Posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by NYer
This is not to suggest that antiSemitism is a necessary tenet of the curious "creed" of SSPX. It is certainly too common.
By what authority, in your imagination, did Annas and Caiphas bring down punishment on all future generations of Jews, however innocent?????
By your posts shall ye be known for what you are.
Thank you for all your posts on this thread.
Do you claim to defend Holy Mother the Church, Pope John Paul the Great and Pope Benedict XVI from the virulent assaults of the excommunicated SSPX schismatics? If not, why not? If not, your basis for claiming to be Catholic?????
By whose diocesan authority do SSPX purport to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance???? Who authorizes SSPX to grant annulments of marriages????
Appendix D... The Authority of the Ordinary Magisterium
By Dr. Art Sippo
While I agree with you that Vatican II's declarations must be accepted with "religious submission" of mind and of will, this is not because it any new infallible statements. Granted it reiterated doctrines that had already been infallibly defined, but in regard to any new statements, particularly the ones you list in your article "No Salvation Outside the Church" (e.g. the Council's declaration on Religious Liberty), I'd have this to say: Surely the Pope who approved the statements of Vatican II should know what its status is as regards infallibility or non-infallibility, and Paul VI had this to say: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the Authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document" (General Audience, 12 January 1966).
Please don't misunderstand my comments as implying that I don't believe one is morally bound to accept the teachings of Vatican II. On the contrary, I do. This is because the Church is our Mother and we can trust her not to deceive us even when there is the theoretical possibility that that this might occur. There is the remote possibility that my food might be poisoned, but it would be ridiculous of me to refrain from eating for this reason! (For a full explanation of the infallible/non-infallible binding statement controversy, please see Father William Most, Catholic Apologetics Today, TAN Books.)
Take care and God bless.
Jeremy
---------------------------
Hi Jeremy!
Thank you for your note. The question of the status of the documents of VCII has been tendentious. Some very reactionary elements in the Church have acted as if the documents lacked any Magisterial standing because of the "pastoral nature of the council" and could thus be set aside. Others more cautiously have depicted the documents as only part of the Ordinary Magisterium, which required religious submission and thus did not consider them infallible. Others have acted as if they all represented acts of the extraordinary Magisterium.
In fact, it is much more complicated than any of these options. While many of the documents were Pastoral Constitutions, there were 2 Dogmatic Constitutions: Lumen Gentium (On the Church in the Modern World) and Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation) which were completions of the original work of Vatican I which had been interrupted by the Italian Revolution in 1870. If you look at the end of Lumen Gentium in the VCII document collection by Fr. Flannery, you will see that the CDF clearly stated that part of the document did represent authentic new teaching that was binding on the Church. Dei Verbum definitively settled a serious question on the proper way of interpreting the teaching of the Council of Trent on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Trent had not clarified whether we were dealing with two separate sources or one source in two forms. DV definitively settled the question in favor of the latter solution.
As regards Dignitatits Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty), it was NOT a Pastoral Constitution, but a declaration of teaching. This is a different kind of document. It is not a solemn definition but it is at least as definitive as an encyclical. The document reaffirmed previous Catholic teaching on the relationship between Church and State but definitely broke new ground. It defined for the first time the meaning of the "Public Order" and established that the just order in a state is inseparable from the objective moral order. The facile separation of "Public Order" from the "Common Good" postulated by some Catholic scholars was thereby rejected. There was also a clear apology for the excesses of the Inquisition and a recognition that the moral order requires that States organize their laws recognizing the dignity of the human person. This was all new.
Some people have argued that DH was only a pastoral document and therefore not irreformable. I don't agree. This was a General Council of the Church. It is clear that doctrine developed here and subsequent Popes have always referred to the documents as part of the Magisterium. While this was not a solemn declaration of a dogma, what was taught meets the criteria for infallible teaching as part of the Ordinary Magisterium. In the same way, Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF have made it clear that it is infallibly taught that women cannot be ordained even though we have had no ex cathedra statement on this.
The quotation by Pope Paul is merely saying that there were no solemn dogmatic definitions at VCII by which opponents were anathematized and excommunication was threatened if one did not submit. This had been common in most other Councils of the Church. Here, we were not trying to condemn heretics, but to clarify Catholic doctrine and to build bridges to our separated brethren and to all people of good will. This did not exclude definitive and infallible teaching or new and irreformable developments in doctrine.
It is not necessary for a doctrine to be defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium in order to be infallible. The Ordinary Magistrerium is good enough. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (para 20) clearly taught that the words of Jesus in Luke 10:16 applied to the Ordinary Magisterium:
Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
You can't get more infallible than that.
Art
*Sippo is a reliable, and intelligent, orthodox Christian Catholic
*Pull the other one.
As unpleasant as these quotations might be, they demonstrate that the Society's stance is no different from what the Church taught.
*WRONG. That is a heretical hateful antisemitic claim you can't source in any Papal Encyclical, Conciliar Document or approved Catechism. In fact, ALL Magisterial Documents teach the OPPOSITE.
You are what you defend semper...give it up and repent. Don't stay ensnared in that hateful heretical antisemitic rat's nest
As McLaughlin says, "Bye, bye"
* LOL thanks, brother. Sorry it took so long to acknowledge and thank you for your witness.
Would that be this book? The one filled with lesbian sex? The book written by the woman who raised a lesbian daughter? I didn't expect you to sink that far in your support of the homosexual agenda of the USCCB.
MRS. CHENEY'S LITERARY MASTERPIECE
Likewise, though it is not a religious book, as such, SSPX hopes you ignore the book as well for reasons that will be obvious when you have read it, if you have read it.
I suppose it's true that the SSPX would recommend you avoid books by this author.
Never too soon.
