Era Might Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 (edited) [quote]Oh[i] this [/i]guy has a lot on the ball! Why do people lose their very minds when treating of this situation?[/quote] Because the SSPX Bishops are excommunicated schismatics. That means something to the Church, and it isn't good. [quote]Well so did Count Neri Capponi, who'd said nay to the SSPX being in schism, and at a diocesan church no less.[/quote] Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI disagree with him. Incidentally, I don't think Count Capponi had excommunications of the SSPX upheld by the Holy See. [quote]Joe Shmoe down the street merely assists at an SSPX Mass (and maybe only sometimes). The Hawii Six get a renagade confirmator, BUILD A CHURCH and "house" it - with [b]sacraments[/b]: illicit, non-approved, defiant, schismatic sacraments.[/quote] Getting a Bishop to perform a Sacrament in your Church is not a formal adherence to the schism of that Bishop. A formal adherence to the schism of that Bishop would be saying, "I am joining this Bishop in defying Pope John Paul II's order against Marcel Lefebvre." [quote]If the schismatics'd been doing black masses, the unjust lumping of even the sede vacantists who're much "more" schismatic - or less fully (?) in communion than the SSPX - with the CTA crowd (and the Masons and Planned Parenthood) would at least make some kind of sense. Even Rome admits that "those" sacraments are holy - by allowing that pilgrimage, even as they uphold Bishop Bruskewitz.. Both messages are given.[/quote] All Sacraments are holy. It doesn't matter who performs them, an SSPX Bishop or a CTA Priest. Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might
Era Might Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 (edited) That'll be my last reply in this thread. I think I've said all I can say on the topic, and I'm not sure where the rest of the discussion is headed. God bless. And yes, I mean that sincerely. Edited April 11, 2006 by Era Might
Donna Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 [quote]Note that they are excommunicated, not for a formal adherence to the schism, but for procuring the services of an SSPX Bishop. The Hawaiian Ordinary also cited heresy and scandal. Cardinal Ratzinger judged (rightly) that, although loose association with the Society can be a sin, it is not schism in a technical sense. This is also reiterated in the public letter of Monsignor Camille Perl. Schism is a very formal concept. Cardinal Ratzinger's judgement that this incident did not constitute schism doesn't imply support for the Society, as Bishop Bruskewitz explained. Also, formal adherence to the schism is not limited to clergy. Formal adherence is an act of the will, and can be committed by any Catholic, although the clergy undergo a very public manifestation of this act. [/quote] Thou sayest it: for procurring services of an SSPX Bishop is not a sin of schism. Completely laughable that the "associating" with the SSPX Bishop is even brought up. Holy cow, they're all praying together at the Vatican, visiting the synagogues and taking the shoes off at the mosques. So...formal adherence cannot be easily proved then. Thanks for giving me the charity inherent in "a very formal concept" before declaring me schismatic. [quote]I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion. Your point in citing the "Hawaii six" was, I believe, to somehow defend the society against schism or excommunication, or at least to suggest that it's ok to belong to the society. The judgement of the Holy See with respect to the Diocese of Lincoln puts this idea to rest, and it also illustrates the point I made before, that the Hawaii incident was not about formal adherence to the SSPX schism, and thus, was not a technical case of schism. What does Campos making a profession of faith have to do with excommunication? Schism and heresy are separate sins. [/quote] If building your own church and stocking it with schismatic clergy for schismatic sacraments which one schismatically partakes of is not schismatic then is anything? Campos didn't have to be re-chatichized or re-sacramentalized in Orders, in order to be in "full" communion with Rome. And they were hard core Trads. [quote]The Holy See is very peaceable, and allows use of its facilities for prudential reasons. If you are seriously arguing that the SSPX Bishops are not excommunicated, I'm sorry, I am going to have to excuse myself from the discussion. This is so evidently contrary to the facts, I just can't stand to go through it all again. [/quote] For prudential reasons? That's far from what it appears to I, who am only simple. I am seriously arguing that the Holy See allowed the SSPX to be the SSPX, doing what it does, celebrating the saraments publicly for any to partake of. Either way, it sends a mixed message: if you're OK and I'm OK and the anamists are OK, then what in God's name is the Church for? But I am peaceable, too. Let's call it a day on this. [quote]Eastern Orthodox Christians do not profess to be Catholics obedient to the Holy Father. If the SSPX would do the honest thing, and start its own Church, and find itself where the Orthodox are in a millenia or so, maybe it can earn my respect. And it is not at all dishonest to link CTA and the SSPX. In fact, both groups were excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz, and both excommunications were upheld by the Holy See. The SSPX is a schismatic society, a threat to the faith of many Catholics, and a scandal to the world. And I will not excuse it just because it happens to have a hankering for Latin. [/quote] The truth is that you cannot put baby killers, eugenics worshippers, satanists as the Masons are described in essence by Bl. Emmerich, with a canonically erected Society which in 1940 or even 1962 would stand out in no way from the Church as regards liturgy, catechesis, religious formation, all of it. [quote]I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I am a laymen, and have been commissioned to defend the faith and the Church by virtue of my baptism; and also by Canon Law. [/quote] So have I; so I would remind you to not parry about the schism card with a Catholic in good standing. Good night, Era.
