Why should we be embarrased that we are attempting to convert Rome to the Catholic Faith? Are you against conversions? are you against saving the church?
It is neccesary to convert Rome to restore the Church to what it was, your lack of faith in the possibility of it happening shows a lack of faith in God.
Over time we will convert them then those who were heretics will be condemned as such, the reason the Sedecavantists do not want us to even try is because you are afraid we will succeed.
You see, its this very premise that makes absolutely no sense in the history of the Church. When you say you want to "save the Church", it is not physically because if it were that would mean going to war with whoever was invading and trying to take the Church and its property by force. Right?
You must mean spiritually save it. Well... isn't the Church supposed to save us? Isn't the Church the bride of Christ? And aren't we the sinners who are called TO the Church? How can we save the Church when it is the Church that saves us? Is this SSPX fuzzy logic?
It doesn't get more clear cut than this, folks.
The only ones with fuzzy logic are you, your attempt to make up some utopian view of church history is quite sad. This is not the first crisis, are you not aware of WHY the Council of Trent was called? Or why Nicea was called? Or why most of the councils were called? Because there have always been attacks on the church from outside and within. The ones within must be dealt with from within. As they have always been. You state the word history but don't cite anything, is this some americanized history? I can cite a Pope who defended Arianism in the Sixth Century, which was Centures after Nicea Condemned it, I can cite John XXII who taught heresy in his sermons and was rebuked by his Cardinals and threatened with being deposed until he studied the issue and recanted. By your view they should of deposed him, but the Church teaches otherwise.
Here are some facts that show you have no catholic charity, nor are you thinking as a catholic.
Fact 1: In order to declare anyone a heretic you must first rebuke them. Have you personally rebuked the Pope? Did he deny a dogma after you rebuked it to his face?
Fact 2: In order to declare someone a manifest and obstinate heretic you must hold a position of authority over him. Do you hold an authority over the Papal Chair? The Law itself can anethamatize someone but it must be stated to the person in person and then they must be given an opportunity to retract their false view.
Fact 3: Without a Pope who acts as a Pope should there will never be unity in the Church, the restoration of the Church must be done at Rome, whether that is through a miracle and instant or through the acts of true Catholics expressing true charity to convert him back from his worldlyness over time is immaterial. It must happen so therefore it will happen.
Fact 4: A Catholic who would deny preach the faith to someone willing to listen has no charity. You would have us not speak to them at all, we have already seen small gains in converting people, including altering the way the church acts. We only need be vindicated in the end.
I am not in favour of a deal, I could care less, if it helps us we can sign one, if it harms us we can refuse. But the Doctrinal talks were our idea not Rome's, it was a condition before we would even consider talking to them. So we agreed to consider joining them if they would let us preach to them the one true faith. They let us and we did. Now we have considered and rejected their half hearted offer. Personally I am on the Side of Bishop Williamson that we should not sign a deal until Rome Converts in full. But in no way shape or form should anyone or can anyone say that attempting to convert them is wrong. That is tantamount to heresy.
Topic: Bishop Fellay: The Pope May Declare Us Schismatic (Read 33904 times)