| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| New head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Wednesday, 19. September 2012, 01:07 (808 Views) | |
| Mairtin | Monday, 24. September 2012, 07:21 Post #31 |
|
Feel free to remind me when I set myself up as a bishop, claiming the authority to interpret Church doctrine. Or feel free to simply point out where I have instructed other people that they should accept my opinions over those of the Pope and his bishops. |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:06 Post #32 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I'll invite you to kiss my ring since you are implying that I have set myself up as bishop, claiming the authority to authentically interpret Church doctrine. That aside, do you not think that the SSPX bishops have not had the right formation, and probably a greater degree of education and training than most of their diocesan counterparts? They are valid bishops, with the same training etc, rite of consecration that bishops prior to the Council would have received - or are you now implying that all bishops prior to the Council could not authentically interpret Church doctrine. I'm willing to bet that they were better informed and had greater understanding of theology and Church doctrine than today's bishops. And a lot of today's bishops would have been excommunicated by the Popes that reigned prior to the Council. Would the SSPX bishops been excommunicated by the likes of Pope St Pius V, Leo XIII, Pope St Pius X or Pope Pius XII? No. Why? Because there would have been no difference between them and the SSPX bishops. What do you think would have happened to the likes of ++Mueller? It's a pretty safe bet he would have never headed any diocese, let alone hold any curial office. It is my opinion that the hierarchy prior to the Council would have definitely thought today's crop a bunch of heretics. Progressivism/modernism has been repeatedly condemned in times past. If it was a heresy then, it's a heresy now. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:31 Post #33 |
![]()
|
Valid but illicit and they did not have the same training and formation as other bishops before or after the Council but a very narrow formation within a very dubious theological validity. The SSPX is not in full communion and until it is then any claims that they have any legitimate authority within the Catholic Church are false. Mairtin made no claims to personal authority he correctly identified the Authority of the Pope who will not be dictated to by Bishops from SSPX. It is time for them to make a choice, accept the authority of the current Pope; the directives of the Second Vatican Council and embrace its spirit of renewal, the authority of Pope Paul VI and his rulings, the authority of Pope John Paul 1 and his rulings and the Authority and rulings of JPII. They should then be given instruction and successfully complete an examination in the 1983 Code of Canon Law prior to being granted any faculties, (as is required of all other priests and bishops). If they pass these simple tests then they may be considered fit to serve in the ordained priesthood of the Catholic Church, until then however valid their orders are, they are not fit and have no authority and are in no position to dictate terms. |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:41 Post #34 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Take the example of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Extremely close to the Popes he served under, prior to Vatican II. Excommunicated by a post-Concilar Pope. Would pre-conciliar popes excommunicated ++Lefebvre? Would they have refused him papal mandate to consecrate bishops for his society? Would his society have been suppressed as it was by the post-conciliar Paul VI? No. It's conjecture on my part but if the Council had not happened, ++Lefebvre would no doubt been elevated to the Cardinalate and may even been elected Pope. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:50 Post #35 |
![]()
Administrator
|
If that's the case, why was Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith reported to say he'd be open to the SSPX running his seminary, should they be regularised. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:56 Post #36 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Penfold, as admirable as your intentions are, you missed the point. Mairtin, in his post, implied I have set myself up as bishop. When Mairtin (as he often does) takes a stab at Traditionalists, he is normally referring to laity. Since SSPX clergy weren't mentioned, the dig was at me and other Trad laity. Fancy that...me a bishop. Thanks, but no thanks. Edited to clear something up: The bishops of the SSPX possess no jurisdiction nor claim any. They were consecrated as basically sacramental machines. They exercise no jurisdiction. To do so would constitute an act of schism. Edited by Angus Toanimo, Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:02.
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| draig | Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:04 Post #37 |
![]()
|
Sure. If the Watch Officer on the Titanic had not ordered the ship to turn aside she would have hit the iceberg bow-on and so would not have sunk. Also, if there had been no jews in Europe then maybe Adolf Hitler would have not decended into racial hatred as an excuse for genocide, so would be highly regarded as a politician and just maybe would have been made the first president of the EEC! Unfortunately we do not live in a parallel universe and have to deal with THIS reality. There was another person who was very close to the religious leader of his time and yet decended in to error even whilst that leader was still alive. His name was Peter and he became a great leader - but only after he repented of his error. |
| Gripe. Moan. Snipe. Ignore any inconvenient truth. Don't provide specific data. Don't, whatever you do, provide links to hard evidence. The Traditional Way To Maintain A Discussion. | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:10 Post #38 |
![]()
Administrator
|
To be fair, Draig, I did say it was only conjecture on my part... Was the SS Titanic actually the Titanic? There have always been Jews in Europe and they, throughout history, have been treated awfully by many countries and kicked out of most of them. Had there been no Jews in Europe, Hitler would have still targeted Gyspies and other ethic groups, and homosexuals. Edited by Angus Toanimo, Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:11.
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Penfold | Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:29 Post #39 |
![]()
|
Pay heed to the key phrase;
As part of being regularised they would have to agree a syllabus and accreditation for examinations by a recognised university, with the Congregation for Catholic Education (for Seminaries and Educational Institutions) and all members of the faculty would also have to be approved by the congregation and required to swear the oath of fidelity.
I have highlighted a few bits which have caused a few problems for the SSPX both now and in the past. Angus, the SSPX have to accept that they are in error and that it is they and not the Pope who have to make adjustments to their way of doing things if they are to be received back into full communion with the church. I say again the key phrase you need to watch is for regulisation will require compliance with the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Edited by Penfold, Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:56.
|
![]() |
|
| draig | Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:34 Post #40 |
![]()
|
Actually she was the RMS Titanic, having been granted a charter to carry Royal Mail. I also suspect that jews were rather scarce in Europe at the time of Jakcob, but I take your point - minority leaders quite oftern seek to subvert the majority and gain power by using spurious arguments. |
| Gripe. Moan. Snipe. Ignore any inconvenient truth. Don't provide specific data. Don't, whatever you do, provide links to hard evidence. The Traditional Way To Maintain A Discussion. | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 24. September 2012, 18:06 Post #41 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I get the impression Mairtin was referring to the SSPX bishops, not to Angus. In case that is what he meant, I will clarify that the SSPX bishops did not set themselves up as bishops, they were validly consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, despite him having been ordered by the Pope not to do that. Therefore they were consecrated as bishops, validly but illicitly, in direct disobedience to the Holy Father.
That won't work, Mairtin. To be a real bishop you will need to persuade a bishop to ordain you to priesthood then consecrate you as a bishop. Don't you dare! Your wife and children won't like it! |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 25. September 2012, 03:45 Post #42 |
|
I did no such thing and the childishness of your response simply shows the emptiness of your arguments.
On the contrary, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been treated far more harshly than they have been for their blatant disobedience - under some earlier Popes, they could have faced a very hot end on top of a pile of wood. Can you seriously imagine Pope Pius X tolerating the sort of open defiance that the SSPX demonstrate? |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 25. September 2012, 03:55 Post #43 |
|
I did no such thing.
The only "dig" I was having at you and (some) other Trads is the way in which you disparage recent popes. On this forum, you have regularly referred to Pope John Paul II in terms that I doubt would be tolerated from any other poster. Yourself and another regular poster here run another forum where the current Pope has been described in terms that are nothing short of disgusting for a forum claiming to be Catholic .
They claim the authority to advise their followers not to participate in the Ordinary form of Mass specified by the Church and celebrated by the Pope himself, even where that means them failing to discharge their Sunday obligation. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 25. September 2012, 04:06 Post #44 |
|
You never know, Rose ... Sinead O'Connor was ordained by Michael Cox who makes similar claims as the SSPX that his consecration was illicit but valid
|
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Friday, 30. November 2012, 00:35 Post #45 |
![]()
Administrator
|
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16380
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/concilio-20155/
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |











8:36 PM Jul 11