Salvation outside the church

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;

You doubt my theology degree? Really? It’s hanging on my wall. How can you doubt it?

"Edward Schillebeeckx

of the Netherlands was summoned to Rome for an inquiry into his theological writings" So, after the inquiry, there was no condemnation, or proscribing his writings.

Schillebeeckx denies the physical resurrection of Christ
Explaining away Jesus’ Resurrection
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9110dd.asp

Hans Kung went on to hold a position teaching Ecumenical Theology. He continued as a priest to this day.

Hans Kung denies Papal infallibility and supports birth control and has spoken in favor of womenpriests

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031903.html
“Kung somehow remains a priest in good standing with the Church despite his decades as the figurehead for the post-sixties clerical rebellion that continues to this day. His talking points remain, as ever, the familiar list of liberal grievances against Catholic teaching: sex, contraception and women priests.”
“What would Jesus do if he were Pope? I can’t believe He would forbid the (birth control) pill today, or the ordination of women,” he told the Citizen."

As for Fr. Curran, I don’t know how old you are, or that you remember the 1960’s. Hundreds of theologians urged the Holy Father to make some change in the church’s stance on birth control for married couples. Pope Paul VI held the 'miniority position". It was a very difficult time in the Church.

I am 57. I remember the 1960’s. It is mind bogling how any Catholic can support Curran.
Curran thinks that “premarital sex is acceptable under some circumstances and that loving homosexual acts can be morally licit in the context of a permanent commitment. He believes that the church should alter its ban on remarriage after divorce.”

Read this analysis, then tell me you would condemn such as Fr. Curran.
viastuas.net.au/bc/WeigelHV.html

p

Father Curran is wrong. The majority of liberals that wanted artificial birth contol in the 1960’s were wrong The issue of birth control was settled with
*CASTI CONNUBII *
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE DECEMBER 31, 1930
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, **the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, **standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

 

[mgrfin]

.

Schillebeeckx denies the physical resurrection of Christ
Explaining away Jesus’ Resurrection
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9110dd.asp

Hans Kung denies Papal infallibility and supports birth control and has spoken in favor of womenpriests

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07031903.html
“Kung somehow remains a priest in good standing with the Church despite his decades as the figurehead for the post-sixties clerical rebellion that continues to this day. His talking points remain, as ever, the familiar list of liberal grievances against Catholic teaching: sex, contraception and women priests.”
“What would Jesus do if he were Pope? I can’t believe He would forbid the (birth control) pill today, or the ordination of women,” he told the Citizen."

I am 57. I remember the 1960’s. It is mind bogling how any Catholic can support Curran.
Curran thinks that “premarital sex is acceptable under some circumstances and that loving homosexual acts can be morally licit in the context of a permanent commitment. He believes that the church should alter its ban on remarriage after divorce.”

p

Father Curran is wrong. The majority of liberals that wanted artificial birth contol in the 1960’s were wrong The issue of birth control was settled with
*CASTI CONNUBII *
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE DECEMBER 31, 1930
54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

1. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, **the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, **standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."

I don’t have to defend Schillebeeckx. He was examined by Rome and passed muster. Some right-wing article against him is not enough for me.

Hans Kung is a wonderful, saintly man, who has great rapport with the Holy Father.

As for Curran, I am glad you understand that 800 theologians applealed to the minority opinion of Paul VI. It took him two years to examine the matter before issuing Humanae Generis. It was a time of discussion, and examining for all. When he issued the document, most theologians fell into line.

What is your basis in moral theology that you understand all the issues involved?

And where do you stand on the Archbishop Lefebreve issue?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Again, what heresy? .

Actually, it is not heresy; it is apostacy, which is a worse crime in Canon Law.

Read this and weep for him:

APOSTOLIC LETTER
“ECCLESIA DEI”
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)
2. 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 on 17 June last, Mons. 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.(4)
3. 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. 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)
4. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.
   a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.
   To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)
   However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended “harmony” which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.
5. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:
   a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;
   b) this Commission is composed of a Cardinal President and other members of the Roman Curia, in a number that will be deemed opportune according to circumstances;
   c) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.(9)
6. As this year specially dedicated to the Blessed Virgin is now drawing to a close, I wish to exhort all to join in unceasing prayer that the Vicar of Christ, through the intercession of the Mother of the church, addresses to the Father in the very words of the Son: “That they all may be one!”.
   Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate.
   Joannes Paulus PP. II

Unquote.

