P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Until he dissented, left the Church, brought a whole bunch of people into heresy and married a Catholic nun.
- Status
W
Walking_Home
Guest
That says it.
I
I_Believe
Guest
I thought no one was going to answer tonight, so I deleted my question.
But… I was pretty much going to say the same thing you said paramedicgirl.
Seems Luther had his faults as well. Breaking vows of celibacy and such doesn’t bode well for his character.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Didn’t Pope John Paul II indeed “look into the closet” and issue an apology for these things ? What more does the world want ?
Those things have not been happening for centuries.
The Church is the one constantly being judged. This is a Catholic forum. We are constantly baited, and then accused of bashing when we defend our faith.
The gates of Hell aint cuttin it and never will !
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
This thread has gone way off topic. Please return to the original topic or I will have to close the thread.
If you wish to discuss Martin Luther or EENS or other issues, please start new threads in the appropriate fora.
Thank you.
If you wish to discuss Martin Luther or EENS or other issues, please start new threads in the appropriate fora.
Thank you.
G
GWSCatholic
Guest
Well, we all make mistakes. Remember, love the sinner and hate the sin.
S
silverknights
Guest
I think the love of the Traditional Catholics for, and fascination with the Tridentine Church has caused them to forget that all the rites and liturgical traditions were standardised after the council of Trent…before that for 1500 years there were a multitude of traditions n all within the Latin rite of the Church too. Besides, when Christ established His Church, He gave the power of the keys to Peter, so it is upto his successor to excercise that responcibility…of course guided by the Spirit. So it basically boils down to a rejection of authority in the Church.
The words of St Teresa come to mind when she got a vision from God telling her to open a monestry, but was rejected permission from her confessor, she gladly gave up her plan. When later questioned about it she replied “with regard to private revelations I may be mistaken, but i cannot go wrong by obedience”.
I feel this is the kind of trust we need to place in the guidance of the Papacy…that no matter what happens the Spirit will finally work everything out for the greatest good, but its our job to be totally obedient.
God has not called us to be successful but obedient - Mother Teresa
If we asked the Lord to teach us all the truths we needed to know about this world and the moral principles we should follow…He would reply that “for this very reason, on the rock (Petrus) I have founded my Church and the gates of hell cannot prevail this Church,I have also given it the keys of the kingdom of heaven so that what it binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what is looses on earth He will losed in heaven.This Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, we could then go on to ask Him what is the authority of the shepherds of this Church, and He would reply that “those who listen to them listen to me, and those who listen to me listen to the one who sent me.”
The words of St Teresa come to mind when she got a vision from God telling her to open a monestry, but was rejected permission from her confessor, she gladly gave up her plan. When later questioned about it she replied “with regard to private revelations I may be mistaken, but i cannot go wrong by obedience”.
I feel this is the kind of trust we need to place in the guidance of the Papacy…that no matter what happens the Spirit will finally work everything out for the greatest good, but its our job to be totally obedient.
God has not called us to be successful but obedient - Mother Teresa
If we asked the Lord to teach us all the truths we needed to know about this world and the moral principles we should follow…He would reply that “for this very reason, on the rock (Petrus) I have founded my Church and the gates of hell cannot prevail this Church,I have also given it the keys of the kingdom of heaven so that what it binds on earth will be bound in heaven and what is looses on earth He will losed in heaven.This Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth”, we could then go on to ask Him what is the authority of the shepherds of this Church, and He would reply that “those who listen to them listen to me, and those who listen to me listen to the one who sent me.”
G
GerardP
Guest
The cleaning up of the books after Trent was nowhere near as radical as the introduction of the Novus Ordo. [Edited by Moderator]
And if that successor of Peter does not exercise that responsibility? What are we to do then? What are bishops to do? What are priests to do? We’ve had a slew of Popes throughout history who had the power and used it irresponsibly. Is it the will of God to engage in absolute obedience or does the Church make a distinction between types of obedience?
But who rejected what authority first? Are a series of policies supposed to override the magisterial teachings of the Church?
Didn’t Pope St. Pius X the Great say that
*“One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of **guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith **delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called… Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.” *
What about St. Robt. Bellarmine and St. Thomas Aquinas? What about Pope Innocent III who pointed out that you obligated to disobey in certain circumstances? Revelation is one thing, point of fact is another. No one needed a vision to tell them that something was profoundly wrong in Rome and throughout the Church after Vatican II.
