Ecumenical Excesses

[Paul S]

By the way, how many people are part of SSPX? How many priests/bishops?

I'm not sure - I do know they have a seminary in Minnesota, and it's very well attended.

If the SSPX were to return to the fold, what would happen to the Bishops? They probably would not be heads of a diocese, what role will they play?

They'd probably be like the FSSP, with their own bishops, although they might require diocesan approval to operate in a diocese. Or, they could be subject only to the Pope, and set up churches where they please.

 

[plainswolf]

I am shocked by the occurences detailed in this thread. I do not know all of the circumstances nor do I know the intent of the Pope and Cardinals. However, I must say that this event could create further scandal, and I pray that it does not.

How many non-Catholics are going to think it is okay to receive the Eucharist now?

I agree with plainswolf, I hope the SSPX return to the fold to help battle this modernism.

By the way, how many people are part of SSPX? How many priests/bishops?

If the SSPX were to return to the fold, what would happen to the Bishops? They probably would not be heads of a diocese, what role will they play?

From what I hear there really are no lay members of the SSPX... I have never been to their massesand have never met anyone who does but I live way out in Nebraska near the wyoming border.. Yes we really need to pray for these priests and bishops of the SSPX... The SSPX from what I know is a society of four bishops and hundreds of priests, and their ranks are swelling..

What would happen to the bishops once fully reunited? I couldn't tell you... but one thing is for sure we NEED them back FULLY into the Church and they need to be allowed to continue their charisms as they are now...

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

I'm not sure - I do know they have a seminary in Minnesota, and it's very well attended.

I found the seminary's website, in which it said this:

How big is the SSPX?

The Society, as of 2005, has about 470 priests in over 60 countries.

 

[plainswolf]

I found the seminary's website, in which it said this:

How big is the SSPX?

The Society, as of 2005, has about 470 priests in over 60 countries.

They would be, and are, essentially, just like the FSSP.. except they may and hopefully will be offered an "Apostolic admninistration" in which they would be shielded from hsotile local bishops.... this was the deal the SSVJ of Campos Brazil got when they came fully back..

 

[Dream]

If the Pope had an affair with a woman, and had children with her, violating not only his vow of celibacy, but committing the mortal sin of fornication, should we approve?

Or, in more recent times... if the Pope appoints a cardinal who allowed known child molesters to remain priests as head of a major church in Rome, should we approve of that?

Popes can and do sin. They do not teach error as head of the Church, but can get discipline wrong.

They can get discipline wrong... but you can't?

What makes you guys so sure you have the correct discipline that you are willing to condemn the Pope, out of all people, for his failure to adhere to your interpretation of the proper way things should be handled? Are you really that secure in your understanding of Catholicism that you can say you've got it right and the Pope has got it wrong?

Who is Catholic these days? It's certainlly not Protestants; they don't accept Sacred Tradition. It's not the SSPX; they reject the Truth of the Catholic Church. Neither is it the Pope; he makes many errors in regards to discipline. It's you guys who have it all right. The rest of us are slowly falling away from the Truth as we blunder in accepting the Pope's decisions.

 

[Dream]

God forbid we adhere to the Holy Father.

 

[CaDan]

'Tis sad that the occassion of Frere Roger's funeral is a trigger for a discussion of how our walls are not high enough to keep out others.

 

[InnerPhyre]

The Pope is not always right.

 

[Paul S]

They can get discipline wrong... but you can't?

I certainly can - but if it's the same discipline which was kept by the Church for hundreds of years, it's probably right.

If it were entirely up to me, I'd probably allow everyone to receive Communion, wanting them to be drawn closer to Jesus and not feel left out. But that's not the teaching of the Bible (eating and drinking damnation), nor has it been the practice of the Church, well, ever. Even the 1983 Code of Canon law provides only a limited exception.

Who is Catholic these days? It's certainlly not Protestants; they don't accept Sacred Tradition. It's not the SSPX; they reject the Truth of the Catholic Church. Neither is it the Pope; he makes many errors in regards to discipline. It's you guys who have it all right. The rest of us are slowly falling away from the Truth as we blunder in accepting the Pope's decisions.

