AgLiving06 said:
Or maybe just maybe… refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope is the cause of Christian division
SSPX Announces Names of future bishops, including one American.
10,871 Views |
210 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by fc2112
Or maybe just maybe… refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope is the cause of Christian division
"Flagrant disobedience " is a stretch, but that seems to be your schtick. The difference, if it matters to you, is in regards to how grace is transmitted.
There are sacraments, like an ordination, that confer grace in its action. This is why what SSPX did is a grave sin, by the very action committed because they defied the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.
Then there are sacramentals, like blessings, which do not confer any grace- just the disposition to receive it. Like wearing a cross around your neck or a wedding ring on your finger. There is still action on your part, through the virtues to complete the action and receive that temporary actual grace.
Details matter. They did clear up things and that is the difference.
There are sacraments, like an ordination, that confer grace in its action. This is why what SSPX did is a grave sin, by the very action committed because they defied the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.
Then there are sacramentals, like blessings, which do not confer any grace- just the disposition to receive it. Like wearing a cross around your neck or a wedding ring on your finger. There is still action on your part, through the virtues to complete the action and receive that temporary actual grace.
Details matter. They did clear up things and that is the difference.
AgLiving06 said:
This checks out. I was impressed with how the Lutherans split from the Catholics 600 years ago, and then had no need for any further denominations in Protestantism
JUST IN: The SSPX respond to Vatican’s decree of sanctions saying they are “objectively unjust and invalid”
— Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 (@MLJHaynes) July 3, 2026
Says the excommunication decree highlights “profoundly tragic context in which the universal Church finds herself.”
States: “We had asked to be instructed and confirmed… pic.twitter.com/vJ0jUqLdEA
Here they go crying foul after they have managed to find themselves on the "find out" stage of f'ing around...
The rot must be cut from the Church.
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to Me’
WaltonAg18 said:JUST IN: The SSPX respond to Vatican’s decree of sanctions saying they are “objectively unjust and invalid”
— Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 (@MLJHaynes) July 3, 2026
Says the excommunication decree highlights “profoundly tragic context in which the universal Church finds herself.”
States: “We had asked to be instructed and confirmed… pic.twitter.com/vJ0jUqLdEA
Here they go crying foul after they have managed to find themselves on the "find out" stage of f'ing around...
The rot must be cut from the Church.
I agree. We should start with Fr James Martin, Cardinal Fernandez, Cupich, etc
I refuse to see this internal Church conflict in binary terms... where one party is wholly in the right and the other is the baddies. I see the sinfulness of man in both the Roman authorities and the SSPX leadership. Intractable, both of them. So much for dialogue and accomplishment.
I understand where Rome is. I see uneven administration of medicinal discipline, which erodes trust. I am sympathetic to the position of the SSPX as well. Canon law can be used to justify their position. I'm frustrated by flippant responses, because souls are at stake... on both sides.
In this article below, Timothy Flanders addresses the First Vatican Council and various questions about it (dubia). He discusses varying opinions on papal supremacy, which I believe undergirds some of the broader conflicts in the Church. I think it's also relevant to what we witnessed the other day as well as 1988.
https://onepeterfive.com/dubia-vatican-one/
Below is a quote from the article about the sinfulness of man, on both sides of issues and schisms, that can deepen the conflict and drive wedges further in, which has contributed to the schisms with the East.
Read the whole thing.
I understand where Rome is. I see uneven administration of medicinal discipline, which erodes trust. I am sympathetic to the position of the SSPX as well. Canon law can be used to justify their position. I'm frustrated by flippant responses, because souls are at stake... on both sides.
In this article below, Timothy Flanders addresses the First Vatican Council and various questions about it (dubia). He discusses varying opinions on papal supremacy, which I believe undergirds some of the broader conflicts in the Church. I think it's also relevant to what we witnessed the other day as well as 1988.
https://onepeterfive.com/dubia-vatican-one/
Below is a quote from the article about the sinfulness of man, on both sides of issues and schisms, that can deepen the conflict and drive wedges further in, which has contributed to the schisms with the East.
