Those who criticize Bp. Tissier for not supporting the resistance should keep in mind his poor health. Even ten years ago, he was cutting back on demanding activities. In the last seven or eight years, he had to carefully ration his energies. He did still perform Confirmations, but only every four to five years, and within the US and Canada.
He may have wanted to support the resistance but ultimately decided it better to semi-retire. It’s easy to say what someone else should have done or should be doing. It’s quite another to actually experience it personally.
I’m saying, let’s cut him a break. Yes, we generally do limit our funeral sermon, if public, livestreamed, to speaking of the good things about the deceased. Everyone knows he had weaknesses, failures, even sins, like everyone. This isn’t canonizing him a saint. Let’s pray for Bp. Tissier’s soul.
Rather than critique him for what could have been, let’s have faith a bishop will be provided. If the SSPX accepts to be absorbed into Rome, then God will provide some other way.
Those who criticize Bp. Tissier for not supporting the resistance should keep in mind his poor health. Even ten years ago, he was cutting back on demanding activities. In the last seven or eight years, he had to carefully ration his energies. He did still perform Confirmations, but only every four to five years, and within the US and Canada.
He may have wanted to support the resistance but ultimately decided it better to semi-retire. It’s easy to say what someone else should have done or should be doing. It’s quite another to actually experience it personally.
I’m saying, let’s cut him a break. Yes, we generally do limit our funeral sermon, if public, livestreamed, to speaking of the good things about the deceased. Everyone knows he had weaknesses, failures, even sins, like everyone. This isn’t canonizing him a saint. Let’s pray for Bp. Tissier’s soul.
Rather than critique him for what could have been, let’s have faith a bishop will be provided. If the SSPX accepts to be absorbed into Rome, then God will provide some other way.
Those who criticize Bp. Tissier for not supporting the resistance should keep in mind his poor health. Even ten years ago, he was cutting back on demanding activities. In the last seven or eight years, he had to carefully ration his energies. He did still perform Confirmations, but only every four to five years, and within the US and Canada.Of course pray for him, but he became very silent and in the end he could have done more to offset the SSPX push for Rome.
He may have wanted to support the resistance but ultimately decided it better to semi-retire. It’s easy to say what someone else should have done or should be doing. It’s quite another to actually experience it personally.
I’m saying, let’s cut him a break. Yes, we generally do limit our funeral sermon, if public, livestreamed, to speaking of the good things about the deceased. Everyone knows he had weaknesses, failures, even sins, like everyone. This isn’t canonizing him a saint. Let’s pray for Bp. Tissier’s soul.
Rather than critique him for what could have been, let’s have faith a bishop will be provided. If the SSPX accepts to be absorbed into Rome, then God will provide some other way.
Of course pray for him, but he became very silent and in the end he could have done more to offset the SSPX push for Rome.
RIP
Indeed, it is rather tasteless for Fr. Chazal to equate Bishop Tissier to Pontius Pilate. This is what I call bitter zeal.Agree. Pontus Pilate? That’s going too far. Let’s cut Fr. Chazal a break, as well. He exaggerates to make a point. Perhaps he expresses his personal disappointment that +Bp. Tissier did not step into Archbishop Lefebvre’s shoes. It would seem that it would be best to have a United ‘Resistance’ United under a single bishop. But God didn’t allow that. He knows what is best.
Around 2012, just after the fallout of the General Chapter, I went to Connecticut for a retreat given by +Zendegas and the Dominicans. One of the Dominicans read an email from +Tissier in which Tissier said he 'was ready to make a deal with Rome'. I don't know if he ever changed his mind but that was hot off the press at the time. That is unfortunate but +Tissier was also instrumental in getting +Lefebvre to put down his retirement and create a seminary. Without +Tissier who knows where things would be now. Thank you +Tissier and +Lefebvre.THIS. Thank you to Bishop +Tissier and to Archbishop +Lefebvre for their many years of faithful service. May their souls rest in peace.
+ RIP +
Agree. Pontus Pilate? That’s going too far. Let’s cut Fr. Chazal a break, as well. He exaggerates to make a point. Perhaps he expresses his personal disappointment that +Bp. Tissier did not step into Archbishop Lefebvre’s shoes. It would seem that it would be best to have a United ‘Resistance’ United under a single bishop. But God didn’t allow that. He knows what is best.
I always think active persecution will come and the lack of a visible organization will prove an advantage in escaping imprisonments and being put to death. If no one bishop, no priest, sister, brother, or layperson hasn’t knowledge of the others, it I see much harder to shut down. Think of the resistance movements in any war. The Catholic Resistance may need to operate as the Viet Kong.
May we have patience as we wait upon Him.
The problem with this line of thinking - and it is no small problem, to say the least - is that the Catholic Church is by its nature a visible organization. A scattered group of individuals who don't know each other - but who mistakenly believe they have the faith - is not the Catholic Church; and it wouldn't even be the Catholic Church if they did have they faith.Well... Christian Japanese went 2 centuries without contact with the visible organization. That didn't disqualified them from being Catholic.
There is a crisis of faith in the Traditional movement specifically, and it consists in the fact that almost no one knows what the Catholic Church is. And what the Catholic Church definitely isn't is a scatterd group of individuals who do not belong to a visible organization with four marks - the same visible organization that has existed as such since the time of the Apostles. The promises of Christ - "the gates of hell shall not prevail," etc., pertain to the visible organization.
The nature of the Church itself - not what is required to be a member of it, since every heretic will mistkenly think he meets that definition - is what every Traditional Catholic should immediatly begin studying.
I reply to my downvoter, I say: the only thing worse than not knowing what the Church is, is hearing what it is and rejecting it.
It depends on how you view Pontius Pilate. I don't think he was evil at all. He certainly didn't want to crucify Our Lord. At least he tried to reason with the Jєωs who wanted Our Lord to be crucified. But they wouldn't back down. So Pilate gave in, in order to keep the peace and not lose his job.
How can it be that he was not evil, when he was giving a death sentence to a man he knew for certain that was innocent? He was literally sending people to death to save his job.
You are probably right. I was trying to see the situation from Fr. Chazal's POV; that is, if I'm understanding his POV properly. I may not be.
I do have some sympathy with Pilate and his situation. That might be a wrong attitude though.
