It is currently Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:42 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
 Is the SSPX practically sedevacantist? 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Is the SSPX practically sedevacantist?
From John Grasmeier, owner of Angelqueen:

John Grasmeier wrote:
Can you point out an instance where a Society priest or bishop is being disobedient to the Holy Father?


Can anybody please point out an instance of the Fraternity as a whole, or one of its priests or bishops, obeying any command of the Holy Father (so called)?

Some months ago Bishop Fellay said that when "the Holy Father" calls he comes. The only problem is, that's about the extent of his "obedience" to that "Holy Father." The exception proves the rule.

Let's see, the Fraternity has its own chapels in dioceses around the world, unauthorised in any particular case or on the whole by "rome." It has no subjection to the local hierarchy of the Novus Ordo sect. It does not even have contact with that lowerarchy, actually. The Fraternity has no permission to run seminaries, and the bishops have been declared suspended so that they may not ordain or confirm, etc. The Fraternity runs its own tribunal for determining the validity or otherwise of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. The Fraternity specifically imposes on couples who approach it for this purpose that they do not approach "rome's" tribunal.

In a word, the Fraternity runs an entirely distinct counter-operation in diametrical opposition to the Conciliar sect. The Fraternity's sedeplenism is all words and no action.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Err... don't they accept the New Code of Canon Law and then decide which bits they will follow? From what Fr Scott says you can be a freemason now and it's ok with him because the Pope has said so. Also a Catholic can marry in non-Catholic ceremony without dispensation and the marriage is valid....seems like they are following Rome to me.

Pia


Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
don't they accept the New Code of Canon Law and then decide which bits they will follow?

Only a certain law obliges. If one considers the Nopes to be popes, on some level, then one will consider the relaxations of the law to be lamentable but valid - and valid even if doubtful, if you see what I mean. Because they render the (old) law doubtful. But please, give examples. I am sure you wish to be just to all.

In any case, the point is that the Fraternity do not treat "rome" as Rome. If it truly "picks and chooses" then it is not submitting as a Catholic does to Rome. I don't think it does "pick and choose" anyway, but that's a separate discussion.

Pia wrote:
From what Fr Scott says you can be a freemason now and it's ok with him because the Pope has said so.

Really? It's OK with him? Would you like to clarify this allegation, Pia?

Pia wrote:
Also a Catholic can marry in non-Catholic ceremony without dispensation and the marriage is valid....seems like they are following Rome to me.

I presume you mean "rome."

But please explain the relevant principles of matrimonial law and why such a case would be invalid under the old law. And please add an explanation of your judgement that if one thinks the resulting marriage in such a case is valid, then one is following "rome." You write as though you know all about these things.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:08 am
Profile E-mail
New post 
For further clarification about the standards of conduct when posting words for the world to see, please scroll down the AQ thread to read what "servitium" has to say about various "nerdy intellectuals" whom he calls out by name and upon whom he heaps vulgarity. Then note that he has gone back to "BLEEPS!"

He wonders how "foolish and insignificant laypeople with no authority to be declaring such NOW in public" :D :D :D

I'm thinking he's been reading up on the Theology Manuals posted on Bellarmine Forums and has begun to see the Sacred in Theology!

But since there was no intention of posting, no reading and learning about charity.


Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Well John,

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'obeying'. I would say that if Bishop Fellay says "when "the Holy Father" calls he comes" is an instance of obeying.

You said
Quote:
If one considers the Nopes to be popes, on some level, then one will consider the relaxations of the law to lamentable but valid - and valid even if doubtful, if you see what I mean.


What on earth can this mean? You are swinging from one thing to another. Are the SSPX obeying these laws that you say are lamentable but valid? That is the question. To clarify my earlier remarks I quote Fr P Scott:

"Finally there are other canons that depend purely and simply upon the will of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Church’s supreme legislator, such as the granting of indulgences or censures or obligations under pain of mortal sin. In such cases, we are obliged to accept the much reduced protection for the Church, her Faith and her moral life that the New Code provides.