Quote:
When we are dealing with an ecumenical council, we need to remember that on a historical level a great deal of evil machinations can exist at such a council, and even good men and saints can fall into this and this can have all sorts of bad fruit on the historical level yet nevertheless the theological meaning of the council can be protected and guided by the Holy Spirit, bringing forth good fruit.
When we go back to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils we can easily see examples of this. In many of them there was a great deal of violence and bloodshed, even perpetrated by the "good guys" at the Council, and history forgets these evils, but remembers the theological achievements.
Take the Council of Ephesus for example (431). St. Cyril, Doctor of the Church, bribed the officials and terrorised the Council Fathers with an army of violent monks until the orthodox definition of faith was established. Thus the theological meaning of the Council was safeguarded, but the saint's actions produced immediate bad fruit by threatening a schism with the Antiochian catechetical school.
Showing his saintliness however, St. Cyril won over his theological enemies in the reconciliation with John of Antioch in 440. Without such saintliness, the historical effects of the Council of Ephesus could have obscured the theological fruit of the Council. (Indeed, the Greek schisms hardened in the next century precisely due to a loss of such holiness before and after the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Read the whole thing.
HtownAg19 said:WaltonAg18 said:JUST IN: The SSPX respond to Vatican’s decree of sanctions saying they are “objectively unjust and invalid”
— Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 (@MLJHaynes) July 3, 2026
Says the excommunication decree highlights “profoundly tragic context in which the universal Church finds herself.”
States: “We had asked to be instructed and confirmed… pic.twitter.com/vJ0jUqLdEA
Here they go crying foul after they have managed to find themselves on the "find out" stage of f'ing around...
The rot must be cut from the Church.
I agree. We should start with Fr James Martin, Cardinal Fernandez, Cupich, etc
Meanwhile, canon lawyers are finding issues in the declaration and accompanying note...
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/
It's the early 90s again. The Vatican and the SSPX are still reeling from a massive fight and breakup. Both are calling the local radio station during the Request and Dedication show... Joe Diffie to the rescue.
747Ag said:HtownAg19 said:WaltonAg18 said:JUST IN: The SSPX respond to Vatican’s decree of sanctions saying they are “objectively unjust and invalid”
— Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 (@MLJHaynes) July 3, 2026
Says the excommunication decree highlights “profoundly tragic context in which the universal Church finds herself.”
States: “We had asked to be instructed and confirmed… pic.twitter.com/vJ0jUqLdEA
Here they go crying foul after they have managed to find themselves on the "find out" stage of f'ing around...
The rot must be cut from the Church.
I agree. We should start with Fr James Martin, Cardinal Fernandez, Cupich, etc
Meanwhile, canon lawyers are finding issues in the declaration and accompanying note...
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/
I'm guessing The Vatican had pretty good canon lawyers scrub both.
A good read...
https://firstthings.com/schism-by-design/
https://firstthings.com/schism-by-design/
Quote:
This is an impasse created by the Society itself. Fr. Pagliarani may have eventually gotten his papal audience had he continued his negotiations with the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and demonstrated a genuine willingness to acknowledge that reconciliation with Rome is the only way forward for the Society, which claims, on paper at least, that it seeks to be loyal to the See of Peter. Any truly "traditional" Catholic would move heaven and earth to reconcile with the Vicar of Christ and would be willing to make theological concessions to bring that about.
What this points to is that the very raison d'tre of the SSPX is one of rejection. It exists to resist the Second Vatican Council, the post-conciliar reforms, and the magisterium of several popes. Therefore, it was simply impossible for the Society to be conciliatory toward the very Roman authority it has been vilifying for many decades now without denying its deepest identity. Rejection of what it regards as a modernist, Freemason, Protestantizing Church is in its DNA. It is its myth of origin and its constitutive creed. As the current clich goes, it is a feature and not a bug.
