P
piouswoman
Guest
“What is (an element of) Truth?”
Please provide the link from Youtube. In the meantime you can read this:
sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-11.htm
- Status
Please provide the link from Youtube. In the meantime you can read this:
sspxasia.com/Documents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-11.htm
D
Dauphin
Guest
For example: if a false religion proposes that God exists, this is good. Although one cannot be saved through a false religion, we can recognize those truths to which they assent and use these as a “hook” to bring about a conversion. There is nothing at all modernist about this approach.
Here’s Bishop Fellay discussing the subject:
youtube.com/watch?v=3wJU-O1-QkI&feature=related
He uses the “plane” analogy to affirm that truth exists in false religions, but that they cannot save.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is a very convenient distortion of canon law.
It’s very interesting how the SSPX has to defend that a suspended priest can have jurisdiction so that they can say that they have jurisdiction to hear confessions and give abosolution.
They say that even a suspended priest can hear a confession and give absolution if there is a serious need on the part of the faithful. Which is true.
However, they forgot why some priests have been suspended, such as child sexual abuse. That’s a club to which I would not want to belong.
Also, they argue that they have extraordinary jurisdiction to hear confesions and forgive sins if the need of the faithful is serious. Well, no one has ever denied that. But how can the need be serious, when you have thousands of priests who are in union with the local bishop, their religious superiors and the Holy Father. Do the SSPX live on a deserted island?
They also justify performing a wedding if the local parish does not use the Tridentine form and the couple wants it. There is only one problem, who repersents the SSPX before the Sate. For a priest to perform a wedding, he must have a license from the state or in places where the state does not grant such licenses to religious ministers, the couple must have two weddings, a religous and a civil one.
The Church law says very clearly that priests must comply with civil law when performing weddings so as not to place the couple in a pecarious legal situation. To do so is not justifiable when there are thousands of priests and deacons who can perform weddings with license from the state and the church.
Again, the only justification that the SSPX gives to support the invalid absolutions is that we’re in a state of emergency. There is no emergency, if you have a priest who can forgive your sins on the next block.
It’s a contrived emergency.
JR
S
St_Aloysius
Guest
“We must accept the truth from whatever source it comes.” (Maimonides)
There are shards of truth and light and beauty found even in the most unlikely of places–and where these things are, there must God also be.
As Christians, we should be inspired by the noble and beautiful and praiseworthy apsects of various world religions: moved by the Jew’s reverence and piety; the Muslim’s devout prayer life; the Buddhist’s striving for unity and love and nonviolence.
How soon we forget that the language used to articulate our faith in the Mystery of the Holy and Blessed Trinity was borrowed from the mouths of heathen philosophers. How quickly we overlook our debt.
U
una_ecclesia
Guest
Amen!!!
J
JReducation
Guest
You are very right and I support what you are saying.
PW, really, you must be careful with what you’re reading coming out of SSPX. I truly believe that they are good people. I’m not judging their soul or their intention.
But they are overreacting and making a situation worse, instead of solving a problem. The link on jurisdiction was an apologia for absolving sins. It was not an attempt to remain faithful to the Church.
It was really a use of Church law turned in their favour and the only claim that they have is that thye have declared a state of emergency. But this is a state of emergency that Lefebvre declared, not the Church. Fefebvre is one man.
You also have to see the other side, the holiness that exists within the mainstream Church, even in the person of the Pope.
You also have to look for a way of unity with the mainstream Church not a continuation of the debate.
SSPX is not going to win this debate as long as they keep using Church law to their convenience and in a way that it was not meant to be used.
If you want to know how it was meant to be used, I suggest that you get the commentary from the Canon Law Society. They are the only recognized commentators on Canon Law.
JR
P
piouswoman
Guest
No it isn’t.It’s a contrived emergency.
JR
P
piouswoman
Guest
You are both so awash in the modernist errors that it demonstrates to me just how serious the situation in the Church has become. Frightening really the damage that has been done in the short span of forty-plus years. Most Catholics haven’t a clue.You are very right and I support what you are saying.
PW, really, you must be careful with what you’re reading coming out of SSPX. I truly believe that they are good people. I’m not judging their soul or their intention.
But they are overreacting and making a situation worse, instead of solving a problem. The link on jurisdiction was an apologia for absolving sins. It was not an attempt to remain faithful to the Church.
It was really a use of Church law turned in their favour and the only claim that they have is that thye have declared a state of emergency. But this is a state of emergency that Lefebvre declared, not the Church. Fefebvre is one man.
