cmotherofpirl Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 There will always be a schism of some sort or another as long as people put their personal loyalty to a certain discipline or faith in an idea before Catholic Church teaching and obedience as a whole. That is protestantism and a lack of trust in God to keep His church on course. They cannot see the fault lies in themselves and not in the Church. They engage in an us[ the big bad wolf] vs them [ the poor little beleagured faithful remnant] mentality. Its their identity now, and many have too much at stake to come back. Hopefully the new generation will see the value of faithfulnesss AND obedience on all sides of the spectrum - trad and liberal.
brendan1104 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='961103' date='Apr 26 2006, 12:26 AM'] Bring us back to what? we never left. and no the universal indult is not enough for us to practice the true faith. the Universal indult and novelty teaching is still modernistic. we would need a re-interpretation of the vatican II documents. [/quote] we trad's have never stopped practicing and having the faith! you're crazy! in the words of john paul II, vatican 2 needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition- of course the heresies need to be corrected... [quote name='toledo_jesus' post='961219' date='Apr 26 2006, 01:36 AM'] ladies and gentlemen, you have your answer. Who in their right mind would give up the pleasure of being the sole repository of the TRUE FAITH? SSPX won't come back as an organization, but I think a lot of its members might. Some group will always remain outside...like the Protestants they strive to emulate. [/quote] the sspx, as bishop fellay has stated, is not the mystical body of christ, but it belongs to the mystical body of christ, the church [quote name='qfnol31' post='961292' date='Apr 26 2006, 02:51 AM'] According to an ex-SSPX friend of mine they do have some heretical teachings within the society... [/quote] ive never seen or heard heresy... enlighten us... [quote name='qfnol31' post='961300' date='Apr 26 2006, 03:19 AM'] In brief it's a group in schism after the Archbishop superior general of the fraternity Consecrated four Bishops without approval of the Holy Father. It was originally founded in the 70s as a group that wished to preserve the Tridentine Mass and has been on rocky grounds since, and actually only exists today because of the current Holy Father's involvement. [/quote] father schmidberger was the superior general, not archbishop lefebvre. and it was founded to form priests, and the rocky ground started when archbishop lefebvre refused to compromise the faith, and abandon saying the mass of his ordination... and it actually exists today because it is god's will that it exists... it would still exist without cardinal ratzinger's failed (as he himself admitted) involvement
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='961362' date='Apr 26 2006, 06:32 AM'] There will always be a schism of some sort or another as long as people put their personal loyalty to a certain discipline or faith in an idea before Catholic Church teaching and obedience as a whole. That is protestantism and a lack of trust in God to keep His church on course. They cannot see the fault lies in themselves and not in the Church. They engage in an us[ the big bad wolf] vs them [ the poor little beleagured faithful remnant] mentality. Its their identity now, and many have too much at stake to come back. Hopefully the new generation will see the value of faithfulnesss AND obedience on all sides of the spectrum - trad and liberal. [/quote] The Pope says that schism happens when some aspect of the Faith is no longer loved within the Church...the schismatic group grows around that thing. The point of ecumenism is trying to find out what that lost thing is (still present, but no longer loved in the Church) and restoring it. [quote name='brendan1104' post='961421' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:44 AM'] ive never seen or heard heresy... enlighten us...[/quote] I honestly wish I could...when she's done with her finals maybe she can help us on it, but it'll be about three weeks... [quote]father schmidberger was the superior general, not archbishop lefebvre. and it was founded to form priests, and the rocky ground started when archbishop lefebvre refused to compromise the faith, and abandon saying the mass of his ordination... and it actually exists today because it is god's will that it exists... it would still exist without cardinal ratzinger's failed (as he himself admitted) involvement[/quote] Thanks for that part about the superior general. Although I believe that since the society had its roots in a city and the Archbishop of the city suppressed them. Cardinal Ratzinger helped them after they had been suppressed the first time to help the society open again, but that's when the troubles really started. It was not just since the Archbishop refused to compromise the Faith. And reading some of his writings, I do wonder about some of the things he has said. I would only argue that it exists by God's will only so far as the Orthodox exist...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' post='961421' date='Apr 26 2006, 08:44 AM'] we trad's have never stopped practicing and having the faith! you're crazy! in the words of john paul II, vatican 2 needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition- of course the heresies need to be corrected... the sspx, as bishop fellay has stated, is not the mystical body of christ, but it belongs to the mystical body of christ, the church ive never seen or heard heresy... enlighten us... father schmidberger was the superior general, not archbishop lefebvre. and it was founded to form priests, and the rocky ground started when archbishop lefebvre refused to compromise the faith, and abandon saying the mass of his ordination... and it actually exists today because it is god's will that it exists... it would still exist without cardinal ratzinger's failed (as he himself admitted) involvement [/quote] I somehow doubt God wills such schism and sin to exist.
