Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign

[good7879]

It is really my honor to have this opportunity for a interview,
Cats do not digest plants very well, yet they love to chew on grass and other indoor or outdoor plants. Plants that are harmless to cats may still cause them to vomit. In fact,

your cat may have learned to treat an upset stomach by eating raw greenery. Safe vegetation may include: grass, Catnip, African violet, Forget-me-not, Impatiens, many types of

herbs, and others.

There are also many plants which are harmful or even deadly to cats. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) provides good information on how to

recognize a sick cat and what to do about it in their online article, “Safeguarding Cats from Plants.” Unsafe vegetation includes: Aloe Vera, Amaryllis, apple seeds, many

types of Ivy, Lily of the Valley, Morning Glory, and Mistletoe, to name just a few.

Scram for Cats is an all-natural, organic cat repellent that will not only protect your garden from cats, but it may also protect cats from harmful plants. Scram for Cats is for

outdoor use only. Order your bag of Scram for Cats today and begin enjoying the benefits of helping to protect cats from harmful plants and keeping cats out of your garden.

http://variouspictures.tk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Cat21.jpg
Address:No.6 MOO STREET MR KTAI
NUMBER:+86-15662265874

---

Ads by Google
Coach outlet Find your home’s value instantly. Free service. Get estimates now
Coach Outlet Stores 1) Type In Someone’s Name 2) Find Their Obituary Instantly!
Coach Handbags A Lawyer Will Answer You Now! Discuss Until You’re Satisfied.
cheap coach purses the same as below
Coach Bags

 

[JReducation]

So it was only matter of discipline and not doctrine when the Catholic Church declared that Jews could not be saved?
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Bl. John Paul and now Pope Benedict XVI have both taught that there is dogma in this statement as well as personal opinion of the pope of the time. Salvation comes only through the Catholic Church, hence there is no salvation outside the Church… That’s the dogma.

That those outside the Church cannot be saved, is not a dogma. That’s a position. of the pope who said it.

The explanation given by both Pontiffs is that those who are outside the Church can indeed be saved, because Christ’s desire to save cannot be handcuffed. He saves through those truths that are revealed to the Church and which those people of other faiths share with the Church or have in common with the Church.

In other words, the presence of the Church and the truths of the Church, finds its way into other faith through the power of grace.

This is not an ideal situation. The ideal would be that everyone be part of the Catholic Church where the fullness of truth subsists. However, the Church cannot deny that much Catholic truth is found outside of its boundaries. She cannot deny that Christ can and does use these CATHOLIC truths found in other faiths to save these people.

This does not mean that they need not seek the fullness of truth. Everyone has a duty to seek the fullness of truth. It does mean that God has not abandoned them.

The two Holy Fathers understand that these comments that were added to the dogma were written at a time when there was great conflict with heretics and non Christians. Pope Benedict has made it clear, on several occasions, that there was the concern of Catholics joining these other groups. The Church had to make a firm statement to these Catholics. Today, we tend to read it as if the Church is talking to those outside of her boundaries.

We know that this was not the case. The Church has never assumed to have authority over non-Catholics. In fact, the Church has always maintained that she has no authority to dictate to non-Catholics, she can only invite them to the faith. The Church has never said that she has the authority to dictate to Christ who he can save and how he can save.

What we find in Revelation is that salvation comes through the Church, not that only Catholic will be saved. The statement that all non-Catholics are going to hell is not part of revelation. Therefore, popes have the freedom to restate it or word it differently or even put it aside.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[robert7685]

Here’s a link to an interview with Bishop Fellay after the announcement.

sspx.org/district_news/interview_of_bishop_fellay_after_meeting_with_cardinal_levada_9-14-2011.htm

Of course, I have cautious optimism. You never know what can happen.

 

[Hokomai]

1+1 = 3

 

[robert7685]

1+1 = 3

What is your point? I don’t know what you are saying.

 

[PiousTemplar]

I have not seen that, but then I have never been into rhetorical labeling, whether it be “heretic” or “left wing modernists”.

Sorry, my emotions sometimes get the better of me.

 

[Hokomai]

What is your point? I don’t know what you are saying.

What I meant by 1+1=3 is that not all the SSPX will return to the fold, leaving us with SSPX the first, SSPX the second, and the Catholic Church.

 

[catharina]

Bl. John Paul and now Pope Benedict XVI have both taught that there is dogma in this statement as well as personal opinion of the pope of the time. Salvation comes only through the Catholic Church, hence there is no salvation outside the Church… That’s the dogma.

That those outside the Church cannot be saved, is not a dogma. That’s a position. of the pope who said it.

