WELL GUEES WHAT YOUR COMMITTING A SIN!!! The Vicar of Christ John Paul II said for you to STOP supporting the society–You better repent before you go to hell!!!
Made up quote…the word “obedient” is not anywhere in Unam Sanctam. Funnily enough, it’s the SSPX that still believe in the teachings of Unam Sanctam, while many (if not most) priests reject them.
John Paul II…you mean the same pope who kissed the Koran, said “May St. John the Baptist protect Islam!”
[asking a saint to protect a false religion=blasphemy], invited pagans, infidels, and members of other false religions to invoke their false gods [which the Bible calls demons] at the holy shrine of Assisi, etc.?Well, since John Paul “the Great” suggested during one of his Wednesday audiences that God is too merciful to send anyone to Hell anyway, I think I’ll be OK.
Nice stuff. So would this be rationalism, relativism or one of the many *-isms * that the “Traditionalists” like to invoke so much???John Paul II…you mean the same pope who kissed the Koran, said “May St. John the Baptist protect Islam!”
Thanks, but I’ll stick with the people who are actually teaching and practicing the Catholic faith…it’s unfortunate that we have to disobey the Pope…but when it comes between disobeying a man and obeying the Faith, we’ll obey the Catholic faith.
What are you referring to? I don’t think false obedience has EVER been a part of Catholic teaching…I always think it’s ironic that NeoCatholics call us protestants when we are the ones resisting the Protestant errors in the Church today. Protestants aren’t protestants just because they disobey the Pope…they’re Protestants because they teach and believe heresies contrary to the one true Catholic faith taught from the Apostles. Only a naive, simple-minded person with a minimal grasp of Catholic teaching would think that obedience to the Pope in every single matter is the heart of Catholicism…Odd it is, that the “Traditionalists,” who are always spouting off writings and teachings from centuries past, are also the first to throw everything to the wind when they believe things aren’t going the way THEY believe they should. There’s a word for that, by the way…it’s called protestantism.
]…Benedict XVI even “rehabilitated” Luther, but not before His Greatness John Paul II lifted the excommunication on him [which indicates he does not believe Luther was a heretic]; heck, the preacher to the papal household, Cantalamessa, besides openly preaching other heresies contrary to the Catholic faith, has said that Luther was right and that faith alone is necessary for salvation! He preached this sermon in front of Pope Benedict XVI, but you didn’t hear a peep from anyone in the Vatican or from the NeoCatholic talking heads…but apparently if anyone preaches Catholicism as it was universally practiced and believed before Vatican II he will be censured and ultimately “excommunicated”…lol, as if a non-Catholic heretic can validly excommunicate a Catholic. Yes, it appears that the Conciliar Church is full of protestants; so I invite you now to retract your statement about Traditional Catholics.…modernism, religious indifferentism, liberalism, Freemasonry…
Don’t joke about these things. You are making a mockery of religion.Well, since John Paul “the Great” suggested during one of his Wednesday audiences that God is too merciful to send anyone to Hell anyway, I think I’ll be OK.
I guess EVERYONE is going to be saved…except of course for traditional Roman Catholics.
Thank you. That pretty much answers my question.
I don’t think these two statements indicate any change in policy. They’re simply approaching the issue from two different angles. In the first statment they make clear that a desire for the TM is not a sufficient reason to participate in an SSPX Mass. In the second, they simply say that it would not be a sin to do so if they do so only for devotional reasons. But just because it’s not a sin does not mean that it is encouraged or even a wise thing to do.
:clapping: :yup:Thank you. That pretty much answers my question.
Still, I have to wonder why people would take the chance. Regardless of some hypothetical future lifting of the excommunication, the fact is, right now the SSPX bishops are excommunicated and the priests are barred from excercising their priestly faculties licitly (even thought they still do so validly). Why would anyone want to go to a Mass they know is illicit?
