Major Schism in U.S. Catholic Church Underway
#51
[quote='mikemac' pid='735519' dateline='1302411581']
Even their name is an oxymoron.  American (national) Catholic (universal) Church (I thought the same for the name of  the New American Bible).

Quotes by Hans Küng
[quote]"If you cannot see that divinity includes male and female characteristics and at the same time transcends them, you have bad consequences. Rome and Cardinal O'Connor base the exclusion of women priests on the idea that God is the Father and Jesus is His Son, there were only male disciples, etc. They are defending a patriarchal Church with a patriarchal God. We must fight the patriarchal misunderstanding of God." — Newsweek interview, July 8, 1991[/quote]
[quote]"Everyone agrees the celibacy rule is just a Church law dating from the 11th century, not a divine command." — Newsweek interview, July 8, 1991[/quote]
[quote]"The same church must, in my opinion, also respect that the one whose name is absent from the same declaration out of embarrassment, although he and he alone led Muslims to pray to this one God, so that once again through him, Muhammad, the prophet, this God 'has spoken to mankind." — World Religions 129[/quote]
[quote]"The Pope would have an easier job than the President of the United States in adopting a change of course. He has no Congress alongside him as a legislative body nor a Supreme Court as a judiciary. He is absolute head of government, legislator and supreme judge in the church. If he wanted to, he could authorize contraception over night, permit the marriage of priests, make possible the ordination of women and allow eucharistic fellowship with this Protestant churches. What would a Pope do who acted in the spirit of Obama?"[/quote]

It's time to hand deliver the excommunications this time.  That nut Hans Küng should have been excommunicated long ago.  With them all together in Detroit it should make it easy to get rid of them all in one fail swoop.  Yep the sooner the better. 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I, like you, would just LOVE it if these people left what's left of the true Church. However, I think.........like several others have mentioned, that many people who favor a married priesthood, artificial contraception, women priests, etc. don't really care enough to "campaign".  However, maybe they'll all attend this conference, be excommunicated & we'll be rid of them. :pray:

It wasn't that many years ago that Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated all of those who belonged to Call To Action & lived within his diocese. He immediately let the Vatican know what he'd done, as did the people he axed. The Vatican stood by him:

(CNS) -- The Vatican has upheld Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz's decision 10 years ago that membership in Call to Action "is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith" and results in automatic excommunication for Catholics in the Diocese of Lincoln.

Of course, this is the same man who....when the Bishops met in Dallas in 2,002 & were unable to reach a consensus about dissent & homosexuality being a good part of the reason for the crisis of sexual abuse of young boys, Bishop Bruskewitz threw up his hands & called them a "hapless bunch of Bishops". He's not very popular with the USCCB.
Reply
#52
(04-10-2011, 03:04 AM)HuskerTom Wrote: I, too, agree.  The sooner the schism happens, the better the Church will be in the long run, IMHO.  I can't tell you how many Catholics I know who abstain from meat on Fridays yet skip Mass on Sundays.

In the fourteenth century, according to St. Bridget of Sweden (book IV. letter 33), they didn't even abstain from meat on Lenten Fridays--even in Rome. And the churches themselves, according to the same letter, were abandoned and used as latrines for people and animals. Of course, it was this kind of thing that led to the Great Western Schism.

Nic Wrote:The entire history of the Church wheat and weeds grew together, but the wheat ran the show so the rest of the "field" would know how to believe.  Only one other time in Church history has the leadership in the Church been so thoroughly infected, and that is during the Arian Crisis. Guess what happened then - a council forced every Catholic to pick a side and a major schism occurred, which in time the Arian belief structure died off.
That's really not the only time when the "wheat" ran thoe show. Over a few centuries in the middle ages most to all the leadership were simoniacs and worldlings who had no interest in instructing the people how to believe, but only furthering their own ambition. Really, from what I've read in volumes of letters from Saints in those periods, from the 10th century until the Counter-Reformation, with a few bright-spots here and there (the Gregorian reform, Innocent III's Lateran Council, etc.), those running the show didn't really run it. The wheat were found mostly in a few religious orders, although even many monasteries were overrun with sodomites and worldings. St. Vincent Ferrer, for examples, went from town to town in Italy and France (supposedly the heart of Christendom) offering out-door Masses and preaching about the very basics of the faith--people didn't know what the sacraments were, what Mass was, why it was important, etc. Where were the bishops and priests in these towns? What were they doing? Pretty much just being weeds.

Also, the Council of Nicea didn't make every Catholic choose a side, basically just the bishops and princes. According to St. Isadore's histories, the people just went along with the king--sometimes switching from orthodoxy to Arianism and back to orthodoxy within the same generation. It was ultimately the political victory of the orthodox kings and their submission to the Pope that did it.

Point being, ecclesiastical history--the whole of it, not just the Arian crisis--is messy and there are rarely any silver bullet solutions--be they a schism or the decision of a Council, etc.
Reply
#53
(04-11-2011, 12:32 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(04-11-2011, 11:59 AM)Nic Wrote: Unfortunately, this public schism needs to happen...

