How many SSPX followers would change churches?

[GerardP]

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52]

No argument there.

, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .

No argument there. That’s why Bishop Fellay has appealed to the Pope to right the wrongs of his predecessors.

The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54].

That’s right. What’s written in the books doesn’t change until the Pope or his successor changes it. There’s no secretary or synod or bishop that can legally undo what a Pope does.

And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Which is what I just stated above.

What PA does not say is that the Pope can rule in whatever way floats his boat, tear apart tradition, engage in any number of scandals and shirk with duty without resistance from teh faithful.

 

[GerardP]

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated.

Unless of course, you are Card. Husar or a member of the Chinese Patriotic Association. And don’t forget the dissident bishops and priests that destroyed the faith of the laiety while LeFebvre was being attacked.

Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act

This is a non-sequitur and the Holy Father should have said “infers” because otherwise he’s commenting on the internal disposition of Archbishop LeFebvre which only God alone is the judge of.

1. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I love that “clearly” thrown in there referring to Vatican II which did nothing clearly. Also the belief in “progress” instead of a “deposit of Faith” believed everywhere by everyone in the same manner always. "As it was in the beginning, is now and every shall be. "

There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

What kind of gobbledygook is that? From the anti-modernist oath that JPII and archbishop LeFebvre both swore: “Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”

The fact that LeFebvre was obedient to organic changes in the Liturgy by accepting the changes made by Pius XII and John XXIII shows that JPII mischaracterized LeFebvre’s understanding of Tradition.

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

Again, this is another error of the Pontiff’s. Tossing out the “Universal Magisterium” when he’s not invoking it, is a false accusation against LeFebvre. LeFebvre wanted JPII to use the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church to settle these matters clearly. That’s something that JPII didn’t want to do, because he would have been forced to acknowledge that the policies enacted by Vatican II did not coincide with the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

He’s also assuming that LeFebvre broke the ecclesial bond. Yet, it’s JPII’s refusal to admit that disobedience is not the same thing as a schism that’s what makes this declaration so erroneous.

The contradiction is JPII’s notion that LeFebvre, by teaching and behaving in the same way that he and everyone had been taught was somehow mistaken. Yet JPII never provides a theological correction or cites an error of LeFebvre’s but instead muddies the waters with phenomenological schmutz that is ultimately meaningless garbage philosophically. It has nothing to do with the faith and nothing to do with defining matters of faith. It’s all just modern, murky jazz that can’t help but confuse the faithful.

Compare the junk language of Ecclesia Dei with the clarity of Pastor Aeternus. That’s supposed to be “growth”? Thank God there were no attempts at dogmatic definitions in Vatican II.

That’s why Pope Benedict now has to start with square one with the faithful. That’s not LeFebvre’s fault. That’s JPII’s fault and Paul VI.

 

[bear06]

No argument there. That’s why Bishop Fellay has appealed to the Pope to right the wrongs of his predecessors.

They are not trying to right the wrongs of their predecessors. They are, as they have written, trying to have the decree of excommunication lifted because they don’t want the laity to be confused about the fact that they are not really excommunicated in the first place. Geez! Look on their official site. They say that they’re not validly excommunicated.

That’s right. What’s written in the books doesn’t change until the Pope or his successor changes it. There’s no secretary or synod or bishop that can legally undo what a Pope does

.
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say “books”. It doesn’t say anything about books. It says sentence.

What PA does not say is that the Pope can rule in whatever way floats his boat, tear apart tradition, engage in any number of scandals and shirk with duty without resistance from teh faithful

Pretty much you and the SSPX has said that the Magisterium has contradicted Tradition. I’ve yet to see a ruling from any of the last 5 Holy Pontiffs charging that. We are just going to go around and around as you keep telling me that the SSPX is the arbiter of all in the Church and that the Magisterium should be disobeyed because they are contradicting Tradition.

 

[bear06]

Unless of course, you are Card. Husar or a member of the Chinese Patriotic Association. And don’t forget the dissident bishops and priests that destroyed the faith of the laiety while LeFebvre was being attacked.

And now we’re back to the same old tired line of “those guys are worse than Lefebvre”. It doesn’t fly just like it doesn’t fly with my kids when they try and point out their siblings faults as a defense.

