Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
I disagree.
...and the gentleman who began the sspx indicated the Pope was heretical and an antichrist etc
He was an Archbishop and you won't find statements supporting your assertions.
...the heresy of the sppx...
You can't pinpoint the heresy, as none exists, so how can I "refute" it?
It's founder appears to have done just that:
"I entered these negotiations because Rome's reactions in the second half of last year had raised in me a faint hope that these churchmen had changed. They have not changed, except for the worse. Look at Casaroli in Moscow! They have spiritual AIDS, they have no grace, their immunity defense system is gone. I do not think one can say that Rome has not lost the Faith. As for an eventual excommunication, its disagreeableness diminishes with time." (Private talks quoted in Williamson's Letter from Winona, Aug. 1, 1988).
*I'm sure you'll agree with me that Lefebvre was voicing a heresy and declaring Rome had lost the Faith in contradiction to the Dogmatic Teaching of Vatican I.
Since neither of you "traditional" Catholics have darkened the door of a Novus Ordo Catholic Church for years now, you wouldn't really know what is going on, would you?
And if you have, then... tsk tsk! Don't tell any of your "traditional" Catholic friends here.
Your point? The Novus Ordo is harmful to the faith. Don't attend it. Did I just speak heresy?
* Another heresy in contradiction to the Dogmatic Teaching of Vatican I
all this stuff is easy to find. I just went to Google and typed in "sspx calls pope a heretic"
Boy, if I could only count the rash judgments on this one post...it's rather incredible.
Do you claim to know one iota of my past regarding the Novus Ordo?
And Peter did not observe the Assumption as a holy day of obligation, nor did he recite the Nicene Creed.
"Easy." "Novelties."
“ROME WILL LOOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST.” ---Our Lady of LaSalette
Is that a heresy as well?
Your point that because the Pope enjoys a good reputation this has something to do with what we're discussing, is so much blather. So is the idea that since a man is known by his enemies, SSPX must be evil, composed of miserable wretches who exist to launch hatred and invective against the Pope. In fact, they do just the opposite and pray for him daily. If there's any invective and hatred being launched, it is by the people like yourself, not by traditionalists. But it is not hateful nor indulging in invective to point out that this Pope acts in ways that are clearly heterodox. That is simply a fact--something you have a tough time admitting. Just as you cannot admit to yourself that the corruption and apostasy in the Church is widespread and attributable primarily to the man at the top. You want to blame everybody else--except the authority most in charge.
Sedevacantism is merely a denial that JPII is a legitimate pope--something understandable, given the Pope's heterodox actions. But it doesn't deny the papacy itself. What are we supposed to make of a pope who gives an abortion activist like Cherie Blair Holy Communion in a private audience? Is it any wonder questions are raised?
No. Nor do I care to. I know what you write here though and I do know that your caricature of the Novus Ordo Church is not consistent throughout the U.S.
I also know, that as based on a previous post, rash judgment assumes that one is sinning, and I never did any such thing. Just reacted to your posts previous to the ones I post.
But you can continue obfuscating if you would like. The fact is that since I do not "adhere to the SSPX schism or irregularity" if you prefer, I take the Vatican's word that the marriages and confessions are invalid.
Even if one was subjected to face-to-face confessions, at least we rest know we are absolved.
I'm not interested in your past. I am interested in providing a united front against the Modernists! Are you?
So now we put private revelations on par with infallible Church teaching (Vatican I).
Wow! That is interesting. Did the SSPX priests teach you that you must adhere to any private revelations?
And even if the one you cite is objectively true, how do you know when, or whom, this applies?
It doesn't matter if the famous "excommunications" are lifted by this pope or future popes. They are legal harassments only and are otherwise null and void. They may therefore be ignored by good men--as they are.
The Cardinal’s position is evident from his interviews such as in 30 Days: "It’s fine to celebrate either Mass, but please don’t pit one against the other. Don’t make use of one against the other." Well, the Society is definitely against the New Mass. We even say that it is "intrinsically evil." That’s a delicate label that needs a little explanation. By this we mean that the New Mass in itself —the New Mass as the New Mass, as it is written —is evil, because as such you find in it the definition of evil. The definition of evil is "the privation of a due good." Something that should be in the New Mass is not there and that’s evil. What is really Catholic has been taken out of the New Mass. The Catholic specification of the Mass has been taken away. That’s enough to say that it is evil.
Trent
Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety,[26] let him be anathema
Not all "excommunicates" are valid. If they are unjustly imposed, they are nullities. In fact, the famous SSPX "excommunications" were canonically latae sententiae--automatic and conditional--something the Pope ignored, unjustly.
I have never heard the "sui juris" argument - do you have any more information on this?
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.