Not schismatic, not in union

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaGorettiGrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paramedicgirl said:
So you are saying that the conciliar church has dropped the definition of heretics and schismatics as formerly applied to protestants and Eastern Orthodox and now just refers to them as “outside the church?” Come to think of it, the only place I’ve heard a priest use the word “heretic” lately was in an SSPX homily.
Click to expand...
I think they say “separated brethren”…check the CCC for the terminology used. The only people who are called heretics and schismatics are traditional Catholics…and most of those who use these labels are laymen like jmcrae.
 
gorman64 said:
I think they say “separated brethren”…check the CCC for the terminology used. The only people who are called heretics and schismatics are traditional Catholics…and most of those who use these labels are laymen like jmcrae.
Click to expand...
Yes, “separated bretheren”. In fact, no need to convert to Catholicism anymore, because the conciliarists teach that there **is **salvation outside the Catholic Church, and don’t forget this dandy…

*“This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (Second Vatican Council).
*

As correctly stated above, the only ones left now that are labeled schismatics are those who adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church as taught by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, the remnant.
 
gorman64 said:
I think they say “separated brethren”…check the CCC for the terminology used. The only people who are called heretics and schismatics are traditional Catholics…and most of those who use these labels are laymen like jmcrae.
Click to expand...
OK thanks, from your fellow traditional “schismatic and heretic.”
 
jmcrae said:
No, because their churches don’t depend for their existence on Rome. They are descended directly from other Apostles than Peter. The SSPX are breaking from Peter, and they are not separately descended from any other Apostle, down a different line - once they are completely broken away from Peter, they have no other Apostle to take his place, thus losing their Apostolic Succession whenever that happens.
Click to expand...
Say WHAT?
Where pray tell did Lefebvre come from??? How exactly do you foresee this “Apostolic Succession” being “broken”?
Tell me now. I want to hear this.

The EO broke out from who exactly?
Was it St Andrew, St Thomas, who?
Or, maybe they never broke communion. Is that it?
Council of Florence notwithstanding.

As far as I know, the Eastern churches were under the Roman Pope like any other churches from the git go.
I never heard of this novelty, not even from the EO.
 
laudamus_te said:
Well, besides “don’t consecrate those bishops,” what? Give me an example. You make the Pope sound like a traffic cop.
Click to expand...
Like not being in obedience to the local Catholic Bishop, and not respecting his authority over the dispensation of the Sacraments in his Diocese.

Now, either they are a different Church, not in communion with Rome, and they can go ahead and do whatever they please without the Bishop’s say-so (because he has no authority over people who are not members of the Catholic Church), OR, they are (as they claim to be) in communion with Rome, and if so, then they should follow the guidance of the local Catholic Bishop.

But they don’t. Which means that they aren’t Catholic, no matter what they say about it.
 
paramedicgirl said:
You don’t understand my point. When someone is exposed to nothing but altered Catholicism, how can they maintain the Catholic faith as it is meant to be?

People have done this throughout the history of the Church.
Heresies will creep in, and the way they believe will be altered by what they have been exposed to.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
paramedicgirl said:
I’m not in schism. I don’t go to the “SSPX Church.” I go to a modern NO church where people clap to the music and talk throughout the Mass, and where we sing songs like We are one in the Spirit and Lord of the Dance, and where the sign of peace is a fiasco.
Click to expand...
And apart from thinking of going over to the SSPX, you are doing what … Are you teaching Sunday School? Are you leading RCIA? Are you involved in Sacramental Preparation of children?

Do you even have a web site or a blog?

Where are you, in the battle to bring the people of your parish back to a sense of reverence in the Church, and give them the tools they need?

By the way, if you are going to come all the way to Calgary to go to the Latin Mass, why not drive just a few blocks further and go to St. Anthony’s?

You may not be aware of the fact that the FSSP (which is in full communion with Rome, and authorized by the local Bishop) has a Tridentine-rite Latin Mass there every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
 
laudamus_te said:
So which is it, are they or aren’t they, in your mind? Because that’s all it is - in your mind. You have a very wrong, uninformed and misguided understanding of the SSPX situation. To call them “protestant” or even “like Protestants” is absolutely absurd. Show me where the Lefebvre or the SSPX have denied that the Pope is pope… where is the proof that they have established their own “new church?” Do you even understand what you are saying?

