Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Emerentiana on May 06, 2012, 01:25:06 PM
-
http://traditioninaction.org/Questions/B524_SSPX.htm
-
Sounds like complete bs to me.
From the link: “The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.”
Can anyone confirm this?
-
Sounds like complete bs to me.
From the link: “The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.”
Can anyone confirm this?
I've actually heard this before. I will dig up my source and get back to you.
-
Sounds like complete bs to me.
TIA has a lot of that; for example, Guimares' (sic) pathetic attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq as a just retaliation for 9/11.
From the link: “The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.”
Sounds like something taken out of context...the problem with Vatican II was not that it was every single thing was 100% pure evil. If it were, it would not have been accepted so easily. Rather, there were modernist things intermingled with Traditional things, in such a clever way that trying to find the truth amidst the error is like hacking your way through the jungle....It would be far easier to simply burn the jungle, instead of trying to salvage Vatican II. Simply admit it was a mistake....which probably won't happen until the last of the Vat II generation has died off.
(Coincidentally, this is why a deal with the Vatican is probably not a good idea right now. I don't think it's necessary that the Church be 100% trad again before the SSPX comes back.....we won't get anywhere that way. Simply wait until the Vat II generation has gone away. Most of the younger prelates are more sympathetic to Tradition. What we are seeing in the Vatican are the first cracks in the walls of Jericho....don't send the troops in until they start to tumble. I hope Bp. Fellay just waits a little longer.....who cares about an excommunication? It's the death throes of the monster know as Vatican II. Just wait a little longer....)
-
Sounds like complete bs to me.
From the link: “The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.”
Can anyone confirm this?
I've actually heard this before. I will dig up my source and get back to you.
The source is the SSPX website. Here is the link:
http://sspx.org/theological_commission/is_recognizing_sspx_questioning_the_council_4-19-2012.htm
Is recognizing the SSPX questioning the Council?
4-19-2012
From the recent media flurry about Bishop Fellay’s anticipated (and now given) second response to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith concerning the Doctrinal Preamble, there is a general noteworthy item. Many journalists have recognized that this event concerning the SSPX is of great importance to the entire Church, labeling it a “historic moment”, one “crucial for the Church”, and even a “turning point” which will have long-lasting effects for the Catholic world. One excellent commentary on this aspect comes from the keyboard of Inside the Vatican’s editor, Dr. Robert Moynihan:
But more important than the effect on the historical judgment of this pontificate, the way this matter is resolved will have a profound impact on the Church herself, on how she views herself and her mission in the world, in time, in history, and, therefore, on how the Church orients her activity and life with regard to the secular world outside of the Church.[1] [sspx.org emphasis]
Dr. Moynihan does not merely stop here - he gives the reason why this will occur:
The matter at issue is the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X… but the deeper question is the Second Vatican Council and how that Council should be interpreted.[2] [sspx.org emphasis]
This gets to the root of the matter: What level of authority does the Second Vatican Council possess? How does one reconcile certain conciliar teachings that are out of sync with the pre-conciliar Magisterium?
Adding to such questionnaires made by Msgr. Brunero Gherardini and Roberto de Mattei, Dr. John Lamont[3] published on Chiesa[4] a careful analysis[5] of the written debate between Rome’s Msgr. Fernando Ocariz[6] and the SSPX’s Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize[7], which also asked similar crucial questions. Dr. Lamont clearly expresses the SSPX’s doctrinal position on Vatican II vis-à-vis the authentic Magisterium:
The first question that occurs to a theologian concerning the SSPX position concerns the issue of the authority of the Second Vatican Council. [Msgr. Ocariz’s article] …seems to claim that a rejection of the authority of Vatican II is the basis for the rift referred to by the Holy See. But for anyone familiar with both the theological position of the SSPX and the climate of theological opinion in the Catholic Church, this claim is hard to understand. The points mentioned by Fr. Gleize are only four of the voluminous teachings of Vatican II. The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.
With irony Dr. Lamont adds:
This means that the SSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
It is relevant that the texts of Vatican II that are rejected by the SSPX are accepted by the groups [liberals - Ed.] within the Church that reject other teachings of that council.