The explanation given by both Pontiffs is that those who are outside the Church can indeed be saved, because Christ’s desire to save cannot be handcuffed. He saves through those truths that are revealed to the Church and which those people of other faiths share with the Church or have in common with the Church.

In other words, the presence of the Church and the truths of the Church, finds its way into other faith through the power of grace.

This is not an ideal situation. The ideal would be that everyone be part of the Catholic Church where the fullness of truth subsists. However, the Church cannot deny that much Catholic truth is found outside of its boundaries. She cannot deny that Christ can and does use these CATHOLIC truths found in other faiths to save these people.

This does not mean that they need not seek the fullness of truth. Everyone has a duty to seek the fullness of truth. It does mean that God has not abandoned them.

The two Holy Fathers understand that these comments that were added to the dogma were written at a time when there was great conflict with heretics and non Christians. Pope Benedict has made it clear, on several occasions, that there was the concern of Catholics joining these other groups. The Church had to make a firm statement to these Catholics. Today, we tend to read it as if the Church is talking to those outside of her boundaries.

We know that this was not the case. The Church has never assumed to have authority over non-Catholics. In fact, the Church has always maintained that she has no authority to dictate to non-Catholics, she can only invite them to the faith. The Church has never said that she has the authority to dictate to Christ who he can save and how he can save.

What we find in Revelation is that salvation comes through the Church, not that only Catholic will be saved. The statement that all non-Catholics are going to hell is not part of revelation. Therefore, popes have the freedom to restate it or word it differently or even put it aside.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Brother, I thank you so much and am saving your post.
It’s the best explanation that I’ve ever seen regarding this
seeming dichotomy in Church History and teachings.

God bless you in your life and in your work.

 

[Julia_Mae]

There are a few little things here and there. But those seem to be the big issues. I don’t think that any are insurmountable if there is good will, patience, trust, faith, and a structure for dialogue. Nothing will be solved in a mud-slinging contest.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you very much. It seems to me, as an outsider coming in, really, that it was just a case of both too much too fast, and some elements using Vat 2 to introduce heresy, which for some reason wasn’t instantly stomped out of existence by the one who has the authority.

They taught me in RCIA, that the Pope was first among Bishops, but had no authority over other Bishops in how they ran things, as each Bishop was “Pope” of his own… whatever you call what Bishops have. But then, we wanted to be Catholic, we wanted to know what a novena was, we wanted the culture of the Church.

I believe you and the Pope are wrong, BTW, in the not considering how the faithful will react, as if the Pope was the Church, which he is not. Part of moving into the modern world, is understanding the educated and communicating nature of the laity at this point in history. You can see in microcosm how this works by looking at my former parish where we got nightmare priest. People left. And they took their money with them. People stayed. And stopped writing checks.

So we went from being one of the most vital Parishes from which the Archdiocese collected much $, to one the Archdiocese had to bail out, in one year. The Church has found out what happens when no one cares what the faithful think. The faithful decide they have other soul-saving options. History tells us what happens when the power is vested at the top. Those Pharisees Jesus warned about weren’t just in His own time.

The religious need to be very concerned with matters of faith and morals, teaching those. Living them. But actually managing Parishes, needs to be in the hands of the faithful, then Priests can stop wasting time deciding when to replace the carpet and be more involved caring for their flocks.

 

[pnewton]

Brother, I thank you so much and am saving your post.
It’s the best explanation that I’ve ever seen regarding this
seeming dichotomy in Church History and teachings.

What you said. JR worded that well.

Take an extra beer out of petty cash for that one, brother.

 

[tafan]

I believe the main doctinal dispute is over religious liberty. I do think there are some in SSPX who do not recognize the validity of the new mass.
Giving them a Personal Prelature would be interesting indeed. Would they even accept this? There is only one in the Church now: Opus Dei. If my understanding is correct, the head of a Personal Prelature is a Bishop, and the Bishop is appointed by Rome. Unlike religious orders who elect their superior general. This gives Rome quite a bit of control over them.
In the 1980s, fed up with the Jesuits continual liberal leanings, JP II took extraordinaty action of removing their superior general and imposing his own choice. This was, at best, marginally successful and not something a Pope would want to do very often.
But with a Personal Prelature it becomes much easier for the Pope to take control. As the selection of the leader is his responsibility whenever it becomes vacant, and it is not unheard of for a bishop to be removed.
It is my understanding that Opus Dei loves the structure, as it gives them authority over their members, and gives them canonical status without becoming a religious order. And it works really well with Opus Dei, every member effectively has two Bishops, the head of Opus Dei and his local Bishop. Both with different roles of authority. But Opus Dei is quiet and goes about their business without causing problems. They are concerned about the spiritual lives of their members, and thats about it as far as I can tell. And there seems to be very little prideful, my way is the only way attitude in Opus Dei. So I think they have no problem accepting the Pope appointing their Bishop.
Would all of this be the case with SSPX? Is that what they want?

