SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near

[JReducation]

Just a question for everyone. Is this discussion on the education of women and motherhood really related to the OP?

JR

 

[bobzills]

Those rules that a listed earlier, I am sorry if I didn’t mention that most of them are unwritten rules, most of them are only preached, or taught in some other way because it is fairly consistent with all SSPX people who I have ever met, and I have met many (especially when I lived in St. Marys).

Your credibility is at issue here when you say that the SSPX officially teaches that women are inferior to men and give no documentation to support your assertion.

 

[pnewton]

Why not the SSPX? If protestants, Hindus, Buddists and atheists can post, why not the SSPX?

I didn’t say they couldn’t, if you will re-read my post. You complained about SSPX “bashing”. Since no one was using profanity, derogatory names or other banned content, then what you see as bashing is nothing but opposing the proselityzing of SSPX posters. I believe that those who willful defy the Holy Father and align themselves with enemies of the Catholic Church proper are in spiritual danger. I do not wish to see one person here swayed by a very contradictory and illogical postition.

 

[laudamus_te]

I want to apologize to you for all of the SSPX bashing. I am not with the SSPX, don’t know anyone that is.
It is OK to disagree with the SSPX but to bash them more than you would the Orthodox, who have their own pope, or protestants that deny everything is simply wrong.
This situation between the SSPX and Rome is very serious.There are clearly doctrinal issues that need to be resolved. The SSPX interprets Religious Liberty differently that the Vatican II council. Maybe behind closed doors these issues are being worked out. The definition of Ecumenism is different for the SSPX than what is practiced by churchmen like Cardinal Kasper. This needs to be worked out.

I know that the SSPX is frustrated when they see theologians like Hans Kung, who denies papal infallibility among other things, and is allowed to be a priest in good standing and NOT excommunicated. Or theologian Charles Curran who teaches that the pill, abortion, homosexuality, pre-martial sex are fine and dandy and has NOT been excommunicated.

It is in God’s hands. These disputes are nothing new.

This is a good example of charity. Catharina, pnewton, Margarite et al, take note. The venomous lies spewed forth on this thread towards the SSPX is disgusting. I wonder how some of you can sleep at night.

 

[Our_Refuge]

=JReducation;3861181]Don’t get me wrong. I have not problem with protecting the family and or anything against full-time mothers. But the Bishop could have done a better job in speaking about families, parenting and the rights of children to have strong Christian families and left out the whole discussion on academic education. If what he wants to say is that women who are mothers must be good mothers, just say so. He’ll get no argument for that.

Bishop Williamson, in my opinion, could have done a better job explaining his position.

My daughter is still single and has not plans of marrying, not has she plans of becoming a religious. Does she have to marry or become a religious? No. The Church does not require this. She loves being a pediatrician and does a great deal of good for children with disabilities. That’s her specialty.

My oldest daughter is also a doctor. She is not married. It may not be in God’s plan.

It does not seem that God’s plan if for all women to become wive and mothers or religious. There are other options for woman which are also within God’s plan. The number of female saints who never married or had children is significant.

From the cateschism
1618 Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114 Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

1619 Virginity for the sake of the kingdom of heaven is an unfolding of baptismal grace, a powerful sign of the supremacy of the bond with Christ and of the ardent expectation of his return, a sign which also recalls that marriage is a reality of this present age which is passing away.116

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good."

 

[ethelzguy]

**For those that are married and unable **to have children then they should adopt.

The Second Commandment according to Our Refuge…

Women merely exist to raise children…must be an SSPX thing, because I don’t hear it in the Catholic Church.

 

[laudamus_te]

I didn’t say they couldn’t, if you will re-read my post. You complained about SSPX “bashing”. Since no one was using profanity, derogatory names or other banned content, then what you see as bashing is nothing but opposing the proselityzing of SSPX posters. I believe that those who willful defy the Holy Father and align themselves with enemies of the Catholic Church proper are in spiritual danger. I do not wish to see one person here swayed by a very contradictory and illogical postition.

So your definition of “bashing” is using profanity, derogatory names, etc.? No, sir. Bashing is also holier-than-thou arrogance and false representation, which have been rampant on this thread.

 

[pnewton]

So your definition of “bashing” is using profanity, derogatory names, etc.? No, sir. Bashing is also holier-than-thou arrogance and false representation, which have been rampant on this thread.

Is this in comment on the OP? If not, I will decline to respond in kind to you and hope that is what you meant to do. If not please feel free to report any post of mine you think crosses the line.

 

[piouswoman]

I want to apologize to you for all of the SSPX bashing. I am not with the SSPX, don’t know anyone that is.
It is OK to disagree with the SSPX but to bash them more than you would the Orthodox, who have their own pope, or protestants that deny everything is simply wrong.
This situation between the SSPX and Rome is very serious.There are clearly doctrinal issues that need to be resolved. The SSPX interprets Religious Liberty differently that the Vatican II council. Maybe behind closed doors these issues are being worked out. The definition of Ecumenism is different for the SSPX than what is practiced by churchmen like Cardinal Kasper. This needs to be worked out.

I know that the SSPX is frustrated when they see theologians like Hans Kung, who denies papal infallibility among other things, and is allowed to be a priest in good standing and NOT excommunicated. Or theologian Charles Curran who teaches that the pill, abortion, homosexuality, pre-martial sex are fine and dandy and has NOT been excommunicated.

It is in God’s hands. These disputes are nothing new.

Thank you. I appreciate this very much.

