Jesus gave the keys to St. Peter and then what happened? St. Peter:Since Our Lord said we are to find the Holy Spirit guiding the Church throught the successors of Peter, I have no problem finding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Church. To deny the Papacy is to deny a central belief of the Catholic faith; it is an action that makes someone something other than a devout, faithful Catholic. Spre us, Oh Lord.
If you attempted to make a point, you’ve failed. Our Blessed Mother was at the foot of the cross as well as John. It is she who told servants, regarding her Son, do whatever He tells you. It is He Who has told us, we are to follow Peter - not to judge Peter as you seem quite willing to do - but to follow Peter with the Church founded on Peter by Jesus Christ Himself. Lefebvre saw himself as an exception to the rule. Perhaps you do too.Jesus gave the keys to St. Peter and then what happened? St. Peter:
I don’t know about you, but I prefer to imitate the Magdalene by being bowed down before my Crucified God rather than off in hiding like the others, as if nothing is happening.
- tried to turn Him away from the Passion
- tried to prevent the fulfillment of the Scriptures by drawing the sword
- abandoned Him
- denied Him, not once, not twice, but three times, even though he was warned in advance! He did not heed the warning, and thus fell
- he did not go to Jesus in His Agony. Who did? Of 12 Apostles, ***ONE ***remained faithful.
I didn’t fail, you for some reason just don’t get it. Not obeying irrational judgments is my point. Not following the Pope in his errors, mistakes, bad judgments, example, etc.I f you attempted to make a point, you failed.Our Blessed Mother was at the foot of the cross as well as John. It is she who told servants, regarding her Son, do whatever He tells you. It is He Who has told us, we are to follow Peter - not to judge Peter as you seem quite willing to do - but to follow Peter with the Church founded on Peter by Jesus Christ Himself.
St. John was a bishop who did not follow St. Peter into the shadows. Was St. John seeing himself as exceptional?Our Blessed Mother was at the foot of the cross** as well as John.** It is she who told servants, regarding her Son, do whatever He tells you. It is He Who has told us, we are to follow Peter - not to judge Peter as you seem quite willing to do - but to follow Peter with the Church founded on Peter by Jesus Christ Himself. Lefebvre saw himself as an exception to the rule. Perhaps you do too.
~But I did goof up in forgetting to mention the Blessed Mother.~ A little goof up. Nothing like a mistake.I didn’t fail, you for some reason just don’t get it. Not obeying irrational judgments is my point. Not following the Pope in his errors, mistakes, bad judgments, example, etc.
Judging has nothing to do with it. It doesn’t take a genius to know that Lefebvre did nothing wrong. If I were judging the pope than I’d be saying he’s in hell. Refusing to acknowledge mistakes because he’s the pope is turning him into a god.
But I did goof up in forgetting to mention the Blessed Mother. She was onthe mind but didn’t reach my fingers for some reason. And I did make not of St. John.
He did? Do you recall where you read that, I’d like to copy it with whatever else he said.Cardinal Ottaviani called the Apostles running from the Cross as the first act of collegiality by the bishops in union with the Pope.
This is done for the laity and has nothing to do with the bishops being excommunicated and the priests being suspended. They are not supposed to be performing priestly functions (except in the Titanic situation).Even still, the current Pope doesn’t forbid our attending their Masses.
This is hilarious. I suppose you think an excommunication isn’t null and can be ignored unless the Pope says, “I’m issuing an excommunication that is null.”
Gerard, did you bother reading the article? The behavior on the part of the excommunicate under a latae sententiae excommication is to be that of someone excommunicated. It’s not funny at all. Look again at what Innocent III said:
Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous.
Yes. Years ago and many times since.Gerard, did you bother reading the article?
The question is was the “excommunication” really latae sententiae? No. No one can reasonably believe that. It was a null intrinsically invalid “excommunication” whether one calls it latae sententiae or not.The behavior on the part of the excommunicate under a latae sententiae excommication is to be that of someone excommunicated.
Quote:It’s not funny at all. Look again at what Innocent III said:
Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God’s judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence.
I think you are wrong but let’s just say you are right. It’s irrelevant when it comes to how the unjustly or invalidly excommunicated are supposed to behave. This whole section was for those unjustly excommunicated so your whole “he was unjustly excommunicated” doesn’t matter but it is becoming quite a mantra.Quote:
JPII’s motive for declaring that LeFebvre excommunicated himself was manifestly incorrect and inconsistent.