You also have to see the other side, the holiness that exists within the mainstream Church, even in the person of the Pope.
You also have to look for a way of unity with the mainstream Church not a continuation of the debate.
SSPX is not going to win this debate as long as they keep using Church law to their convenience and in a way that it was not meant to be used.
If you want to know how it was meant to be used, I suggest that you get the commentary from the Canon Law Society. They are the only recognized commentators on Canon Law.
JR
P
piouswoman
Guest
L
Leeta
Guest
Amen to the Pope! And what a Pope he is! His Latin is so clear and beautiful. He is so precise and thorough, something which is particularly needed now in the Church.
He has not taken anything away, instead he has done so much to bolster tradition!
A friend was a Tridentine Holy Mass which Cardinal Ratzinger celebrated in 1999 or 1998 in Germany. She reported that he was so joyful and happy as he processed by her not a foot away from her!
He has not taken anything away, instead he has done so much to bolster tradition!
A friend was a Tridentine Holy Mass which Cardinal Ratzinger celebrated in 1999 or 1998 in Germany. She reported that he was so joyful and happy as he processed by her not a foot away from her!
G
Grace_Angel
Guest
I would have asked the same question. There is a sense of awful in that comment.
GraceAngel
J
JReducation
Guest
There are many things that we have to give him credit for.
- John Paul II was a tough act to follow. Benedict is creating his own style. This is very good. I think that the two of them back to back have made a great conribution to the papacy and to the Church. John Paul II was the mystical pope and Benedict is the rational pope. We need both. But it’s hard to find leadership that can give you both simultaneously. In my mind they compliment each other.
- Benedict is a scholar. John Paul II was a good theologian, but he as more of a parish priest and it showed in his ministry. Benedict has always been a professor and it shows. He’s a teacher and a very good and precise teacher. I think that John Paul attracted many young people and even older people through his simple warmth. Now it’s Benedict’s turn to educate and form those whom John Paul left him to shepherd. He’s doing just that. He’s doing a wonderful job at it.
- Benedict cannot be pigeon holed. Those who try to say that he is either a lieberal or a conservative are wrong on both counts. He is a Catholic, as he said himself. He is a staunch supporter of Vatican II and its proper implementation. The key here is “proper implementation.” He’s going to teach Catholics how it was meant to be implemented. I do not believe that he is going to take back a single thing from Vatican II. He’s going to clarify and implement. This is good. Especially after almost half a century since Vatican II, he has had enough experience and been around enough popes and great minds to look back and say this was good and this was not understood at all, let’s reword it so that it can be correctly implemented. Hindsight is always 20/20 and he has the benefit of that hindsight. He was there when the Council was in progress and he has been around during this half a century to see what was properly understood and what was not. The best thing is that he is not going to be forced or presured into any position.
- My final thought is that he is also a very prayerful man. There is a benefit to age. At his age, people are not as impulsive. They reflect and think abou things before they do them. He is going to give everything prayerful consideration.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
This is an unffair treatment of another person. Whether we agree with that person or not, we have no right to be offensive.
Also, let us remember that Archbishop Lefebvre was an archbishop of the Catholic Church and dserved all the respect that goes with that office.
It is true that he was excommunicated, but he was still a successor of the apstles. That was never taken away from him.
Like St. Francis of Assisi said, “Even if a priest is the most sinful of men, if I should meet such a priest and an angel, I would kiss the hands of the priest before the angel’s. Because only through the priest do I see anything our our physical Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
There is a difference between following rules and practicing charity. The rules say that SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre are not in union with Rome. However, virtue says that we must exercise charity and respect toward all.
JR
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
We need to keep this excellent post in the back of our minds, because eventually, the SSPX, along with other organizations, might be be spearheading a renewal one day.This is an unffair treatment of another person. Whether we agree with that person or not, we have no right to be offensive.
Also, let us remember that Archbishop Lefebvre was an archbishop of the Catholic Church and dserved all the respect that goes with that office.
It is true that he was excommunicated, but he was still a successor of the apstles. That was never taken away from him.
Like St. Francis of Assisi said, “Even if a priest is the most sinful of men, if I should meet such a priest and an angel, I would kiss the hands of the priest before the angel’s. Because only through the priest do I see anything our our physical Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
There is a difference between following rules and practicing charity. The rules say that SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre are not in union with Rome. However, virtue says that we must exercise charity and respect toward all.
