SSPX statement

[John_19_59]

The priest, at low Mass, celebrating in near-silence while the rest of us tell our beads? I doubt that will be imposed. Best hope for what I outlined above

What was wrong with that?

Meditative contemplation of the mystery of Eucharist before our very eyes.

I would love that.

It beats the need for “entertainment” served up to us normally.

I would love silence during Mass.

No more “Happy clappy”.

 

[John_19_59]

What they say is that if a Pope teaches something contrary to the faith (not infallibly, of course), we should obey God rather than man; and that following a false teaching would be unlawful. Here is an example that will make the point: Let’s say the Pope commanded that you worship a false God. Would you obey? Of course not. Does that mean you would be a heretic for not obeying? Does it mean that you would be denying the article of faith which says we must obey the Pope? No, it just means that, even though you understand that a Catholic must obey the Pope, you cannot obey on that particular point, since it would be sinful.

That kind of happened at VII.

I believe VII asks us to believe a false god is a true God in an eucumenical gesture to Muslims.

If Muslims worship the same God as us, then it follows that we worship the same god as the Muslims. A god whose explicit actions in history was to deny Christs divinity, death and resurrection.

I’m sorry, I’m not buying that one.

For that alone Vatican II is suspect to me, and many others. I also believe that it will be resolved in the future at a proper dogmatic council - as the Arian crisis was resolved at a later late but not before Catholics were confused by Church teaching.

I think the SSPX make some good points that we would do well to listen to.

 

[John_19_59]

Toppro77 wrote…

*Can a true Catholic defend a priest who gives acceptance to communion in the hand, which causes countless sacrileges from particles dropping to the floor or remaining on the hands of those who receive?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would allow a statue of Buddha to be placed on top of a tabernacle, giving precedence to a little fat man instead of Jesus Christ who is present on the altar?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would offer cucumber peelings to a snake god while worshiping with African Animists?

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would show reverence to the Koran by kissing it, which denies the dogma of the Trinity?*
**
etc…

All of this is true!

How could a Pope do this.

Everyone loved JPII as a man, but as a Pope sadly he has a lot to answer for.

I suspect he wasn’t a big fan of Mortalium Animos.

 

[tuopaolo]

John_19_59:

That kind of happened at VII.

I believe VII asks us to believe a false god is a true God in an eucumenical gesture to Muslims.

If Muslims worship the same God as us, then it follows that we worship the same god as the Muslims. A god whose explicit actions in history was to deny Christs divinity, death and resurrection.

I’m sorry, I’m not buying that one.

For that alone Vatican II is suspect to me, and many others. I also believe that it will be resolved in the future at a proper dogmatic council - as the Arian crisis was resolved at a later late but not before Catholics were confused by Church teaching.

I think the SSPX make some good points that we would do well to listen to.

WRT to Moslems and worship of the true God, I think we can make these points:

1. Moslems have the intention of worshipping the one true God
2. Moslems also have the intention of giving honor to the false god of the Koran.

The first intention can be based on natural theology and natural law as it is Catholic doctrine that the existence of a personal God can be known through reason apart from revelation. So Moslems not having access to divine revelation would not prevent them from having the intention of worshipping God.

So there are two contradictory intentions present in the Muslim. Insofar as the first intention supercedes in the mind and heart of the Muslim the second, he may be said to be worshipping God. Insofar as the first intention is not present or superceded by the second, he cannot be said to be worshipping God. As Vatican II tended not to express things in a precise philosophical way, one shouldn’t criticize it as making a false statement. Likewise, one shouldn’t put too much stock in the statement as it was more of a pastoral one than a statement meant to be taken as the precise truth.

 

[John_19_59]

1. Moslems have the intention of worshipping* the*** one true God
2. Moslems also have the intention of giving honor to the false god of the Koran.

Muslims have the intention of worshiping a being who claims to be the one true God (a trick of the Devil), their worship is inseperable from their belief that the object of their worship is** explicitly** not Jesus Christ. Its a core belief.

The Moonies claim to worship the one true God also. I don’t see the difference between them and Islam- but we aren’t making eucmenical guestures to the Reverend Moon.

You say that VII was pastoral, but people claim it is when it suits and then claim its infallible and binding also when it suits.

Also the VII teaching ended up in the CCC.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I’m sorry but I explicitly DO NOT worship the same God as the Muslims.

I worship Jesus Christ, they specifically do not. Their notion of God is not some vague ancient natural law thing, it is quite precise. It is anti-Christ.

The Church introduced a new teaching 40 years ago and it is wrong.

You have to have some sympathy for SSPX.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

toppro77:

Can a true Catholic defend a priest who would show reverence to the Koran by kissing it, which denies the dogma of the Trinity?

We had an ecumenical prayer service at our Cathedral on Sunday afternoon yesterday. I think more to make up for the damage incurred as a result of the insulting anti-Catholic ‘ecumenical’ prayer service given at a non-Catholic church which shall remain nameless last Sunday.

The Imam who spoke was very thankful and moved by the kissing of the Koran by John Paul. He was also very moved to be inside a Catholic church offering prayers. If we can gain this kind of trust and therefore be able to work with each other for the good of human beings, then yes a true Catholic can defend a priest who shows reverence to the Koran by kissing it.

I don’t know how much the dogma of the Trinity is denied by doing so. We are commanded to love God, love our neighbours as ourselves and love our enemies.

In the words of St Joan: If the Lord be first served.

 

[johnq]

Dony worry about them, their numbers are nothing. Lucky if its one priest per state. With the number of immgrants coming in the states there will never be a large enough supply for the huge Catholic population.

I am glad that God’s way is not ours. Our Good Shepard left an entire flock to find one stray sheep. Do you think He will do the same for our separated brethren?

 

[tuopaolo]

1. Moslems have the intention of worshipping* the*** one true God
2. Moslems also have the intention of giving honor to the false god of the Koran.

Muslims have the intention of worshiping a being who claims to be the one true God (a trick of the Devil), their worship is inseperable from their belief that the object of their worship is** explicitly** not Jesus Christ. Its a core belief.

John I don’t think you properly appreciated my post and the Catholic doctrine underlying it. It is infallible Catholic doctrine, dating well prior to Vatican II, that it is possible to know with certainty by the light of natural reason the existence of God. If a Muslim so knows the existence of God by the light of his natural reason, then he will certainly be able, despite his false religion, to form the intention of giving the God which he knows by the light of natural reason the worship due Him. That’s the first intention. The second intention is as you rightly point out to give the god purportedly revealed in the Koran the worship purportedly due him.

These two intentions will be contradictory for him and to the extent that the first supersedes the second, he will be worshipping the God – the true God – which he knows by the light of natural reason.

I worship Jesus Christ, they specifically do not.

If you are saying that unless one worships Christ that one cannot worship God then I think your view is irreconcilable with Catholic dogma – again dating way before Vatican II. As I said it is Catholic dogma that it is possible to know with certainty by the light of natural reason unaided by divine revelation the existence of a personal God. So even someone who has no exposure to any religion – whether revealed or false – whatsoever is able according to the dogma to know with certainty the existence of a personal God.