Sspx

[nbjayme]

Well as I don’t recognize anything in your post as a heresy It would be hard for me to speck out against it.

Thus, like I said, no amount of niceness can make you recognize heresy. (Are we now to go circular or go back on the discussion of NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4165496&postcount=319

My comments had noting to do with self interest but was directed at your rudeness.

How you are to take Truth is none of my concern. I am concerned that the True Teaching of the Church be heard.

As to the Quotes from this book by the society of St Paul i have never read it nor have I been able to find anything that supports what it says. nor can I find it on line may you could provide a link instead of just cut and past or typing it in yourself. that would be helpful.

This is a magazine that they sell and I happen to read it yesterday. I have also emailed to the Editor, a link to this forum, so the Editor can speak their side.

 

[nbjayme]

Deacon Ed B,

romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.htm

Would you then follow Pope Honorius I, if you are to live during his time?

Not following the Pope constitute heresy??? You’re way out of line.

Heresy is about a teaching contrary to the received Faith of the Church.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

]=nbjayme;4174570]Thus, like I said, no amount of niceness can make you recognize heresy. (Are we now to go circular or go back on the discussion of NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4165496&postcount=319

But clear stating and show who is stating the heresy and what precisely that heresy is would help I showing me exactly what you are talking about. As far as whether one can have salvation outside of the Catholic church or not I will leave that to God.
Sorry but I am in no place to judge the salvation of others. I firmly believe that within the Catholic Church you have the fullness of God love and truth therefore you chance of finding salvation are greatly increased as there is less chance of for incorrect teaching being given to you.

How you are to take Truth is none of my concern. I am concerned that the True Teaching of the Church be heard.

And how may people to do think you attract to the truth when you do care how they take it. When you are rude in response to their questions. And is it concern for the True teaching of the Church or is it what you perceive as true church teaching?

This is a magazine that they sell and I happen to read it yesterday. I have also emailed to the Editor, a link to this forum, so the Editor can speak their side.

Does this Magazine have a website that we may link to? Do they speak for the Church? I know that it is highly unlikely that you are in error in any thing that hold to be true teaching of the church, but could it be that these were opinion articles of the person that wrote them? Could It not be that just as some politician make mistaken statements on Church teaching that the person that wrote the article was in error on their understanding of church teaching. As I spent some time looking at different websites found noting saying or imply that the Catholic Church in anyway support or condones this phillipino sect that you gave in your post. For one thing they are a very anti Catholic group.

 

[SFD]

Thank you SFD. Here I am not entirely sure what is meant by Modernism.

LAMENTABILI SANE

Pius X July 3, 1907

With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.

These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, **His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.**

1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

1. The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.

1. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.

1. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.

1. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.

1. The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning.”

1. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.

1. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.

1. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.

1. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.

1. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

1. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

1. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.

1. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.

1. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.

1. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.

1. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word lncarnate.

1. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century.

1. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.

1. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his revelation to God.

1. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

1. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.

1. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain.

1. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .

1. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities.

1. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.

1. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias.

1. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it.

1. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.

30 In all the evangelical texts the name "Son of God’’ is equivalent only to that of “Messias.” It does not in the least way signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God.

1. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus.

1. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.

…

 

[SFD]

LAMENTABILI SANE (continued)

Pius X July 3, 1907

33 Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity.

1. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.

1. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.

1. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.

1. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God.

1. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical.

1. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity .

1. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.

1. The Sacraments are intended merely to recall to man’s mind the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator.

1. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession.

1. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely, Baptism and Penance.

1. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.

1. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning the institution of the Eucharist (I Cor. 11:23-25) is to be taken historically.

1. In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist. Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to this concept. As a matter of fact, even after Penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a Sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful Sacrament.

1. The words of the Lord, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’’ (John 20:22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, in spite of what it pleased the Fathers of Trent to say.

1. In his Epistle (Ch. 5:14-15) James did not intend to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ but only commend a pious custom. If in this custom he happens to distinguish a means of grace, it is not in that rigorous manner in which it was taken by the theologians who laid down the notion and number of the Sacraments.

1. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.

1. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.

1. It is impossible that Matrimony could have become a Sacrament of the new law until later in the Church since it was necessary that a full theological explication of the doctrine of grace and the Sacraments should first take place before Matrimony should be held as a Sacrament.

1. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately.

1. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.

1. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.

1. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.

1. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions.

1. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.

1. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

1. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

1. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal.

1. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian.

1. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

1. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.

1. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

1. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

The following Thursday, the fourth day of the same month and year, all these matters were accurately reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.

PETER PALOMBELLI, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition

 

[nbjayme]

As far as whether one can have salvation outside of the Catholic church or not I will leave that to God.

