Posted on 05/31/2004 8:36:56 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
And Mr. Protestant reading this post is thinking. "My, what a great, wonderful and truthful religion. I think I want to be Catholic."
NOT.
Now, I would think that most of us that post here on these topics know about the numerical destruction in the Church since Vatican II. Why this happened and to what degree Vatican II, Humanae Vitae, the '60s culture, etc., influenced this is a matter of debate. However, the question to ask is what are we going to do with this information? To restore the TLM to all priests without exception and to all the altars of the world is a joint plan that both the SSPX and other traditional Catholics can agree upon. So why is it when Cardinal Hoyos, who has been given full responsibility and authority to reconcile SSPX by Pope JPII, issues a positive document in that direction, why do the SSPX adherents find nothing but fault with it? That is the key question. I know about the modernists and the modernism. I know about the destruction of nearly every single measurable area of the Church's life. We know all of that. The SSPX "brainwashing" comment is because much depends upon which SSPX priest or bishop one relies upon for his information as to what the true SSPX position on things is. They seem to be inventing their own doctrines and discipline. i.e. "Do not attend an indult chapel." "The New Mass is "evil". etc. etc.
"There is no need to obey apostates."
Which bishops have publicly denied the Catholic Faith? If you can name names, then that would help us. Also, if you could cite quotations to show this ultimate denial of Faith (as compared to heresy and schism), we would all be most grateful. Please provide the names and the documented information. Funny thing though. We don't have to adhere to ALL the bishops, only to our local ordinary and Pope John Paul II in matters of faith and morals and when they ORDER us to do something with their full authority.
Who are the apostates? Please provide documented citations.
The apostasy is covert, never overt. Do you think the bishops don't know that open opposition to the dogma of the Real Presence, for instance, would blow their cover? So they make excuses for changes in rubrics which undermine that doctrine--such as claiming that the elimination of kneeling for Communion is for "better traffic control".
Rome had cited the danger of such a change--then conceded the policy--as usual. These changes are very gradual and elicit meagre protests--but are eventually accepted. The overarching aim has been to make Protestants out of Catholics by eliminating those features of Catholicism which distinguish us. Chief among these has been the dogma of the Real Presence--hence, Communion in the hands, the disappearance of tabernacles from sanctuaries, the elimination of genuflections, the elimination of kneeling for Communion, etc. But it is all headed in the same direction--towards diminishment of belief in the name of ecumenical unity.
Recently Zogby polled Catholics and discovered that two-thirds no longer believed in the Real Presence nor in the Resurrection. This confirms the Gallup poll of 1992 which published the same findings among American Catholics. Seventy-five per cent of all Catholics are now indistinguishable doctrinally from Protestants.
"No culpability even after having been warned by the Apostolic See that the act was schismatic?"
Yes--because the Apostolic See--the Vatican modernists--were wrong. It is not schismatic to resist being complicit in doing harm to the Church.
Why should Catholicism be negotiated at all?
"However, the lay people with whom I have had discussions are many times so brainwashed by the SSPX rhetoric that intelligible conversations and dialogue are nearly impossible."
An absurd statement--full of arrogance. I am sufficiently intelligible and have held my own on this site for years. I have defended my positions with sound arguments--and can honestly say the rhetoric and ignorance is not on the part of the SSPX or its defenders, believe me. The only argument you and others offer is to imagine schism where it does not exist. That is not an argument, it is a prejudice.
You need not be confused. While I am not in the position to issue decrees on formal heresy, anyone with two eyes can see the apostasy, abominations and material heresy rampant in the Church. Click on Philomena's link for pictures of Doritos masses, cookie masses, voodoo masses and the like. If you think that is Catholic then you are part of the problem.
However, the Magisterium's idea that Jews have a separate covenant for salvation and need not convert will be food for thought for the next pope interested in examining the recent, unorthodox, possibly heretical past.
"No doubt his views are those of the Holy Father also. This leads logically to the issue of reconciliation."
You are going beyond the evidence.
Too easy.
1) Bishop "the gospels are not historical accounts" McGrath of San Jose, CA.
2) Cardinal "the Eucharist is present among the faithful" Mahony, a document for which even Mother Angelica took him to task.
3)Cardinal "no one needs to convert to Catholicism, etc, etc, etc" Kasper.
I'm sure there are more.
"How in the world can the narrow world of 'extra SSPX, there is no salvation' Catholics widen their perspective?"
This is more evidence of ignorance on your part. The SSPX has never made any such claim, though its enemies attribute all kinds of imagined nonsense to the Society--without any proof whatsoever.
"one must be unified with the Sovereign Pontiff to be in full communion with the Church--valid orders or not."
Unity is not based on whether a pope has a bad day or not or whether he imagines a slight where none exists. It is based on objective reality. By that standard, the SSPX is in full unity. It accepts fully the authority of the pope. It is he who unilaterally rejects them. That's too bad--but it's not schism.
Unfortunately, Mershon, you are the one who doesn't understand Moral Theology--nor canon law--not I. The equation of what I said with your other examples is ridiculous. My comment "that it is the perception of the [SSPX] bishops that count morally--not the Pope's take on the matter" had to do with disobedience caused by fear and the state of necessity as described in canons 1323 and 1324 of the code of canon law. According to these canons, if the individual fears there is a state of necessity requiring him to disobey--then he may do so without culpability. It is the individual's fear that counts, nothing else. That is the Pope's own canon law--and it has nothing to do with Martin Luther or Zwingli or the woman seeking an abortion. It has to do with the law of the Church. So try digging a little more deeply into the facts before making such absurd comparisons.
