Will the Liberal Church 'Schism'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EudistCJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maurin said:
Funny, I’ve never heard the gospel according to Marcel preached. I’ve only heard sermons on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I’ve heard plenty of sermons on the Saints, the Popes, the Doctors of the Church. I’ve heard exhortations on the importance of two thousand years of teachings and Tradition. We chant the Tu Es Petrus for His Holiness after Benediction.

Not once have I heard fidelity to Marcel Lefebvre taught.

Where do you come up with these things Tommy?
Click to expand...
Personal acquaintances who have repented and returned to the Universal Church.
 
maurin said:
Tommy,

Please do enlighten us. A lengthy explanation citing statements from His Holiness or his delegates specifically saying the Society is not in Communion with the Holy See would be of interest to us all.

Please provide documented sources.

Thank you, and earnestly awaiting this explanation,
Click to expand...
Still earnestly awaiting your exposition, Tommy.

Quid pro quo? Afterall we have provided you with plenty of documentation.
 
StTommyMore said:
Personal acquaintances who have repented and returned to the Universal Church.
Click to expand...
Certainly you don’t accept ‘hearsay’ as proper documentation as substantive in a debate? You surely would not accept hearsay from me. Its a little, shall we say nervy, to expect us to accept it from you.

Mutually reliable sources. Afterall, I offer to you my firsthand experience, you offer me hearsay from an unkown third source (and you are perfectly free to reject my firsthand experience. Aferall, you don’t know me). But then I amd others offer you links to mutually agreeable sources like EWTN. You don’t provide any substantiation from any source, mutually agreeable or not.

Quid pro quo, Tommy.
 
maurin said:
Still earnestly awaiting your exposition, Tommy.

Quid pro quo? Afterall we have provided you with plenty of documentation.
Click to expand...
You are definitely one for the doctrinal dance aren’t you? Unbelievable. Well here is an SSPX article lambasting Venerable Pope John Paul II. This does not scream of being loyal to the Holy Father, but to judge the Holy Father by the standards of the SSPX.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q7_pope.htm
 
yawn:

Your point Tommy? Post your problems with the article.

Santo mai.

An this is your last changing of the subject without finishing addressing substantially that which you yourself brought up. Before you lose even the last shred of your credibility.
 
This article (by a Canon lawyer) should explain the status of SSPX.
 
maurin said:
yawn:

Your point Tommy? Post your problems with the article.

Santo mai.

An this is your last changing of the subject without finishing addressing substantially that which you yourself brought up. Before you lose even the last shred of your credibility.
Click to expand...
My credibility is intact. I have never allied myself with schismatics since my conversion to Catholicism. All the Lefebvre is simply the Jack Hyles of Catholicism.
 
StTommyMore said:
This article (by a Canon lawyer) should explain the status of SSPX.
Click to expand...
No Tommy. Mutually agreeable source. The Pope or his delegates. In other words, the mgisterium. A cardinal or Bishop authorized by the Pope to speak for the Pope.

Credibiliy gone. Say goodnight Gracie. Goodnight Gracie.
 
StTommyMore said:
You are definitely one for the doctrinal dance aren’t you? Unbelievable. Well here is an SSPX article lambasting Venerable Pope John Paul II. This does not scream of being loyal to the Holy Father, but to judge the Holy Father by the standards of the SSPX.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q7_pope.htm
Click to expand...
did he speak any lies? he never said not to obey the pope. he said that if it is heresies, then one must not follow the heresy, but hey, we already new that anyway, but he never said not to obey the pope. he even recognize the office of the pope. just for you information, Cardinal Ratzinger also agreed with the SSPX. the Cardinal wanted to resign in the face of Assissi. but JPII did not allow him to. the Cardinal was appaled by what the pope was doing.

although i love the pope, the Church is what it is today, during his reign. the liberals had no respect or even care to hear him JPII. while he was doing his traveling, the liberals were busy destroying the Church. there was a great philosopher in teh Church, he died, i believe in january or feb. but i was listen to him, it was astounding what this man new about what is going in the Church and JPII.
 
maurin said:
No Tommy. Mutually agreeable source. The Pope or his delegates. In other words, the mgisterium. A cardinal or Bishop authorized by the Pope to speak for the Pope.