This is a non-sequitur and the Holy Father should have said “infers” because otherwise he’s commenting on the internal disposition of Archbishop LeFebvre which only God alone is the judge of.

And this pretty much shows the same attitude of the SSPX towards Pastor Aeternus. Again, if I tell you reasons for doing what I do, there is no longer a question of internal disposition. Again you can’t use this argument for Lefebvre unless you’re going to use it for every other person you deem schismatic too. Using that rational, nobody can ever be declared a schismatic.

What kind of gobbledygook is that? From the anti-modernist oath that JPII and archbishop LeFebvre both swore: “Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”

And this is the same old tired line. The quote from Ecclesia Dei doesn’t conrtradict the quote you are giving. Truth does not change. Nobody in any of the last 5 Magisteriums have said so. This theory seems to result from YOUR faulty understanding of it.

Again, this is another error of the Pontiff’s. Tossing out the “Universal Magisterium” when he’s not invoking it, is a false accusation against LeFebvre. LeFebvre wanted JPII to use the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church to settle these matters clearly. That’s something that JPII didn’t want to do, because he would have been forced to acknowledge that the policies enacted by Vatican II did not coincide with the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Maybe you could be a little more specific. It’s a little to vague to respond.

He’s also assuming that LeFebvre broke the ecclesial bond. Yet, it’s JPII’s refusal to admit that disobedience is not the same thing as a schism that’s what makes this declaration so erroneous.

Would you agree that one who breaks ecclesiastical bonds with the Roman Pontiff is being disobedient? I’m guessing you would have to say yes. Lefebvre’s actions go beyond a simple disobedience. This is why the charge of schism.

The contradiction is JPII’s notion that LeFebvre, by teaching and behaving in the same way that he and everyone had been taught was somehow mistaken. Yet JPII never provides a theological correction or cites an error of LeFebvre’s

Read Ecclesia Dei again.

 

[GerardP]

They are not trying to right the wrongs of their predecessors. They are, as they have written, trying to have the decree of excommunication lifted because they don’t want the laity to be confused about the fact that they are not really excommunicated in the first place. Geez! Look on their official site. They say that they’re not validly excommunicated.

Uh…Yeah. An invalid excommunication would be a “wrong” and having the Pope remove, lift or nullify the phoney excommunication would “right” that “wrong” of his predecessor.

I’m not really sure what you mean when you say “books”. It doesn’t say anything about books. It says sentence.

To have legal force, it must be written somewhere, right? Card. Castrillon Hoyos keeps wanting to “regularize canonically” the SSPX before the doctrinal talks start. The SSPX wants the doctrinal discussions done before the regularization occurs.

Pretty much you and the SSPX has said that the Magisterium has contradicted Tradition.

Here’s where the problem is. You don’t understand the Magisterium. The teaching authority of the Church is not the Pope. The teaching authority of the Church can be invoked by the Pope. Ecclesia Dei is not an exercise of anything more than the authentic Magisterium, it that. The authentic Magisterium is not infallible. Pope Stephen’s rulings against Pope Formosus had all the force of the law that the Pope controls. But it was no exercise of the Magisterium.

I’ve yet to see a ruling from any of the last 5 Holy Pontiffs charging that.

Charging what? Please be specific or quote something from above, I don’t even know what you are referring to

We are just going to go around and around as you keep telling me that the SSPX is the arbiter of all in the Church

I see we’ve reached the point where you’re frustrated and you have to exaggerate and ridicule my position and the SSPX in order to try and “win” the argument vs. explore the fact.

Can you answer a simple question? If the Pope if tells you 2+2=5 are you to believe him? Or is he protected from that error by the Holy Ghost?

and that the Magisterium should be disobeyed because they are contradicting Tradition.

Again, the Magisterium is not the Pope. If the Pope were to engage the Magisterium of the Church he would cause all sorts of backpedaling on the policies enacted after Vatican II and actually vindicate the SSPX.

If you think the Pope is the Magisterium incarnate, then you believe the Pope is irresistible. History, the greatest theologians and several of the Popes themselves have stated clearly that that is wrong. I don’t understand why this modern mentality of the impeccable Pope is so attractive when it’s not Catholic.

 

[GerardP]

And now we’re back to the same old tired line of “those guys are worse than Lefebvre”. It doesn’t fly just like it doesn’t fly with my kids when they try and point out their siblings faults as a defense.

