E
EddieArent
Guest
Bishop Rangel was never absolved of schism nor were any excommunications lifted.
- Status
H
hamburglar
Guest
So did John Paul II teach that Jews did not need to be converted? Or are people misunderstanding him?
S
Sure
Guest
Yes, he was.
He wrote a letter to Pope John Paul II and stated:
Then at a Mass celebrated by Card Castrillon Hoyos he received a letter from Pope John Paul II that stated:
Then, at that Mass Bishop Rangel made a profession of faith and an oath of fidelity to the Supreme Pontiff, declaring at the same time that he accepted all the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
G
GerardP
Guest
Did he actually name those “teachings?”
S
Sure
Guest
I have no idea. I would guess not. The point is that Rome wants them back. That’s why when Bishop Rangel expressed his desire to be in union and submit to the authority of the Church and accept the council, his excommunication was rescinded.
T
tcraig
Guest
If have never been put in such a position, but IF I had to choose between a valid yet illicit SSPX mass and a valid yet illicit NO mass (illicit because of multiples abuses) I would choose the SSPX mass, especially if I had children.
BUT I would write my NO priest and tell him exactly why I had made such a choice. AND I would tell him that it’s ridiculous that faithful Catholics are so often put in a position that they must be forced into choices such as that. AND I would send a copy of the letter to my bishop. AND I would send another copy to Rome.
BUT I would write my NO priest and tell him exactly why I had made such a choice. AND I would tell him that it’s ridiculous that faithful Catholics are so often put in a position that they must be forced into choices such as that. AND I would send a copy of the letter to my bishop. AND I would send another copy to Rome.
G
GerardP
Guest
So, nobody knows what anybody really thinks and really believes. As long as there is the false appearance of “unity” then the truth can go out the window.
Of course Bishop Rangel was dying of cancer at the time and possibly doubted his convictions. But you just have to look at the atrocities that have been attended and defended by Bishop Rifan to know that the agreement was a negative on the SSJV.
F
FATIMAisUrgent
Guest
But don’t you see? There is no new de fide teachings in Vatican II that we must accept to remain in “communion,” unless I missed something. Saying that you accept Vatican II’s teachings doesn’t solve anything because there is nothing in Vatican II that wasn’t already declared authoritatively before, but instead, the Church’s teachings were taught less clearly. I’m not all that familiar with the situation of the SSJV in Brazil, now or in the past, but I think it was slightly different than the SSPX was elsewhere.
S
Sure
Guest
So, what’s your point? It is the SSPX who says they do not hold Vatican II as binding…if there is nothing new, as you say, then why do they persist?
Also, are not in schism because of their view on Vatican II, they are in schism for consecrating bishops without papal mandate.
S
Sure
Guest
There is always some “secret” reason with you, isn’t there? Maybe he just realized he was wrong and came back. I’m not imagining what his motives are or were, I am just judging his actions and trusting that he intended to do what he did. Why must there be a “conspiracy”?
As for your comment on unity and truth going out the window…I have no idea what you mean by that.
B
bear06
Guest
G
GerardP
Guest
Not at all. It’s no secret that things don’t add up. I just don’t let the inconsistencies go by because it’s convenient and easier to do so.
Maybe, but then again maybe not. What specifically was he wrong about that is condemned? I’d like to know so I can follow the Magisterium of the Church and not just the Vatican Curia.
Why the sudden change? Why has Rifan been such a scandal?
Because men are not Angels. We live in a time of great crisis in the Church and Churchmen are laying the axe to the root of the Tree that is the Church.
Are you curious about it? I’ll explain what I mean if you want but I don’t want to waste my time if I’m explaining something to someone that is unwilling to consider it.
S
Sure
Guest
It seems to add up to me. Guy in schism realizes that’s not such a great idea and reconciles. Let’s just judge what we know by what he said and did instead of imagining that there is some secret motivating factor.
