OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 05:52:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope tells SSPX traditionalists they must accept Second Vatican Council  (Read 4604 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: September 28, 2012, 01:56:37 PM »

Quote
(RNS) Pope Benedict XVI has reportedly told the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that they must accept the Second Vatican Council, a move that might seal the fate of years of negotiations to bring the group fully back into the Catholic fold.
...
Benedict's bottom line would most likely be unacceptable for the SSPX, bringing to an end the pontiff's effort to heal a decade-long schism in the Catholic Church.

The SSPX rejects the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), including church acceptance of ecumenism and religious freedom, and its rejection of anti-Semitism.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,381


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2012, 02:15:29 PM »

Quote
(RNS) Pope Benedict XVI has reportedly told the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that they must accept the Second Vatican Council, a move that might seal the fate of years of negotiations to bring the group fully back into the Catholic fold.
...
Benedict's bottom line would most likely be unacceptable for the SSPX, bringing to an end the pontiff's effort to heal a decade-long schism in the Catholic Church.

The SSPX rejects the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), including church acceptance of ecumenism and religious freedom, and its rejection of anti-Semitism.

Thank goodness that the Pope is finally being honest.

He would have imposed this on the SSPX had they joined Rome.

It was inevitable. How could a divided RCC survive?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,724



« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2012, 02:23:41 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2012, 02:31:24 PM »

What do they mean about the whole antisemitism business?

I've known an SSPXer for some time. Great guy and wonderful family.

I wonder if he is against being against antisemitism. Actually, I have to talk to him in about 20 minutes, I'll ask.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2012, 03:02:14 PM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2012, 03:04:38 PM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.

*Any* bishop who denies the Holocaust is a problem.  And he has been one, from what I can tell.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2012, 03:13:51 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2012, 03:21:44 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 03:22:18 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2012, 03:26:49 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
Papist is correct.  The SSPX are more likely to just go it alone.  Heck in a few generations they may be the largest part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2012, 03:29:56 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
Papist is correct.  The SSPX are more likely to just go it alone.  Heck in a few generations they may be the largest part of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they go it alone, and are not in communion with Rome, that would make them NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church, no? 

I agree with Papist--I do not see them coming into the Orthodox Church.  But...stranger things have happened.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 03:31:02 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2012, 03:49:28 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
Papist is correct.  The SSPX are more likely to just go it alone.  Heck in a few generations they may be the largest part of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they go it alone, and are not in communion with Rome, that would make them NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church, no? 
That would depend upon your perspective.  Even though they are in "schism" of a sorts now, the Vatican still considers them to be Roman Catholic.  But - of course - the SSPX consider themselves to be the real Roman Catholics.  It's all a matter of perspective.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2012, 03:51:50 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
Papist is correct.  The SSPX are more likely to just go it alone.  Heck in a few generations they may be the largest part of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they go it alone, and are not in communion with Rome, that would make them NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church, no? 

I agree with Papist--I do not see them coming into the Orthodox Church.  But...stranger things have happened.

Right on!  Why would SSPX join with the Orthodox Church, when they consider us to be hertetics?
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2012, 04:46:33 PM »

They were tricked into these negotiations.
The whole business of "allowing" the old Mass and re-introducing traditional vestments, etc, has been a snare and trickery.
Just when the SSPX appeared to be split in two, the Pope revealed that nothing has changed and that acceptance of VII is a requirement for reconciliation, in the hope of having caught the superior and many others already. Alas, the trap was sprung too early and they evaded it.
I agree with Maria in that it would have been imposed eventually anyway. They just tried too early in the game.

Anti-semitism?
The "anti-semitism" of the SSPX is just wanting to convert Jews to Christ and holding fast to that part of church teaching. Needless to say, the Novus Ordo church has "moved beyond" that and prefer to say that their Covenant is salvific for them (Kardinal Kasper repeatedly) and just change the whole doctrine of the RCC on the subject under and after VaticanII.
Whatever Bishop Williamson said..., it is his personal opinion and not an opnion of the SSPX as such. Besides, he uttered an opinion about a historical incident. No matter how stupid an utterance about a historical incident may be, it has nothing to do with dogma. If I hold the opinion that Napolean didn't win but rather lost at Jena, then the only thing I am guilty of, is being a bit stupid.
He said nothing touching upon the morality of the Jewish tragedy. Murder is murder and is evil. He just thinks a lot less people were killed than the official numbers say.
The SSPX as a whole does not speculate about history, but are concerned with the Catholic faith only. (Remember that the bishops of the Society are only auxiliary Bishops and not leaders of the group. That the current superior is a Bishop, is coincidence. Before, it was only priests who were superiors.

In any case, RCC teaching is not easy to find out about these days. It used to pretty clear and concise, but not any more. That 3 successive popes can teach differently to what the church has always taught and that people are willingly blind and convince themselves that "in some mysterious way, the former and the present teaching can be reconciled", is beyond me.
Personally, I am currently taking  (and suffering)  the consequences of that and to my horror I have discovered that maybe changing doctrines isn't a new thing with the Catholic church. It is just that this change is somehow much more radical.

After many years as a convinced and devout traditionalist Catholic, I am having serious doubts about the whole thing and from the looks of it on this forum, I am not the only one.
Modernist Popes, extremely rampant Liberalism and Modernism, man-made and concocted liturgy created to be doctrinally pleasant for Protestants, Pope asking St. John the Baptist to bless Islam, Pope receiving animist blessings in Benin, Popes having ecumenist meetings in Assisi and praying with all sorts of pagans, Jews and heretics while cuddling up to the ADL.
 and the only piece of liturgy which at least has connection to the past, the traditional Latin Mass, was effectively banned for 50 years and is now "the extraordinary form".
They are discussing how they can "merge" the bogus disorder liturgy and the 1962-TLM and create some hybrid out of it...Nothing is sacred for them.
The SSPX is fighting heroically, but it is the fight of the Samurai against the Emperor in "The Last Samurai", if you remember that film.

Unless something drastic happens, I seriously doubt the SSPX as a whole would go Orthodox. However, individual layfolk or priests might, but not too many. Papist and Monk Vasyl are probably right.

Regarding the communion-thing... They ARE in communion. They are not excommunicated.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,143


« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2012, 04:55:05 PM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.
Holocaust "denier"? Really? Can you people actually think for yourselves?

Or maybe you live in Europe where critical thought is a criminal act prosecuted as Hate Speech.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2012, 05:11:30 PM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.
Holocaust "denier"? Really? Can you people actually think for yourselves?

Or maybe you live in Europe where critical thought is a criminal act prosecuted as Hate Speech.

Exactly. As if one has to believe in it to be a Christian. That is certainly the view held by many today.
Whatever one believes about that tragic incident during WWII, it is not a part of the Christian Faith.
In Germany, if I say publicly that "Oh what a tragedy the Holcaust was. 3 million was gassed and died horribly", I am guilty of a hate crime. Reason?  I  denied that 6 million died when I said 3 million.
I can go to prison for that.

However, Iconodule is right about the texts. Both Catholic and Orthodox have them. Oh wait, ....the Pope in Rome changed it 3 years ago and tossed out one of the most ancient prayers of the Mass and replaced it with one he wrote himself after being asked by the ADL to do it.
 We don't have such texts any more in the Catholic liturgy, so now only the Orthodox are "anti-semites".
Sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2012, 05:29:32 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
Papist is correct.  The SSPX are more likely to just go it alone.  Heck in a few generations they may be the largest part of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they go it alone, and are not in communion with Rome, that would make them NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church, no? 
That would depend upon your perspective.  Even though they are in "schism" of a sorts now, the Vatican still considers them to be Roman Catholic.  But - of course - the SSPX consider themselves to be the real Roman Catholics.  It's all a matter of perspective.
True. Currently the SSPX is not regularized, but they are no longer excommunicated either. So technically, they are Catholic. However, if they refuse to accept VII, it is possible that they will be excommunicated again. Who knows.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2012, 05:32:08 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
Papist is correct.  The SSPX are more likely to just go it alone.  Heck in a few generations they may be the largest part of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they go it alone, and are not in communion with Rome, that would make them NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church, no? 
That would depend upon your perspective.  Even though they are in "schism" of a sorts now, the Vatican still considers them to be Roman Catholic.  But - of course - the SSPX consider themselves to be the real Roman Catholics.  It's all a matter of perspective.
True. Currently the SSPX is not regularized, but they are no longer excommunicated either. So technically, they are Catholic. However, if they refuse to accept VII, it is possible that they will be excommunicated again. Who knows.
Even prior to the lifting of the excommunications the SSPX were in a strange canonical position, because Rome had issued several documents that implied the SSPX were not in schism.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2012, 05:32:54 PM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.
Holocaust "denier"? Really? Can you people actually think for yourselves?

