D
distracted
Guest
i say it just sounds odd… and unlikely…
but i’ve seen so much strnage stuff in my relatively short life time that i dont have a hard time believing anything these days…
- Status
but i’ve seen so much strnage stuff in my relatively short life time that i dont have a hard time believing anything these days…
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Perhaps what he was inferring was that there was no other Bishop with the courage to publicly defend the Mass of Pius V and the Catholic faith as handed down to the fathers of Vatican II except for Abp Lefebvre and Bishop De Castro Meyer.
Not one.
P
pnewton
Guest
It should be a cause for concern when such statements are made, along with the statements equating their opinion with absolute Truth. It is like the old statement, No bragging, just fact." This is not typical of most SSPX, BTW.thanks…
the ONLY true catholic bishop??? hmm…:coffeeread::hypno:
I
iluvburpees
Guest
I apologize for making such an extreme claim that I did not back up. I truly do not know how many good bishops were left in the Church other than him and De Castro Meyer. But I thank GiuseppeTO for putting it in a much better manner.
Again, I am sorry if I tend to be uncharitable here; I tend to get very choleric when I debate, and it is a thing I need to try hard to control.
D
distracted
Guest
in other words… God loves everyone always and forever… even when some of his loved ones are burning in Hell?
D
distracted
Guest
all i know is that the arguments i’ve heard so far for SSPX (which admittedly are insufficent for me to make an accrate assessment concerning…) are very convincing…
some of the recent popes have said things that are heretical-sounding. But i have not read their comments in full context… so i am still investigating…
C
Cristiano
Guest
Love is not a simple feeling, it is an action. People in hell chose to separate themselves from God’s action of love forever. His justice will not change their choice, as I previously said His love does not contradict His justice. That is all I know, the rest would be simple speculation on my side.
L
Lycorth
Guest
V
VetA
Guest
No he was quite clear not unconditonial. the condition is sin. if mortal sin did not break our relationship with God, then his love would be unconditional. God CANNOT love something that is completely contrary to himself. by you asserting the unconditionality of His love you are saying that God loves satan as much as St. Michael or Jesus. asserting something like that is absurd. as he said, there are over 850 (if not 850 then 800) references to God’s love in scripture, not a single one even hints at the possibility that it is unconditional.
take for example the Beatitudes.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5: 3-12[/BIBLEDRB]
I dont see Jesus say Blessed is everybody regardless of what they have done, i see Jesus saying that a few people are blessed because they deserve it because of what they have done.
I am not saying that God’s love is not a mystrey, it is, how else could we have the case of the Apostle Paul, but he repented of the evil he had done, God did not, nor could he, love him as long as he was being evil.
its the same thing with us, if we sin and sin, do not go to church, teach that abortion and contraception are ok, have sex outside marrige, deal drugs, do drugs, blaspheme against the LORD, is a terroist and child rapist you would concider such a person evil, right? how can God love that person, how can God love that which is the exact oppisit of Him. but because the love of God is incomprehensible if that person decides to accept God, and is truly sorry for having offended him (not because of fear of hell, but because he is truly sorry for the evil he has done) then God will accept him back, after he purifies himself by pennance.
it is also the same when we die, we go to purgatory to be purified, because we are still stained with our sins, and cannot be fully loved by God. or stand in his presence
C
Cristiano
Guest
First it is wrong to say that a person is evil. Everybody has been created in God’s image (being). Is God’s image evil? No!
However we can and must acknowledge when people do evil things (behaviors).
I think that you are confusing/mixing our choices with God’s capabilities.
I repeat that if God’s love were conditional, then when we sin we cannot have the possibility of redemption because that can come only from God’s forgiveness. God’s forgiveness is because of His love. If His love where conditional we would be in the situation of “once sinned always damned”.
The Beatitudes do not say “Cursed are the sinners because their sorrow will not be accepted”. The lack of reception of love from God comes from us when we make ourselves unwilling to receive it, not because he is not willing to give it to us.
The conditionality is not associated with non-existence of God’s love for sinners, it is associated with our willingness to reject it through sin. We are making a condition for His love to work or not on us by accepting it or refusing it, but we are not making it a condition for its existence.
God’s love can be forced on us but it will not because of God’s justice in respecting our free will.
I think that our interpretative disagreement comes from the fact that if you consider God’s love as an "action only’ then it could seen as conditional. But you cannot see God’s love as an “action only” but also as a potential action that has already being generated (God’s transcends time) and it is available for us. We are just free to prevent it from operating on us.
W
WFS5801
Guest
The problem with blind loyalty is that, not only is it blind, but it’s lame.
P
pnewton
Guest
Loyalty, obedience and fidelity that is based on Faith and a theological understanding of one’s own limitation is not blind, although this phrase is frequently used by those who do not adhere to such an understanding.
I will also say that loyalty and obedience that requires intellectual assent is not loyalty at all, but merely coincidence. It is only when we do not agree with someone can we see if loyalty exists.
W
WFS5801
Guest
I can say this about the SSPX… Without them I probably would have never converted from Protestantism to Catholicism. My Bible studies led me to the conclusion that the division in the Church was not Christian. I could see that personal interpretation of the Bible as the final authority would never produce unity. So I started studying Catholic doctrine – thinking I could prove it wrong, but finding out that I couldn’t. I fell in love with the quiet certitude of the Catholic Church – the ONE true Church. Then I started looking at the jangling noises of the modern Catholic (Novus Ordo) churches and I was depressed. This was nothing like what I had been reading about. I honestly felt (and I realize how silly it was) that I had discovered the truth too late. Then my brother and his family (who have also converted) started attending a SSPX chapel. Eventually my wife and I started attending and over several years of study and prayer, we finally entered the Catholic Church.
