Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign

  • Thread starter Thread starter centurionguard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
louis91766 said:
Also:
"Donations from various Catholic institutions have been used to print bibles in China. In these bibles, several of the notes explaining the supremacy of the Pope were deleted or altered.

The donations also supported Patriotic Association seminarians to study in the United States and European seminaries. These seminarians will return to China to be ordained by the Patriotic Association Bishops and serve in the Patriotic Association. Where the loyalties of these seminarians lie is obvious.

In addition, these donations also built and renovated Patriotic Association churches while the loyal priests and bishops are not allowed to have any church or site for offering Masses or holding a meeting.

In the eyes of the faithful in China, the Universal Church HAS clearly endorsed the Patriotic Association and its policy by virtue of its generous donation and enthusiastic participation in the Patriotic Association projects even though the Patriotic Association has publicly rejected the Pope’s supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial authority."
See:
cardinalkungfoundation.org/articles/ccpa.htm
Click to expand...
NO. Your conclusion is wrong.
Code: 
From the very link you posted:
**
"CONCLUSION


There must be a lot more reasons that the sympathizers of the Patriotic Association can offer for their support of the Patriotic Association, but they would all become irrelevant when one understands that the Patriotic Association, not being Catholic, can never represent the true Roman Catholic Church in China.

In view of the above, it is presumptuous for any organization or Catholic prelate to recognize or to treat the Patriotic Association as a Roman Catholic church before our Holy Father announced so, if ever. It is hypocritical for prelates or faithful to work with the Patriotic Association under the pretext of love for China. It is wrong and misdirected for those who do not work with the Vatican appointed underground Bishops in China. 


EPILOGUE


In its first pastoral letter, the Chinese National Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops said: 

"It is most lamentable and unfortunate to be separated from the Church. We must pray often for these separated brothers and sisters (the Patriotic Association) so that the merciful Lord will grant them the grace to repent. We must persuade them with love and encourage them with faith, so that they too will be filled with the Holy Spirit, and be courageous witnesses of Christ. May they sail smoothly on the bark of mother Church with St. Peter at its helm, and return home to the Universal Church ruled by our Sovereign Pontiff."

Let us pray for the Patriotic Associations in the words of Cardinal Kung,

"Grant mercy, O Lord, to those brothers and sisters who chose to be separated from you, may they return to the one fold and one Shepherd." "**
 
Maybe now the thread will be returned to its topic:

“Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign”
 
louis91766 said:
the only conclusion I made was that there are seminarians from mainland China studying overseas in Catholic seminaries. Why is this conclusion wrong?
Click to expand...
You said this, quoting from the CardinalKUNGfoundation:

“In the eyes of the faithful in China, the Universal Church HAS clearly endorsed the Patriotic Association and its policy by virtue of its generous donation and enthusiastic participation in the Patriotic Association projects even though the Patriotic Association has publicly rejected the Pope’s supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial authority.”

You have concluded something that is the antithesis of the beliefs of
the faithful Roman Catholics in China as indicated by the quote
of the CKF’s OWN conclusion.

**"CONCLUSION

There must be a lot more reasons that the sympathizers of the Patriotic Association can offer for their support of the Patriotic Association, but they would all become irrelevant when one understands that the Patriotic Association, not being Catholic, can never represent the true Roman Catholic Church in China.

In view of the above, it is presumptuous for any organization or Catholic prelate to recognize or to treat the Patriotic Association as a Roman Catholic church before our Holy Father announced so, if ever. It is hypocritical for prelates or faithful to work with the Patriotic Association under the pretext of love for China. It is wrong and misdirected for those who do not work with the Vatican appointed underground Bishops in China."**

The only article you quioted saying that Chinese RC seminarians
are free to study in the West, including in Rome, was very old news,
dated in 2006 and 2007.

If something CURRENT exists to prove your point, quote it.
Or else drop it since this thread is way off-topic now and I hope to drop it!
 
catharina said:
You said this, quoting from the CardinalKUNGfoundation:

“In the eyes of the faithful in China, the Universal Church HAS clearly endorsed the Patriotic Association and its policy by virtue of its generous donation and enthusiastic participation in the Patriotic Association projects even though the Patriotic Association has publicly rejected the Pope’s supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial authority.”

You have concluded something that is the antithesis of the beliefs of
the faithful Roman Catholics in China as indicated by the quote
of the CKF’s OWN conclusion.

**"CONCLUSION

There must be a lot more reasons that the sympathizers of the Patriotic Association can offer for their support of the Patriotic Association, but they would all become irrelevant when one understands that the Patriotic Association, not being Catholic, can never represent the true Roman Catholic Church in China.

