Come on now…let’s be honest. Don’t try and play the victim here. I said that I was going to pin your tail to the wall on your false accusation of heresy against archbishop LeFebvre.I put up with their jibes and attacks. (“I will pin your tail to the wall”). Did you defend me against Gerard for his ill-temperate remarks?
Please don’t insult our intelligence. If I commit an act of robbery, I am a robber.
Apologize, or stop defending your words. Under any circumstances, that kind of language is forbidden on this site, and also by practicing Christians.Come on now…let’s be honest. Don’t try and play the victim here. I said that I was going to pin your tail to the wall on your false accusation of heresy against archbishop LeFebvre.
You bore false witness. I called you on it. That’s the extent of it.
Go…relax, read “Spirit of the World” or “The Phenomenon of Man” in order to make yourself feel better.
All that tells us is that the PCILT is riddled with the same problems that have plagued the Church for years. Hopefully Pope Benedict will have the wisdom, strength and time to clean up that disaster.Despite his role on the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Card. Castrillon cannot authoritatively interpret Ecclesia Dei. As a legislative document, it is properly interpreted by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts which stated:
This statement by the PCILT remains the latest authoritative statement by the Church on the Lefebvrist schism.
And it is common sense. To use the language of Ecclesia Dei, it was a schismatic act. The motu proprio did not say ‘it was not schism’. Of course it was schism.Despite his role on the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Card. Castrillon cannot authoritatively interpret Ecclesia Dei. As a legislative document, it is properly interpreted by the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts which stated:
This statement by the PCILT remains the latest authoritative statement by the Church on the Lefebvrist schism.
I’m sorry for your lyng about archbishop LeFebvre by calling him a heretic. I’m sorry that you were so unwilling to admit your guilt on this that you forced me to proclaim with the phrase “I’m going to nail your tail to the wall on this…” meaning that I wasn’t going to let go of it until you addressed it as a matter of justice.Apologize, or stop defending your words.
“That kind of language” what inference did you make from the phrase?Under any circumstances, that kind of language is forbidden on this site, and also by practicing Christians.
I understand. You were upset because I caught you lying about Archbishop LeFebvre. You said he was a heretic. I asked you to prove it 5 times and you wouldn’t back up your false accusation with any fact. Then you said he wasn’t a heretic and after that he was a heretic and then he was an apostate.Apologize. Stop putting the blame on me, and telling me to read some reactionary book, in which I have no interest.
If you don’t believe me, let me report it to the Forum Administrator, and see what he has got to say about you violent and abusive language.
Knock yourself out. Truth is truth and let the chips fall where they may. It’s a small martyrdom. I’m sure no matter what phrase I used, you’d make up some context to distract the issue from your own actions.Want to go for it?
Hopefully, Lefebre will be there to point his finger at me to say “I wasn’t a heretic”.That won’t matter to God when he confronts you on your lies about LeFebvre. As I said, I can understand people thinking there is a schism because of the actions of the Roman Curia but you are solely responsible for the calumny of calling him a heretic and apostate. That is on your soul whether I’m in trouble with the moderators or not.
Hopefully, Lefebre will be there to point his finger at me to say “I wasn’t a heretic”.
“Oh, but Archbishop you denied the Authority of the Pope. That is heretical. That is heresy.”
He rejected the doctrine of collegiality. He rejected ecumenism.
He set up his own church - this is not heretical. It is not schism. It is not its own brand of apostacy.
He has little argument in his favor.
peace
But that’s not what you’re arguing. You are arguing, “If the Pope says I robbed, then I am a robber.” “If the Pope says I’m 10 feet tall and green, then I’m 10 feet tall and green.”Please don’t insult our intelligence. If I commit an act of robbery, I am a robber.
If I commit a schismatic act, I am in schism.
What’s the sin? Helpig to preserving the Catholic Church against a modernist onslaught that 120 years of Pope had warned about? Refusing to aid JPII in dismantling the Church and recreating it in his own image?Lefebre had ample time to return to the Pope before “Ecclesia Dei”, and say, "Oh, I am sorry for doing what I did. I appeal to you to absolve me of this ‘sin’.
No. He disobeyed the Pope. He didn’t deny the authority of the Pope.But no. He confirmed himself personally in his schism.
No. Being a Doctor in Theology, he knew the excommunication would be intrinsically invalid.He knew that he was going to be formally excommunicated ‘latae sententiae’, not just ‘latae sententiae’.
I’m not. There was no schism. Stop avoiding the real issue, which is the misdirection and indirection of the heirarchy following the Council.Stop defending his schism.
