St. Joan of Arc
excommunicated, martyred, canonized.
Posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by NYer
Sep. 15 (CWNews.com) - A bishop of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has warned traditionalist Catholics the "heresy of neo-modernism" which, he says, now controls the Vatican.
In an email message to his supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson, an English-born prelate who now serves the SSPX in Argentina, said that there are enormous differences "between Catholic Tradition and the position's of today's Rome." He continued: "Between these positions, any reconciliation is impossible."
Bishop Williamson conceded that some traditionalists might accept an offer of reconciliation with the Vatican, but "the conciliar positions of today's Rome would still be as false as 2 and 2 are 5, while the Traditional positions would still be as true as 2 and 2 are 4."
The Lefebvrist bishop wrote his email message to explain why he had said-- prior to the September 1 meeting between Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX-- that traditionalists would not be reconciled with the Vatican. He explained that if some traditionalists were to reach an agreement with the Vatican, others would resist-- "that if the Society [of St. Pius X] were to rejoin Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it."
Bishop Williamson, the most outspoken figure in the SSPX, is one of the four bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in June 1988, in defiance of an order from the Vatican, prompting Pope John Paul II (bio - news) to announce the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders.
Okay, I'll bite. Pius V did NOT put that it was the Mass Forever in Quo Primum to bind the church for future generations. Pray, what DID he put the "in perpetuity" language in Quo Primum for?
Don't be sad; you're still loved.
Really? It is a book that takes on the bogus left-wing values system approach to American History, I'd be interested in knowing why YOU think the SSPX would find it objectionable.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Do you really need to advocate capital punishment of SSPXers? Really, I am willing to defend medieval punishment of heretics because they seriously damaged the order of civil society, but what are you going to do with Vatican II?
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. ... Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
No, the truth is that Pope JPII used the term appeal in that part of Ecclesia Dei and later followed it with more legalistic terminology. to wit:
6. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:
Oh, for pete's sake: "Nyah, nyah, nyah, I won't do it until he does!" Are you serious? One disobedience is the logical support for another? Non sequitur!
Again,no. I would think that obedience ought to be expected from THOSE WHO CLAIM COMMUNION WITH ROME before we expect it from so-called schismatics. Or was that whole speck/plank thing lost on you?
but when the pope says that adherence to a schism means loss of salvation, is the illicit worship of that schism of any value? I think not!
Really? Because the same Pope who appointed Monsignor Perl to the Ecclesia Dei commission must have thought him fit for it. Curious, then when Monsignor Perl sent out the following letter:(Excerpted)
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church. Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:
"1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."
His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:
"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:
"3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."
For heaven's sake, what pretzels of logic? Quo Primum was not an ex cathedra statement! It was not dogma! It was not doctrine!
Then NEITHER IS Ecclesia Dei!
Shall we speak of Marcel the Great so soon?
Because the legislation, per se, would never lapse. It wasn't limited by any time or age, etc.
St. Pius V was well aware that human laws cannot be made irrevocable by men; "the sovereign is above the law" (St. Thomas, I-II q. 96 a. 5 ad 3).
Now, now, gbcdoj. We are talking about the Spirit of Vatican II here, not the actual text!
St. Joan of Arc
excommunicated, martyred, canonized.
The SSPX are surely schismatics and, in a sane world, would be roasting on an open fire.
Replace SSPX with any other minority group, how long do you think that post would last?
My Parish is filled with converts and I have NEVER met one in the process of conversion who spent his time attacking Catholic Bishops nor have I met any catechumen who engaged in polemics about the CPA in an obvious attempt to justify a schism.
NOBBODY converts to a Church he spends time attacking anyomore than one courts a woman he obviously despises.
You ain't fooling anyone...
*Demonstrably untrue. I have written many positive words about Romulus, ninenot, and black elk, all of whom are Traditionalists in union with the Pope.
You hit on even new folks who arrive asking innocent questions or pose views different from your own narrow-minded and exclusionary brand of Christianity. Don't tell new comers about "bad beginnings" when posters ridicule and berate them upon their arrival.
* There has been nothing innocent about vida. He arrived with an agenda opposing the Magisterium and supportive of the schism. All one has to do is read his posts. What catechumen engages in polemics about the CPA and cites that to justify the schism opposed to the church he presumably desires conversion to? What catechumen is even aware of the CPA? It makes no sense. What does make sense is to conclude he ain't what he claims.
Your mean-spirited attacks are noted and recognized for what they are. Get lost
Mystici Corporis
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
"Are you preparing an SSPX insanity plea for your final judgment or will it be invincible ignorance?"
Your attachment to the reformed church and whatever pope emerges from its tortuous undertakings is somewhat mechanical. I would quite understand your wild fervour if you were protecting the pre-conciliar Church and her popes from external dangers, but we now have a regime in Rome that has lost direction and is dissipating the achievements of centuries with leaders who daily dabble in heresy. Consequently, there can now be no alternative but the SSPX approach.
"NOBBODY converts to a Church he spends time attacking anyomore than one courts a woman he obviously despises."
Vidi aquam is merely pondering on whether it is wise to convert to Newchurch (assuming they do things like converting there anyway). I would counsel definitely not!
...the process you describe is not all that different from GWB's moving the Republicans toward the Great Society.
You ask what heresy the SSPX is involved in but let me ask you this, on what authority did Lefebvre consecrate those four Bishops if not with Papal approval? None. He did not have Papal approval, correct? Kind of a big problem.
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.