FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Jan 21 Bp Williamson column
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(01-24-2012, 01:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The use of terminology like "Novus Ordo religion" and "conciliar Church" assume a fragmented understanding of the Church.

I don't think there is any assumption here.The Church,and lets exclude Tradition for one moment, is very fragmented within herself containing disparate groups like the Charismatics and Neo Cats to name just 2.The use of these terms does not constitute schism as correctly defined.I would really like some cited examples of open schism.
Valid Authority in the Church must be shown respect since it has been put forth by Christ.
Authority invested in men who are sinful and make mistakes is still authority and as long as valid Church authority does not command us to do anything sinful we are obliged, as Catholics to respect and be obedient to it.
(01-24-2012, 01:19 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]Valid Authority in the Church must be shown respect since it has been put forth by Christ.
Authority invested in men who are sinful and make mistakes is still authority and as long as valid Church authority does not command us to do anything sinful we are obliged, as Catholics to respect and ne obedient to it.

Not only sinful but heterodox or non Traidtional.This is a long standing teaching and Tradition emphasized by Saint and Pope and council alike:

Cardinal Juan de Torquemada [1388-1468] was a revered medieval theologian responsible for the formulation of the doctrines that were defined at Florence. Cardinal Torquemada, who is considered an ardent "papalist", teaches: "Were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scriptures, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or Divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands he is to be disregarded."

"Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed'

Straight from the horses mouth as it were...



(01-24-2012, 01:29 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2012, 01:19 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]Valid Authority in the Church must be shown respect since it has been put forth by Christ.
Authority invested in men who are sinful and make mistakes is still authority and as long as valid Church authority does not command us to do anything sinful we are obliged, as Catholics to respect and ne obedient to it.

Not only sinful but heterodox or non Traidtional.This is a long standing teaching and Tradition emphasized by Saint and Pope and council alike:

Cardinal Juan de Torquemada [1388-1468] was a revered medieval theologian responsible for the formulation of the doctrines that were defined at Florence. Cardinal Torquemada, who is considered an ardent "papalist", teaches: "Were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scriptures, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or Divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands he is to be disregarded."

"Thus it is that Pope Innocent III states [De Consuetudine] that, it is necessary to obey the Pope in all things as long as he, himself, does not go against the universal customs of the Church, but should he go against the universal customs of the Church, 'he need not be followed'

Straight from the horse mouth as it were...
Heterodox and non-Traditional is the same as sinful.
I have never been told or taught to do anything sinful by Church authority.
(01-24-2012, 01:34 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]Heterodox and non-Traditional is the same as sinful.
I have never been told or taught to do anything sinful by Church authority.

You must have missed the recent events surrounding the licit use of condoms.And actually adherence to Heterodox ideas are not sinful if one is ignorant or the will has not fully assented or is unaware of the damaging nature of the idea in question.

And Pope innocent isn't even talking about dogma.Even going against Church customs is worthy of resistance he says.
(01-24-2012, 01:39 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2012, 01:34 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]
Heterodox and non-Traditional is the same as sinful.
I have never been told or taught to do anything sinful by Church authority.

You must have missed the recent events surrounding the licit use of condoms.And actually adherence to Heterodox ideas are not sinful if one is ignorant or the will has not fully assented or is unaware of the damaging nature of the idea in question.
[/quote] If you are referring to the Holy Fathers words I am aware of the misinterpretation of the HF words on condoms.
Pope Benedict XVI said nothing about the use of condoms being licit.

We are obliged, in morality, to know if an idea is heterodox or not and willful ignorance of a heterodox idea is still sinful.
(01-24-2012, 01:15 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2012, 01:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The use of terminology like "Novus Ordo religion" and "conciliar Church" assume a fragmented understanding of the Church.

I don't think there is any assumption here.The Church,and lets exclude Tradition for one moment, is very fragmented within herself containing disparate groups like the Charismatics and Neo Cats to name just 2.The use of these terms does not constitute schism as correctly defined.I would really like some cited examples of open schism.