We cannot say that Quo Primum is merely a disciplinary decree. It is disciplinary, of course, it refers to discipline. But it is a disciplinary decree based on dogma. It is rooted in dogma and therefore, it has a much greater force than something merely disciplinary.
This is non sequitur balderdash. Liturgies are disciplinary matters. Liturgies express theology, but they are not dogma. Liturgy is not doctrine. This is something SSPX adherents simply cannot see, but this paragraph does not win a debate: it exhibits poor logic. Just because a discipline is based upon dogma does not make the discipline dogma!
It has been perpetually the teaching of the Church that Catholics are bound to their customary rite. That is why, in the controversy regarding Greek versus Roman rite, which was settled by the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, the Council solemnly defined that the Greeks are to confect the Sacraments of the Eucharist according to their customary rite and therefore, they must use the leavened bread. In the Roman Church they must follow their customary rite of their ritual church, which is the proper rite of the Roman Church.
Summary: to be Roman Catholic, one must use the Roman Catholic rite.
This is what the faith dictates and decrees.
Which existed first, faith or rite? If the faith dictates that one cannot be Roman Catholic unless one uses the customary Roman Catholic rite, and the rite did not exist to be used, according to this train of thought, one could not be Roman Catholic! It is not rite that dictates to the Church, the faith, the Magisterial authority of the pope, what it will be; it is the faith, the Church, the Magisterial authority of the pope, which determines what the rite will be.
That is why it has always been regarded as an act of schism if even a Pope were to attempt to change the rites, to alter the ceremonies of the liturgy.
This is not true. Many changes to the Tridentine mass were made over the centuries. They were minor, surely, but they were made.
The Popes have solemnly professed for so many centuries that this is not within their power.
This is so patently false that I was amazed to read it. What is his source for this, I wonder?
The rest of the piece is just like this portion. Claim upon shaky conclusion upon legalistic, pharasaical definition, it goes on and on, almost stating that the Council of Trent is superior in teaching authority to the pope, but-not-quite...and the SSPX advocate reading this might draw sham comfort from it but for one glaring thing: the pope, given by Jesus Christ through Peter the keys of the kingdom, says it isn't so. Therefore, it is not so.
Pope John Paul II attached excommunication to the disobedient act of adherence to the SSPX. If one believes the pope to be the final teaching authority except when matters liturgical are on the table, one is not playing with a full deck. That's the only conclusion I can come to. After all, if you are willing to cut yourself off from the Mystical Body because you think your judgment in liturgical matters is superior to the pope's...well, that's trading eternity for an error. And that's simply illogical.
Oh, I also Dogpiled Father Paul Kramer and discovered he is one of the Fatima third-secret conspiracy advocates. It just figures.
There is certainly no salvation in politics as your tagline says. OTOH, God helps those who help themselves. Nowhere is it written that we must not organize societal victories. Forty years ago, many of us then young determined to elect Ronald Reagan. It took about sixteen years of genuine New Right movement activity, education, training and struggle but Reagan was elected. The bad news is that the movement dropped dead upon his election. What passes for a movement today (largely the GOP) is dominated by business and money concerns. That need not and ought not continue. It is the lazy man's GOP. Those who do politics by throwing massive amounts of money at the process may be depended upon to try to clear political problems by legislation costing massive amounts of money. Movement recruits (participants in the ground war of politics) are sharper, more knowledgeable and more passionate warriors. They are in it for principles not jobs or contracts. They want results and not excuses.
We need to train up a new conservative movement, acting through the GOP, concentrating on life, marriage, guns, taxes (on modest folks), the stupidity of much regulation, matters military and diplomatic, assimilation of newly arrived Hispanic social conservatives (puts on asbestos underwear)(I can dream, can't I?). We need more Jack Kemp and less Main Street Banker Cheap. Maybe someday we can cut the budget but it is not a top priority compared to the issues listed above.
In Demonratic primaries, Bayh stands not a chance. Warner probably does not either. In this respect, the Demonrats have no brains but the Demonrats would not be even vaguely competitive if the GOP were smarter than it is. Even with major money behind them neither Rice (who claims she will not run period) and Giuliani are NOT going to be GOP nominees. If McCain runs third party either he or more likely Madame Arkansas Antichrist will be the next president. He is not stupid. He knows that and probably will figure it won't be him. McCain will not be the first 68 year-old politician to realize that he is not going to hear Hail to the Chief played for him.
Patience, patience.
No, as I pointed out earlier, the book recommended was Lynne Cheney's Telling the Truth. The personal tragedy of her daughter's lesbianism is as cheap a shot coming from you as from Hanoi Kerry's Demonratic campaign. Do your children sin? Do you? I do and so do my kids. No one ever crowned Mrs. Cheney as a moral expert on sexuality. OTOH, no one who reads Telling the Truth will go away unimpressed.
You can see that even your posts do not merit reply from actual Catholics but occasionally we overlook that.
Yeah, Marcel was great like Luther, like Calvin, like Zwingli and like more than a few 20th Century dictators
If the Church has not condemned those I quoted earlier as hateful heretical antisemites, you have no right to accuse either me or any priest or Bishop the SSPX of such things.
Only too true.
No one ever crowned Mrs. Cheney as a moral expert on sexuality.
I'm afraid it was just too easy a cheap shot for me to pass up.
You can see that even your posts do not merit reply from actual Catholics but occasionally we overlook that.
Your condescencion is much appreciated.
To answer SSPX is the one I refer to...SAINT was the Pope named Pius X ,who was against all moderism,liberalism, and sin in general.
Would that he were Pope today,andmay he HELP Pope Benedict XVl..
SSPX remain loyal to the same church as their namesake implies. They have done no crime unless you call following the footsteps of the saints error.
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.