SSPX: Bishop Fellay says SSPX canno accept all of Vatican II reforms.

[pnewton]

Sorry, pnewton, but I have to join the chorus here: you are displaying remarkable blindness on this issue.

Well, not to start the whole thing over again, but just to recap, the asumption of cause and effect needs other statistics than one. For example, much of the same fall off in the Cahtolic Church in America has been happening in other denominations. Also, in Africa, vocations are not dropping like they are here. I am not blind. I just believe there are a lot more forces in effect on the Church than just this one Church council. Most are from the society we live in. I can;t help but believe that the impact of a greedy, sexual-oriented, humanistic, anti-God society would also have a wee impact on vocations, Vatican II or not.

You may not agree, but it is not that I have disregarded the topic. Perhaps I am a little too quick to say, “Shoo, shoo, check out the archives.”

 

[Yours_Truly]

Well, not to start the whole thing over again, but just to recap, the asumption of cause and effect needs other statistics than one. For example, much of the same fall off in the Cahtolic Church in America has been happening in other denominations. Also, in Africa, vocations are not dropping like they are here. I am not blind. I just believe there are a lot more forces in effect on the Church than just this one Church council. Most are from the society we live in. I can;t help but believe that the impact of a greedy, sexual-oriented, humanistic, anti-God society would also have a wee impact on vocations, Vatican II or not.

But remember the saying. It is “as goes the Church, so goes the world”. Not “as goes the world so goes the Church”.

I personally blame the Church for the condition of the world, not the world for the condition of the Church.

 

[Yours_Truly]

To get an idea of the state of the Church in 1967, here’s an interesting letter from Fr Depauw to Pope Paul VI.

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8384

 

[pnewton]

Are we talking about the SSPX here or the Jesuit Acedemia Universities. I think that would apply to most liberal people I have known. In Catholisim and without, from NPR to College life, from Time magazine to social services. You sir smack of the very things in which you condem. MANY groups could be encompassed in what you charge here. Just because you don’t like some of the SSPX supporters does not mean they can’t be right. I am sure that to some the anger and hatred of SSPX will only be a bigger stumbling block as Full Communion is reached.

I do not blindly accept statistics and, more importantly, the assumptions made from them. For this I am called blind. While I questioned this, I also took issue for those that think Bp Fellay’s statement was problematic. I believe he was unfairly treated and represented in the article, yet I hate the SSPX? Are they above questioning lest we get accused of SSPX-hatred?

Since what Bp. Fellay says is true, that there are heirachies of what one must agree to, then those who are of the SSPX should, to avoid hypocracy, be accepting of those who do not believe all of their specific opinions, with out all the name-calling. It is not blindness.

 

[Melvin]

The Eastern Rites of the Church are part of the Catholic Church. There are many different Rites, all of which are part of the Church.

Also, the term “Roman Catholic Church” does not only mean the Church of Rome, but also those Churches which are in union with Rome - even if they are Eastern Rites.

The Eastern churches that aren’t part of the Church are the ones that separated from the Catholic Church. These are now known as the “Orthodox”. Pius XII would have considered them to be heretical and schismatic, which is what they are.

Thank you, and God bless. I enjoy reading your posts, although they often disturb my “comfort zone!”

Melvin

 

[DavidPalm]

The Eastern churches that aren’t part of the Church are the ones that separated from the Catholic Church. These are now known as the “Orthodox”. Pius XII would have considered them to be heretical and schismatic, which is what they are.

Then why does Pope Leo XIII call them Churches in his encyclical Praeclara Gratulationis?

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.

How about Pius XII in Orientalis Omnes Ecclesias?

All the Eastern Churches, as history proves, have ever been the object of the deep affection of the Roman pontiffs, who, grieving as deeply over their leaving the one fold and “not for any human motive, but impelled by divine charity and a desire for the salvation of all,”[1] have again and again called upon them to return speedily to the unity which they had unhappily abandoned.

 

[Yours_Truly]

"Yours Truly:

The Eastern churches that aren’t part of the Church are the ones that separated from the Catholic Church. These are now known as the “Orthodox”. Pius XII would have considered them to be heretical and schismatic, which is what they are.

Then why does Pope Leo XIII call them Churches in his encyclical Praeclara Gratulationis?

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.