The Motu Proprio was abbreviated so it could fit

After reading this, tell me he was not a heretic and apostate.

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3287167] I am glad you understand that 800 theologians applealed to the minority opinion of Paul VI. It took him two years to examine the matter before issuing Humanae Generis. It was a time of discussion, and examining for all. When he issued the document, most theologians fell into line.

What is your basis in moral theology that you understand all the issues involved?

I don’t have a theology degree hanging on my wall like you do but it is very simple for me. Pope Pius XI settled the issue with Casti Connubi. What else should I consider?

And where do you stand on the Archbishop Lefebreve issue?

I admire him. I do not belong to the SSPX but when I look at his actions in the context of what was happening in the Church from 1965-1988, I understand why he believed that he had an obligation to consecrate the bishops.
Was he right? I think Pope Benedict will decide. I believe that one day, just like Joan of Arc, his excommunication will be lifted and one day he will be canonized.
There would be no TLM if he had not taken a stand and today Pope Benedict wouldn’t be considering making changes in the liturgy of the New Mass. The criticism from the SSPX and other traditionalists have kept the spotlight on the liturgy and rubrics of the New Mass. This will all end up for the betterment of the Church. This will force reverence and sacredness back into the Mass.

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t have a theology degree hanging on my wall like you do but it is very simple for me. Pope Pius XI settled the issue with Casti Connubi. What else should I consider?

I admire him. I do not belong to the SSPX but when I look at his actions in the context of what was happening in the Church from 1965-1988, I understand why he believed that he had an obligation to consecrate the bishops.
Was he right? I think Pope Benedict will decide. I believe that one day, just like Joan of Arc, his excommunication will be lifted and one day he will be canonized.
There would be no TLM if he had not taken a stand and today Pope Benedict wouldn’t be considering making changes in the liturgy of the New Mass. The criticism from the SSPX and other traditionalists have kept the spotlight on the liturgy and rubrics of the New Mass. This will all end up for the betterment of the Church. This will force reverence and sacredness back into the Mass.

I find it interesting that you didn’t see any reason for Paul VI to issue “Humanae Vitae”. You are a lot smater than the rest of the Church.

And you condemn Kung, who was never condemned by the Church, or excommunicated. Schilleebex was never punished by the Church, excommunicated, or stopped from teaching.

But for Lefebreve’s public, and outrageous disobedience, and apostacy, taking people outside of the Church, you find no difficulty.

Lefebreve was excommunicated, and he died ‘outside of the Church, where there is no salvation.’ You believe he will be canonized, when the salvation of his soul is in doubt???

I find Traditionalists like you confused, to say the least. Telling me on the one hand you are smarter than the rest of Catholic moral theologians, and know more than they, and God forbid they should oppose what you are certain is catholic teaching, and they are not - until the Holy Father resolved the question (Casti Canubii didn’t resolve it for most). Yet, you find Archbishop Lefebre to be a saint, yet, excommunicated and punished by the most serious penalty of excommunication for his apostacy??? The man was outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. Outside, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. I hope you are praying for him, not to him.

I can’t handle this contradiction of Traditionalists like you.

peace.

 

[DustinsDad]

I find it interesting that you didn’t see any reason for Paul VI to issue “Humanae Vitae”. You are a lot smater than the rest of the Church.

Pope Paul VI’s hand wringing and delay in reaffirming the constant and clear teaching of the Church are not necessarily virtuous. His eventual issuance of Humanae Vitae was great - but also impossible to proclaim otherwise given the promise of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit - there was no other alternative except to issue nothing.

…But for Lefebreve’s public, and outrageous disobedience, and apostacy, taking people outside of the Church, you find no difficulty.

You prevously accused Lefebvre of being a heretic, not of being an apostate. Do you even know what these terms mean???

You have been proven wrong on the heresy charge - and it’s even easier with the apostacy charge (that being a total repudiation of the Christian faith).

…Lefebreve was excommunicated, and he died ‘outside of the Church, where there is no salvation.’ You believe he will be canonized, when the salvation of his soul is in doubt???

