Posted on 02/10/2007 6:55:36 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Then there are an awful lot of modernist Catholics.
Then you have all those Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) who insist that "chr*stianity isn't an ideology based on a text" to whom the "original and true" understanding of the Bible is as chr*stological Aesop's fables, and who laugh at any "simple minded fundamentalist" who believes those things actually happened.
Well, that's nice and that's more than many Catholics do (including Catholic publications that engage in textual criticism of gospel stories as "genres" and such people as the late Father Raymond Brown, who received a medal from the Pope for all this higher-critical blasphemies).
But then we've still got the fact that most Catholics don't believe the stories in the "old testament" and accept everything the higher critics say about them.
Ummmm....I totally don't get what you are saying.
The highest form of Catholic worship is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which commemorates the Last Supper, at which occured the one of the greatest, if not the greatest Biblical Miracles.
So what the samhill are you talking about?
Ohhhhh . . . the world being created in six days, a talking snake, Methuselah living 969 years, Noah's Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Red Sea parting, all that "old testament" stuff that the vast majority of Catholics dismiss as mythology.
Which is probably why most Catholic clergy are so stuffed to the gills with higher criticism.
I don't have to give any schism any credit anywhere at any time. There is no such thing as a good schism. The schism has enticed others to walk the plank off the Barque of Peter. What happens when Catholics jump the shark and walk the plank off the Barque of Peter? What happens when they die Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus?
The Protestants in Fiddlebacks recognise the Pope just as other protestants do. And, like other protestants, they refuse to submit to his authority. The personal opinions of several Cardinals do not trump the definitive judgment of Pope John Paul II they are a schism.
My statements about the schism are intended to mock and ridicule their pretensions to Tradition. The Satanic-Spawned Schism gets from me the respect they deserve. The Schism serves Satan. Period.
If you, or anyone else, can quote anything from Tradition describing a schism in polite and pleasing language you are at liberty to post it any time you desire. My plain speaking about the schism is a rarity amongst Catholic men. Enjoy it while you can. I am on the Christian endangered species list. Once, I die, who will take my place in speaking the truth about Schism?
No BODY.
Men in America have been reduced to speaking like girls when it comes to grave evil. When you hear George Bush talking about Islam as the religion of peace, don't you just want to jam a knitting needle into one of your ears? (One ear should be saved to hear Mass)
Be nice. Don't be mean.
Please
Nearly everyone else in America speaks about the schism as though it were a Blessing. I am about the only one I know who, accurately, imitating the New Testament, and the Early Church Fathers, calls it Satanic.
Well, the great Black Elk is, thankfully, still alive, so that makes two of us :)
Learn to value diversity before it disappears in America
Yes, that is a problem.
Yes.
Do not get me wrong; I hate the schism that the SSPX has created. I'm doubly angry because they and other radical traditionalists nearly convinced me to "walk the plank off the Barque of Peter" when I started really studying the faith (the first "good" websites about Catholic theology that I ran across were run by the SSPX and some sedevacantist groups). For that specifically, I take personal issue with them, even though through the course of time and by Grace I was prevented from succumbing to their lies/misconceptions.
I'm not asking you to be "nice" (and incidentally, I have no idea where your italicized quote came from, as it's not mine); I'm asking you to be charitable, because it might give a chance for one of them to actually listen to you. The first time that you call someone in the SSPX a "Protestant in a Fiddleback," they're going to close you out and ignore the genuine truth that you're trying to give to them. Through this, you have the potential of perpetuating their schism. Vitrolic words spewed from either side are equally destructive.
So far as what the SSPX is doing in the Philippines: I want to see people have access to the greatest degree of truth. Thus I would rather see people be Pentecostals than pagans or Muslims, members of SSPX rather than Pentecostals, and I would far rather see all of them in complete union with Holy Mother Church.
The schism is in no way a blessing. It is keeping Catholics who wish to be faithful but happen to reside in doctrinal and liturgical wastelands away from the fullness of their Faith. That is why the time has come to end the schism with SSPX, if they are willing to meet the necessary terms.
In my opinion, for whatever it's worth, I find your method of mockery offensive and childish (despite my never having been in either schism or theological wasteland). This is hardly "plain speaking." And when you die, the remainder of us will be quite glad to continue speaking against the schism if it still exists, and to continue the restoration of the Church in line with the intentions of the Council; you are not the "sole voice" speaking for the Truth of Catholicism.
Then there are an awful lot of modernist Catholics.
Yes.
But how "modernist" are they really? Many of them claim to be "traditional" and claim that "Biblical literalism" is "alien to two thousand years of chr*stian tradition." Then they claim it is based on a modern, scientific, "positivistic" view of truth when the authentic view of truth is that it is often symbolic.
See what I mean? You can't win. If you read "six days" and interpret "six days" you're going to be branded un-Catholic, one way or another.
From the THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
"#7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth."
"....like other Protestants, they refuse to submit to his (the Pope's) authority"
Protestants do not submit to anyone's "authority" except for God and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and Only Mediator.
"The Pentacostals must look at the Catholic church like a member of an extended family of the global Christian church."
Is this what he Catholic Church would say? Would they speak of a global Christian Church outside of the RCC?
Nobody's tried to brand me "un-Catholic," and if they did, I'd just bless their hearts and offer them a muffin.
Still one big family, with the different churches like branches of a family tree. The RCC is one branch, the Pentacostal church, another.
Perhaps if you were to think about the text in post 46 you might see why Christians who do not follow the Pope do not have an interest in "dialog". The beliefs (let's see, is calling someone Satanic pejorative?) expressed there represent a strand of Roman Catholicism better left to wither.
What is decisive is how the Church directs the Faithful and Priests. Let’s think of the Ten Commandments. Although they are clearly formulated, Christians do not follow them completely in their lives. But the Ten Commandments are still the same. Each individual is responsible for keeping them.
Cardinal Ratzinger has celebrated the old Mass in public several times. Why has he not done that since the Conclave?
I know that the Holy Father loves the old Rite. I do not know anything about his decisions concerning his personal celebration of this Rite and I do not wish to speculate.
Does the Indult advance an ecumenism “ad intra”?
Please, accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra”. The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.
I do, however, share St Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass.
And the pastoral considerations relating to the Sacraments?
I don’t see any problems there. The Holy Father has made it clear at the consistory that the Bishops can allow baptisms, confirmation and weddings in the old Rite. After all, what applies to the Eucharist also applies to other Sacraments.
[accents added.]
Courtesy of: Rorate Caeli website
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.