The DOGMA of the Catholic Church comes from God or the church?

Sorry but I am in no place to judge the salvation of others. I firmly believe that** within the Catholic Church you have the fullness of God love and truth** therefore you chance of finding salvation are greatly increased as there is less chance of for incorrect teaching being given to you.

The Church already made judgment as regards to those that are ‘OUTSIDE’.

Even within the Church men of pride teach heresy.

And how may people to do think you attract to the truth when you do care how they take it. When you are rude in response to their questions. And is it concern for the True teaching of the Church or is it what you perceive as true church teaching?

There you question again… are you to bring up again the extensive coverage of the DOGMA — OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION?

No niceness can ever make one convince.
It’s your own business of how you take the truth.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4165496&postcount=319

Was St. John the Baptist being rude against the scribes and pharisees?

Does this Magazine have a website that we may link to? Do they speak for the Church? I know that it is highly unlikely that you are in error in any thing that hold to be true teaching of the church, but could it be that these were opinion articles of the person that wrote them? Could It not be that just as some politician make mistaken statements on Church teaching that the person that wrote the article was in error on their understanding of church teaching. As I spent some time looking at different websites found noting saying or imply that the Catholic Church in anyway support or condones this phillipino sect that you gave in your post. For one thing they are a very anti Catholic group.

Well you can settle that here : KnowYourFaith01 at Yahoo dot com

The magazine is written by Priests and Brothers who are considered in good “Catholic” standing in relation to the V2 Church.

Galatians 5:9 A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=nbjayme;4175021]The DOGMA of the Catholic Church comes from God or the church?

My understanding it the I is the Churches statements on truths reveled from God

The Church already made judgment as regards to those that are ‘OUTSIDE’.

But is it not the Church that can set to boundaries on just what is outside or what is meant by outside?

Even within the Church men of pride teach heresy.

Yes I think we can see that, within the clergy and Layity

There you question again… are you to bring up again the extensive coverage of the DOGMA — OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION?

No niceness can ever make one convince.
It’s your own business of how you take the truth.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4165496&postcount=319

And I will continue to question when a person is being rude. You are correct it is my business how I take the truth. but If your the one giving the Truth it is your responsibility to do so in a manner that is reflective of our lord Jesus Christ and not some arrogant cretin trying cram the truth down people throats.

Was St. John the Baptist being rude against the scribes and pharisees?

No but i would bet that he did not respond to question in a rude manner.

Well you can settle that here : KnowYourFaith01 at Yahoo dot com

The magazine is written by Priests and Brothers who are considered in good “Catholic” standing in relation to the V2 Church.

So you say, but that web address goes nowhere.

Galatians 5:9 A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.

I am beginning to think you need to stay away the yeast.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

LAMENTABILI SANE (continued)

Pius X July 3, 1907

thank you again I do see that there are those in the Church that are try to promote some if not all of those listed. And yes they need to be spoken out against.

 

[SFD]

oneGODoneCHURCH:

And I will continue to question when a person is being rude. You are correct it is my business how I take the truth. but If your the one giving the Truth it is your responsibility to do so in a manner that is reflective of our lord Jesus Christ and not some arrogant cretin trying cram the truth down people throats.

That’s only a matter of style and effectiveness. I argee to some extent. What about the substance of the Dogma and the errors concerning that Dogma?

Are these most important questions just swept away the the dismissal of the messenger?

SFD

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

That’s only a matter of style and effectiveness. I argee to some extent. What about the substance of the Dogma and the errors concerning that Dogma?

Are these most important questions just swept away the the dismissal of the messenger?

SFD

No they should not be swept away because of the limited ability of the messenger. However it does cause a person to tune out if the messenger is a rude bore.

the other poster on here that I was addressing as rude really seem to be hung up on salvation out side the Church. I believe that the Holy Father recently address this issue. the point that I was trying to convey was I can not hold the whole church in error because of what a Priest say or a Bishop. even two or three we need to correct them in a firm but courteous manner.

The church has been in this battle for 2000 years as there are and always have been those within the church that have fallen into heresy, but the Church continued and did not fall itself.

What we have with the SSPX is not a group founded to fight heresy but that are Fighting the Change in disciplines. Have modernist heresy entered into the church? I would say that just as throughout history yes. Will the church overcome it? Yes

 

[nbjayme]

No they should not be swept away because of the limited ability of the messenger. However it does cause a person to tune out if the messenger is a rude bore.

Matthew 3:7 And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come?

the other poster on here that I was addressing as rude really seem to be hung up on salvation out side the Church. I believe that the Holy Father recently address this issue.

Hangup… or was it addressing the heresy propagated by the Society of St. Paul?