Finally, I did think the whole concept of a Personal Prelature was developed with the idea of lay organizations in mind. Does SSPX want to be a lay organization, with its clergy only their to serve its members, but not the focus of the group?

 

[robert7685]

What I meant by 1+1=3 is that not all the SSPX will return to the fold, leaving us with SSPX the first, SSPX the second, and the Catholic Church.

Thanks for clarifying. I assume you refer to a possible rebellion with Bishop Williamson leading the charge. It’s possible, but I’m not sure if it’ll even be that big of a group that splits off.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I have never heard them called anything but in schism. I would hope that all would agree with me that healing is always good.

Well just for the record I have heard all of the above and more - usually by possibly well-meaning people who would have no hope of defining the words they were using. It is an interesting question why certain individuals and groups have been so hostile to them. But as you say, it is not fruitful to dwell on these things, especailly at the present critical moment.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I think this will be the crux of the issue that will allow them to return or increase the divide. There has been a year of talks to allow the Church to make an informed proposal, defining that which must be accepted and that which can reserved for further discussion.

This cannot but be good for the Church, whichever way the present SSPX/Vatican talks pan out. It was a problem from the very beginning of the council sessions. Mgr Lefebvre (who was, let it be recalled, on the committee of experts assigned to the 2-year preparatory work of the council) wrote that he had suggested there be two sets of documents, one pastoral and in everyday language, as was desired, but a second set in legal, canonical language that could not be misinterpreted. He warned them again and again that they were leaving themselves open to misinterpretation after the closing of the council, but he was always over-ruled. ‘It’s OK,’ he would be told, ‘these are *pastoral *documents’. Yet after the council, the same documents were, we were all told, sacrosanct and could not be argued with. They were treated as normative, doctrinal documents, even though it was specifically stated in the council documents themselves that this was not the case. The joke was that they really can be interpreted in different ways. With the single exception of one phrase in the Document on Religious Freedom, all of the documents can be interpreted in line with the eternal teaching of the Church - but most certainly they have not always been interpreted in that way, even from by Cardinals in the Church. Examples have been given in other threads of this forum. Pope Benedict is trying to swing the pendulum back with his theology of ‘The Hermeneutics of Continuity’. Mgr Lefebvre always did say that he accepted the Council as understood in the light of Tradition. Hopefully these talks will go a long way to elucidating this delicate, emotionally-charged, but essential issue.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Thanks for clarifying. I assume you refer to a possible rebellion with Bishop Williamson leading the charge. It’s possible, but I’m not sure if it’ll even be that big of a group that splits off.

Just to remind you that, in Church Law, the SSPX are inside the Church, but have no Canonical position - no canonical mandate. But they are inside the Church in an anomalous position, not outside of it.

 

[robert7685]

Just to remind you that, in Church Law, the SSPX are inside the Church, but have no Canonical position - no canonical mandate. But they are inside the Church in an anomalous position, not outside of it.

I agree with you. I just chose not to harp on that right off the bat.

 

[freshwind]

Just to remind you that, in Church Law, the SSPX are inside the Church, but have no Canonical position - no canonical mandate. But they are inside the Church in an anomalous position, not outside of it.

I have been following this with interest and I have a question. For those not as familiar with potential meanings of phrases, what exactly does the statement above mean?

Can I, as a Roman Catholic, attend an SSPX Mass on Sunday and fulfill my obligation, or would that be considered scandal?
If the excommunication was lifted by the Holy Father, would the Mass not be acceptable?

My wife and I will be travelling next month and while there are Roman Catholic churches in the area, there is a SSPX Mass at the perfect time and location that fits our schedule that we would like to attend, but only if it is considered proper. If not, we would re-arrange our plans and attend another Mass elsewhere.

I am not looking for opinion, but rather is there any clear teaching or document that anyone is aware of that would clear this up? It seems as if I’ve read opinions on both sides of this fence so to speak.

Thanks in adavance for any assistance.

cheers

 

[paul11b]

I’m praying for them to be reunited, everyone should say a decade of the Rosary for this intention.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you very much. It seems to me, as an outsider coming in, really, that it was just a case of both too much too fast, and some elements using Vat 2 to introduce heresy, which for some reason wasn’t instantly stomped out of existence by the one who has the authority.

A lot of it is not even heresy. We have new fad these days. We label everything heresy and modernism. Much of what was done was just nonsense. Let’s be careful to avoid using words because it’s fashionable to do so.