It’s not about pointing out faults because Card. Husar is not a scourge on the Church. But he was consecrated a bishop without a papal mandate.

What it’s about is pointing out the injustice of the Pope in singling out LeFebvre and taking out the “Howitzer and blowing him out of the water” as Fr. Malachi Martin described it while ignoring far more agregious and heterodox behavior.

And depending on whether or not you are just in your punishments depends on whether or not your kids are morally correct in pointing out your own injustices if they are present. Just because you are the authority figure in the family doesn’t give you the moral right to be unjust in your disciplines.

**Gerard wrote: **

*This is a non-sequitur and the Holy Father should have said “infers” because otherwise he’s commenting on the internal disposition of Archbishop LeFebvre which only God alone is the judge of. *

And this pretty much shows the same attitude of the SSPX towards Pastor Aeternus.

What? You mean the word “true” in front of “obedience” actually means something theologically? Again, you have to condemn St. Thomas Aquinas if you disagree with the SSPX. And all of the Popes since Aquinas.

I was pointing out the difference between JPII and St. Pius X by an example from his encyclical Pascendi.

"Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so,* if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge,** he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church."*

Again, if I tell you reasons for doing what I do, there is no longer a question of internal disposition.

Yet JPII ignores the reasons and actions of LeFebvre in order to accuse him of committing a schismatic act.

(vs. an act of schism which the spin Card. Hoyos is trying to use nowadays in order to declare the SSPX not in schism without condemning the ruling of JPII.)

Consider his words and actions for over 18 years.

LeFebvre denies that he’s breaking a bond, he calls the effort “operation survival” because the Church is manifestly in a crisis. He has tried to work canonically for decades and has been treated unjustly numerous times.

He signed the protocol and then got surprised with an “apology” written for him to sign to the Holy Father which would have been lie for him to sign. And then he realized that he wasn’t going to be given a bishop to carry on. He was instead going to have a bishop considered. The one that the FSSP still hasn’t gotten by the way.

And JPII’s denial of the manifestly good intentions of LeFebvre for the Church flies in the face of justice and reason.

Again you can’t use this argument for Lefebvre unless you’re going to use it for every other person you deem schismatic too.

Why not? Well, the Orthodox are schismatic. They manifestly deny the primacy of the Pope in words and action. They never appeal to Rome to fix a crisis. How come I can’t use the difference between the SSPX and the Orthodox who truly broke away as an example of a true schism vs. an invalid sentence of a schism?

Using that rational, nobody can ever be declared a schismatic.

Not true. There is objective criteria for schism. Conversely, according to your rationale no Pope can ever err when he makes a ruling. The Pope is irresistible in all things. No Pope has ever ruled unjustly. Popes are impeccable. No Pope is to be contradicted because no Pope is ever contradictory. Am I correct in this assessment of your rationale?

 

[GerardP]

**Gerard wrote: **

*What kind of gobbledygook is that? From the anti-modernist oath that JPII and archbishop LeFebvre both swore: “Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.” *

And this is the same old tired line. The quote from Ecclesia Dei doesn’t conrtradict the quote you are giving.

Really? Care to explain? It’s just immanentism dressed up to look Catholic by my reckoning. Unfortunately JPII again doesn’t cite a concrete example so, you can take it a number of ways.

Truth does not change.

LeFebvre would agree with you.

But it has “depths” and aspects that the Church never knew she taught according to JPII. Which is nonsense.

Nobody in any of the last 5 Magisteriums have said so.

You mean last five Pontificates. There is only one Magisterium of the Church. The Perennial Magisterium.

This theory seems to result from YOUR faulty understanding of it.

You’d have to explain why my understanding is faulty. JPII never explains specifically what he’s talking about. He never actually cites an error of LeFebvre’s, he never condemns any position held by LeFebvre because that would invoke the Magisterium of the Church and I’m sure JPII didn’t want to be stopped by the Holy Ghost in whatever way the Holy Ghost protects the Church. I’m also sure he didnt’ want to find out how that happens.

