They have no choice if they want to continue to maintain that they are not excommunicated and not in schism.

They know that they must sign in order to maintain any sort of influence in the Chruch and credibility with the thinking members.

You are welcome to your opinion, but that is all it is, your opinion. You'll get more respect here if you admit that.

You may be proven correct, but until then, I think I'll wait for their (SSPX) actions to indicate what they "know", instead of considering your opinions as facts as you present them.

No offense, but your coming in here swinging a gavel is a bit much.

The things I have said are not a personal judgement.


The things I have said are not an opinion.


The things I have said are not based on secret information.


They are not based on speculation.


The things I have said are clearly logical deductions which anyone with a functioning brain would and could easily determine based on the facts.

John is taller than Mary
Mary is taller than Sue
Therefore, John is taller than Sue.

This paper states what  you have to believe in order to be a Catholic.
This paper contains the truths of the Catholic faith.

I DO believe it.  Well then you are a Catholic.

I DO NOT believe it.  Well then you are not a Catholic.

If you were a Catholic, but you now deny a dogma of the faith, you are an apostate.

If you not only deny a dogma of the faith, but you believe something different from one of the dogmas of the faith, and you formally state this, in order to influence others to your contrary belief, you are a heretic.


If you are a member of a group which formally denies a dogma of the faith, you are in schism.

Apostates and Schismatics are excommunicated from the Chruch.

They CAN NOT be in the Church because they DO NOT BELIEVE the  truths which the Church has defined as the ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENTS for membership.  

That is the situation that the Pius X Society now finds itself.


 

So, is Cardinal Kasper in the Church or not?  He can remain in office but the SSPX would be excommunicated for refusing to sign?  Who will believe it? We are to believe that that is legitimate authority?  No one who really believes in the Christian God could possibly believe that.

You have read it correctly: salvation is "divine,” but Jesus is simply "this man"! And this would be "the original belief of the faith," indeed, the primitive Church's belief and faith!

We could stop here because we don't see how a man can still exercise his priestly function, be made a Bishop, and today even be made a Cardinal who, in his writings, negates fundamental Christian doctrine, i.e., Our Lord Jesus Christ's divinity, which, rather than heresy ought to be called apostasy.

If Jesus is not God but was made so by his later followers, there can logically be no resurrection. And in fact, Walter Kasper negates the Resurrection. For him, "the empty tomb represents an ambiguous phenomenon, open to different possibilities of interpretation."10 And interpretations of the Resurrection are "beliefs and testimonies produced by people who believe," and who, via the "new theology's" strange logic, necessarily lie, and who also simply attest to whatever facts that they have been lead to believe.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2001_November/Cardinals_With_No_Faith.htm

This Max character is really nuts, these Neo-Cath's are really brainwashed.

You know it dosn't take much research to know what constitutes schism and what Canon Law says in regards to epikea and what constitutes or does not constitute schism. When he gets to judgement and finds out he attacked those who were in the Catholic Church and he is not in it nor does he have salvation for believing in condemned beliefs like Ecuмanism, Religious Liberty, Modernism, and the fact he has never attended a Catholic Mass and most of his sacrements have been invalid, he'll really regret what he says here. Of course it'll be too late and he'll be burning in hell for all eternity.

There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church and the Pope can not make or create a Dogma, any attempt to add new Dogma's or Change Dogma's automatically condemns him and those who follow him. Any attempt to Ecuмanize with Heretics condemns him and those who follow him(See Pope Honorius Condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople to hell for omiting a word from the creed to allow Patriach Sergius to ecuмanize with Monophysites)

Just so I don't have to make another post in this regard, the Extraordinary Magisterium does not create Dogma's, it defines those that have always been there in the Ordinary Magisterium which is infallible. Encyclicals are not a part of the Ordinary Magisterium, they are Authentic Magisterium which are not infallible. They can help in determining what was in the Ordinary Magisterium and that is what is meant when people say they Participate in the Ordinary Magisterium.

If signing an agreement with Rome jeopardizes the Faith of any member they can invoke Epikea and are free from any penalty that would normally occur. If the Popal Docuмent contains heresy, or if the Pope is a heretic we can disobey him till the cows come home and all penalties are null and void.

Jurisdiction can be had in the extraordinary law, through Supplied Jurisdiction, that cannot be denied, any attempt to deny it would be to contradict both the 1917 and 1983 Code's of Canon Law.

Now don't post again until you become educated. I am tired, when I wake up I'll be able to tear down everything you say and prove you're a schismatic from Eternal Rome.

Quote from: LordPhan

This Max character is really nuts, these Neo-Cath's are really brainwashed.

I think Max is someone with some connection to the society LordPhan.  Not just some random neocath.

Quote

Now don't post again until you become educated. I am tired, when I wake up I'll be able to tear down everything you say and prove you're a schismatic from Eternal Rome.

LordPhan, his point is that if the doctrinal preamble defines a dogma it must be accepted.  For the strident anti-sede - there's no way out - that's the truth.

Noone in the SSPX would or could say that.

To your second point, a preamble to a group cannot define a dogma, because it cannot be part of the Extraordinary Magisterium as per Vatican I.

If all the docuмent says is, you have to believe everything defined in the Extraordinary Magisterium, which we do, and that we can be free from influence of the Modernists, then we could sign it. But if it says we have to believe in Vatican II which is a Pastoral Council that contains multiple errors, and has lead to general apostasy in the church then we do not have to sign it. That is not a dogma and he cannot create one out of thin air.

Most people do not understand the magisterium, under normal circuмstances that is ok. I think you can agree with me that we are not in ordinary circuмstances and that ordinary law does not apply, extraordinary law applies, just as Saint Athanatius defied Pope Liberius, we defy the Last Four or five Popes. Saint Athanatius is one of the Fathers of the Church, the pre-eminant doctors of the Church, perhaps Archbishop Lefebre will be Canonized in that way himself someday.

In the future we will be vindicated and the Neo-Caths will be condemned just as 80% of the Bishops and Laity were in St. Athanathius' time.

LordPhan if a Pope says something is dogma using the correct formula then it's dogma.  Or he's not Pope.  There's no middle ground.

If it is in a preamble then it is not the correct formula. There is no middle ground, do not deny Vatican I please.

All 3 of the Conditions must be met, and one of those is that it must be a law defined for the entire church, that is everyone everwhere regardless of Rite. On Pain of Anathema.

There is no middle ground, do not deny Vatican I please.

How is it that calling something a "doctrinal preamble" means it necessarily isn't magisterial and cannot be extraordinary magisterium?  

And how is it denying Vatican I to say that a spurious Pope could promulgate spurious doctrine?