The SSPX disobeyed the Pope in one matter - the ordaining of bishops. That's the sin of schism. That's not rejecting Truth, which is the sin of heresy. Obedience, being a lesser virtue than faith, makes schism a lesser sin than heresy.

It's not my own opinions about what practices are good and what aren't. It's what the Church has traditionally done for centuries that determines what is good.

 

[Dream]

The Pope is not always right.

After spending his entire lifetime studying theology and being guided by the Holy Spirit through the papacy, I'll take his word over my personal convictions any day.

 

[plainswolf]

They can get discipline wrong... but you can't?

What makes you guys so sure you have the correct discipline that you are willing to condemn the Pope, out of all people, for his failure to adhere to your interpretation of the proper way things should be handled? Are you really that secure in your understanding of Catholicism that you can say you've got it right and the Pope has got it wrong?

Who is Catholic these days? It's certainlly not Protestants; they don't accept Sacred Tradition. It's not the SSPX; they reject the Truth of the Catholic Church. Neither is it the Pope; he makes many errors in regards to discipline. It's you guys who have it all right. The rest of us are slowly falling away from the Truth as we blunder in accepting the Pope's decisions.

No one is "condemning the Pope", but simply pointing that Popes are human as well and they are not infallible in ever single word uttered or action taken, to believe this is papalotry.. Popes can and have erred throughout history, The Bible is replete with examples of the mistakes of St. Peter. But he was still our beloved Pope, just as Benedict is our Holy Father now...

This has nothing to do with anyones personal interpretation or to do with one's own standards but by the standards of perrenial Catholic teaching and papal examples throughout history and by the standards of morality itself. This is why it is our obligation to pray much for the Holy father, because a Pope can falter, and many have in history at least to some degree.. A criticism of the Pope is not a criticism of the Catholic Church or a denial of its indefectibility, but of the decisions of the man who occupies the Chair of Peter. According to John Henry Newman: "It is in no sense doctrinally false that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century."

And as Dominican theologian Melchior Cano states the obvious: "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See — they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."


This is why it is very important for us to pray much for the Holy Father... satan attacks him much more ferociously than he does the rest of us.. But we have the most powerful weapon of all, the Holy Rosary... and there is no other sword like it..

 

[Paul S]

God forbid we adhere to the Holy Father.

We do not adhere to Benedict XVI personally, but to the office of the Pope. Remember what Jesus said about the Pharisees - obey their teachings, but do not as they do.

And, as you didn't answer before, if the Pope committed the sin of fornication, would it now be okay for me to do the same, in my adherance to him? It's no different with the sin of sacrilege.

Receiving Communion unworthily is a divine law, which cannot be changed by anyone, including the Pope.

 

[Dream]

I certainly can - but if it's the same discipline which was kept by the Church for hundreds of years, it's probably right.

If it were entirely up to me, I'd probably allow everyone to receive Communion, wanting them to be drawn closer to Jesus and not feel left out. But that's not the teaching of the Bible (eating and drinking damnation), nor has it been the practice of the Church, well, ever. Even the 1983 Code of Canon law provides only a limited exception.


The SSPX disobeyed the Pope in one matter - the ordaining of bishops. That's the sin of schism. That's not rejecting Truth, which is the sin of heresy. Obedience, being a lesser virtue than faith, makes schism a lesser sin than heresy.

It's not my own opinions about what practices are good and what aren't. It's what the Church has traditionally done for centuries that determines what is good.

This is the same argument I have seen used justifying the condemnation of Vatican II:

The Catholic Church has said two things. To my eyes, they appear to be contradictory. Therefore, I will take whatever chronologically took place first and discard any proceeding events. Never mind the fact that the Church is a living organism and is constantly growing and learning.

 

[Dream]

No one is "condemning the Pope", but simply pointing that Popes are human as well and they are not infallible in ever single word uttered or action taken, to believe this is papalotry.. Popes can and have erred throughout history, The Bible is replete with examples of the mistakes of St. Peter. But he was still our beloved Pope, just as Benedict is our Holy Father now...