The Church has been occupied for far more than 60 years. And it's not dificult to know where the Church is, since the Church today is the same indefectible organization that it was when it was infiltrated by Modernists before Vatican II. "The gates of hell shall not prevail," means heretics will not destroy the Church, from within or from withou. If you say that has happened, you are denying our Lord's promise. If you accept what Christ Promised, you will now, without any question, where the Church can be found.
Good for you, because if its not the true Church now, it wasn't the true Church then (before Vatican II), because the true Church is indefectible.
All the dogmas are still on the books and no false dogmas have been defined. The Faith remains the same.
The Church today is a mixed bag, just like it was before the Council, but there's more bad in the hierarchy. If you focus on all the bad within the Church as a whole will seem far worse than it actually is. And that is a huge part of the problem.
The answer is to hold fast to Tradition, including Traditional doctrine. And if you hold fast to traditional doctrine you will know, without question, where the Church is and where it is not.
There is only one Church, not two - "I believe in the ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church;" and that one Church is the visible organization - the visible Church - which contains within it both wheat and tares.
If there were two Churches in one body, those who separated from the visible organiation would not belong to either of the two, because the "one body" IS the visible Church or visible organization. The body of the Church consist in, amoung other things, the Churches exernal rule and government, as Pope Pius X explains in his catechism:
So, if there are "two Church," the true one exists within the Body, not outside of it. But there aren't two Churches; there is only one Church, and it is the one visible Church that has existed since the time of the Apostles - "I believ in the ond, holy, Catholi and Apostolic Church," to which Pope Pius XII adds "Roman":
Not at all. He recently said "we need to rethink what it means to say the Church is indefectible." And rethink it he did! He said indefectibility means there will always be a true remnant who are united to the hear of Jesus It would be difficult to find a Protestant who disagrees, and it would be more difficult - actually, impossible - to find an informed Catholic who does agree because that is a completly heretical explanation of indefectibility. So, no, I do not share Bp. Schnieder's opinion on the crisis in the Church.
One example of what the conciliar church did away with...Note that this video was filmed in San Francisco.
Sure, but apart from the numbers (which looked good), something was rotten. Vatican II didn't just come out of nowhere. This proves once more that the outward appearances don't matter, the external actions don't matter ... as much as THE FAITH. People's minds were thoroughly corrupted with Modernism by then. From that crowd of, let's say it was, 300,000 ... how many actually believed that only Catholics can be saved? You could probably count them on one hand. So while they're praying their Rosaries, for them it's just a different expression, where some Buddhist on his "prayer beads" was also on the right path.Agreed, yet in those days that event was something that was not unusual, even for San Francisco - just look what that city has become today without Holy Mother the Church.
We're seeing the same thing with neo-SSPX. Sure, their chapels are filled with lots of Catholics praying devoutly, living virtuous lives even ... but then how many of them are infected with the new Modernist ideas of the neo-SSPX and are having their faith rotted away gradually from with in. I would liken it to a beautiful mansion of a home which is breathtaking ... but if you scratch beneath the surface, the insides are rotten with termite damage.
Just like probably 90% of the crowd depicted into that video very shortly became flaming Communist hippies, Modernists, charismatics, heretics (or just left the Church and stopped practicing) within just a few years of that, so too within a short time many of the SSPX will get sucked right back into Conciliarism when Bergoglio makes one of his next moves.
So, RacerX here is either Salza or Nishant again. Took him a bit longer to de-cloak this time.Yeah, I normally don't pay attention but it's hard to miss with this guy. He always wants to promote the new religion as being the true religion because, well, it has to be. :facepalm:
So, RacerX here is either Salza or Nishant again. Took him a bit longer to de-cloak this time.
What you're implying is unreasonable is basic Catholic doctrine that can be found in any pre-Vatican II catechism. The reason to you it might sound unreasonable is two-fold: 1) there is a gap in the knowledge of almost every so-called Traditional Catholic, and it consists of a lack of knowledge of the nature of the Catholic Church (what the Church is). 2) that gap has been filled in with 50 years worth of errors and heresies from Lefebvre and others, with the resuts that virtually every so-called Traditional Catholic now believes that the indefectible Church "morphed" into a New Church (i.e., defected), and that the "Catholic Church" now subsists in hundreds of heretical and schismatic sects, including the "chapels" (sects) of the SSPX, which are no more part of the Catholic Church than the hundres of Sedevacantist and "indepdndent" sects that split away from her.
It has now gotten so bad that in a sermon that the SSPX proudly posted on its website, one of their heretical priest actually said that the Society has the prerogatives of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (i.e., infallibility and indefectibility)! And no one batted an eye. But that shouldn't surprise anyone, since no one batted an eye when Lefebvre professed the heresy according to which the SSPX has the four marks! Not only is that heresy proudly posted on their website to this day, and Bishops Tisseir - always faithfu to the heresies of Lefebvre - taught the same heresy numerous times.
Another example of how bad it is was seen right here on cathino, when a "trad" posted Lefebvre's heretical teaching that bishops receive their jurisidcion "from the people" who "confer it on them" - not to criticize the heretical teaching, but as a way of explaining how bishops get their jurisdiction! And no one objected to it. BTW, Pius X explicity calls that heresy in his catechism (see #43).
Welcome to the New Church and New Religion of Archbishop Marcell Lefebvre.
Christ said "hear the Church;" he didn't say "hear Lefebvre." Therefore, no one will have any excuses on judgment day.
Given that you believe that the priests of the SSPX are heretics, and that Archbishop Lefebvre was a heretic, are you willing to say whom you admire in the conciliar church?
What you're implying is unreasonable is basic Catholic doctrine that can be found in any pre-Vatican II catechism. The reason to you it might sound unreasonable is two-fold: 1) there is a gap in the knowledge of almost every so-called Traditional Catholic, and it consists of a lack of knowledge of the nature of the Catholic Church (what the Church is). 2) that gap has been filled in with 50 years worth of errors and heresies from Lefebvre and others, with the resuts that virtually every so-called Traditional Catholic now believes that the indefectible Church "morphed" into a New Church (i.e., defected), and that the "Catholic Church" now subsists in hundreds of heretical and schismatic sects, including the "chapels" (sects) of the SSPX, which are no more part of the Catholic Church than the hundres of Sedevacantist and "indepdndent" sects that split away from her.For this post alone you should be banned.