Continuing his analysis:
One might then suppose that it is these specific texts - on religious liberty, the Church, ecuмenism, and collegiality - that are the problem. The rift between the Holy See and the SSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II, not because of an intention on the part of the Holy See to defend Vatican II as a whole…
(…)
The latter group [liberals - Ed.] simply holds that certain doctrines of the Catholic Church are not true. They reject Catholic teaching, full stop. The SSPX, on the other hand, does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements.
Dr. Lamont raises another question: “how can there be any objection to the SSPX upholding the truth of magisterial pronouncements of great authority?”
This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection. If the position of the SSPX on doctrine itself is to be judged objectionable, it must be claimed that this position is not what these magisterial pronouncements actually teach, and hence that the SSPX falsifies the meaning of these pronouncements. This claim is not easy to sustain, because when these earlier pronouncements were promulgated, they gave rise to a very substantial body of theological work that aimed at their interpretation. The meaning that the SSPX ascribes to them is derived from this body of work, and corresponds to how these pronouncements were understood at the time they were made.
The author then logically asks these final questions:
This fact gives more point and urgency to the third question that occurs to a theologian: what do these pronouncements actually teach, if it is not what the SSPX say that they teach?
...what is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on the points that are in dispute between the SSPX and the Holy See?
Dr. Lamont concluded his analysis with this statement, underlining the universal significance of the SSPX’s relations with Rome:
The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecuмenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the SSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion.
Certainly it is pleasing to read such reflections about the Council’s teachings and the Church’s future, however, more can be done as suggested by Dr. Moynihan:
[Pope] Benedict now finds himself at the center of many very powerful interests who will wish to sway his judgment as he decides this matter. For this reason, he will need our prayers.[8]
-
The truth is that one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Benedict XVI does not reject supernatural Faith in its entirety.
-
You really have to question the priorities of people who want to be recognized by someone who rejects supernatural Faith in its entirety.
They care more about Zionist approval, being against "racism" - subverting traditional Catholic views with liberalism than they care about the Catholic Faith.
More about saying "Madonna" is okay than about praying to the Madonna.
They are absolutely pestilential.
-
Thanks for the link Emerentiana.
I guess it only sounded like bs to me.
This whole thing is a giant fiasco.
Initially the SSPX were supposed to be in talks with Rome to "convert" them - what ever happened to that?
-
Thanks for the link Emerentiana.
I guess it only sounded like bs to me.
This whole thing is a giant fiasco.
Initially the SSPX were supposed to be in talks with Rome to "convert" them - what ever happened to that?
The SSPX calls themselves "Guardians of the faith" Pride goes before the fall.
-
Thank you for posting this, Emerentiana.
That is a very informative link.
Tradition in Action are such an excellent traditional Catholic website.
Often, they really tell things how they are.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/
-
Thanks for the link Emerentiana.
I guess it only sounded like bs to me.
This whole thing is a giant fiasco.
Initially the SSPX were supposed to be in talks with Rome to "convert" them - what ever happened to that?
The SSPX calls themselves "Guardians of the faith" Pride goes before the fall.
Well, they have been guardians of the faith - I don't have a problem with that title, I, like a lot of folks have a problem with all the gossip on the internet.
The thing I don't get is why SSPX does not come out and release a statement already. I mean, is the success of "the talks" dependent upon secrecy? It's becoming a flipping scandal for a lot of people already for crying out loud.
I'm reminded of what Pope St. Pius X said: Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty.... IMO, it's time to throw silence out the window and tell everyone where they stand and what's going on already.
-
Well, they have been guardians of the faith - I don't have a problem with that title, I, like a lot of folks have a problem with all the gossip on the internet.
The thing I don't get is why SSPX does not come out and release a statement already. I mean, is the success of "the talks" dependent upon secrecy? It's becoming a flipping scandal for a lot of people already for crying out loud.
I'm reminded of what Pope St. Pius X said: Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty.... IMO, it's time to throw silence out the window and tell everyone where they stand and what's going on already.
The guardians of the faith are the Catholic laity and clergy that keep the entire Deposit of Faith, whether attached to the structures of the Society or not. And the assignment of such an honorific is historically dangerous in that it provides a seeming imprimatur of legitimacy to future action which may or may not be morally acceptable. Look at Henry VIII, who was granted the title of Defender of the Faith by HH Leo X for the Henrician Affirmation only to break with Rome and claim leadership of the Church of England.