Or maybe you live in Europe where critical thought is a criminal act prosecuted as Hate Speech.
So what you are saying is the Holocaust was done on a much smaller scale or what?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2012, 05:36:36 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.
Papist is correct.  The SSPX are more likely to just go it alone.  Heck in a few generations they may be the largest part of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they go it alone, and are not in communion with Rome, that would make them NOT a part of the Roman Catholic Church, no?  
That would depend upon your perspective.  Even though they are in "schism" of a sorts now, the Vatican still considers them to be Roman Catholic.  But - of course - the SSPX consider themselves to be the real Roman Catholics.  It's all a matter of perspective.
True. Currently the SSPX is not regularized, but they are no longer excommunicated either. So technically, they are Catholic. However, if they refuse to accept VII, it is possible that they will be excommunicated again. Who knows.
Even prior to the lifting of the excommunications the SSPX were in a strange canonical position, because Rome had issued several documents that implied the SSPX were not in schism.
Yep. Some have implied that when the SSPX were excommunicated, they were in a state of "internal schism," analogous to the schism that used to exist between ROCOR and the MP. So yes, their situation is messy. The interesting thing is that the SSPX actually agrees with more of VII than do modernists in the Church... Heck, the acceptance of the Papacy puts the SSPX in greater agreement with VII than many Byzantine Catholics who are in a regularized relationship with Rome.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 05:38:23 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,143


« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2012, 05:51:24 PM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.
Holocaust "denier"? Really? Can you people actually think for yourselves?

Or maybe you live in Europe where critical thought is a criminal act prosecuted as Hate Speech.

Exactly. As if one has to believe in it to be a Christian.
That is certainly the view held by many today.
Whatever one believes about that tragic incident during WWII, it is not a part of the Christian Faith.
In Germany, if I say publicly that "Oh what a tragedy the Holcaust was. 3 million was gassed and died horribly", I am guilty of a hate crime. Reason?  I  denied that 6 million died when I said 3 million.
I can go to prison for that.

However, Iconodule is right about the texts. Both Catholic and Orthodox have them. Oh wait, ....the Pope in Rome changed it 3 years ago and tossed out one of the most ancient prayers of the Mass and replaced it with one he wrote himself after being asked by the ADL to do it.
 We don't have such texts any more in the Catholic liturgy, so now only the Orthodox are "anti-semites".
Sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?
It's more than that, it's become a religion, in of itself.

Think about it for a minute, those that enforce the coerced belief system about it are more zealous and fanatical than the most radical Muslim, anyone who questions the official party line is selected for extinction, hence the Fatwa issued against BP Williamson after his personal opinion on the subject.

Also the change in the liturgy placating Abe Foxman and his merry band of shysters was nothing short of despicable.

Prayers to God for the conversion of the Jews offends the ADL so Ratzinger decides to convert himself and offend God.

Like I said, despicable.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,143


« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2012, 05:57:51 PM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.
Holocaust "denier"? Really? Can you people actually think for yourselves?

Or maybe you live in Europe where critical thought is a criminal act prosecuted as Hate Speech.
So what you are saying is the Holocaust was done on a much smaller scale or what?
What does it matter ? The question is does anyone have a right to question anything about it?

I guess not in Nazi.......er, I mean, Free and Democratic Germany these days.  Roll Eyes
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2012, 06:56:52 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2012, 06:58:56 PM »

What do they mean about the whole antisemitism business?

I've known an SSPXer for some time. Great guy and wonderful family.

I wonder if he is against being against antisemitism. Actually, I have to talk to him in about 20 minutes, I'll ask.
I think it depends on what one defines as antisemitism.  In today's world, disagreement is a hate crime.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2012, 07:29:22 PM »

"Think for yourself!" "Stop working for the PC police!" etc. etc. etc.
People who believe firmly in something really dumb, which is also very unpopular, need to focus on the "unpopular" part to draw attention away from the "really dumb" part.
Williamson is a holocaust denier, yes. He and his supporters deserve mockery and pity. Mostly mockery.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2012, 07:29:41 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,381


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2012, 07:42:37 PM »

They were tricked into these negotiations.
The whole business of "allowing" the old Mass and re-introducing traditional vestments, etc, has been a snare and trickery.
Just when the SSPX appeared to be split in two, the Pope revealed that nothing has changed and that acceptance of VII is a requirement for reconciliation, in the hope of having caught the superior and many others already. Alas, the trap was sprung too early and they evaded it.
I agree with Maria in that it would have been imposed eventually anyway. They just tried too early in the game.

Anti-semitism?
The "anti-semitism" of the SSPX is just wanting to convert Jews to Christ and holding fast to that part of church teaching. Needless to say, the Novus Ordo church has "moved beyond" that and prefer to say that their Covenant is salvific for them (Kardinal Kasper repeatedly) and just change the whole doctrine of the RCC on the subject under and after VaticanII.
Whatever Bishop Williamson said..., it is his personal opinion and not an opnion of the SSPX as such. Besides, he uttered an opinion about a historical incident. No matter how stupid an utterance about a historical incident may be, it has nothing to do with dogma. If I hold the opinion that Napolean didn't win but rather lost at Jena, then the only thing I am guilty of, is being a bit stupid.
He said nothing touching upon the morality of the Jewish tragedy. Murder is murder and is evil. He just thinks a lot less people were killed than the official numbers say.
The SSPX as a whole does not speculate about history, but are concerned with the Catholic faith only. (Remember that the bishops of the Society are only auxiliary Bishops and not leaders of the group. That the current superior is a Bishop, is coincidence. Before, it was only priests who were superiors.

In any case, RCC teaching is not easy to find out about these days. It used to pretty clear and concise, but not any more. That 3 successive popes can teach differently to what the church has always taught and that people are willingly blind and convince themselves that "in some mysterious way, the former and the present teaching can be reconciled", is beyond me.
Personally, I am currently taking  (and suffering)  the consequences of that and to my horror I have discovered that maybe changing doctrines isn't a new thing with the Catholic church. It is just that this change is somehow much more radical.

After many years as a convinced and devout traditionalist Catholic, I am having serious doubts about the whole thing and from the looks of it on this forum, I am not the only one.
Modernist Popes, extremely rampant Liberalism and Modernism, man-made and concocted liturgy created to be doctrinally pleasant for Protestants, Pope asking St. John the Baptist to bless Islam, Pope receiving animist blessings in Benin, Popes having ecumenist meetings in Assisi and praying with all sorts of pagans, Jews and heretics while cuddling up to the ADL.
 and the only piece of liturgy which at least has connection to the past, the traditional Latin Mass, was effectively banned for 50 years and is now "the extraordinary form".
They are discussing how they can "merge" the bogus disorder liturgy and the 1962-TLM and create some hybrid out of it...Nothing is sacred for them.
The SSPX is fighting heroically, but it is the fight of the Samurai against the Emperor in "The Last Samurai", if you remember that film.

Unless something drastic happens, I seriously doubt the SSPX as a whole would go Orthodox. However, individual layfolk or priests might, but not too many. Papist and Monk Vasyl are probably right.

Regarding the communion-thing... They ARE in communion. They are not excommunicated.

I am a convert to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism.
I shared the same struggle. It was a nightmare.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2012, 07:50:32 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

How is any Christian at liberty to not accept an ecumenical council of his/her own Church?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,388


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2012, 07:55:53 PM »

"Think for yourself!" "Stop working for the PC police!" etc. etc. etc.
People who believe firmly in something really dumb, which is also very unpopular, need to focus on the "unpopular" part to draw attention away from the "really dumb" part.
Williamson is a holocaust denier, yes. He and his supporters deserve mockery and pity. Mostly mockery.

Thank you. Finally, someone said it.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2012, 08:15:23 PM »

After many years as a convinced and devout traditionalist Catholic, I am having serious doubts about the whole thing and from the looks of it on this forum, I am not the only one.
Modernist Popes, extremely rampant Liberalism and Modernism, man-made and concocted liturgy created to be doctrinally pleasant for Protestants, Pope asking St. John the Baptist to bless Islam, Pope receiving animist blessings in Benin, Popes having ecumenist meetings in Assisi and praying with all sorts of pagans, Jews and heretics while cuddling up to the ADL.
 and the only piece of liturgy which at least has connection to the past, the traditional Latin Mass, was effectively banned for 50 years and is now "the extraordinary form".
They are discussing how they can "merge" the bogus disorder liturgy and the 1962-TLM and create some hybrid out of it...Nothing is sacred for them.
The SSPX is fighting heroically, but it is the fight of the Samurai against the Emperor in "The Last Samurai", if you remember that film.
Wow didn't know the extent of how bad it is.

