Posted on 10/03/2004 9:27:26 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
LOL! Good one!
Without New York, yes, without Canterbury, no.
But they give protestants who go to Catholic churches, like me, something to look forward to...
Seriously, though, it cannot have escaped your notice that V-II marked the conversion en masse of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to what is similar to a type of Protestantism.
I think Catholics who are in rebellion against this are brave and intellectually honest, but they must answer the following:
If the Pope and the bishops united with him teach something that is different from that which was taught by prior Popes, is it valid?
And if you say no, are you really Catholic?
I think the priestess issue has killed that. The "advantages" that the continuiners have is 1) no priestesses and 2) valid orders through the PNCC (Polish National Catholic Church). The ties between Forward in Faith, The Traditional Anglican Communion, The Province of Christ the King, and The Anglican Catholic Church (and other similarly situated groups) are strengthening daily. Ties between Forward in Faith and some traditional provinces within the Anglican Communion are firming up as well.
None of these bodies accept the innovation of priestesses. None are within the "official" Anglican Communion except Forward in Faith. These are the groups that are talking seriously with Rome about uniate status. Should that happen, Forward in Faith would come along which would sever ties with Canterbury. It's only going to happen without Canterbury, and it's not going to happen with a majority of the official Anglican Communion.
I'm referring to the large scale defections from Anglicanism to Catholicism due to issues such as women priests and homosexual unions. I say "direct involvement" because people like Williams have played a major though unintended role in this form of ecumenism in a way they never expected due to their doctrinal and disciplinary confusion.
The Holy Father (God bless him always) has warned repeatedly that these issues pose a serious obstacle to interfaith dialogue and are not negotiable. Once again, he shows how true ecumenical dialogue should proceed: with the highest regard for truth and with full cognizance of where real obstacles and problems lie.
The quotes given in the article are nothing more than platitudes.
25% of these parishes in Boston will be closed within weeks. You better convert now and enjoy it while it lasts because the Novus Ordo is shrinking like a salt-sprayed slug.
As the homosexuality of the new OCP songbook artists gets exposed, the drive toward sacred polyphony will hasten.
Well, there are some very awful hymns in that paperback book, but there's some oldies but goodies, as well.
Protestant, to be sure, but goodies, nonetheless.
I prefer my protestantism authentic, but thanks for the suggestion.
I didn't say what you said I said. Catholics who attend SSPX masses are guilty of disobedience, but not necessarily heresy. I was referring to the SSPX penchant for accusing the most recent ecumenical council and the last four popes of heresy. The SSPX has gone the way not only of schism and disobience, but of heresy as well.
I want to market a new breed of peaches, called "Rowans." They'll turn color while they are still very unripe. So then people will pick them on comment on how they taste while they are unripe. And people can say, "Oh, that's a Rowan... It's fuzzy, it's fruity, but its hard and bitter on the inside."
Actually, there is already something of a "sub-rite:" Anglican-use Latin-rite mass. It's officially part of the Latin rite Catholic Church, but they use the Anglican missal and rubrics. (Or do Anglicans use the term, "rubric"? In case not: They are the ecclesial equivalent of stage directions, highlighted in red ("ruby") so the priest knows he doesn't need to speak them out loud.)
>> As the homosexuality of the new OCP songbook artists gets exposed, the drive toward sacred polyphony will hasten.<<
Wow! A homosexual songbook. And I thought those little appendages were appendices. The "homosexual" author in question, of course, is Dan Schutte. No, you may not nickname him poop-Schutte. Cause that would be wrong. ;^)
In all seriousness, the description of "Here I Am, Lord," as a gay anthem was just ridiculous. Although a few lines of it taken out of context are silly. ("I have heard you calling in the night.")
Not heresy, but schism.
And the claim that they are not in schism is sily, because SSPX claims that anyone who goes to (Roman) Catholic mass is committing a sin by doing so. So THEY have excommunicated ROME.
Yes. But it involves individual conversions of all or most or some members of an Anglican parish. It also requires the priest to submit to ordination, not ordination sub conditione. This means he has to declare that he was never really ordained in the first place.
This is very different than a uniate arrangement. The talks in progress involve using the same Anglican-use, liturgy, which is the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer liturgy, with the exception of the canon, which I believe is NO, though I'm not sure, I just know it's different. And yes, we use the term rubric and the rubrics are very important as they often give a doctrinal background to the liturgy itself.
How? SSPX excommunicated Rome. They refuse to use that term because they cling to their claim that they are not schismatics to help them gain converts from loyal Papists, but they have proclaimed that receiving Eucharist from a Roman parish is a sin... even if the Eucharist is adminsitered from a traditionalist priest in a Tridentine Mass.
Are you a protestant? Your use of the word "Papists" is edging on offensive.
Are you a protestant? Your use of the word "Papists" is edging on offensive.
>>>>but they have proclaimed that receiving Eucharist from a Roman parish is a sin... even if the Eucharist is adminsitered from a traditionalist priest in a Tridentine Mass.<<<<
>>1. Show me. <<
It's all in SSPX's FAQs. For instance, here's where they declare reception of Novus Ordo communion illicit:
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__traditional.htm#post-conciliarchurchnewreligion:
"It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative. [sic]"
They also declare receiving other sacraments from NO illicit, and even receiving sacraments from FSSP illicit, since FSSP priests, while they use the Tridentine mass, are sinful priests since they accept the Pope's teaching regarding the validity of the NO mass!
Now, if you can't see how this constitutes schism, even if Rome had not recognized it as such, trying to convince you that anything the SSPX says constitutes heresy would seem pointless. The SSPX has been formally declared to be in schism, but they declare that the declaration is ultra vires simply on the basis that they are right and the Pope is wrong. But they ACT in schism, also, for they have declared the Pope's own sacraments illicit.
So when people ask why the Pope is so hard on the SSPX, the only answer can be that the SSPX is so hard in the Pope. Now, how can the Pope say that the SSPX is even communicant with Rome, when the SSPX itself states that it is not? And if it is not communicant, how can it not be in schism?
Which is sad, because there are a great many points on which SSPX makes a valid case. That it weds these points with schism not only discredits the messenger, the SSPX, but, since the tendency towards ad hominem is almost universal, they discredit the message.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.