One typical example of this is the law that frees Catholics who have formally apostasized from the Church from the obligation of observing the canonical form of marriage (Canon 1117). This canon is also a tragic betrayal of the Faith. It means that a Catholic can be recognized to have left the Church, that one who is a Catholic is not necessarily always a Catholic, namely that one has a right to apostasize, that the Church recognizes, permitting a Catholic in such a state to marry validly outside the Church. This causes great confusion, for when such persons return to the Church, usually after the failure of their non-Catholic marriage, they are no longer free to marry in the Church, on account of the sins committed in apostasy. However, since the Pope does not bind such persons to the canonical form of marriage, neither can we, and consequently we have to accept this Canon, as unfortunate as it might be.

The same applies for censures, such as the excommunication against freemasons contained in the 1917 Code (Canon 2335), but no longer contained, alas, in the 1983 Code (Canon 1374). Those who joined the freemasonic sect after 1983 cannot, then, be considered as automatically excommunicated."

So are you saying that they (the SSPX) would regard a person who has apostasized from the Church and not observed the canonical form of marriage to NOT be validly married outside the Church? Or that they (the SSPX) would regard a person who joined the freemasonic sect after 1983 as excommunicated? If you have evidence that they would PLEASE let us know.

Pia


Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Dear Pia,

Can one be partially obedient? If I tell my son to take his shoes to the mudroom...and he takes one of his toys to the mudroom and plays with it instead...is he being partially obedient or just disobedient?

Can one take an oath of partial obedience?

:)


Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:00 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
Well John,

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'obeying'. I would say that if Bishop Fellay says "when "the Holy Father" calls he comes" is an instance of obeying.


I agree. It's the exception.

Considering the relaxations of various laws as valid is not "obeying" anything. It is merely observing a fact. Yes, I agree the fact is not factual. The laws have not been relaxed.

You didn't answer my question regarding the validity of marriage. You said, "Also a Catholic can marry in non-Catholic ceremony without dispensation and the marriage is valid." I asked you, in response, "But please explain the relevant principles of matrimonial law and why such a case would be invalid under the old law. And please add an explanation of your judgement that if one thinks the resulting marriage in such a case is valid, then one is following 'rome'."

You have not explained anything - you have just given us Fr. Scott's opinion. Please explain why you stated what you stated. Or feel free to admit that you haven't a sufficient basis for your accusation and we can forget it and move on.

Pia wrote:
You said
Quote:
If one considers the Nopes to be popes, on some level, then one will consider the relaxations of the law to lamentable but valid - and valid even if doubtful, if you see what I mean.


What on earth can this mean? You are swinging from one thing to another. Are the SSPX obeying these laws that you say are lamentable but valid? That is the question.


I don't say that the laws are valid. If you think I do, then I don't know what to say.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:49 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

I think the quote of Fr Scott amply shows that the SSPX are prepared to be obedient to the Vatican II popes in as much as they are prepared to accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law and apply this Code, which, in the instances Fr Scott gives, departs from the traditional teaching of the Church, to the souls who attend their Mass centres and receive Sacraments from them and through them.

I do not think you are so unread as to not know to which Canons Fr Scott is referring and if you wish to look them up and post them please do so. I for one know whiich they are and so apparently does Fr Scott.

You asked for an example of "the Fraternity as a whole, or one of its priests or bishops, obeying any command of the Holy Father (so called)?" I have given you one I'm afraid you cannot just be childish and say well I don't accept this as an example. Hard Luck it is one!

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Robert, :lol:

As I said it depends on what you regard as obedience! If it is the shoes you want in the mudroom then I suppose no but if it is your son as well as the shoes then yes he is partially. Oh the ridiculous realms of philosophy! :lol:

Pia


Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Dear Pia,

Oh the ridiculous realms of philosophy!

Precisely...only a "philosopher" could think that he was being obedient. :)

I pray he does not grow up to be a "philosopher".


Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:19 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Well Robert he could do worse I suppose - he could grow up to be a sociologist! :roll: :D


Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
PS. You are an old wise one aint you?!!!!


Sat Aug 26, 2006 7:24 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
John,

I think the quote of Fr Scott amply shows that the SSPX are prepared to be obedient to the Vatican II popes in as much as they are prepared to accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law and apply this Code, which, in the instances Fr Scott gives, departs from the traditional teaching of the Church, to the souls who attend their Mass centres and receive Sacraments from them and through them.

I do not think you are so unread as to not know to which Canons Fr Scott is referring and if you wish to look them up and post them please do so. I for one know whiich they are and so apparently does Fr Scott.


Dear Pia,

There is obviously a degree to which the SSPX takes the revolutionary changes as valid. My question was actually a different one. I see now that it was badly expressed. What I was asking was Does the SSPX permit the Novus Ordo authorities to govern it? There are two aspects to authority - two powers, if you like. The power to legislate, and the power to enforce the law - whether that be legislated law or common law (custom), or divine law. I am asking about the second power.

The first power - the power to make laws - is a difficult matter in itself in our time, and I think the dispute about the Pius XII Holy Week makes that abundantly clear. Many of the Oyster Bay Nine priests simply refuse to consider the legislation of Pius XII on that matter as binding in the beginning or alternatively (Fr. Cekada's view) as any longer binding. Further, there is the problem of John XXIII, not yet solved to anybody's satisfaction, I think. If he was pope, then his laws obviously have a different status than if he wasn't pope.

But leaving aside all of that controversy, what about the second power - the power to enforce law. Does the SSPX obey any command emanating from "rome" (e.g. the command not to consecrate bishops, the command not to run seminaries, ordain priests, set up chapels in opposition to and without the approval of the local "ordinaries", the requirement to say the traditional Mass only under the Indult, etc.) The question is, can an SSPX priest really think of himself as subject to Ratzinger as one is subject to a superior? The answer can only be No, surely.

Pia wrote:
You asked for an example of "the Fraternity as a whole, or one of its priests or bishops, obeying any command of the Holy Father (so called)?" I have given you one I'm afraid you cannot just be childish and say well I don't accept this as an example. Hard Luck it is one!


Let's keep this polite please. I agree, I cannot just deny facts, and you will be pleased to know that I have no desire to do so. I am for seeing what is really there, not for fitting pople and organisations into pre-packaged positions just so my pet theory remains intact.

Of course, one may legitimately consider the SSPX position a terrible thing in itself. But that is a separate question again, which I am also prepared to discuss.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:43 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:21 pm
Posts: 56
New post 
Per se, one should always obey a lawful superior, but per accidens one may be obliged to disobey. To imagine otherwise is to ignore the exegencies of life and the principle of equity. One can discuss whether or not there is a necessary and sufficient reason to disobey, but to rule out, a priori and notion of legitimate resistance betrays reality.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:34 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post Jon Grasmeier's question
John Grasmeier seems to be one of those who are "invincibly ignorant". Can he be saved?
No offense John. :roll:


Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:55 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

I am afraid you have started with one question and ended with another.

To the first part of your paragraph - Does the SSPX obey any (my emphasis) emanating from "rome"(?) - the answer is surely 'Yes'.

As to your second question you have surely confirmed what has been said previously that the SSPX obey "rome" to suit themselves. The 'cafeteria' style Catholicism. This is, as others have already said, surely a schismatic mentality. What you have posted above makes it perfectly clear. Thank you.

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:45 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Pia,

Pia wrote:
I am afraid you have started with one question and ended with another.

I'm sorry. I hope there is sufficient good will on your part to consider what I am actually asking, despite my inability to express myself clearly.


Pia wrote:
To the first part of your paragraph - Does the SSPX obey any (my emphasis) emanating from "rome"(?) - the answer is surely 'Yes'.


