Will the Liberal Church 'Schism'?

[maurin]

Maurin,

I wasn’t clear enough with my reply so you misunderstood.

When I said “they are off-topic”, I meant “the topic of ultra-traditionalists” is off-topic.
So, I could have said “it is off-topic” and that would have been better.

When I said “they are off-topic”, you misunderstood that as if I was saying “the ultratraditionalists here on CAF are taking the thread off-topic”.

I didn’t mean that and I wasn’t talking about anyone here. I was talking about the topic. That topic is off-topic.

The question of who derailed it is of no interest to me. I can’t see what value there would be in knowing who was to blame for that.

I’ll add also that a more careful reading of the phrase “they’re really off-topic” would mean what I said it meant here. Otherwise, you’d have to consider me to be pretty ignorant and obtuse. How could I claim that “the ultra-traditionalists are off-topic” (which ones? all of them? how do I even know which are ultra-traditionalist? Why would I care to make a sweeping condemnation about people who I don’t even know?) – without criticizing the entire group and claiming that “they’re off-topic”?

I’ll add this also – normally, one should say that a post is off-topic, not a person. In fact, it doesn’t make sense to say that any person is off-topic since we’re not judging the person, but rather, individual posts. We could say that a person “has gone off-topic” but not that a person “is off-topic” (without a qualifier). The person “is off-topic in this post”.

I’ve said enough now to “have gone off-topic” myself.

yeah, I’ll say…you said in 7-or was it 8-- paragraphs what could have been said in four. Now if you were getting paid per word…

Anyway, Reg, of course you’re right, especially your fourth-- or was it the fifth?-- paragraph. I suppose with all the insults I’ve been taking I had an ultra-sensitive moment. Or was it a hyper-sensitive one?

 

[Magnus467]

Reggiem,

In all fairness we Traditionalists did not derail the thread. Possibly in order to deflect attention away from the defaco Liberal schism, mud was slung at the Society.

Below is post #12. It was not posted by a Traditionalist. However it did contain inaccurate and insulting information. It was because of his/her bias that the thread got derailed.

Hahaha really? I was asking the OP to what he was referring. How can a question contain inaccurate information? quit attacking me please

 

[maurin]

Magnus, the derailment’s over now. Take it to pm or a different thread.

 

[Magnus467]

Magnus,

Now you must provide a quote from either Archbishop Lefebvre or from His Excellency Bishop Fellay which states that the Society rejects the legitimacy of the Council or the Council itself.

When youi are unable to provide such quotes-- which you can’t because your statement is wholly false-- you will need to retract your defamation and slander of the Society’s stance.

For anyone of good will who has actually read the Archbishop’s and the Bishop’s writings knows the Council was not only legitimate, but also that the Society accepts all that which can be reconciled with the two thousand years of Traditional Teaching which came before the Council. This of course absolutely precludes the false ecumenism, the changing of the definition of the Church, and as Cardinal Ratzinger himself wrote, artificial or fabricated Liturgy. This last is even agreed with by most posting on this forum, yet still abounds in the Church.

From the SSPX website:
BUT WASN’T THE COUNCIL INFALLIBLE?

*

  Not by reason of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself, in an audience on January 12, 1966, said that it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility” (Cf. the declaration of the Theological Commission of Mar. 6, 1964, and repeated by the Council's General Secretary on Nov. 16, 1964:  "In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so."  It never did.).
*

  Nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but also of time (always) (cf., Vatican I and PRINCIPLE 6).
*

  Nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium, because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be guarded sacredly and expounded faithfully (Vatican I, Dz 1836), and not to adopt as Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal culture,’” even if they are “purified” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Gesu, Nov. 1984, p. 72.  Cf. Gaudium et Spes, §§11, 44).

You can’t pick and choose from a council. Let’s not forget The DOGMATIC constitution on divine revelation.

From the bishop’s letter:
Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today’s world (if those pre-conciliar documents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today’s problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that:

In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.

The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc. On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them.

The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:

* doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations,

* doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions,

* doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.

Let’s not split hairs on words. It was legitimate in the sense that it was a meeting of bishops under the pope but the SSPX rejects things they don’t like.

 

[Magnus467]

The thread did get derailed but it wasn’t entirely my fault. When you falsely accuse me of derailment and slander I will respond. But back on track. Thank you, ProVobis, for that link. I have seen awful stuff online before, but never in person. We have solid churches here. Sometimes, I may not like the music but he have great priests.

 

[ProVobis]

The Liberal Catholic Church is a schismatic group (which schismed from the Old Catholics, who schismed after Vatican I…).

While the liberals still nominally in the Catholic Church united to the pope may schism further, I suspect more of them may find their way to the LCC and the Old Catholics, both of which groups already have female clergy. And, ironically, the Trent liturgy in English…

Thanks for the info.