JR
The comments about them going the way of the “Old Catholics,” are unfair. There’s no way they will go the insane route of the Old Catholics. The aren’t totally detached from the Barque of Peter. The Old Catholics are more similar to Protestants. It was Papal Infallibility that they protested, and now their theology is insane and irrelevant.
The SSPX will stick to their doctrine. Eventually Benedict or a future Pope will issue an encyclical or two putting Vatican II into its proper perspective, because it’s not what’s said (it’s what’s unsaid) in Vatican II that caused the most confusion. He has to do it bit by bit, though, because he’s so hated by heterodox forces.
We shouldn’t judge Pope Benedict. Unfortunately, he’s probably the most hated man in the Vatican, for ending their little party. Like any leader, he has to move slowly to bring the Church in line with his vision (whatever that is).
He can’t call out and excommunicate everyone like the Popes of old. He has to do what John Paul II did, i.e. slowly appoint orthodox bishops who share his vision, issue encyclicals, motu proprios (like SP) etc. Eventually, the SSPX will find common ground and come back. When that happens, they’ll team up with other groups and we’ll be set for a renewal. Once the SSPX is part of the “mainstream” again, the bitterness on both sides will subside. The FSSP can interpret Vat II in light of tradition. Their interpretations or something similar will probably become codified over time.
Pope Benedict is evidence the Church will weather the modern storm.
Just my thoughts
S
St_Aloysius
Guest
Really, I understand where you are coming from… but nonetheless, St. Paul’s advice for the young Church in no way justifies the simple and plain ignorance permeating this article.
How quickly we forget that the path of Our Lord was one that overlooked, and trampled upon, the religious boundaries of his day. It was he who said, “The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem (symbolizing the religious divisions of the day) will you worship the Father… [but] in spirit and truth.” Though the Samaritans worship what they “do not know,” he affirms them (though they are cut off from the true religion of Judaism) in their intent.
The desire to worship, the need for it, is planted deep within the human heart. For the very same God has fathered us all, and made us in his own “image,” meaning that in each heart and soul is the spark of the divine, and there resides God himself. And so throughout history mankind has endeavored in variegated ways to celebrate this Mystery, to revere the God within. They have seen him in the stars and the trees, in men and animals, in bread and wine—and they have revered him, as is fitting, in ways many and beautiful.
Yet the central message has not changed: It affirms the unity of the human, natural, and divine elements, obscuring more and more the distinctions between them (think no farther than the Holy Eucharist!); it celebrates and lauds the virtue of love; encourages man in his ongoing search for truth; whispers of the heavenly current connecting all living things; gives hope through dark nights and frightening change; and speaks of the need for grace from outside of the fragile human ego to take us and transform us.
Christ, as God, is universal, and thus so is his way: that of faith, hope, and love. Christ is mankind perfected, and reveals to us the divine potential of the human race. And yet he is not telling us something new, only clarifying truths known long, long ago.
So we see “the essence of all religions is one; only their approach is different.” (Gandhi)
E
elts1956
Guest
EXCUSE ME??? Please be careful of what you say about “Old Catholics”. To what are you comparing Old Catholics to? Protestants?? You definitely DO NOT speak from experience.
A
awfulthings9
Guest
Maybe I’m jumping in out of context here, but you do realize that “Old Catholics” does not refer to elderly Catholics or Catholics from another era or pre-Vatican II or anything like that. It refers to an actual group (mostly German speaking) that broke off from the Catholic Church in the 1870s. Here is a Wiki article about them.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
I mean the specific denomination, “Old Catholic Church,” that broke from the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican I. They broke because they couldn’t accept Papal Infallibility. They claimed it was an “innovation.” If I’m not mistaken, I believe one of their priests recently ordained Sinead O’Connor. I was trying to point out that I don’t think the SSPX will go the way of those guys.
I would never intentionally insult you or anyone else. Every offence I’ve committed has been accidental.
E
elts1956
Guest
Wow. I learn something new every day. So they were called "Old Catholics:? Thanks.
E
elts1956
Guest
Hi Mallory. My abject apologies. I was “funning” you a bit as my Gma. used to say. I keep forgetting my humour sometimes does not translate well into writing, or for that matter, usually not face to face either. But then I truly didn’t know “Old Catholics” was actually a break away sect of German Catholics. I’m older than dirt, but I don’t know everything. Again, my apologies.
- Status