Credibiliy gone. Say goodnight Gracie. Goodnight Gracie.
Click to expand...
Like I said, my credibility is intact. I have never allied myself with a schismatic group.
 
Neither have I–once again a quote from Cardinal Hoyos:

“Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics…The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”—Cardinal Hoyos
StTommyMore said:
Like I said, my credibility is intact. I have never allied myself with a schismatic group.
Click to expand...
 
Emmit_Fitzhume said:
Neither have I–once again a quote from Cardinal Hoyos:

“Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics…The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”—Cardinal Hoyos
Click to expand...
Do you know the difference between “material schism” and “formal schism”?
 
Do you know how to read the words of the quote I provided from Cardinal Hoyos and comphrehend what he is saying? Perhaps the words from one of the Princes of The Church is not good enough for you.

“Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” **The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics…**The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”—Cardinal Hoyos

Doesn’t leave a lot of room for debate. He says “not schismatics” and doesn’t care to break downt the different types of schism which, yes, I am aware of the differences. He states the obvious truth that there is no schism. Now on the otherhand, if we tried to subsitute our hierarchy over that of The Church’s that would be a grounds for schism and exommunication. We pledge our filial love and devotion to The Holy see.
StTommyMore said:
Do you know the difference between “material schism” and “formal schism”?
Click to expand...
 
StTommyMore said:
Do you know the difference between “material schism” and “formal schism”?
Click to expand...
you mean, like there is a danger of schism among the liberals? dont be naive. the holy father is putting up with the nonsense because he is trying to avoid schism.

i know of many bishops and priests teaching heresy or being silent to it. they are leading the people away from the holy See. and the pope still put up with them. these are the people you are in favor of.
 
Why on earth the SSPXers hijacked this thread to discuss their status I’ll never know, anyway:

“However it is clear that the doctrinal questions remain, and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
Ecclesiae Unitiatem 7/8/09

This is the most recent official statement on the status of the SSPX with relation to Rome. There will not be another one while talks are ongoing.
 
Emmit_Fitzhume said:
Do you know how to read the words of the quote I provided from Cardinal Hoyos and comphrehend what he is saying? Perhaps the words from one of the Princes of The Church is not good enough for you.

“Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” **The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics…**The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”—Cardinal Hoyos

Doesn’t leave a lot of room for debate. He says “not schismatics” and doesn’t care to break downt the different types of schism which, yes, I am aware of the differences. He states the obvious truth that there is no schism. Now on the otherhand, if we tried to subsitute our hierarchy over that of The Church’s that would be a grounds for schism and exommunication. We pledge our filial love and devotion to The Holy see.
Click to expand...
Emmit, there are those that are blind and cannot see. Not that they are unable to see, but refuse to see. There are those that claim filial love ane and responsibility to him, yet reject his representatives.

George Burns had it right.

Cwnovaks, the SSPX did not hijack the thread. It was hijacked by defamers.
 
Emmit_Fitzhume said:
Do you know how to read the words of the quote I provided from Cardinal Hoyos and comphrehend what he is saying? Perhaps the words from one of the Princes of The Church is not good enough for you.

“Please accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra.” **The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics…**The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.”—Cardinal Hoyos

Doesn’t leave a lot of room for debate. He says “not schismatics” and doesn’t care to break downt the different types of schism which, yes, I am aware of the differences. He states the obvious truth that there is no schism. Now on the otherhand, if we tried to subsitute our hierarchy over that of The Church’s that would be a grounds for schism and exommunication. We pledge our filial love and devotion to The Holy see.
Click to expand...
All the while accusing Venerable John Paul II of heresy.
 
JacktheCatholic said:
Good question.

I think we need to do away with all this labelling. No more Liberal or Traditionalist or whatever. Instead call a spade a spade.

You are either Catholic or a Heretic. Nuff said…

If a Heretic then excommunication. I think Paul wrote to hand them over to Satan so that they might be saved.
Click to expand...
Really, you make sound like some sort of horror movie.:eek: When should this happen?..at midnight under a full moon? :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top