And collusion in secrecy has always been the mark of those trying to eclipse the truth with lies. This was true of Judas' compact with the Sanhedrin, the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic conspiracy to turn the European civil state against the Holy Church, and the Metz Accord which effectively destroyed any hope for the consecration of Russia and ushered in the Apostate Council. Secrecy is the only means by which lies can compete with the truth; falsehood cannot defeat truth by merit for it is contrary to what is. It must therefore try to destroy the truth through brute force, and such force requires collusion with malice aforethought.
-
Sounds like complete bs to me.
From the link: “The SSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings.”
Can anyone confirm this?
I think ABL signed ALL of those docuмents.
-
John Grey said:
:applause: :applause:
The guardians of the faith are the Catholic laity and clergy that keep the entire Deposit of Faith, whether attached to the structures of the Society or not. And the assignment of such an honorific is historically dangerous in that it provides a seeming imprimatur of legitimacy to future action which may or may not be morally acceptable. Look at Henry VIII, who was granted the title of Defender of the Faith by HH Leo X for the Henrician Affirmation only to break with Rome and claim leadership of the Church of England.
And collusion in secrecy has always been the mark of those trying to eclipse the truth with lies. This was true of Judas' compact with the Sanhedrin, the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic conspiracy to turn the European civil state against the Holy Church, and the Metz Accord which effectively destroyed any hope for the consecration of Russia and ushered in the Apostate Council. Secrecy is the only means by which lies can compete with the truth; falsehood cannot defeat truth by merit for it is contrary to what is. It must therefore try to destroy the truth through brute force, and such force requires collusion with malice aforethought.
Thats right, John. The SSPX singles themselves out as "Guardians of the Faith" and have repeatedly said so.
There is a large trad world out there besides them, who fight for and believe all of the Sacred truths the Holy Catholic Church teaches.
NO ONE appointed the Society "Guardians of the Faith". Certainly not Benedict who views them as schizmatics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
No TIA are selective. They criticize the SSPX for not being 'Traditional enough' and yet where do they go to Mass? Is it to a Trad Latin Mass? No! - I think they tend to live on another planet at times. Like all self appointed popes.
-
No TIA are selective. They criticize the SSPX for not being 'Traditional enough' and yet where do they go to Mass? Is it to a Trad Latin Mass? No! - I think they tend to live on another planet at times. Like all self appointed popes.
I'm sure they go to the Traditional Latin Mass. They promote it. Their views are very similar to the SSPX, and like Bp Fellay and Fr Schmidberger, they accept the validity of the NOM and the orders of priests ordained after 1969.
-
Thanks for the link Emerentiana.
I guess it only sounded like bs to me.
This whole thing is a giant fiasco.
Initially the SSPX were supposed to be in talks with Rome to "convert" them - what ever happened to that?
The Holy Spirit happened and melted the hardness of heart that has pride at its root.
-
Thanks for the link Emerentiana.
I guess it only sounded like bs to me.
This whole thing is a giant fiasco.
Initially the SSPX were supposed to be in talks with Rome to "convert" them - what ever happened to that?
The Holy Spirit happened and melted the hardness of heart that has pride at its root.
Uh-huh. And Vatican II was a "new Pentecost"
The Holy Spirit doesn't speak through men who are opposed to every tenet of supernatural Faith.
-
The truth is that one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Benedict XVI does not reject supernatural Faith in its entirety.
Please, provide evidence to support the possibility that he rejects the "supernatural Faith in its entirety".
-
The truth is that one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Benedict XVI does not reject supernatural Faith in its entirety.
Please, provide evidence to support the possibility that he rejects the "supernatural Faith in its entirety".
Read his books.
He doesn't believe ANYTHING.
I'm not going to parse his modernistic gobbledygook and pretend that you'll give an honest response. For example,
". heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies,"
He's a false ecuмenist, a relativist, a subjectivist.
He approves of false worship of false religions, that should be enough for you effete clowns.
Actions speak louder than words. If he had even a particle of Faith his behavior would be totally different.
-
The truth is that one would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Benedict XVI does not reject supernatural Faith in its entirety.
Please, provide evidence to support the possibility that he rejects the "supernatural Faith in its entirety".
Read his books.
He doesn't believe ANYTHING.
I'm not going to parse his modernistic gobbledygook and pretend that you'll give an honest response. For example,
". heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies,"
He's a false ecuмenist, a relativist, a subjectivist.