It has now gotten so bad that in a sermon that the SSPX proudly posted on its website, one of their heretical priest actually said that the Society has the prerogatives of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (i.e., infallibility and indefectibility)! And no one batted an eye. But that shouldn't surprise anyone, since no one batted an eye when Lefebvre professed the heresy according to which the SSPX has the four marks! Not only is that heresy proudly posted on their website to this day, and Bishops Tisseir - always faithfu to the heresies of Lefebvre - taught the same heresy numerous times.
Another example of how bad it is was seen right here on cathino, when a "trad" posted Lefebvre's heretical teaching that bishops receive their jurisidcion "from the people" who "confer it on them" - not to criticize the heretical teaching, but as a way of explaining how bishops get their jurisdiction! And no one objected to it. BTW, Pius X explicity calls that heresy in his catechism (see #43).
Welcome to the New Church and New Religion of Archbishop Marcell Lefebvre.
Christ said "hear the Church;" he didn't say "hear Lefebvre." Therefore, no one will have any excuses on judgment day.
To be honest, I don't look for people to admire, so that is not something that is on my radar. And thinking about it just now, I can't think of anyone who stands out.
Did I say anything wrong? Or are you offended because I pointed out one of the (many) heresies of Lefebre? You should thank me for that. After all, I thought "Traditional Catholics" were all about fighting or the faith and opposing heresy. The reality is that they are only about the defending the Traditional Mass (certainly good in itself) and fighting against the "Conciliar Church" (aka, the Roman Catholic Church). No one cares about heresy, as your reply proves. They only pretend to care about it when they can falsely accuse the true Church of teaching it.Why don’t you listen to your Pope who recently said: all the different religions are like languages, many paths to the same God.
And Matthew should allow me to stay around. If you are confident in your position what do you have to fear. And everyone should want to have their positions challenged, since none of us are infallible; and we should especially want to hav them challenged when they could result in an eternity of unspeakable torments that are being imagination. That's what will happen if we die outside of the real Catholic Church.
No, I don't adhere to any novelties. The reason I oppose Archbishop Lefebvre is exclusively due to the countless errors and heresies that I have found in his writings, combined with the extremeley dangerous fact that he is looked upon today as a defender of the faith. That is like looking upon Jeffrey Epstein as the ideal person to watch over your teenage dauhter while you're out of town.
To repost (and clean up) what I wrote previously:Pertinacious schismatics must be dealt with firmly, offering them a time of reflection followed by a single warning—for the sake of their own salvation.
Matthew should allow me to stay around. If you are confident in your position what do you have to fear. And everyone should want to have their positions challenged, since none of us are infallible. And we should especially want to have them challenged when they could result in an eternity of unspeakable torments that are beyond imagination - which is precisely what will happen if they cause us to die outside of the real Catholic Church.(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/icons/modify_inline.gif)
Pertinacious schismatics must be dealt with firmly, offering them a time of reflection followed by a single warning—for the sake of their own salvation.
Which one of us still believes what the Church taught before Vatican II? For example, which one of us still believes that the true Church - the "one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" (Pius XII) - is a visible, hierarchical, indefectible society with four marks, that consists of the bishops with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify - i.e., those appointed as heads of a legitimately established particular Church that is in union with local Church of Rome - and the faithful subject to them (Vehementur Nos, Pius X); and still believes that "those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit." (Pius XII)?
And which one of us now believes the Catholic Church "subsists" in hundreds of sects, separated from each other at least in governent, and that to be a "true Catholic" today one must separated from the visible organization that they admit was the true Church with four marks a mere 60 years ago?
Only the land of make believe does the "Church" that subsists in hundreds of sects separated from each other in government constitute the True Catholic Church, while the visible organization that has existed since the time of the Apostles constitute a New Church.
Why would I be banned when what I am saying is true? And so far, no one has challenged my on doctrinal grounds.I’m willing to engage in a debate and present the Catholic truth, firmly rooted in Tradition. Once the truth is clearly demonstrated, I trust that in humility, you’ll recognize the need to ask to be banned yourself.
Why would I be banned when what I am saying is true? And so far, no one has challenged my on doctrinal grounds.
Nope. I'm not Salza or Nishant, but you're close.
Nope. I'm not Salza or Nishant, but you're close.
If I have said anything that is doctrinally incorrect, I welcome a warning. But make sure it is very specific, by quoting me directly and then explaining why what I wrote is wrong. Also be sure to back it up with an authoritative source. And if it turns out that I did say something that is incorrect, I will readily concede it.
Since you mentioned schism, its definition is "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of comunion with the members of the Church subject to him." (Canon 751)
The bishop of Rome is the Roman Pontiff. Francis is the Bishops of Rome; therefore he is the Roman Pontiff. I am in communion with him. Are you?
I am also in communion with the members f the Church who are subject to him. Are you?
If you answered no to either of those questions, you are a schismatic. That was your warning.
Your argument regarding "absolute submission" to the Pope is fundamentally flawed and contradicts the clear teaching of the Catholic Church. Submission to the Pope is never blind or unconditional. Our obedience is rooted in the Pope’s fidelity to the Deposit of Faith, which has been handed down unaltered for over 2,000 years. If the Pope or the hierarchy deviates from this Faith, we are not bound to follow them into error.
Submission to the Pope is absolute; agreeing with all of his personal opinions is not. Practically speaking, one is in submission to the Pope if he belongs to the universal Church; and one belongs to the universal Church by beloning to his diocese, which is not only part of the universal Church (in one sense), but IN which the universal Church subists (in another sense). The particar Church is within the universal Church, and the universal church is within each particuar Church. One who is in union with their diocese and its head, provided the diocese and its head is in union with the local Church of Rome and its head, is in submission to the Pope.
Anyone who is not in union with their diocese - for example, by regularly attending an illicit Mass celebrated in a "chapel" that is not part of the diocese - is not in submission to the Pope.
But a Catholic who is part of their diocese, and therefore in submission to the Pope, does not have to agree with every personal opinion of the pope or every poorly worded statement that he makes.
You are conflating submission and obedience. Submission is general and habitual; obedience is particular and allows exceptions.
Now, explain on what points, specifically, the Pope or hierarchy have deviated from the faith, and then show where the Pope or your local bishop have commanded you to do something sinful or believe something false. And ifyou can't point to anything, what speifically are you "resisting".
Traditional chapels don't uphold the true faith, and they certainly don't save souls (for one all absolutions are invalid except in danger of death); but even if they did uphold the faith, you would still be in schism for adhering to one, since by doing so, you would be separating from your diocese, and hence from the pope, and from the members of the Church in union with him.Do you pray your Rosary, RacerX?