I think you have too much presumption on the work of the Holy Spirit in the day to day governance of the Church. How would you have handled the situation of the trial of Pope Formosus if it were happening today? Do you think the Deacon who was conscripted to answer for the late Pope would have been justified to disobey Pope Stephen?
Mother Teresa had a problem with Indifferentism. She was obedient to her superiors but not always obedient to the Catholic faith. This was servile obedience not true obedience.
But when Peter does his own will and not the will of God He says, “Get thee behind me Satan!”
Cardinal Ottaviani once stated that the first act of collegiality was when Peter in union with the bishops ran from the garden of Gethsemane and hid from the cross. With the exception of John.
It could be that Archbishop LeFebvre imitated the beloved disciple.
P
piojunbabia
Guest
I’d rather attend an “illicit” Mass(in dont believe its illicit because the excommunication lacks ground and therefore no excommunication happen) rather attending heretical Novus Ordo Mass. Catholics do not pray that way(NOM), Catholics dont attend Mass that way (as far as history of Catholicism is concerned) The Mass of the Saints are not that way. You have n idea abou the stand of SSPX. Dont judge too quickly. And we cannot beleieve everything V2 is teaching. Is contradicts the past as if saying that the Catholic Church started in Vatican II (1960’2) and denying the previous infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, and having new “theology” which are heretical and condemned in the past.
Ave Maria!
M
MrS
Guest
Yet you are quick, on another thread, to judge the FSSP as compromisers and accuse them of “tendancies” without any proof.
.
N
nbjayme
Guest
What vile accusations against the SSPX… tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk.
Yet those same people laud protestants more and accept them as Children of Christ than those like SSPX who simply want to continue on the Faith as it is taught undefiled by modern interpretations.
I call on St. Athanasius and his flock who have attended his mass even so while he was labeled as “excommunicant” by the elders of the Church. Yet we are so thankful for that wonderful saint … only ** after the fact**. Yes, this is the problem when people do not look at history and judge the SSPX unjustly.
Did not Castrillon Hoyos said the problem is internal to the Church?
See, people since V2 have lost their sense of what Catholic Dogma is all about. They even lost the idea of what Magisterium is. The magisterium is that official Dogmatic Teaching of the Church. And, the Holy Spirit which is the source of Truth cannot contradict itself.
So the attitude of V2 supporters is that… V2 have said otherwise so V1 cannot be understood in a way it was taught before. Well, well, was the Church in error then? This is the danger of V2’s subjective reasoning in example, that the protestants are our brothers in imperfect unity.
V1 is clear “Outsite the Church there is no Salvation.” Either they continue to be protestant and mock the Dogma of the Holy Spirit or accept the Authority of the Church.
There is such a quote; “You speak beautiful words because it does not mean a thing.” And same applies to the new attitude of V2.
But then the V2 supporters would say… well what about uninformed protestants will they be in hell fire then? See… these people have lost trust in God who can see everything. If such protestant is worthy … would God resist from letting him/her know of the Church? Read the Bible… God Himself directly guided worthy Jews to His true Church, even St. Paul.
Such is the poison of V2’s subjective teaching.
Before I end this, I once have a conversation of a Novus Ordo Bishop regarding the Tridentine Mass and our conversation reached the declaration of Quo Primum. He said, “St. Pope Pius was wrong then.”
Wait wait another… a bishop in our country allowed a Catholic celebration to be paraded with Gays and Lesbians. And yes, the same bishop is what we call united with Ecclesia Dei.
Yet those same people laud protestants more and accept them as Children of Christ than those like SSPX who simply want to continue on the Faith as it is taught undefiled by modern interpretations.
I call on St. Athanasius and his flock who have attended his mass even so while he was labeled as “excommunicant” by the elders of the Church. Yet we are so thankful for that wonderful saint … only ** after the fact**. Yes, this is the problem when people do not look at history and judge the SSPX unjustly.
Did not Castrillon Hoyos said the problem is internal to the Church?
See, people since V2 have lost their sense of what Catholic Dogma is all about. They even lost the idea of what Magisterium is. The magisterium is that official Dogmatic Teaching of the Church. And, the Holy Spirit which is the source of Truth cannot contradict itself.
So the attitude of V2 supporters is that… V2 have said otherwise so V1 cannot be understood in a way it was taught before. Well, well, was the Church in error then? This is the danger of V2’s subjective reasoning in example, that the protestants are our brothers in imperfect unity.