In view of the above, it is presumptuous for any organization or Catholic prelate to recognize or to treat the Patriotic Association as a Roman Catholic church before our Holy Father announced so, if ever. It is hypocritical for prelates or faithful to work with the Patriotic Association under the pretext of love for China. It is wrong and misdirected for those who do not work with the Vatican appointed underground Bishops in China."**

The only article you quioted saying that Chinese RC seminarians
are free to study in the West, including in Rome, was very old news,
dated in 2006 and 2007.

If something CURRENT exists to prove your point, quote it.
Or else drop it since this thread is way off-topic now and I hope to drop it!
Click to expand...
No. That was the conclusion of the article. That was not my conclusion.
You asked the question and now you say that you want to drop it.
Your question concerned whether there were seminarians from the Patriotic Chinese Catholic association studying in the USA.
I quoted from the article and the conclusion is yes, there have been such.
That is my only conclusion. The other opinions are from the author of the article and I have nothing to do with his conclustions.
 
louis91766 said:
No. That was the conclusion of the article. That was not my conclusion.
You asked the question and now you say that you want to drop it.
Your question concerned whether there were seminarians from the Patriotic Chinese Catholic association studying in the USA.
I quoted from the article and the conclusion is yes, there have been such.
That is my only conclusion. The other opinions are from the author of the article and I have nothing to do with his conclustions.
Click to expand...
Again, you are missing my point.
The studies of Chinese seminarians in the West
took place in 2006 and 2007 (per your article).
That is ancient history when looking at China today.
Rome has excommunicated a Chinese bishop for
his acceptance of the Patriotic association’s sponsership.

That happened in JULY 2011. Can you see that one
“fact” is irrelevant now and the other is current history???

If you want to re-emphasize your “knowledge” then, please,
open another thread and I’ll join you there. I loathe it when
Catholics in the West pretend everything is terrific for the
Roman Catholics in China. It is not.
It has been horrible for 60+ years.

THIS THREAD is about current issues bewteen the Vatican and sspx.
Let it proceed, please. (I will always speak against ignorance re
the Roman Catholic Church in China.) Move your issues elswhere.
PLEASE.
 
louis91766 said:
Bishops in China ordain without a papal mandate and their seminarians can study in the US Catholic seminaries.
Click to expand...
Again, for the sake of this thread:

Bishops in China can ordain without
a papal mandate if they wish to be excommunicated.
Code: 
Re-quote:

[catholicnews.sg/index.php...o-16&Itemid=79](http://www.catholicnews.sg/index.php...o-16&Itemid=79)

"BEIJING – The Chinese government has criticised the Vatican for excommunicating two bishops who were ordained without papal mandate.

... ."

Entire article, dated AUG 14 2011, presents much more detail.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

So long for now, louis.
 
Back to the SSPX

as I had said awhile ago, my wife and I would be travelling, I remembered the Latin Mass from my days as an altar boy but my wife is a convert and it is all new to her.

We attended an SSPX chapel this morning and while I was able to follow, my wife truly struggled.
They called it a silent Mass, no responses from the faithful, or at least very minimally and most of the dialogue from the Priest was inaudible.

The Priest was Australian and even when he read the Gospel and his homily in english we struggled to follow.

It was a small, very old chapel, seating maybe only 175-200 max. It was filled right up and the people are impressive in their piety,

He did in a roundabout way talk about the discussions with Rome in pleading with the faithful to pray many rosaries, at least 1 a day to bring the prayers to God for the good of the Church…and especially for our wonderful Holy Father who is steering the ark through tumultous times, and that may our prayers and the Holy Ghost support him.

I found nothing wrong whatsoever in the entire morning, and he preached prayer for the guidance of the Church and the Holy Father … invoked Mary’s protection and asked her to bring the prayers of her children to her son, our Saviour.

Sadly, it was a pleasure to listen to a priest talk about prayer, our fallen nature, the need for supporting the Holy Father in a world that seems upside down…the need and history of the rosary…far different than the pop psychology we get from many of the priests in the churches we regularly attend.

I rather enjoyed hearing quotes from historic Popes rather than Mahatma Ghandi, which has left me feeling rather upset after a Mass before.

We are now planning a trip to a FSSP chapel and hour away from home, sadly it is the closest we have.

Possibly it is my age, but I must admit I find it sad that this morning I really felt Catholic again, and not the melancholy feeling I at times have.
Having said that, it is not the Mass that does this, it is the weak preaching…if our Priests would follow the GIRM and preach solid Catholic teaching, it may help this whole dialogue.