He approves of false worship of false religions, that should be enough for you effete clowns.
Actions speak louder than words. If he had even a particle of Faith his behavior would be totally different.
So he hasn't a "particle of faith"? He doesn't believe in "ANYTHING" you say; so does that mean he rejects the Creed?
-
So he hasn't a "particle of faith"? He doesn't believe in "ANYTHING" you say; so does that mean he rejects the Creed?
Faith in the resurrection does not at all consist in the idea of the restoration of the bodies?
That means he denies the elect will have their bodies restored. He says it's a "pictorial representation"
If Christ be preached, that he rose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain"
Of course this statement of Father Ratzinger is just one of many many such statements that could be found that prove he rejects the real meaning of every tenet of the Catholic Faith.
If he were really Catholic he would act like it is the One True Faith that is necessary for salvation. I've never yet seen the slightest indication he believes that is the case. On the contrary, he quotes Teilhard de Chardin, retains notorious modernists in high positions in the Church, and engages in false ecuмenism without any concern for the scandal it creates. He presides over the destruction of the Catholic Faith, and it's his intention to accomplish that end.
-
So he hasn't a "particle of faith"? He doesn't believe in "ANYTHING" you say; so does that mean he rejects the Creed?
Faith in the resurrection does not at all consist in the idea of the restoration of the bodies?
That means he denies the elect will have their bodies restored. He says it's a "pictorial representation"
If Christ be preached, that he rose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain"
Of course this statement of Father Ratzinger is just one of many many such statements that could be found that prove he rejects the real meaning of every tenet of the Catholic Faith.
If he were really Catholic he would act like it is the One True Faith that is necessary for salvation. I've never yet seen the slightest indication he believes that is the case. On the contrary, he quotes Teilhard de Chardin, retains notorious modernists in high positions in the Church, and engages in false ecuмenism without any concern for the scandal it creates. He presides over the destruction of the Catholic Faith, and it's his intention to accomplish that end.
What does he mean when he said this?:
" In this way the reality of the birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary, the effective institution of the Eucharist by Jesus at the Last Supper, his bodily resurrection from the dead - this is the meaning of the empty tomb - are elements of the faith as such, which it can and must defend against an only presumably superior historical knowledge."
Your citing from <Introduction to Christianity> and you are using the same partial quote that some protestants have used to try and make this false claim. Rather than rehash a bunch of quotes, I will refer you to this website which refutes that supposition.
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/01/does-pope-believe-in-resurrection.html
Here also is a link to the pages of <Jesus of Nazareth> where the Pope may clarify this misunderstanding:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cbzkRUa2j18C&lpg=PP1&dq=Benedict%20XVI%20Jesus&pg=PA242#v=onepage&q=Benedict%20XVI%20Jesus&f=false
The claims your making are not true and for the sake of the position you hold, you should be able to substantiate those claims and prove them to be highly probable. You are speaking of the Vicar of Christ, which would make slander all the more offensive.
The sedevacantist scans the Pope's writings, all the while looking for errors, while at the same time ignoring the truth they contain. This is not a spirit of charity nor a mission to seek truth for the sake of Christ but a mission to affirm one's own beliefs out pride.
-
Your citing from <Introduction to Christianity> and you are using the same partial quote that some protestants have used to try and make this false claim. Rather than rehash a bunch of quotes, I will refer you to this website which refutes that supposition.
Your defense of his denial that the bodies are restored is a joke. Why should anyone say that faith in the Resurrection doesn't at all consist in the restoration of bodies? Unless bodies are not actually restored? There is no other conceivable explanation. I've read the passage in total. I understand it.
Like I said before, it's USELESS to attmept to parse his gobbledygook with apologists for modernist lies.
His actions speak for themselves.
Anyone with a particle of faith would NEVER act the way he has.
The claims your making are not true and for the sake of the position you hold, you should be able to substantiate those claims and prove them to be highly probable.
They are true, the SSPX says as much. See the article "Prefect without Faith." As did Archbishop Lefebvre.
It's a joke to pretend these people kiss korans and attend Jєωιѕн services and aren't renouncing the Catholic Faith. A sick joke, that supporters of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy of the Novus Ordo like to make.
