Posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by NYer
You apparently don't consider public support of abortion and birth control as serious a sin as I do.
Do you have a congenital inability to respond to what is being said?
We are talking about schism here. If you want to change the topic to abortion, be my guest, but don't pretend that I have already done so.
Y'all appear to operate under the error of thinking all personal opinons of saints are Doctrine and that no saint could ever have possibly written or thought something contrary to Tradition.
Both beliefs are contrary to Tradition which helps all to see y'all know jack about Tradition.
Y'all put your heads together, freepmail one another, go into angelqueen or daily catholic or the Sedes' Harvest Ball or where ever it is your get your beliefs from and seek assistance in locating ONE Magisterial Document/Teaching that even remotely appears to resonate with the hateful antisemitic heresy held by the SSPX that the Jews as a race are cursed.
Until then, I couldn't care less about your attempts to twist things around and put any burden on me so as to avoid your obligation to prove the Catholic Chuch is wrong in teaching the Jews as a race are not cursed.
Y'all have been exposed as subscribing to the SSPX heresy the Jews as a race are cursed so it is up to y'all to prove your belief is consistent with Catholic Teaching.
BTW, I am getting the idea hatred of the Jews IS the glue binding the schism together; that the Mass is secondary and used as bait to trap the unwary.
He's not changing the topic. When speaking of the CPA the two things can not be separated. Since you ignored my post 154 to you detailing the facts of this, I shall repost an excerpt here:
Over 100 bishops have been consecrated illicitly by the CPA without a papal mandate, in direct violation of the Code of Canon Law; worse still, those illicitly consecrated bishops publicly declared their primary allegiance to the Communist regime of China while disavowing (in the CPA Constitution) any allegiance or submission to the Pope. As a result, these illicit bishops and those who consecrated them, would be excommunicated latae sententiae (automatically), even if they were members of the Catholic Church, which they are not. In 1994 the CPA bishops issued a so-called pastoral letter in which they endorsed China's population control policy, which includes forced abortions on all women who have one child already, calling upon Chinese Catholics to support this abomination.
In short, the CPA is a Communist-created, Communist-controlled, blatantly schismatic, blatantly heretical, pro-abortion organization., created by the devil himself, acting through Mao Tse-tung and his successor "President" Jiang. And yet the Vatican has declared no schism, nor any excommunication of these Communist-controlled, pro-abortion clergy. Instead, Cardinal Etchegary went to China and celebrated Mass in the presence of CPA bishops in a Marian Shrine which the CPA, with the aid of Communist goons, stole from the Catholic Church and the Catholic faithful. Cardinal Etchegary even stated that he "recognized the fidelity to the Pope of the Catholics in the official Church [i.e., the CPA]." Fidelity to the Pope on the part of the bishops who endorse forced abortion and whose Communist-controlled association rejects the papal primacy in its very constitution? What sort of nonsense is this?
And yet you say, "What the CPA has done is bad, but it is not as bad as what the SSPX has done."
Yeah, OK.
Those who cherish the film Dr. Zhivago (in spite of the role of Gramscians in bringing Pasternak's manuscript novel to the West), may recall that very near to the end of the film, as KGB General Yevgraf Andreievich Zhivago (the Alec Guiness character) is trying to persuade the young girl whom he believes to be his niece that Dr. Yuri Andreievich Zhivago was her father and Lara Antipova her mother: "This man was your father. This woman your mother. Don't you believe (in a seductive tone of voice that would challenge Lucifer's talents)? Don't you WANT to believe?"
By analogy, the excommunicated and schismatic SSPX flatteringly and comfortingly whispers to you (and perhaps to your wife????) from its ecclesiastical prison: We (SSPX) are what you want the Church to be. We (SSPX) are, in fact, the Church. Don't you believe? Don't you WANT to believe?
The answer to SSPX is a resounding NO! However pretty the poison of the schism, SSPX is nevertheless poison.
Is your wife also an adherent of the Feeneyite cult of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus or of the actual Catholic understanding of that term? Remember that Protestantism is not called Protestantism for nothing. It is called Protestantism because it protests againt the Roman Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ Himself. In tactics, Feeney (until his recantation, repentance and restoration to the Catholic Church), Lefebvre and Martin Luther are of one anti-papal type.
If you believe what you claim as to the necessity of formal Catholicism to the salvation of your soul and that of your wife, then she and you are obliged NOT to adhere to SSPX and thereby NOT to apostasize.
A person is a Catholic or not. It is just that simple. The enemies of the Church are not within the Church. If you want to be a Catholic, believe the Truth. Do not succumb to the temptation to believe what you want to believe. Persuade your wife as well to believe the Truth and not what she wants to believe. Willful apostasy (SSPX) is not a path to heaven. Obedience to the Vicar of Christ on Earth is a more reliable route to salvation.
St. Francis of Assisi is reported to have said: "Preach the Gospel at all times, using words if necessary."
As to your last paragraph, you should live so long. Your horse's finish line might well be a pike held by the shade of old Marcel aiming the pike at your horse's chest. I guarantee your "horse" won't bowl me over. You underestimate the stubborn commitment of grizzled and aging Catholics to the One True Faith.
I will give you one thing. Your references to your wife prove that you have more understanding of love than most. She wants what is best for you and apparently has invested her resourcefulness in persuading you to share her faith (at the risk of temporary but necessary strife?) and ran the risk of aggravating you in order to truly love you. It sounds like your decision to marry her and her decision to marry you were in fact evidences of the kind of love that is very real and not at all what most of this world may imagine. It is your privilege to love such a woman back. Given your response to date, however imperfect, it is also her privilege to love you.