He's right now. As I said earlier on this thread - "y'all've been itching to leave for decades. Just LEAVE".
Well, they finally did in a flurry of whataboutisms aimed at Germans and transvestites and other sinners.
I know I often try to ignore the log in my eye by focusing on the splinters in other's too.
Well, they finally did in a flurry of whataboutisms aimed at Germans and transvestites and other sinners.
I know I often try to ignore the log in my eye by focusing on the splinters in other's too.
fc2112 said:747Ag said:HtownAg19 said:WaltonAg18 said:JUST IN: The SSPX respond to Vatican’s decree of sanctions saying they are “objectively unjust and invalid”
— Michael Haynes 🇻🇦 (@MLJHaynes) July 3, 2026
Says the excommunication decree highlights “profoundly tragic context in which the universal Church finds herself.”
States: “We had asked to be instructed and confirmed… pic.twitter.com/vJ0jUqLdEA
Here they go crying foul after they have managed to find themselves on the "find out" stage of f'ing around...
The rot must be cut from the Church.
I agree. We should start with Fr James Martin, Cardinal Fernandez, Cupich, etc
Meanwhile, canon lawyers are finding issues in the declaration and accompanying note...
https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/07/02/the-formula-used-by-tucho-to-excommunicate-priests-and-laypeople-lacks-penal-effectiveness/
I'm guessing The Vatican had pretty good canon lawyers scrub both.
Likely not... From Peter Kwasniewski on FedBook:
Quote:
Canon law is a well-organized, rigorous system of principles and their application, spelled out in some detail. It has technicalities and well it should. Procedures are stipulated that must be followed in order for certain privileges or penalties to acquire force. This is not some kind of empty logic-chopping but a service to the virtue of justice, which requires due process, clarity, and consistency.
Thus, canon law is not magic. You don't get to say anything you want, slap on a few references to the Code, and voila! your wishes come true.
The canon-law case against the efficacy of the DDF Note aimed at clergy of the SSPX and laity formally adhering to it is easy to make and easy to understand if you can read English and use elementary reasoning. There are already three such articles (shared elsewhere on my FB page).
"But if the flaws are so obvious, why did no one at the DDF spot them?" Have you been paying any attention at all? Tucho Fernandez is not in his position because he's competent; he is the very last person in the universe who should be occupying that spot. Canonists have been saying for a long time that canonical literacy at the Vatican is at an all-time low, and the 12 years of Francis's pontificate were an absolute nightmare of changing and conflicting laws as well as lawlessness. It should not surprise us *in the least* that they made a mess of this too, and, no doubt, providentially.
If you think it's not possible that the DDF has royally messed up what it intended to do, I'm sorry to say it, but you haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to recent church history.
I've long said that the Church is haunted by the specter of legal positivism. But what I'm encountering among some Catholics in the past 24 hours is even worse: an irrationalism that refuses even to *consider the possibility* that the DDF "Note" aimed against the clergy and laity of the SSPX and against the validity of certain sacraments, etc., might be canonically so irregular (irony alert!) that it lacks force. In this case, I'd almost prefer people to be more legalistic, because then they'd see why Fernandez's Note is DOA.
The more the Catholic Canon Lawyers (including those NOT sympathetic to the SSPX) look into this and find flaw in the July 2nd decree leaves me in belief that this is the Holy Spirit providing protection for the faithful.
fc2112 said:
He's right now. As I said earlier on this thread - "y'all've been itching to leave for decades. Just LEAVE".
Well, they finally did in a flurry of whataboutisms aimed at Germans and transvestites and other sinners.
I know I often try to ignore the log in my eye by focusing on the splinters in other's too.
Bro, the ostensibly 9 greatest legal scholars in our country can't even decide most cases by better than 5-4 or 6-3, and you think the church is any different?
Have you read about any of our councils?
It is well known, as the above article indicates, that Francis disliked and did not trust the intellectuals in the Vatican. He , like Leo , surrounded himself will shallow yes men. The whole Synod idea is a dishonest attempt to change church teaching while pretending it is a ground up expression of the will of the Holy Spirit.
