Good sermon (SSPX)

[franklinf]

As they define tradition. We must be clear on that.

I too am confused. What do you mean by this?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How do you define tradition?

I too am confused. What do you mean by this?

This is a discussion for another thread.

One that I may, or may not, participate in.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I just now found this thread. I have read only the first and last two pages. What jumps out to me is that people are overlooking the fact that the excommunicated archbishop disobeyed thy pope and usurped the role and authority of the pope in his picking who to ordain as bishops and make a part of the magisterium. All the arguments I see here are nothing more than a retread of all that has been posted in the past. Nothing has changed. I hope and pray for reunification as I believe we would all be better off if we were together. We have all heard “rumors” of reunification but so far NOTHING. Does that say something? Instead of arguing whether something was right or wrong, how about lets just pray. That is our role as we are not the decision makers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[franklinf]

This is a discussion for another thread.

One that I may, or may not, participate in.

No offense Brother, but perhaps then you shouldn’t make such statements. And, how do you double quote?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No offense Brother, but perhaps then you shouldn’t make such statements. And, how do you double quote?

Usually when one starts out with “no offense” it is precisely what they say next is either offensive or is easily seen that it can be taken as being offensive.

Which statement should I not make?

But for those interested, if they read Deacon Ed B’s reply they will see some of what some think is traditional that others do not. For one, disobedience. But as I said, that is food for another thread.

As for double quoting, you click on the button with the “+” in it next to the “quote” button on the first one and then click on the “quote” button on the next one.

 

[franklinf]

Usually when one starts out with “no offense” it is precisely what they say next is either offensive or is easily seen that it can be taken as being offensive.

Which statement should I not make?

But for those interested, if they read Deacon Ed B’s reply they will see some of what some think is traditional that others do not. For one, disobedience. But as I said, that is food for another thread.

As for double quoting, you click on the button with the “+” in it next to the “quote” button on the first one and then click on the “quote” button on the next one.

Your disagreement with 603… without anything to back up / clarify what you’re saying. What’s the point of making a knock on a statement if you’re not going to explain what you meant (rhetorical, just trying to clarify what I meant). Especially when it is more of a negative comment. Anyways, thanks for the help with the quote function. That seems really obvious in hindsight.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As they define tradition. We must be clear on that.

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

Hmmm, I do not think so. But that is a topic for another thread.

Your disagreement with 603… without anything to back up / clarify what you’re saying. What’s the point of making a knock on a statement if you’re not going to explain what you meant (rhetorical, just trying to clarify what I meant). Especially when it is more of a negative comment.

I think by looking at my statements you can plainly see what my disagreement is.

My disagreement is that it is all about how you define tradition.

Part of my definition is obedience to the pope and the councils of the Catholic Church.

But as I said, that has nothing to do with this thread and this is the last I will speak on it here.

 

[pnewton]

I have noticed a tendancy among the SSPX and their supporters to have little patience with those who disagree with them, or even refuse to argue with them. It is like there is a compulsion to convert fellow Catholics. We would all do better to have the simple faith that Jesus called for, that of a little child. Most Catholics, rightfully, accept the authority God has provided in the Catholic Church, specifically because of that simple faith in Him.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I have noticed a tendancy among the SSPX and their supporters to have little patience with those who disagree with them, or even refuse to argue with them.

That’s interesting, I’ve noticed a tendency among the anti-SSPX to have little patience with those who disagree with them.

What I find even more interesting is that many of those who claim the SSPX are in schism are the same one who claim the Orthodox are not.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What I find even more interesting is that many of those who claim the SSPX are in schism are the same one who claim the Orthodox are not.

There is a big difference here and it goes to the definition of schism.

From Chapter One, paragraph 3 of Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio from Vatican II.

It says, “The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.”

No one in the SSPX was born into it as the Orthodox are born into their Church.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

There is a big difference here and it goes to the definition of schism.

From Chapter One, paragraph 3 of Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio from Vatican II.

It says, “The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.”

No one in the SSPX was born into it as the Orthodox are born into their Church.

So, are you saying you do not consider the Orthodox - or the Protestants for that matter - to be schismatical and heretical sects?

All the quote from Vatican II says is that they are not guilty of the sin involved in the separation, which took place hundreds of years ago. It doesn’t say they are not, therefore, heretics and schismatics. I

Notive what it says: It only says that they are not guilty in the sin of separation - of separating from the Church. They can’t be guilty of that sin because they have never been members of the Church. Why? Because they have always belonged to a heretical and schismatic sect. They’ve never belonged to the Church, which would be necessary in order to separate from it.

If you interpret Vatican II that way it corresponds with what the Church has alway taught. If you interpret it as meaning the Protestant and Orthodox sects are not heretical and schismatic, you would be in error.

 

[Joysong]

Pax et Caritas:

All the quote from Vatican II says is that they are not guilty of the sin involved in the separation, which took place hundreds of years ago. It doesn’t say they are not, therefore, heretics and schismatics.

Nor will the Church use your explicit terminology, but charitably and prudently calls them “separated brethren,” which they ARE due to their lawful baptism and the life of grace from the Holy Spirit.

… it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The Church teaches in Section 4 by example and language, to … “avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult.”

 

[pnewton]

If you interpret Vatican II that way it corresponds with what the Church has alway taught. If you interpret it as meaning the Protestant and Orthodox sects are not heretical and schismatic, you would be in error.

They are not schismatic. Of course they were schismatic when they were breaking away. That is why the Church taught that then. One can not simply ignore the historical context of Church teaching. Time does change the classification of groups like Protestants and Orthodox.

As to the other terms, “heretics” or “separated brothers:” WHy is there a desire to use the most negative term if both are accurate? Evangelism by name-calling?

 

[Gratia_Plena]

They are not schismatic. Of course they were schismatic when they were breaking away. That is why the Church taught that then. One can not simply ignore the historical context of Church teaching. Time does change the classification of groups like Protestants and Orthodox.

As to the other terms, “heretics” or “separated brothers:” WHy is there a desire to use the most negative term if both are accurate? Evangelism by name-calling?

I think it might be a “charatible anathama”, that’s why. Someone who is separated from the unity of the Mystical Body should be treated charitably, but not be treated in a way that obscures fact that they are visibly oustide the Church.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I think it might be a “charatible anathama”, that’s why. Someone who is separated from the unity of the Mystical Body should be treated charitably, but not be treated in a way that obscures fact that they are visibly oustide the Church.

Gratia_Plena

i think the old adage that you attract more flys with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar would apply here. Harsh rhetoric drives people away, not enticing them to dialogue.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Gratia_Plena]

i think the old adage that you attract more flys with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar would apply here. Harsh rhetoric drives people away, not enticing them to dialogue.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I don’t think what I said contradicts that old adage, which is certainly true. The charitable anathema attracts those souls of good will. They will see the anathema as a correction from a loving father.

What I think you misunderstand is that these “separated brethern” believe they are safe in their own religion (so much has been said right here on this forum), which is simply not true.

The Church has always both tolerated and condemned errors.
She has never taught, however, that an error is per se good or partially correct.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I don’t think what I said contradicts that old adage, which is certainly true. The charitable anathema attracts those souls of good will. They will see the anathema as a correction from a loving father.

What I think you misunderstand is that these “separated brethern” believe they are safe in their own religion (so much has been said right here on this forum), which is simply not true.

The Church has always both tolerated and condemned errors.
She has never taught, however, that an error is per se good or partially correct.

Gratia_Plena

Charitable anathema, now there is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Hard to believe that someone would believe such a thing but then it is usually the one who is issuing the “charitable anathema” who sees nothing wrong with its use.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Charitable anathema, now there is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Hard to believe that someone would believe such a thing but then it is usually the one who is issuing the “charitable anathema” who sees nothing wrong with its use.

It is not charity to condemn an error?

Keep in mind that this is the Church, with the authority of Christ, condemning error, not an individual condemning another individual.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Here is Pope Pius XI speaking On Religious Unity:

For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost:[15] has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by “witnesses preordained by God,”[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring.

1. John xvi, 13.
2. Acts x,41.
3. Mark xvi, 16.

 

[pnewton]

ISomeone who is separated from the unity of the Mystical Body should be treated charitably, but not be treated in a way that obscures fact that they are visibly oustide the Church.

Gratia_Plena

I think more people understand the simple word “separated” than the more techinical term “heretical” If clarity was truly the intent. Therefore I can not see this reason being more logical than the age old “tradition” of demonizing the enemy.

It is not charity to condemn an error?

Keep in mind that this is the Church, with the authority of Christ, condemning error, not an individual condemning another individual.

Let us also keep in mind that what we call someone does not address their beliefs. Condemning errors and teaching orthodox theology is dependent on the moniker we give a group. One can condemn errors of those he calls a separated brother. One can also not condemn errors and just stick to calling people heretics.