Female clergy? I guess that confirms an invalid liturgy.

 

[Magnus467]

I have a feeling that when it becomes harder to stand up to gay marriage and other issues, those who are practicing Catholics and those who are name only will separate themselves naturally.

 

[Aramis]

Ok so if I have a love for the TLM may I take part in SSPX Mass? Are all the sacraments valid?

While they are valid, the priest sins by offering them in violation of his suspension… Do yo want to participate knowingly in a priest sinning?

 

[Aramis]

Thanks for the info.

Female clergy? I guess that confirms an invalid liturgy.

Not all Old Catholic groups have gone to female clergy, but many have.

Utrecht becomes independent in the early 1700’s… 1724 was the formal break.
The Old Catholics left the Church in 1871.
The Old Catholics had bishops ordained by the still independent Utrecht shortly thereafter. (Months, not years…)
1910 Bp. Arnold Matthew, the ordainer of the first Liberal Catholic Church bishop, is expelled from the Union of Utrecht…
1913 Bp Wedgewood ordained priest by Bp. Matthew.

The LCC is a rather heretical bunch, and has had several schisms… only one branch of the LCC ordains women, the root of their 2003 schism. But as theosophists, they’re heretics.

The Utrecht Union allows women to be ordained since 1994, but not all Old Catholics have done so.

The PNCC broke communion with Utrecht over women’s ordination…

The Mariavites, they split from Old Catholics long before, and have had female bishops for almost a century now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Catholic_Churches is a good list of just what happens when schismatics schism… and a clear warning for the modern day… each schism goes further from the biblical and traditional beliefs…

 

[At_Trent]

National Catholic Reporter is beyond schism and flirting with apostasy.

They lie in wait for the day parishes have no priests in order to seize the opportunity to further their agenda.

 

[Ockham]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Old_Catholic_Churches

is a good list of just what happens when schismatics schism… and a clear warning for the modern day… each schism goes further from the biblical and traditional beliefs…

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the info. I never knew about these groups.

Obviously they broke from the Church. Papal infallibility is a matter of doctrine. I don’t see the connection many are asserting that these groups are the same as SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t challenge doctrine or want to ordain women or gays.

I haven’t spent much time researching the subject but it seems the Vatican wanted to get rid of the SSPX as they refused to say the Novus Ordo. When has the Vatican sat on bishop ordination applications before?

 

[StTommyMore]

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the info. I never knew about these groups.

Obviously they broke from the Church. Papal infallibility is a matter of doctrine. I don’t see the connection many are asserting that these groups are the same as SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t challenge doctrine or want to ordain women or gays.

I haven’t spent much time researching the subject but it seems the Vatican wanted to get rid of the SSPX as they refused to say the Novus Ordo. When has the Vatican sat on bishop ordination applications before?

Would you quit crying about how unfairly you feel the SSPX has been treated? By ordaining bishops when he was expressly told not to, the Archbishop committed an act of schism

 

[Ockham]

Alrightie then.

In recent threads on this site there are clear examples of so-called Catholics already acting in schism.

Examples:

St. Francis Xavier, New York. marching in the Gay Pride Parade: lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10061505.html

Rev Breen, Nashville preaching against papal infallibility, male celibate priests, etc: youtube.com/watch?v=ZDoRcVodFNM

Then there are organized groups promoting the gay culture, women priests, abortion, etc: cta-usa.org/

The NCR has a ‘progressive’ bias pushing for more changes in the ‘spirit of V2’. They feature many columnists that openly teach against the Church. By doing so they are already in de facto schism and their soul’s may be at risk of eternal damnation. All faithful Catholics are wise to avoid this publication.

Richard O’Brien insulting the Catholic rite of Exorcism, says it ok to vote for pro-abortion politicans, etc: ncronline.org/blogs/essays-theology/us-bishops-and-abortion-law

I believe O’Brien is still a priest although he hides it well. He has spoken at Call To Action (link above) and promotes dissents like Charles Curran: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curran_(theologian

Bishop Gumbleton (a Call to Action award winner) using the sex abuse scandal to justify homosexuality: lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jan/06012602.html

Kate Childs Graham, Call to Action board member,

*“On homosexuality, the hierarchy of the Catholic church has espoused a “love the sinner, hate the sin” stance. To some, this stance may seem benevolent. To me, a member of the queer community, it isn’t compassionate in the least. When someone says, “I love you as a lesbian, just not your sin of ‘homosexual activity,’” all I can hear is “I don’t love who you are, and I hate what you do.” And, whether or not I believe that my relationship with my partner is a sin (I don’t), it hurts. My sexuality, though it doesn’t define me as a person, is an integral part of who I am. You can’t separate it from me. The hate for my so-called sin leads to hatred for me. Because that so-called sin is me.” *

Martin Luther challenged Church doctrine and had enough conviction to start his own following. Today there are many among us who oppose Church teaching. Many of them also elevate themselves above the Church by customizing the liturgy to their own liking. That is why tradition is so important to the Church. There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostoic Church - one Truth. Those who act and think against the Church do so at their own peril. The faithful have a duty to speak out against them in order to prevent unsuspecting souls from following them.

