SSPX Not Heretical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CollegeCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And do you really think John Paul II would allow someone who did not understand his version of ecumenism, to stay in that office?
Interestingly enough, Pope Benedict has also left him in office.
 
Could we just cut to the chase here. Are you saying that John Paul II believed in false ecumenism?
Do you think John Paul II would appoint someone as the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity who he believed had a false understanding of Ecumenism? Does that make sense, when Ecumenism was such an important part of John Paul II’s Papacy?

I refuse to beleive that John Paul II would be that derilect in his duty. How dare you for implying otherwise. John Paul II would never allow a person to serve as the head of the Ecumenical movement who he beleived to have a false idea of ecumenism. Never would he allow such a thing. John Paul II would only appoint a person in charge of Ecumenism who believed just as he did. Ecumenism was far too important for John Paul II. How dare you for implying that the Pope would allow such a thing. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
I think so. But he never promulgated it as an infallible doctrine.
I’d just like to say that I honor you for your candor. It’s refreshing because most will not actually say what they mean. That said, I think you to be horribly wrong but I respect you.
 
Do you think John Paul II would appoint someone as the president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity who he believed had a false understanding of Ecumenism? Does that make sense, when Ecumenism was such an important part of John Paul II’s Papacy?

I refuse to beleive that John Paul II would be that derilect in his duty. How dare you for implying otherwise. John Paul II would never allow a person to serve as the head of the Ecumenical movement who he beleived to have a false idea of ecumenism. Never would he allow such a thing. John Paul II would only appoint a person in charge of Ecumenism who believed just as he did. Ecumenism was far too important for John Paul II. How dare you for implying that the Pope would allow such a thing. You should be ashamed of yourself.
BTW, this would all seem a little more than off topic.

I’m just guessing that this piece was just more than a little on the sarcastic side. I must point out, however, that I implied nothing.

Again, if this is your line of argument, then I still find it quite interesting that Pope Benedict has left him there.
 
I’d just like to say that I honor you for your candor. It’s refreshing because most will not actually say what they mean. That said, I think you to be horribly wrong but I respect you.
Thanks Bear. Not a day goes by that I am not torn by the strife in our Church. Can I count on you to pray for me?
 
These definitions apply to the SSPX, except the one concerning heresy:

From the Catechism of Pius X:

14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

That doesn’t apply to the SSPX. But the next few do:

16 Q. Who are schismatics?
A. Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.

17 Q. Who are the excommunicated?
A. The excommunicated are those who, because of grievous transgressions, are struck with excommunication by the Pope or their Bishop, and consequently are cut off as unworthy from the body of the Church, which, however, hopes for and desires their conversion.

18 Q. Should excommunication be dreaded?
A. Excommunication should be greatly dreaded, because it is the severest and most terrible punishment the Church can inflict upon her rebellious and obstinate children.

19 Q. Of what goods are the excommunicated deprived?
A. The excommunicated are deprived of public prayers, of the Sacraments, of indulgences and of Christian burial.

20 Q. Can we in any way help the excommunicated?
A. We can in some way help the excommunicated and all others who are outside the true Church, by salutary advice, by prayers and good works, begging God in His mercy to grant them the grace of being converted to the faith and of entering into the Communion of Saints.
 
I’d just like to say that I honor you for your candor. It’s refreshing because most will not actually say what they mean. That said, I think you to be horribly wrong but I respect you.
In other words. “USMC would not say what you did. Had he, I would have ignored all the points he made, which I could not resond to, and would have attacked him personally. USMC didn’t fall into the trap, but instead posted in the form of a question to me. This frustrated me, since I knew he was right and didn’t know what to say. Therefore, thank you for not doing the same.”
 
In other words. “USMC would not say what you did. Had he, I would have ignored all the points he made, which I could not resond to, and would have attacked him personally. USMC didn’t fall into the trap, but instead posted in the form of a question to me. This frustrated me, since I knew he was right and didn’t know what to say. Therefore, thank you for not doing the same.”
I missed the part where I attacked giuseppeTO and ignored all his posts.

It would simply be nice if people would say what they mean rather than allude to things. If one has a stance, one should say what it is. This can be done in just a few sentences. It’s quite helpful in discussions to say I believe x and this is why. Rather than make statement after statement and leave us to wonder what the conclusion they’ve come to. It cuts down on people getting the wrong conclusion and then making arguments based on this wrong conclusion only to have others come back and tell them that they’re committing the sin of calumny, slander, etc.
 
14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.
That doesn’t apply to the SSPX. But the next few do:
I’m not sure that they aren’t heretics too because it would seem that they are rejecting Pastor Aeternus (a dogmatic constitution) in their deeds. (I know Bombay’s probably been waiting for me to bring up Pastor Aeternus so I thought I’d give him some fodder).😉 I definitely couldn’t say that their stance is beyond all doubt free from heresy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top