 

[GerardP]

**Gerard wrote: **

*Again, this is another error of the Pontiff’s. Tossing out the “Universal Magisterium” when he’s not invoking it, is a false accusation against LeFebvre. LeFebvre wanted JPII to use the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church to settle these matters clearly. That’s something that JPII didn’t want to do, because he would have been forced to acknowledge that the policies enacted by Vatican II did not coincide with the Magisterial teaching of the Church. *

Maybe you could be a little more specific. It’s a little to vague to respond.

Cite the example that JPII is referring to when he says LeFebvre thinks the Tradition of the Church is in opposition to the Universal Magisterium of the Church.

LeFebvre was against destructive policies in the Church. Not against any teachings of the Universal Magisterium. He wanted the Universal Magisterium to be invoked, JPII didn’t because JPII was a proponent of Collegiality and exercise the papacy according to the principals of Hans Kung.

He’s also assuming that LeFebvre broke the ecclesial bond. Yet, it’s JPII’s refusal to admit that disobedience is not the same thing as a schism that makes this declaration so erroneous.

Would you agree that one who breaks ecclesiastical bonds with the Roman Pontiff is being disobedient?

Yes, but not all disobedience separates one from the Church (breaks the ecclesial bonds) that’s St. Thomas Aquinas, not me.

I’m guessing you would have to say yes. Lefebvre’s actions go beyond a simple disobedience. This is why the charge of schism.

No. Again, LeFebvre’s actions are reactions to the crisis in the Church and the apparant connivance by the heirarchy to let things go. Schism is the denial of the authority of the Pontiff. The Orthodox, the Protestants, the Old Catholics all deny the rights of the Sovereign Pontiff. LeFebvre and Schmidberger and Fellay and the rest of the SSPX and faithful have all looked to the papacy to come back to prominence in order to straighten things out. Bishop Williamson has said on numerous occasions, “short of Divine Intervention, only the Pope can put an end to this crisis. The Society can at best only perform a holding action.”

If anything the disobedience was merely the result of the principal of double-effect provoked by the heirarchy.

**Gerard wrote: **
*The contradiction is JPII’s notion that LeFebvre, by teaching and behaving in the same way that he and everyone had been taught was somehow mistaken. Yet JPII never provides a theological correction or cites an error of LeFebvre’s *

Read Ecclesia Dei again.

I did. Numerous times. Still no specifics mentioned by the Holy Father. When you read Leo X’s excommunication of Luther there are 40 errors listed. Nothing with LeFebvre. The Holy Father charges him with ignorance at best and provides no proof.

 

[Sure]

[Still no specifics mentioned by the Holy Father. When you read Leo X’s excommunication of Luther there are 40 errors listed. Nothing with LeFebvre. The Holy Father charges him with ignorance at best and provides no proof.

In Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father declares that, in his judgement, (as supreme legislator, it’s his call) the ordination of bishops without approval of the Holy See constitutes a schismatic act which carries with it automatic excommunication. Since he is Pope, there is no appeal on this decision. He called it as he saw it and according to canon law his decision is binding.

I can’t believe you missed this if you read it several times.

And you don’t have to go into how you thought he made a mistake, we’ve heard that already.

This is the paragraph you may have missed:

“3. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.[3] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.”

This seems pretty specific to me.
[/quote]

 

[GerardP]

**Sure wrote: **

In Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father declares that, in his judgement, (as supreme legislator, it’s his call) the ordination of bishops without approval of the Holy See constitutes a schismatic act which carries with it automatic excommunication. Since he is Pope, there is no appeal on this decision. He called it as he saw it and according to canon law his decision is binding.

Aside from that decision making no sense theologically, JPII made a false accusation against LeFebvre and never provided any evidence like previous Popes had done in cases of excommunication. Namely, that LeFebvre didn’t grasp all of that phenomenological gobbledygook that JPII was spewing in Ecclesia Dei about “contemplation in the heart” blah, blah, blah.

You have no sure idea what JPII meant. I have no idea. I am sure that he had no idea what he was talking about. It’s utterly useless nonsense. The Pope can’t define anything with that kind of undefinition. It’s the pure stuff of modernism.

The point that the Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church doesn’t make it right or irresistible. The Supreme Legislator at one time was Pope Stephen who condemned as the supreme legislator Pope Formosus. Later Pope Stephen the supreme legislator was overturned by another supreme legislator. But the Pope can’t bind error. What was wrong and unjust was always wrong, it didn’t become right until the Pope said it, and then it didn’t go back to being wrong because another Pope said so.