Personally, unless the Holy Father says it is wrong, I will have absolutely no problems personally attending an SSPX chapel again, and if nothing else, I think this morning will help me to improve my prayer life as I want these brothers and sisters fully 100% home so we can build our Church together, a house divided cannot stand.
 
Julia_Mae said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
"They" taught you WRONG
*" 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."*

"By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils. As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because "the highest See is judged by no one."
“The Catholic Church, mother and immaculate virgin, although destined to fill the whole world with her members, has nevertheless but** one head, which must be venerated by all.** Whoever dishonours that head claims in vain to be one of her members. That head is the Church of Rome, whose power the great Constantine recognizes in his Donation. Now, as Bishop of Rome, the Pope is the Vicar of God charged with the care of the churches.”
  • Pope 'St Leo IX
“Only the Roman Pontiff is rightly called universal; **the Pope can be judged by no one; no one can be regarded as a catholic who does not agree with the Roman church; the Roman Church has never erred and never will err till the end of time; the Roman Church was founded by Christ alone; the Pope alone can depose and restore bishops; he alone can make new laws, set up new bishoprics, and divide old ones; he alone can translate bishops to another see; he alone can call general councils and authorize canon law; he alone can revise his own judgements; his sentence cannot be repealed by anyone and he alone can review the judgements of all; he alone can use the imperial insignia; he can depose emperors; he can absolve subjects from their allegiance to impious rulers; the Pope is the only man to whom all princes bend the knee; all princes should kiss his feet; his legates, even those in inferior orders, have precedence over all bishops; an appeal to the papal court inhibits judgement by all inferior courts; a duly ordained pope is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter.” **- Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), the intimate disciple of Pope Leo IX, Dictatus Papae (decreed in 1074 and reiterated at the 1st Latern Council (one of twenty R.C. ‘Ecumenical Councils’); Latin text in Karl Hofmann, Der Dictatus Papae Gregors VII (Paderborn [Germany]: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1933), p. 11.

"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one Body and one Head, not two Heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar [Substitute] of Christ… Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John “there is one sheepfold and one shepherd”…[The Pope proceeds to also say that he cannot be judged by anyone and that he has God’s authority over mankind in both civil and ecclesiastical spheres, the civil being utterly subordinate to the ecclesiastical.]…Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias…: “Behold today I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms and the rest”…This authority, however, …is not human but rather Divine, granted to Peter by a Divine word…, the Lord saying to Peter himself, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” etc., (Mt 16:19). Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2)…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”- Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302

There are way, way more quotes along these lines:

trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_pope_as_christ.shtml
 
freshwind said:
Back to the SSPX

There is a post above which was cut and pasted in two different threads extolling the virtues of SSPX, I feel compelled to counter with my OWN observations of Pius X.

I too attended Masses there for 6 months. I did not do it out of a desire to separate myself from Rome, but because there were things about the way the Mass was celebrated: the piety and reverence of the Priest, the obvious reverence shown by the congregation, and the closeness of pews to the altar, in other words, the general milieu, which I appreciated.

There were also things I noted which I did not appreciate. Occasionally, they would have “guest” priests who sometimes behaved strangely. One, “stage” whispered and hissed the Conscecration in a theatrical and frightening way, as if he were conjuring and performing black magic. I don’t even know if this priest was of the Pius X Society, but his behavior made me want to run out of the chapel.

There was also an “attitude” toward women which I was the unfortunate recipient of several times. My husband is a mannerly and polite man, and I am accustomed to being treated with a certain amount of courtesy. You won’t find any of that in a SSPX chapel. I’ll list a few examples: It was standing room only in the back, there were several older women standing, and an early 30’s man sitting in the only available folding chair, he would not get up and offer his seat. There was a young woman standing AND holding a baby, and what appeared to be her husband (the man she was with) sitting in the folding chair next to her. The usher stepped on my foot, squarely, I winced, he did not even look at me. Men would try to beat me out the door, stand on the walk-way outside and block it, and not move except for my husband. I once asked if the priest was in the confessional and the man I queried completely ignored me. One time I went to Communion and a man at the other end of my pew got up to go to Communion just as I had reentered the pew. This made it necessary for me to exit the pew again, although he had been sitting at the opposite end (why didn’t he just exit the pew at his end), and he clearly delayed going to Communion (why didn’t he go to Communion until I returned). This man seemed to have a real problem with me and my husband, for some reason, and it seemed like his only intention was to inconvenience me with this behavior.