Catholic Charismatics do not refer to the rest of the Church as if it were a different religion.  They see themselves as a group within the Church.  There is nothing inherently wrong with various groups existing within the Church, for example, Eastern Rite, Dominicans, theologians.  What makes a schismatic attitude is how those within the group view the rest of the Church.  If one thinks of oneself as a different religion from the rest of the Church that is a schismatic attitude.

Asking for examples of open schism is not relevant to the question of schismatic attitude.  The attitude is a way of thinking and feeling about the Church that could potentially lead to schism.  Open schism involves acts that cut oneself from the Church or statements of position that do so.

(01-24-2012, 01:47 PM)Old Salt Wrote: [ -> ]We are obliged, in morality, to know if an idea is heterodox or not and willful ignorance of a heterodox idea is still sinful.

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding if the nature of sin,but in light of this response and at the risk of being banned I would suggest a Google search that includes the name of a certain Pope followed by "phenomenology" an idea that underpins one of the Church's most fashionable exports,ie, Theology of the Body
Phenomenology has never been condemned as far as I know.
(01-24-2012, 02:01 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2012, 01:15 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2012, 01:08 PM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]The use of terminology like "Novus Ordo religion" and "conciliar Church" assume a fragmented understanding of the Church.

I don't think there is any assumption here.The Church,and lets exclude Tradition for one moment, is very fragmented within herself containing disparate groups like the Charismatics and Neo Cats to name just 2.The use of these terms does not constitute schism as correctly defined.I would really like some cited examples of open schism.

Catholic Charismatics do not refer to the rest of the Church as if it were a different religion.  They see themselves as a group within the Church.  There is nothing inherently wrong with various groups existing within the Church, for example, Eastern Rite, Dominicans, theologians.  What makes a schismatic attitude is how those within the group view the rest of the Church.  If one thinks of oneself as a different religion from the rest of the Church that is a schismatic attitude.

Asking for examples of open schism is not relevant to the question of schismatic attitude.  The attitude is a way of thinking and feeling about the Church that could potentially lead to schism.  Open schism involves acts that cut oneself from the Church or statements of position that do so.
Im sure the CCs are very cozy in the Church family,all the while carrying on like mad evangelicals getting slayed by the spirit.And of course they were in fact a direct product of Protestant Pentecostalism.Hardly comparable with actual Catholic religious orders.

""TO SPEAK IN TONGUES YOU HAD NEVER LEARNED WAS, AND IS, A RECOGNIZED SYMPTOM IN ALLGED CASES OF DIABOLIC POSSESSION." (Msgr. Ronald Knox - Enthusiasm)

"...It arrived on my desk a few months ago as yet another unsolicited piece of bulk mail. The brochure from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, announced that "Catholic" Charismatics were about to celebrate their 30th Anniversary bash in Pittsburgh "where it all began," and for $69.00 registration, I would be welcome too. So it was that on June 27, 1997, I found myself traveling toward this Pentecostal extravaganza. I went for the purpose of observation. There was plenty to observe. I had been to the "Toronto Blessing" church about two years ago, as Catholic Family News printed an ex- pose on this new movement written by Silvia MacAhern, and I wanted to see the "worship service" for myself before going to press. The "Toronto Blessing" is a high-charged Protestant sect that could be called "Charismatic to the Tenth Power". They believe the Holy Ghost manifests Himself not only in indistinguishable tongues and body gy- rations (as was the case with the Pittsburgh "Catholic Pentecostals") but also with screams, shrieks, rolling on the floor, hysterical laughter, barking like dogs and oinking like pigs... "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-reli...5217/posts

I am still waiting for actual citations from you from the SSPX illustrating their Schism as defined by the Church,not by JayneK.I have a feeling I will waiting.Here is the actual definition to help you:

St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): "I beseech you, brethren", he writes, ". . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (I don't think the Charismatics would pass St Paul's test)

"Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12