There shouldn’t have to be organizations like the SSPX or even the FSSP (for that matter). That the bulk of the Church has abused the innovations and novelties arising after Vatican II is a shame. But Vatican II was a pastoral council, you can not abandon sound, dogmatic doctrine for pastoral suggestions. Even the Pope is not free to change one iota of dogmatic Tradition that has been passed down, otherwise he admits that the past teaching of the Church was a lie and that the Church did fail.
But it does put Catholics in a tough spot. The strength of the Church is Unity – and without the Vicar of Christ unity would not have been preserved over the centuries. Nevertheless, blind loyalty is not an attribute of Catholicism. Even the Pope’s words have to be judged by Tradition. Where he errs you must not follow because even the Pope can err.
I can only rationalize the current situation by saying the Church is in an emergency. When most of the American Bishops oppose the Pope whenever when they wish – and, at their own whim, can shut down FSSP chapels (as one has recently done in Oklahoma City) I can only conclude that we have serious problems in the Church. I sincerely doubt that FSSP would exist (at least in America) if the SSPX suddenly vanished.
I currently attend both SSPX and FSSP chapels. I have issues with both organizations. The Society has no real chain of command so, in matters of organization and discipline it’s more or less hit and miss. The Fraternity, by agreeing not to criticize the abuses in the Novus Ordo church, has compromised its principles. Are there good priests in both organizations? Definitely. Do I think masses are valid at both chapels. Definitely. Do I think the current situation is ideal? Definitely not. But at this point I attend Traditional chapels because the alternative is the confusing, noisy mess called the Novus Ordo.
(Sorry for rambling.)
L
Lycorth
Guest
I wonder if Satan said anything similar to the angels who joined his rebellion…
W
WFS5801
Guest
On the contrary, Satan revels in blind obedience by his subjects.
The Church teaches otherwise…
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. --Gal 1
*11 Wherefore? Because I love you not? God knoweth it. 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off the occasion from them that desire occasion, that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works. * --2 Cor 11.
2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church… --PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS, St. Pius X
Nowhere does the Church teach blind loyalty to the Pope. The Pope is only infallible when he meets the specific requirements of an ex cathedra pronouncement. Of course, in ordinary circumstances the Pope’s words are given great weight, but when he acts contrarily to dogmatic doctrine, you can not follow him there.
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Roman Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies. – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
W
WFS5801
Guest
God requires our total Faith and loyalty – but the Church specifically warns against such blind faith for all others. So blind loyalty to Bishops and the Pope are not only not required – we must avoid it and “test the spirits” using sound doctrine.
1 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. 3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. --2 Tim 4
P
pnewton
Guest
More with this “blind” stuff. No one, not one person here has recommended blindness, so who are you trying to convince? I have also been called a sheep. Why? Because unlike Protestants and the Orthodox, I recognize papal authority. This is not a blind doctrine. I have never once stooped to calling those I do not agree with in the SSPX protestant, as others have, because I recognize that we may differ in what constitutes authority and proper response of the conscience and still have an understanding of the importance of the papacy.
I do not think it too much to expect the same courtesy. One can believe in the papacy and the authority of the Church, believe that it requires a more obedient response without being blind. Enough with the false characterization already.
W
WFS5801
Guest
I think you’re getting me confused with someone else. I did not call you a Protestant and I did not call you a sheep. But I did write – not in response to you but in response to someone else – “The trouble with blind loyalty is not only is it blind, but it’s lame.” It was after I wrote this that you responded (partly) with the following…
“I will also say that loyalty and obedience that requires intellectual assent is not loyalty at all, but merely coincidence. It is only when we do not agree with someone can we see if loyalty exists.”
Without “intellectual assent” our loyalty is blind. Which was my point. Only when the Pope speaks “ex cathedra” are we to assent without question. I went into more detail on this subject in my other posts.
As for your second point (second sentence) – again, my point is that we must weigh our loyalty to the Church and Tradition when the Pope speaks outside of ex cathedra pronouncements. My personal opinion means nothing – it’s the dogmatic doctrine of the Church that should be our guide. We must be loyal to Christ and the Church because Popes can and do err.
Excuse me, but in what way do you imagine I was discourteous to you or engaged in any false characterization? It appears to me that you applied my general point to yourself. That was not my intent and I don’t think I was unclear here. I was arguing my point that the Pope’s wishes and writings must conform to the Tradition handed down throughout the history of the Church. If he opposes dogmatic doctrine in his pastoral writings – then we are bound to obey the ancient doctrine, not the current Pope. Our loyalty to the Pope can not be blind – and I never claimed your loyalty was blind – though by saying that “…loyalty and obedience that requires intellectual assent is not loyalty at all…” is pretty close to saying the same thing.
At any rate, I’m happy you don’t believe in blind loyalty to Pope. Unfortunately some Catholics do take this position.
D
distracted
Guest
i know my remark probably sounded sarcastic… but i didn’t mean it that way…
because i know that God loves all his children, even when they sin… But if the sinenr detaches himself totally from God due to sin and lack of repentance… God honors that choice…
forever…
sin separates us from a holy God… i hate the idea of eternal Hell but that doesn’t make it go away…
its just reality… 1 + 1 always = 2… never 50… or whatever other number we want it to be…
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
- Status