I will pray for you all.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #28 on: September 28, 2012, 08:18:32 PM »

Lawl at the comparison of ecumenist popes to His Imperial Majesty the Meiji Emperor.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2012, 08:24:01 PM »

Lawl at the comparison of ecumenist popes to His Imperial Majesty the Meiji Emperor.
Who's Tom Cruise?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2012, 09:06:01 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

How is any Christian at liberty to not accept an ecumenical council of his/her own Church?

I don't know.  Perhaps I should have said disagree.  I even had one say it was the worst thing to happen to the Roman Catholic Church in recent history and this was a young (20s) cradle Catholic.
Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #31 on: September 29, 2012, 07:47:37 AM »

I believe they're referring to remarks against "the Jews" contained in the service texts (our texts retain similar bits). There is at least one holocaust denier SSPX bishop but I don't think that's the problem here.
Holocaust "denier"? Really? Can you people actually think for yourselves?

Or maybe you live in Europe where critical thought is a criminal act prosecuted as Hate Speech.

Exactly. As if one has to believe in it to be a Christian.
That is certainly the view held by many today.
Whatever one believes about that tragic incident during WWII, it is not a part of the Christian Faith.
In Germany, if I say publicly that "Oh what a tragedy the Holcaust was. 3 million was gassed and died horribly", I am guilty of a hate crime. Reason?  I  denied that 6 million died when I said 3 million.
I can go to prison for that.

However, Iconodule is right about the texts. Both Catholic and Orthodox have them. Oh wait, ....the Pope in Rome changed it 3 years ago and tossed out one of the most ancient prayers of the Mass and replaced it with one he wrote himself after being asked by the ADL to do it.
 We don't have such texts any more in the Catholic liturgy, so now only the Orthodox are "anti-semites".
Sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?
It's more than that, it's become a religion, in of itself.

Think about it for a minute, those that enforce the coerced belief system about it are more zealous and fanatical than the most radical Muslim, anyone who questions the official party line is selected for extinction, hence the Fatwa issued against BP Williamson after his personal opinion on the subject.

Also the change in the liturgy placating Abe Foxman and his merry band of shysters was nothing short of despicable.

Prayers to God for the conversion of the Jews offends the ADL so Ratzinger decides to convert himself and offend God.

Like I said, despicable.

Utterly despicable.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #32 on: September 29, 2012, 08:00:21 AM »

Isn't participating in animist rituals ipse facto apostasy?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 08:01:25 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #33 on: September 29, 2012, 08:10:31 AM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

How is any Christian at liberty to not accept an ecumenical council of his/her own Church?

From a Catholic perspective, this is a bit complicated..
You see, VII never claimed to be a dogmatic council. According to the words of Pope Paul VI the council didn't concern itself with doctrines, more than sometimes reiterating what had already been defined before. Furthermore he said that the council was a "pastoral" council, whatever that means. It has never been defined.
 Archbishop Pericle Felici, official spokesman, when interviewed by the press just after the closing of the council. said that one should be careful with what appears to be new doctrines.
In addition, many bishops did not sign the council documents and they were never excommunicated nor punished in some other way.
Moreover, there is dissent also within the Novus Ordo- part of the Catholic church, particularly vocal in the 3 last years. Professor of Theology Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, of the so-called Roman School of Theology is an example.
It seems to be that only towards the SSPX is total acceptance of the council a prerequisite for reconciliation.
 
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #34 on: September 29, 2012, 08:18:25 AM »

The "anti-semitism" of the SSPX is just wanting to convert Jews to Christ and holding fast to that part of church teaching.

THAT makes you an antisemite today? Didn't the apostles try to convert the Jews?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 08:18:55 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #35 on: September 29, 2012, 08:35:20 AM »

Isn't participating in animist rituals ipse facto apostasy?

With knowledge and intent, yes.
But apparently not after VaticanII. The pics of JPII doing this can be found in many places online. Just google it.

They even invited Hindus to perform pagan rituals in the Fatima Cathedral and the local bishop there participated and ran around with this red dot on his forehead after being "blessed" by the Hindu priest.
Not to mention what took place in Assisi in 1986... Sacrilege upon sacrilege.
And of course the new post-conciliar papal sport of speaking in synagogues, naturally without mentioning conversion to Christ.

Up until very recently, I believed that the RCC was the Church of Christ, in spite of the faults of churchmen. Now I am not so sure..and it is heartbreaking.
In addition, the sentralisation of power and jurisdiction has always bugged me a bit...and now I am researching that field further and thus inquiring into Orthodoxy and its claims.
Humanly speaking, I seriously doubt that  Modernism and Liberalism could take such a hold in Orthodoxy, particularly since there is no "command centre" to corrupt, which in turn can corrupt the rest of the body.
The Catholic bishops and popes who were behind the debacle, where all trained and formed in the pre-VII church and were all taught differently. Still, almost no one resisted when they were told by the central power that 2+2 is no longer 4, but 5.
 In modern times, with communications as advanced as they are, it does not take long to spread spiritual poison. When you have the sentralised infrastructure ready as well(Pope and Vatican being the supreme power over all and everywhere), the infestation does not take long.
If the infrastructure had not been there, it would likely not have happened. At least not at such a speed.
I have come to believe that the desentralised structure of Orthodoxy is, humanly speaking, its best protection from the same venom. Thus there must indeed be something to it.....
Logged
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2012, 08:42:48 AM »

Isn't participating in animist rituals ipse facto apostasy?

With knowledge and intent, yes.
But apparently not after VaticanII. The pics of JPII doing this can be found in many places online. Just google it.

They even invited Hindus to perform pagan rituals in the Fatima Cathedral and the local bishop there participated and ran around with this red dot on his forehead after being "blessed" by the Hindu priest.
Not to mention what took place in Assisi in 1986... Sacrilege upon sacrilege.
And of course the new post-conciliar papal sport of speaking in synagogues, naturally without mentioning conversion to Christ.

Up until very recently, I believed that the RCC was the Church of Christ, in spite of the faults of churchmen. Now I am not so sure..and it is heartbreaking.
In addition, the sentralisation of power and jurisdiction has always bugged me a bit...and now I am researching that field further and thus inquiring into Orthodoxy and its claims.
Humanly speaking, I seriously doubt that  Modernism and Liberalism could take such a hold in Orthodoxy, particularly since there is no "command centre" to corrupt, which in turn can corrupt the rest of the body.
The Catholic bishops and popes who were behind the debacle, where all trained and formed in the pre-VII church and were all taught differently. Still, almost no one resisted when they were told by the central power that 2+2 is no longer 4, but 5.
 In modern times, with communications as advanced as they are, it does not take long to spread spiritual poison. When you have the sentralised infrastructure ready as well(Pope and Vatican being the supreme power over all and everywhere), the infestation does not take long.
If the infrastructure had not been there, it would likely not have happened. At least not at such a speed.
I have come to believe that the desentralised structure of Orthodoxy is, humanly speaking, its best protection from the same venom. Thus there must indeed be something to it.....


Yeah, we're all pretty excited about Orthodoxy. Grin
Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #37 on: September 29, 2012, 08:45:12 AM »

The "anti-semitism" of the SSPX is just wanting to convert Jews to Christ and holding fast to that part of church teaching.

THAT makes you an antisemite today? Didn't the apostles try to convert the Jews?

Yes, it does. Because it is "coercion" to be missionary today. And if you "coerce" someone and they happen to be  Jews, you are ipso facto anti-semitic.
The Apostles could convert Jews all they wanted and martyrs of the church could suffer and die for it in the past, like St. Stephen. But VaticanII  and the post-conciliar church knows better.
Therefore they changed the prayer for the conversion of Jews in the liturgy in 2008/09, I think it was. The word " perfidis" which is "faithless" in the liturgy was done away with already in 1962 (when Pope John XIII wanted to open the windows of the church to the world, he didn't want Christians to pray for "the faithless Jews" anymore, only for "The Jews" that they may see their errors and convert to Christ.
Now, the whole prayer has disappeared and been replaced by one which Benedict XVI wrote himself after being pressured by the ADL, some rabbis and other Jewish organisations.
One must not pray for the conversion of the Jewish people, because conversion is coercion and is anti-semitic.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,211


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2012, 09:07:07 AM »

The "anti-semitism" of the SSPX is just wanting to convert Jews to Christ and holding fast to that part of church teaching.