Disciplinary decisions are not infallible. Eventual canonization? Well, such is not beyond the realm of possibilities - but it would take something huge for it to happen. And no, I’m not SSPX, but I have to admit a little sympathy for them.

I

… find Traditionalists like you confused, to say the least. …Yet, you find Archbishop Lefebre to be a saint, yet, excommunicated and punished by the most serious penalty of excommunication for his apostacy???

Again, not apostasy, and anyone with a theology degree should know this, as well as any 5th grader properly eduated in the faith.

And the fact that someone like Lefevbre who simply tried to hold onto the traditional teachings of the Church got the hammer while others spouting heresy and with wild-eyed ecumania proclaim that all folks in all religions are all on their own unique path to salvation and that truth is relative to our own particular conscience run rampant in the Church untouched* is* confusing.

Seems the only heresy worthy of excommunication, according to some folks, is actualluy acknowleding that there is such a thing as heresy in the first place.

Yes, there is much confusion within the Church these days.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[GerardP]

Actually, it is not heresy; it is apostacy, which is a worse crime in Canon Law…

…After reading this, tell me he was not a heretic and apostate.

peace

Talk about inconsistent. You first say it’s heresy. Then you say you refuse to retract it.

Then you say “it is not heresy” and at the end of the same post you say “…tell me he was not a heretic.”

Which is it? Heresy or not?

And if it is, which heresy?

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad

The definitions of heresy, apostacy and schism are found in Canon 751 of the 1981 Code of Canon Law, under which he was handed an automatic penalty, and a ‘ferendae sententiae’ penalty.

He also was the subject of a special Apostolic Letter of JPII condemning him, and appealing to him to return. He refused.

Lefebreve took his group outside of the Catholic Church, and set up his own church. That is apostacy and schism. He repudiated the Catholic faith.

He was out in the exterior darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth because of his excommunication, deprived of membership in the Mystical Body of Christ. (Refer to Mystici Corporis of Pius XII).

A degree in theology is necessary to handle the inconsistencies that go on on this thread. People praising a known apostate, who died without returning to the Church, and left his people with a ‘latin’ Mass. I love the Latin Mass, but I’ve had years and years of liturgical latin, and I understand it. But the rest of our Catholic brethren, for the most part don’t understand “Ad Deum qui laetificat…” Thank God they got to hear it in our own native tongue.

Yet these same people criticising theologians who appealed to Paul VI - you know the reason for his ‘indecision’? Well, he wasn’t sure where he should go with the majority of catholic theologic opinion appealing in the other direction, and he in the minor position.

But, when he spoke in Humanae Vitae, most, most lined up behind him.

Where was Lefebreve - out with the gnashing of teeth. And you admire him, and compliment him? And condemn the others? Phew!

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3287586]I find it interesting that you didn’t see any reason for Paul VI to issue “Humanae Vitae”. You are a lot smater than the rest of the Church.

I didn’t say I didn’t see a reason for Pope Pual VI to issue :Humanae Vitae" now did I?
I said the issue had been settled by Pius XI. It was those theologians like Kung that you admire that needed to be set straight. They ignored Pius XI. Pope Paul did not.

And you condemn Kung, who was never condemned by the Church, or excommunicated. Schilleebex was never punished by the Church, excommunicated, or stopped from teaching.

They need to be condemned and excommunicated, not admired or read.

Lefebreve was excommunicated, and he died ‘outside of the Church, where there is no salvation.’ You believe he will be canonized, when the salvation of his soul is in doubt???

Being excommunicated doesn’t mean that you are outside the Church or in hell. Was Joan of Arc pulled out of hell when her unjust excommunication was lifted?

I find Traditionalists like you confused, to say the least. Telling me on the one hand you are smarter than the rest of Catholic moral theologians, and know more than they,

Never said I did

and God forbid they should oppose what you are certain is catholic teaching, and they are not - until the Holy Father resolved the question (Casti Canubii didn’t resolve it for most).

Casti Canubi should have. Do you also quarrel with Casti Canubi’s doctrine on abortion?