No one was bound to follow Pope’s Stephen’s rulings. They were complete nonsense.

Quote:
*“3. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.[3] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.” *

This seems pretty specific to me.

I’ve already addressed this. It’s a non-sequitur. The use of the word “implies” is incorrect and the Holy Father takes on a judgement that is reserved to God alone. It’s completely unjust. No one in their right mind would believe this fiction. If he were writing about a bake sale–He might as well have written “Hence such baking–which implies in practice a hatred of steak–constitutes a vegetarian position.”

The specifics that I was asking you to point out was specifically what LeFebvre was wrong about in maintaining the traditional stance on theological issues and practices vs. the policies that were implemented after Vatican II that undermine the Catholic faith.

JPII says he had an incomplete understanding of tradition as the cause of the “break” but JPII didn’t provide an example. Not one error to demonstrate that LeFebvre was wrong.

I don’t understand why this “appeal to authority” fallacy is so strong among certain Catholics. It has nothing to do with actual authority in the Church and is proven wrong by the undisputed historical events in the Church’s history.

 

[Sure]

**Sure wrote: **

Aside from that decision making no sense theologically, JPII made a false accusation against LeFebvre and never provided any evidence like previous Popes had done in cases of excommunication. Namely, that LeFebvre didn’t grasp all of that phenomenological gobbledygook that JPII was spewing in Ecclesia Dei about “contemplation in the heart” blah, blah, blah.

You have no sure idea what JPII meant. I have no idea. I am sure that he had no idea what he was talking about. It’s utterly useless nonsense. The Pope can’t define anything with that kind of undefinition. It’s the pure stuff of modernism.

The point that the Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church doesn’t make it right or irresistible. The Supreme Legislator at one time was Pope Stephen who condemned as the supreme legislator Pope Formosus. Later Pope Stephen the supreme legislator was overturned by another supreme legislator. But the Pope can’t bind error. What was wrong and unjust was always wrong, it didn’t become right until the Pope said it, and then it didn’t go back to being wrong because another Pope said so.

No one was bound to follow Pope’s Stephen’s rulings. They were complete nonsense.

Quote:
*“3. In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.[3] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.” *

I’ve already addressed this. It’s a non-sequitur. The use of the word “implies” is incorrect and the Holy Father takes on a judgement that is reserved to God alone. It’s completely unjust. No one in their right mind would believe this fiction. If he were writing about a bake sale–He might as well have written “Hence such baking–which implies in practice a hatred of steak–constitutes a vegetarian position.”

The specifics that I was asking you to point out was specifically what LeFebvre was wrong about in maintaining the traditional stance on theological issues and practices vs. the policies that were implemented after Vatican II that undermine the Catholic faith.

JPII says he had an incomplete understanding of tradition as the cause of the “break” but JPII didn’t provide an example. Not one error to demonstrate that LeFebvre was wrong.

I don’t understand why this “appeal to authority” fallacy is so strong among certain Catholics. It has nothing to do with actual authority in the Church and is proven wrong by the undisputed historical events in the Church’s history.

You don’t say anything new here. You keep claiming that the Pope was not clear.

1. It seems from reading Ecclesia Dei that he was very clear in his decision that what Lefebvre did was a schismatic act that resulted in his excommunication.
2. There is nothing further to discuss here as your entire point is: the Pope was wrong. My position (and that of the Holy See and, apparently 99.9% of the posters on these boards) is that the Pope ruled within his capacity as Supreme Legislator and his decision is binding.

I am sorry that you fail to understand this. This discussion has nowhere else to go.

God bless

 

[GerardP]

You don’t say anything new here. You keep claiming that the Pope was not clear.

Why do you refuse to address any of my arguments? You don’t seem to want to even acknowledge the Pope Formosus trial.

1. It seems from reading Ecclesia Dei that he was very clear in his decision that what Lefebvre did was a schismatic act that resulted in his excommunication.

Again, you won’t address the substance of his reasons for that decision. The focus is not on whether or not he’s Pope. No one disputes that. It’s the truthfulness of his decision.

Schism has a definition. There were facts and events (not to mention relevant but ignored Canon laws) surrounding the Motu Proprio that defy the conclusion that schism could have been a result.

