C
catharina
Guest
Acc to fact, Williamson has been (and still is) excommunicated. I’m certain you know what that term means. He chose to separate himself from the Church. He chose self over faith.
SSPX Bp. Williamson opposed to female “Doctors of the Church”: are his reasons good? [Fr. Z]
- Status
C
catharina
Guest
The action was and is a result of his choice. It doesn’t matter if I say so or if millions say so. The Church has spoken.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
If you are saying --they no longer have the Catholic Faith—please provide a document from Rome which says this. A document which says --the SSPX is no longer Catholic. You saying it does not apply.
B
BritishCatholic
Guest
I really don’t have a position on the SSPX. Once I loved them, Once I hated them, now- ugh, who knows. I admire their dedication, but there reasoning and logic is downright absurd.
Anyway, in regards to the original topic, Bishop Williamson is a goofy fool. I am a Traditionalist/Conservative Catholic and I have no problem whatsoever acknowledging women as Doctors in the Church. I mean, St. Teresa of Avilla, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, has helped me so much during my life. Her prayer at one point was the only thing that kept me going:
Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing frighten you.
All things pass.
God does not change.
Patience obtains everything.
He who has God lacks nothing.
God alone suffices.
Bishop Williamson can take his statement and put it in a jar with the countless other useless statements over the past years that came from his excommunicated mouth.
Anyway, in regards to the original topic, Bishop Williamson is a goofy fool. I am a Traditionalist/Conservative Catholic and I have no problem whatsoever acknowledging women as Doctors in the Church. I mean, St. Teresa of Avilla, a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, has helped me so much during my life. Her prayer at one point was the only thing that kept me going:
Let nothing disturb you.
Let nothing frighten you.
All things pass.
God does not change.
Patience obtains everything.
He who has God lacks nothing.
God alone suffices.
Bishop Williamson can take his statement and put it in a jar with the countless other useless statements over the past years that came from his excommunicated mouth.
C
catharina
Guest
I am very reluctant to make a statement to you with authiority since I am a woman and you have made your stance regarding women in the Church rather clear. Nevertheless, since you are asking me rather than one of the many men and since you are making a request rather than a demand.who are participating in this thread, I refer you to the document, ECCLESIA DEI.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
It begins with the very sad and serious announcement that Marcel Lefebvre chose to remain at odds with the Church and was therefore excommunicated. It concludes (and warns) later in the document that unless and until “all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.” To the best of my knowledge, sspx remains attached to and supportive of the teachings of M. Lefebvre and is very willing to state that as fact.
Please direct your additional questions to any man who has stated his acceptance of women as Doctors of the Church.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Really now—where in this thread did I make a statement on women in the Church. I said --it was just his opinion.
Now as to my prior question to you—on producing a document where the Rome says the SSPX --does not hold the Catholic Faith. Please pt. to the statement in Ecclesia Dei --that specifically says the SSPX does not hold to the Catholic Faith. Again–you saying it does not apply.
C
catharina
Guest
Really now — your statement that this edict of his was just “his opinion” is at odds with the fact: the Church has declared three women to be Doctors of the Church. It is his schismatic opinon a result of his decision to defy Church teaching, a growth of his decision to preach/teach lies - not truth. Hardly “just his opinon” -and so in claiming that, you seem to be in agreement with him.
The sspx site presents historical fact and then disputes them. They are denying Church teaching and practice in regard to their “respect” for Marcel Lefebvre.
"JUNE 29, 1987
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, experiencing failing health, aware of his episcopal duty to pass on the Catholic Faith and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic priests, decided to consecrate bishops and announced that, if necessary, he will do so even without the pope’s permission.
JUNE 17, 1988
Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law), he and the bishops consecrated by him would be excommunicated for proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby infringing the laws of sacred discipline.
JULY 1, 1988
Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism".
JULY 2, 1988
In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications … ."
and then follows a full defense of Lefebvre’s actions and a denial of the Pope’s authrity to excommunicate Lefebvre - acc to sspx.
Yet the Holy Father clearly stated in 1988: “… all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law”
Perhaps some man could explain this to you in a way that you will grasp. I hope so. I do know that Williamson’s attempt to teach untruth is more than “just an opinion.” It is a “corrupt teaching” that is presented by a man in schism.