Not always. Within the past hour someone posted to me on another thread talking about the renaissance of Catholic faith that has occurred in France since the pope's WYD in 1997. To borrow a phrase from you -- NOT! I think that there is still an awful lot of work to be done to get people to wake up to the reality of the situation. You're just not going to hear this stuff on EWTN.
Why this happened and to what degree Vatican II, Humanae Vitae, the '60s culture, etc., influenced this is a matter of debate.
Exactly. The very debate we are having right now. No true solution can begin to be implemented until we recognize that it goes back to Vatican II -- not the "spirit of Vatican II" -- and that the entire conciliar project has to be junked as a bad idea. Until that happens we will only be putting patches on a non-seaworthy ship.
To restore the TLM to all priests without exception and to all the altars of the world is a joint plan that both the SSPX and other traditional Catholics can agree upon.
Yes! This should be the beginning of cooperation and understanding. All traditionalists should agree on this one point, even if they continue to disagree on others.
So why is it when Cardinal Hoyos, who has been given full responsibility and authority to reconcile SSPX by Pope JPII, issues a positive document in that direction, why do the SSPX adherents find nothing but fault with it? That is the key question.
I am encouraged by these positive comments, but I understand perfectly why others are not. They have been betrayed and lied to over and over again for 40 years. "Once bitten twice shy," but they've been bitten dozens of times. We need actions not words. No words coming from today's Vatican hierarchy can be viewed as anything other than steps on the dialectical process, until they are matched with hard and fast deeds.
I know about the modernists and the modernism. I know about the destruction of nearly every single measurable area of the Church's life. We know all of that.
But knowing it, I don't see from you a recognition of the cause and effect relationship. What is the cause? What cancers must be cut out at the root? If you haven't gotten that far in your thinking, then you're really not ready to contribute to a solution.
Why do you continue to contradict the Magisterium on this matter? The quite clear teaching of the Church is that the consecration of bishops against the clear will of the Supreme Pontiff is a schismatic act.
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. (John Paul II, Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei")
It is a Modernist error condemned by Bl. Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Pius XII that the non-infallible judgments of the supreme teaching authority of the Church may be publicly and obstinately rejected. It is the unanimous teaching of all the approved authors, approved by the Theological Commission at Vatican II, that public dissent from even non-infallible teachings is simply unacceptable.
But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Bl. Pius IX, Tuas Libenter)
I was just reading some articles by Rahner and another liberal today. They did their best, but couldn't find a single one of the approved authors who didn't reject public dissent from erroneous teachings of the Magisterium. Obstinate dissent from non-infallible teachings is punished with a "just penalty" in the 1983 Code.
The excommunicated status of an individual does not affect whether they are schismatic. Msgr. Lefebvre and his bishops became materially schismatic after their commission of a schismatic act. Even if inculpable ignorance lessened or removed the ecclesiastical penalty against them, they were still materially schismatic, if not formally schismatic.
There was no formal nor material schismatic act. To be in schism one must deny the authority of the pope. This never happened. The Pope said it did--but that does not conform to objective reality. It is what the individual believes and says--not what the Pope says that counts. If the individual affirms the Pope's authority, but disobeys for other reasons--there is no schism. Not all disobedience, after all, is motivated by schismatic intentions. If that were the case, there would be few bishops left in the world. And, in fact, the Archbishop and his ordinands said over and over their disobedience was motivated by the state of necessity--an emergency situation that threatened the survival of Catholic Tradition. You and others may not believe this--just as the Pope did not--but what you and he believe is beside the point. It is what the Archbishop believed that counts. If the Pope wanted it otherwise, then he should have called the Archbishop before a papal tribunal and charged him with schism. He didn't do this. He merely announced the latae sententiae had taken place--with all the ambiguity that entailed.
It must not know many. Among themeslves, they know that those priest who refuse when requested to concelebrated are punished, either by transfer or other means.
"Why do you continue to contradict the Magisterium on this matter? The quite clear teaching of the Church is that the consecration of bishops against the clear will of the Supreme Pontiff is a schismatic act."
Not true. This is not a magisterial teaching. Not everything that comes out of Rome is an infallible teaching of the Magisterium binding on all. This is properly a canon law--which has clear exceptions provided in its own canons--which were evoked legally and appropriately by the Archbishop for good reason.
You forgot to add: John Paul II: "Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.
In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.
This is the teaching of the Magisterium. Here the Pope is clearly in line with Bl. Pius IX's teaching in Quanta Cura:
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
It's rather amusing that the "anti-Modernist" SSPX falls under Bl. Pius IX's condemnations of Liberalism.
If the Pope wanted it otherwise, then he should have called the Archbishop before a papal tribunal and charged him with schism
Bl. Pius IX didn't consider tribunals necessary to denounce schismatic bishops. If it was good enough for Bl. Pius IX, why not for John Paul II?
He merely announced the latae sententiae had taken place--with all the ambiguity that entailed.
There is no ambiguity for Catholics.
For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later—"that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries."[13] This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic ... Most men feel that the Church's supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.