Posted on 09/13/2019 4:26:51 AM PDT by Elsie
In a recent letter to The New York Times, Marquette theologian Daniel Maguire suggested that the Catholic Church was headed toward a three-way schism.
Writing about Pope Francis’ reforms to the annulment process, Maguire predicted:
Catholicism is going the way of its parent, Judaism. In Judaism there are Reform as well as Conservative and Orthodox communities. This arrangement is not yet formalized in Catholicism, but the outlines of a similar broadening are in place …. While conservative and orthodox Catholics welcome this annulment concession by the Vatican, reform Catholics don’t need it. Their consciences are their Vatican. Reform Catholics, whose numbers are swelling, are still bonded to the church but not to the Roman curia.
It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnow.com ...
Sad that some organization gives one puny little sinful man so much credence over how they will supposedly worship and pray.
I do NOT shake hands in church except family members. I know my sanitary standards are good. I don’t know the persons around me standards
The Catholic Church’s greatest strength is that its’ NOT a Democracy.
And it’s greatest weakness is that it’s NOT a Democracy.
Thing is that very few Protestants ever even tried to remain ‘unified’ in the way that RCs define the term.
Most Protestants will not condemn all others to eternal damnation like Roman Catholicism condemns all non-Catholic Christians too.
Catholic Encyclopedia: ..not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm
A Catholic canon law lawyer: Canon 751 tells us that schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him. And this is where sedevacantism fits into the equation.
As we saw in “What is the ‘Old Catholic Church’?” canon 205 tells us that a baptized Catholic is in full communion with the Catholic Church if he accepts the Catholic faith, Catholic sacraments, and Catholic governance—and it’s the issue of rejecting church governance that is the key problem with sedevacantism. If you don’t believe that this or that papal document was issued by a man who is/was really the Pope, then you naturally don’t intend to abide by whatever it says. A Catholic who thinks that all the Popes since St. John XXIII were invalidly elected is obviously not going to obey anything that these Popes have said. In other words, by refusing to accept the authority of the current Pope or his recent predecessors, a Catholic who’s a sedevacantist willfully puts himself into a state of schism.
Some of the specific positions advocated by various groups of sedevacantists might strike ordinary Catholics as funny, but schism is no laughing matter. Under canon law it is considered a crime against religion and the unity of the Church, and thus a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication (c. 1364.1). ..
But since sedevacantists tend to cite (incorrectly) a lot of canon law in support of their positions, it seems reasonable to assume that they are aware of both the Church’s position on the crime of schism, and the penalties that may accompany it.
There is nothing illogical about drawing this conclusion about sedevacantists. Think about it: how can you be in full communion with the Catholic Church, if you refuse to acknowledge the authority of the leaders of the Catholic Church? - http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/04/20/can-you-be-both-a-catholic-and-a-sedevacantist/
The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect says. VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a "heretical interpretation" of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. - https://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2012/reading-vatican-ii-as-break-with-tradition-is-heresy-prefect-says.cfm
A lay theologian: Some who call themselves Catholic, utterly reject Vatican II. They say: “Vatican II taught heresy.” Rejection of the authority of any Ecumenical Council, regardless of the content of its teachings, regardless of whether or not the Council taught infallibly, is the mortal sin of schism, and carries the penalty of automatic excommunication. - https://ronconte.com/2013/06/27/note-to-catholics-who-reject-vatican-ii/
The Catholic Church has thus existed for decades in a condition of objective and grave disunity over matters of de fide doctrine. Another way to say this is that the Catholic Church has existed in a de facto state of schism. - https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/catholic-church-de-facto-schism
And of-course, you also have divisions among traditional Catholics. https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3755297/posts?page=6#6
And schismatics calling other schismatics schismatic and heretical. https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/beware-heresy/ https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/society-of-st-pius-v/
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org and which sums up the situation by saying,
In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers.
The first line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “conservative Catholic”, “orthodox Catholic”, “Novus Ordo”, “conservative Novus Ordo”, or “indult”. Prominent organizations and individuals which can be said to promote or be associated with this position would include Catholic Answers, EWTN, Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Franciscan University of Steubenville, National Catholic Register, The Wanderer, Latin Mass Magazine, Church Militant, Vericast, Fr. Kenneth Baker, Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Michael Voris, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Steve Kellmeyer, Dave Armstrong, Mark Shea, and many others.
The second line of thought described above is often termed (not necessarily correctly) “traditionalist”, “traditional”, “resistance”, “recognize-and-resist” (“R&R”), or “SSPX”. Proponents of this position include the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Fatima Network, Tradition In Action, The Remnant, Catholic Family News, TradCatKnight, Bp. Bernard Fellay, Bp. Richard Williamson, Rev. Paul Kramer, Rev. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari, Michael Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza, Robert Siscoe, Eric Gajewski, and many more. Here at Novus Ordo Watch we like to refer to this position as “recognize-and-resist”, “neo-traditionalist”, “pseudo-traditionalist”, or “semi-traditionalist”.