However you slice it, joining or publicly adherig to a "chapel" that is not part of your particular church/diocese (which makes the chapels, by definition, non-Catholic sects) is an act of schism that will bring about a latae sententia (ipso faco) excommunication, which has dire effect on the soul, since it cuts you off from almost all actual grace.
... and no pope since Vatican II has commanded anything sinful.
The pope is ...
Do you pray your Rosary, RacerX?
Our Lady will come to your aid and the scales will eventually fall from your eyes if you do.
No matter how long you have been serving your masters in the Lodge, it is never too late if only you will turn to Mary.
Kyrie eleison!
The pope is the actual visible head of the Church. Christ is the true but invisible head, and he is the only head with respect to grace, but the pope is nevertheless the true visible head of the Church. In fact, the Church teaches that the Pope and Christ constitute one head. If you disobey a command of the pope, you disobey Christ, unless the command is sunful; and no pope since Vatican II has commanded anything sinful.
If the Pope deviates from what Christ taught, I agree that we must not follow the pope on that point. When has that happened? Quote the specific papal teachings you are referring to, then quote the teaching of Jesus that you believe they contradict, and then explain why you believe the former contradicts the latter.
The Pope's job is to govern the Church and defend the deposit, and your job is to obey the pope in all things but sin, and not judge how he is doing his job. The pope will answer to Christ for how he does his job, and you will answer for 1) how well you did your job, and 2) for all the times you publicly criticized the pope for how you think he is doing his. And I can guarantee that on judgment day you will regret every single time you publicly criticized the pope, and wish you had focused instead on doing yours.
Buy remaining part of your diocese and obeying your bishop and the pope in all things that are not a sin. And I bet you will never be commanded by either to do something sinful.
So, the tactic has been the same each time. You open by attacking SVism as schismatic/heretical, trying to get the various R&R types to join with you, but then your actual positions begin to manifest themselves as you condemn all Traditonal Catholics as heretics and schismatics.What do you know? You'd have another couple thousand extra down thumbs (if they even mean anything more than worthless opinion) if it weren't for times of software manipulation that shielded you. Quite likely your down thumbs would come from the fact that you are so sure of yourself in your erroneous judgments, which is sedevacantist behavior, because they have the audacity to judge the pope, and from there the pride and confidence in personal judgment skyrockets. I say SVism is dangerous for this reason alone let alone others. I think it is an opinion one may cautiously hold, but we're a bunch of laymen, and considering the errors the clergy make, we have even less reason to have any confidence in our own opinions/judgments regarding the crisis in the church.
If you believe that the Conciliar Dumpster Fire is the Holy Catholic Church and the Bergogolio is one of the successors of St. Peter in whom was never found even the stain of error (Vatican I), then you're a heretic and schismatic for asserting the defection of the Church.
St. Pius X, had he been timewarped forward to today, to behold this cloaca called the Conciliar Church would have reckoned it as having the notes of some bizarre Protestant sect and not those of the Holy Catholic Church.
You blaspheme by claiming that this filthy excrement known as the Vatican II Conciliar Church is in fact the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. You point to this vile whore (the Whore of Babylon in Revelation) and try to pretend that it's the Spotless Bride of Christ. It's the false "ape" Church of the end times apostasy, and you are a partisan of it and are yourself Antichrist.
Begone, Satan.
Nope.
I never said obedince to the Pope rather than Christ, but what you are advocating is obedience to Christ, rather than the Pope, which is a grevious error.
Christ and the Pope constitute one head of the Church. Christ rules the Church though his visible head, and disobeying the visible head, is disobdience to Christ, unless the particualar command of the Pope is itself contrary to human or divine law (I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of the latter. So far, its crickets.) Here is how Pius XII explains it:
Another consequence of the oneness of Christ and the Pope as the invisible and visible head of the Church is that those who separate from the Pope ipso facto separate themselves from the pope. And it doesn't matter if the reason they separated from the Pope is because they were deceived by one of the countless specious arguments of the Sedvacantist heretics. If one objectively separates from the pope, they objectively separate themselves from Christ (and his Church).
Not instead, but because; and it's not because "I love" what he teaches, but because he is the vicar of Christ and visible head of the Church, and because Christ commands that I obey him.
You are deceiving yourself if you think you are following Christ without following the pope, as Pius XII teaches
Those words of Pius XII apply to you. But I'm sure you won't care. After all, those words were only spoken by the Pope, not by Christ, who alone you follow.
Before we proceed, can you clearly state that you reject and condemn Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and all its pomps? Do you recognize it as rooted in Luciferianism? And do you affirm that an unrepentant Freemason cannot be both a Freemason and a Catholic, as Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ incurs automatic excommunication under Church law?
I never said obedince to the Pope rather than Christ, but what you are advocating is obedience to Christ, rather than the Pope, which is a grevious error.
Christ and the Pope constitute one head of the Church. Christ rules the Church though his visible head, and disobeying the visible head, is disobdience to Christ, unless the particualar command of the Pope is itself contrary to human or divine law (I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of the latter. So far, its crickets.) Here is how Pius XII explains it:
A consequence of Christ and the Pope constituting "only one head," is that those who separate from the Pope ipso facto separate themselves from Christ. And it doesn't matter if the reason they separated from the Pope is because they were deceived by one of the countless specious arguments of the Sedvacantist heretics. If one objectively separates from the pope, they objectively separate themselves from Christ (and his Church). And that reality is always manifest by their actual physical separation from the visible Church, which is what always happens when someone falls into Sedevacantism. They reject the Pope, and then immediately reject the Church.
Not instead, but because; and it's not because "I love" what he teaches, but because he is the vicar of Christ and visible head of the Church, thereby consituting one head with Christ, and because Christ commands that I obey him.
You are deceiving yourself if you think you are following Christ without following the pope, as Pius XII teaches
Those words of Pius XII apply to you. But I'm sure you won't care. After all, they were only spoken by the Pope, not by Christ, who alone you follow.
You are deceiving yourself if you think you are following Christ without following the pope, as Pius XII teaches
Those words of Pius XII apply to you. But I'm sure you won't care. After all, they were only spoken by the Pope, not by Christ, who alone you follow.
…The pope is the rule of faith because what he defines as de fide becomes an article of faith.…
Of ourse I do. All Freemasons, as well as those who publicly adhere to a "chapel" that is not part of their diocese, are exommunicated, provided the excommunication for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is still in force (which I don't believe is the case). But if it is, I affirm it.