THAT makes you an antisemite today? Didn't the apostles try to convert the Jews?

Yes, it does. Because it is "coercion" to be missionary today. And if you "coerce" someone and they happen to be  Jews, you are ipso facto anti-semitic.
The Apostles could convert Jews all they wanted and martyrs of the church could suffer and die for it in the past, like St. Stephen. But VaticanII  and the post-conciliar church knows better.
Therefore they changed the prayer for the conversion of Jews in the liturgy in 2008/09, I think it was. The word " perfidis" which is "faithless" in the liturgy was done away with already in 1962 (when Pope John XIII wanted to open the windows of the church to the world, he didn't want Christians to pray for "the faithless Jews" anymore, only for "The Jews" that they may see their errors and convert to Christ.
Now, the whole prayer has disappeared and been replaced by one which Benedict XVI wrote himself after being pressured by the ADL, some rabbis and other Jewish organisations.
One must not pray for the conversion of the Jewish people, because conversion is coercion and is anti-semitic.


I don't envy the position the traditionalists in the RCC are in.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,900



« Reply #39 on: September 29, 2012, 10:53:57 AM »

I think many Orthodox who look at the last two Popes and somehow see them as being "traditional" are probably not seeing the whole picture. I think the last two Popes have actually been quite liberal. They are simply more open to the East because of their general liberal attitudes. After all, the same Pope that prayed with Patriarch Bartholomew is the same pope who kissed the Quran and did many other things which actually cross the line on the heresy of Ecumenism. There is a difference between seeking mutual understanding between faiths and actually committing Ecumenism.

It's like a former teacher of mine. He was a very nice, kind man. He was also open to Orthodoxy, but he was also the same way with many other Christian traditions & even non-Christian religions. He, and others at my alma mater are of a more liberal flavor when it comes to religion. A specific group in that university (affiliated with my former delusion) is more willing to visit Synagogues and Mosques than they are a traditional Roman Catholic service or an Orthodox liturgy.

To be very honest, openness doesn't mean unity is any closer. In fact, too much openness simply means it is even further away. The Pope's openness to Judaism, Islam and Hinduism, as well as Eastern Christianity is a sign that the Papacy is just as sick (if not moreso) than ever.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,143


« Reply #40 on: September 29, 2012, 11:36:14 AM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.
That's "Council".......I hate to be a grammar Nazi but sometimes I can't help it. 

And if I screw up, feel free to remind of it in the future.  Grin
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,143


« Reply #41 on: September 29, 2012, 11:39:58 AM »

"Think for yourself!" "Stop working for the PC police!" etc. etc. etc.
People who believe firmly in something really dumb, which is also very unpopular, need to focus on the "unpopular" part to draw attention away from the "really dumb" part.
Williamson is a holocaust denier, yes. He and his supporters deserve mockery and pity. Mostly mockery.
You're right, people who believe in the Holocaust religion need to be openly mocked and ridiculed.

People who hate free speech like modern day Germany need the same.

Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,114


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #42 on: September 29, 2012, 11:54:20 AM »

I think many Orthodox who look at the last two Popes and somehow see them as being "traditional" are probably not seeing the whole picture. I think the last two Popes have actually been quite liberal. They are simply more open to the East because of their general liberal attitudes. After all, the same Pope that prayed with Patriarch Bartholomew is the same pope who kissed the Quran and did many other things which actually cross the line on the heresy of Ecumenism. There is a difference between seeking mutual understanding between faiths and actually committing Ecumenism.

It's like a former teacher of mine. He was a very nice, kind man. He was also open to Orthodoxy, but he was also the same way with many other Christian traditions & even non-Christian religions. He, and others at my alma mater are of a more liberal flavor when it comes to religion. A specific group in that university (affiliated with my former delusion) is more willing to visit Synagogues and Mosques than they are a traditional Roman Catholic service or an Orthodox liturgy.

To be very honest, openness doesn't mean unity is any closer. In fact, too much openness simply means it is even further away. The Pope's openness to Judaism, Islam and Hinduism, as well as Eastern Christianity is a sign that the Papacy is just as sick (if not moreso) than ever.

Excellent observation.  I would be more respective of a conservative Papacy than a liberal one for these reasons.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #43 on: September 29, 2012, 12:13:36 PM »

Say hello to the Western Rite?  The SSPX are ultra-trads, they believe all other Rites to be heretical.  There is no way they will 'dox.
Logged
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,114


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #44 on: September 29, 2012, 12:56:10 PM »



Right on!  Why would SSPX join with the Orthodox Church, when they consider us to be hertetics?

Exactly and spot on.  The SSPX'rs would rather jump off a cliff than joining the Orthodox Church.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 12:56:52 PM by JoeS2 » Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #45 on: September 29, 2012, 03:38:14 PM »

Say hello to the Western Rite?  The SSPX are ultra-trads, they believe all other Rites to be heretical.  There is no way they will 'dox.

Believe other rites to be heretical? Respectfully..., that is absolute nonsense.
They are of the Roman rite and are concerned about 1) Doctrine and 2) the traditional Latin Mass(albeit this weird - in my opinion -attitude that one must settle for the 1962 liturgical books)
In fact, their priests urge Roman rite Catholics to attend Eastern  liturgies if no TLM is available. 

However, I agree that the they won't go Orthodox as a group. Maybe some individual priests and probably more layfolk, but that's it.
 
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #46 on: September 29, 2012, 04:30:20 PM »

Say hello to the Western Rite?  The SSPX are ultra-trads, they believe all other Rites to be heretical.  There is no way they will 'dox.

Believe other rites to be heretical? Respectfully..., that is absolute nonsense.
They are of the Roman rite and are concerned about 1) Doctrine and 2) the traditional Latin Mass(albeit this weird - in my opinion -attitude that one must settle for the 1962 liturgical books)
In fact, their priests urge Roman rite Catholics to attend Eastern  liturgies if no TLM is available.  

However, I agree that the they won't go Orthodox as a group. Maybe some individual priests and probably more layfolk, but that's it.
 

They believe in the "traditional" belief that the Eastern Catholic Rites are nothing more than transitional Rites for the Orthodox to become Roman Catholics.

Also they are ultramontanists.  While they believe the post-Vatican II Popes to be "modernist heretics", they still hold strong to the authority of the Pope and are hoping to restore a traditional Pope who will rid the Church of the heretical Vatican II.

And I haven't heard of SSPX priests telling their flock to come attend Eastern Catholic parishes.  I haven't seen anyone some to our parish, and we're the only EC Church in our area.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2012, 04:31:35 PM by choy » Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #47 on: September 29, 2012, 04:56:58 PM »

That is not true. There is no such "traditional belief". Even Trent flies in the face of that postulate. If you are referring to romanisations of the Eastern rites,  that is a different matter and does not concern the SSPX.  I have been in SSPX chapels around the globe for years and I know what I am talking about.
I am not saying the SSPX views Orthodoxy favourably. Far from it. But that isn't the point here.
 
However, about ultramontanism, I agree with you totally. That is also why I say few of them are likely to go Orthodox.
It is also my major beef with them.

Logged
searn77
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Old Calendarist
Jurisdiction: Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas & the British Isles
Posts: 240


St. Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York


« Reply #48 on: September 29, 2012, 05:02:02 PM »

Say hello to the Western Rite?  The SSPX are ultra-trads, they believe all other Rites to be heretical.  There is no way they will 'dox.

I realize this is from wikipedia so there's always the possibility that it's wrong, and I don't have the time right now to really look into it, but I was under the assumption that the SSPX were in communion with a similar group but one that is eastern rite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat
Logged

Let us the faithful now come together to praise our father, protector and teacher the pillar of the Orthodox faith and firm defender of piety even the wondrous hierarch Philaret and let us glorify our Saviour Who has granted us his incorrupt relics as a manifest sign of his sanctity.
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #49 on: September 29, 2012, 05:20:50 PM »

In any case, RCC teaching is not easy to find out about these days. It used to pretty clear and concise, but not any more. That 3 successive popes can teach differently to what the church has always taught and that people are willingly blind and convince themselves that "in some mysterious way, the former and the present teaching can be reconciled", is beyond me.
Personally, I am currently taking  (and suffering)  the consequences of that and to my horror I have discovered that maybe changing doctrines isn't a new thing with the Catholic church. It is just that this change is somehow much more radical.

After many years as a convinced and devout traditionalist Catholic, I am having serious doubts about the whole thing and from the looks of it on this forum, I am not the only one.

I am right there with you...
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #50 on: September 29, 2012, 05:33:57 PM »

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!
lol thinking the same thing.
Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.