 

[crazzeto]

The Church cannot change these teachings, and if she does, I would leave. That would prove that she is not the Church founded by Christ.

Will there be schisms in the future? Not sure. However, certain members of the ‘faithful’ do live in schism, because of their open defiance to the teaching of Christ through His Church.
Most ‘liberals’ (insert ‘heretics’) will grumble on about the unfairness, but most likely will not take active steps in forming their own ‘counter-church’.

Some have, like “Roman Catholic Woman Priests”, a host of individual “gay priests” who support gay ordination etc… These groups are schismatic, but for some reason jelously cling to the name “Roman Catholic”. Honestly typically it’s their stated goal to “change the church”, usually this includes abolishing church governance and replacing it with popular vote, gay and woman ordination etc… Basically everything you see in the Episcopole and Lutheran Churches today.

Praise be to God that they can not succeed.

 

[reggieM]

I also find it very hard to evangelize liberal Catholics. They (the ones I know) tend to think that they know everything already. When they’re the product of Catholic education in the past, and are rebelling against the “old days”, then it’s difficult to help them see the importance of Sacred Tradition. They confuse that with disciplinary traditions which can change.

 

[Ockham]

They think they know everything because the misinterpreted ‘spirit of V2’ can be used to justify anything.

 

[reggieM]

They think they know everything because the misinterpreted ‘spirit of V2’ can be used to justify anything.

I think it’s a lot more than that. Most of them (that I know) were trained in pre-Vatican II Catholic schools. This gives them an over-confidence in their knowledge, certainly as compared with younger Catholics who often have little training. Many experienced the Church in it’s fuller aspect – when convents and rectories were full. So, they think they know it all about what Catholicism was – then they think that gives them authority to know what the Church “should be” for the future.

Liberals (again, the group I know) pride themselves as being smarter than everyone else. They also heavily rely on secular knowledge as being more authoritative than revealed teaching, or Catholic tradition. They’ll comb through history and expose various ugly episodes and hold those up as if that’s the standard. Then they shoot down those straw-men and proclaim themselves victorious.

I agree that the spirit of VII thing was their making. But from many discussions with liberals, I’ve concluded that even the slightest (necessary, beneficial) changes in discipline from the past would have resulted in chaos based on the way many (not all) people were taught in the pre-Vatican II days.

Disciplinary rules were dogmatized. The teaching was too forceful for the simplistic nature of it. Clerics exaggerated the importance of some things, and of themselves and their own authority. There was unnecessary fear and distrust and unfriendliness. Again, in ***some ***cases, not all. But in those ***some ***cases some bad liberalism resulted. My diocese is rife with it, and I’ve studied this phenomenon for over 25 years now.

Liberal anger is a reaction to the past in many cases. They feel “oppressed” supposedly. I think younger liberals simply conclude “why bother at all with the Church”?

Older liberals stay with the Church because one of the good messages which was strongly indoctrinated into them was that the Church is necessary – for salvation, really, but they re-interpret that as “for the community”.

So, Catholic guilt can be a good thing, and these types can’t get rid of it. So, they don’t leave the Church but they want to re-construct it to be something radically different.

I think that’s the liberalism of Curran, McBrien and Kung. Most of the core of it goes well before Vatican II.

 

[EudistCJM]

Hi everyone,

Original poster here…I think everyone here would enjoy taking a break and absorbing some great reflections (brief quotes) from the saints yes?

Check out my blog below and enjoy!

voiceofsaints.blogspot.com/
- Daily reflections on life from those who lived closest to Christ

Enjoy

 

[reggieM]

Some great quotes there, thanks.

And I wish you the best in your studies and to ordination, God willing.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

Couldn’t help yourself again could you…the discussion is talking about the attempt by liberals to push ordaining openly gay people and women, yet you have to land another low blow about the SSPX. The only thing you seem to post about is the SSPX and it is always low blows, and outlandish comments that contain no intellect whatsoever…only contempt

Oh, and here is quick and free lesson for you. By Archbishop Lefebvre consecrating the Bishops, it was an act of disobedience , but he did not schism himself from the Church…on the otherhand, if he would have set himself up as the pope of a hierarchy outside of The Church, then that would’ve been an act of schism. Your welcome

Would you quit crying about how unfairly you feel the SSPX has been treated? By ordaining bishops when he was expressly told not to, the Archbishop committed an act of schism