I hear you, however, the recent synod was simply an extended "listening" and follow up report of what is happening to the church in world. Surprisingly the things you may be concerned about didn't register much across the whole. The full report is on the Vatican's website.
PabloSerna said:
I hear you, however, the recent synod was simply an extended "listening" and follow up report of what is happening to the church in world. Surprisingly the things you may be concerned about didn't register much across the whole. The full report is on the Vatican's website.
Are they having Synods focused on anything but gayness or ordaining women? When can we have the "maybe don't use divorcees wearing leopard print leggings as EMHCs" synod? Or the "Bishops should not be celebrating 50 years of gay marriage" synod.
PabloSerna said:
I hear you, however, the recent synod was simply an extended "listening" and follow up report of what is happening to the church in world. Surprisingly the things you may be concerned about didn't register much across the whole. The full report is on the Vatican's website.
Your last sentence is dubious at best. I was at one of the listening sessions for my diocese, and the regional report had none of the things that dominated the conversation at the largest diocese in our region, much of which were the sort of things in Vox's comment. It's anecdotal sure, but the synod was designed such that everything could be carefully curated. All you have to do is look at the list of people who were in charge of compiling the synod synthesis documents.
HtownAg19 said:AgLiving06 said:
Or maybe just maybe… refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope is the cause of Christian division
The interesting point here is that merely submitting to the Pope is the defining factor of catholicism. No other belief comes close. You can disagree on basically anything else and still be catholic but you better bend the knee to every Pope that comes along. The Pope will cut you off quick for that infraction moreso than any Christological pondering.
Contrast that with the orthodox worldview where the churches are confederations whose highest uniting factor is...Christ.
Its like how the defining factor of all rabbinic judiasms at the end of the day is that they reject Christ.
SSPX just want to uphold the liturgical rites of catholics from less than a hundred years ago and they are excommunicated. But gay bishops run amock though.
Pretty obvious to see where the source of the global leftist surge is getting its source of power and where the Pope gets his.
You're going to get an antichrist in this world out of the catholic church in our lifetime. The Pope has set the stage for the religion of the future to be ushered in. Ecumenism, equal paths to God outside of the church, punishing conservative dissent, endorsing open borders while living behind the highest walls.
Best thing about this excommunication is all you rad trads can come out of the closet and admit how much you hate the church and how much better you think you are than normal Catholics.
You guys had to pretend to play nice, but now that you're excommunicated the gloves are off.
You guys had to pretend to play nice, but now that you're excommunicated the gloves are off.
fc2112 said:
Best thing about this excommunication is all you rad trads can come out of the closet and admit how much you hate the church and how much better you think you are than normal Catholics.
You guys had to pretend to play nice, but now that you're excommunicated the gloves are off.
What's wrong with you?
you wonder what's wrong with me while walking right past this?
Quote:
When can we have the "maybe don't use divorcees wearing leopard print leggings as EMHCs" synod?
fc2112 said:
you wonder what's wrong with me while walking right past this?Quote:
When can we have the "maybe don't use divorcees wearing leopard print leggings as EMHCs" synod?
1a. I didn't see that quoted text. Had to look back to see who wrote it.
1b. I recall previous parishes to which I've belonged did have dress codes for EMHCs.
1c. That which is called extraordinary is just so ordinary in practice. Less laity and more clergy would be nice.
1d. It would awfully nice if the laity (all stripes) had a stronger sense of and horror for sin than they currently have.
1e. I prefer Grover tee-shirts. ;-)
------
2. So yeah, I didn't spot that quote but my question still stands. You're making some broad and awful accusations there.
fc2112 said:
Best thing about this excommunication is all you rad trads can come out of the closet and admit how much you hate the church and how much better you think you are than normal Catholics.
You guys had to pretend to play nice, but now that you're excommunicated the gloves are off.