"Command" is the word you managed to omit. Not "law" but command. Instruction. Order. What do they do which Benedict tells them to do? Nothing. Do they consider the relaxation of the fasting law to be valid? Yes, and they lament it. But do they cease offering the true Mass and replace it with the Novus Ordo? No. Do they cease preaching the true Faith and instead impose the New Catechism? No. Do they accept the new "Annulments"? No, they run their own tribunal.

These are just facts. Are you perhaps afraid that if you admit these facts you will not be able to make your negative judgement, as follows?

Pia wrote:
As to your second question you have surely confirmed what has been said previously that the SSPX obey "rome" to suit themselves. The 'cafeteria' style Catholicism. This is, as others have already said, surely a schismatic mentality.


Now, they might well have a "pick and choose" mentality. They may well be schismatics or heading for schism. We could discuss those very grave allegations which I presume you only make with the greatest reluctance after being forced to do so by the elimination of all kinder possibilities. That is, I presume you have approached these judgements with the attitude of a good Catholic, as Fr. Baker did.

So let's examine the process and see how it works. And since you are undoubtedly following a beautifully Catholic process, as you assure us, then you have nothing to fear and everybody else will learn from you how we should arrive at the same rather drastic conclusions.

Agreed?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:34 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John, (sorry about the ommission of your word)

Are not the laws there to be obeyed? As ever you start with one thing then change it to suit yourself it seems. Law? Command? Instruction? Order?. I know in my Rogets these words are very much connected and even interchangeable. Are you saying that the SSPX do not apply the 1983 Code to their 'disobedient'/ 'unlawful' tribunals?

"it was always the same, it is still the same, it will always be the same, for those who will open their eyes and see. In all learning worth the name there comes a point where the brain of man seems to fail. He can argue and prove no further; for the rest either he sees or he does not. Those who do not see may pass by, and ignore, and be satisfied with their blindness; and those who see can only pity them, unable to tell them what they know."

Aye either thee or me is blind.

To love the Lord thy God with they whole heart and then thy neighbour as thyself. God who is truth - love truth first then, and only then, charity.

Pia


Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:52 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Pia wrote:
To love the Lord thy God with they whole heart and then thy neighbour as thyself. God who is truth - love truth first then, and only then, charity.


Dear Pia,

Yes, we must love truth first, then charity. But I think you may want to consider one thing. We cannot love what we do not know. We cannot love a truth that we do not know. Who of us can say they know any truth other that what is given to us by the Church's very own teaching. Any other "truths" we think we might know are not things we can be certain of...so then, in those things, charity first.

Charity toward those who appear in all ways to be fellow Catholics. We show them charity because we know them and love them. They are of the household.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus wrote:
Among the numberless graces I have received this year, not the least is an understanding of how far-reaching is the precept of charity. I had never before fathomed these words of our Lord: “The second commandment is like to the first: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I had set myself above all to love God, and it was in loving him that I discovered the hidden meaning of these other words: “It is not those who say, Lord, Lord! who enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the Will of my Father.”

Jesus revealed me this Will when at the Last Supper He gave His New Commandment in telling His Apostles to love one another as He had loved them. I set myself to find how He had loved His Apostles; and I saw it was not for their natural qualities, for they were ignorant men, full of earthly ideas. And yet He calls them His Friends, His Brethren; He desires to see them near Him in the Kingdom of His Father, and in order to admit them to this Kingdom He wills to die on the cross, saying: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

As I meditated on these Divine words, I saw how imperfect was the love I bore my Sisters in religion. I understood that I did not love them as Our Lord loves them. I know now that true charity consists in bearing all our neighbors’ defects-not being surprised at their weakness, but edified at their smallest virtues. Above all, I know that charity must not be shut up in the heart, for “No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they who come in may see the light”

It seems to me, dear Mother, this candle represents that charity which enlightens and gladdens, not only those who are dear to us, but all those who are of the household.


Yes, Pia, Aye either thee or me is blind.

