I’m getting tired of some people on this forum who love to tell that the SSPX is in schism (while even Cardinals say they’re not).
It’s also almost unbelieveable that Catholics cannot see that after Vatican II large segments of the episcopate have taught near and plain heresy.
So the question comes who is really in schism?
I’m getting tired of some people on this forum who love to tell that the SSPX is in schism (while even Cardinals say they’re not).
if your name is not Benedict XVI you do not declare who is a heretic and who is not, and you do not evaluate or criticize your bishop, you obey him in all things that are not sin, and wait for the Pope to discipline or remove him if in fact he is in error. If you cannot achieve this level of humility and obedience you better take a number and stand in line between protestants and others who have left the Church over the ages over the issue of authority and obedience.
Well, heresy is sin so you don’t have to follow when even a bishop teaches this. Of course we as Catholics are still bound in obedience to the pope and bishops in communion with him.
Heresy is not something declared only by the pope. It’s just counter to the Catholic faith.
Obedience is not higher than truth. Since there can only be obedience to the truth.
Telling me to leave the Church is just a more polite way of telling someone to go to hell.
But according to Pope Benedict XVI, you can be saved in other religions and so one does not need to be Catholic. Refer to Holy See website and read some of his comments.
Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question
altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the
contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”
You cannot be saved if you leave the Church knowing it to be established by Christ and necessary to salvation. See Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.
Read it often enough. According to Pope Benedict XVI, individuals are saved outside the Church, even in the knowledge of Yeshua (Jesus). :shrug:
Well he has said often enough that he has ‘great regards’ for and ‘high esteem’ for the religion of Islam. This religion denies the divinity of Yeshua and the Trinity. The Qur’an states Christians blaspheme God with this Belief.
As card. Ratzinger his opinions matter as much as Joe’s. As pope howerver he knows Lumen Gentium is correct and has to defend it.
There is no salvation outside the Church.
How many times does this stuff have to be beaten to death? It’s getting very old listening to people come in and claim the Church to be filled with heretics and imply that it is in apostasy.
You are certainly welcome to your opinions that Popes and the hierarchy are in schism or heretics, but as puzzleannie said:
If you cannot achieve this level of humility and obedience you better take a number and stand in line between protestants and others who have left the Church over the ages over the issue of authority and obedience.
In the end, if you’re relying on your own authority rather than that of the Magisterium to determine who is heretical, you’re just another “protestant”. I say that with the greatest respect for your intentions and zeal, but also with concern for those who might be taking down the path you’ve chosen from the constant repetition.
The “traditions” of Catholicism don’t include calling Popes heretics or denying the validity of Councils. When I have found myself questioning things, I have most often found that I do better to find out why my understanding has gotten off line rather than bashing the shepherds of the Church. Sowing disunity among the flock is very dangerous ground to be walking on and short of knowing I have heard the voice of God Himself, I’m not likely to take the chance of my limited and finite knowledge being the cause of leading someone away from Him.
I have not accused the pope or any Council of heresy. If you think so you have not read my posts carefully.
We are not blind and deaf puppets —to not know what is and what is not heresy.
The Church teaches that one can be in the Church, but not in the heart of the Church, ie, lost. We’ve no objective idea as to the status of people who fall into that category. Objectively, we can only say, regarding the SSPX, that the Arcbishop and bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis and have no faculties and the faithful are warned against the danger of schism by close association. That doesn’t mean that we can make any subjective assessment on the state of their souls, only an objective assessment made by reference to Pope John Paul II’s Eccelesia Dei.
“Ecclesia Dei subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” (no. 8)
Meaning: The Church of God subsists or takes its solid form, is realized “in the Catholic Church.”
Most say that is true, but is it?
’ Ecclesia Dei est Ecclesia Catholica" i.e. The Church if GOD is the Catholic Church.
no. 8 Lumen Gentium is misleading and suggests 2 entities, that is , the Church of God and The Cartholic Church (2 separate entities).:rolleyes:
So in the future, one may say that the Church of God subsists in other religions, containing some elements of truth but not the full truth :eek:
St Paul II Thess. 2:10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore* God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:* (Douay-Rheims Holy Bible)
(10 “God shall send”… That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.)(Douay-Rheims Holy Bible)
I agree with Henry V that clearly heresy is sin. Remember that heresy is simply an “obstinate denial or doubt of one or more of the revealed truths of the faith”. So if a bishop or priest teaches or says that we must do something in opposition to the truths of the faith, that is heresy and we are obliged to not obey. In addtion, we must remember that the Magisterium is the Pope and the bishops that teach in union with him. Notice that is “bishops who teach in union with him”. If a bishop does not teach in obedience to what the Pope and the Church teaches, then again we have a duty to not comply.
The Pope doesn’t need to declare someone to be teaching heresy for it to be so. Heresy is objective, not subjective. When the Church declares someone to be in heresy, it is simply a confirmation of a situation that already exists.
Here is an example: If a bishop or priest were to teach that artificial contraception was not objectively immoral and simply a matter of personal conscience and we could practice it if we felt that was the right thing to do, that would be heresy. We would be obliged to disobey that teaching and still refrain from contraception. And that is exactly what many bishops and priests did following Humane Vitae. They were objectively heretics even if the Church did not confirm that situation.
The point being, only a higher spiritual judge can judge a lower–meaning only the Pope can judge a bishop. So, until your bishop’s jurisdiction has been definitely confirmed to be lacking, you are obliged to treat him as your lawful pastor in all things. If, however, he commands you to do anything sinful, then he has exceeded his lawful authority and you are not obliged to obey.