What are you talking about? I've literally said I'm no longer going to an SSPX mass. I've not said anything bad about the church or how much I hate it.
fc2112 said:
you wonder what's wrong with me while walking right past this?Quote:
When can we have the "maybe don't use divorcees wearing leopard print leggings as EMHCs" synod?
Would it help if I said I saw this very thing at mass this weekend?
How do you take this as me hating the church?
With all respect intended, griping about comparatively isolated instances of liberal individuals overstepping is a red herring and a false equivalency to a [very] flaunted usurpation and direct disobedience to the clear and plain commands from the papacy.
Ruminating on such is not a good balm to use in lieu of honest lamentation & self reconciliation.
To whit, playing games of legalese and nit picking to create justification is behavior emblematic of a mind that is in conflict with itself aiming to evade an uncomfortable conclusion it already knows: The defining aspect of Roman Catholicism is the submission to the Pope and magisterium, personal disagreements and all.
Absent that, it's not the Roman Catholic Church. That's the rather crucial bit involved from the Reformation era and was infallibly doubled-down on and dogmatized in Vatican I.
That aspect of the church structure in all of its honest historical context is quite literally the primary struggle I am working out while motioning towards conversion later this year.
Ironically, SSPX bishops (and parishioners?) flaunting of Papal authority and Vat II doctrine while maintaining other normative practices creates a challenging case to reconcile as an interested Anglican CNA convert -- seemingly having created a different "flavor" of the Solas with more emphasis on tradition and process (vs. scripture and the self) but still in dissent to papal, magisterial and conciliar overriding authority.
Ruminating on such is not a good balm to use in lieu of honest lamentation & self reconciliation.
To whit, playing games of legalese and nit picking to create justification is behavior emblematic of a mind that is in conflict with itself aiming to evade an uncomfortable conclusion it already knows: The defining aspect of Roman Catholicism is the submission to the Pope and magisterium, personal disagreements and all.
Absent that, it's not the Roman Catholic Church. That's the rather crucial bit involved from the Reformation era and was infallibly doubled-down on and dogmatized in Vatican I.
That aspect of the church structure in all of its honest historical context is quite literally the primary struggle I am working out while motioning towards conversion later this year.
Ironically, SSPX bishops (and parishioners?) flaunting of Papal authority and Vat II doctrine while maintaining other normative practices creates a challenging case to reconcile as an interested Anglican CNA convert -- seemingly having created a different "flavor" of the Solas with more emphasis on tradition and process (vs. scripture and the self) but still in dissent to papal, magisterial and conciliar overriding authority.
Fitch said:
With all respect intended, griping about comparatively isolated instances of liberal individuals overstepping is a red herring and a false equivalency to a [very] flaunted usurpation and direct disobedience to the clear and plain commands from the papacy.
Ruminating on such is not a good balm to use in lieu of honest lamentation & self reconciliation.
To whit, playing games of legalese and nit picking to create justification is behavior emblematic of a mind that is in conflict with itself aiming to evade an uncomfortable conclusion it already knows: The defining aspect of Roman Catholicism is the submission to the Pope and magisterium, personal disagreements and all.
Absent that, it's not the Roman Catholic Church. That's the rather crucial bit involved from the Reformation era and was infallibly doubled-down on and dogmatized in Vatican I.
That aspect of the church structure in all of its honest historical context is quite literally the primary struggle I am working out while motioning towards conversion later this year.
Ironically, SSPX bishops (and parishioners?) flaunting of Papal authority and Vat II doctrine while maintaining other normative practices creates a challenging case to reconcile as an interested Anglican CNA convert -- seemingly having created a different "flavor" of the Solas with more emphasis on tradition and process (vs. scripture and the self) but still in dissent to papal, magisterial and conciliar overriding authority.
I submit 100% to the Pope and the Magisterium. My comments about the actions of some of the Catholics behaving badly aren't to excuse behavior, it's to question why discipline only seems to be meted out in one direction.
that's not me saying discipline isn't deserved, that's me questioning a double standard.