In Christ,

Robert


Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Robert,

You said
Quote:
Who of us can say they know any truth other than what is given to us by the Church,s very own teaching.
. I think myself that this only partially true for that is not the definition of Faith that I was taught. Too many place too much on the writings of other men. God first. What God has revealed through His Church is important but what God reveals even to the most insignificant and lowly must also be taken into account - a fact that St Therese was only to keen to emphasize.

As I said in my other post If it is me that is blind - 'Lord that I may see!'

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:49 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Pia wrote:
What God has revealed through His Church is important but what God reveals even to the most insignificant and lowly must also be taken into account...


Dear Pia,

That is either heretical or proximate to heresy. Please withdraw it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:42 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

How dare you. I was taught that Faith is "The acceptance without doubt of whatever God has revealed to you" And that includes the teachings of the Church and whatever God has revealed to your individual soul (no matter how insignificant and lowly your soul may be). In as much as this is so I can be certain.

I say again how dare you accuse me of heresy! I now see why I am so uneasy about you.

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Pia wrote:
John,

How dare you. I was taught that Faith is "The acceptance without doubt of whatever God has revealed to you" And that includes the teachings of the Church and whatever God has revealed to your individual soul (no matter how insignificant and lowly your soul may be). In as much as this is so I can be certain.

I say again how dare you accuse me of heresy! I now see why I am so uneasy about you.

Pia


Dear Pia,

If Our Lord gives you an private revelation, then I must believe it? You can't possibly be saying this, can you? I think we are speaking here of what all Catholics must believe...a private revelation you or I may receive is not something all Catholics must believe...unless it is approved by the Church.

I have unknowingly stated things in the past that were either heretical, proximate to heresy, or just erroneous. I was happy to have someone correct me. I did not take the correction as an insult or attack. It's just a mistake or a thought expressed incorrectly. I may have just expressed something here incorrectly...I welcome any correction if what I say is in conflict with what the Church teaches. I wish to be correct. I must admit though, at times, I do dislike being corrected...especially by someone I don't care for.

But that is my problem, isn't it? Maybe, at times, many times, I love myself more than I love truth...most of us do.

In Christ,

Robert


Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:36 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:34 am
Posts: 36
New post 
Robert Bastaja wrote:

...I think we are speaking here of what all Catholics must believe...a private revelation you or I may receive is not something all Catholics must believe...unless it is approved by the Church.

...I welcome any correction if what I say is in conflict with what the Church teaches. I wish to be correct. I must admit though, at times, I do dislike being corrected...especially by someone I don't care for.



Hi Robert,

I hope I do not fall into the category of someone you don't care for...watch out you are about to be corrected. :)


Here is an excerpt from a previous thread on the Forum entitled, "Catholic Teaching on Private Revelation - Excellent Summary". It's a few pages back now.


Rev. Michael Walsh, B.D.. B..A , The Apparition At Knock - A Survey Of Facts And Evidence, 2nd ed. St. Jarlath’s College, Tuam, 1959. Pp 10-14. Chapter IV - Catholic Teaching

HERE it may be well to summarise Catholic teaching on the class of supernatural phenomena with which we are dealing, namely, revelations, visions, apparitions.

Divine revelation is a manifestation of a truth by God to man in a manner beyond the ordinary course of nature. Public revelation is addressed to the whole human race. It is contained in the Bible and in Apostolic Tradition. It came to an end with the teaching of the Apostles. The truths of public revelation are all dogmas of the Church, and we are bound to believe them by divine Faith. Private revelation is addressed to an individual or group of individuals for their own welfare or that of others, instances of private revelation have occurred in every age. Belief in them is not of obligation, even after they have got the approval of the Church. They never become part of Catholic dogma. The revelations made to St. Margaret Mary, to St. Bernadette at Lourdes and to the children at Fatima are examples of private revelations.

God Bless you.


Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
Robert,

That is the trouble with these forums rather than face to face discussion. We are too quick to think we know what the writer is saying and attribute fault where there may be virtue and virtue where there may be fault. I am sure you know the story of St Therese when she was asked to do something by the novice mistress. St Therese saw that another sister desperately wanted to undertake the task and so she was slow to respond giving the other sister the chance. St Therese was scolded by the novice mistress for her tardiness and thus St Therese saw that it was easy to see fault where there was in fact virtue.