Do you affirm that all schismatics, even if they don't think they are schismatics, incur ipso facto excommunication?
But the Church teaches that one must submit and obey the Pope. Do you accept that teaching of the Church and put it into practice?
The charism of infallibility prevents the pope from erring when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra. Since the pope only acts as the rule of faith when he defines, ex cathedra, a pope will never "change the teaching of the Church" when he acts as the rue of faith. You see, when you know the Catholic faith, and when you understand what the terms mean (e.g., rule of faith), not only does it prevents you from falling into many errors, but it enables you to refute the specious arguments of heretics.
No, do you? For example, do you believe that the Pope and Christ constittute one head of the Church, and that they "walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth" (Pius XII)?
Who said they could? What I said is that the charism of infallibility prevents a pope from erring when he defines a doctrine.
…the pope is the rule of faith.…
What a word salad of ambiguity!^^^ !!!
You affirm "…if…" is no affirmation at all. It is merely window-dressing.
Quote the Magisterium that states "adhering" to a non-diocesan chapel earns any kind of excommunication.
Even before the "Vatican 2" revolution and occupation of the Church, most religious orders had chapels that were non-diocesan. Your silly declaration "excommunicated" centuries of Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Redemptorists, and other orders who had their own non-diocesan chapels. Your foolish claim cuts a wide swath of "excommunications."
Which one of us still believes what the Church taught before Vatican II? For example, which one of us still believes that the true Church - the "one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" (Pius XII) - is a visible, hierarchical, indefectible society with four marks, that consists of the bishops with the authority to teach, govern and sanctify - i.e., those appointed as heads of a legitimately established particular Church that is in union with local Church of Rome - and the faithful subject to them (Vehementur Nos, Pius X); and still believes that "those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit." (Pius XII)?This was explained to you in the conversation you dropped out of in the other thread.
And which one of us now believes the Catholic Church "subsists" in hundreds of sects, separated from each other at least in governent, and that to be a "true Catholic" today one must separated from the visible organization that they admit was the true Church with four marks a mere 60 years ago?
Only the land of make believe does the "Church" that subsists in hundreds of sects separated from each other in government constitute the True Catholic Church, while the visible organization that has existed since the time of the Apostles constitute a New Church.
Pay attention to what you are reading. I never said a pope could define a novelty. What I said is when he defines a doctrine he teaches infallibly; and when he defines a doctrine he acts as the rule of faith, because the doctine he defines becomes an object of divine faith. But I seriously doubt you will even undersand what that means.Pay attention to what YOU are SAYING:
…the pope is the rule of faith. …
I just check and the excommunication of Freemasons is still on the books, even though the new code doesn't explicitly mention them. It is implicit in the Code. So, anyone who belongs to Freemasons, or a non-Catholic "chapel," is ipso facto excommunicated by the force of law.You said non-diocesan chapels were excommunicated. I spotlighted that falsehood.
The religious orders are part of the diocese they belong to, and they are under the local bishop. The bishop invites them to his diocese, and they become part of it. Even though they are not, strictly speaking, "diocesan chapels," they are part of th diocese in which they reside because they were lawfully established therein and remain in legal union with it.…
… as well as those who publicly adhere to a "chapel" that is not part of their diocese, are exommunicated, …
They are all lawfully established in the diocese, with the approval of the bishop, and they are all legally recognized as such. That isn't the case with any Trad "chapel."
Again highlighting your ignorance of Catholicism.
How do you know what is in the deposit?
That is the role of the Magistrium. The Magisterium teaches and defines what it in that deposit, and therefore is known as the proximate rule of faith when she teaches definitively.
The Deposit was handed down in two ways: the Scripture and Traditiom. The Protestant said the Scripture (their private interpreation of it) was the only rule of faith, thereby bypassing the Magisterium.
You are doing the same. The difference with most so-called Traditional Catholic is that, instead of appealing to the bible to justify their belief with respect to the Deposit, they appeal to Tradition, the other font of the Deposit.
It is exatly the same error: Private judgment of what constitutes the Deposit of Faith: Protestants claim to adhere to the Bible alone, while rejecting the divinely establishd and infallible interpreter, while Trads appeal to "Tradition," while rejecting its divinely established and infallible interpreter.
They aren't just "in" the diocese, they are part of the diocese. They are lawfully erected in the diocese by the lawfully constituted head (the bishop) and they remain legally part of it. Even Protestants are "in" a diocese, but, like the illicitly established Trad "chapels," they are not part of it. Like Trad "chapels," they are non-Catholic sects; or, as the Bible calls them, "sects of perdition."
Pope Francis knows full well that the SSPX chapels are non-Catholic sects. It is an objective fact. Were the chapels of the SSPX legitimately established? No. Are they recognized by any bishop as having been lawfully estabished in his diocese, and are they curently recognized as being a legal part of it? No. The only diocese in which the SSPX was lawfully established in Fribourg, but their legal status in that diocese came to an end in 1975.
The reason for the on again and off again agreement with Rome is precisely to establish the Soceity as part of the Catholic Church, which is currently is not, and which it admits that it is not, since it calls the Roman Catholic Church the "Conciliar Church" and readily admits that it is not part of the latter.
The SSPX itself will be the first to admit that it is not part of the Conciliar Church, which is the Church consisting of the local Church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it.
Quote from: RacerX (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=75269.msg958220#msg958220) 2024-10-24, 7:03:01 PMQuote from: RacerX (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=75269.msg958220#msg958220) 2024-10-24, 7:03:01 PMYour answer is evasive and resembles the response of one either aligned with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or acting in bad faith. Authentic Catholics unequivocally reject Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ without hesitation, understanding its Luciferian roots and its absolute incompatibility with the Faith. Those unwilling to recognize this should not be permitted to spread error or to risk undermining others here.
Of ourse I do. All Freemasons, as well as those who publicly adhere to a "chapel" that is not part of their diocese, are exommunicated, provided the excommunication for Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is still in force (which I don't believe is the case). But if it is, I affirm it.
Do you affirm that all schismatics, even if they don't think they are schismatics, incur ipso facto excommunication?
Then explain how you know it.…
(Not that I expect you to give a straight answer.)
Your answer is evasive and resembles the response of one either aligned with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or acting in bad faith.His answers are from the conservative branch of the NO, which is why they all resemble the response of one either aligned with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or acting in bad faith.