Well, there is no official Orthodox position on non-abortifacient artificial birth control, although I believe the traditional opinion would be negative. As for denying scholastic theology, that is one of the problems. The RC traddies are much more wedded to the developments from 1100 on than anything prior to that time.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,970


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #51 on: September 29, 2012, 05:53:49 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

How is any Christian at liberty to not accept an ecumenical council of his/her own Church?

It's different in Roman Catholicism et. al. than it is for Orthodox. Ecumenical councils are not nearly as important as belief in papal supremacy. If one has this, one has various options--these may be unofficial or not liked by some/most RCs, but it's the current situation, ever since large groups of non-Latin Riters w/different ecclesial understandings began joining the papal church.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,313


« Reply #52 on: October 04, 2012, 06:31:19 AM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #53 on: October 04, 2012, 02:09:40 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #54 on: October 04, 2012, 02:47:46 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".

Correct him and day it was in the 80s (380s to be exact) :p
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #55 on: October 04, 2012, 02:49:04 PM »

Well, there is no official Orthodox position on non-abortifacient artificial birth control, although I believe the traditional opinion would be negative. As for denying scholastic theology, that is one of the problems. The RC traddies are much more wedded to the developments from 1100 on than anything prior to that time.

1100?  Save for St. Thomas Aquinas, most traddies I come across can't even tell you anything about the Church pre-Council of Trent.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #56 on: October 04, 2012, 03:02:05 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

 Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

You mean....No, now wait a minute....do you mean that it................*wasn't* Shocked Grin Shocked Grin??  Eeeeeek!!


(I wonder how many Orthodox lay people worldwide, apart from those prowling the internet, know how many Ecumenical Councils there were, and which was first and which was last?)(No, I don't *really* expect an answer to that  Wink.)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,381


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #57 on: October 04, 2012, 03:44:25 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".

I fear that is a common mistake as most Catholics have been heavily indoctrinated with the Vatican II documents in catechism classes and in college "theology" classes. So for them, Vatican II is an ecumenical council as it was opened to Protestant and Orthodox Christian observers.  Roll Eyes Yeah. Incredible.

Another very common error: Many Catholics think that the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 03:46:07 PM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #58 on: October 04, 2012, 04:26:37 PM »

I fear that is a common mistake as most Catholics have been heavily indoctrinated with the Vatican II documents in catechism classes and in college "theology" classes. So for them, Vatican II is an ecumenical council as it was opened to Protestant and Orthodox Christian observers.  Roll Eyes Yeah. Incredible.

Another very common error: Many Catholics think that the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.

That is one of the bummers about the Catholic Church for me, everything is about a certain point of history rather than one that looks at the entire history of the Church.  "Modern" RCs look at the Vatican II Church, Traditionalists look at Trent.  It seems as if there was no Catholic Church prior to Trent.  In fact most people come off as if everything was the same exact way from the time of Jesus until Trent that what exists at Trent is the way it has always been.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2013, 08:53:29 PM »

ROME The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said he has been receiving mixed messages from the Vatican for years over if and how the group might be brought back into full communion with the church.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, claimed that top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI's true feelings.
....
According to an audio recording posted Dec. 30 on YouTube, the bishop gave a nearly two-hour talk Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario. He spoke about the society's three years of discussions with the Vatican over the society's future and explained how he interpreted behind-the-scenes communications about the talks.

Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2013, 08:56:59 PM »

ROME The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said he has been receiving mixed messages from the Vatican for years over if and how the group might be brought back into full communion with the church.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, claimed that top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI's true feelings.
....
According to an audio recording posted Dec. 30 on YouTube, the bishop gave a nearly two-hour talk Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario. He spoke about the society's three years of discussions with the Vatican over the society's future and explained how he interpreted behind-the-scenes communications about the talks.

Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's."

By their fruits you will know them.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #61 on: January 07, 2013, 06:35:39 PM »

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".

I fear that is a common mistake as most Catholics have been heavily indoctrinated with the Vatican II documents in catechism classes and in college "theology" classes. So for them, Vatican II is an ecumenical council as it was opened to Protestant and Orthodox Christian observers.  Roll Eyes Yeah. Incredible.

Another very common error: Many Catholics think that the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.

A remember a sentence in an article, something like "A decree from a Vatican Council has more weight than the pope expressing an opinion."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 07, 2013, 08:31:39 PM »

ROME The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said he has been receiving mixed messages from the Vatican for years over if and how the group might be brought back into full communion with the church.
....
Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's."

The Vatican responds:

Quote
The Vatican reaffirmed its commitment to dialogue with Jews on Monday after the head of a traditionalist breakaway group called them "enemies of the Church."
 
The Vatican chief spokesman, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, said it was "meaningless" and "unacceptable" to label Jews as "enemies" of the Catholic church.
....
On Monday, Lombardi stressed he was not directly responding to Fellay's words but merely restating the church's official position on relations with Jews, which dates to the Second Vatican Council. He declined to comment on the potential impact of Fellay's words on the dialogue between the Vatican and the SSPX.
 
The dialogue is currently stalled as the Vatican awaits the SSPX's response to a reconciliation offer submitted last June. Leaked SSPX documents slammed the proposal as "clearly unacceptable," but the Vatican signaled in October that it is willing to give the traditionalists "additional time for reflection and study."
« Last Edit: January 07, 2013, 08:34:13 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #63 on: January 07, 2013, 08:35:30 PM »

The SSPX should just be excommunicated and then they should dialogue.  The problem here is the SSPX is in a grey area which is hurting the spirituality of many Catholics who think they can legitimately approach the SSPX and still be Catholic.
Logged
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2013, 12:40:47 PM »

The SSPX should just be excommunicated and then they should dialogue.  The problem here is the SSPX is in a grey area which is hurting the spirituality of many Catholics who think they can legitimately approach the SSPX and still be Catholic.

And all Catholics can in fact do that, entirely legitimately.

On what grounds should they be excommunicated? For saying and teaching what the Popes and RC hierarchy themselves said for centuries about the people in question? I mean, rabbinical Judaism was created precisely to counter the message of Christ and is as such anti-Christian. That goes for the faithful of this man-made religion too,  inasmuch as they agree with the doctrine contained therein.
It is, on the contrary, the Novus Ordo debacle which is hurting the spirituality of Catholics even more than all legalisms, as it dabbles in diabolical ecumania and seeks to put all religions on equal footing and highly placed Cardinals even publicly affirm that the rabbinical religion is salvific for its followers.

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.
Judaizing is a sin, also for the Orthodox.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #65 on: January 08, 2013, 01:00:53 PM »

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.

In two sentences, you have precisely summarized why I am I inquiring into Orthodoxy.

This is very well said and is an important point that I think every "Traditionalist" Roman Catholic must confront at some point. Many veer off into sedevacantism, others somehow reconcile the developments and maintain faith in the impeccability of the Roman Church while presumably ignoring the last 3 to 5 popes and a purported Ecumenical Council.

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with and that council was not ecumenical is much more consistent and logical. That is bolstered the more I examine Orthodoxy.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2013, 01:10:54 PM »

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.

In two sentences, you have precisely summarized why I am I inquiring into Orthodoxy.

This is very well said and is an important point that I think every "Traditionalist" Roman Catholic must confront at some point. Many veer off into sedevacantism, others somehow reconcile the developments and maintain faith in the impeccability of the Roman Church while presumably ignoring the last 3 to 5 popes and a purported Ecumenical Council.

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with and that council was not ecumenical is much more consistent and logical. That is bolstered the more I examine Orthodoxy.

Ermycath,
Thanks. I purposely wrote it like that and it is my reason for inquiring into Orthodoxy too.
Retreating into sedevacantism was never an option for me and although I initially looked into it a bit, I could not fathom how Christianity could be based essentially on the man in Rome, as it seems the SV's are implying.
On the other hand, it is also not a viable option to just disregard the last Popes either, as you point out very well.
I have taken the only viable route left, the one which I tragically missed before.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2013, 01:17:13 PM »

The SSPX should just be excommunicated and then they should dialogue.  The problem here is the SSPX is in a grey area which is hurting the spirituality of many Catholics who think they can legitimately approach the SSPX and still be Catholic.

And all Catholics can in fact do that, entirely legitimately.

On what grounds should they be excommunicated? For saying and teaching what the Popes and RC hierarchy themselves said for centuries about the people in question? I mean, rabbinical Judaism was created precisely to counter the message of Christ and is as such anti-Christian. That goes for the faithful of this man-made religion too,  inasmuch as they agree with the doctrine contained therein.
It is, on the contrary, the Novus Ordo debacle which is hurting the spirituality of Catholics even more than all legalisms, as it dabbles in diabolical ecumania and seeks to put all religions on equal footing and highly placed Cardinals even publicly affirm that the rabbinical religion is salvific for its followers.