I don’t think these two statements indicate any change in policy. They’re simply approaching the issue from two different angles. In the first statment they make clear that a desire for the TM is not a sufficient reason to participate in an SSPX Mass. In the second, they simply say that it would not be a sin to do so if they do so only for devotional reasons. But just because it’s not a sin does not mean that it is encouraged or even a wise thing to do.
They believe there is a grave situation justifying their attendance at the SSPX. Such as problems with the new Mass, liturgical abuse, priests changing the words of consecration, priests that deny the Real Presence, overuse of EMHCs, priests that teach universal salvation, churches that try to stop people from receiving on the tongue/kneeling, priests that preach in favor of abortion and womenpriests, priests that tell people they don’t need to confess, etc. They would rather attend illicit Masses than have their kids hear that type of stuff in church. They also think that this applies to their situation: “morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing.”Still, I have to wonder why people would take the chance. Regardless of some hypothetical future lifting of the excommunication, the fact is, right now the SSPX bishops are excommunicated and the priests are barred from excercising their priestly faculties licitly (even thought they still do so validly). Why would anyone want to go to a Mass they know is illicit?
The first quote says that attending the SSPX because you want to assist at a traditional Mass is morally illicit. The second quote says it is not a sin to attend the SSPX for devotion to the traditional Mass. I guess it depends on what exactly they mean by “morally illicit”, but it sounds like sin to me.
Well, I would say they aren’t looking hard enough for a good parish. I must be lucky, because I have never heard a priest preach in favor of abortion, women priests, etc. I would much rather attend a licit Mass with an overabundance of EMHC’s and people receiving in the hand than a Mass I know to be illicit. Maybe I just live in a good area.
The first quote did not use the term “morally illicit”. It only said that devotional reasons were not a sufficient motive. That’s where the difference lies.
Excellent. Luckily, there’s are good, approved parishes in my area as well.
It says devotion is not a sufficient motive to attend, and that attending without sufficient reason is morally illicit.
When did “Holy Mother Church” ever tell us we can’t follow Catholic teaching and practice? Please don’t confuse the modernists in Rome with “Holy Mother Church”.
Unreal. For one thing, Pope Benedict (that’s a hard one for you to swallow, huh?) never “rehabilitated” Martin Luther. That alone tells me that you have no idea of what you speak.What are you referring to? I don’t think false obedience has EVER been a part of Catholic teaching…I always think it’s ironic that NeoCatholics call us protestants when we are the ones resisting the Protestant errors in the Church today. Protestants aren’t protestants just because they disobey the Pope…they’re Protestants because they teach and believe heresies contrary to the one true Catholic faith taught from the Apostles. Only a naive, simple-minded person with a minimal grasp of Catholic teaching would think that obedience to the Pope in every single matter is the heart of Catholicism…
John Paul the Great, Paul VI, and a lot of higher-ups in the Conciliar Vatican have prayed with Protestant heretics [forbidden to Catholics until V2] and held joint worship services with them [offering false worship to God with non-catholics=a mortal sin
Oh, you don’t say? I guess I just pulled THIS out of thin air then!Unreal. For one thing, Pope Benedict (that’s a hard one for you to swallow, huh?) never “rehabilitated” Martin Luther. That alone tells me that you have no idea of what you speak.
It is curious to me that so many “traditional” catholics possess the same trait of wild, baseless accusations along with a persecution/conspiracy theory complex. Coffee and donuts after Mass with you guys must be an interesting event…
I am not a Catholic, so I do not have a “dog in this fight” so to speak…but I genuinely and deeply respect those who defend tradition, regardless of which religious tradition we mean. This is partly because I am an Orthodox (traditional) Jew, and also because the half of my family that is Catholic has many Traditionalists among them…so I understand their issues and feelings on this.
Oh yes…Time magazine…interesting how they know what the Pope is going to say before he even says it. Didn’t we go through this a few months ago? I’m sure Time in the UK has no agenda against the Catholic Church, huh? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Probably talk about how all those Pope-Following Catholics are objectively sinning and will burn in hell…oh, and women who are going to college and not having babies.
