Not schismatic, not in union

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaGorettiGrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aramis said:
Since Bernard Fellay is excommunicated, he is not a valid member of the SSPX, and having been elected its superior general, the whole of the SSPX electorate has affirmed him a member in violation of canon 316 of the Code of Canon Law.
Click to expand...
I think you really should show a little more respect to a valid bishop. After all, even trads show a lot of respect to their own bishops whom they disagree with in terms of Catholic theology.
 
jmcrae said:
Good!! Then keep at it, and you will see a difference. It takes time, but you will get there.

You are not just “not maligning” them - you are actually supporting them. I don’t see how we can support an organization that is so opposed to the Church.
Click to expand...
What you said above—just shows a double standard—a big one at that. As I stated prior—people play nice with the Orthodox, the protestants—even with those who outright reject our Savior—and these organizations all oppose the Church.

If someone is leaving the Church to join the Orthodox—they get patted on the back and sent off to have a good journey. Now —if someone attends an SSPX chapel—well this thread explains what happens.
 
puzzleannie said:
is that like being a little big pregnant? what is the word for "not in union with Rome but not schismatic?
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. When you start to look into this question seriously you’ll see the problem with the conciliar church…“partial communion”…not in “full communion”…this is completely novel and it is not Catholic doctrine. I challenge anyone to show me where such a thing can be found in any teaching prior to V2…it actually contradicts previous teaching on the nature of the Church…Satis Cognitum…Mystici Corporis…and many, many others.

This is a huge issue…it’s the gorilla standing right in the middle of this thread…can’t you see it?

Gorman
 
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...
No. But I will hold them in suspicion for quite awhile.
 
bear06 said:
And then he went on to say they were like protestants. I actually agree with this statement. I don’t think they submit to the rightful authority of the pope.🤷
Click to expand...
Well bear06—you don’t have to look far to find those who don’t believe in the authority of the Pope. They are in “communion” with the Church. The Neocatechumenals and some Melkites–there may even be more within the Eastern Catholic rites.
 
BobP123 said:
What does this mean? Suspicion of what? Either you accept them as valid or you don’t.
Click to expand...
Trust has to be earned. From my past interation with their adherants (I have had threats of Lawsuits against by one adherant because I did not agree with him), I would be suspicious of their motives in anything. I hold the same suspicion with the “progressive” side of the spectrum.
 
There is not much Christian charity towards the SSPX is there? Not here on this forum anyway. They seem to be the most despised of all Christians, Catholic or otherwise.
 
Walking_Home said:
Well bear06—you don’t have to look far to find those who don’t believe in the authority of the Pope. They are in “communion” with the Church. The Neocatechumenals and some Melkites–there may even be more within the Eastern Catholic rites.
Click to expand...
I was wondering how long it was going to take to start pointing the finger in another direction. THEY’RE BOTH WRONG! This isn’t a matter of picking one dissident group over another.
 
paramedicgirl said:
There is not much Christian charity towards the SSPX is there? Not here on this forum anyway. They seem to be the most despised of all Christians, Catholic or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I despise a break with unity whether it be on the conservative side or the liberal side. This doesn’t mean that I despise the people involved. I do despise the devil that got them to do it and I despise the fact that so many on both sides are willing to make excuses for a break with unity whether it be full or partial.
 
bear06 said:
I was wondering how long it was going to take to start pointing the finger in another direction. THEY’RE BOTH WRONG! This isn’t a matter of picking one dissident group over another.
Click to expand...
Oh Bear!..says who? You? The conciliar church says they are in communion with the Church. What difference does it make if you think they are a “dissident group”?

Are you expressing dissent from your own church? 🙂

G
 
WanderAimlessly said:
Trust has to be earned. From my past interation with their adherants (I have had threats of Lawsuits against by one adherant because I did not agree with him), I would be suspicious of their motives in anything. I hold the same suspicion with the “progressive” side of the spectrum.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll have to agree with you that at least one (or two) of “them” do hold unorthodox views as does the other side of the spectrum. (No one on this forum, though. 🙂 )
 
bear06 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Well bear06—you don’t have to look far to find those who don’t believe in the authority of the Pope. They are in “communion” with the Church. The Neocatechumenals and some Melkites–there may even be more within the Eastern Catholic rites.