You sure don’t tire of character assasination do you?

the point that I was trying to convey was I can not hold the whole church in error because of what a Priest say or a Bishop. even two or three we need to correct them in a firm but courteous manner.

What church? The Holy Roman Catholic Church? is okay. The church with heresies? not okay.

The church has been in this battle for 2000 years as there are and always have been those within the church that have fallen into heresy, but the Church continued and did not fall itself.

What we have with the SSPX is not a group founded to fight heresy but that are Fighting the Change in disciplines. Have modernist heresy entered into the church? I would say that just as throughout history yes. Will the church overcome it? Yes

God use men in the battle. St. Athanasius being one of the known fighter against heresies.

SSPX fighting against disciplines??? There you go again. That is why we go round and about this issue… you don’t learn. No amount of niceness can ever make you see the Truth. So a direct answer would be effective. SSPX is not only fighting against the novelty in disciplines but also against the novelty teachings that is rampant in the church today.

 

[nbjayme]

My understanding it the I is the Churches statements on truths reveled from God

And, therefore it comes from God.

But is it not the Church that can set to boundaries on just what is outside or what is meant by outside?

The Church did already set the boundaries. Read V1 teachings.
Moreover the ‘Baltimore’ catechism is also clear on that regard.

And I will continue to question when a person is being rude. You are correct it is my business how I take the truth. but If your the one giving the Truth it is your responsibility to do so in a manner that is reflective of our lord Jesus Christ and not some arrogant cretin trying cram the truth down people throats.
…
No but i would bet that he did not respond to question in a rude manner.

Are you to concentrate on the Teachings or your feelings…?..
Which one is really important to you?
There has been already an extensive post regarding the above DOGMA… and going circular on the issue will both waste our time.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4165496&postcount=319

So you say, but that web address goes nowhere.
I am beginning to think you need to stay away the yeast.

Did you even tried to email? I posted the email address.

I won’t post the priest’s name out of respect and charity.

Feel like you’re grinding from behind the keyboard waiting for a chance to do some accusations against me. No wonder even as simple as web email you try to blame it on me.

Character assasination is one lowest form in a debate and it does not answer the real issues at hand.

(I know the webmail works because he replied to my sending of the link to this forum.)

 

[SFD]

No they should not be swept away because of the limited ability of the messenger. However it does cause a person to tune out if the messenger is a rude bore.

We agree here.

the other poster on here that I was addressing as rude really seem to be hung up on salvation out side the Church.

I don’t know what you mean here. It is a Dogma of the Church that no one is saved outside the Church. The Church is the Ark of Salvation.

I believe that the Holy Father recently address this issue.

Be specific. I am not familiar with what you are saying.

The church has been in this battle for 2000 years as there are and always have been those within the church that have fallen into heresy, but the Church continued and did not fall itself.

The question is who has fallen.

What we have with the SSPX is not a group founded to fight heresy but that are Fighting the Change in disciplines.

The facts say otherwise. The problems are doctrinal and have always been. The very words of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. de Castro Mayer speak to this.

the point that I was trying to convey was I can not hold the whole church in error because of what a Priest say or a Bishop. even two or three we need to correct them in a firm but courteous manner. …] Have modernist heresy entered into the church? I would say that just as throughout history yes.

The priest Arius (founder of Arianism) did not retain his legitimacy and jurisdiction and office until the official condemnation in 381. But the local faithful could not juridically and hierarchically enforce it, or declare it with universal juridical validity. That does not mean that until such declaration all acts are still valid etc. or that one could not hold in personal or even publicly revealed conscience that this or that prelate, bishop, archbishop, patriarch or Pope in fact prior to his elevation, election, ordination, appointment, or after it, defected (publicly) from the Catholic faith (assuming formal heresy of course, but no educated prelate would easily take over a “material” heresy).

I really cannot understand why some people and trads really think that a parish priest who publicly denied the divinity of Christ still has ordinary jurisdiction. We cannot enforce a juridical decision or make a formal declaration being simple laymen, though the local congregation should actually cast him out. Only a parish priest who “only” revealed his heresy to e.g. 5 friends in a closed room, and this information being secret, would retain his office, as I presume, as the congregation is not aware of the heresy - in this case the defection would be “occulta” (hidden) still and not yet (“publice”) “publicly” made. Hidden heretics are not deprived of ecclesiastical offices of course.

Will the church overcome it? Yes

Of course She will.

SFD

 

[Auntie_M]

Famous? Never heard of him. Report it to the SSPX priests and bishop so they will take proper action.

This man IS an SSPX priest and in close contact with their Bishop

So just WHO do you report THEIR abuses to?