Well, I’m guessing that you’ve just called JPII insane here but maybe it’s just your way of communicating.Quote:
No on sane would think that there is and was no crisis. No one would take simple disobedience because of the crisis and turn it into “implied schism”
Quote:
JPII ultimately did admit when in 2002 he coined the term “silent apostasy” that had afflicted the Church and reflected that he had not been strong enough in his governance of the Church (a serious understatement)I can see we’re getting into a tizzy. Again STATE OF CRISIS has no bearing on the behavior of the excommunicated whether justly or unjustly excommunicated.So, JPII’s own admissions validate LeFebvre’s recognition of the state of emergency.
According to who? That would be you.Quote:
The excommunications were null
**Now, the heart of the matter: give sources for your stated claim. **That is why the SSPX are demanding the false accusations of excommunication be nullified not lifted.
Anyone paying attention does know about it. I’ve heard Bishop Fellay say it and I’ve read it in a dozen places.**Now, the heart of the matter: give sources for your stated claim. **
Everyone might want to know about it.
Mind-boggling. You’re saying that the excommunicated themselves are requesting that the excommunications be declared null? Once excommunicated, those under that ruling are allowed re-union with the Church only through the Sacrament of Penance, as I understand it. Why do you think differently?Anyone paying attention does know about it. I’ve heard Bishop Fellay say it and I’ve read it in a dozen places.
Here’s an interview with Una Voce that Fr. Schmidberger gave in 2001. He was at both meetings with Bishop Fellay when he met with John Paul II and Benedict XVI
unavoce.org/father_schmidberger_march12.htm
Why do you assume the so-called excommunications were valid?Mind-boggling. You’re saying that the excommunicated themselves are requesting that the excommunications be declared null? Once excommunicated, those under that ruling are allowed re-union with the Church only through the Sacrament of Penance, as I understand it. Why do you think differently?
What else might I be allowed to assume? I’m not a sedevacanist or anything close to that. I know that the Holy Father has the authority to declare and to enforce excommunication(s). I know that only a future Pope could rescind such an action and Pope Benedict XVI is not even hinting at such a thing.Why do you assume the so-called excommunications were valid?
The innocent are requesting that false charges against them be dropped.
Did St. Joan of Arc really die a heretic?
The house is on fire and the resident that tried to put it out by bringing a hose is arrested for trespassing. The caretaker presses the charges against the person with the hose and at the same time, he watches while the arsonists continue to light their fires.
How about not assuming things in the first place?What else might I be allowed to assume?
Where does sedevacantism even approach this conversation?I’m not a sedevacanist or anything close to that.
So, you don’t believe the Pope can invalidly excommunicate?I know that the Holy Father has the authority to declare and to enforce excommunication(s).
Popes have overturned each other on sentences and validity and then been later overturned themselves. Do you think the truth changed with each ruling? And yes, Pope Benedict has been hinting by way of Card. Hoyos at giving a “final ruling” in favor of Archbishop LeFebvre.I know that only a future Pope could rescind such an action and Pope Benedict XVI is not even hinting at such a thing.
Could you make a theological argument instead of a rhetorical question?How can anyone who imagines himself or herself to be “in the Church” believe or imagine otherwise?
I suggest you worry about your own salvation which you are in control of…and not conjecture about Archbishop Lefebvre’s.The real punishment of ecclesiastical censures consists in the privation of the use of certain spiritual good or benefits. These spiritual goods are those which are within the power of the Church or those which depend on the Church, e.g., the sacraments, public prayers, Indulgences, sacred functions, jurisdictions, ecclesiastical benefices and offices. Censures, however, do not deprive of grace, nor of the private prayers and good works of the faithful; for, even if censured, the eternal communion of the saints still remains by virtue of the indelible character imprinted by baptism.
Did St. Joan of Arc really die a heretic? Yes or no?What else might I be allowed to assume? I’m not a sedevacanist or anything close to that. I know that the Holy Father has the authority to declare and to enforce excommunication(s). I know that only a future Pope could rescind such an action and Pope Benedict XVI is not even hinting at such a thing.
How can anyone who imagines himself or herself to be “in the Church” believe or imagine otherwise?
The use of rhetoric was first advanced by you when YOU accused me of assuming something. I answered you in your terminology. Rather than allow you to continue your self-serving game of spewing insults at me - you’re go your way, bud. (I doubt that Pope Benedict has ever pretended to himself that he uses Cardinal Hoyos to ‘give hints.’)How about not assuming things in the first place?
Where does sedevacantism even approach this conversation?
What does that have to do with anything?
So, you don’t believe the Pope can invalidly excommunicate?
Popes have overturned each other on sentences and validity and then been later overturned themselves. Do you think the truth changed with each ruling? And yes, Pope Benedict has been hinting by way of Card. Hoyos at giving a “final ruling” in favor of Archbishop LeFebvre.
Could you make a theological argument instead of a rhetorical question?