You are speaking of the Vicar of Christ, which would make slander all the more offensive.
No, what's offensive is for a public apostate to claim to be the Vicar of Christ.
The sedevacantist scans the Pope's writings, all the while looking for errors, while at the same time ignoring the truth they contain. This is not a spirit of charity nor a mission to seek truth for the sake of Christ but a mission to affirm one's own beliefs out pride.
Like I said before, there's no use arguing with apologists for lying, perfidious, sodomite enabling priests who make the religion into a joke.
-
These traitors in the SSPX think that no one is going to hold them responsible for their treason. They're dead wrong about that.
-
The sedevacantist scans the Pope's writings, all the while looking for errors, while at the same time ignoring the truth they contain. This is not a spirit of charity nor a mission to seek truth for the sake of Christ but a mission to affirm one's own beliefs out pride.
Your reasoning is off there. Truth+error doesn't equal truth or even half-truth, it equals error. The devil always adds just a smidget of truth to get people fooled.
-
The sedevacantist scans the Pope's writings, all the while looking for errors, while at the same time ignoring the truth they contain. This is not a spirit of charity nor a mission to seek truth for the sake of Christ but a mission to affirm one's own beliefs out pride.
Your reasoning is off there. Truth+error doesn't equal truth or even half-truth, it equals error. The devil always adds just a smidget of truth to get people fooled.
St. Pius X explained exactly the tactics they use.
4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.
-
The sedevacantist scans the Pope's writings, all the while looking for errors, while at the same time ignoring the truth they contain. This is not a spirit of charity nor a mission to seek truth for the sake of Christ but a mission to affirm one's own beliefs out pride.
Your reasoning is off there. Truth+error doesn't equal truth or even half-truth, it equals error. The devil always adds just a smidget of truth to get people fooled.
St. Pius X explained exactly the tactics they use.
4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast.
Exactly so. The mark of the modernist is the need for unceasing clarification and justification of their remarks. This is not because people misunderstand. It is because a rational Catholic understands contradiction where he sees it and is justly dubious.
-
Your citing from <Introduction to Christianity> and you are using the same partial quote that some protestants have used to try and make this false claim. Rather than rehash a bunch of quotes, I will refer you to this website which refutes that supposition.
Your defense of his denial that the bodies are restored is a joke. Why should anyone say that faith in the Resurrection doesn't at all consist in the restoration of bodies? Unless bodies are not actually restored? There is no other conceivable explanation. I've read the passage in total. I understand it.
Like I said before, it's USELESS to attmept to parse his gobbledygook with apologists for modernist lies.
His actions speak for themselves.
Anyone with a particle of faith would NEVER act the way he has.
The claims your making are not true and for the sake of the position you hold, you should be able to substantiate those claims and prove them to be highly probable.
They are true, the SSPX says as much. See the article "Prefect without Faith." As did Archbishop Lefebvre.
It's a joke to pretend these people kiss korans and attend Jєωιѕн services and aren't renouncing the Catholic Faith. A sick joke, that supporters of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ clergy of the Novus Ordo like to make.
You are speaking of the Vicar of Christ, which would make slander all the more offensive.
No, what's offensive is for a public apostate to claim to be the Vicar of Christ.
The sedevacantist scans the Pope's writings, all the while looking for errors, while at the same time ignoring the truth they contain. This is not a spirit of charity nor a mission to seek truth for the sake of Christ but a mission to affirm one's own beliefs out pride.
Like I said before, there's no use arguing with apologists for lying, perfidious, sodomite enabling priests who make the religion into a joke.
The website I referred you to gives the full explanation of what you are trying to splice from his comments on the resurrection of bodies.
The SSPX is not the infallible Church. I do not put my faith in SSPX. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
The office of Peter is the visible sign of Christ's Church; the Church that has his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail. Tradition lives through that promise, it is preserved by him, not by sedevacantist, the SSPX, or liberal bishops.
Name a teaching the Pope has added to the deposit of faith that is heretical (I assume you know what would constitute that..ex cathedra,etc.). Even if he did write errors in his personal writings it does not compromise his office, and the divine protection of infallibility.
There is corruption in the Church but it will not prevail; we have our Lord's word for it.
-
The sedevacantist scans the Pope's writings, all the while looking for errors, while at the same time ignoring the truth they contain. This is not a spirit of charity nor a mission to seek truth for the sake of Christ but a mission to affirm one's own beliefs out pride.