V1 is clear “Outsite the Church there is no Salvation.” Either they continue to be protestant and mock the Dogma of the Holy Spirit or accept the Authority of the Church.
There is such a quote; “You speak beautiful words because it does not mean a thing.” And same applies to the new attitude of V2.
But then the V2 supporters would say… well what about uninformed protestants will they be in hell fire then? See… these people have lost trust in God who can see everything. If such protestant is worthy … would God resist from letting him/her know of the Church? Read the Bible… God Himself directly guided worthy Jews to His true Church, even St. Paul.
Such is the poison of V2’s subjective teaching.
Before I end this, I once have a conversation of a Novus Ordo Bishop regarding the Tridentine Mass and our conversation reached the declaration of Quo Primum. He said, “St. Pope Pius was wrong then.”
Wait wait another… a bishop in our country allowed a Catholic celebration to be paraded with Gays and Lesbians. And yes, the same bishop is what we call united with Ecclesia Dei.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
I find that VERY difficult to believe since their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre, himself was at Vatican II and signed the Council documents. He also said the New Mass is valid. The SSPX has problems with some teachings from Vatican II, such as on religious liberty which they think goes against the Tradition. Their biggest issue, I think, is the interpretations from the Council and other practices which can be changed, such as ecumenism.
They are not in schism. They are in irregular communion. That seems to be the consensus although the Holy See has not made any explicit statement. They are not extremists or else Rome wouldn’t waste their time trying to bring them back to the fold.
In France they have some of the best parishes and are doing a great work there. They are very faithful to Rome, to Pope Benedict XVI and to the whole Tradition. I long for the day when they are in full and perfect communion. We need them. They have many holy, faithful priests and Bishops.
And no, I do not and never have attended an SSPX chapel.
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
Archibishop Lefebvre himself said the Novus Ordo has nothing heretical in it and is not invalid.
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
A few points here. Have you read Alcuin Reid, OSB’s book on the organic development of the liturgy in the history of the Church? If not I highly recommend it. The fact is that Trent allowed any liturgies that had been existence for a long time were allowed to remain. Yet the Roman Rite before Trent was surprisingly similar even amidst any variations. We now have Rome speaking of the Gregorian Rite. Why? To dispel the idea that it originates with Trent. It goes back to Gregory the Great.
Now, the idea of the Pope guided by the Holy Spirit. Yes, he is guided but only protected from error in very few situations (the Extraordinary Magisterium). In ordinary decisions Rome can and has erred. Not every decision, especially liturgically, is best. Alcuin Reid treats this issue. Therefore just because Rome does something doesn’t mean it is right (excluding pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium). As Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand has taught, in regard the Ordinary Magisterium, if we think a decision is wrong or imprudent we have a right to speak out while maintaining our loyalty to the Pope. I think he speaks of that inhis work The Charitable Anathema. I think it’s a safe bet then to agree with a man who Pope Pius XII called a 20th century Doctor of the Church. It’s not sufficient to say, “Well Rome is okay with it so am I” when there is no promise that the liturgical changes from the concilium were prudent or even correct.
Pax Christi tecum.
P
pnewton
Guest
Since this thread has been reopened, I might as well re-post this answer.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38&highlight=sspx
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=38&highlight=sspx
N
nbjayme
Guest
At the time of St. Athanasius the flock attended his Mass because it is in the Faith that judges who truly have the Church. Are we to say that those flock were outside the Church? Who has the true Church then between those of St. Athanasius and those at the time were considered to be of ethical niceties with Rome? 
The Holy Spirit has no part with those that spread iniquity and yes there are bound to be distinguishing marks that “separate” those who carry on the Faith and those who succumbed to man’s reinterpretation of the doctrine that have already been clearly taught by the Church for more than a thousand years.
Schism issue??? that’s a dead duck as far as using it as propaganda. There was no schism for the consecration was not done in the spirit of questioning the authority of the Pope but to answer the call of the time of continuing the Faith as taught by the Church. The Church have everything to gain of what the Archbishop did. The declaration of Summorum Pontificum is a clear grace from God of uplifting the character of Arcbishop Lefebvre so badly maligned by others. Now, we have priests and bishops who truly know the elements of the Tridentine Mass while the Novus Ordo circles of young priests have yet to learn and even be educated on the dogma and theology of the Church to be able to grasp on the reason why the need for Tridentine.