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.
Judaizing is a sin, also for the Orthodox.

Well, that was pretty polemical.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2013, 01:58:42 PM »

On what grounds should they be excommunicated?

Pastor Aeternus.

Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2013, 02:07:33 PM »

On what grounds should they be excommunicated?

Pastor Aeternus.

Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.


I think the point is that the pope is teaching (under his authority set forth in Pastor Aeternus) something now that is opposite of what the Church taught even for the first part of the 20th Century...

In other words, keeping in line with the teachings I like trying to hit a moving target. Many of the saints of the past would be excommunicated by the current Magisterium for holding to the beliefs taught infallibly during their lifetimes (but of course no one gets excommunicated anymore).
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,414


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2013, 02:15:11 PM »

Quote
Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, claimed that top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI's true feelings
I have an issue with this part. If this were another Pope, I might give this statement some credence. However, because of the Pope's highly influential contributions during Vatican II when he was a priest, I find it hard to believe.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2013, 02:32:48 PM »

I don't put any stock in rumors like thay. IIRC the followers of Medjugorje claimed something similar, that Pope JPII secretly supported them so don't pay any attention to those silly ol' official condemnations.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2013, 02:33:44 PM »

"Thay" = "they"
"Droid keyboard" = "chaos"
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2013, 02:34:46 PM »

"Thay" = "THAT" and now I'm just going to stop and brood over my coffee cup for a while.
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2013, 03:04:13 PM »

I think the point is that the pope is teaching (under his authority set forth in Pastor Aeternus) something now that is opposite of what the Church taught even for the first part of the 20th Century...

In other words, keeping in line with the teachings I like trying to hit a moving target. Many of the saints of the past would be excommunicated by the current Magisterium for holding to the beliefs taught infallibly during their lifetimes (but of course no one gets excommunicated anymore).

But there are also administrative issues which Pastor Aeternus says Catholics must be in full submission to the Pope to.  The Pope says the SSPX has no active ministry in the Catholic Church today, yet they continue to operate their chapels and say Mass and peform Sacraments in the name of the Church.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2013, 04:21:06 PM »

You're right, choy. But, is that failure to submit an excommicable offense?  I don't think so. It is, however, the basis for the idea that the priests are canonically irregular.

Now, I think one could argue they are excommunicated in fact because they persist in offering illicit sacraments in deception of the laity and their bishops routinely violate the law by confirming in another bishop's diocese.

Setting aside these canonical issues, though, many in the Church accuse them (both SSPX priests and attached laity) of failing to adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the Magisterium. That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.

At its base it is a question of the breadth of the "development of doctrine" doctrine.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 08, 2013, 04:27:05 PM »

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969. 
Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #77 on: January 08, 2013, 04:33:14 PM »

You're right, choy. But, is that failure to submit an excommicable offense?  I don't think so. It is, however, the basis for the idea that the priests are canonically irregular.

At this point I believe it is.  Its not like they started doing this last week, its been going on for a long time.  Like I said, the issue is a lot of people get caught in the legal mumbo-jumbo the SSPX put out to justify their existence (I had an ultra-Trad explain it to me once and I never quite get it but it is extremely legalistic).  Since they will not close their chapels the RC Church should just excommunicate them for now until the issue is resolved.

Now, I think one could argue they are excommunicated in fact because they persist in offering illicit sacraments in deception of the laity and their bishops routinely violate the law by confirming in another bishop's diocese.

Setting aside these canonical issues, though, many in the Church accuse them (both SSPX priests and attached laity) of failing to adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the Magisterium. That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.

At its base it is a question of the breadth of the "development of doctrine" doctrine.

At this point they obviously are not "of one mind" with the Pope and the larger Roman Catholic Church, they are already de facto not in communion with one another.
Logged
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 192



« Reply #78 on: January 08, 2013, 04:37:16 PM »

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.  
Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?

Ah but there in lies the problem. None of it is dogmatic. We just have to accept it anyway.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." -Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 04:38:26 PM by gueranger » Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #79 on: January 08, 2013, 04:41:04 PM »

Good question.

Are we not discussing one in this very thread?  The meaning of ecumenism and the relationship of the Church to non-Catholics. Of course, the liturgical rites and their changes are sometimes raised to the level of dogmatic difference. Religious liberty versus religious tolerance is topical right now, but I concede that is somewhat related to the ecumenism discussion. Ecclesiology, as defined at Vatican II, was controversial even then (see the later-added explanatory preface).

From my experience, the SSPX believes in an essentially different religion than the "mainstream" Catholic Church. It is my belief, based on my research, that the SSPX "version" is more akin to Catholicism as it was believed and practiced prior to 1969. So, there is a very clear rupture there to be seen. In fact, many prominent people in the Church seem to proclaim that rupture as providential.

At any rate, I'm no expert. I was just sharing what caused me to start looking at Church history to see where the continuity could be found (because I reject the development of doctrine idea, at least as it is exemplified here).

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #80 on: January 08, 2013, 04:41:31 PM »

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.  
Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?

Ah but there in lies the problem. None of it is dogmatic. We just have to accept it anyway.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." -Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium

This might be splitting hairs, but is "ought" the same as "must"?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #81 on: January 08, 2013, 04:43:56 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual ascent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

So "ought" essentially means "must" unless there is a later contradictory infallible pronouncement.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 192



« Reply #82 on: January 08, 2013, 04:44:54 PM »

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.  
Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?

Ah but there in lies the problem. None of it is dogmatic. We just have to accept it anyway.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." -Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium

This might be splitting hairs, but is "ought" the same as "must"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum#Withholding_assent
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 08, 2013, 04:45:40 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 192



« Reply #84 on: January 08, 2013, 04:48:28 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

From wikipedia:

The magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church are gradated according to a "hierarchy of truths". The more central or foundational a truth is in the system of truths proposed by the Church's magisterium, the greater the assent of the will to that "truth" must be. The document Donum Veritatis[1] teaches the following concerning this gradation of assent:

"When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."

1 ^ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, May 24, 1990, no. 23, Vatican Document
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 04:49:07 PM by gueranger » Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #85 on: January 08, 2013, 04:49:10 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.

Basically, Catholics must try to believe and must act and teach consistent with the non-infallible Magisterial teaching.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #86 on: January 08, 2013, 04:50:51 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual ascent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

So "ought" essentially means "must" unless there is a later contradictory infallible pronouncement.

Thanks!  Seems I heard something like that somewhere before  Grin.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 08, 2013, 04:53:53 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2013, 04:56:23 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #89 on: January 08, 2013, 04:56:43 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.

Basically, Catholics must try to believe and must act and teach consistent with the non-infallible Magisterial teaching.

Yes, that was a great question!  While you're correct that faith is not based on emotionalism, it also isn't based solely on intellectualism, if I understand correctly.  God's grace is a component of faith without which "faith" isn't really faith.  
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #90 on: January 08, 2013, 04:59:07 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #91 on: January 08, 2013, 05:04:53 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
But even if your conscience is not "aligned" with the Church (after having informed one's conscience with the teachings of the Church), the Catholic Church seems to say that you must follow your conscience:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." CCC 1790
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #92 on: January 08, 2013, 05:09:43 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
But even if your conscience is not "aligned" with the Church (after having informed one's conscience with the teachings of the Church), the Catholic Church seems to say that you must follow your conscience:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." CCC 1790

I don't read the Catechism as saying that one should follow an ill-formed conscience, though. We must follow our conscience, yes. But we must know that it is not trustworthy when not properly formed as a result of concupiscence.

If the Catechism is meaning to say that (which I agree it can be read that way from what you posted), then we have another example of deviation from prior Catholic teaching as such a teaching clearly falls into subjectivism and indiferentism. It smacks of modernism to me.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #93 on: January 08, 2013, 05:21:14 PM »

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.
True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

From a Byzantine Catholic priest I know:
Quote
The very first thing they need to be taught is what the Church's teaching on "conscience" is, that "conscience" is not that little still voice that makes you feel guilty or not.   That it is a Spirit-guided application of God-given reason AND REVELATION to choose between objective good and evil.  More importantly still, the Church does NOT teach us to "follow your conscience", but "to INFORM your conscience to align it with the Church's teaching, and THEN follow it."
But even if your conscience is not "aligned" with the Church (after having informed one's conscience with the teachings of the Church), the Catholic Church seems to say that you must follow your conscience:

"A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed." CCC 1790

Hmm....too deep for me at this time of day.  angel  But reading the paragraphs before and after the one you quote, for better context, seems to help clarify it.  At least in my work-befuddled mind  Grin.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #94 on: January 09, 2013, 09:57:10 AM »

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think Choy is right in saying that the Pope could excommunicate the SSPX; but then, the Pope could excommunicate everyone who doesn't agree with the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility ... I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #95 on: January 09, 2013, 09:57:50 AM »

 Grin

I don't put any stock in rumors like thay. IIRC the followers of Medjugorje claimed something similar, that Pope JPII secretly supported them so don't pay any attention to those silly ol' official condemnations.