Unfortunately, in the course of the 6 months there was a reassignment of priests. The new priest was very young, maybe around 25-26. He was only ordained for a year. During the first Mass he said, he gave a 40 minute homily about himself. It only got worse. At one point, I found it necessary to contact him about his plans to have a Mass in the local park. I did not agree with this plan, there is a rule that this is only to be done in times of necessity. There were some other issues I brought up with him as well. Mostly mundane things like kids running all over the parking lot when people were pulling out, keeping the first Mass people singing songs in the parking lot so second Mass people had nowhere to park, telling people he had an annoucement to make after Mass, corraling everyone into the parking lot, and then not making an announcement (we were then stuck in traffic from a football game after that fiasco), and it ended up taking 3 hours and 40 minutes round trip for Mass. Drive time is 35 minutes each way.

When I contacted him, he told me repeatedly that I was ‘bordering on disrespectful… I didn’t know my place…I wasn’t being humble…and he disparaged my husband for putting up with me.’ The entire time I was trying to tell him why I called, he talked right along with me and never listened to a single thing I said. My husband called him and got close to the same treatment.
We are old enough to be this man’s parents. We never said anything even remotely disrespectful or out of line to this priest whatsoever. Just the mere fact that we would dare to disagree with him was “disrespect.”

This just goes to show you that whatever problems you believe to exist in the Chuch are not necessarily going to be resolved in “Tradition.” There are good priests and not so good priests in both. Some problems might be resolved, but a whole other set of problems could easily appear, ones you never even anticipated.

The main thing, you own unfailing allegiance to the Pope. What the Pope says goes.
Your soul hangs in the balance.

trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_roman_catholics_pope_as_christ.shtml
Click to expand...
 
SaintGobban said:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Click to expand...
  • Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302l]
    I believe that this teaching has been changed. E. Orthodox Christians openly declare that they are not subject to the Roman Pope, and yet they are allowed to received Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church according to Catholic teaching at this time. If it were true that they are going to go to hell and cannot be saved, it seems like it would not be appropriate to allow them to receive Holy Communion.
 
louis91766 said:
I believe that this teaching has been changed. E. Orthodox Christians openly declare that they are not subject to the Roman Pope, and yet they are allowed to received Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church according to Catholic teaching at this time. If it were true that they are going to go to hell and cannot be saved, it seems like it would not be appropriate to allow them to receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
I don’t even know if what you are saying is true, and I can’t be bothered looking it up.

I’ll just say two things:
  1. No pronouncement of a Pope on matters of faith and morals can ever be “changed.” They are infallible and they don’t ever change.
  2. If Orthodox are allowed to receive Communion, and again I don’t know if this is true, it would be because as long as there is life, there is hope. If you’re alive, you could repent, renounce, and amend your life. You aren’t damned until you are dead. Maybe the Holy Communion would give one the graces one needs to see the error of his/her ways.
 
SaintGobban said:
  1. No pronouncement of a Pope on matters of faith and morals can ever be “changed.” They are infallible and they don’t ever change.
Click to expand...
Don’t know as how this can be an infallible statement. How could a 14th century pope make a blanket statement about people he didn’t even know existed? How were the Incas or Aztecs or North American native tribes supposed to be subject to the pope? It would seem that the entire encyclical is more nuanced than that one sentence implies.
 
SaintGobban said:
I don’t even know if what you are saying is true, and I can’t be bothered looking it up.

I’ll just say two things:
  1. No pronouncement of a Pope on matters of faith and morals can ever be “changed.” They are infallible and they don’t ever change.
  2. If Orthodox are allowed to receive Communion, and again I don’t know if this is true, it would be because as long as there is life, there is hope. If you’re alive, you could repent, renounce, and amend your life. You aren’t damned until you are dead. Maybe the Holy Communion would give one the graces one needs to see the error of his/her ways.
Click to expand...
Rich_Olszewski said:
Don’t know as how this can be an infallible statement. How could a 14th century pope make a blanket statement about people he didn’t even know existed? How were the Incas or Aztecs or North American native tribes supposed to be subject to the pope? It would seem that the entire encyclical is more nuanced than that one sentence implies.
Click to expand...
I believe that there is a language confusion here on both sides. The question of obedience to the Roman Pontiff, rather the answer to the question, was first addressed by St. Clement of Alexandria. It has been repeated in many forms since then.