The question is whether or not they are part of the one true Church; not whether or not the word church could be applied to a schismatic sect. I’ll quote from the first enyclical you linked to in order to find out if Pope Leo XIII considered the schismatics of the East to be in union with the Catholic Church, or separated from it.

**Pope Leo XIII: **First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance **separating them from Us **is not so great…

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs. Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood. The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known. Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth. …

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are** separated **from the Catholic Church…

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear… ** if you re-establish Union with Us**, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer…** “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,”** and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” May you thus return to that one Holy Faith… consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you.

So, as we can see, the Pope did not consider them to be united with the Catholic Church, but separated from it. I’ll read over the other enyclical you linked to a little later; but I can guarantee you that it did not teach that the schismatics of the East were united to the Catholic Church.

 

[Yours_Truly]

How about Pius XII in Orientalis Omnes Ecclesias?

All the Eastern Churches, as history proves, have ever been the object of the deep affection of the Roman pontiffs, who, grieving as deeply over their leaving the one fold and “not for any human motive, but impelled by divine charity and a desire for the salvation of all,”[1] have again and again called upon them to return speedily to the unity which they had unhappily abandoned.

Well, I didn’t have to read very far. The quote you yourself provided confirms that they are not part of the Catholic Church. Notice above, they are asked to “return speedily to the unity which they had unhappily left”. That means they are not united to the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure why you posted these two quotes, both of which confirm what I wrote. I think the reason you posted them was to show that the word “Church” was applied to them.

The word Church can be applied to them, but not true Church, since there is only one true Church - the Catholic Church - which they are not a part of.

I find it interesting that people are so anxious to claim that the schismatic and heretical churches of the East - who reject the office of the Pope, 13 Councils, and many dogmas - are part of the one true Church, yet at the same time claim that the SSPX - which accepts the office of the Pope and all Catholic dogmas - are schismatics.

And it is not as though the Eastern Orthodox consider themselves part of the Catholic Church. Go to the Eastern Catholic section of this message board and you will see what the heretical Orthodox think of the Catholic Church.

 

[DavidPalm]

I should have asked before I started responding, but are you a sedevacantist? If so, then there’s no point in proceeding along this line, since we would need to move back to more basic principles.

Also, we are highjacking this thread. If you are not a sedevacantist and would like to take up this topic in a separate thread, I and perhaps others would take it up with you there.

 

[japhy]

The quote you yourself provided confirms that they are not part of the Catholic Church. … I’m not sure why you posted these two quotes, both of which confirm what I wrote. I think the reason you posted them was to show that the word “Church” was applied to them.

The word Church can be applied to them, but not true Church, since there is only one true Church - the Catholic Church - which they are not a part of. I find it interesting that people are so anxious to claim that the schismatic and heretical churches of the East … are part of the one true Church…

I think David Palm was trying to show that it is acceptable to call Orthodox assemblies which are not in communion with Rome “churches”, because the Church has done so. David never implied that they “are part of the one true Church”.

The issue David was raising was not about whether they “are part of the one true Church”, the issue was whether they can properly or truly be called “churches”, and the one true Church says they can. The phrase “true churches” (plural) must be interpreted to mean “actual churches” or “real churches”, never that there is more than one true Church.

Communionis Notio 17 says “This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches.”

Dominus Iesus 17 uses the Latin phrase “verae sunt Ecclesiae particulares”, where verae means “true, real, genuine, actual; properly named; well founded; right, fair, proper”, not to mean that they are alternative “candidates” for the one true Church or that there is more than one true Church, but that they are properly called “particular Churches”, meaning they are lead by a genuine bishop (or equivalent) which means there are valid Holy Orders. That’s all.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I should have asked before I started responding, but are you a sedevacantist?

No, I’m not a Sedevacantist

Also, we are highjacking this thread. If you are not a sedevacantist and would like to take up this topic in a separate thread, I and perhaps others would take it up with you there.

Sure, start a new thread, but there may be some delays in my replies for the next few days.

Also keep in mind that I am not disputing if they can be refered to as Churches. I am disputing that they belong to the One True Church. They are schismatics and as such separated from the one True Church outside of which there is no salvation.

I maintain that these heretical and schismatic Churches of the East are on the road to perdition, and taking their adherents with them.