This has nothing to do with anyones personal interpretation or to do with one's own standards but by the standards of perrenial Catholic teaching and papal examples throughout history and by the standards of morality itself. This is why it is our obligation to pray much for the Holy father, because a Pope can falter, and many have in history at least to some degree.. A criticism of the Pope is not a criticism of the Catholic Church or a denial of its indefectibility, but of the decisions of the man who occupies the Chair of Peter. According to John Henry Newman: "It is in no sense doctrinally false that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century."

And as Dominican theologian Melchior Cano states the obvious: "Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See — they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."


This is why it is very important for us to pray much for the Holy Father... satan attacks him much more ferociously than he does the rest of us.. But we have the most powerful weapon of all, the Holy Rosary... and there is no other sword like it..

So when the Pope takes part in a discipline that appears to be contrary to tradition, it is Satan that is attacking him?

I still don't understand this logic. Who are we following here? How can we accept the office of the Pope but reject the Pope himself when he speaks on discipline? Who are we to judge what he does in terms of distribution of the Holy Eucharist? Does the sheep know better than the shepard?

 

[Paul S]

This is the same argument I have seen used justifying the condemnation of Vatican II:

Much (if not all) of Vatican II is disciplinary in nature, and discipline is not infallible.

The Catholic Church has said two things. To my eyes, they appear to be contradictory. Therefore, I will take whatever chronologically took place first and discard any proceeding events. Never mind the fact that the Church is a living organism and is constantly growing and learning.

"Living" does not mean doctrine changes. If the Church says Jesus is God, it cannot later say Jesus is not God, because our understanding has grown.

And, as far as I'm concerned, the documents of Vatican II, looked at in the light of previous teachings, don't teach anything new. They are, however, open to an unorthodox interpretation, especially by Modernists. But that's an abuse of the Council, not the Council itself.

 

[Paul S]

So when the Pope takes part in a discipline that appears to be contrary to tradition, it is Satan that is attacking him?

It's always Satan attacking us when we sin.

I still don't understand this logic. Who are we following here? How can we accept the office of the Pope but reject the Pope himself when he speaks on discipline? Who are we to judge what he does in terms of distribution of the Holy Eucharist? Does the sheep know better than the shepard?

We follow the tradition of the Church. The Pope is not God, and is not infallible in every single thing he does.

 

[Dream]

We do not adhere to Benedict XVI personally, but to the office of the Pope. Remember what Jesus said about the Pharisees - obey their teachings, but do not as they do.

But why are we failing to obey the teachings of Benedict XVI? Does he have to physically write down doctrine for it to be 'taught' to us? Is he not teaching us by his example?

And, as you didn't answer before, if the Pope committed the sin of fornication, would it now be okay for me to do the same, in my adherance to him? It's no different with the sin of sacrilege.

Nonsense. Just a minute ago we were speaking about discipline within the Church. Now you are shifting the subject towards sin.

Receiving Communion unworthily is a divine law, which cannot be changed by anyone, including the Pope.

So he is in error on faith or morals? Has the Holy Spirit abandoned us?

 

[Benedicta00]

But why are we failing to obey the teachings of Benedict XVI? Does he have to physically write down doctrine for it to be 'taught' to us? Is he not teaching us by his example?

Giving communion to non-Catholics is teaching us what Dream?

 

[Dream]

"Living" does not mean doctrine changes. If the Church says Jesus is God, it cannot later say Jesus is not God, because our understanding has grown.

We follow the tradition of the Church. The Pope is not God, and is not infallible in every single thing he does.

Your saying that the Pope is not infalliable on discipline, but yet you know that he is wrong in this case because he is teaching against doctrine. Go figure.

 

[Dream]

Giving communion to non-Catholics is teaching us what Dream?

I don't know. I do not claim to have all the answers, nor do I pretend to. I submit myself to the Holy Father and the Catholic Church.