Yet, you find Archbishop Lefebre to be a saint, yet, excommunicated and punished by the most serious penalty of excommunication for his apostacy??? The man was outside of the Mystical Body of Christ. Outside, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. I hope you are praying for him, not to him

.
This Canon lawyer disagree with you.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/edpeters_excommun_nov06.asp
IgnatiusInsight.com: What would you say are the most common misconceptions about excommunication? Why are they so prevalent, even among Catholics

“First, there is the idea that excommunication kicks one out of the Church. That is not right. There are ways to cancel one’s Church membership, but excommunication isn’t one of them. The analogy I use to explain it is that of a felon serving a long prison term; he’s in prison, but he remains a citizen bound by the laws of his country. If he, say, owns property upon which he incurs taxes while in prison, he still owns the property and is still liable for the tax from prison; if he commits a crime in prison, he can be prosecuted for it, and so on. A felon loses certain important rights, obviously, like freedom of movement and the right to vote, but he is still a citizen. Similarly, an excommunicated person is still a member of the Church, but he or she has lost certain key rights attached to Church membership and is cut off from many of the activities and benefits of the Church.”

The second misconception is that people who die excommunicated go to hell. Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t, but we don’t know with certainty either way. In any case, the Church does not claim to exercise jurisdiction over the dead, and one’s final fate is determined by God based on the life one leads. Of course, appearing before God for judgment in the state of excommunication from His Church on earth is not a good thing.

 

[DustinsDad]

The definitions of heresy, apostacy and schism are found in Canon 751 of the 1981 Code of Canon Law, under which he was handed an automatic penalty, and a ‘ferendae sententiae’ penalty…

And he was accused of doing a schismatic act, not even of formal schism itself. This can all be debated, and is and will be.

But what is not debated is whether he was a heretic (a Christian who denies one of the truths of the Catholic Faith) or an apostate (a former Christian who denies all of the truths of the Catholic faith).

Are you going to admit you are wrong here, or is pride gonna prevent that?

DustinsDad

 

[GerardP]

I love the Latin Mass, but I’ve had years and years of liturgical latin, and I understand it. But the rest of our Catholic brethren, for the most part don’t understand “Ad Deum qui laetificat…” Thank God they got to hear it in our own native tongue.

That’s a real trick since that’s a part of the prayers at the foot of the alter and not a part of the Novus Ordo and it wasn’t even in the transitional “missal” of 1965.

Also, I don’t know how people were supposed to hear that anyway since it should be said fairly quietly by the altar boy.

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

Again, that is a false reading of Pius IX. “Catholics” does not mean exclusively “theologians.” You once again have to add to magisterial documents to get your way.

Let’s go back to post #180 on this thread where you make a contradictory claim:
GerardP post #180:

Let’s go through it line by line:

"it is not sufficient for learned Catholics

to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church,
Pius IX is talking to theologians. They are the “learned Catholics”.

So, Gerard…it appears that you’ve not thought this out very well. How do I “add to magisterial documents to get (my) way”? What have I added?

Now consider this statement of the relator of the Faith at Vatican I…which has been quoted previously:

From the Relatio of Bp. Gasser, the relator of the Faith at Vatican I, explaining to the Fathers what they were about to vote on (Chapter IV On the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff) … explaining what the definition of Papal infallibility meant:
Relatio of Bp. Gasser:

Therefore not only must it be said that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, when he defines doctrines about faith and morals, but that this infallibility is that infallibility which the Church enjoys. Therefore, someone who would simply assert that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something about faith or morals has by no means comprehended the meaning of our definition. Nor is the meaning of our formula comprehended by someone who simply asserts that the Roman Pontiff is infallible when he defines something which simply must be held by the Church. The two things must always be joined so that the meaning of our formula be correct and true. Moreover, this formula seems most suitable to express both things: “The Roman Pontiff, when he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, enjoys that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith or morals.”

**Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:

1. The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
2. the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;
3. in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals.

Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions**, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

And he was accused of doing a schismatic act, not even of formal schism itself. This can all be debated, and is and will be.

But what is not debated is whether he was a heretic (a Christian who denies one of the truths of the Catholic Faith) or an apostate (a former Christian who denies all of the truths of the Catholic faith).

Are you going to admit you are wrong here, or is pride gonna prevent that?

DustinsDad

I always get a laugh out of DD. You are always demanding apologies and retractions. You’re funny.

John PaulII apparently was ‘wrong’. Get an apology from him. Lefebreve was right - let’s apologize to him. Give me a Brooklyn break.

