Saying that Martin Luther was excommunicated is a statement of fact, not an attack. Saying that disobedience and schism results in scandal is a statement of fact, not an attack.Does anybody here think that attacking the beloved founder of the SSPX and stirring up bad feeling is a good way to work toward reconciliation with them? Just wondering.
The Pope’s approach to this reconciliation has not been to take an immovable position and then demand submission. He expresses understanding of their concerns and makes concessions. In my support of him, I model my behaviour on his.
How you pray is how you believe. i keep hearing this. i dont know who is the author.
I have, as I have said, no window into any person’s soul. When it comes to the SSPX, all I try to do is point out A) factual, historical truth and B) red herrings that have nothing to do with the argument at hand. It is a fact that the priests of the SSPX have no faculties and no ministry in the Church. You can verify this through documents with the Holy See. It is a fact that the faithful are cautioned against “imbibing” a spirit of schism (because the faithful are not technically a part of the Society). You can verify that as well.
The tables were also to differentiate form the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and pagan sacrifices.
How you pray is dependent on what the room looks like.
That’s true. A pope has the legal authority to pare down the Liturgy to only its barest essentials, the Parish Church down to nothing but a folding wooden table devoid of anything but a small Crucifix and 2 birthday cake candles. He also has the legal authority to decree that all Church language be tenth century Slovakian. Afterall, he has the Keys as Peter’s successor.
I didn’t say the Holy Father had done otherwise. I support hiim as well. Benedict XVI, however, is a truthful man and I very much doubt that he would say something is true that isn’t. I model my behavior on his.
On the contrary, he DOES possess the moral authority to rule over the Church and its disciplines. The “Traditions?” That’s Truth, faith and morals, not disciplinary matters.
Wisdom seeker is referring to lex orandi lex credendi: the rule of prayer dictates the rule of belief.
Perhaps someone can provide the exact Canon that addresses this, but I believe that according to Canon Law a subjective belief of an emergency (so long as it is genuine) is sufficient regardless of whether the emergency actually existed or not. I think that, regardless of whether one disagrees with the Archbishop, one can see that he really did subjectively believe that there was an emergency situation.
That is not a logical conclusion and I don’t believe the SSPX have ever claimed that the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre or the errors following Vatican II are evidence of a failure. A crisis in the Church is not a failure of the Church.
You offer extremes as though they were standards and nothing could be further from the truth. This is a red herring, a straw man.
Au contraire, mon frere. Or do you suggest Paul’s Epistles are only matters of convenience?
I do not understand the point you are making. Has someone in this discussion suggested that we ought to say something is true that isn’t?
That canon does not apply when the Supreme Legislator says that it does not apply. Pope John Paul II stated that no emergency or necessity existed. That seems reasonable given that A) he was the Supreme Legislator and interpreter and B) there had already been a meeting with the Archbishop where he was being given much that he asked for.
Tour the Parishes in East Texas. The extreme really seems to be the rule. As the Bishop’s driver during the Confirmation times, I can assure you that the previous Bishop placed emphasis on only the barest of essentials. Hopefully the present Bishop, with almost a decade behind him has enacted the changes he wished.
I’m talking about the facts of the controversy between the Church and the Society.
Ah, but only the Magesterium has the authority to interpret Tradition, not maurin and not the SSPZ founder. It is disturbing to hear anyone try to claim that the Church has no moral authority.
a picture speaks a thousand words.
Ah, Dallas is actually my home and if we are talking about the bishops I imagine we are talking about, then I concur, about the bishops, at least. Nonetheless, when I have gone home to Mass these last 20 years, I have not witnessed ANYTHING that approaches what those pictures depict, anywhere, in either rural parishes or urban ones. Now, if you want to talk California, well…I’ve come to the conclusion that there is something strange in the water at the seminaries.