I am sure you did understand that my meaning was in answer to your post on certainty. Each individual soul can be certain in as much as they believe without doubt all that God has revealed to them - which, of course includes the teaching of the Church but not necessarily exclusively for they may have received knowledge directly from God. I think I know my Faith better than to have a lesson on whether ALL Catholics have to believe private revelation.

The manner in which anyone corrects another is what determines the charity of the person. John may not have understood my post but in charity he should have asked before condemning. I still say how dare he!

To Laudanum I'm glad you know your Faith :wink: .

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:03 pm
Posts: 515
New post 
Laudanum wrote:
Robert Bastaja wrote:

...I think we are speaking here of what all Catholics must believe...a private revelation you or I may receive is not something all Catholics must believe...unless it is approved by the Church.

...I welcome any correction if what I say is in conflict with what the Church teaches. I wish to be correct. I must admit though, at times, I do dislike being corrected...especially by someone I don't care for.



Hi Robert,

I hope I do not fall into the category of someone you don't care for...watch out you are about to be corrected. :)


Here is an excerpt from a previous thread on the Forum entitled, "Catholic Teaching on Private Revelation - Excellent Summary". It's a few pages back now.


Rev. Michael Walsh, B.D.. B..A , The Apparition At Knock - A Survey Of Facts And Evidence, 2nd ed. St. Jarlath’s College, Tuam, 1959. Pp 10-14. Chapter IV - Catholic Teaching

HERE it may be well to summarise Catholic teaching on the class of supernatural phenomena with which we are dealing, namely, revelations, visions, apparitions.

Divine revelation is a manifestation of a truth by God to man in a manner beyond the ordinary course of nature. Public revelation is addressed to the whole human race. It is contained in the Bible and in Apostolic Tradition. It came to an end with the teaching of the Apostles. The truths of public revelation are all dogmas of the Church, and we are bound to believe them by divine Faith. Private revelation is addressed to an individual or group of individuals for their own welfare or that of others, instances of private revelation have occurred in every age. Belief in them is not of obligation, even after they have got the approval of the Church. They never become part of Catholic dogma. The revelations made to St. Margaret Mary, to St. Bernadette at Lourdes and to the children at Fatima are examples of private revelations.

God Bless you.


Dear Laudanum,

Yes, you are correct. Thank you.

I wrote something that, as worded, implied that private revelations become dogma when they are approved by the Church. Of course I did not mean to imply any such thing. I merely meant that we look to the Church for approval. If someone claims that the Blessed Virgin visits them in their garage every Saturday...and they are convinced that it is true...I have nothing but doubt until the Church weighs in on it, so to speak.

I'm confident that there are not too many Catholics who don't believe the apparitions at Fatima were genuine...but true, they are not required, as a matter of Faith, to believe it.

Now, I may has mistated something here as well, because I am writing this quickly without doing any reasearch nor citing any sources. So, correct away. :)

Yours,

Robert


Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:16 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Pia,

I am concerned by this exchange. I had noticed on numerous occasions your disinclination to test your own personal view against an objective rule, usually a text from an approved writer. You have expressed your dislike for our habit of demanding a quotation to prove assertions, and you tell us with approval of your friend's comment, "without ... picking you up on this or that quotation or demanding this or that citation." You also made it clear that you did not realise that Fr. Baker was joking when he wrote, "It must be admitted, however, that Downham Market-trained souls are so thoroughly instructed, fully informed, and firmly kept on the path to heaven, that they have a decided advantage over others in being able quickly and accurately to reach the correct conclusions."

Fr. Baker was famous for humility. That text is manifestly a joke, as it expresses a ridiculous pride. It is the exact opposite of the diffidence - the distrust of self - which Fr. Baker strove to instill in his readers and listeners.