 

[laudamus_te]

Is this in comment on the OP? If not, I will decline to respond in kind to you and hope that is what you meant to do. If not please feel free to report any post of mine you think crosses the line.

I don’t report posts willy-nilly. Calling the SSPX a cult falls into the category of bashing, IMO (btw, the SSPX has never referred to themselves, nor consider themselves to be “The Remnant” - another falsehood):

pnewton:

I believe what we are seeing is introduction of control mechanisms for the faithful. With powerful central leadership that runs counter-culture and takes pride this (hence the belief they are “The Remnant”), all that remained was for control mechanisms to come into place to become a cult. I believe we may be seeing this as the group firms their resolve to withstand the Holy Father.

 

[laudamus_te]

Additionally, while prefacing a statement with “I believe” may cover your rear in regards to false information, it does not protect you from charges of “bashing.”

 

[catharina]

How can you say that the SSPX is teaching something other than

“God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in heaven.”

Bishop WIlliamson has said nothing different. Is the primary purpose of marriage to have children or to have university degrees?
Can one have both? Yes but it is extremely difficult. God did not create women to aspire for degrees but to aspire to have children.

I see the bishop’s teaching is a contagious strain.

“God created women (and MEN) to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in heaven.” To state anything more or less is to state distortion.

(Not rocket science.)

 

[pnewton]

(btw, the SSPX has never referred to themselves, nor consider themselves to be “The Remnant” - another falsehood):

That was a specific SSPX member that took pride in that. I believe also, even if the term wasn’t used, was not the reason that LeFevbre stated he ordained his bishops anyway was because he perceived a dire emergency in the Church? Specifically, that if he believed the very conservation of the priesthood was at stake? In other words, if he did not save the priestly line, it might perish. This is not bashing.

SSPX supporters here have pointed out all sort of doom and gloom scenarios for the Holy Catholic Church. Yet I point out my prediction that the SSPX will become a cult and I am the one bashing. This latest stance of Williamson and Fellay further solidifies my belief that they are hardening themselves against reconcilliation. I do not like this, but I see it.

The negative posts by you and the pious woman, however was personally directed at me and others, questioning our salvation, character and integrity. I noticed Our Refuge did not object to those or apologize for those. Sir, In all the times I have responded to you I have never questioned your integrity or motivation.

 

[laudamus_te]

The negative posts by you and the pious woman, however was personally directed at me and others, questioning our salvation, character and integrity. I noticed Our Refuge did not object to those or apologize for those. Sir, In all the times I have responded to you I have never questioned your integrity or motivation.

If that doesn’t take the cake, I don’t know what does. So I am guilty of “negative posts?” I call out a certain poster for printing FALSE statements as true, and I’m the bad guy? (Actually, I’m not a “sir”). Since when is pointing out that certain information passed off as truth is actually false an attack on character and integrity? Why am I in the wrong for objecting to seeing the SSPX referred to as a mind-controlling cult? No, the bigotry on this forum towards the SSPX is shameful, and you all have the audacity to sit on your high horses and look down on them - those poor, misguided fools! We’re so much more Catholic than them - in fact, they’re not even Catholic!

Long live the SSPX!

 

[ethelzguy]

Long live the SSPX!

How very Catholic

 

[piouswoman]

That was a specific SSPX member that took pride in that. I believe also, even if the term wasn’t used, was not the reason that LeFevbre stated he ordained his bishops anyway was because he perceived a dire emergency in the Church? Specifically, that if he believed the very conservation of the priesthood was at stake? In other words, if he did not save the priestly line, it might perish. This is not bashing.

SSPX supporters here have pointed out all sort of doom and gloom scenarios for the Holy Catholic Church. Yet I point out my prediction that the SSPX will become a cult and I am the one bashing. This latest stance of Williamson and Fellay further solidifies my belief that they are hardening themselves against reconcilliation. I do not like this, but I see it.

The negative posts by you and the pious woman, however was personally directed at me and others, questioning our salvation, character and integrity. I noticed Our Refuge did not object to those or apologize for those. Sir, In all the times I have responded to you I have never questioned your integrity or motivation.

I wish you wouldn’t take stabs at me this way, pnewton. It is not an example of Catholic charity…

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

There is nothing in tradition for it.
There is nothing in canon law or the catechism for it either.

Then anybody’s argument for or against it is **morally neutral. **

If you asked Pope Benedict if it is better for women to have children and work outside the home or to have children and stay at home with them I am willing to bet he would say stay at home with the children

1.) That is not the thesis. The thesis is, Should Women Attend University and Earn Degrees, and Is This Acceptable To Catholic Teaching. Your supposition of involving the Holy Father’s opinion is irrelevent and a red herring.
2.) The whole argument of Bishop Williamson’s opinion on women in university has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is, the SSPX allegedly returning this week- by today, in fact, June 28th.
3.) Certainly, being able to spot fallacy and irrelevence in an argument is reason enough for women to at least attend college-level courses on Logic and Rhetoric!

 

[pnewton]

Everyone have a blest evening. I will pray and offer my Mass for this reunion to occur, although I believe personalities have already entered the equation. I regret that some of you take my disagreement so personal and feel the need to respond as such.

 

[pnewton]

I wish you wouldn’t take stabs at me this way, pnewton. It is not an example of Catholic charity…

You are right. It was subtle. I should not have responded to your personal attacks on me in kind. I am sorry that I let your posts get to me so.

 

[piouswoman]

You are right. It was subtle. I should not have responded to your personal attacks on me in kind. I am sorry that I let your posts get to me so.

Show me my personal attacks on you, so that I may apologize in kind…