Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
"No less devoted to the little saint was our beloved St. Pius X. Costly gifts, among them the magnificent gold ring already mentioned, were given by him to her shrine. He often spoke warmly of her and manifested his devotion to her in various ways. Pope Saint Pius X raised the Archconfraternity of Saint Philomena to a Universal Archconfraternity and named St. John Vianney its Patron. This Pope and great Saint of Holy Mother the Church solemnly declared:
'...to discredit the present decisions and declarations concerning Saint Philomena as not being permanent, stable, valid and effective, necessary of obedience, and in full-effect for all eternity, proceeds from an element that is null and void and without merit or authority.' (1912)"
Why, it almost seems as though you are calling a Sainted Pope a liar. Interesting.
Yes, but has JPII endorsed her?
Although the sky is blue where I am, the pope was overheard this morning saying it looked like rain today, so I am carrying my umbrella so as not to be schismatic.
LOL! "Rash judgement" is not grave matter unless it involves my taking your life.
Merely pointing out that all priests and bishops of the SSPX are excommunicates is a fact. Nothing rash about that.
LOL! "Rash judgement" is not grave matter unless it involves my taking your life.
Merely pointing out that all priests and bishops of the SSPX are excommunicates is a fact. Nothing rash about that.
To my knowledge, Pope John Paul has not said anything regarding St. Philomenia, but since when does a Saint need to be personally accepted by each pope in order to be venerated?
Helllllloooooo...the rash judgment is that he is personally "excommunicating" all those who defend the Society.
You honestly believe that?
If I do not answer some particular post by the sulfurous schism, as ever, that silence ought not be construed as agreement. Many of the schismatic posts do not merit response and many of us have real lives to live. SSPX is engaged in a never-ending ad campaign which is nothing more than a recruiting scheme based upon the schismatic profession of hatred toward pope and Church as though that might make the schism the Church.
It IS remarkable how seldom any of the schizzies are seen on threads not dealing with advertisement of the schism. They are about as Catholic in confrontation with the world as is Ketchupboy. That silence is truly deafening and quite determinative of what the schism is.
Sorry, it was sarcasm.
Absolutely. You believe that jumping to a conclusion merits eternal fire? What's wrong with you?
Whoops - didn't realize which side of the debate you were on.
You don't think that rashly judging someone to be excommunicated from the Church is a grave sin against the Eighth Commandment?
Not even venial.
You do not get to subjectively define yourself as a Catholic any more than Ketchupboy gets to define himself as pro-American.
1. JP II excommunicated each and every one of the SSPX bishops. I accept papal judgments. You apparently do not. You are not alone in this. However, it marks you as not Catholic.
2. You attend "Society" Masses. So what? I have never claimed that you are not allowed even by the Vatican to do so. As has been hashed out here endlessly, SSPX Masses are valid and may serve to fulfill Sunday Mass obligations. The Vatican says so. You may even give money to SSPX solely to defray the expense of such Masses. That is your strawman, not mine.
3. I never said YOU were excommunicated. If you adhere to SSPX, you may well be excommunicated, according to the Vatican. I follow the Vatican. If you are an SSPX bishop, it is quite clear that you are excommunicated. The pope says so and he, not you and not Fellay or any other excommunicated bishop, makes those decisions. JP II has the keys. The schismatics and excommunicati do not and will not.
4. I lose no sleep over the disposition of the souls of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli and I lose no sleep over the disposition of Marcel, patron whatever of the maliciously and malignantly perturbed and disturbed.
5. I cannot imagine that it is grave matter, much less mortally sinful, to agree with the pope's judgment as to the status of SSPX and its excommunicated heroes and leaders. This is well-considered judgment and not rash at all. SSPX is just another YOPIOS, YOPIOT, YOPIOF smog factory against the Faith and against John Paul II and against the papacy itself.
6. If you want to call yourself Catholic, you need to submit humbly to papal authority and reject the schism.
7. If you are in danger of ADHERING to SSPX, then the SSPX Mass is, for you, a near occasion of sin that, when you receive the sacrament of penance, you promise God you will avoid.
Proof:
A. Do you accept the fact that John Paul II is pope since the moment he was installed in 1978?
B. Did John Paul II excommunicate Marcel Lefebvre and his illicitly consecrated Econe 4 for his and their schismatic act of refusing obedience to the Holy Father whom Marcel and they swore solemnly before God, as a condition of his ordination, to obey?
C. Did John Paul II declare SSPX a schism?
D. Do you think that self-serving schismatic rationalizations are an adequate substitute for papal authority?
Game, set, match, regardless of answers. You are either Catholic or you are not and, IF you are schismatic, you are not. You may not adhere to the schism but I would be hard-pressed to prove your non-adherence. If your tastes have been offended, too bad. Grow up!
Fifthmark: If you think it is morally acceptable to call yourself Cathlic while defending the "Society?" Draw the line between "defending" and adhering. Do you adhere to the "Society?"
Fifthmark: If you think it is morally acceptable to call yourself Catholic while defending the "Society," draw the line between "defending" and adhering. Do you adhere to the "Society?"
Say's Law works on the Internet too. If bad money drives good money out of circulation, bad manners drive good manners off the web.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), 2477-2478:
"Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."
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.