Cam42 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' post='961421' date='Apr 26 2006, 08:44 AM'] we trad's have never stopped practicing and having the faith! you're crazy! in the words of john paul II, vatican 2 needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition- of course the heresies need to be corrected... [/quote] I would love to know just what you think are heresies....
Dave Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 I suspect he'd probably cite things like ecumenism and religious liberty as "heresies," although he's been corrected more than once about that and shown how Vatican II's teachings on those don't contradict previous councils.
jezic Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 honestly i wonder if they would. It seems like the people who break with the Church commit the same sin that Eve did. She thought that she knew better than God, of course she was tempted, but it comes down to having it her way. The Protestant movement was about rejecting this authority because it was "wrong" and doing it their own way. There are now more than 30 000 denominations. While the schism of the SSPX doesn't compare directly to either of these, it basically says that the judgement of the Pope and God's Church was compromised and we want to do it our way because we are right and our judgement isn't compromised. If humility and obedience again enter into the equation it is possible. Bredan i would disagree about the Holy Spirit willing the division that has ensued from the SSPX. It might be said though that He is using this society to refocus the eyes of the Church on traditional ways of doing things, essentially using something that was bad as something that can be done to build up the Church, but this is not willing it to happen.
Cam42 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Dave' post='961637' date='Apr 26 2006, 11:51 AM'] I suspect he'd probably cite things like ecumenism and religious liberty as "heresies," although he's been corrected more than once about that and shown how Vatican II's teachings on those don't contradict previous councils. [/quote] Yes, I know that he's been corrected. I have had a hand in that.
qfnol31 Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 It may just be me, but it seemed that Brandon was saying the heresies following from a bad interpretation of Vatican II need to be corrected...With that I agree.
Apotheoun Posted April 26, 2006 Posted April 26, 2006 [quote name='Cam42' post='961357' date='Apr 26 2006, 04:15 AM'] When has the Church ever acted that way? When has the Church ever moved backward? Quo Primum did the very same thing as Missale Romanum, except it was 399 years earlier. [. . .] [/quote] I don't see it as "moving backward"; instead, I see it as simply recognizing the beauty of the previous missal. You are of course free to hold your own opinion on this matter. God bless, Todd
brendan1104 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 it is not interpretation, it is the actual words.... i have to find my documents book, then ill give quotes...
brendan1104 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 Re-examine Vatican II, SSPX leader urges Apr. 26, 2006 CWNews.com Link to this text and others The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X has pressed his case for a re-examination of Vatican II teachings, in an interview with the French magazine Famille Chrétienne. Bishop Bernard Fellay told the French publication that he retained his hope that Pope Benedict XVI will allow broader use of the old Latin Mass. "Opening the doors to the old liturgy would probably be the most fruitful way to resolve the crisis in the Church," he said. The leader of the SSPX, which broke from Rome in 1988, said that he would be slow to form a firm opinion about the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI. "We need action," he said; "words are not the important thing." Bishop Fellay told Famille Chrétienne that although he and the Pope found a good deal of common ground for discussion, they continue to take very different views regarding Vatican II. While acknowledging that Pope Benedict has said that the Council teachings must be interpreted in the light of Catholic tradition, the bishop said that he would go further. "We propose to get beyond the Council," he said, "looking higher, toward principles that cannot become outdated because they are eternal."