1. There is nothing further to discuss here as your entire point is: the Pope was wrong. My position (and that of the Holy See and, apparently 99.9% of the posters on these boards) is that the Pope ruled within his capacity as Supreme Legislator and his decision is binding.

I don’t disagree with you at all. The SSPX doesn’t disagree with you. You have to go past the cliche’s and titles.

The SSPX and I and others just want the current Pope to correct it.

What about the truth? Don’t you care about the truth?

Correct me if I’m wrong but your position is this: The Pope is never wrong and is irresistible. Period.

Can the Pope bind error?

I am sorry that you fail to understand this. This discussion has nowhere else to go.

I am sorry that you fail to address the argument. Was he right or wrong? Is the Pope irresistible when he’s objectively wrong and the faith is at stake?

Why won’t you address the historical precedents of the Church? Why hasn’t the Church condemned Aquinas and Bellarmine and a whole host of others for teaching valid resistance to the Pope when it’s called for?

God bless

God Bless you as well. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

 

[Sure]

Why do you refuse to address any of my arguments? You don’t seem to want to even acknowledge the Pope Formosus trial.

Again, you won’t address the substance of his reasons for that decision. The focus is not on whether or not he’s Pope. No one disputes that. It’s the truthfulness of his decision.

Schism has a definition. There were facts and events (not to mention relevant but ignored Canon laws) surrounding the Motu Proprio that defy the conclusion that schism could have been a result.

I don’t disagree with you at all. The SSPX doesn’t disagree with you. You have to go past the cliche’s and titles.

The SSPX and I and others just want the current Pope to correct it.

What about the truth? Don’t you care about the truth?

Correct me if I’m wrong but your position is this: The Pope is never wrong and is irresistible. Period.

Can the Pope bind error?

I am sorry that you fail to address the argument. Was he right or wrong? Is the Pope irresistible when he’s objectively wrong and the faith is at stake?

Why won’t you address the historical precedents of the Church? Why hasn’t the Church condemned Aquinas and Bellarmine and a whole host of others for teaching valid resistance to the Pope when it’s called for?

God Bless you as well. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

Dude, to be honest, I don’t really know what your argument is, beyond the fact that you believe the Pope made a mistake or was in error. I don’t think he made a mistake because everything he wrote makes perfect logical sense. An you really think this is a VALID point to resist the Pope on? Okay. If you don’t see it, I’m sorry. It would seem that you are the only one making this argument.

This thread is a horse that died a very long time ago, let’s stop beating it.

 

[GerardP]

Dude, to be honest, I don’t really know what your argument is,

That has been painfully obvious since you entered this discussion. Yet you’ve continually claimed that I don’t “see it”.

beyond the fact that you believe the Pope made a mistake or was in error.

I guess you didn’t even bother to actually read my postings. This is a matter of justice and a false accusation by the Pope against his loyal bishop.

I don’t think he made a mistake because everything he wrote makes perfect logical sense.

Then why won’t you answer my questions about “what one contemplates in their hearts” and the other gobbledygook that supposedly makes “perfect logical sense” ?

An you really think this is a VALID point to resist the Pope on?

What do you think is a valid point to resist a Pope on? I haven’t even been able to verify whether you believe resistance is possible. When the faith is at stake, you bet it’s valid to resist a Pope.

Okay. If you don’t see it, I’m sorry. It would seem that you are the only one making this argument.

Why don’t you stop being “sorry” and patronizing and actually answer some of the questions I posed? I may be the only one here making this argument, but that isn’t proof that I’m wrong.

“Athanasius contra mundum”

This thread is a horse that died a very long time ago, let’s stop beating it.

Again, you post a response that doesn’t address one argument I’ve made.

I’ve posed some simple questions that would require nothing more than a “yes” or “no” answer and you ignore them at every opportunity to repost the same statements from Ecclesia Dei and then claim I missed them.

I took the time and effort to address those arguments in detail.

Conversely, you’ve refused to deal with the points I’ve made.

Instead of trying to close down the discussion with your sarcasm and inability to deal with the arguments, why don’t you refrain from engaging in it and maybe someone else will want to discuss the situation rationally in light of Catholic teaching and avoid the EWTN-style sloganeering about the Pope and his irresistible impeccability?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.