We’ve been through this before and you know very well that his separation was not caused by a heretical teaching or a disagreement with Church teaching.
I don’t know what you mean about Rifan and a scandal.
No, things are much better than they were 25 years ago.
I said that because I have no idea what you meant by that remark. Will I disagree with you? Probably. IF you mean that the Pope values unity over truth, then I disagree with you.
F
FATIMAisUrgent
Guest
Well first off I’m not a member or leader of SSPX (I don’t even attend their Masses regularly), so I can’t say for sure, but I assume that it’s because they refuse to turn a blind eye to the nonsense of Vatican II and pretend that the crisis in the Church is just a few misinterpretations and abuses. The crisis is largely due to ambiguous and erroneous teaching, no condemnations or discipline (except for those Catholics who refuse to cooperate in the destruction of the Catholic Faith). The fact that Pope Benedict XVI has admitted that the “Mass of John XXIII”/pre-Vatican2 Mass was never abrogated is a huge embarassment for Church heirarchy these last several decades, because until now, it was assumed that we needed an “indult” to offer/assist at this Mass, when clearly we did not. I’m sure that the SSPX will persist until the wrongs are set right, and I’m optimistic about that because Pope Benedict XVI is making progress I think.
As to your second point, I do believe, though correct me if I’m wrong, that there has been numerous clarifications in recent years by Cardinal Hoyos that the division between Rome and SSPX is NOT FORMAL SCHISM. Campos Brazil may or may not have been (like I said, that situation might have been different), but Lefebvre and the 4 bishops consecrated have not been declared to be a formal schism.
F
FATIMAisUrgent
Guest
Just for the record, I don’t look down on non-“SSPXers” for I am not one myself. (By SSPXer I mean a layman who regularly or exclusively recieves Sacraments from them, or the priests/clerics themselves). I am very fond of the ICRSS, FSSP, as well as other Traditional groups who are doing good by saving souls and working to restore tradition in the Church. I even appreciate the good will of the many “conservative” Catholics (though I would probably disagree with them on things). In short, I am just a Catholic who wants to save his soul and help others along the way. I just have to stand up and defend the SSPX because I feel that it is unjust to ridicule them, or accuse them of schism, when I would not have my “indult” Traditional Mass without their resistance to the disastrous novelty. I look at the signs of the times, and the failure of our heirarchy and their abandoning of the flock, and my conclusion is that preserving the purity of the Catholic Faith and Morality, for the sake of your salvation and others’ is more important than being in an ambiguous state of “full-communion.” What is full communion? Does full communion include that one must blindly accept without question the harmful and scandalous pastoral orientations since Vatican II, the current Vatican’s opinion about Fatima, etc.? If so, then it would seem that according to the new theology I am in schism, no?
S
Sure
Guest
When I use the word schism, I am talking about a separation, a split which of course the SSPX recognizes exists as well. After all, if there were no “schism” there would need for reconciliation. I think we can agree that those who are excommunicated are not in “full communion” which becomes bpainfully evident should they pass away in such a state.
Absolutely not. One must accept those things that the Church teaches on Faith and Morals. One must also accept the validity of validly promulgated liturgies.
This is entirely optional as you have no obligation to even believe that Fatima happened.
I don’t know you personally but from what you have said in the last couple of posts, no you don’t seem to be in schism.
One comment on your above comments on the SSPX. It is true that they helped to preserve the traditional Mass, but this still would have been true if Archbishop Lefebvre had refrained from his schismatic act of consecration. They helped to preserve tradition in spite of their schismatic act, not because of it.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
Three components are presented in canon 205: “Those baptized are fully in communion with the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.”
The canon is based on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n. 14. An excerpt may be of help to you: “They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.”
As I recall from my studies, these three elements in this formulation originate from Bellarmine, De ecclesia militante, c. 2: “the assemblage (coetus) of men, bound together (colligatus) by the profession of the same Christian faith and by the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.”
- Status