Schism is an old propaganda and an issue only the uninformed continues to spread. The matter is an issue within the Church.
The Novus Ordo mass, as what we have known now, was far from what the Archbishop envisioned. He laid the necessary ground work and guidelines in order for the New Mass to be considered valid. But V2 supporters are busy nitpicking and they missed that fact and generalized things as though the Archbishop agreed on the kind of Novus Ordo we now have.
Also if SSPX do not recognize the authority of the Pope we would not have wasted our time in prayer for God to give more inspiration and strength to the Pope to use the Authority given by God to his office to enforce the rightful place of the Tridentine Latin Mass. Towards the Church self-destruction we cannot be with the Pope but towards edifying the Church through correct Dogmatic Teaching we are by the Pope’s side.
The Holy Spirit has no part with those that spread iniquity and yes there are bound to be distinguishing marks that “separate” those who carry on the Faith and those who succumbed to man’s reinterpretation of the doctrine that have already been clearly taught by the Church for more than a thousand years.
Schism issue??? that’s a dead duck as far as using it as propaganda. There was no schism for the consecration was not done in the spirit of questioning the authority of the Pope but to answer the call of the time of continuing the Faith as taught by the Church. The Church have everything to gain of what the Archbishop did. The declaration of Summorum Pontificum is a clear grace from God of uplifting the character of Arcbishop Lefebvre so badly maligned by others. Now, we have priests and bishops who truly know the elements of the Tridentine Mass while the Novus Ordo circles of young priests have yet to learn and even be educated on the dogma and theology of the Church to be able to grasp on the reason why the need for Tridentine.
Schism is an old propaganda and an issue only the uninformed continues to spread. The matter is an issue within the Church.
The Novus Ordo mass, as what we have known now, was far from what the Archbishop envisioned. He laid the necessary ground work and guidelines in order for the New Mass to be considered valid. But V2 supporters are busy nitpicking and they missed that fact and generalized things as though the Archbishop agreed on the kind of Novus Ordo we now have.
Also if SSPX do not recognize the authority of the Pope we would not have wasted our time in prayer for God to give more inspiration and strength to the Pope to use the Authority given by God to his office to enforce the rightful place of the Tridentine Latin Mass. Towards the Church self-destruction we cannot be with the Pope but towards edifying the Church through correct Dogmatic Teaching we are by the Pope’s side.
P
pnewton
Guest
Peter Chrysologus:
We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome
LeFebvre should have listened to the See of Peter, as should the SSPX today.
We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome
LeFebvre should have listened to the See of Peter, as should the SSPX today.
N
nbjayme
Guest
It is not the first time in History that the Pope did not got the facts right.
St. Athanasius himself was banished and declared excommunicated by the very Church he wants to defend.
St. Paul rebuked St. Peter and he (Peter) listened.
What is it that SSPX were not listening when all the while they were continually fighting for the Tridentine mass? Summorum Pontificum is already your answer to that. They’ve been heeding the times and they are simply exhorting the Pope of the dangers ahead.
Get the facts right and stop spreading the injustice against those of the SSPX.
St. Athanasius himself was banished and declared excommunicated by the very Church he wants to defend.
St. Paul rebuked St. Peter and he (Peter) listened.
What is it that SSPX were not listening when all the while they were continually fighting for the Tridentine mass? Summorum Pontificum is already your answer to that. They’ve been heeding the times and they are simply exhorting the Pope of the dangers ahead.
Get the facts right and stop spreading the injustice against those of the SSPX.
P
pnewton
Guest
Are you referring to me or Peter Chrysologus? Every time I see a statement like the above I like to remind everyone to try and understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.
N
nbjayme
Guest
read Arcbishop’s address on the nature of the consecration.
There was no desire for schism nor questioning of the Pope’s authority.
That’s a fact in history.
St. Paul rebuking St. Peter is a biblical fact.
St. Athanasius case is a historical fact.
It’s not the first time that those who want to fight for Doctrinal Truth was treated unjustly by the Church they want to defend.
That’s a fact.
There was no desire for schism nor questioning of the Pope’s authority.
That’s a fact in history.
St. Paul rebuking St. Peter is a biblical fact.
St. Athanasius case is a historical fact.
It’s not the first time that those who want to fight for Doctrinal Truth was treated unjustly by the Church they want to defend.
That’s a fact.
- Status