Anna Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Perhaps that is true, I have no dates for such. However, when Marcel Lefebvre appointed his own bishops, he placed the Society, and himself, in schism, and incurred excommunication, ispso facto. Pax Christi. <>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 However, when Marcel Lefebvre appointed his own bishops, he placed the Society, and himself, in schism, and incurred excommunication, ispso facto. OK. So the church changed positions, adopted revision, and those that stuck to what WAS at that time taught as unchangeable dogma, truth, and everlasting... Got booted out for being TOO Catholic. Grin. Right? There are sites dedicated to these conservative catholics, some don't even think there has been a valid Pope since Vatican II. They are fun sites, I have enjoyed reading all the statements there. These guys are even more doctrinaire than you guys. Same mindset, but even moreso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Nope. They didn't get booted out for being too Catholic. They got booted for not taking all the facts in account and placing Faith in the real and effective operation of the Holy Spirit within others, themselves, AND the Church. Same goes for those who don't think we have a valid Pope. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Nope. They didn't get booted out for being too Catholic. They got booted for not taking all the facts in account and placing Faith in the real and effective operation of the Holy Spirit within others, themselves, AND the Church. Who "changed" them, or the denomination? Seems to ME, they have a very valid point here, they said the Catholic Church adopted heresy itself, and they make some VERY interesting CATHOLIC only based arguments to that effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Who "changed" them, or the denomination? Seems to ME, they have a very valid point here, they said the Catholic Church adopted heresy itself, and they make some VERY interesting CATHOLIC only based arguments to that effect. Easy answer. They let pride change them. They got confused about the hierachy of Truth, which is basic scientific and philosophical fact that reason shows must be applied when contemplating our understanding of God, and our obedient response to Him. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 (edited) They got confused about the hierachy of Truth, which is basic scientific and philosophical fact that reason shows must be applied when contemplating our understanding of God, and our obedient response to Him Mumbly jumbly, that is typical of what I hear when contradictions are shown to exist. Obedience to Jesus, or the Catholic Church? It would seem that the Catholic Church abrogates to herself the right to massively change, and those "truths" that were held inviolate are no longer truths. And you 'get with the man made change' or you get excommunicated. Moving doctrine, moving faith, or else. See. We prove you change, yet you alway insist you are eternal, even conservative Catholics have seen that, yet Cardinal Newman, and his ever shifting program of "Magisterium" comes riding to the rescue yet again. Cannonize him, quick. He is the best man you ever signed up for apologetics. Love that concept, we are right, no matter what. Edited January 13, 2004 by Bruce S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 How did we go from Satanic masses to the Society of Saint Pius X? I sincerely hope that we are not equating the two. There is no comparison. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 (edited) How did we go from Satanic masses to the Society of Saint Pius X? I sincerely hope that we are not equating the two. Grin, good point, this did get sidetracked. I'm a fan of Satanic Masses, why, how, and by whom....not OF them, the study of them. Go read WINDSWEPT HOUSE for the Mass itself, the phraseolgy and look to what MIGHT have happened, it is alluded later on, by the author, a Jesuit inside the Vatican at the time, to be true. Good read. Edited January 13, 2004 by Bruce S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Bruce, Marcel Lefebvre wasn't "booted" out of the Church. He incurred excommunication ipso facto. He excommunicated himself, by appointing his own bishops. Holding fast to the traditions of the Old Mass is not wrong, illegal, or an excommunicable offense, as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter is an order which sprung from Lefebvre's group and affirmed loyalty to the pope when Lefebvre appointed his own bishops. The Fraternity still exists today, and is one of the Church's fastest growing orders, in fact. I'm honored to know a few of these seminarians. Pax Christi. <>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Bruce, I have read Windswept House and several other of Fr. Martin's books. They are fanscinating tales. He is a gifted storyteller. However, he requested laicization. He broke his promises and his vows. I don't know the reasons for this, and I'm sure that to him the reasons were noble and good. However, it does induce a level of scepticism about his agenda. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 (edited) I have read Windswept House and several other of Fr. Martin's books. They are fanscinating tales. He is a gifted storyteller. However, he requested laicization. He broke his promises and his vows. I don't know the reasons for this, and I'm sure that to him the reasons were noble and good. However, it does induce a level of scepticism about his agenda. I got turned on to Fr. Martin about 10 years ago. His insightful glimpses of the REAL Vatican, behind the mask they want the world to see, is fascinating. I know he opted out of his order, I think it was in revulsion to what he learned while inside the church. He was NOT anti-catholic. In fact, just the opposite, he is the MOST catholic of any author that I've ever read in novel form. I strongly suggest that others of his books be read too: A former Jesuit professor and author of the national bestsellers Vatican, The Final Conclave, and Hostage to the Devil, Malachi Martin unravels the hidden politics and alliances of popes and cardinals, bishops and priests. Great stuff, all true, WOW, if you think your denomination is what it always purports to be, these books will certainly open some eyes around here. Edited January 13, 2004 by Bruce S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willguy Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 So, lemme get this straight Bruce, there's some hiden truth that's been known about but covered up for hundreds of years, and then Joe Schmoe with a questionable motive comes along and unveils it. Wow, sounds like the same arguement used for Luther. No wonder you like this guy so much. Honestly, you think we buy any of this? I've seen so many anti-Catholic conspiracy theories and "hidden agendas and alliances" it'd make your head spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Great stuff, all true, WOW, if you think your denomination is what it always purports to be, these books will certainly open some eyes around here. All true?!! You wish that were so, Bruce. Even Martin himself calls his work "faction," part fact, and part fiction. It's meant to entertain, not inform. And entertain it does, particularly when it points a finger negatively at Christ's Church, now doesn't it Bruce? Grin. Pax Christi. <>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Bruce, I have read all of the novels you listed. I've even read Martin's book (non-fiction) on the Jesuits (talk about a weighty tome)and his history of the popes (The Decline and Fall of Rome). While (as I've stated previously) was enourmously entertained, and did ponder some of the points he raised, he obviously had an agenda. According to his book on the popes, there hasn't been a single "good" Pope since Constintine. He obviously had an axe to grind. Should he be dismissed out of hand? No. Should his writings be taken as gospel? NO. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 There is nothing wrong with the Church disbanding an order that was previosuly approved. It is a matter of Church legistaltion, not infallible decree. It has happened a few times in Church history, in fact, the Jesuits were once disbanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now