Then “Rome has spoken…” with a voice that didn’t ring true. The voice was Jacob’s but the hand was Esau’s.And now you tell us what the Pope should have said, not what he said. “Rome has spoken; the case is closed”.
No. The Holy Spirit prevented the full weight of the papacy from coming down on LeFebvre. The Pope can’t exercise the full power of the papacy while doing something immoral. Only the full temporal power of the papacy (which JPII didn’t ever want to claim)The full weight of the Papacy came down on Lefebre, and that is the kind of attention he wanted.
That’s funny. Any of the Novus Ordo priests that I speak to and go to confession to when the opportunity presents itself don’t think I’m out of the Church. They know I go to the SSPX for the TLM and other functions.He is now gone to his maker. Why are his followers still standing outside the Church. Like You? Why?
It is clear that you really don’t know anything about Archbishop Lefebvfe. He was not against ecumenism. He was all for the return of our separated brothers to the Catholic Church. He was all for Evangelism. He wanted the Jews to convert.=mgrfin;3291569]
Yeah, Lefebre was against ‘ecumenism’, like converting souls to the one true Church was never on our minds. Evangelization was the mission Christ gave to his Apostles and to his Church. It wasn’t his brand of ‘evangelism’. So, who was he to tell the Roman Catholic Church, neglect Evangelism, Ecumenism, and do it his way.
Yeah, right.
My–my —still claiming what the Church has not.
Yeah, right.
He set up his own church. With its own hierarchy - consecrating its episcopacy, and ordaining its priests.
He attacked the Church’s right to authority, to be in charge. He undermined the authority of the Papacy, and of the General Council of the Church, Vatican II.
He attacked the Church on Ecumenism. The Protestants are our enemies - Christ didn’t come to save everyone. Rather seeing what unites us, he wanted to emphasize our differences.
It was schism for sure. He attacked the Church’s authority and dogmatism, certainly heresy. He slipped his church into apostacy.
Now he is gone. Yet, all his followers must be on this site. And they have nothing to offer: nothing in prayer; nothing in worship; nothing in dogma; nothing to the Christian faithful.
I have yet to hear anything from the radical right about what is good about Lefebrve’s and his followers. Now that he has been dead for so long, what are your hopes and wishes as dissents.
Dissents - an interesting word. Pretty soon they will be telling us that the French Monarchy should return - about as relevant as anything else they have to say.
peace
You’re funny.It is clear that you really don’t know anything about Archbishop Lefebvfe. He was not against ecumenism. He was all for the return of our separated brothers to the Catholic Church. He was all for Evangelism. He wanted the Jews to convert.
But that was not happenning and still isn’t. He was against false ecumenism
Read anything Cardinal Kasper says and you will see that things have not changed.
Cardinal Walter Kasper:
“… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”
International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in May 2001, *
Cardinal Kasper , "God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all.* Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, **i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises”…
What do you make of the *Joint Declaration on Justification *signed on October 31, 1999The Lutherans tell us to lift the anathemas of the Council of Trent.
No, they will not be lifted until there is doctrinal conformity with Catholic theology.
There is a postscript to that document. Read that.What do you make of the *Joint Declaration on Justification *signed on October 31, 1999
You’re funny.
What does this mean?=mgrfin;3292282]
The anathemas remain. There were **no doctrinal concessions **to the Lutherans.
All of them remain?The Council of Trent was a general council of the Church. The Canons on Justification remain, with their anathemas, and they will not go away. The Canons on Justification were de fide definita statements. (The 33 Canons of the Council of Trent Concerning Justification, Sixth Session - January 13, 1547).
You are sure?Too bad the followers of Lefebre don’t realize that they will have to do the same. There will be no lifting of the excommunication of Martin Luther, or Marcel Lefebre. Luther has been on the outs for 500 years, and nothing has changed on that. There is a lesson here.
The concilar documents are the controlling instruments of Vatican 2. Quote to me from UR, LG, etc., not from Walter Cardinal Kasper. Kasper is 75. Is he still around? Hasn’t he been forced to retire yet?
I’m not. I don’t belong to the SSPX. Never have go to one of their Masses. I go to the TLM celebrated by the FSSP. Approved by my Diocese.=mgrfin;3292372]
TELL ME. WHY ARE YOU STILL IN SCHISM? WHAT IS THE POINT TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE ONE TRUE CHURCH
No need to use caps. It makes you look CRAZY!NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD HAS SAID ANYTHING INTELLIGENT ABOUT THEIR ULTRA RIGHT POSITION. WHY DO YOU WANT TO STILL BACK ARCHBISHOP LEFEBRVE, WHO HAS BEEN DEAD FOR YEARS.
I’m sure.What does this mean?
“Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent”
All of them remain?
You are sure?