The third line of thought is the one we espouse at Novus Ordo Watch, and it is a theological position known as “Sedevacantism”, from the Latin sede vacante, “the chair being empty”, referring to the Chair of St. Peter that is occupied by the Pope — when there is a legitimate Pope reigning. Sedevacantism is by far the least popular position, the “black sheep” no one wants to be “tainted” with. Besides Novus Ordo Watch, other groups or individuals who promote or share this position include True Restoration, the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), Istituto Mater Boni Consilii, Sodalitium, Daily Catholic, The Four Marks newspaper, Bp. Geert Stuyver, Bp. Donald Sanborn, Bp. Mark Pivarunas, Bp. Clarence Kelly, Fr. Anthony Cekada, Fr. Michael Oswalt, Fr. William Jenkins, John Daly, Thomas Droleskey, Stephen Heiner, John Lane, Michael Cain, Mario Derksen, Griff Ruby, Steve Speray, and others.
As for the term “Novus Ordo”, in its most general application it simply refers to the new, pseudo-Catholic religion of Vatican II described above.... To be clear: We adhere fully to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church from her founding in 33 A.D. by the Blessed Lord Jesus Christ through the death of the last known Pope, Pius XII, on October 9, 1958. We are Roman Catholics. - https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/
And that VC II and the novus ordo (the New Mass) are not "traditional catholicism" and instead h has already shut itself up and no longer proclaims to all nations Christ as the Sovereign King or "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus;" And that such papal encyclicals as Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Genitiumare not doctrinal (thus binding). And that "The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell"
And which sources exhorts,
Do not submit to these malefactors, these liars, these haters of Christ. Denounce these men. Denounce their actions. Denounce this ecumenical abomination of desolation which removes Christ from the Mass. Denounce any bishop who forces it. Denounce any and every priest who participates in this blasphemy. Do not accept it under any circumstances. - http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-ecumenical-mass-of-bergoglio-is.html
And another Pope Francis is a heretic and must be seen as such by every God-fearing Catholic; that every one of his actions meant to sabotage the Depositum Fidei in any way, shape or form must be condemned in the strongest terms, and refused obedience.. - https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/canon-915-heresy-and-the-pope/
And some have a view of Vatican Two that,
THE AMAZON PAPACY (#ToHellwithVaticanII) Written by Michael J. Matt | Editor... its legacy of revolution, its fundamental rupture with Tradition, and its evil spirit which has decimated the Church, wrecked the Roman Rite, left the faith of hundreds of millions in shambles, and paved the way for outrages such as the Sham-Is-On Synod. https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4597-the-amazon-papacy-tohellwithvaticanii
MILLIONS OF WORDS have been written and spoken for and against the revolution within the Catholic Church called Vatican Council 2. The Council was such a stark break with tradition, a hermeneutic of rupture as they say, that it demands a choice of every Catholic. Nothing was left unchanged following the Council, but most significantly the liturgy was progressively changed beyond recognition both intrinsically and in outward appearance. It is an incontestable fact that since that Council the Church worldwide has been in catastrophic decline by all measures. - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3719651/posts
Thanks for your post. Now I know where my husband and I fit. We are “conservative Novus Ordo”, in the same boat with EWTN and the Catholic Answer. I think this group, over time, may grow, as it includes people who like to have children. This doesn’t jibe with the flavor of our local parish at this time, which is very social justice, Christian rock music. There are a notable minority of people like us, but I think we are going to lose ground in the parish in the short run.
Actually you had the NT church, which, based upon the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (revealing (including how they understood the OT and gospels) did not manifestly believe in such distinctive RC teachings as,
The Lord's supper being a sacrifice for sins by (only) by the hands of a member of a separate class of sacerdotal believers (priests," and with conducting that being their main distinctive function, who dispensed the "true body and blood" of Christ as spiritual food, under the appearance of non-existent bread and wine. Thus presenting a christ whose appearance did not correspond to what he physically was (contrary to the evidence of that in Scripture which is emphasized in contrast to a false christ). See The Lord's_Supper.
Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is nowhere seen despite over 200 prayers by believers that are recorded by the Holy Spirit in Scripture.
Looking to Peter as the first of a line of infallible pope reigning from Rome. Which even research by Catholics provides evidence agains t.
Baptizing souls who could not repent and believe (or needed to) which itself saved them.
Preaching that souls must actually become good enough in character to be with God in Heaven, and since the sinful nature remained after baptism and manifested itself, then (except for a few rare subjects) they must needs ensure purgatorial sufferings in order to attain to this state, and atone for sins they failed to suffer enough for while in this world. View View
Manifestly affirming even proabortion, prosodomy public figures as members in life and in death, thus making them brethren with the rest.
Enough for now, but there is more since Rome exalts herself as uniquely being the one true church whom all are to submit to. We to varying degrees come too short of the NT church ourselves without adding to that by submission to a prostitute.
Just remember that Jesus loves you enough to die to pay for your sins, and you good, I think.
The nt church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. Thank you for pointing it out
The nt church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. Thank you for pointing it out. The rest of your post, as usual is erroneous
Actually quite a few of the fr non Catholics here do exactly that, damning everyone else
I’m going to want proof of that assertion before I believe it.
It’s also written into Roman Catholic theology that all non-Roman Catholics are damned, so.
You’re going to need more proof than an unfounded assertion for that comment, else your statement is laughable.
Just saying.
What do you do when someone extends their hand to you?
Absolutely.
I’m not Catholic, but how does liturgy in a language you can understand, ruin it for you? If all you’re interested in is the syntax, cadence, and melodiousness of the service, you’re missing the point of the words themselves. Most of them are SCRIPTURE. Unless you understand the Latin, what’s the point? It would be like me listening to someone read the Bible in French. It may sound beautiful, but other than an appreciation of the beauty of the sound of the language, it would not benefit me in the least, Blasphemy in French would sound just as melodious to the ear.
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.