The SSPX and protestants

[GerardP]

The same statement could just as easily be applied to your beloved Lefebvre…

LeFebvre obeyed his vows and his anti-modernist oath. He obeyd God. He never commanded anyone to do anything. He responded to the pleas of the faithful for help. Help that the Popes refused to provide.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

LeFebvre obeyed his vows and his anti-modernist oath. He obeyd God. He never commanded anyone to do anything. He responded to the pleas of the faithful for help. Help that the Popes refused to provide.

I sure am glad we did not lose WWII. Otherwise we would have a complete different view of world history.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[GerardP]

**
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
**
That was the act of disobedience. mercy. You amaze me.
Sincere prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I’m talking about the strict legal sense. Compared to Fr. Feeney who was also wrongly excommunicated, the charge against him was formal disobedience. (Though when you read about the case against him, the facts show a different story.)

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I’m talking about the strict legal sense. )

Legalese does not change the fact. He was blatantly disobedient, He usurped a function that belongs uniquely to the Holy Father. Thus he was excommunicated. Anything else said is to try and distract from this one act of pride.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[scylla]

Please explain this situation a little more thoroughly. I have found that SSPX calls themselves Catholic in union with Rome, when in fact, they are not. Is this an SSPX or is it in full union with Rome and follows the true magisterium. What do you mean by “independent chapel”?

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

This is just a chapel set up by a family which does not pay money to the diocese. Retired Priests serve it and the Bishop or anyone from the Diocese wont visit it. Yet they teach more faithful Catholicism than my parish. I help out and go to Mass at my Parish but I am torn as the ones who are obedient are not in the diocese and the ones who are in the diocese are not obedient.
It is not SSPX and are independant.

My parish is run by a pastoral coordinator who misrepresents the faith, yet she is appointed by the Bishop, who allows blatant misrepresentation of the faith throughout the Diocese.

My problem is I see that those who are recognized as obedient are evidently not obedient and sometimes it seems those like the SSPX are more obedient to the Church than our local parishes\dioceses.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I personally would shy away from “Independent” churches, and would follow those recognized by the diocese/archdiocese. You say “retired” priests go there. Retired from what and where. I still don’t know enough to give an intelligent answer, but from what little you said, I am hesitant to endorse it. What family set up the “private chapel”. Under what circumstances. Who approved it. Has it ever been approved by the diocese. That would be my biggest measure at this time.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Timothysis]

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

This is just a chapel set up by a family which does not pay money to the diocese. Retired Priests serve it and the Bishop or anyone from the Diocese wont visit it. Yet they teach more faithful Catholicism than my parish. I help out and go to Mass at my Parish but I am torn as the ones who are obedient are not in the diocese and the ones who are in the diocese are not obedient.
It is not SSPX and are independant.

My parish is run by a pastoral coordinator who misrepresents the faith, yet she is appointed by the Bishop, who allows blatant misrepresentation of the faith throughout the Diocese.

My problem is I see that those who are recognized as obedient are evidently not obedient and sometimes it seems those like the SSPX are more obedient to the Church than our local parishes\dioceses.

In Christ
Scylla

You do realize that priests, retired or not, cannot just show up somewhere and celebrate Mass, don’t you? They must get their faculties from the local bishop. Their Masses may very well be valid (barring any impediments) but their confessions and marriages would generally be held invalid, though the Church does make allowances for those who do not know or understand the situation. A chapel set up by a family with no ties to the local diocese would certainly make me apprehensive.

 

[GerardP]

Legalese does not change the fact. He was blatantly disobedient, He usurped a function that belongs uniquely to the Holy Father. Thus he was excommunicated. Anything else said is to try and distract from this one act of pride.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The fact is that there was no excommunication. The function of consecrating bishops is not one uniquely belonging to the Holy Father. It is a legal structure. The Eastern rites do not need a papal mandate for their episcopal consecrations. Cardinal Husar was consecrated in Castel Gandolfo without a papal mandate and a lot of the Latin rite bishops were bent out of shape by it.

The act of pride was on the part of the Holy Father, by first, not addressing the crisis in the Church and two, not supporting LeFebvre in his efforts.

The Church was and still is in a brutal crisis especially among the clergy. LeFebvre did what was necessary. God give Benedict XVI the grace and insight to come to the inevitable conclusion that LeFebvre was right. If Jean Guitton eventually admitted it, the Holy Father can’t be too far behind.

 

[Timothysis]

The fact is that there was no excommunication. The function of consecrating bishops is not one uniquely belonging to the Holy Father. It is a legal structure. The Eastern rites do not need a papal mandate for their episcopal consecrations. Cardinal Husar was consecrated in Castel Gandolfo without a papal mandate and a lot of the Latin rite bishops were bent out of shape by it.

The act of pride was on the part of the Holy Father, by first, not addressing the crisis in the Church and two, not supporting LeFebvre in his efforts.

The Church was and still is in a brutal crisis especially among the clergy. LeFebvre did what was necessary. God give Benedict XVI the grace and insight to come to the inevitable conclusion that LeFebvre was right. If Jean Guitton eventually admitted it, the Holy Father can’t be too far behind.