May God bless both of you and safeguard your (plural) arrival at His Truth.
VA: If you ever do become Catholic, you will understand bornacatholic and me so very much better than you understand us now. I promise to notice and I'll bet borncatholic will too.
Bless you my dear, dear FRiend. I think the world of you. :)
How ironic coming from you! The idea that any Pope can say anything and it trumps whatever came before...
Oh, I also Dogpiled Father Paul Kramer and discovered he is one of the Fatima third-secret conspiracy advocates. It just figures.
Ah the old ad hominem of conspiracy theorist. Of course conspiracies, like black helicopters, couldn't possibly exist until they are proven. Anyone who believes otherwise is a kook. Honestly, this does get tiring...
Sure they can, just like I have not brought up Lefebvre's comparison of the Pope to the Antichrist (ala Huss and Luther), or the SSPX setting up marriage tribunals and giving away vacations to nude beaches.
I'm here to discuss schism. If you want to widen the topic, I've already been there and done that, and don't feel a need to rehash.
An excellent analogy! Bless you, BE, and prayers for VA and family.
What beliefs are those? So far, you've yet to accurately portray any positions set forth by the SSPX.
Honestly, who does pay you to do this? Cardinal Mahoney? Hans Kung? No one in their right mind could be so wrong and not have it be deliberate.
Be careful NYer. Your Maronite priests might be tickling your ears with a number of lies, errors and fallacies.
I can give you the name of a Maronite priest that doesn't believe in Angels, the filioque, the real presence as understood by transubstantiation. (He said transubstantiation is wrong now.) Or the necessity of the Resurrection of the body.
And he's in good standing with both the diocese and the eparchy.
I have posted what the Catholic Church actually teaches about that issue. I have posted what the SSPX teches about the Jews being cursed. Is is precisely the opposite of the hateful antisemitic heresy taught by the sspx and embraced by the schismatics in here.
If Y'all have a single reference from oh, say, Denzinger, or Tanqueray, or Ott, or Neuner and Dupuis, or Jurgens, or, Proem, or any Papal Encyclical, or any Ecumenical Council or any approved Catechism - produce it and post it.
All other pings will be seen for what they are - attempts to distract others from the ugly evil facts
We Catholics know no such Teaching exists. It doesn't exist now. It didn't exist in the 16th century, or the 15th century, or the 12, or the 8, or the 6, or the 1st Centuries.
It does exist in the hearts and minds of those in the schism. Hatred of the Jews, I am learning, is what binds those in the schism.
The "Mass of all times" is the honey that sweetens the poison; the mass is the honey that masks the poison of antisemitism that schismatics drink to their own destruction.
For some reason this thread has caused schismatics to reveal their evil beliefs. That has real benefit for all concerned, especially lurkers. Y'all are now known for who you really are. Your arguements, such as they are, will receive even less credibility in the future
May God have mercy on your souls
Y'all have not asked we'all for any such thing.
* Yeah, I have. Post #192, among others.
Nothing like dangling a phony carrot to tempt a 'bite'. By all means, provide the name, parish and eparchy of this Maronite priest. I'll "bite".
And, while you're at it, please cite dates, times and related conversations to justify your phony claim.
Believing that the Jews are a cursed race is not heretical. However, it is a minority interpretation of Sacred Scripture that was eventually rejected by the Church. No Catholic should hold it because "the rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, since they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council" (Declaration of the Theological Commission of Vatican II, March 6, 1964) and since "the Council ... provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility" (Pope Paul VI, General Audience, Jan 12, 1966). This does not mean that St. Alphonsus was a heretic, or worthy of censure, any more than the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Bl. Pius IX made Sts. Thomas and Bernard heretics.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. (NA §4)
It is not ironic at all, of course. A pope cannot say anything to change a dogma. You have defined something that is not a dogma or doctrine as dogma or doctrine. Your definitions have no authority. One cannot set oneself up as equal in teaching authority to the pope, can one? Yet you have, have you not? It is not I who engage an ad hominem attack: you assail the pope as a fraud, if you say he has no authority in these matters. It is you who assume what is not yours, the keys of Peter!
The pope has spoken also, concerning the third secret of Fatima. He - Pope John Paul the Great - said it was revealed as it was supposed to be revealed, and he also taught that Russia had been consecrated to the Blessed Virgin. But those who are superior to the pope teach otherwise, eh?
Yes, honestly, this gets so tiring...
It is not I, unworthy as I am, who has condemned SSPX. It is not I who speaks with authority regarding papal teaching authority. I merely repeat what the Church and the pope himself teaches. That is why I can speak with confidence: I do not contradict what Jesus teaches through the pope, I merely say what He has stated.
No kidding.
You have defined something that is not a dogma or doctrine as dogma or doctrine.
Really? Where?
One cannot set oneself up as equal in teaching authority to the pope, can one? Yet you have, have you not?
No and No.
It is not I who engage in ad hominem attack:
"Oh, I also dogpiled Father Paul Kramer and discovered he is one of the Fatime third-secret conspiracy advocates. It just figures."
-TheGeezer, Post 214
Of course not.
you assail the Pope as a fraud, if you say he has no authority in these matters.
No, I do not. First, I did not say that he doesn't have authority in these matters and second, I am well aware of the Magisterium's distinguishing between infallibility and impeccability with regard to papal authority.
Yes, honestly this gets so tiring...
Indeed it does, maybe you should take a nap.
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.