And why are you people always bashing Martin Luther and the Protestants anyway, now that VII has ushered in ecumenism and it’s ok to be Protestant? JPII even acknowledged the “deep religiousity of Luther.” Talk about your double standards.
Click to expand...
Do the protestants even deny that the pope is the pope? They just deny his authority. If you asked a protestant who the pope was I’m pretty sure they’d point to our German friend.
 
gorman64 said:
First, I am not SSPX. Second, you might want to consider who changed the liturgy and most of the sacraments. Did the SSPX do this…or did the “conciliar church” do this? Your analogy is backwards…it actually fits you and your “schismatic” sect…you are the ones who changed…not the traditionalists. When you refuse communion with other Catholics during this crisis…that is a schismatic (at least materially) act. Do you realise that?

I am offended by the crass way you treat fellow Catholics.

You must be in communion with other Catholics…where they are the Church is as well…you can’t separate the two…the Church is a body, remember?

Gorman
Click to expand...
Jmcrae - In case nobody’s filled you in, Gorman is a sedevacantist.
 
jmcrae said:
And apart from thinking of going over to the SSPX, you are doing what … Are you teaching Sunday School? Are you leading RCIA? Are you involved in Sacramental Preparation of children?

Do you even have a web site or a blog?

Where are you, in the battle to bring the people of your parish back to a sense of reverence in the Church, and give them the tools they need?

By the way, if you are going to come all the way to Calgary to go to the Latin Mass, why not drive just a few blocks further and go to St. Anthony’s?

You may not be aware of the fact that the FSSP (which is in full communion with Rome, and authorized by the local Bishop) has a Tridentine-rite Latin Mass there every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
Click to expand...
Let me enlighten you on a few things, JM. I do teach catechism at my NO church. I do what I can to “bring the people of your parish back to a sense of reverence in the Church” like organizing processions for feast days, and whatever else the priest assigns to me.

And you stand corrected. I do go to St. Anthony’s for the Latin Mass once a month. Where did I say otherwise? You seem to think I drive to Calgary to attend the SSPX. I only go there for family events, which is in keeping with my family obligations. Even my NO priest has said so.

And yes, I have a blog. Have you not noticed the Salve Regina in my signature? That’s the name of my web page.

You see it is possible to not malign the SSPX and still attend a NO church.
 
paramedicgirl said:
With all the SSPX bashing that goes on here, I wonder if these opinions will change if they are reunited formally with Rome. Will all of you who hold the SSPX in such contempt still despise them if they reunite?
Click to expand...
Are you having a bad night? 😉 What’s “all the SSPX bashing”. I don’t hold them in contempt. I actually don’t hold them anything. The Church does. Some are in schism, some are excommunicated, Masses are are illicit, some are suspended, some Sacraments are invalid, etc. Aren’t we allowed to say what the Church has said when the topic is brought up?
 
Walking_Home said:
Justify my schism—I attend an NO church. What cannot be justified—is the attitude some people have toward the SSPX. Seems everyone bends over backwards to the Orthodox–to the protestants etc.----yet the SSPX gets nothing but bashing. Apparently—Charity does not reach to the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Has anyone noticed the topic of the thread? Why is it when the topic of the thread is the SSPX, we must mention the protestants, orthodox and the rest?🤷
 
bear06 said:
Are you having a bad night? 😉 What’s “all the SSPX bashing”. I don’t hold them in contempt. I actually don’t hold them anything. The Church does. Some are in schism, some are excommunicated, Masses are are illicit, some are suspended, some Sacraments are invalid, etc. Aren’t we allowed to say what the Church has said when the topic is brought up?
Click to expand...
I don’t remember you calling them protestants, bear.
 
bear06 said:
Has anyone noticed the topic of the thread? Why is it when the topic of the thread is the SSPX, we must mention the protestants, orthodox and the rest?🤷
Click to expand...
Maybe because Jmcrae called them protestants?
 
laudamus_te said:
No, they do not.

The level of ignorance of the SSPX on this forum, and the constant repetition of inaccuracies, is astounding.
Click to expand...
Ok, can you agree that when the Lefebvre was told not to consecrate bishops and he did that he was disobeying the pope? Can we agree that when the pope suspended the SSPX and the priests went on to preform the Sacraments that they were disobeying the pope?
 
The laity are not in schism, and I’ll look for a reference, but I think Cardinal Hoyas also said the priests are not in schism]
Click to expand...
There is not individual ruling on either. We can assume, while we can’t name names, that after almost 20 years, there are some in schism this via Msgr. Perl.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top