B
bear06
Guest
Again, we could say the same for Mahoney then too.
I personally hope it doesn’t come to that in my life. If it does, I’ll take either one. In fact, when I did months in jail, I would have taken either one!
- Status
I personally hope it doesn’t come to that in my life. If it does, I’ll take either one. In fact, when I did months in jail, I would have taken either one!
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Well good—now we are getting somewhere–you admit you are biased.
B
bear06
Guest
I’ll tell you what they’re not. They aren’t official documents of the Church. When they want to put it in writing approved by the Holy Father, I’ll be all for them! It’s funny that when it’s mentioned in an article or interview people jump all over it but heaven forbid we look at a document from a Curial office to be held by all and not a specific person in a specific circumstance.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Goodness, aren’t YOU?!?!?! Don’t you have little personal biases? I didn’t realize that was the question at hand, I could have stipulated to it long ago, Your Honor!!!
B
bear06
Guest
Hmmm…Not one article I posted is from an anti-Catholic.
B
bear06
Guest
As recently as 2001 the Ecclesia Dei Commission has said that the priest, after all of these years, are probably in schism. 1988 is official. We don’t change the official until the officials officially do.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I have preferences— I prefer RC to Pepsi/Coke etc. --But I don’t point the finger at Pepsi/Coke.
B
bear06
Guest
Dude, invalid marriages and confessions are pretty darn bad. Not to mention invalid annullments and what they’ve led to. It’s hard to imagine that people here can actually approve of their actions as tolerable because they’ve got a great Mass.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
All this time, Bear, and it’s still hard to imagine? Your lack of cynicism verges on the saintly. Pray for me.It’s hard to imagine that people here can actually approve of their actions as tolerable because they’ve got a great Mass.
B
bear06
Guest
Pepsi and Coke aren’t leading other to sin.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Now you are God to know the SSPX is leading people to sin. I believe Msgr. Perl just verified the faithful who attend the SSPX Mass are not excommunicated. So if they are not excommunicated they are not participating in anything sinful.
B
bear06
Guest
Hello!!! He also confirmed that the marriages and confessions of the SSPX are invalid. Some are ignorant of the Vatican’s position on this and they’re not at fault but those who read the SSPX website are quite familiar with it. So, yes, they are leading people to sin. In fact, they are cooperating with it.
BTW, do sin and excommunication always go hand in hand? I don’t think this is remotely correct.
So again, you don’t have a problem with the fact that the SSPX are involved with invalid marriages and confessions not to mention their granting of annullments?
A
anthony022071
Guest
Schizophrenia towards the See of Peter.
< In his own statement after the meeting, Bishop Fellay said that his visit to the Pope showed that the SSPX “has always been, and will always be, attached to the Holy See.” Echoing the Vatican’s official statement, Bishop Fellay said that the 35-minute conversation had produced an agreement to work gradually toward a resolution of the differences between the traditionalist group and the Vatican, “in a spirit of great love for the Church.” >
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id98.html
< The traditionalist leader said that the SSPX would unflinchingly support the same arguments that drove Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to break with Rome in 1988. He insisted that the Vatican moved away from Catholic traditions after the Second Vatican Council. “Rome seems to have lost its way,” he said, and no accord would be possible unless the Vatican changed its policies. >
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id108.html
< In an email message to his supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson, an English-born prelate who now serves the SSPX in Argentina, said that there are enormous differences “between Catholic Tradition and the position’s of today’s Rome.” He continued: “Between these positions, any reconciliation is impossible.” >
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id101.html
< In his own statement after the meeting, Bishop Fellay said that his visit to the Pope showed that the SSPX “has always been, and will always be, attached to the Holy See.” Echoing the Vatican’s official statement, Bishop Fellay said that the 35-minute conversation had produced an agreement to work gradually toward a resolution of the differences between the traditionalist group and the Vatican, “in a spirit of great love for the Church.” >
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id98.html
< The traditionalist leader said that the SSPX would unflinchingly support the same arguments that drove Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to break with Rome in 1988. He insisted that the Vatican moved away from Catholic traditions after the Second Vatican Council. “Rome seems to have lost its way,” he said, and no accord would be possible unless the Vatican changed its policies. >
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id108.html
< In an email message to his supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson, an English-born prelate who now serves the SSPX in Argentina, said that there are enormous differences “between Catholic Tradition and the position’s of today’s Rome.” He continued: “Between these positions, any reconciliation is impossible.” >
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id101.html
W
Walking_Home
Guest
And todays Rome burns.
B
bear06
Guest
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You can throw it out as much as you want—it will not stop Rome from burning. The smoke of Satan which entered the Church–is now a fire. It only goes to show JPII excommunicated the wrong bishop.
O
OneAugustKnight
Guest
I always thought they were schismatic because they are the only Catholic parishes I know of that don’t seem to have anything to do with the local bishop or the diocese they are located in. Are there legitimate parishes that aren’t associated with the local bishop?
B
bear06
Guest
And apparently you will not answer the question. I’ll assume that since there has obviously been some spontaneous combustion somewhere that you have not problem with the invalid marriages and confessions of the SSPX. Feel free to correct me on this assumption.
B
bobzills
Guest
It looks to me like the situation between the Church and the SSPX is an irregular one which is tending toward schism. I know that there are the credible statements which say that the SSPX is not in formal schism, so perhaps that is true. However, questions concerning schism may arise when one Church does not recognise the Sacraments of the other. Generally, the SSPX and the Church recognise the Sacraments of the other. However, there are a few exceptions which I have heard about in the area of confessions and marriages by the SSPX, and in the area of remarriage after annulment in the Church. The Church may not recognise some confessions and marriages taking place in the SSPX, and the SSPX has its own annulmnet procedure, so it may not recognise some annulments and remarriages in the Church.
T
thecoach
Guest
what are you saying?
- Status