Replies

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.

"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."

How do you come to that conclusion? Let's re-write that sentence and see how it looks:

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

First of all, it is absolutely true that clergy-members of SSPX are all four feet two inches tall with purple tusks. JPII said so, in writing, he was the chief judge, etc., etc.--they ARE four feet two inches tall with purple tusks.

As you can see, facts do not bend to the judgement of the Pontiff. In order to be correct, he must bend to them. And he has no charism to protect him from being wrong in this matter.

The second point is Ecclesia Dei is worded that JPII did not actually say they were in schism. He said there was an "implied" schism. What JPII was actually saying was that he "inferred" a schism. So, there are multiple problems with the document itself when it comes to JPII being clear. (shocking!!)

The point of JPII being the chief judge is actually irrelevant. All that means is that no one can reverse his error except for another Pope.

First off let me thank you for at least trying to answer my questions. Most find them too hard and then turn the debate personal or completely side step the issue. That never goes very far in convincing me of anything let alone something so important.

Let us go over your points one by one.

“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.”

JPII said so, so it is so. Does that pretty much sum it up? I think this is a misunderstanding of the power and role of the Pontiff and even less of the nature of infallibility which I gather is the bases for your viewpoint. Do you know that many Catholics were shocked by Vatican I when the doctrine of Infallibility was promulgated? Many had no idea there was any limits on the Pope’s infallibility but the doctrine does set limits and conditions and every utterance and even his writings have to meet these conditions to be covered. While Vatican I defined these limits the old notion does not die easily even though the Doctrine obligates the Catholic to believe it.

As far as I know there is not one encyclical or declaration by JPII that the Vatican claims are infallible. Not one that I know of. He never evoked infallibility during his papacy and he had the authority. Neither you nor I have that right when he did not claim it himself. This includes the statements you use to justify your opinion. You are free to hold it and in of itself are no mortal sin but could be if you are imprudent in promoting a calamity against the innocent.

“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.”

I will not address the status of other posters. I don’t know your intention but it could be viewed as a cheep shot. If you want to talk to the people you suspect I suggest you talk to them about their status and leave me out of it. Thank you.

Now that I have that out of the way let me point out in a manner of speaking the SSPX would agree with you on this issue. It may surprise you to learn that the SSPX has said if you believe the SSPX is in schism (and a sin to attend) then to attend one of their Masses puts you in a state of mortal sin. That is not to say they agree with the conclusion on schism. Therefore it is possible for your statement to be true about some people and yet still be wrong about schism and SSPX. Still I must say I suspect your statement has an agenda that is not admirable.

“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.”

It is possible to be both an apostate and a schismatic.

“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.”

No he did not baptize them; it is current thought to assume they need no Baptism. The Evangelization of the apostate and the schismatic and the pagan is over, except it seems for SSPX. Your point really does not address the problems with Assisi I and II. I am not entirely sure just what you mean here but I gather you are saying a person presented with Catholic Truth will see the light and convert. They can not reject it. If this is an adequate summation than I have to say you could not be more wrong. The Truth was spoken to real people by the Real Christ in Real Time and they killed him. It is pretty clear some had no clue what Truth was such as Pilate’s “What is Truth?” Consider the dramatic miracles of Moses, the fear they had at Mount Sinai and still the Hebrews worshiped the Golden Calf, someone was rejecting something there and it wasn’t what should have been rejected. Clearly it is possible to reject the Truth and 2000 years of Church history proves my assertion. We have way more martyrs than we need if you were correct. I was tempted to ignore this line of yours but it was just not possible to let it go, I wonder if it tells me more about your thinking in these matters than you intended. If you can assert this it is no wonder you can believe something false about SSPX. This is an error in thinking that is far more serious than thinking I or SSPX is schismatic.

5. “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 agree two sins do not make a sacrament. Keep in mind there is a movement in the Church to reduce the status of the Pope to just the most distinguished of Bishops. These people within the Church are the ones undermining the foundation that your views of SSPX are based. It is an irony that the most ardent defenders of the Papacy as distinct from other Bishops is the very group you find schismatic. I will let time convince you of this.

“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”

Be my guess, point out my error. For simplicity sake let us stick with Assisi I and II. You tell me what I should know about these events and how it is not a failure of the men present to defend Church Doctrine, including John Paul the Great.

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.

Read Psalm 50 (the Miserere). I'm not sure where you got this doctrine, but it is not the one I learned when I embraced Catholicism. If you honestly do not know that something is a mortal sin, God would spare you the eternal penalty for it, but that does not change the fact that it is a mortal sin. However, every human after Adam (except, of course, for Our Lord and His Blessed Mother) has been conceived with the stain of Original Sin on his soul, and must receive absolution through Baptism. No one is innocent, and thus God does not owe it to any of us to give us a shot at Salvation--it is by His grace alone that we can enter heaven.

That, incidently, is precisely why abortion is so horrific: it deprives those poor victims of any chance for Baptism and therefore the Kingdom. Of course the Church holds out hope that God, by His mercy, may allow these young souls to find rest in limbo--but that is not dogma, and it is just a hope that we hold. If anyone should die with Original or Mortal Sin on his soul, all we can say is God have mercy on him.