P
pnewton
Guest
Thank you for clarifying that. Then it is a misrepresentation of their position to say that Vatican II was a heretical council like one SSPX poster did. The difference needed clarification and I appreciate it.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
And never the twain shall meet??
P
pnewton
Guest
R
RyanML
Guest
The Pope’s letter was not an exercise in infallibility. That was 20 years ago and there have been several developments since then. But there is still much work and prayer to be done for regularization.
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
I’ll bet the SSPX will be more “in communion” with the Pope before the Jesuits are, assuming that is not now already the case!And never the twain shall meet??
M
maurin
Guest
pnewton,
let’s try to keep this amicable, ok? (not that we’re not, but just a reminder that we can discuss things positively)
I will repeat that Cardinal Hoyos made clear that only the 4 Bishops had been excommunicated and that the Priests and laity are not.
I will also repeat that Cardinal Hoyos told Bishop Fellay in Nov. of 07 that the Holy Father will not allow the term schismatic applied to the Society. The Holy Father himself, while referencing the SSPX in his accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio, made clear that the Society is an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church. Cardinal Hoyos also said that although he can not recommend it, the Faithful may fulfill their obligations at an SSPX Mass.
Does any of this hint at a schism?
S
SFD
Guest
A true pope may not be opposed in matters of faith and morals. This includes disciplines.
The Arians were heretics and most of the Church was lost to this heresy. True Catholics were opposing those Arians and semi-Arians who had the appearance of authority.
The example of Athanasius is to show that there was a time when the majority of the Church had fallen into heresy and those heretic bishops appeared to hold the positions of authority in the Church. These bishops could be opposed only because they were heretics…not because it was some “right” of the faithful to oppose them. Catholics have a DUTY to oppose heretics.
SFD
S
SFD
Guest
Scott,
The heresy would be the heresy that the Bishop or other clergy holds with pertinacity. Modernism is a HERESY. Anyone who holds one of the condemned propositions with pertinacity has removed himself from the Body of the Church (he is a heretic). He should, at a minimum, be avoided.
SFD
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
This is a perfect example of what I have been cautioning about on this and many other threads. Attempting to judge peoples intentions when you do not know what in blue blazes you are talking about. For your information, I have been encouraging both sides to discontinue this kind of exchange and just to both pray for a proper conclusion to this entire matter. But no, it seems there are some that attempt to read minds and hearts of others. Instead of just acting like you know what you are talking about when you don’t, how about praying for all involved, on both sides. Or is that too much to ask.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
S
SFD
Guest
Deacon Ed B,
No one, not even the Church can judge interior intentions. However, the Church and we laymen judge the externals. One’s external acts show his intentions. That’s why when a person uses the correct baptismal matter and form the intention is assumed to be there (unless it is explicitly not there, at which time we are not judging internals anyway) and if it is not there…the Church supplies the intention.
We should never talk about internal dispositions because we cannot know them. But we do know the externals in words and actions.
SFD
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
What I have been trying to find out is what of these heresy is VII suppose to be holding to and who is suppose to be the one that is spreading them and supporting them.
Contrary to what it appears on this thread I am a very traditional person and really wish I had lived prior to VII as I would not have to go through this debate. Since that is not the case I would have liked for there to have been more time taken in how the VII was presented to the Church.
As I stated way back on the first or second page of this thread I do not think or more correctly I pray that they were not made with intent to deceive and lead into error, but that out of misunderstanding and more in the spirit of the times and not the counsel itself.
I really have no problem with the SSPX other than they are in a ilregular state with in the church and they do tend to sound very schismatic form time to time.
My biggest problem with the SSPX is what appears to be their contention that the rest of the church is a bunch or heretics, because we go to Mass using the NO. I for one prefer the TLM,l there is only one Church that offers it within a 100 miles of my and I am up and to mass and back home for hours before it. So I don’t get to it but maybe once every couple of months. there are a couple of SSPX chapels but again they have very late Mass and I also have a fear of not being able to receive the Eucharist because of my being a regular attendee of the NO. I would love for this issue to be put to rest and see the SSPX set as maybe a religious order.
Contrary to what it appears on this thread I am a very traditional person and really wish I had lived prior to VII as I would not have to go through this debate. Since that is not the case I would have liked for there to have been more time taken in how the VII was presented to the Church.
As I stated way back on the first or second page of this thread I do not think or more correctly I pray that they were not made with intent to deceive and lead into error, but that out of misunderstanding and more in the spirit of the times and not the counsel itself.
I really have no problem with the SSPX other than they are in a ilregular state with in the church and they do tend to sound very schismatic form time to time.
My biggest problem with the SSPX is what appears to be their contention that the rest of the church is a bunch or heretics, because we go to Mass using the NO. I for one prefer the TLM,l there is only one Church that offers it within a 100 miles of my and I am up and to mass and back home for hours before it. So I don’t get to it but maybe once every couple of months. there are a couple of SSPX chapels but again they have very late Mass and I also have a fear of not being able to receive the Eucharist because of my being a regular attendee of the NO. I would love for this issue to be put to rest and see the SSPX set as maybe a religious order.
S
SFD
Guest
Scott,
What do you know about the creation of the SSPX? Why were they created in the first place? Answer privately if you wish…but I would like to know what you know about their creation.
SFD
M
maurin
Guest
Or is it too much to ask that you not spread misinformation? And to present your opinion as your opinions, and not as facts?
I did not say you did not want reconciliation, nor did I judge your intentions. I said, “it is almost as if you…”, and that was said based on your post. That’s a far cry from judging you.
and to listen to you state that others are judging others’ hearts, well Deacon, all I can say is that the road flows in both directions. It seems you have done a bit of that yourself on this thread.
You claim you want peace, yet you stir the pot with posts like your “fact” post. Or your making yourself the victim post.
You can do much better than this, Deacon.
Noone will deny that a resolution is needed and I am sure that many on both sides of the issue pray fervently for reconciliation. What many of us–on both sides of the issue–will not do is to allow misinformation or wrong information to be spread. Sorry if you don’t like it when you are called to task.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
Define Moderism…please, in your own words
P
ProVobis
Guest
C’mon now, he wanted to mold the Church into what he wanted. And he had at least 97 reasons for it. Too bad he didn’t live longer. He would have been certainly invited to Vatican II.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
I am so proud that you finally saw the light.
There IS ONLY ONE Holy Roman Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI is it’s head.
(and If the “society” is as they claim a “society” within the Catholic Church, then They are BOUND to accept the Church’s teachings, Not theirs.
That is what the Pope is trying to get them to do right now. He and his predecessors have gone above and beyond the call of duty on this one. They have been charitible even when the SSPX is bashing them right and left.
All through History, Satan has tried every conceivable way to “bring her down” but she’s still here…
Welcome Home…
P
pnewton
Guest
I know it was 20 years ago. The point is that the poster was criticized for using the word “schism” as if it were some sort of rash judgement. I wanted to point out that even the apologist that pay and run this forum have used that word and believed the SSPX to be in such a state based on the actions of Lefebvre. Agree or not, it is at the very least a defendable position and not something this poster stands alone in. Also, I did not think link to the staff apologists would be considered unamiable. If that is the case, then maurin shoud reconsider his involvement here.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think you no one disagrees with you on this. however in opposing them, one must not depose them, that is, usurp their authority. That way lies anarchy or at least schism.
If Lefebvre would have stuck to opposing what he saw as wrong from within the Church and not flagrantly disobeyed the direct order not to ordain those four bishops, he would have then emulated Athanasius.
- Status