What's the appropriate sound effect for a can of worms being opened?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #96 on: January 09, 2013, 09:58:26 AM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #97 on: January 09, 2013, 10:10:25 AM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
VarangianGuard
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 82


« Reply #98 on: January 10, 2013, 01:05:15 PM »

Good question.

Are we not discussing one in this very thread?  The meaning of ecumenism and the relationship of the Church to non-Catholics. Of course, the liturgical rites and their changes are sometimes raised to the level of dogmatic difference. Religious liberty versus religious tolerance is topical right now, but I concede that is somewhat related to the ecumenism discussion. Ecclesiology, as defined at Vatican II, was controversial even then (see the later-added explanatory preface).

From my experience, the SSPX believes in an essentially different religion than the "mainstream" Catholic Church. It is my belief, based on my research, that the SSPX "version" is more akin to Catholicism as it was believed and practiced prior to 1969. So, there is a very clear rupture there to be seen. In fact, many prominent people in the Church seem to proclaim that rupture as providential.
Exactly. Look at the anathemas of Trent and then look at what is said and done by the hierarchy today. Look at the Syllabus of Errors and then look at the hierarchy today

At any rate, I'm no expert. I was just sharing what caused me to start looking at Church history to see where the continuity could be found (because I reject the development of doctrine idea, at least as it is exemplified here).

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

From the papolatrous point of view, then I agree too. However, that is not the whole story. The Pope is bound by what has been taught before. He cannot invent new and contrary doctrine(as it now seems to me that the Popes have done since the Filioque, but that is another debate) As such, the Pope has an obedience to take into account as well. Vatican II was supposed to end clericalism and ultramontanism, but I believe that it actually made it worse in many areas. Today, the main argument against those who actually follow the pre-VaticanII teachings or at least take them seriously when trying to interpret what VII actually taught(the hierarchy even publically disagree what VII actually taught and it has taken more than 50 years to try to interpret it, to no avail) is precisely that they don't follow the Pope. Which Pope? If there is some sense in the Roman church, then at least one would reasonably be able to argue that popes have to be in conformity with previously defined doctrine and dogmatic definitions when they insist on obedience?

In addition, the vast majority of both Eastern Catholics and your average Novus Ordo churchman and laity don't follow the "mind of the Pope" at all.
 EOs often claim exemption from defined doctrine while NO'ers can believe what they want, including the right of homosexuals to marry, that Judaism is salvific for post-temple followers of this religion, cardinals proclaim that there is no impediment to ordaning women to the priesthood, 70% of laity don't believe in transubstantiation, etc, etc. Never are they threatened with excommunication nor discipline. That is only reserved for traddies. This is like in "the Last samurai", when the Emperor wages war on his most loyal subjects because they refuse to follow him in error.

I just feel the need to attempt to explain the behaviour and the injustices committed, because I was once among them.
It seems to me now that the RC actually IS about papolatry and that the SSPX as such is "wrong" even though they are doctrinally "right", if that makes any sense....
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #99 on: January 10, 2013, 01:22:58 PM »

^ Agree.

Which pope?  That is the question. The lack of consistency from one pope to the next (and the hope that the next pope will "fix it all") draws on the very similar logic put forth by the proponents of sola scriptura. The difference being the person of the sole interpreter.

One simply cannot reconcile the writings of, say Pope Pius X with Paul VI and JPII. That is to say nothing of the Catholic Church's apparent insistence on canonizing these popes.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,110


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #100 on: January 10, 2013, 01:38:48 PM »

^ Agree.

Which pope?  That is the question. The lack of consistency from one pope to the next (and the hope that the next pope will "fix it all") draws on the very similar logic put forth by the proponents of sola scriptura. The difference being the person of the sole interpreter.

1. One simply cannot reconcile the writings of, say Pope Pius X with Paul VI and JPII.

2. That is to say nothing of the Catholic Church's apparent insistence on canonizing these popes.

1.  Hmm...you can't reconcile all the writings of Pope Pius X with all the writings of Paul VI and JPII?  Or just some of them?

2.  "Insistence"?  Interesting choice of words.  Recognizing that it is actually God who makes saints and the Church makes a formal recognition of that through the process of canonization, can the Church canonize someone who is not, in fact, a saint?  (I'm not referring here, to the Orthodox Church, just the Catholic Church.)  Are there "saints" who ain't saints?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #101 on: January 10, 2013, 01:52:24 PM »

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think Choy is right in saying that the Pope could excommunicate the SSPX; but then, the Pope could excommunicate everyone who doesn't agree with the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility ... I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I'm not saying "could", I'm saying "should"  Wink
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #102 on: January 10, 2013, 01:53:44 PM »

^ Agree.

Which pope?  That is the question. The lack of consistency from one pope to the next (and the hope that the next pope will "fix it all") draws on the very similar logic put forth by the proponents of sola scriptura. The difference being the person of the sole interpreter.

1. One simply cannot reconcile the writings of, say Pope Pius X with Paul VI and JPII.

2. That is to say nothing of the Catholic Church's apparent insistence on canonizing these popes.

1.  Hmm...you can't reconcile all the writings of Pope Pius X with all the writings of Paul VI and JPII?  Or just some of them?

2.  "Insistence"?  Interesting choice of words.  Recognizing that it is actually God who makes saints and the Church makes a formal recognition of that through the process of canonization, can the Church canonize someone who is not, in fact, a saint?  (I'm not referring here, to the Orthodox Church, just the Catholic Church.)  Are there "saints" who ain't saints?

1. I apologize for my lack of clarity. As you note, I was intending to infer that there are portions of JPII's and Paul VI's writings that do not gel with other, earlier popes' writings. Just as there are portions of the VII documents that do not comport with prior Magisterial pronouncements. I can't go into detail on that right now because I'm posting from a phone (perhaps someone with an actual computer could help us out).

2. It is my understanding that canonizations are infallible (but I recognize some will debate that). My point being it is (1) unprecedented to canonize popes so quickly or with such frequency, and (2) odd to canonize men who are largely responsible for the incredibly terrible state of the Church in our times.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #103 on: January 10, 2013, 01:53:49 PM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

But isn't every dogmatic proclamation (such as Pastor Aeternus, the 2 Marian Dogmas, and every canonization of a Saint) are de facto infallible statements?  Its not like they can go back on those, they are "dogma" (or in the case of saints, "canon").
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #104 on: January 10, 2013, 03:23:02 PM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

But isn't every dogmatic proclamation (such as Pastor Aeternus, the 2 Marian Dogmas, and every canonization of a Saint) are de facto infallible statements?  Its not like they can go back on those, they are "dogma" (or in the case of saints, "canon").

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #105 on: January 10, 2013, 03:23:52 PM »

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think Choy is right in saying that the Pope could excommunicate the SSPX; but then, the Pope could excommunicate everyone who doesn't agree with the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility ... I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I'm not saying "could", I'm saying "should"  Wink

You can't say "should" without saying "could".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2013, 03:24:45 PM »

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

But isn't every dogmatic proclamation (such as Pastor Aeternus, the 2 Marian Dogmas, and every canonization of a Saint) are de facto infallible statements?  Its not like they can go back on those, they are "dogma" (or in the case of saints, "canon").

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?
It was a response to increasing secularization of the West.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2013, 03:28:05 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #108 on: January 10, 2013, 03:30:41 PM »

You can't say "should" without saying "could".

Remember that the Pope isn't bound by canon law so regardless of what constitutes one to be excommunicated as stated by canon law, the Pope can certainly excommunicate them on his whim.  Besides, there's enough evidence already to support excommunication.  "Could" isn't a question at this point.  As recently as a couple of years ago the Vatican said they should stop ordaining priest, yet they continued to do it.  There was no automatic excommunication at that point because there was no canon law against it (only against ordaining bishops).  But still, they went against the wishes of the Pope, that is justifiable reason there (at least by Catholic ecclesiology).
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #109 on: January 10, 2013, 04:18:14 PM »

You can't say "should" without saying "ould".