This post alone shows just how full of it you are. Do you really believe the tripe you through out or are you just trying to be argumentative? My guess goes to the latter.

 

[Binx]

In a nutshell, according to Binx and Gerard P. Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors are the successors of Peter, but everything that comes out of their mouths and everything they do is garbage.

False.

Therefore, the succession has no meaning.

False conclusion.

It is convenient to claim that you believe in the succession, so as to avoid being called heretics. This way you can hold to your claim that you are Catholic, while you publically insult Peter.

Could you show me please an instance in which I have delivered any kind of an insult to Peter?

I don’t know where you stand on the issue of holiness,

I am in favor of it.

but the tradition of the Church has been that the great saints were also the most humble men and women in Christian history. I can’t imagine St. Francis, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Ignatius, Bl. Mother Teresa or Bl. John XXIII speaking about the Pope in this manner,

In what manner?

In fact, these holy men and women often had to submit to the will of Peter to remain in communion with the Church, even when they had mystical experiences where Christ directed them to do something different.

By all means, let us look closely at any particular examples, with all of the attendant context, that you care to provide.

Instead of referring to the Pope and everything he said as garbage, they obeyed because Christ obeyed unto death.

Whom did Christ obey? Peter?

But they never proceeded on their own premise of being right and the Church wrong. They refused to proceed, even when they believed that the hierarchy was mistaken, because they had promised obedience to God and to the Church and they were not willing to place themselves outside of that promise or to violate this sacred bond with Christ’s Church and most of all with Peter, no matter how wrong he was.

If one truly believes Peter to be wrong (in the moral sense), it is quite certainly a sin to voluntarily follow him in that particular matter.

Yet Francis submitted to Honorius, even when Honorius was wrong. Francis knew that he was wrong. But he also knew that he was Peter’s successor and that he must be obeyed, because despite Honorius sinfullness, he had the keys and the power to bind and unbind.

Do not confuse power with wisdom or good will. If Peter’s successor asks a thing that is perceived in and of itself to be sinful or to lead to sin, then we must in good conscience avoid it even as we pray for a holy resolution to the predicament.

This is true fidelity to Christ and a true demonstration of one’s desire to do God’s will, to submit to him who holds the keys and who has the power to bind and unbind.

Yes, of course, but only insofar as what he asks is in accordance with the Faith, or at least is not in opposition to it.

Instead, what you are doing is simply invoking belief in the papacy, but trashing it’s every move, decision, statement and wish.

False.

 

[GerardP]

This post alone shows just how full of it you are. Do you really believe the tripe you through out or are you just trying to be argumentative? My guess goes to the latter.

Considering that you are not willing to engage in serious discussion on the matter, I hardly think you are in a position to say anyone is “full of it.”

So far, the only thing that can be determined is that people are emotionally offended that the recent Popes are not being worshipped as perfect by all.

There hasn’t been the meagerest defense of the Popes on the facts. Just a lot of umbrage about people accurately framing the situation.

Now, if you want to present a detailed analysis of all the quashing of liberal errors done by JPII you are welcome to present the case.

That way, we can all assess whether or not he enabled and coddled liberals and how that corresponded to his treatment and defense of traditionalist catholics and tradition in general.

 

[JReducation]

Mother Teresa and John XXIII had their own problems with Orthodoxy.

You do realize that Bl. Mother Teresa and Bl. John XXIII have been beatified by an infallible decree of he Pope?

You also realize that there is undeniablel proof that through their intercessions miracles have happened?

You also realize that their lives and writing have been scrutinized by experts in many fields: Mystical Theology, Philosophy, Psychology, Psychiatry, Literature and other ecclesiastical and secular disciplines and have been found wanting for nothing that would impair their canonization. The only thing missing is one more miracle.

Pope Benedict can dispense with that requirement if he so wishes.

If you believe in the authority of the Pope, then surely you must believe in his decree of Beatification and also the canonizations that he decreed. Canonizations are infallible decrees.

Let’s see

1. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton was canonized by Paul VI and one miracle was dispensed with.
2. St. Teresa of the Andes was canonized by John Paul II.
3. St. Alberto Hurtado was canonized by Benedict XVI
4. St. Pio Pietrelcina was canonized by John Paul II
5. Bl. Pier Giorgio Frasati was beatified by John Paul II

With the exception of Teresa of the Andes all the rest were suspect of being tied to the Mafia, Communists, and even the Tories of the American Revolution. People made all kinds of accusations.

But as you can see accusations are easy to make. Miracles are not and these folks all interceded and God worked miracles through their intercession, by infallible decree of the Church.

Or are you going to say now that Archbishop Lefebvre would not venerate these saints and blesseds because he knew better?

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Considering that you are not willing to engage in serious discussion on the matter, I hardly think you are in a position to say anyone is “full of it.”

I certainly are not saying you are full of it. In fact it is quite the opposite. You are lacking so much in objectivity that you cannot see the truth before you. I pray for you.

