How dare they! They must be "heretical schizzies".
Posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by NYer
Schismatics really think the Popes are liars and heretics and minions of satan. In that they are worse than most So.Baptists
Essentially, if that is the only conclusion that you believe can be made, all I see is defective logic here.
Untrue. Fr. Kramer, and many others, call into question the veracity of Dr. Zugibe's alleged "quote" and the credibiity of the translator in this instance. See the following article with footnotes and supporting documentation at:
How dare they! They must be "heretical schizzies".
Your words.
Nope, just borrowing them from a "friend" ;-)
Who is more trustworthty, the Vicar of Christ and the actual Seer of Fatima or schismatic liars?
Do you think Mother Angelica is a "heretical schizzie" or a "schismatic liar" for saying on her show "As for the Secret, well I happen to be one of those individuals who thinks we didn't get the whole thing."?
Not at all, actually (and "Pope Pius V seems to treat it so" would be more accurately written "Pope Pius V seemed to treat it so." I think past tense is more appropriate of a dead pope. While he is enjoying the vision of God in heaven as we speak, he is not now the pope).
You have not proved the Quo Primum to be dogma, and I do not think you are competent to argue that Pius V felt that way either, purely from the text of Quo Primum. If you are willing use that tactic, you will be in the same erroneous but fashionable school of thought as "The Jesus Project", which concluded using literary criticism that perhaps one or two of the words of Jesus in Scripture were actually uttered by Jesus!
That Quo Primum is dogma is merely an erroneous assertion of the SSPX and its adherents that is logically and canonically impossible. It catches those who want to be faithful Catholics, loyal to the pope, in a logical vise.
If the pope says that adhering to SSPX results in excommunication, then what SSPX demands must be wrong; otherwise, the pope is erecting a barrier to salvation with his dictum. If he is wrong about what the SSPX espouses, then he is in error about a matter of faith and morals, and the Church is a fraud. If the Church is a fraud, then salvation is also a fraud.
Think of it: in the mind of SSPX, a liturgical preference requires demolition of the Catholic Church!
Are you saying that Vatican II was a dogmatic council, in spite of the fact that John XXIII AND Paul VI said explicitly that it was NOT? Now who's setting themselves up as a greater authority than the Popes?
You really should refrain from twisting what is plainly written. I wrote
If you assert that Quo Primum is dogma, you assume greater authority than the pope, who, by his approval of the new rite (in union, in fact, with the bishops of the Church at Vatican II)... .I included the portion concerning the rest of the bishops (which included Lefebvre, I think) only because you might assert that without the union of all the bishops the new liturgy might not be properly approved. The new liturgy, by the way, is also not dogma. It is only liturgy, like the Tridentine liturgy.
What matters is obedience to the pope, who explicitly condemned adherence to the SSPX with excommunication. That has not been rescinded by Pope Benedict, which means that adherence to SSPX still results in excommunication.
That doesn't matter to schismatics who don't really believe in the teaching and disciplinary authority of the pope, of course, does it?
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.