Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecratio
hmm, I can't find a Church document stating they are suspended.

Reply
Just as Pope John Paul II went all over the world apologizing for bad behavior of catholic folk down through the centuries, perhaps Bishop Fellay could apologize for all the milk money ever stolen by SSPX youth. I think that would go a long way toward healing the personal and emotional animosity many are demonstrating toward the lowly SSPX.

[Image: school-milk.jpg]
Reply
(07-01-2013, 05:18 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
Peter II Wrote:The fact is fighting for Tradition means fighting the modernist tainted hierarchy.
And if it is necessary to oppose the hierarchy, we'll do it - but we'll do it from within the Church. The SSPX is, I think, the largest traditional sect that can still be called Catholic. Their witness would be immensely improved were they not in a state of canonical limbo.

But the SSPX does not have the final say over man made canon law.  The Pope does.  The Popes could have easily granted them canonical status carte blanche, but they didn't up to now because they are tainted with modernism. 
Reply
Nonsense. The reason the Holy Father didn't reinstate them carte blanche is because they accuse the Magisterium of teaching formal heresy qua Vatican II - which is ridiculous.

Why doesn't the Holy Father grant the Old Catholics canonical status? He's allowed to, by your argument.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 11:57 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Nonsense. The reason the Holy Father didn't reinstate them carte blanche is because they accuse the Magisterium of teaching formal heresy qua Vatican II - which is ridiculous.
Was the Magisterium exercised by those bishops present at the Synod of Pistoia that Pope Pius VI condemned in Auctorem Fidei? There is such a thing as a failed council; they have occurred before, and it doesn't prove the Magisterium can teach heresy.
(07-01-2013, 11:57 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Why doesn't the Holy Father grant the Old Catholics canonical status? He's allowed to, by your argument.
Except they don't exist anymore…

Also, what do Old Catholics have to do with the SSPX? Old Catholics denied papal infallibility as defined in Vatican I, and they were Liberals. Did Döllinger defend “a truth which was marginalized,” as did St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, et al.?
Reply
The SSPX deny that Vatican II is in accord with previous Magisterium, which is exactly the Old Catholics' claim about Vatican I (and they're still around - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church). The Old Catholics are wrong. The SSPV is wrong. And the SSPX are wrong; they refuse to accept correction, refuse to see the continuity between pre-conciliar teaching and the teaching of the Council. That, and really no other reason, is why I oppose them.

Honestly, I don't find Vatican II much more 'ambiguous' than some parts of Trent, namely some difficult sections on the Decree of Justification. Collegiality, ecumenism, and (well, almost) religious liberty have been explained to me in a way which fully accords with earlier teaching.
Reply
Quote:...
Honestly, I don't find Vatican II much more 'ambiguous' than some parts of Trent...



[Image: Dorothy2.jpg]
Reply
(07-02-2013, 12:50 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote: The SSPX deny that Vatican II is in accord with previous Magisterium, which is exactly the Old Catholics' claim about Vatican I (and they're still around - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church).
They go well beyond that, though; they are antiquarians like the Protestants.
Reply
(07-01-2013, 05:47 PM)Whitey Wrote: You are not even reading my posts. Pope Michael ? What the hell does that nut have to do with this thread ?
And what I wrote clearly indicates I'm hip to Catholic policy on women clergy. And if you think there aren't those in the Hierarchy that don't accept it as a case closed deal, you are simply unaware of the facts or in denial.

Strong irony dude, I don't think you understood my post in the least. And then you go on to insult me below even though you claim you didn't read the rest of my post.

Quote:You are a kid living at home and think you are the only one here that knows Catholic teaching, Doctrine, and policy. Not just me either, I've seen you insult other adults here, questioning their intelligence. That's rude son.

Save your keystrokes, I'm not wasting my time with you from here on.

LOL. So basically because I challenge you and the SSPX I am an arrogant smarmy little boy and not worth your time?

Good grief. If you're such a man, act like one pal. I'm 23 year old man who lives at home because I gave up everything to follow God for a year and it didn't work out and now I have nothing. Your uncharitable attempt to hurt my pride falls flat.

I didn't insult your intelligence or act like I knew it all. If you can't handle what I said you shouldn't be on a discussion forum. You've just scored one for satan there with your foot-stomping outburst. "I am big boy, you speak me nicely because I am right!". Get a grip old man.
Reply
Geremia Wrote:They go well beyond that, though; they are antiquarians like the Protestants.
Yes, the Old Catholics have cherry-picked the parts of Tradition they like and discarded what they don't like. Their liturgy is excellent though - too bad the lex orandi, lex credendi didn't keep them from error on abortion or priestesses.  :eyeroll: This cherry-picking is exactly what characterizes the SSPX, since their denial that Vatican II is in accord with Tradition is a result of their incomplete understanding of Tradition itself.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)