Ora et Labora Posted April 13, 2006 Posted April 13, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 9 2006, 02:09 PM']Did I say anything about excommunicated? No. But they are just as unfaithful, in certain instances. Both organizations lack obedience to the Holy See. The SSPX by illicit consecrations and promoting a schismatic attitiude; Life Teen, by illicit liturgical abuse. Neither action can be defended, if one is not on the streetcar, it doesn't matter; one will have to run to catch up after jumping off.....good thing the streetcar doesn't move so fast. [right][snapback]941021[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Awesome Cam!! thank you so much for your thoughts....
qfnol31 Posted April 16, 2006 Posted April 16, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 8 2006, 12:49 PM']Protestants don't claim to be Catholic. The SSPX does. They have no excuse. [right][snapback]940132[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What in the world do Protestants claim then? Obviously they think they're preaching the truth and proclaim and claim it, otherwise why would they exist? Protestants are just teaching it in a way that denies all history...Same principle, except one uses the term Catholic and the other doesn't. One teaches heresy and disobedience...and the other, mostly just disobedience.
Cam42 Posted April 16, 2006 Posted April 16, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Apr 16 2006, 03:29 AM']What in the world do Protestants claim then? Obviously they think they're preaching the truth and proclaim and claim it, otherwise why would they exist? Protestants are just teaching it in a way that denies all history...Same principle, except one uses the term Catholic and the other doesn't. One teaches heresy and disobedience...and the other, mostly just disobedience. [right][snapback]948906[/snapback][/right] [/quote] C'mon Zach.....why would they exist??????? How about to PROTEST the Catholic Church? Could that be a reason to exist? Yes. Protestantism is a heresy. This cannot be denied. While most Protestants are not formal heretics, but rather material heretics, the reason for existing is to PROTEST the Catholic Church. The SSPX does not want that, but what they want is in and of itself just as bad. They are supporting a split within the Catholic Church. That is just as incorrect as promoting a heresy.
qfnol31 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 Both believe that truth is contained within them, correct? I think we agree, though thanks for answering the question. If Protestants believed in the word Catholic the situation might be a little different.
Cam42 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Apr 16 2006, 08:37 PM']Both believe that truth is contained within them, correct? I think we agree, though thanks for answering the question. If Protestants believed in the word Catholic the situation might be a little different. [right][snapback]949621[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Their notion of truth is incorrect. Therefore it is heresy. That is the whole point.
qfnol31 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 Would you think that makes their teaching more dangerous? I kinda think so...
Cam42 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Apr 16 2006, 09:01 PM']Would you think that makes their teaching more dangerous? I kinda think so... [right][snapback]949657[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That makes it heretical. And heresy is dangerous. It is not a subjective notion. Your question is asking my opinion, I have none. I know what the Church teaches and I assent to that.
qfnol31 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 No, I meant is heresy more dangerous than schism in your opinion? I agree that people are easier on Protestants than anyone who supports the SSPX and I too am asking why. The rhetorical question was about Era Might's response which I didn't think followed as an answer.
Cam42 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Apr 16 2006, 09:20 PM']No, I meant is heresy more dangerous than schism in your opinion? I agree that people are easier on Protestants than anyone who supports the SSPX and I too am asking why. The rhetorical question was about Era Might's response which I didn't think followed as an answer. [right][snapback]949687[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [quote name='CCC #2089'].....Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.....schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.[/quote] Both are sins against Faith. They are equal, according to Church teaching, therefore they are equal in my eyes.
Cam42 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Apr 16 2006, 09:58 PM']They're equal according to the Church? How so? [right][snapback]949757[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What paragraph do we learn about heresy? What paragraph do we learn about schism? What are they sins against?
qfnol31 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 All sins against chastity aren't equal in gravity. I think that analogy can be made here as well.
Cam42 Posted April 17, 2006 Posted April 17, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Apr 16 2006, 10:05 PM']All sins against chastity aren't equal in gravity. I think that analogy can be made here as well. [right][snapback]949779[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Whatever......Zach, if you don't want to listen, why converse?
Recommended Posts