Posted on 03/23/2006 12:29:49 PM PST by NYer
There have been numerous high level contacts between Rome and the SSPX over the last 5-10 years or more and now evidently the Holy Father very much wants a solution with SSPX. I have never seen the others mentioned ever in this way.
On the practical level at least, is that enough of a difference?
See my post #7.
You know, pulling this BS out wont do anything to prove your point NYer. These arent SSPX sanctioned sites, much less sites sacationed by any Indult mass community.
Yes, a bit of difference, in terms of the missals they celebrate, all the sdes celebrate the pre 1955 missal, do the fact the SSPX at least nomincally recognise the Pope as the real Pope. Also on the issue of No Slavtion outside the Cathiolic church(EENS), the SSPX has a considerably looser definition.
See my post #7.
Somehow I just knew you would proclaim innocence/ignorance about the intentions of your post. The very real and pending issue is what Pope Benedict XVI might proclaim about the Latin Mass and the SSPX during the next two to three weeks.
The moonbat cult of Lefebvre strikes again.
Moonbat.
Why would NYer post something, and then acknowledge he was incorrect, as a way of asserting that which was incorrect? In the end, he ended up demonstrating that there is a distinction between the SSPX and the real wackos, not a desired outcome if he goal was to use the writings of the real wackos to tar the SSPX, for they end up looking more reasonable!
All these are but the schismatic garbage we're usually regaled by those outside the Church who insist, in their delusion, that the Church comes to them and not the other way around.
None of these articles are to be taken seriously.
-Theo
None of these articles are to be taken seriously.
To be sure, everyone, after spending months away from here and reading, I fully understand why the SSPX is schismatic. There are sedes who would agree with you on this.
However, it is also noted that one can go into schism via heresy. For example, one who says that contraception is permitted, the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin, etc., commits heresy and goes into schism for denying infallible Catholic dogmas, which are defined by. . . the Apostolic See.
By the way, I'm doing research on and off nowadays regarding the 1958 conclave and later events connected to it. There is enough evidence out there to prove that Cardinal Siri was elected as successor to Pope Pius XII and was known as Pope Gregory XVII, and a non-canonical election followed because a faction including closet masons and Communists (and sympathizers) were opposed to the result of the first.
I would not blame those who weren't aware of this, but are at least protecting the faithful from teachings foreign to Catholicism.
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.