If you want to debate anything with me, you will not get a pass by saying that what he did was not a ‘schismatic act’, and a schismatic act is not ‘formal schism’. This is pure nonsense. A schismatic act is SCHISM.

SCHISM, HERESY AND APOSTACY are all interrelated.

If you are SCHISMATIC, you are heretical - you reject the Magisteriusm of the Church, that is HERESY. When you form your own church, that is APOSTACY.

John Paul II addressed an Apostolic Letter, “Ecclesia Dei” delivered as a ‘motu proprio’ to the Church. 2 July 1988.

JPII said that what Lefebreve did was an act of grave disobedience to the Roman Pontiff. (APOSTACY)

Lefrevre’s actions are a rejection of the Roman Primacy (HERESY). His departure from the Church, according to the Pope, is a ‘schismatic act’.(SCHISM) He received a previous canonical warning of what was coming from the Vatican, so it was no surprise. He did not repent.

The root of this SCHISM AND HERESY is Lefebreve’s idea of Tradition. JPII says Lefebreve doesn’t understand Tradition. (HERESY). His tradition is completely opposite to the universal Magisterium, evident from the Council of Nicea through Vatican II. (HERESY).

Lefebre has taken his group outside the living Church, into APOSTACY.

You are defending the indefensible. Next, you want to defend against Martin Luther’s excommunication? What he did was not heresy, apostacy?

If you don’t have anything else to do of importance, forget Lefebreve, except in your prayers.

please!

peace

 

[mgrfin]

That’s a real trick since that’s a part of the prayers at the foot of the alter and not a part of the Novus Ordo and it wasn’t even in the transitional “missal” of 1965.

Also, I don’t know how people were supposed to hear that anyway since it should be said fairly quietly by the altar boy.

My Missale Romanum which I treasure from the 60’s as a remembrance when I was young is dated 1964.

The Latin Rite I remember is the priest reading the Epistle in Latin with his back to the people. And reading the Gospel, slightly turned to the left.

We used little hand signals for the altar boy, when to change the book, when to say Deo Gratias, and Laus tibi Christe.

Every once in a while the priest would turn around to say Dominus Vobiscum, and the boy would say, Et cum spiritu tuo.

We rang bells to signal the Sanctus, and the Consecration, and the Communion.

We followed along in our english translation of the missal, and we got good at it.

But it was all for naught. Just say it in English. Common Sense. Take the Mass out of the Middle Ages. If you want the Latin, well, now you have it. Go there, if that is what you want. But there was nothing mystical about it. I was there, and I know. It was not mystical because it was in a language only God understood.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

I always get a laugh out of DD. You are always demanding apologies and retractions. You’re funny.

Can you cite an example of this, aside from the beforementioned obvious error in your statements?

…If you want to debate anything with me, you will not get a pass by saying that what he did was not a ‘schismatic act’, and a schismatic act is not ‘formal schism’. This is pure nonsense. A schismatic act is SCHISM.

Well, I’m not here to debate that - but if I were I would say that disobediance is not schism. The Orthodox are in Schism because they outright deny the authority of the pope as defined by Holy Mother Church. The SSPX has never denied the authority of the pope as defined by Holy Mother Church. I’ll leave it at that…

…SCHISM, HERESY AND APOSTACY are all interrelated.

Perhaps in some ways, but they are not the same things.

…If you are SCHISMATIC, you are heretical - you reject the Magisteriusm of the Church, that is HERESY. When you form your own church, that is APOSTACY.

This is incorrect. You should know better.
Catechism of St. Pius X
14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

15 Q. Who are apostates?
A. Apostates are those who abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.

16 Q. Who are schismatics?
A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.

…You are defending the indefensible. Next, you want to defend against Martin Luther’s excommunication? What he did was not heresy, apostacy?

Luther’s would have been heresy.

Pretty simple.

Now how 'bout that retraction?

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

.

You are wrong. Read Mystici Corporis. Pius XII said that you are outside the Mystical Body of Christ if you are excommunicated.
Read it.

You are not the one to excommunicate anyone. And the Vatican didn’t excommunicate them. Another Catholic who wants to be holier than the Church.

If you die outside the Mystical Body of Christ? “Outside the Church there is no salvation”, or don’t you believe in that? You know more than Mystici Corporis?