Again:
please find some fellows to challenge on matters of faith. It could do you good.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You are blowing a smoke screen. You provided Ecclesia Dei–now provide where it says–the SSPX no longer holds the Catholic Faith. Using a bunch of word to set up a smoke screen will not work. Where is the statement in Ecclesia Dei–or in an other document from Rome.
C
catharina
Guest
This will be my final response to you in this thread. I state again, for the third time, from a document on the Vatican’s own website:
Ecclesia Dei states: " … all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law."
Acc to the site of sspx, they reject the edict of Rome re Lefebvre.
Therefore … what is is.
Playing at ignorance upholds no one.
Ecclesia Dei states: " … all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law."
Acc to the site of sspx, they reject the edict of Rome re Lefebvre.
Therefore … what is is.
Playing at ignorance upholds no one.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
More likely you should pay attention to your own words—since you cannot provide a document/statement from Rome declaring the SSPX to not hold the Catholic Faith and all you are doing in spinning the wheels.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
I have read the comments made by Williams and am wondering if he isn’t in fact just looking for more stones to throw at Rome.
It is rather a fait accompli… Why he is finding it wise to offer his pontifications on this matter at this time is tough to understand…
But an important matter to address that seems to be off the radar here, is what are the origins and meaning of the title?
In fact, if wikipedia can be believed on this matter:
Further, the first DOCs were named in 1298 - this tradition is little more than 7 centuries old.
This title is 1) meant as a pious distinction that helps to underscore the value of the works of those already recognized as saints and 2) is not of apostolic origin or a part of the ancient deposit of faith.
That he (Williams) has difficulty with the conferring of a pious title on a saint - 2 of whom recieved the honorific over three decades ago! - it sort of speaks to the level of contradistinction he wishes to make and create in his seperated group.
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
Whenever power wins over reason the truth suffers a loss. One of the things that amazes me as I work in academia are the numbers of my colleagues who think that if one gives recourse to some authority even if they have to twist the meaning then one has proven something. It really does not impress.
What doesn’t matter is what one says or does. What does matter is this “What is true.” Walking_home and others need simply to hold confidently to the search for truth and not worry about the bluster of those who are afraid to pursue it. Hubris is not a Christian virtue, after all.
CDL
What doesn’t matter is what one says or does. What does matter is this “What is true.” Walking_home and others need simply to hold confidently to the search for truth and not worry about the bluster of those who are afraid to pursue it. Hubris is not a Christian virtue, after all.
CDL
B
BobP123
Guest
Then can one conclude Bishop Williamson is no heretic and has every right to express his opinion ?
B
BobP123
Guest
If he has, they certainly have fallen amongst very attentive ears.
C
catharina
Guest
When one has chosen opposition to truth and taken a place outside the RC Church, then it might be seen as “natural consequence” when one continues to seek points of disagreement.If he has, they certainly have fallen amongst very attentive ears.
Most interesting to me in the poll results in the other thread is the fact that only three posters voted agreement with Williamson.
J
jmcrae
Guest
That’s true - the SSPX is an independent organization. It is not formally affiliated with the Catholic Church.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
We are not speaking of whether there is imperfect communion between Rome and the SSPX. It is the Faith – which is in discussion. Rome has not declared that the SSPX does not hold to the Catholic Faith.
J
jmcrae
Guest
There are many religions that teach the same or similar things as the Catholic Church, and they may even think and say that they are Catholic, but I think we can tell the difference.
The SSPX has placed itself in the same category as those other religions.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I am not aware of other religions teaching the “same” as the Catholic Church. This does not even apply to the Orthodox. Unless someone can produce a document where Rome states that the SSPX is teaching something other than the Catholic Faith—in other words --they no longer hold the faith–then no one is in a position to be saying that the SSPX does not hold the Faith.
C
catharina
Guest
sspx, like other schimatic groups, can and does deny the facts at the heart of the schism, thus prolonging their schismatic status. In choosing sparation from Rome, they’ve chosen separation from the Roman Catholic faith, from the Holy Father and from the Roman Catholic Church. Denying that cannot make it otherwise.
- Status