They aren't just "in" the diocese, they are part of the diocese. They are lawfully erected in the diocese by the lawfully constituted head (the bishop) and they remain legally part of it. Even Protestants are "in" a diocese, but, like the illicitly established Trad "chapels," they are not part of it. Like Trad "chapels," they are non-Catholic sects; or, as the Bible calls them, "sects of perdition."
You've become a Protestant and you don't even know it. Like your fellow Protestants, you are your own magisterium and your own pope, and you think the true Church subsists in hundreds of illicit established heretical sects. You have embraced the heretical and ecuмenical Protestant notion of the Church as susisting in a multiplicity of denomination, which lack any semblance of a unity of government, which happens to every heretic who leaves the Roman Catholic Church.
You are a prime example of where the errors and heresies of the so-called Traditional movement lead.
Please cite where any pope has said that the SSPX is non-Catholic, or even that sedevacantists are non-Catholic. It is your own private judgment that we are non-Catholic. No pope has ever said so.
Quote from: Stubborn (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=75269.msg958343#msg958343)If Rabbi RacerX were of good will, his position would likely and naturally align with the 2012 doctrinal declaration of Bishop Fellay and the Neo-SSPX. Although gravely mistaken, one could attribute this stance to ignorance—a misguided attempt to justify Bishop Fellay’s compromise and the Neo-SSPX’s new position. That could be sorted out over a conversation, however misguided.
His answers are from the conservative branch of the NO, which is why they all resemble the response of one either aligned with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ or acting in bad faith.
The pope doesn't have to say the SSPX or sed chapels, or the Protestant chapels, are non-Catholic sects, because it is an objective fact. …
If Rabbi RacerX were of good will, his position would likely and naturally align with the 2012 doctrinal declaration of Bishop Fellay and the Neo-SSPX. Although gravely mistaken, one could attribute this stance to ignorance—a misguided attempt to justify Bishop Fellay’s compromise and the Neo-SSPX’s new position. That could be sorted out over a conversation, however misguided.Nailed it!
But you, RacerX, show a stubbornness and depth of misunderstanding that places you even further removed from Catholic tradition. Stubborn rightly identified the type: either a Freemason or a dogmatic “Novus Ordo Conservative.” In reality, you embody the latter, a byproduct of the Alta Vendita blueprint—a Freemason in spirit, though perhaps not formally pledged in a blue lodge, but loyal to the Novus Ordo temples. This position, poisoned by modernist influence, is inherently anti-Catholic and reveals the true infiltration and intentions of the enemies of the Church.
Okay, so you didn't learn the deposit from the Bible or Tradition, or the Magisterium, but from:
1) Your grammar school and high school teachers.
2) Your college professors.
3) Sermons from priests (probably heretics) and from books.
Heres my question: Where did your grammar school and high school teachers, your college professors, those who delivered the sermons and wrote the books learn it? And were they infallible teachers?
I don't have any training in Zionism, but I learned the Catholic faith mainly from studying councils and other magisterial docuмents (in Denzingers for example) and by studying pre-Vatican II theology manuals.
In short, I learned the faith from an infallible teacher (the Magisterium) and from sources that the infallible teacher approved to be used in the training of priests.
If Rabbi RacerX were of good will, his position would likely and naturally align with the 2012 doctrinal declaration of Bishop Fellay and the Neo-SSPX. Although gravely mistaken, one could attribute this stance to ignorance—a misguided attempt to justify Bishop Fellay’s compromise and the Neo-SSPX’s new position. That could be sorted out over a conversation, however misguided.
But you, RacerX, show a stubbornness and depth of misunderstanding that places you even further removed from Catholic tradition. Stubborn rightly identified the type: either a Freemason or a dogmatic “Novus Ordo Conservative.” In reality, you embody the latter, a byproduct of the Alta Vendita blueprint—a Freemason in spirit, though perhaps not formally pledged in a blue lodge, but loyal to the Novus Ordo temples. This position, poisoned by modernist influence, is inherently anti-Catholic and reveals the true infiltration and intentions of the enemies of the Church.
State the Freemason principle you believe I embody and then show where what I wrote confirms it. Of course, we both know you won't do that, since you never back up any (false) accusation when you are asked to do so. But remember, when you arrive at your particular judgment you will answer for every accusation you have made. If you were wise, you would focus more on accusing ourself of your own sin, not only you sins of falsely accusing others, but all your other sins, including the biggy, which is schism.
Stubborn rightly identified the type: either a Freemason or a dogmatic “Novus Ordo Conservative.”
You hate tradition and traditionalists. You want us to follow a heretical pope. You want us to submit to the heretical dioceses in the conciliar anti-catholic church. You are an advocate of heresy. And no, I'm not going to detail everything I just wrote. That's how you try to manipulate everyone here. That's evil. Freemasons are manipulative. They excel at it, as you do.
Indeed, this guy is a heretic and is doing the devil's work, trying to defend, enable, and support the Antichurch. Only someone bereft of Catholic faith is capable of equating the Conciliar Abomination with the Holy Catholic Church, since it lacks all the marks of the True Church except (the appearance of) a material continuity. But in the warped mind of Salza (and his followers), the material/legal continuity is all that matters. It's only based on those absurdly legalistic principles that he could declare that Archbishop Lefebvre was outside the Church (like this degenerate Racer does) while Joe Biden is a Catholic in good standing. If you can believe that Biden is more Catholic than +Lefebvre, that proves to me that you're a heretic who's lost the faith and wouldn't recognize the Catholic faith it it hit him in the face.
At one point, during the Arian Crisis, St. Athanasius found himself excommunicated by Liberius while myriad Arian "bishops" found themselves in good standing with Rome. According to the Salza-ist heresy, St. Athanaius was outside the Church, and the Arians in the Church. In fact, had the Arians (who controlled between 97 and 99 percent of all formerly-Catholic episcopal sees), succeeded in getting theri man on the See of Peter, Salza would have to declare that Arianism was the Catholic Faith.
Quote Ratzinger saying the SSPX is NOT schismatic. Also, when Ratzinger lifted the excommunication he explicitly stated that "the SSPX does not have any canonical status" (not legally part of the Catholic Church) and " its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church." They are not ministers of the Catholic Church because they are not legally a part of it.
Dear brethren in the Episcopal ministry!