Actually something like this occurring would be the very best thing that could happen to the souls of the world... All in all, this would be a good thing.  Let us pray that it happens.

Nic, you seem to be well-read on church history. I, in contrast, are relatively new to Catholicism, converting from Protestantism last year. I was attending Evangelical churches who were ultimately birthed in the Lutheran schism.

So my questions would be:
1. Wouldn't excommunications be preferable to a schism?
2. You seem to suggest we should pray for a schism to occur. Huh? Really?

Yes, I am saying that we should pray for the already private schism to be made public - it would benefit the entire world because then people could see what Catholicism really is and therefore choose to be a part of the true religion instead of a religion only posing as Catholicism or vaguely mixed in along with the true religion.  With such confusion most people have no clue what the Church actually teaches.  Something like this could go a LONG way to end all of this.
Reply
#54
(04-09-2011, 09:28 PM)Scythian Wrote: Distinctions between clergy and laity are functional and arbitrary. Their
value is always subordinate to the baptismal equality which gives all Catholics
the priesthood, the right to the Eucharist, and full status in the community.
Christ did not preach a Gospel of privilege and priorities, of entitlements,
and of lesser or greater discipleships.

I guess they never heard of the Apostles.  And since when does baptism give all Catholics the priesthood?  That's outright Protestant heresy.  These modernists don't eve try to hide it anymore. 

These people should be invited to accept the Church's true teaching.  If they decline, they should be showed the door.
Reply
#55
(04-11-2011, 05:41 PM)Walty Wrote: And since when does baptism give all Catholics the priesthood? That's outright Protestant heresy.


The Church believes in the "priesthood of all believers" (1 Peter 2:9) which, although different from the ordained priesthood, is conferred upon all Christians at baptism.
Lumen Gentium, 10 Wrote:"Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity."
Reply
#56
(04-10-2011, 09:17 AM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:
(04-10-2011, 03:04 AM)HuskerTom Wrote: I, too, agree.  The sooner the schism happens, the better the Church will be in the long run, IMHO.  I can't tell you how many Catholics I know who abstain from meat on Fridays yet skip Mass on Sundays.  It's such a sad time in which we live....I blame technology.

Hmm.  Folks looking forward to a schism.

Would you also call St. Paul to task for, in Scripture, telling local churches to call a sinner or heretic to renounce his error, and, if he fails to do so, to kick him out of the church?
Reply
#57
(04-11-2011, 05:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-11-2011, 05:41 PM)Walty Wrote: And since when does baptism give all Catholics the priesthood? That's outright Protestant heresy.

The Church believes in the "priesthood of all believers" (1 Peter 2:9) which, although different from the ordained priesthood, is conferred upon all Christians at baptism.
Lumen Gentium, 10 Wrote:"Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity."

Yes, but in a section which is emphasizing the radical incorporation of the laity into the ministerial branch of the Church and calling the lines between clerics and laity "arbitrary" do you really think that this is what they're talking about?
Reply
#58
(04-11-2011, 05:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(04-11-2011, 05:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-11-2011, 05:41 PM)Walty Wrote: And since when does baptism give all Catholics the priesthood? That's outright Protestant heresy.

The Church believes in the "priesthood of all believers" (1 Peter 2:9) which, although different from the ordained priesthood, is conferred upon all Christians at baptism.
Lumen Gentium, 10 Wrote:"Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity."

Yes, but in a section which is emphasizing the radical incorporation of the laity into the ministerial branch of the Church and calling the lines between clerics and laity "arbitrary" do you really think that this is what they're talking about?

Not at all.

I'm the first one to say that these people are all enemies of the Lord. Until proven otherwise, I consider all clerics of the conciliar religion to be impious heretics. You all know my thoughts on this, especially those of you who know me for quite some time now, such as you Walty.

I was just stressing that the Church also believes in the priesthood of all believers. We shouldn't overcompensate when refuting these people.
Reply
#59
(04-11-2011, 05:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-11-2011, 05:52 PM)Walty Wrote:
(04-11-2011, 05:49 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(04-11-2011, 05:41 PM)Walty Wrote: And since when does baptism give all Catholics the priesthood? That's outright Protestant heresy.

The Church believes in the "priesthood of all believers" (1 Peter 2:9) which, although different from the ordained priesthood, is conferred upon all Christians at baptism.
Lumen Gentium, 10 Wrote:"Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity."

Yes, but in a section which is emphasizing the radical incorporation of the laity into the ministerial branch of the Church and calling the lines between clerics and laity "arbitrary" do you really think that this is what they're talking about?

Not at all.

I'm the first one to say that these people are all enemies of the Lord. Until proven otherwise, I consider all clerics of the conciliar religion to be impious heretics. You all know my thoughts on this, especially those of you who know me for quite some time now, such as you Walty.

I was just stressing that the Church also believes in the priesthood of all believers. We shouldn't overcompensate when refuting these people.

I try not to overcompensate.  If I was a bishop I would bring a club to an ecumenical council, however.
Reply
#60
Paragraphs 87 and 88 of Ven. Pius XII's Mediator Dei (20 November 1947) mention the baptized laity's participation in the priesthood: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)