I was wondering how long it was going to take to start pointing the finger in another direction. THEY’RE BOTH WRONG! This isn’t a matter of picking one dissident group over another.
Click to expand...
Who is it really who is pointing a finger here. I have not seen you or anyone else who finds ways to bash the SSPX-- speak on and warn anyone about those in “communion” who are really damaging and trying to destroy the Church.

By the way—here is another Neocatechumenal priest. More than likey —one is coming to a church near you–or to your own church in the near future.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=3&Pg=Forum6&recnu=72&number=504371

Consecrated Host
Question from Matt on 5/25/2007:

The priest at our parish just explained that if we truly have faith that we as lay people can change the host at Mass into the blessed sacrament. I never realized this before. Why do priests need to be ordained then as I’m sure our priest have faith? Can you expalin this to me?
 
Who is it really who is pointing a finger here. I have not seen you or anyone else who finds ways to bash the SSPX-- speak on and warn anyone about those in “communion” who are really damaging and trying to destroy the Church.
Click to expand...
Really? Maybe you should read through the archives to see what I have done before you say that.
By the way—here is another Neocatechumenal priest. More than likey —one is coming to a church near you–or to your own church in the near future.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=3&Pg=Forum6&recnu=72&number=504371
Click to expand...
You just can’t help but try and change the subject, can you? Why don’t you start a thread for that one, send me the link and I’ll join in as to what I think of him. SSPX and modernists - both wrong. I’m an equal opportunity “finger pointer”.
 
bear06 said:
Really? Maybe you should read through the archives to see what I have done before you say that.

You just can’t help but try and change the subject, can you? Why don’t you start a thread for that one, send me the link and I’ll join in as to what I think of him. SSPX and modernists - both wrong. I’m an equal opportunity “finger pointer”.
Click to expand...
Search the archives—to find what you have done—so what have you done recently. There was a thread over at the Eastern forum concerning the Neocatechumenals—I did not see you there warning them as to what they are.

I am not changing the subject—since “communion” and how the SSPX fit into this --has been the topic of this thread. I just brought forth—that the real danger is from those in “communion”.
 
Walking_Home said:
Search the archives—to find what you have done—so what have you done recently. There was a thread over at the Eastern forum concerning the Neocatechumenals—I did not see you there warning them as to what they are.

I am not changing the subject—since “communion” and how the SSPX fit into this --has been the topic of this thread. I just brought forth—that the real danger is from those in “communion”.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t travel much on the Eastern Forums. They are few and far between in my area. I get modernists and radical traditionalists where I live. You can see my PM so see what I deal with on a daily basis.
 
Aramis said:
as to SSPX: AS I understand it, the head of the SSPX is currently Rev. Fellay.

(Since he’s been excommunicated, as evidenced in Ecclesia Dei, and is addressed there as a priest, NOT a bishop, until otherwise published by the Vatican, he’s NOT a bishop and NOT a Catholic. He’s a Former Catholic.)
Click to expand...
This is what happens when some people decide to be lay theologians. His name is Bishop Fellay. He is a validly ordained priest and a validly consecrated Bishop. His episcopal consecration was performed in disobedience, and that disobedience resulted in his “excommunication.” A declaration of excommunication does not make a person “not a Catholic.” You do not understand what excommunication means, apparently. This should clarify it for you (from Catholic Encyclopedia):

“The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced…”

Do you stand corrected now?
40.png
jmcrae:
"laudamus te:
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.
Click to expand...
The only reason they are not under the authority of the local bishops is because they are not allowed to be, due to the unfair “excommunications.” It has nothing to do with disobedience. They are not “doing whatever they please.” They are simply being Catholics. They have not elected their own pope. They recognize the Pope as their Pope, and consider themselves under his authority (as opposed to the Protestants, who may recognize the Pope as a pope, but it has no bearing on their false faith). If you were to disobey your father if he commanded you to do something unlawful, does he cease to be your father? To say that they are not Catholic is not true.
 
bear06 said:
Sorry, I don’t travel much on the Eastern Forums. They are few and far between in my area. I get modernists and radical traditionalists where I live. You can see my PM so see what I deal with on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
I can say the same—few and far between. Yet that does not stop be from warning them. I do not wish for them—what the Neocatechumenals have done and are doing to us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top