The Holy See is judged by no one. The Pope doesn't answer to me, that doesn't mean I don't have questions.
I'm sympathetic to the motives of the Society, while fully agreeing that they can't do what they did and expect not to be in schism. I've stopped attending mass there, I've said multiple times I wish they hadn't consecrated the bishops. I am playing on Team Rome like a good soldier.
My point regarding the bad actors is that now we have completely clarified the position of the Society, can we address the blatant dissent to papal, magisterial and conciliar authority occurring within the progressive wings of the church?
one MEEN Ag said:HtownAg19 said:AgLiving06 said:
Or maybe just maybe… refusal to submit to the authority of the Pope is the cause of Christian division
The interesting point here is that merely submitting to the Pope is the defining factor of catholicism. No other belief comes close. You can disagree on basically anything else and still be catholic but you better bend the knee to every Pope that comes along. The Pope will cut you off quick for that infraction moreso than any Christological pondering.
Contrast that with the orthodox worldview where the churches are confederations whose highest uniting factor is...Christ.
Its like how the defining factor of all rabbinic judiasms at the end of the day is that they reject Christ.
SSPX just want to uphold the liturgical rites of catholics from less than a hundred years ago and they are excommunicated. But gay bishops run amock though.
Pretty obvious to see where the source of the global leftist surge is getting its source of power and where the Pope gets his.
You're going to get an antichrist in this world out of the catholic church in our lifetime. The Pope has set the stage for the religion of the future to be ushered in. Ecumenism, equal paths to God outside of the church, punishing conservative dissent, endorsing open borders while living behind the highest walls.
I would say the Orthodox position comes close, no? Sure, our highest uniting factor is Christ as well, but replace "Pope" with "Bishop" and you're in the same boat, no?
Sure your bishop has more leeway to shepherd as he sees fit, but at the end of the day, what he says "goes" no? Much like the Patriarch who signed off on the ordination of a Female Deacon in Africa? His word for that church is iron.
What would happen in Orthodoxy if you had a Pastor that was refusing to comply with his Bishop's authority?
No Pope that we have could do anything as bad as our first Pope, who denied Christ 3 times in one of his greatest moments of need. We've had Antipopes and icons of the Antichrist as pope before, somehow none have taught heresy. We'll make it through Leo.
Just to clear the air, my comments weren't directed at you personally. More an encapsulation of thoughts after catching up on the last couple of days of posts.
And not that you need my validation or anything, but I do agree with (most of) your positions and decisions, tough as I'm sure they are personally given the trying circumstances. I think the intellectual honestly you're exercising will make the overall situation easier to process, too.
Broadly speaking, my own intellectual honesty in the conversion dialogue rather hinges on some of the less popular components of Vat II, notably the embrace of ecumenism (albeit within the Christian faith - certainly have difficulty with non-Christian inter dialogue). Baring that, I don't think there would be a path forward.
And not that you need my validation or anything, but I do agree with (most of) your positions and decisions, tough as I'm sure they are personally given the trying circumstances. I think the intellectual honestly you're exercising will make the overall situation easier to process, too.
Broadly speaking, my own intellectual honesty in the conversion dialogue rather hinges on some of the less popular components of Vat II, notably the embrace of ecumenism (albeit within the Christian faith - certainly have difficulty with non-Christian inter dialogue). Baring that, I don't think there would be a path forward.
Quote:
With all respect intended, griping about comparatively isolated instances of liberal individuals overstepping is a red herring and a false equivalency to a [very] flaunted usurpation and direct disobedience to the clear and plain commands from the papacy
You consider the German synod "isolated overstepping" and a red herring, and pointing it out "griping"?
Good grief, dude
Captain Pablo said:Quote:
With all respect intended, griping about comparatively isolated instances of liberal individuals overstepping is a red herring and a false equivalency to a [very] flaunted usurpation and direct disobedience to the clear and plain commands from the papacy
You consider the German synod "isolated overstepping" and a red herring, and pointing it out "griping"?
