SSPX and father Gruner (supporting)

  • Thread starter Thread starter fantasy_forever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fantasy_forever

Guest
sop anyone who supports/likes the SSPX and father Nicholas Gruner is a heritic? (I did not know that…)
 
“sop”? :confused:

Father Gruner is suspended.

SSPX is in an irregular canonical state and is not fully in communion with Rome.

Neither is accused of heresy that I am aware of. However, both are flirting with schism.
 
fantasy_forever said:
sop anyone who supports/likes the SSPX and father Nicholas Gruner is a heritic? (I did not know that…)
Click to expand...
Heresy is the denial of a dogma of the faith. Supporting or liking Fr. Gruner and/or the SSPX is not a denial of a dogma. And it should also be pointed out that neither Fr. Gruner nor the SSPX deny any dogmas of the faith.
 
I’ve been out of the loop apparently - Could someone tell me about what the Fr. Gruner controversy is? All I know about him is that he’s the priest who has been a Fatima supporter / Conversion of Russia, etc.
What’d I miss?
 
Conservative said:
I’ve been out of the loop apparently - Could someone tell me about what the Fr. Gruner controversy is? All I know about him is that he’s the priest who has been a Fatima supporter / Conversion of Russia, etc.
What’d I miss?
Click to expand...
See Fr. Gruner and Fátima Crusader
Finally, in recent years there has been a certain lack of clarity regarding the priestly status of Fr. Gruner. According to the the Congregation for the Clergy, his priestly faculties (jurisdiction permitting celebration of the sacraments) have been suspended and his appeal of that suspension rejected by the highest Church court, the Apostolic Signature. However, I understand that he continues to publicly celebrant the sacraments, justifying it by arguments for the canonical invalidity of his suspension. What efforts he is making to settle this matter is not known.
Click to expand...
 
thistle said:
Will someone please tell me what “sop” means?
Click to expand...
I think the OP meant “so”

Reread post #4, and put quotation marks around the word “so” and it seems to make sense.

Or, take the OP, and replace the “p” with a comma…
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Heresy is the denial of a dogma of the faith. Supporting or liking Fr. Gruner and/or the SSPX is not a denial of a dogma. And it should also be pointed out that neither Fr. Gruner nor the SSPX deny any dogmas of the faith.
Click to expand...
wELL YES AND NO SORT OF!!! Pope John Paul II said that Archbishop Lefebvre’s act implies a denial of the teaching that the Pope must be obeyed. I would say one could make the case that the Society does in fact deny that dogma in actuality. Since they refuse being obedient to the Pope. Actually John Paul II indicates they deny the Papacy itself. Here is his words. Ecclessia Dei # 3

3." 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)
"
 
Saying that the pope is wrong and not obeying him in a matter not relating to faith or morals is not denying papal primacy, it’s just saying that the pope was/is wrong, which is very possible, unfortunately.
 
latinmasslover said:
Saying that the pope is wrong and not obeying him in a matter not relating to faith or morals is not denying papal primacy, it’s just saying that the pope was/is wrong, which is very possible, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion. John Paul II seems to disagree (at least in the Lefebvre case). I think Ill go with the Vicar of Christ.
 
charlesbarkley said:
That is your opinion. John Paul II seems to disagree (at least in the Lefebvre case). I think Ill go with the Vicar of Christ.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not my opinion, it’s a fact, otherwise St. Paul would be schismatic. Agree with who you will, but please don’t use the argument “the Pope said it therefore…” His every word is not protected by the Holy Ghost.
 
latinmasslover said:
No, that’s not my opinion, it’s a fact, otherwise St. Paul would be schismatic. Agree with who you will, but please don’t use the argument “the Pope said it therefore…” His every word is not protected by the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...
I said in this case the Pope has said that his act in effect denies the Roman Primacy.
 
charlesbarkley said:
I said in this case the Pope has said that his act in effect denies the Roman Primacy.
Click to expand...
I know what you said.🙂 My wording was meant to be more general, but still…his statement in this case isn’t protected by the Holy Ghost. That’s all I wanted to point out, though I’m sure you’re probably looking at the screen thinking “Well no kidding, Miss Obvious.”😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top