The lifting of the excommunication of the four bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 without a mandate of the Holy See has led, both within and outside the Catholic Church, for a variety of reasons, to a discussion of such vehemence as we had not experienced for a long time. Many bishops felt at a loss before an event which came unexpectedly and could barely be integrated positively among the questions and tasks of the Church of today. Although many pastors and faithful were willing in principle to value positively the Pope's desire for reconciliation, against this was the question of the appropriateness of such a gesture, given the real urgency of a believing life in our time. Several groups, however, accused the Pope openly of wanting to return behind the Council. An avalanche of protests was set into motion, the bitterness of which made injuries visible which transcended the moment. Therefore I feel pressed to address to you, dear brethren, a clarifying word, which is meant to help to understand the intentions which have guided me and the competent organs of the Holy See in this step. I hope in this way to contribute to peace in the Church.
One mishap for me unforeseeable, was the fact that the Williamson case has superimposed itself on the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards the four bishops ordained validly but not legitimately, suddenly appeared as something entirely different: as a disavowal of the reconciliation between Christians and Jєωs, and therefore as the revocation of what in this area the Council had clarified for the way for the Church. The invitation to reconciliation with an ecclesial group separating itself had thus become the opposite: an apparent way back behind all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jєωs which had been made since the Council and which to make and further had been from the outset a goal of my theological work. The fact that this superposition of two opposing processes has occurred and has disturbed for a moment the peace between Christians and Jєωs as well as the peace in the Church I can only deeply regret. I hear that closely following the news available on the internet would have made it possible to obtain knowledge of the problem in time. I learn from this that we at the Holy See have to pay more careful attention to this news source in the future. It has saddened me that even Catholics who could actually have known better have thought it necessary to strike at me with a hostility ready to jump. Even more therefore I thank the Jєωιѕн friends who have helped to quickly clear away the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust, which - as in the time of Pope John Paul II - also during the entire time of my pontificate had existed and God be praised continues to exist.
Another mishap which I sincerely regret, is that the scope and limits of the measure of 21 January 2009 have not been set out clearly enough at the time of the publication of the procedure. The excommunication affects persons, not institutions. Episcopal consecration without papal mandate means the danger of a schism, because it calls into question the unity of the Bishops' College with the Pope. The Church must, therefore, react with the harshest punishment, excommunication, and that is to call back the persons thus punished to repentance and into unity. 20 years after the ordinations this goal has unfortunately still not been achieved. The withdrawal of the excommunication serves the same purpose as the punishment itself: once more to invite the four bishops to return. This gesture was possible after the affected had expressed their fundamental recognition of the pope and his pastoral authority, albeit with reservations as far as obedience to his magisterial authority and that of the Council is concerned. This brings me back to the distinction between person and institution. The releasing of the excommunication was a measure in the field of ecclesial discipline: the persons were freed of the burden of conscience of the heaviest ecclesial censure. From this disciplinary level one has to distinguish the doctrinal area. That the Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical position in the Church is not based ultimately on disciplinary grounds but on doctrinal ones. As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church. One has therefore to distinguish between disciplinary level affecting the persons as persons, and the level of doctrine, at which office and institution are concerned. To say it once again: As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the Fraternity has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.
Given this situation, I intend to connect the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei", which since 1988 is responsible for those communities and individuals who, coming from the Fraternity of Pius X or similar groups, want to return into full communion with the Pope, in the future with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This shall make it clear that the problems now being treated are essentially doctrinal in nature, especially those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar Magisterium of the Popes. The collegial organs through which the Congregation works on the questions arising (especially the regular assembly of the Cardinals on Wednesday and the General Assembly every one or two years) guarantee the involvement of the prefects of various Roman congregations and of the worldwide episcopate in the decisions to be made. One cannot freeze the magisterial authority of the Church in 1962 and - this must be quite clear to the Fraternity. But to some of those who show off as great defenders of the Council it must also be recalled to memory that Vatican II contains within itself the whole doctrinal history of the Church. Who wants to be obedient to it [sc. the Council] must accept the faith of the centuries and must not cut the roots of which the tree lives.
I hope, dear brethren, that with this both the positive meaning as well as the limit of the measure of 21 January 2009 is clarified. But now the question remains: Was this necessary? Was this really a priority? Are there not much more important things? Of course, there are more important and urgent things. I think that I have made clear the priorities of the pontificate in my speeches at the beginning of it. What I said then remains my guideline unchangedly. The first priority for the successor of Peter, the Lord has unequivocally fixed in the Room of the Last Supper: "You, however, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22, 32). Peter himself rephrased this priority in his first letter: "Be ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." (1 Peter 3, 15). In our time, in which the faith in large parts of the world threatens to go out like a flame which can no longer find food, the first priority is to make God present in this world and to open to men the access to God. Not to just any god, but to the God who spoke on Mount Sinai, that God whose face we recognize in the love unto the end (John 13, 1)- in the crucified and risen Jesus Christ. The real problem of our historic hour is that God is disappearing from the horizon of men and that with the extinguishing of the light coming from God disorientation befalls mankind, the destructive effects of which we are seeing ever more.
To lead men to God, to the God speaking in the Bible, is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and the successor of Peter in this time. From it then it follows on its own that we have to be concerned for the unity of believers. For their strife, their internal dissent, calls their talking about God into question. Therefore, the effort for the common witness of faith of the Christians - for ecuмenism -is included in the highest priority. Then there is also the necessity that all who believe in God seeking peace with each other, trying to become closer to each other, in order to walk, in the different-ness of their image of God, yet together towards the source of light - inter-religious dialogue. Those who proclaim God as love unto the end, must give the witness of love: devoted to the suffering in love, fending off hatred and enmity - the social dimension of the Christian Faith, of which I have spoken in the encyclical "Deus caritas est".
If then the struggle for Faith, hope and love in the world is the true priority for the Church in this hour (and in different forms always), then still the small and medium-sized reconciliations also belong to it. That the quiet gesture of a hand stretched out has become a great noise and thus the opposite of reconciliation, we have to take note of. But now I have to wonder: Was and is it really wrong, also in this case, to go to meet the brother, who "hath any thing against thee" and to try for reconciliation (cf. Mt 5, 23f)? Does not civil society, too, have to try to prevent radicalizations, to bind their possible supporters - if possible - back into the major creative forces of social life to avoid isolation and all its consequences? Can it be entirely wrong to strive for the lessening of tensions and constrictions and to give room to the positive which can be found and integrated into the whole? I myself, in the years after 1988, have experienced how by the return of communities previously separating themselves from Rome the interior climate there has changed, how the return to the great, wide and common Church overcame onesided-ness and lessened tensions, so that now they have become positive forces for the whole. Can a community leave us totally indifferent in which there are 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university institutes, 117 brothers, 164 sisters? Should we really calmly leave them to drift away from the Church? I am thinking, for example, of the 491 priests. The plaited fabric of their motivations we cannot know. But I think that they would not have made their decision for the priesthood, if next to some askew or sick elements there hot not been there the love of Christ and the will to proclaim Him and with Him the living God. Should we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical marginal group, from the search for reconciliation and unity? What will then be?