Cam42 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' post='961971' date='Apr 26 2006, 03:37 PM'] It may just be me, but it seemed that Brandon was saying the heresies following from a bad interpretation of Vatican II need to be corrected...With that I agree. [/quote] Yep, it is just you.
goldenchild17 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 [quote name='missionseeker' post='961086' date='Apr 25 2006, 08:18 PM'] It seems like they have much more than this issue that they don't agree with. EENS, women, the valdidty of documents after VII. So I was wondering what's gonna happen with them? [/quote] I don't know what the effect would be. It's quite possible that this would be enough for the order itself to reconcile. However this would cause many good and faithful priests to abandon this order and go outright sedevacantist, or at least independent. I don't see why SSPX would want to reconcile personally, but if they did I wonder how things would play out.
qfnol31 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 [quote name='goldenchild17' post='962626' date='Apr 27 2006, 08:20 AM'] I don't know what the effect would be. It's quite possible that this would be enough for the order itself to reconcile. However this would cause many good and faithful priests to abandon this order and go outright sedevacantist, or at least independent. I don't see why SSPX would want to reconcile personally, but if they did I wonder how things would play out. [/quote] Because according to Vatican I the Pope must be recognized as necessary or the person holding the contrary anathema sit... [quote]Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs [b]That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [/b][45] . For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, [b]and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [/b][46] . [b]Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and [i]does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received[/i][/b] [47] . For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] . Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; [b]or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: [i]let him be anathema.[/i][/b] [/quote] [quote]In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] . This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. [/quote] goldenchild, I hope you realize you've gone the way of "old Catholics" in denying the perpetual primacy of the Pope and denying Vatican I...
Desert Walker Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' post='962184' date='Apr 26 2006, 06:08 PM'] Re-examine Vatican II, SSPX leader urges Apr. 26, 2006 CWNews.com Link to this text and others The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X has pressed his case for a re-examination of Vatican II teachings, in an interview with the French magazine Famille Chrétienne. Bishop Bernard Fellay told the French publication that he retained his hope that Pope Benedict XVI will allow broader use of the old Latin Mass. "Opening the doors to the old liturgy would probably be the most fruitful way to resolve the crisis in the Church," he said. The leader of the SSPX, which broke from Rome in 1988, said that he would be slow to form a firm opinion about the leadership of Pope Benedict XVI. "We need action," he said; "words are not the important thing." Bishop Fellay told Famille Chrétienne that although he and the Pope found a good deal of common ground for discussion, they continue to take very different views regarding Vatican II. While acknowledging that Pope Benedict has said that the Council teachings must be interpreted in the light of Catholic tradition, the bishop said that he would go further. "We propose to get beyond the Council," he said, "looking higher, toward principles that cannot become outdated because they are eternal." [/quote] All Catholics should pick up and read Ratzinger's published memoirs titled Milestones. Fellay isn't exactly waay off the mark. Although I think he would like to see something happen that is fundamentally irrelevant: Re-examination of Vatican II in light of Catholic tradition. That doesn't need to be done because the entire Council was simply a re-iteration of the Catholic tradition! The liturgy needs attention, and in that, Benedict agrees with this man.
goldenchild17 Posted April 27, 2006 Posted April 27, 2006 [quote name='qfnol31' post='962723' date='Apr 27 2006, 09:48 AM'] Because according to Vatican I the Pope must be recognized as necessary or the person holding the contrary anathema sit... goldenchild, I hope you realize you've gone the way of "old Catholics" in denying the perpetual primacy of the Pope and denying Vatican I... [/quote] I won't argue it here as it isn't allowed. But Vatican I says the "office" of the Papacy will always exist. Not that there will always be somebody on it.
missionseeker Posted April 28, 2006 Author Posted April 28, 2006 [quote name='brendan1104' post='961421' date='Apr 26 2006, 07:44 AM'] we trad's have never stopped practicing and having the faith! you're crazy! in the words of john paul II, vatican 2 needs to be interpreted in the light of tradition- of course the heresies need to be corrected... the sspx, as bishop fellay has stated, is not the mystical body of christ, but it belongs to the mystical body of christ, the church ive never seen or heard heresy... enlighten us... father schmidberger was the superior general, not archbishop lefebvre. and it was founded to form priests, and the rocky ground started when archbishop lefebvre refused to compromise the faith, and abandon saying the mass of his ordination... and it actually exists today because it is god's will that it exists... it would still exist without cardinal ratzinger's failed (as he himself admitted) involvement [/quote] "Things happen because God wills them" type thinking is very Protestant. (and it's also Old Testement ) People make their own choices God doesn't do it for them. People who want to make up lame reasons for sinning say that.
Recommended Posts