Now, nobody will be happier than me if you really do have a sound understanding of what Faith is. It doesn't matter whether you already possessed a sound understanding and merely expressed yourself badly or, alternatively, if you have just learned something which corrected a previously faulty understanding. Either way your expression before was heretical, and therefore must be withdrawn. Please withdraw it.

Pia wrote:
That is the trouble with these forums rather than face to face discussion. We are too quick to think we know what the writer is saying and attribute fault where there may be virtue and virtue where there may be fault.


Pia, the problem here, as I perceive it, is twofold. First, you constantly accuse many others of the fault of being uncharitable to you when they are not being so. So please have a think about applying St. Therese's observation yourself. It will greatly assist to achieve the peace of soul you say this board disturbs. Second, you have actually penned something which is wrong - there really is an objective and obvious fault in your text. As I said above, I'm happy if it was just a slip of the pen, so to speak. But it was a slip and must be corrected. You appear to want to leave it as is and instead accuse me of fault for pulling you up! I could have surrounded my correction with sugar, it is true, but the correction would still need to be exactly what it is for the common good.

Pia wrote:
I am sure you did understand that my meaning was in answer to your post on certainty. Each individual soul can be certain in as much as they believe without doubt all that God has revealed to them - which, of course includes the teaching of the Church but not necessarily exclusively for they may have received knowledge directly from God. I think I know my Faith better than to have a lesson on whether ALL Catholics have to believe private revelation.


Whatever you thought, what you wrote was, "I think myself that this only partially true for that is not the definition of Faith that I was taught." And that is why you have to withdraw what you wrote. You were telling us what Faith is. What you wrote was heretical. Don't you care that another might be decieved by it? I'm sure such a thought would horrify you!

Pia wrote:
The manner in which anyone corrects another is what determines the charity of the person. John may not have understood my post but in charity he should have asked before condemning. I still say how dare he!


I may have no charity whatsoever, but Pia, I am bound to correct this kind of thing. Not only may I "dare" but I must.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
John,

I am so sorry. There is no way we are ever going to understand one another on this earth. If I am fortunate enough to get to heaven, where I have no doubt you will be, I am sure we will understand one another perfectly. You seem intent on deliberately provoking arguments and insisting you know things about matters which others have more knowledge of - I have no idea why. I am sure you are a very well read man. I have no idea what your sphere in life is but believe me you do not know everything. I am guessing you never met Father Baker because your comments about him show that you did not know him at all :lol: .

I had Father Baker as my teacher and confessor for many years and somehow you do not even come close so if you don't mind I will ignore your attempts to be my teacher (I hope your not trying to be my confessor!).

I still say how dare you! My words still stand. The priest you profess to understand gave me the definition of Faith and I would rather be his pupil than yours any day.

To be honest I have not encountered such arrogance since the days of Martin Gwyn (sorry if the spelling of his name is incorrect) and I know that Father Baker would now be rolling his eyes if I showed him what you have written.

Yes this is your forum and like many others I will happily leave you to your posturing at humility. You are very fond of telling others to look to the beam in their own eye it is time to look to yours. I have never in my life encountered such a Catholic as you. I understand you are to speak at Spokane this year. I was going to take my family but to be honest your forum has put me off entirely. I just hope that the CMRI themselves are not like you - so far I have not found them to be but now I will reserve judgement.

You said it John "I may have no charity whatsoever..."

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:03 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Dear Pia,

All of that but you won't withdraw an heretical statement? One which you have already implicitly admitted was at least less than sound by your comments to Robert?

For the record, I don't compare myself to Fr. Baker. I don't think I know everything. I don't think I possess any virtue at all, actually. But I am responsible for what is published here because I am the publisher. So the buck stops with me. Call that arrogance if you like - I certainly don't think I'm humble! - and please do find a forum more to your liking. You are not welcome here if you wish to publish error (especially heresy) and then refuse to withdraw it.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:31 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 83
Location: England
New post 
God bless you John.

Pia


Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:47 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.