“You will know them by their fruits”

 

[nbjayme]

This man IS an SSPX priest and in close contact with their Bishop
So just WHO do you report THEIR abuses to?
“You will know them by their fruits”

Fruits for the Faith or Heresy? Please be specific.

Speaking to expose heresy / wrong actions / wrong teachings is a duty of every Catholic.

For sure St. Athanasius wasn’t bragging when he said they had the True Church. He knew because they continued with the Faith of the Church.

As far as bad fruit (heresy) goes… just review your post…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

SFD;4176449]We agree here.

I don’t know what you mean here. It is a Dogma of the Church that no one is saved outside the Church. The Church is the Ark of Salvation.

Be specific. I am not familiar with what you are saying.

from this website: msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church

.
another poster on this thread is making the statement that the Church does not hold this view any longer. I was saying that I believe the Holy father Pope Benedict had recently addressed this issue I should have Provide the source before . but here it is now as we can read this is still and always has been the Church stance.

The question is who has fallen.

That is what I was asking for the names and example of the heresies

The facts say otherwise. The problems are doctrinal and have always been. The very words of Archbishop Lefebvre and Bp. de Castro Mayer speak to this.

If I am wrong I will stand corrected but other than the new mass and liturgical calender which are changes in discipline I have no idea what else has Changed that would be dogmatic.

The priest Arius (founder of Arianism) did not retain his legitimacy and jurisdiction and office until the official condemnation in 381. But the local faithful could not juridically and hierarchically enforce it, or declare it with universal juridical validity. That does not mean that until such declaration all acts are still valid etc. or that one could not hold in personal or even publicly revealed conscience that this or that prelate, bishop, archbishop, patriarch or Pope in fact prior to his elevation, election, ordination, appointment, or after it, defected (publicly) from the Catholic faith (assuming formal heresy of course, but no educated prelate would easily take over a “material” heresy).

I really cannot understand why some people and trads really think that a parish priest who publicly denied the divinity of Christ still has ordinary jurisdiction. We cannot enforce a juridical decision or make a formal declaration being simple laymen, though the local congregation should actually cast him out. Only a parish priest who “only” revealed his heresy to e.g. 5 friends in a closed room, and this information being secret, would retain his office, as I presume, as the congregation is not aware of the heresy - in this case the defection would be “occulta” (hidden) still and not yet (“publice”) “publicly” made. Hidden heretics are not deprived of ecclesiastical offices of course.

I agree that if a bishop or Priest openly declares belief in a doctrine of heresy then they need to be removed and defrocked. But agian I would ask for the name and the heresy.

Of course She will.
SFD

Amen

 

[nbjayme]

If I am wrong I will stand corrected but other than the new mass and liturgical calender which are changes in discipline I have no idea what else has Changed that would be dogmatic.

May I know of a V2 Dogmatic declaration that allows one to pray with heretics / pagans? Even to the point of allowing them to use the premises of the church. Is this allowable in light of the Teaching of the Church? Can you please expound this to us…? What was V1 teaching on this? V2’s teaching? What Dogma was it based to make such action “licit”?

What dogma was the prayer based on?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4161680&postcount=287

 

[ProVobis]

A Good Catholic fights for the Faith.

We could all be BETTER Catholics.

 

[ProVobis]

Heresy can also be not following the pope, the magisterium and the teaching of the Church and thinking you know better than the pope or magisterium. And then to make it worse, to accuse those who do so of heresy because they do not follow you.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Can this be applied to a Pope too? One who knows better than a previous Pope who wrote Quo Primum?

 

[Auntie_M]

Fruits for the Faith or Heresy? Please be specific.

Speaking to expose heresy / wrong actions / wrong teachings is a duty of every Catholic.

For sure St. Athanasius wasn’t bragging when he said they had the True Church. He knew because they continued with the Faith of the Church.

As far as bad fruit (heresy) goes… just review your post…

The ones I am referring to “know them by their fruits” .

The ones that bash the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Father. Even when there were “not so good Popes” in the history of the church, it was still our responsibility to honor our Church and the Holy Father. That, my friend is being obedient, just as Pius X taught.

Heresy comes in alot of forms, like separating yourself from that true church when you “believe” something is wrong (just as the SSPX did).

Openly attacking others who don’t “see” things the way you do.

Also, those who resort to name calling, judging (as heretics), and openly defending someone who has gone against our church.

Trying to “show” others you know more than they do, is not really heresy, that is just arrogance. Did Jesus show arrogance when dealing with the “woman at the well”, or did He show her love and acceptance.

Are we to follow Lefebvre, the SSPX and copy their ways. …

Or are we to be Christ-like …

I’ll expect a response from nbjayme since you seem to be sooo knowledgable, I’m sure you can tell us WHO we should follow…