Will the Liberal Church 'Schism'?

[mtngal25]

Either accept the teachings of the Magisterium or find another church! It is as simple as that. If people want to “follow their consciences” then they must have a rightly formed conscience as formed by the church, otherwise people should be silent and quit trying to persuade others to take a position against church teachings. Keep your sins to yourselves and face God in judgment after death. He will judge you rightly. Meanwhile, either follow the churches teachings, remain silent, or find another religious community. You would be more honest and better than being a hypocrite.
I firmly disagree that a liberal Catholic is just as Catholic as a traditional Catholic. A liberal is living in heresy as long as he pretends to be a Catholic. The only right thing for a liberal to do is to either accept the church in its entirety or go somewhere else that fits his beliefs. Social justice will not save you, true faith will. Even an atheist can do good deeds or be charitable but it does not make him a Catholic. Anyone can be a nice person but to be a true Catholic you have to believe in the faith in its entirety.
Mtngal

 

[simonsays]

It seems that most ‘ultraliberal’ Catholics end up as loony loners lurking on the outskirts of the Church with a few fans (like ol’ Kung), or go off and join some fancy-dress New Age poetry-reading club, like ECUSA in the case of Fr Matthew Fox.
Their ‘beliefs’ simply aren’t coherent enough to form the basis of a Schism, and can only be defined in opposition to orthodox Christianity.

APOSTOLIC LETTER
“ECCLESIA DEI”
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
GIVEN MOTU PROPRIO
5.c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8) www.vatican.va

 

[wisdomseeker]

Only one… Their leadership do not agree that a General Synod of the Church, united with the Pope, is infallible in matters of faith. They have not SAID this, but have LIVED this. Abp Lefebvre did say the council erred in calling for a new missal. So has Bp. Fellay.

It should not have.
it wasnt just him who saw the disgrace. many of the bishops did too. only that they did not stand for the Faith and remain silent while the liberals went on their rampage in destroying the Church. no respect was shown for our ancestrals who put so much work in building beautifull Churches for our Lord. you are not making a distinction between what the council says and what you been seeing in teh Church today. where is the Latin that council says it should be in teh Church? you care about your house, you want your to be beautifull for your guests, dont you? why this mentality of today, that the house of God must be plain and without any beauty? where in the council says to build these modern churches? where does it say to destroy the images and statues of teh Church?

the NO is in disobedience to the council. do you deny?

 

[ThirstforTruth]

The Biblical answer to this question I think lies in Matt 13: 24-30; 36-40! The Church is not going to make the mistakes it has made in the past yielding the club of excommunication…unless provoked publically by specific individuals…The Church does not want to see the Catholic Church in the United States divided into schism. We know that when an individual separates from the Church by refusing to adhere to its teaching(s) he or she automatically excommunicates. Jesus in explaining the parable of the weeds
said the servants should allow the weeds to grow along with the wheat until time for the harvest comes lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them…allow them to grow together and at harvest time the reapers ( the angels) will gather the weeds first and burn them …so the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. I take this to mean God is in charge…and those who do His will and perservere throughout the journey will be rewarded. Those who refuse to listen to His Word and instead become doers and sons of the evil one will reap what they have sown in eternal
damnation…the gate is narrow and those who follow are few is the message in today’s
gospel ( the 21st Sunday in Ordinary Time)

 

[otjm]

If you believe the SSPX is extremist than what you are really saying is that the whole Catholic Church before Vatican II was extremist.

Hardly.

Anyone born any significant time before Vatican 2 was in that Catholic Church and the Vast majority of the3m who are still alive are not part of the SSPX. The vast majority of them after Vatican 2 did not go down the SSPX path.

 

[otjm]

The SSPX are the pillars of The Church. Let history be the judge. We will be thanked for our service in the end.

Benedict 16 doesn’t seem to think so, or they would not be having the conversations with Rome that they are currently engaged in.

 

[otjm]

where is the Latin that council says it should be in teh Church?

For starters, Latin is in use in Vatican pronouncements. Secondly, the OF is promulgated in Latin, and in some places The OF is said entirely in Latin. Elsewhere, the OF is siad in the vernacular with some prayers (e.g. Agnus Dei) said in Latin. The fact that you may not be experiencing it does not mean that it does not exist anywhere. The use of Latin in the OF is exhortatory, not mandatory; failure to do so may not be following the wishes of Rome but it is not violating the rules Rome has given.

why this mentality of today, that the house of God must be plain and without any beauty?

It is said that beautt is in the eye of the beholder. What is not understood is that changes to Church architecture began before the Council. Some may say, for example, that the Cathedral in San Francisco is beautiful others may feel it is an abomination. What you seem to be saying is why can’t churches look like the cathedrals of Europe; that is subject for another thread.

the NO is in disobedience to the council. do you deny?

The OF is not in disobedience to the Council. It is not what the Council appera to have been seeking, but the Council did not lay down a specific rule as to what it was seaking; it rather made general recommendations. We can all agree that the OF was not what the Council had in mind; but since there was no rule made, the term “disobedience” does not apply.

 

[ProVobis]

For starters, Latin is in use in Vatican pronouncements. Secondly, the OF is promulgated in Latin, and in some places The OF is said entirely in Latin. Elsewhere, the OF is siad in the vernacular with some prayers (e.g. Agnus Dei) said in Latin. The fact that you may not be experiencing it does not mean that it does not exist anywhere. The use of Latin in the OF is exhortatory, not mandatory; failure to do so may not be following the wishes of Rome but it is not violating the rules Rome has given.

Maybe not in the OF but priests are still required to learn Latin.

Can. 249 The Charter of Priestly Formation is to provide that the students are not only taught their native language accurately, but are also well versed in Latin, and have a suitable knowledge of other languages which would appear to be necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of their pastoral ministry.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/podcazt-110-wdtprsl-learning-the-roman-canon-in-latin-for-seminarians/#comments

 

[Aramis]

It should not have.
it wasnt just him who saw the disgrace. many of the bishops did too. only that they did not stand for the Faith and remain silent while the liberals went on their rampage in destroying the Church. no respect was shown for our ancestrals who put so much work in building beautifull Churches for our Lord. you are not making a distinction between what the council says and what you been seeing in teh Church today. where is the Latin that council says it should be in teh Church? you care about your house, you want your to be beautifull for your guests, dont you? why this mentality of today, that the house of God must be plain and without any beauty? where in the council says to build these modern churches? where does it say to destroy the images and statues of teh Church?

the NO is in disobedience to the council. do you deny?

The missal is not; the praxis abuses arising around it are. But such abuses happened with the modified Trent missal, too… but, according to Cdl. Arinze, people seldom understood that those were abuses.

The revision of the missal was assigned by the council to a committee. The council agreed to leave it to the committee and the pope. The 1972 latin and 1974 ICEL are the result of that process.

Those who change, ignore, or add rubrics, they are the problem, not the missal itself.