They taught me in RCIA, that the Pope was first among Bishops, but had no authority over other Bishops in how they ran things, as each Bishop was “Pope” of his own… whatever you call what Bishops have.

WHOAH!!! Are you sure you understood this correctly? The pope is not the first among bishop. The pope holds the place of primacy. This means that he is the Prince of the Apostles. The bishops are the Apostles. The pope holds the place of Peter.

He has Ordinary, Apostolic and Moral authority over every diocese in every one of the 23 Catholic Churches. He can walk in and rearrange a diocese if he so chooses to do. The local bishop can’t say a word.

Bishops are heads of the Local Church. Therefore, they are the highest ranking authority in the local Church, because the pope is not there to govern the local Church. Without a bishop, there is no Church. Hence the doctrine “Where there is the bishop, there is the Church.” It’s not “where there is the laity there is the Church.” If that were the case, the Protestant communities would be real churches. We know they are not, because they do not have valid bishops. The Orthodox are real Churches, because they have valid and licit bishops who trace their roots back to the Apostles. All of the Catholic Churches are real Churches, because we have valid bishops. Even some of the strange little groups like the Old Catholics are valid.

I believe you and the Pope are wrong, BTW, in the not considering how the faithful will react, as if the Pope was the Church, which he is not.

The pope is not the Church. However, without him, there is no Church, whereas, if all you had were a pope there would be the Church. I’m being rather dramatic here; but bear with me. If the last man standing were the pope, there is the Church. If the last man standing were a layman, the Church is gone. Only the pope has the petrine succession and only the pope can appoint bishops and create local churches. We have to be very careful not to disregard the authority of the pope and the bishops.

The laity may have the money, but they do not have the power. The laity cannot ordain, cannot consecrate and cannot absolve. Without this, there is no Church.

Why do popes and bishops stand back when the laity speaks? Because the laity cannot reach an agreement. There are as many opinions on a point as there are people.

Part of moving into the modern world, is understanding the educated and communicating nature of the laity at this point in history.

The Church certainly tries to do this. Today, nore than ever, laymen and women are involved in the infrastructure of the Church. They teach theology. They work in chanceries. They run Catholic institutions. They run parish ministries. They do many things that they never did in the past.

Archbishop Chaput explained this better than I can. He’s very good with this subject.

“The Church belongs to Jesus Christ, and the different roles within the Christian community – clergy, laity and religious life – have equal dignity but different purposes.”

“when people deride their bishops and priests out of pride and resentment or some perverse desire for what they perceive as ‘power,’ they undermine the Church herself, and they set themselves against the God whose vessel she is.”

History tells us what happens when the power is vested at the top. Those Pharisees Jesus warned about weren’t just in His own time.

Help me out here. I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that popes and bishops are pharisees because they maintain control or are you trying to say something else? You lost me here.

The religious need to be very concerned with matters of faith and morals, teaching those. Living them. But actually managing Parishes, needs to be in the hands of the faithful, then Priests can stop wasting time deciding when to replace the carpet and be more involved caring for their flocks.

Canon Law does not allow for parishes to to administered by the laity. However, parishes are supposed to have lay advisory boards such a finance committee. It’s important to understand that they are supposed to have these boards, but the clergy retains the final vote or veto power. That cannot be surrendered, because it’s part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Governing is part of the mandate of the Sacrament. But Canon Law does say that they are to have these advisory boards. It makes sense. Most of us have no clue about many financial matters.

There is a line of authority that is not going to go away not matter what happens. It is what it is. The Church is willing to suffer rather than violate that line. Hierarchy can consult and it’s prudent to do so. But they cannot surrender to everyone’s opinions, because it’s humanly impossible to do. They cannot surrender the control, because Revelation does not allow for this. At times, the hierarchy is not going to be very popular.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Julia_Mae]

A lot of it is not even heresy. We have new fad these days. We label everything heresy and modernism. Much of what was done was just nonsense. Let’s be careful to avoid using words because it’s fashionable to do so.

WHOAH!!! Are you sure you understood this correctly?

Well, there you have it. I’ve been laying out heresy explicitly in post after post around here, just like the rest of the laity no one would listen to for all these years, like the ones who clamored for a 3rd order for the SSPX - YES my dear Brother, I am quite a good student and it was a clear point carefully explained - the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome and the titular head of the Church. THAT’S what finally got your attention? Not the declarations that God doesn’t make miracles and neither did Jesus? That this was being taught in seminaries and no one stopped it? That priests don’t believe Christ is really present in those little wafers? Not portraying the Pope correctly is what shocked you?

Every time I come here I cry. I’m sorry. I should not post in these kinds of threads. I’ll go now. Thanks for taking so much time to explain.