It is true that the pope must obe obeyed. It has nothing to do with whether he’s right or wrong or whether his statement is infallible or not. St. Clement says it best. It’s about his authority. The Church is a monarchy and you obey the monarch. It’s not a constitutional monarch where the governed have the right to try to change the laws. The revised Code of Canon Law of 1983 states several times the the pope is the highest law giver on earth. No one can overrule him, because there is no appeal beyond him. You can certainly appeal to him, even if you’re appealing one of his decisions. If he stands by his original position, there is no place to go other than continue to appeal until he tells you that he does not want to hear from you any longer. This was the case between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bl. John Paul II. They wanted to appeal the exommunication and I believe they wanted to discuss the ordination of the bishop, prior to the excommunication and in both cases the Holy Father said that Canon Law did not apply to the Archbishop and he refused the audience. Whether we agree with this or not is irrelevant. God agrees with it. Peter has this authority and this right. This is all grounded in the authority of Peter to govern. It has nothing to do with infallibility. Infallibility applies to faith and morals. The pope can issue statements and commands on things other than faith and morals. Just as we are bound to obey all legitimate authority, we’re bound to obey him.

What the popes between Clement and today faced was a series of situations where the authority of the pope was called into question. They validly stated that one may not call this authority into question. They use the term “to judge”. In other words, one may not judge that the pope has or does not have authority. The pope always has the final authority St. Bonafiace said it this way, “Christ is the Law-Giver and the pope is the Living Law”. This applied to all law, not just moral law.

As to the Orthodox receiving communion in a Catholic Church, the fact is that they are subject to the authority of Peter, whether they recognize it or not, because only Peter can authorize this. An easy example is entering a foreign country. Whether you’re a citizen or not, you are subject to that authority while in their country. In this case, while at a Catholic mass, you’re subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Communion can only be given to non-Catholics, because the Pontiff has authorized it and left it up to the local bishop to exercise his discretion.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
It is true that the pope must be obeyed. It has nothing to do with whether he’s right or wrong or whether his statement is infallible or not. St. Clement says it best. It’s about his authority. The Church is a monarchy and you obey the monarch. It’s not a constitutional monarch where the governed have the right to try to change the laws. The revised Code of Canon Law of 1983 states several times the the pope is the highest law giver on earth. No one can overrule him, because there is no appeal beyond him.
Click to expand...
If one is a Catholic, without a doubt. I doubt, however, that you’ll get any agreement on this from those of other faiths, whether Christian or not. One can hardly enforce one’s laws outside one’s own jurisdiction. 🤷
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
If one is a Catholic, without a doubt. I doubt, however, that you’ll get any agreement on this from those of other faiths, whether Christian or not. One can hardly enforce one’s laws outside one’s own jurisdiction. 🤷
Click to expand...
We have to separate here. Dogma, doctrine and morals apply to the world, whether the world likes it or not and whether the world knows it or not.

Ecclesial governance applies to those inside the Catholic Church and those who do busines with the Catholic Church.

The problem is that American Catholics are so bent on defending everyone’s rights, that we shoot our Church in the foot, because we confuse our people. They begin to think that self-determination, self-government, government with the concent of the governed is part of the Catholic paradigm, which it’s not. Bl. John Paul makes this very clear in Evangeliums Vitae. He speaks about those nations that have made deomocracy an end to be protected, rather than a means to the free exercise of the faith and the protection of human rights.

Catholics have to take a step back and understand that the concept of government with the concent of the governed does not apply to Catholicism. The Church Fathers made this very clear and popes have repeated this over and over again.

To the degree that one resists the authority of the Pontiff is one’s distance from the Church. We also have to be balanced here. Asking questions, disagreeing and even feeling some reservation is not the same as disobedience. I can ask many questions, disgree and feel uncomfortable. At the end of the day, if the Church tells me that what it expects is not a sin, I assent. This is not an assent of faith. I call this an assent of obedience or an assent of the will.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
We have to separate here. Dogma, doctrine and morals apply to the world, whether the world likes it or not and whether the world knows it or not.
Click to expand...
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, then? That’s like in criminal law: the “long arm” of the law, I suppose. Enforcement would be the problem here if one isn’t a Catholic.
Catholics have to take a step back and understand that the concept of government with the concent of the governed does not apply to Catholicism. The Church Fathers made this very clear and popes have repeated this over and over again. To the degree that one resists the authority of the Pontiff is one’s distance from the Church. We also have to be balanced here. Asking questions, disagreeing and even feeling some reservation is not the same as disobedience. I can ask many questions, disgree and feel uncomfortable. At the end of the day, if the Church tells me that what it expects is not a sin, I assent. This is not an assent of faith. I call this an assent of obedience or an assent of the will.
Click to expand...
Catholics would certainly have to accept this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top