Corrected.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #110 on: January 10, 2013, 04:19:45 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2013, 12:05:37 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2013, 12:08:00 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?

Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra, which apparently makes you more comfortable with the Vatican I statement. Based on that comment, I am asking whether you think a pope has ever exercised the level of infallibility proclaimed at Vatican I...
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2013, 12:23:41 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?

All of it.  Basically the Protestants said we don't need bishops, especially the Pope.  Pastor Aeternus basically says we all need the Pope to ensure the true faith, not only in faith and morals, but also in discipline and administration.  Papal Infallibility puts the Pope above Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, again countering claims that anyone can self-interpret the Bible.  And of course the parts that justify the Papacy through the establishment of the institution/office by Christ himself upon Peter is an apologetic against Sola Scriptura Protestants claiming that the Papacy is not needed and has no Scriptural basis.

Plus, above all, the timing of the introduction of the dogma points to the obvious.  If this belief has been dogmatic all along, why wait until the 1800s to define it?  Since Trent the RCC has been on counter Reformation mode.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2013, 01:15:40 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?

Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra,
No, read it again. I'm saying that Vatican I (which is the only dogmatic statement on the matter) didn't say one way or another.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,414


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2013, 01:17:47 PM »

Quote
Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra
Sure they have, its just that the Church, conveniently, has never said which time was ex cathedra. Lucky for them.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Justin Kolodziej
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (Carmelite wannabe)
Jurisdiction: The Bishop of Raleigh
Posts: 287


which way's mt. carmel again???


« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2013, 01:21:46 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?

All of it.  Basically the Protestants said we don't need bishops, especially the Pope.  Pastor Aeternus basically says we all need the Pope to ensure the true faith, not only in faith and morals, but also in discipline and administration.  Papal Infallibility puts the Pope above Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, again countering claims that anyone can self-interpret the Bible.  And of course the parts that justify the Papacy through the establishment of the institution/office by Christ himself upon Peter is an apologetic against Sola Scriptura Protestants claiming that the Papacy is not needed and has no Scriptural basis.

Plus, above all, the timing of the introduction of the dogma points to the obvious.  If this belief has been dogmatic all along, why wait until the 1800s to define it?  Since Trent the RCC has been on counter Reformation mode.
There were also the last remnants of Gallicanism to deal with...essentially French Catholics who believed the State and/or the General Councils should have more power than the Pope over the local Churches. The idea spread some to other countries as it died out in France, Vatican I essentially ratified Ultramontanism, and condemned Gallicanism, and voila, the Old Catholics were born.

It's entirely possible that if Vatican I had happened in the 1700s, the results would have been quite different due to how influential the French Church was.
Logged

St. Justin Martyr, St. John Cassian, St. Simon Stock, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, pray for me!
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2013, 02:40:51 PM »

I guess I didn't see this post before,

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with ...

I, as a Catholic, have no problem with that. Vatican I said that every ex cathedra statement is infallible, but it never said how many ex cathedra statements there have been (or even whether there have been any).

Is it your understanding, then, that no pope has ever spoken ex cathedra?

Huh?

Your post suggested the pope had never spoken ex cathedra,
No, read it again. I'm saying that Vatican I (which is the only dogmatic statement on the matter) didn't say one way or another.

Your point must be too subtle for me because I am unable to ascertain what you mean.

Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood.

Maybe we are trying to make two different points here, so I apologize for not understanding yours.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,414


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2013, 03:13:25 PM »

Quote
Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood
Odd that Rome doesnt even state which statements are ex cathedra.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #119 on: January 11, 2013, 03:20:14 PM »

Quote
Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood
Odd that Rome doesnt even state which statements are ex cathedra.

PP

Ha!  Yes, well, they kind of do. There is particular phrasing used to indicate the Pope is speaking infallibly. In fact, popes until the last three did this all the time. Hence, there is a problem trying to reconcile those prior infallible pronouncements with more recent papal and conciliar statements. For example, it is a difficult task to reconcile the infallibly defined teaching of Mortalium Animos (a papal encyclical from Pope Pius XI) with the Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio. Both deal with ecumenism. The are very different teachings.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2013, 03:21:38 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #120 on: January 11, 2013, 05:44:10 PM »

I'm saying that Vatican I (which is the only dogmatic statement on the matter) didn't say one way or another.

Your point must be too subtle for me because I am unable to ascertain what you mean.

I guess I thought it was clear that I meant "... didn't say one way or another whether there have been ex cathedra statements (and, if so, how many)". Sorry if that wasn't clear. (Unless you're just making fun of me, in which case I'm unsorry.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #121 on: January 11, 2013, 05:48:23 PM »

I wasn't making fun of you.

Actually, I was making fun of myself because I didn't understand you. :-)
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #122 on: January 11, 2013, 09:10:49 PM »

This is a very rich (or should I say thorny) topic that we could all discuss a heck of a lot more than we're going to here. Let me just say, what you're saying makes perfect sense; but notice that it also begets the question: Why, then, was it necessary for Vatican I to officially decree that every ex cathedra statement is infallible?

Counter-reformation.  It was pretty short sighted of the Vatican I believe because they didn't consider the Orthodox (or maybe they did but they still think they are nothing more than heretic schismatics at this time) in proclaiming a dogma made to defend Papal authority against the claims of Protestantism.  Pastor Aeternus makes sense against the Protestants, but not against the Apostolic Churches (EO and OO).

When you say Pastor Aeternus, are we still talking about the portion about papal infallibility, or the other parts?

All of it.  Basically the Protestants said we don't need bishops, especially the Pope.  Pastor Aeternus basically says we all need the Pope to ensure the true faith, not only in faith and morals, but also in discipline and administration.  Papal Infallibility puts the Pope above Scripture as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture, again countering claims that anyone can self-interpret the Bible.  And of course the parts that justify the Papacy through the establishment of the institution/office by Christ himself upon Peter is an apologetic against Sola Scriptura Protestants claiming that the Papacy is not needed and has no Scriptural basis.

Plus, above all, the timing of the introduction of the dogma points to the obvious.  If this belief has been dogmatic all along, why wait until the 1800s to define it?  Since Trent the RCC has been on counter Reformation mode.
There were also the last remnants of Gallicanism to deal with...essentially French Catholics who believed the State and/or the General Councils should have more power than the Pope over the local Churches. The idea spread some to other countries as it died out in France, Vatican I essentially ratified Ultramontanism, and condemned Gallicanism, and voila, the Old Catholics were born.

Not wishing to get too deeply into it, but was Gallicanism a Western phenomenon?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #123 on: January 11, 2013, 09:52:48 PM »

Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood. 
Some Catholic theologians say that the declaration against women priests does not meet the criteria for infallibility.
Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #124 on: January 11, 2013, 09:57:10 PM »

Popes have spoken ex cathedra numerous times. Everytime they speak on faith and morals with the weight of their office, they do so. The statements themselves are the dogmatic pronouncement that infallibility has even evoked. In particular, in recent times, we have ex cathedra teachings on the Immaculate Conception, artificial contraception, and women and the priesthood. 
Some Catholic theologians say that the declaration against women priests does not meet the criteria for infallibility.

You're right about that. But, they are pretty clearly wrong in debating it.

Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #125 on: January 17, 2013, 01:08:42 PM »

Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, in an interview Tuesday with the Italian religious news agency SIR slammed the followers of the renegade Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X for rejecting the Vatican II policy on Jews. It is only that small group, he said, who “do not accept ecumenical dialogue, relations with Jews and religious freedom.”

Koch questioned whether because of this, they could even be considered Catholic.
....
In the interview, Koch also reaffirmed reaffirmed the Vatican’s commitment to fostering positive relations with the Jewish world. His remarks came ahead of the Catholic Church’s annual Day of Judaism on Jan. 17.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,122



« Reply #126 on: January 18, 2013, 11:27:49 AM »

Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, in an interview Tuesday with the Italian religious news agency SIR slammed the followers of the renegade Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X for rejecting the Vatican II policy on Jews. It is only that small group, he said, who “do not accept ecumenical dialogue, relations with Jews and religious freedom.”

Koch questioned whether because of this, they could even be considered Catholic.

That makes sense, in a way; but if you accept that reasoning then there are also tons of other reasons that one could question whether this Catholic or that Catholic "could even be considered Catholic".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 182



« Reply #127 on: January 18, 2013, 11:40:33 AM »

Of course, 70 years ago (and for the preceding 1,900 years or so) we would have questioned whether because of his view on this subject Cardinal Koch could even be considered Catholic.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.407 seconds with 155 queries.