Posted on 12/12/2005 8:56:21 AM PST by Pyro7480
Blaming the NO for the statistics which you site, is not an apt analogy to the poison soup stuff. That priests and bishops fall down on the job of educating their flock, per Vatican directives or doctrine, is not at all the same thing, as what I've quoted above. Here's the site from which I quoted the text, in case you're interested.
You're right in your larger point that the Church can't be held responsible for its errant members, but that doesn't apply to the poison soup mentality. If reunion is to ever be achieved, this kind of thinking must be rejected, and it must be rejected from the heart as well as the mind. And as I do really hope for an honest reunion, I think I'll let this alone from here on in, and let God direct the course.
Do you have any idea of who the last prophet was in the OT? Do you have any idea of what year they woud have prophesied? Have there been any other prophets since?
Bene detto. (Pun intended.) ;-)
Claud, the only official document on this that I know of is the short note issued by the PCILT. It states that the SSPX clerics are all excommunicated. BUT that the status of laity who attend the SSPX is reserved to the judgment of the pastors of the Church:
As the Motu Proprio declares in no. 5 c) the excommunication latae sententiae for schism regards those who "adhere formally" to the said schismatic movement. ...In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n. 5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.
On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one's own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person's intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.
Bravo!
Hi,
The last prophet of the old testament was St. John the Baptist: "all the prophets and the law prophesied until John: And if you will receive it, he is Elias that is to come." (Matt. 11:13-14)
If you mean the last prophet who wrote a book, it would be one of the deuterocanonical writers. Either the (anonymous) author of 2 Maccabees or of the Wisdom of Solomon, I'd think, sometime in the first century BC.
I guess I am asking if there were ANY prophets AFTER Jesus ascended into heaven. If not, how do Jewish people explain the silence from their flock for 2000 years.
On the other hand, we have Hoyos seeming to question whether or not this is a schism or not, so I dunno. I'll leave it to those far more knowledgeable than I to sort it out. :)
In any case, charity must reign. I find it not a little odd that folks can speak so warmly of the Eastern Orthodox and then call down raging fulminations against the Society.
LOL...thank you. :)
I don't know what that statement means
*You predicted my response to the schism today would be the same as previous responses? You don't go out on a limb very much :)
*Disagree. If'n the Cardinal uses the romance of rhetoric to appeal to the moonbats, so be it. That doesn't extinguish the smasing righteousness of the act of Pope Johannes Paulus Magnus nor does it render the schism a misunderstanding
Of course, one can find well-intentioned folks in each group but one doesn't invite DU to write the Republican Party Platform nor ought one invite the SSPX back into the Church to "write" or "right" Tradition
*One doesn't blame those born into a schism that happened LONG ago. They are not culpable. One does blame those who throw-in with a brand new schism. They ARE culpable.
That is Traditional Orthopraxis.
Wishing and explaining away actual Schism is the essence of liberalism, special pleading and stinks to high Heaven. The arguements of Lefebvre and his minions mirrors Luther and his henchmen
You have absolutely no idea what you are speaking about in any of your responses. For instance, how many years does one have to be "born into a schism" before one is no longer "culpable"--especially in light of the fact that the current curia and Pope disagree with you that they are in schism? Also, I don't even believe it is correct to say the Greek Orthodox are currently in "schism" technically speaking. They too, are in imperfect communion.
Your obtuse political comparisons are lost on me (and others, I am certain as well). Let's just say you have some sort of axe to grind and you cannot rejoice in the fact that it appears there may be full communion in the not-so-distant future, and that it is YOUR personal interpretation of Vatican II and its ambiguous documents that might have to change to be in the heart and soul of the Church. But go ahead and continue with your diatribes a la Stephen Hand.
Oughtn't one?
When bishops are out there ripping venerable Latin traditions out the roots? I don't know how much familiarity you have with the traditional Missal and liturgical year, but only by understanding it can you fully appreciate what was lost after the Council. And the SSPX is one of the very few groups out there who have retained Latin tradition intact.
In any case, I'll take good liturgy, good praxis wherever I can find it. I want groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion to be in union with us for just that reason. They know how to do English liturgy right, and the American establishment right now plainly does not.
"In any case, I'll take good liturgy, good praxis wherever I can find it. I want groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion to be in union with us for just that reason. They know how to do English liturgy right, and the American establishment right now plainly does not."
Amen. Amen. Amen.
He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it -- men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism.
*That was back in the day when men still talked like men and before men let the women feminize AmChurch. Now, we get queer clergy and apologias for Schisms and "be nice."
Cooperatio materialis immediata illicita est
*Real Christians; Real Men: Real Traditionalists condemn Schism in the strongest possible terms.
Schizies are clearly liberals. I consider Schizzies no different than 1960's Draft Dodgers living in Canada, (extra-America), bitching, whining, moaning, and complaining all the while bragging they have the BEST interests of America at heart and want to return America to her traditional status..blah, blah, damnable, blah. Back then, the Draft Dodgers, finally, found their man in Jimmy Carter. He gave them amnesty and everything was cool, baby. They came home and, to this day, they continue their war against America while faithful fighting men were spit upon, disgraced, and dishonored.
I don't see the Schizzies as qualitatively different. Knowing NOTHING about Tradition, they fled the Church Militant Battlefield and, worse than even the Draft Dodgers, they physically joined the enemy, the Schism. They are cretinous cowards, pathetically perfidious yet they preen they are the ones fighting for Tradition. It is a measure of the "success" of feminism that too many in the Church stick-up for those who make war against Holy Mother Church.
And, they now seem to have found a Jimmy Carter Cardinal; one who is willing to sell-out Tradition and minimize the destructiveness of schism in the name of a destructive and faux peace. Well, I ain't buying it. I used to subscribe to 30 Days but I dropped it when they grew wings, started high-pitch squealing, and began flying around in the moonlight. I don't believe the Cardinal said what he is supposed to have said.
If he did, it is his PERSONAL opinion. An interview in a mmonbat, obscure, low-subscription, fish-wrap ain't an act of the Living Magisterium and I don't see this Pope as Jimmy Carter anxious to appease the enemy and surrender to a schism.
But, y'all "keep hope alive" out there in extras ecclesia land, Baby :)
The Fact is this is still a Schism and this Pope ain't giving any indication he is about to give amnesty to heretical deserters.
The Panzer Pope ain't Jimmuh Carter by any means.
Liberals are willing to let schismatics define Tradition. Real Traditionalists do not let schismatics define Tradition anymore than a Real Constitutionlist thinks it wise to let the ACLU rewrite the Constitution.
Next time ping me! GREAT !
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.