Certainly, we have long and have again on this occasion heard many dissonances from representatives of this community - pride and a patronizing know-it-all attitude, fixation into onesidedness etc. For the love of truth I must add that I have also received a series of moving testimonials of gratitude, in which was made perceptible an opening of hearts. But should the great Church not also be able to be magnanimous [in German its a play on words: "great Church - great of heart"] in the knowledge of the long wind she has; in the knowledge of the promise which she has been given? Should we not, like good educators, also be able not to hear some bad things and strive to calmly lead out of the narrowness? And must we not admit that also from ecclesial circles there have come dissonances? Sometimes one has the impression that our society needs at least one group for which there need not be any tolerance; which one can unperturbedly set upon with hatred. And who dared to touch them - in this case the Pope - lost himself the right to tolerance and was allowed without fear and restraint to be treated with hatred, too.
Dear brethren, in the days in which it came into my mind to write this letter, it so happened that in the seminary of Rome I had to interpret and comment the passage of Gal 5, 13-15. I was surprised at how directly it speaks of the present of this hour: "Do not make liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another." I was always inclined to regard this sentence as one of the rhetorical hyperbole which occasionally there are with St. Paul. In some respects it may be so. But unfortunately, the "biting and devouring" is there in the Church even today as an expression of a poorly understood freedom. Is it surprising that we are not better than the Galatians? That we at least are threatened by the same temptations? That we have always to learn anew the right use of freedom? And that we have always to learn anew the first priority: love? On the day on which I had to speak about this in the seminary, in Rome the feast of the Madonna della Fiducia - our Lady of Trust - was celebrated. Indeed - Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to the Son, in Whom we all may trust. He will guide us - even in turbulent times. So at the end I would like to thank from my heart all the many bishops who have given me in this time moving signs of trust and affection, but above all the gift of their prayers. This thank I extend to all the faithful who have shown me during this time their unchanged fidelity to the successor of St. Peter. The Lord preserve us all and lead us on the path of peace. This is a wish that spontaneously rises from my heart, especially now at the beginning of Lent, a liturgical time particularly propitious to inner purification, and which invites us all to look with new hope towards the radiant goal of Easter.
With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain
Yours in the Lord
Benedictus Pp. XVI
From the Vatican, on 10 March 2009
I know it's a hard pill for you to swallow, but you are a public heretic and so are all the priests and pseudo bishops you admire who belong to the Counterfeit Church of Tradition. And Ratzinger didn't explicitly contradict me. This is what he said about schism and danger:
What he is saying is that the reason the Church attaches an ipso facto excommunication to an episcopal consecration without a papal mandate is because that act, per se, raises the danger of schism.
With respect to the specific case of the episcopal consecration performed by Lefebvre without a papal mandate (even though he lied during the Mass itself - part of the publicly liturgy - by stating that he did have a papal mandate), not only incurred the excommunication for performing the act; it also incurred a separate excommunication for schism, as we read in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta.
So, contrary to what you stated, "Ratzinger himself [NEVER] stated that the SSPX is not schismatic, [but] only that they were in 'danger' of schism."
State the Freemason principle you believe I embody and then show where what I wrote confirms it. Of course, we both know you won't do that, since you never back up any (false) accusation when you are asked to do so. But remember, when you arrive at your particular judgment you will answer for every accusation you have made. If you were wise, you would focus more on accusing ourself of your own sin, not only you sins of falsely accusing others, but all your other sins, including the biggy, which is schism.
Go back and read it now, particularly the section of the nature of the Church. There you will find exactly what I have been saying, namely, that the Church is a visible, hierarchical society with four marks, and unity of government, that is indefectible. It isn't a conglomeration of heretical sects that say the Old Mass and "reject the Conciliar Church," which are apparently the two conditions requred to be part of the Counterfeit Church of Tradition, or Protestantism 3.0.
Indeed, this guy is a heretic and is doing the devil's work, trying to defend, enable, and support the Antichurch. Only someone bereft of Catholic faith is capable of equating the Conciliar Abomination with the Holy Catholic Church, since it lacks all the marks of the True Church except (the appearance of) a material continuity. But in the warped mind of Salza (and his followers), the material/legal continuity is all that matters. It's only based on those absurdly legalistic principles that he could declare that Archbishop Lefebvre was outside the Church (like this degenerate Racer does) while Joe Biden is a Catholic in good standing. If you can believe that Biden is more Catholic than +Lefebvre, that proves to me that you're a heretic who's lost the faith and wouldn't recognize the Catholic faith it it hit him in the face.Nailed it.
At one point, during the Arian Crisis, St. Athanasius found himself excommunicated by Liberius while myriad Arian "bishops" found themselves in good standing with Rome. According to the Salza-ist heresy, St. Athanaius was outside the Church, and the Arians in the Church. In fact, had the Arians (who controlled between 97 and 99 percent of all formerly-Catholic episcopal sees), succeeded in getting theri man on the See of Peter, Salza would have to declare that Arianism was the Catholic Faith.
I accidently posted this on another Bp. Tissier thread.Meg is spot on, Fr Chazal had a very balanced view of Bishop Tissier. If you say +Tissier didn't defend Archbishop Lefebvre by being silent about all the SSPX is doing contrary to what Archbishop Lefebvre did, it would not be criticizing him, it is merely stating a fact.
Just my opinion, but I think that Fr. Chazal gives a fair and balanced view of Bp. Tissier. He says good things about Bp. Tissier, but the fact is, is that Bp. Tissier was against the Resistance, and when Fr. Chazal went to him to express his concerns about the new direction of the SSPX, Bp. Tissier told him to "just be quiet!"
Fr. Chazal gives a reminder that Bp. Tissier wrote the best biography of the Archbishop that we have today. I've read it; it's excellent. But the truth is, Bp. Tissier didn't speak up about the SSPX new direction of seeking reconciliation with Rome.