from holding to the faith as it was defined before the Council, and offering the Traditional Latin Mass.

The failure of the SSPX to return to communion with the Church is simple disobedience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top