D
Dauphin
Guest
That letter is a decade old.
If you want to accuse this layman of being involved in a conspiracy, then your case becomes exceedingly thin.
- Status
If you want to accuse this layman of being involved in a conspiracy, then your case becomes exceedingly thin.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, I would call it misleading. Just like quoting the title in response to my question is misleading. SSPX apologists or more propaganda artists than logic apologist. I am floored after actually reading the original letter the way it was “nuanced” 180 degrees.
D
Dauphin
Guest
I’m hardly an SSPX apologist. I’ve criticised them heavily for their positions, and would never attend one of their chapels.
I’m interested in the truth, which you have consistently distorted.
P
pnewton
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
I actually meant the phrase in a seldom used, literal sense, not the sense of arrogance. I mean you (and I, too) did claim that our parishes, groups, whatever were more orthodox. If you believe your parish is holy and orthodox and you start want to use comparisons, then you are literally saying that you are holier than the next guy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not so. People don’t go around praying rosaries and novenas and doing pilgrammages because of pride. They don’t donate huge amounts of money because they don’t have better use of it either. One shouldn’t be so quick to judge based on what he hears from others. Visit a local SSPX chapel, even if it’s not for Mass. There are real people there with feelings and love for God, believe me.
D
Dauphin
Guest
I’m trying do demonstrate why one shouldn’t make accusations without foundation. I don’t care if you think the SSPX is the whore of babylon - you should have more common courtesy than to insinuate that their members are in schism. The burden of proof is entirely on you to demonstrate that they are, and you can’t.
In fact, I’ve provided a letter in which Ecclesia Dei confirms Cardinal Castrillon’s repeated statements that the SSPX is not in formal schism - there has been no declaration of schism. The matter is closed.
The question of whether one should attend their chapels or support their movement is not the issue at hand. Saying that they’re not in schism is hardly a ringing endorsement.
P
pnewton
Guest
And your point? I did not know of this letter. I followed the words of your blog to try to find a source document. Is there a statute of limitations on Church decrees?
D
Dauphin
Guest
If you’ll follow the link to Fr.Z’s blog, you’ll see that the letter was received this year; it’s much more up-to-date. I don’t know where you got yours.
It confirms that there has been no declaration - the SSPX cannot be said to be in formal schism.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Well, by all means, fill me in. The last I heard, the sspx turned down Pope Benedicts offer, though lines of communication were still open. What, exactly, was Cardinal Castrillon “pleased” with in their refusal? And where is the information coming from that the “Pope is on the verge of rescinding the excommunications - or rather, declaring that they never happened?”
P
pnewton
Guest
I apologuze if I missed it. I truly would like to see something definitive. All I could find is a link to a Fr. Z blog. I do not even know his postition at the Vatican. I tried to find a source for the letter referred to ( that came from a frequent contributer, not PCED, BTW) and this man’s commentary. Your use or the earlier accusation leads me to believe that no such statement exist. The letter I posted actually use the word schism, but mostly as an adjective. So rather than say the SSPX is in schism, let us just say they have committed schismatic acts and have a schismatic mindset.
Perhaps that is the better way of saying it. They are schismatic in nature, but have not been declared in formal schism. I do not think the two letters have to neccessarily contradict each other. I also think the PCED is not so ignorant as to be unaware of all that has gone before.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Also, I find it very hard to believe that Pope Benedict will declare that the excommunications were “invalid” since he was the one in the middle of the negotiations back in the 80s. If he were to declare them “invalid” then he would be cutting Pope John Paul’s legs out from under him. If he does anything I would think that he would “lift” the excommunications. Of course, what do I know…
D
Dauphin
Guest
If you don’t accept that the letter’s authenticity, then at least accept that the lack of decree means that the SSPX cannot be called schismatic. All that can be said, factually, is the their Bishops were declared 20 years ago to have been automatically excommunicated.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
Let me emphasize the larger text. This is the truth.
It was the 1960’s attitude that it is OK to ego-trip, it is OK to be selfish, it is OK to do whatever you want, regardless of who gets hurt - Selfishness is good.
This was the problem.
If we had the council of Trent during the 1960’s, tell me that the “selfishness is good” crowd would not have misinterpreted it?
Good proof: In fact, the protestants DID misinterpret Trent. My favorite example is where they claim the Church teaches works without grace salvation, and then I show them Canon I on Justification which obliterates that. It was clearly written and yet protestants STILL misinterpret it!
Those who wish to be selfish will use ANYTHING to justify it.
Relativism turns clear statements into “selfishness is good”
U
Unitas
Guest
Can you read?
You sure did, right here:
That’s called asking us to prove a negative for the kids at home.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Actually it is not asking for proof of a negative.
If he was doing so then he would be asking you to prove that no one said anything.
He is asking for some one to prove the claim that it has been said that they are not in schism.
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
I cannot demonstrate otherwise, because the Vatican has not said otherwise. I could be in Schism, but since the Church has not spoken, we will assume that I am not. Just as I do with the SSPX.
However, like I said before, that is different than saying I am not in Schism.
If the SSPX’s standing were so certain, the Vatican could say “They are not in schism”. But because it is not certain, and because some inside the group seem to be far more schismatic than most(out of charity, I place the majority, including most leadership, in the group that is probably not anywhere near schismatic). Also, the group is changing drastically through time. So while they may not be schismatic today, they may be tomorrow, just as any other person may be. So yes, the Church is probably not going to come out and say “so and so is not in schism” because that could change.
Therefore, the best we can do with any group, myself included, is to assume that I am not in schism.
U
Unitas
Guest
By calling that a claim is assuming that they are indeed in schism, and that the claim they are not in schism is contrary to what is already established. That hasn’t been proven at all, so it cannot be the established belief. Since there is no statement saying they are indeed in schism, asking to prove they are not in schism is asking to prove a negative.
It’s rather quite easy.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Actually it has not been established which is why he is asking for the proof that it has officially been said that they are not in schism.
He would not be asking for this proof if people had not made the claim that this has been said.
There has been ample evidence that the SSPX have been described to have a schismatic mindset as well as warnings to the laity not to adhere to the schism.
In my book that is enough to say there is something mighty wrong.
Then add into it that their priests are illictly ordained and have no faculties to offer any sacraments other than reconcilliation and baptism in cases of emergency and the other claims against the Church that the SSPX make, it is reason enough to avoid them and those who have taken up their promotion.
S
SenorSalsa
Guest
what if i just flip the wording and say
prove that they are in full union with the church
or
prove that they are not in full union with the church
which is the positive and which the negative?
ByzCath was right when he said the negative would be “prove that they haven’t said that they are not in schism”
In other words, we are looking for a statement, a postive thing, the negative would be asking to prove there is no such statement
- Status