So far, the only thing that can be determined is that people are emotionally offended that the recent Popes are not being worshipped as perfect by all.

Gee, I did not know that any of us worshiped them. If that is your path, again, I pray for you.

There hasn’t been the meagerest defense of the Popes on the facts. Just a lot of umbrage about people accurately framing the situation.

I know we framed it accurately. But because you do not see it, I pray for you.

Now, if you want to present a detailed analysis of all the quashing of liberal errors done by JPII you are welcome to present the case.

The errors that he quashed was that of a misguided French arch bishop who thought he and he alone comprised the Magisterium. Kind of like another Martin Luther. Again, I pray for you

That way, we can all assess whether or not he enabled and coddled liberals and how that corresponded to his treatment and defense of traditionalist catholics and tradition in general.

He, Pope John Paul II, did not coddle the errant one. He warned him through Christian charity but to no avail. Pride, which goes before the fall prevailed and the informed consequences took place. Again, I pray for him and his followers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Timothysis]

Considering that you are not willing to engage in serious discussion on the matter, I hardly think you are in a position to say anyone is “full of it.”

Serious discussion? OK, how about this one:

The fact is that there was no excommunication.

I quote:

"With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,…:

“This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church…”

" In itself, **this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff **in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated… Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act."

“Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.”

Excerpts from APOSTOLIC LETTER
“ECCLESIA DEI”
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO

Now, if the Supreme Pontiff of the Apostalic Catholic Church cannot excommunicate someone according to the laws of the Church, then how can we even assume that any priest - including sspx priests - can consecrate the Eucharist? Because, according to you, NOTHING seems to be written in stone. If you deny that the Pontiff’s excommunication of the sspx leaders is null and invalid, then you cause the entire papacy of the Church to come crashing down.

Let’s see you dig your way out of this one.

 

[Binx]

I could not bring myself to go to a group that is in schism with the Church

Are you referring here to the Society of St. Pius X?

I do not know of any region in the U.S. where there is only SSPX available. Where are you referring to?

What PrayforMallory was referring to are the places where it is difficult to find authentic Catholic instruction and/or sacraments within the regular diocesan system. Surely you do not doubt there are such places?

I know of no bishop who is in favor of gay marriage. or that they should be treated as a minority. Am I missing something ?

Perhaps. Are you aware of the USCCB document, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination,” adopted by the College of Bishops in November, 2006? According to the March 2007 issue of New Oxford Review, “The document justifies such ministries on the basis that homosexuals are a persecuted class” (23). Randy Engle’s article goes on to describe the implicit pro-gay agenda of the document’s architects, bishops included.

 

[Timothysis]

The Church has long maintained that being homosexual is not in itself sinful, but homosexual actions are. There is no contradiction in ministering to people who have a homosexual inclination. Are they a persecuted class? I guess that depends upon your definition, but a homosexual Catholic who practices chastity is in good standing with the Church and there is no problem ministering to them.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Are you referring here to the Society of St. Pius X?[a/quote]

YES

What PrayforMallory was referring to are the places where it is difficult to find authentic Catholic instruction and/or sacraments within the regular diocesan system. Surely you do not doubt there are such places?

 

[Binx]

The Church has long maintained that being homosexual is not in itself sinful, but homosexual actions are. There is no contradiction in ministering to people who have a homosexual inclination. Are they a persecuted class? I guess that depends upon your definition, but a homosexual Catholic who practices chastity is in good standing with the Church and there is no problem ministering to them.

Ed was wondering whether he was missing something when he said that he was not aware of any bishop who thought homosexuals should be treated as a minority. I tried to clarify that for him.

That being said, I am uncomfortable with some of your particular paraphrasing of Church teaching on this issue, but I suspect that would be better discussed on a separate thread. It’s hard enough to keep this one on track…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Ed was wondering whether he was missing something when he said that he was not aware of any bishop who thought homosexuals should be treated as a minority. I tried to clarify that for him.

**
Please, if you are going to quote me, get it correct. ** I was responding to post #55 by PrayforMallory wherein** he asked if I was aware of bishops promoting gay rights and the pro choice agenda. ** My comment was that I was not and I asked for information where that was done, as I certainly was not aware of this. So far no response has been given to that. Yours is the first, and you got it wrong.
Prayers & blessisngs
Deacon Ed B

 

[Binx]

Binx;3979661:

Are you referring here to the Society of St. Pius X?

YES

You are in disagreement, then, with Cardinal Castrillon’s public opinion on this? Does the Holy Father declare the Society to be in schism? Did his predecessor? Aside from John Paul’s claim that the Archbishop himself performed a schismatic act, can you produce a single, formal declaration of schism for the entire Society of St. Pius X?

Why do you claim with such certainty that which Rome does not claim?

Are you saying that the misguided individuals are not to be ministered to. Ministering to and not persecuting them does not mean agreeing with them and the desired goals of those most vocal in that group. these we pray for. I hope you do too.

You expressed not being aware that any bishop thought homosexuals should be treated as minorities. I was making you aware that many bishops (the majority of the USCCB, in fact) seem to hold this view.