Author Topic: Whos schizmatic? (Read 1853 times)

Trinity · « **on:** February 10, 2012, 08:47:04 AM »

Who left the faith? Who turned their back on God? Just exactly who is in schizm here?

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2012, 09:11:23 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

Who left the faith? Who turned their back on God? Just exactly who is in schizm here?

Quote from: Summa, II-II, Q.39, A.1

... Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: "Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God." Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

Quote

Canon 1325/2 defines a schismatic as one who "refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."

Quote from: Woywod

1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor. A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate; if, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have
communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or confer ences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon1325.)

Trinity · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2012, 09:42:01 AM »

I would have to say this describes the vatican and novus ordo rather well.

Woywod said:
1168. The faithful are in conscience obliged to profess their faith publicly whenever their silence, subterfuge, or manner of acting, imports an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, or an insult to God, or scandal to the neighbor. A baptized Christian, who calls himself a Christian, yet obstinately denies or calls into doubt any of the truths to be believed by Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he abandons the Christian faith altogether he is called an apostate; if, finally, he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or to have
communication with the members of the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff, he is a schismatic.

The Catholics shall not enter into any dispute or confer ences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without permission of the Holy See, or, in urgent case, of the Ordinary. (Canon1325.)

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2012, 09:43:56 AM »

What, exactly, are you asking here?

Trinity · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2012, 10:06:50 AM »

In the preceding paragraph we are told to shun the heretic and adhere to the pope. The heretic and the pope are one and the same. Bit of a dilemma and I don't see how it can be resolved.

My original thought was it was the vatican which split off. We held our ground. Calling sedes schizmatic is worse than the pot calling the kettle black.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2012, 10:10:22 AM »

The Novus Ordo church is schismatic. They throw the word "schismatic" at Trads, accusing them of not obeying the Pope, yet the liberals ignore anything remotely Traditional that Benedict does. They didn't say a word in the NO when the motu proprio came out. They are full of double standards.

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2012, 10:17:45 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

In the preceding paragraph we are told to shun the heretic and adhere to the pope. The heretic and the pope are one and the same. Bit of a dilemma and I don't see how it can be resolved.

My original thought was it was the vatican which split off. We held our ground. Calling sedes schizmatic is worse than the pot calling the kettle black.

Canon 1325 also says a schismatic is one who "refuses to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him."

Trinity · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2012, 10:28:18 AM »

To follow that line of thought to it's conclusion would really make us wolf fodder.

SS that was my thought. Pretty despicable to call us schizmatic for holding to the faith. Blasted spin doctors!

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2012, 10:31:22 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

To follow that line of thought to it's conclusion would really make us wolf fodder.

SS that was my thought. Pretty despicable to call us schizmatic for holding to the faith. Blasted spin doctors!

Is it despicable to call other traditional Catholics schismatic who are merely "holding on to the faith?" Did you know some of your clerical heros do that very thing?

Trinity · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:33:06 AM »

SJB your credibility is so far in the toilet it's been flushed. So get proof or a credible person to vouch for it. And I don't mean any of your buddies, either.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2012, 11:49:37 AM »

Quote from: Trinity

SJB your credibility is so far in the toilet it's been flushed. So get proof or a credible person to vouch for it. And I don't mean any of your buddies, either.

I quoted the definition of a schismatic and the commentary on canon 1325.

You can't even spell schismatic.

Quote from: Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn

Furthermore, the presence of John Paul II’s name as pope, as principle of unity of the Church, places the entire act of worship in the schismatic category, and not just the little phrase, since it places the entire act of worship outside the Church.

So there you have it, according to Bp. Sanborn, most traditional masses are not even Catholic masses.

Trinity · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2012, 12:18:34 PM »

:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1:

That turns everything on it's head. Nifty trick. You're telling me that the existence of one thief has ended the perpetual Mass. I can't spell and you can't tell the truth.l :detective:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2012, 03:47:46 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Trinity
To follow that line of thought to it's conclusion would really make us wolf fodder.

SS that was my thought. Pretty despicable to call us schizmatic for holding to the faith. Blasted spin doctors!

Is it despicable to call other traditional Catholics schismatic who are merely "holding on to the faith?" Did you know some of your clerical heros do that very thing?

What's your point here, SJB?

Trinity · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2012, 03:51:07 PM »

Probably to cause trouble. You will notice he didn't come up with proof or a credible witness.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2012, 03:57:26 PM »

Trinity:

Quote

So get proof or a credible person to vouch for it. And I don't mean any of your buddies, either.

Not sure what it is that you want to be vouched for. ?????? :confused1: