For Cam especially...

[Tarcisius]

The Cardinal says they are in communion. Rome says that if you doubt the validity of the NO, do not attend. Rome says that those who attend an SSPX Mass without a schismatic attitude are fine.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Mar 26 2006, 01:17 PM']Im not sure how you reconcile that with the Cardinals statements. Again it seems as though you spitefully want the SSPX faithful out of the Church.
[right][snapback]922704[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because the Cardinal said this:

[quote name='Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos'][b]There is[/b], in the act of ordaining bishops with out papal approval, [b]a schismatic attitude.[/b][/quote]

Thanks for giving support to Cmom. Unfortunately for you, you bolded the wrong part of the paragraph.

Rome does not say they are in full communion. They have an incorrect view of Tradition. Would you like to point to where Rome says they are in full communion?

Would you like to point to where Rome has lifted the excommunications and the schims outlined in Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei? I would be interested in reading that.

Please don't simply ignore the questions. It is so typical for the SSPX and their supporters to simply NOT answer those questions. So, if you are going to call Cmom out, I will call you out. Good Luck.

[Tarcisius]

O noooo you called me out..nahhhhhh

They are within
the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a
full, a more perfect – and as it was said during the meeting with Msgr.
Fellay – a more full communion, because communion exists.

So typical of Neo-cons to avoid that statement, it says it all, COMMUNION EXISTS, THEY ARE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CHURCH.

Lefebvre might still be excommunicated right now, but that does not auto-excommunicate everyone else.

And again I must ask why do you all want/crave the excomunication of those faithfull to the SSPX, you want them to suffer damnation because they want to give more reverence to the Lord then can be found at any NO parish.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Mar 26 2006, 06:09 PM']O noooo you called me out..nahhhhhh

They are within
the confines of the Church. The problem is just that there is a lack of a
full, a more perfect – and as it was said during the meeting with Msgr.
Fellay – a more full communion, because communion exists.

So typical of Neo-cons to avoid that statement, it says it all, COMMUNION EXISTS, THEY ARE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CHURCH.

Lefebvre might still be excommunicated right now, but that does not auto-excommunicate everyone else.

And again I must ask why do you all want/crave the excomunication of those faithfull to the SSPX, you want them to suffer damnation because they want to give more reverence to the Lord then can be found at any NO parish.
[right][snapback]922839[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nice dodge. Answer the questions. Typical. We don't crave the excommunication, we simply recognize it. We are obedient to the mandate of the Papacy.

[Tarcisius]

Im not tryin to play word games with you, I answered the questions, I showed you where Rome says they are in comunion, I aswered the excom statement. You continually ignore the important few lines that I posted and try to scare me off with bully tactics, i dont care about winning an argument or anything else but the truth, you seem to care about keeping your SSPX predjudices justified.

[Jaime]

Oooh boy

This could be on pay per view!

[brendan1104]

Edited March 27, 2006 by brendan1104

[rkwright]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Mar 26 2006, 11:24 AM']Therefore, this is a question of reaffirming the autority of the bishops,
but at the same time, a call to their conscience to avoid useless
inflexibility, and to contribute to the long process of dialogue with the
Lefebvrists, which had already been undertaken under the pontificate of
John-Paul II, who, in 1988, had [b]excommunicated[/b] the French Archibishop for
having ordained four bishops in an illicit fashion.

[right][snapback]922668[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

If they are in communion, why are they excommunicated (means NOT in communion) as your own article states?

[Tarcisius]

those faithfull to SSPX are not excomunicated, only Lefebvre and possiblly the Bishops he consecrated, that is it.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Mar 26 2006, 06:41 PM']those faithfull to SSPX are not excomunicated, only Lefebvre and possiblly the Bishops he consecrated, that is it.
[right][snapback]922944[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

and why again would you be more faithful to an excommunicatd Bishop than the Church??

[Cam42]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Mar 26 2006, 06:31 PM']Im not tryin to play word games with you, I answered the questions, I showed you where Rome says they are in comunion, I aswered the excom statement. You continually ignore the important few lines that I posted and try to scare me off with bully tactics, i dont care about winning an argument or anything else but the truth, you seem to care about keeping your SSPX predjudices justified.
[right][snapback]922859[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No you didn't. You gave the opinion of one prelate. I don't continually ignore anything.

I am not prejudiced against the SSPX. That is an ad hominem. Shall I post the Motu Proprio for you? I think I shall....

[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #3']In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[/quote]

I think that speaks directly to the archbishop and to the bishops he consecrated. They are excommunicated.

[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #4']The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.[/quote]

And this speaks directly to the idea of Tradition that I spoke of previously. And what kind of act is this defined as, according to the Pontiff? A schismatic act. This is not prejudice, this is the truth.

While the adherents are not excommunicated, the priests who are ordained are suspended and excommunicated, upon ordination. They have no faculties to function as priests under the local Ordinary.

[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #5c']In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law.[/quote]

This speaks directly to my statement above. And this applies to all Catholics, even those who attend the SSPX chapels. (Hmmmm......I wonder why they are called chapels and not parishes? Oh yeah, that is because they don't have jurisdiction.)

[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #5a']The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.[/quote]

So, how do you reconcile your feeble position with that of Holy Mother Church and the Vicar of Christ, Tarcisius? If you have some holy insight into the inner workings of the Church that the Holy Father, his bishops and the scores of theologians (myself included) don't, please enlighten us.

[Dave]

[quote name='Tarcisius' date='Mar 26 2006, 01:04 PM']The Cardinal says they are in communion. Rome says that if you doubt the validity of the NO, do not attend. Rome says that those who attend an SSPX Mass without a schismatic attitude are fine.
[right][snapback]922728[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. The Cardinal says no such thing.

2. Rome says that if you doubt the validity of the NO, then you commit heresy and schism.

3. Those who attend an SSPX Mass are NOT fine. It doesn't matter whether they have a "schismatic attitude" or not; objectively speaking they're being an accessory to the sin of schism.

[brendan1104]

Ok Dave. Would like to reference and further support /prove your claims? I didn't know you were a theologian. You must be very busy studying. Rahner? Congar? Or Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, or even simple works/studies from Ott or Denzinger? How about the Ottaviani intervention? At least Msgr. Gamber, right? Please enlighten us.

Edited March 27, 2006 by brendan1104

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Mar 26 2006, 10:31 PM']Ok Dave. Would like to reference and further support /prove your claims? I didn't know you were a theologian. You must be very busy studying. Rahner? Congar? Or Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, or even simple works/studies from Ott or Denzinger? How about the Ottaviani intervention? At least Msgr. Gamber, right? Please enlighten us.
[right][snapback]923126[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do you really want to get into a theological shouting match.....cuz I'll back Dave, in a heartbeat.....wanna play again? Ya know, I've studied all of those men, and I have spoken to everything that you have put forth thus far on any thread.....I'll let Dave do most of the work, if he wants, but I am not intimidated by your bully tactics.....btw, how about a simple dissertation from you on Dogmatic theology as defined by Ott. I would be intereseted in know your thoughts......not some canned cut and paste. How about a 1000 word essay. That should suffice to start.

He's not wrong.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 26 2006, 09:48 PM']Do you really want to get into a theological shouting match.....cuz I'll back Dave, in a heartbeat.....wanna play again?

He's not wrong.
[right][snapback]923135[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


all this argument makes me tired of Catholicism.