Your analogy limps seriously. The prison and citizenship? Try voting when you have committed a crime. You can’t vote. But they are not the same thing anyway.

Pius XII Mystici Corporis. (There is no misunderstanding).

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

peace

 

[SFD]

My Missale Romanum which I treasure from the 60’s as a remembrance when I was young is dated 1964.

The Latin Rite I remember is the priest reading the Epistle in Latin with his back to the people. And reading the Gospel, slightly turned to the left.

We used little hand signals for the altar boy, when to change the book, when to say Deo Gratias, and Laus tibi Christe.

Every once in a while the priest would turn around to say Dominus Vobiscum, and the boy would say, Et cum spiritu tuo.

We rang bells to signal the Sanctus, and the Consecration, and the Communion.

We followed along in our english translation of the missal, and we got good at it.

But it was all for naught. Just say it in English. Common Sense. Take the Mass out of the Middle Ages. If you want the Latin, well, now you have it. Go there, if that is what you want. But there was nothing mystical about it. I was there, and I know. It was not mystical because it was in a language only God understood.

peace

Let’s compare mgrfin’s view to the below…

From the book, The Golden Jubilee of St. Agnes’ Parish, New York City, 1923 … the essay The Splendor of External Worship by the Rt. Rev. Mons. John P. Chidwick:
The Splendor of External Worship:

The liturgy of Holy Church is not only monumental and inspirational, it is not only the outflowing and outpouring of her living soul, but it is also the fitting expression of her belief. Every ceremony or rite is the vesture proper to the truth it expresses. It is not a part of a drama seeking to impress by its beauty, its suggestiveness or its austerity. It expresses an underlying truth in an impressive manner. It is the language of the Church. By it she speaks to all the saving truths which have been entrusted to her keeping. By it, the-lettered and the unlettered, the child as well as the parent, the sinner as well as the just, the rude barbarian and the untutored savage are instructed, impressed and lifted up to God,- and by it they all, in unison of voice and action, profess the same faith with which they have been blessed.

The altar expresses the perpetual and all-saving sacrifice which is offered daily according to the command of Christ: “Do ye this in memory of me.” The lighted candles, the flowers and the incense speak of His presence in the tabernacle Whom we adore. The storied windows and the statuary tell us of the life beyond the grave and bring close to us the saintly company about the throne in Heaven who are our friends, our companions and our intercessors during our journey on earth. The church itself fills us with the beauty, the grandeur, the majesty, the power, the immensity of Him to Whom it is dedicated. The surmounting cross raises our thoughts to the one and only Mediator through whom all blessings flow from our Heavenly Father.

When we raise our eyes or clasp our hands, bow the head or bend the knee, sign ourselves with the sign of the cross or bless ourselves with Holy Water, the action brings to our minds and hearts dogmas of faith that profess our faith and love. For this reason the revealed truth, which cannot change, causes our liturgy to move with uniformity and harmony, everywhere essentially the same in all countries and all ages. Wherever he may be, a child of Holy Church is at home at the Catholic services of the land. He may be in distant Asia or Africa, among people whose habits of thought, language and customs of life are strange and un-intelligible to him, but in their churches, if they be of the household of faith, he is in a familiar House of God and can worship in the same manner as he does at home.

It is because they lack revealed and unchanging truth, that this privilege cannot be enjoyed by those outside the fold. “Lex orandi est lex credendi” is an old and true axiom. The law of worship is the law of belief. Where there is no true creed of belief there can be no true and fixed form of worship.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Gerard,

I’m not impressed with your huffing and puffing, and theathening to ‘nail my tail to the wall’.

I don’t need to explain anything to you. You lack Christian upbringing and ethics, and you can just swing, for all I care.
Read my posts elsewhere, and you will get your answer.

You love Lefebreve? Then you got problems I can’t help you with,
whether it is heresy, apostacy or schism.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

well, you doing better. 1923 ain’t 1550, so you are getting modern. What’s your point - the latin liturgy has value?

what?

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad

The Lefebreve was in schism because the Roman Pontiff said he was.

The Schism of the Eastern Church is really hersey since they don’t accept a defined doctrine of the faith, infallibility.

Luther was heresy, then schism, then apostacy.

On the contrary, the SSPX denied the authority of the pope, and it was schism, heresy, and apostacy.

Like it or lump it.

peace