Your reasoning is off there. Truth+error doesn't equal truth or even half-truth, it equals error. The devil always adds just a smidget of truth to get people fooled.
I did not say they contained errors. I also do not take the Popes books as the official teachings of the Church, which would not be a teaching of the Church. With that being said, Catholics do not follow the teachings of the Popes books, we follow the teaching of the Church. So that makes this argument pointless if it is meant to justify defiance.
-
The website I referred you to gives the full explanation of what you are trying to splice from his comments on the resurrection of bodies.
No, it doesn't. Not at all. Not even remotely. I've read the complete passage. It's very clear that the restoration of bodies is being denied. As I said, there are a myriad of such statements one could find that prove Benedict XVI rejects the miracles of the Gospel. His Cardinals in high places are modernists and indifferentists, because he's a modernist.
The SSPX is not the infallible Church. I do not put my faith in SSPX. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Membership in the Church depends on having the Faith. Those who do not have the Faith, who kiss Korans, pray in ѕуηαgσgυєs, are not members of the Church.
The office of Peter is the visible sign of Christ's Church; the Church that has his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail. Tradition lives through that promise, it is preserved by him, not by sedevacantist, the SSPX, or liberal bishops.
And that is why heretics who reject the Gospels cannot be Pope.
Name a teaching the Pope has added to the deposit of faith that is heretical (I assume you know what would constitute that..ex cathedra,etc.).
That's not the test of whether or not someone can be Pope. To be Pope you must be a Christian. You can't cross your fingers and say "I'm not using my infallibility, so I can teach whatever I want"
Even if he did write errors in his personal writings it does not compromise his office, and the divine protection of infallibility.
There is corruption in the Church but it will not prevail; we have our Lord's word for it.
Not because of anyone agreeing with Benedict XVI.
-
Not because of anyone agreeing with Benedict XVI. [/quote]
I agree, it will not prevail for any other reason than the Lord preserving it.
Catholics are obliged to follow the teachings of the Church. That Church has the Pope at its head. We seen horrible Popes who have lead horrible lives, and yet the deposit of faith has not been compromised. Will we call Our Lord a liar or believe after so much he would abandon his promise. The deposit of the faith remains intact, as you have conceded. The Church has the guarantee of prevailing despite bad Popes and flawed men, which you also admit.
If you hold the teachings of the Church as I believe you do, then you also believe Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. Pope Boniface VIII said,"this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God ...?". Vatican I is also explicit about the necessity of Union with the Holy See. If you love the Church than don't abandon it in its time of need.
-
Vatican II is not the Church.
-
Benedict XVI is obviously trying to destroy Catholicism.
He is an Antipope.
-
Vatican II is not the Church.
You quote Lefebvre and so many times I hear quotes of his or the SSPX here but he explicitly condemned the position of sedevacantism.
-
Benedict XVI is obviously trying to destroy Catholicism.
He is an Antipope.
That's just not true. Nobody could prove that if they tried.
-
Vatican II is not the Church.
You quote Lefebvre and so many times I hear quotes of his or the SSPX here but he explicitly condemned the position of sedevacantism.
"Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.
Now I don't know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don't know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying "there is no more Pope," but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious.
I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don't think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.
What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don't know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don't wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope."
-- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Address to Seminarians," 30 March and 18 April 1986.
-
Benedict XVI is obviously trying to destroy Catholicism.
He is an Antipope.
That's just not true. Nobody could prove that if they tried.
What's to prove ? It's clear. Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic, a blasphemer, and an apostate, as proven by his public words and actions, for which he has professed no words of repentance. Therefore, he cannot be the Roman Pontiff. There is nothing to prove.
-
Vatican II is not the Church.
You quote Lefebvre and so many times I hear quotes of his or the SSPX here but he explicitly condemned the position of sedevacantism.
Wrong. I suggest you go join rorate, you'd enjoy yourself much better over there.
-
Vatican II is not the Church.
You quote Lefebvre and so many times I hear quotes of his or the SSPX here but he explicitly condemned the position of sedevacantism.
Wrong. I suggest you go join rorate, you'd enjoy yourself much better over there.
:applause:
That's the thing. These people are like fish out of water when they come on CathInfo.
They are compromisers.