Good grief, dude
fc2112 said:Captain Pablo said:Quote:
With all respect intended, griping about comparatively isolated instances of liberal individuals overstepping is a red herring and a false equivalency to a [very] flaunted usurpation and direct disobedience to the clear and plain commands from the papacy
You consider the German synod "isolated overstepping" and a red herring, and pointing it out "griping"?
Good grief, dude
You don't have anything of substance to add. Nobody is "whatabouting". The issue with the SSPX is closed, the CDF shut it firmly.
Are we just supposed to not talk about any of the other ills addressing the church now?
Vox Clamantis said:fc2112 said:Captain Pablo said:Quote:
With all respect intended, griping about comparatively isolated instances of liberal individuals overstepping is a red herring and a false equivalency to a [very] flaunted usurpation and direct disobedience to the clear and plain commands from the papacy
You consider the German synod "isolated overstepping" and a red herring, and pointing it out "griping"?
Good grief, dude
You don't have anything of substance to add. Nobody is "whatabouting". The issue with the SSPX is closed, the CDF shut it firmly.
Are we just supposed to not talk about any of the other ills addressing the church now?
Discipline such as this is supposed to be medicinal... a calling back to conversion. One can argue that Rome loves the SSPX, +Vigano, and +Strickland... and conversely hates the German bishops (as a body). Sadly, I think that's not true and the answer is more about worldly politics.
" All you have to do is look at the list of people who were in charge of compiling the synod synthesis documents."
Where is this list and what are you implying?
Where is this list and what are you implying?
As I recall you are not Catholic right? You seem more interested in dragging in the Orthodox into this topic than providing meaningful conversation.
I get it, you found your faith walk, but trying to pick off SSPX because you see an opening is kind of sad. From what I have read, the SSPX position would consider EO not worth dialogue and outside of salvation.
I get it, you found your faith walk, but trying to pick off SSPX because you see an opening is kind of sad. From what I have read, the SSPX position would consider EO not worth dialogue and outside of salvation.
" I refuse to see this internal Church conflict in binary terms... where one party is wholly in the right and the other is the baddies."
Then apostolic authority is moot.
It was St. Ambrose in the 4th century that said, where Peter is- there is the church. From what I am hearing and reading, the SSPX is done in the RCC. The chance to have continued any dialogue is over. In their place another group will step forward and there is probably one already.
As you have said, this was less about the liturgical revisions and more about doctrine that was refined going back to Vatican I. Specifically, those points about salvation outside the church, religious freedom, and ecumenical dialogue.
One of the four dogmatic constitutions of the church, Lumen Gentium (1964) is a foundational document and along with the other 3 form pillars upon which the Catholic Church will move forward through the next millennium. Those are not getting walked back.
Vatican II produced:
- 4 Constitutions
- 9 Decrees
- 3 Declarations
Going back to your initial comment; it is simply a matter of authority. Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on those documents himself. Yes, he would later contest them, but that was not what got him excommunicated- it was obedience.
Then apostolic authority is moot.
It was St. Ambrose in the 4th century that said, where Peter is- there is the church. From what I am hearing and reading, the SSPX is done in the RCC. The chance to have continued any dialogue is over. In their place another group will step forward and there is probably one already.
As you have said, this was less about the liturgical revisions and more about doctrine that was refined going back to Vatican I. Specifically, those points about salvation outside the church, religious freedom, and ecumenical dialogue.
One of the four dogmatic constitutions of the church, Lumen Gentium (1964) is a foundational document and along with the other 3 form pillars upon which the Catholic Church will move forward through the next millennium. Those are not getting walked back.
Vatican II produced:
- 4 Constitutions
- 9 Decrees
- 3 Declarations
Going back to your initial comment; it is simply a matter of authority. Archbishop Lefebvre signed off on those documents himself. Yes, he would later contest them, but that was not what got him excommunicated- it was obedience.
Objective Aggie
Sitting next to Coach Eli Drink at a hotel bar in FL…
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
11