Replies

Re: "SSPX has done so, or they would not have been declared schismatic. Clergy-members of SSPX are schismatic. SOME of the laity who become 'attached' to SSPX's position are also schismatic."

The core fault in your thinking is your statement is meaningless per the current attitudes in the Church. It is only meaningful if you are correct in saying they are schismatic (you are incorrect but for the sake of making a point...) and you reject your Pope and the one who just passed. In other words you have to get just as disobedient as the nearest Bishop who refuses to allow the Indult.

Allow me to elaborate. OUR late Pope have said these other religions are just another path to God. Be you a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Pagan witchdoctor you are fine in your relationship with God. The Catholic is just the best of many paths to Holiness. I am sure you have seen quotes along these lines, I am sure you can write them yourself. Needless to say other Christian religions are okay as well. In other words your charge of schism is without significance, or you are rejecting the "teachings" of your superior in the Faith. You simply must pick one there is no half of one and half of the other. To try is just another example of picking how one feels without a logical or rational connection between the two desperate notions.

Let us presume you took the position well it is okay to be Anglican (a schism from the 16th century) because the people who sinned in their schisim have long since died. Those raised in the Anglican faith are okay in God's eyes. If it was to be your position I would be able to see a line of logic but even so it has consequences, are you prepared for them.

First off what does that say about the lapsed Catholic who went Episcopalian when he married the Baptist girl. Is he a schismatic and is there consequences for him? What about the Episcopalian who converted to Catholic via SSPX? I have often asked how it is I became Catholic and suddenly got called schismatic by NO Catholics? Perhaps you will be the first to really try to answer these kinds of question. Because so far...I get nothing. These are not mean spirited questions they are very reasonable but invariably they provoke more bilge and bile than real thought and truth.

Let me attempt to answer some of your responses.

First of all, it is absolutely true that clergy-members of SSPX are in schism. JPII said so, in writing, he was the chief judge, etc., etc.--they ARE in schism.

SOME laypeople, who are "attached" to SSPX, are also in schism. I won't presume to judge--but judging by their postings, there may well be some schismatic layfolk/SSPX on FR threads.

One who leaves the Faith is apostate, not schismatic. Go from RC to Lut'ran--you're an apostate. Different than schismatic. If you don't have one, get one of Hardon's "Catholic Dictionary"--it's very useful.

While the Pope may have said something to the effect that 'other religions are another path to God,' he certainly did not "baptize" those other religions. Given that, we must also recall that only a rejection of the Truth is significant here--one who is NOT presented with the truth of Catholicism could hardly reject it. Some argue that it is the business of all to seek the true Faith above all other things--which strikes me as unrealistic--but certainly, if one has not HEARD of the Faith, one cannot reject it.

The disobedience of Bishops is not an excuse for disobedience on the part of laypeople. Were it only so!!! The 6th Commandment would be voided...and probably the 7th. Ah, well.

I suggest that you procure the precise quotations from JPII which you dispute (in ALL the context) and point out specifics before you determine that the Pope was a syncretist.