That being said, I’ve never seen anyone mention any of those kinds of examples here. Usually its just general complaining about some bishops saying something that doesn’t apply to the person complaining in the least. Likewise, they are not doing so to correct a fellow Christian in charity since neither the sinner in question nor anyone who can do anything about reprimanding the sinner is not present, but rather they do it simply to publish another’s sins for whatever reason.
Instead of engaging in such absolutely pointless grandstanding, why not go about doing penance for those sinners/ God complain before someone who can do something about it, Our Lord Jesus Christ whose place they stand in, and the Holy Spirit who has placed them bishops to rule the Church of God.
Likewise, why not go about teaching Catholics who are ignorant in the faith and non-Catholics who are seeking the truth but cannot find it because the people with a good grasp of it are too busy complaining and fighting with each other.
As St. Basil the Great said writing to the Roman See and other Western Churches to take *canonical *action and punish bad bishops during a similar time in the Church when “the doctrines of true religion are overthrown. The laws of the Church are in confusion…the worse a man blasphemes, the fitter the people think him to be a bishop. Clerical dignity is a thing of the past. There is a complete lack of men shepherding the Lord’s flock with knowledge…the devices of innovators are in vogue in the Churches; now men are rather contrivers of cunning systems than theologians; the wisdom of this world wins the highest prizes and has rejected the glory of the cross. The elders lament when they compare the present with the past. The younger are yet more to be compassionated, for they do not know of what they have been deprived.”:
“For the saddest thing about it all is that the sound part is divided against itself, and the troubles we are suffering are like those which once befell Jerusalem when Vespasian was besieging it. The Jews of that time were at once beset by foes without and consumed by the internal sedition of their own people. In our case, too, in addition to the open attack of the heretics, the Churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are supposed to be orthodox.”
It also bears pointing out that that he was completely ignored by a sainted Pope, St. Damasus I, in his request for action. Did he ordain bishops on his own regard and set out to do it himself regardless of canonical sanction? No. He evangelized with all patience, the patience that lets one bear all misfortune without the misfortune of committing sin.
So unity by spreading virtue and charity, because there is St. Augustine taught, where there is love and virtue, there is unity. Un-virtuous acts can never conquer vice and sin and disunity.
Is it not true that willful disobedience to the teachings and directives of the Holy Father and the Magisterium is sinful? Unless of course, as was mentioned, that such teaching leads into sin.
So what to make of those bishops and priests who have reacted to Summorum Pontificum negatively? Are they not sinning by their foot dragging in allowing its implementation. I’m not trying to start a SP debate, but just using it to show an example of how some bishops and priests aren’t always the most obedient to the wishes of the Pope. What are we to make of them? What is our obligation to obey them? Just questions for thought.
This completely UNTRUE. Stop spreading falsehood in your ignorance. See, this is where the humility comes in. To acknowledge one’s ignorance over a matter and see where your misunderstanding comes in, and rectify it. We should not judge rashly. If we see something that seems suspect, we should give it the benefit of the doubt until we exhaust all possible explanations.
The CDF has on MULTIPLE occasions ruled out that there could be multiple subsistences or that the Church of Christ subsists in other communities. Rather, the words subsistit in were chosen to reflect the perduring reality of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church alone despite the fact that elements of sanctification and truth are found in other communities (especially those of the separated East), and that these elements tend toward Catholic unity. Likewise, there are also members “in voto” in such communities who receive their salvation from the Catholic Church, but are not in full visible communion.
" . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church".
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the book “Church: Charism * and Power*” by Fr. Leonardo Boff, 1985.
“The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium”.
Declaration Dominus Iesus, n. 6, August 2000, footnote 56.
From the latest document On Certain Questions regarding the Doctrine on the Church:
“Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”
Here’s another article you might find helpful:
"[t]he phrase *subsistit in* is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term *est*, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all, it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church".3 This meaning of the term *subsistit* coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4 "*Subsisting* is a special case of *being*. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. This can occur only once and the notion that *subsistit* could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. With the word *subsistit*, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church".5
Let me start off by saying this: careful with the anti-Christian tone that denotes Your ignorance. :mad: And in the same breath you use the word humility, of course without the actual effect.
Hope you are Clear on that, if not let me know and I will send you a private message.
Listen to yourself:
So this means, “The Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church”. I am sure a lot of thought and intelligence went into the composition of this statement.
Not dissimilar the these:
My car subsists in my car, my tooth subsists in my tooth, the computer subsists in the computer, :whacky:
Wake up, dude.
Thank you and GOD bless.
One is not a denial of the other and that has been clarified by the Holy See to the whole of the Church. The Church cannot be lead into error by the Pope, per Christ’s promise.
You know, at least “Pope Pius XIII” and “Pope Michael” and the sedevacantists are outspokenly honest…deluded and in the instance of the first two, absolutely nutters, but honest nonetheless. Their yes is a yes and their no is a no. This constant nibble, nibble, nibble, like ducks, is subtle. The post-conciliar Church is in no way at odds with the pre-Conciliar Church, but has clarified and further illuminated what the Church has always taught. Those who can’t accept that would be better served to be honest (both camps, the radical traditionalists and the modernist, progressivist, liberals) and depart. Neither group is going to get it all their way.
You’re spreading dissent in the flock of Christ and trying to lead the faithful into doubt and disobedience. Genesis is spot-on.