Bishop Fellay Presents His Understanding of Papal Authority
@brhenry, Wouldn't bow to Pachamama? You always say "resistance to the pope is schism." But, oh, apparently there ARE limits! Resistance is 'damnable schism' and 'private judgment'... unless it's brhenry's private judgment, then it's okay! what a surprise!
Bishop Fellay Presents His Understanding of Papal Authority
Oops, forgot. Thinking is forbidden. Absolutely no way I can know whether honoring the Pachamama is evil or not! Not without 'private judgment'. Absolutely no way to tell whether people in mortal sin should be allowed to receive communion or not! not without 'private judgment'! If only there were 2000 years of Church Tradition I could rely on... LOL
Bishop Fellay Presents His Understanding of Papal Authority
He needs to not talk about Rome's misuse of authority at the very time of Rome's misuse of authority? Rome has had plenty of time to do something about Tradition if they cared to do so. I think the whole "let's keep our head down and hope we don't upset anyone in authority" is the FSSP position, not the SSPX's.
Bishop Fellay Presents His Understanding of Papal Authority
The SSPX does not refuse submission to the pope's jurisdiction, only to his misuse of it. I'm sure some would sin if the pope told them to do so 'out of obedience', but it would still be sin.
US Bishops Embrace Zionism - Attack Critic By Name
Liberalism leads to secularism. Nothing surprising in seeing that liberal bishops are now endorsing secular zionism. The new convert understands the Faith better than the majority of the bishops.
**Faith Without Submission Is Dead: A Catholic Wake-Up Call to the “Traditionalists” Who Resist the …
@brhenry. 'Private interpretation' again? Seriously? Last time you condemned simple observations of contradiction as 'private interpretation'. Now simply quoting a bible verse is 'private interpretation'. Please do tell: What exactly in my post above was a 'private interpretation' of the biblical text contrary to the meaning understood by the Church?
**Faith Without Submission Is Dead: A Catholic Wake-Up Call to the “Traditionalists” Who Resist the …
Is this wake up call for St Paul as well??? He tells us "But when Cephas (St Peter) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal 2:11). He also says: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal 1:8). Maybe St Paul didn't realize that the Roman Pontiff has primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church? or maybe he didn't realize that faith without works is dead? ... or maybe he knew that one can acknowledge someone's authority, and yet refuse to obey their illegitimate commands!
Cardinal Sarah Critiques FSSPX
??? That's random. The principle of private judgment/sola scriptura refers to the private interpretation of Scripture contrary to the meaning accepted and defended by the Church. It is not private judgment to say that two statements are contradictory. That would be like saying it's heresy for a Catholic to think. Here are two statements: Pius IX condemns: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (Syllabus Error #15). Vatican II teaches "The human person has a right to religious freedom." (Dignitatis Humanae.)
Cardinal Sarah Critiques FSSPX
You're right. It's dependent on truth. That's why obeying a superior in evil is not 'righteous', it's 'servile'.
Cardinal Sarah Critiques FSSPX
Two extraordinary statements from Cardinal Sarah: 1) "It is not about obeying the Pope when he expresses his own ideas or personal opinions. It is about obeying the Pope when he says, like Jesus: “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (Jn 7:16). "
2) It is a supernatural view of canonical obedience, which guarantees our bond with Christ Himself.
So Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, and Collegiality, (not to mention Pachamama, Amoris Laetitia, etc) are not 'personal opinions' but teachings of Christ!?!?!?!?!
And it's not the Faith, but CANONICAL obedience which guarantees our bond with Christ!?!?!?! In other words, the law is not at the service of the Faith, but Faith is at the service of the law.
No wonder there is so little confidence in 'conservative' Novus Ordo bishops!
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
@brhenry So the pope can be wrong (and I think you would assert that he IS wrong in the Abu Dhabi declaration). Vatican II can be wrong. But is it truly honest to say that no one is being 'forced' to accept Vatican II? To say: "Vatican II did not infallibly define anything" is true; but that only makes more odious the fact that its teachings have been imposed upon the Church as some kind of Super-Council. Not enforced? Did you not read the letter of Card Muller (at the time prefect of the CDF) to the SSPX. Vatican II IS being forced upon the SSPX. Card. Muller EXPLICITLY stated that Vatican II AND the post-Conciliar magisterium (which would now include Amoris Laetitia) MUST be accepted. The whole contention between the SSPX and Rome is over Vatican II. I really don't understand how you can say it is 'not being enforced'.
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
The question regards not the pope, but what he teaches or commands. Pope Francis asserted in the Abu Dhabi declaration that the plurality of religions as such is willed by God. Am I "definitively heretical" if I say that is wrong?
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
@brhenry: the quotations above do not address the point at hand. The question is the following: can a subordinate ever disobey an illegitimate/immoral command of a legitimate superior? The SSPX does not deny that the pope has received authority from Christ, nor does it deny his jurisdiction. Again, the same question rephrased: can someone with true jurisdiction ever abuse that jurisdiction such that it would be immoral for his subordinates to follow him?
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
“It is written (Acts 5:29): ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things” (Summa, II-II, q. 104, art. 5).
FSSPX Rejects Vatican Proposal
@brhenry: Actually, it means that by Traditional Catholic principles - the SSPX should not be condemned; and by Modernist Rome's principles the SSPX should not be condemned. Therefore, the SSPX should not be condemned. By the way: 'Ecclesial communion' is through union in the Faith, it is not broken by refusing innovations that have nothing to do with the Faith, or worse, that are opposed to the Faith.
Islam is poison
Did this guy give a whole talk without realizing the 4th horse is 'pale', not 'green'?!?
No Human is Illegal
You have two arguments, and they seem to be based on contradictory principles.
First, the US gov't promotes 'illegal' immigration, therefore it is actually legal. This implies that if the gov't did not promote it, it would be illegal. Therefore there COULD BE such a thing as an illegal immigrant.
Second, an immigrant is a human, and 'no human is illegal', therefore there could NOT be such a thing as an illegal immigrant.
I don't know what promotion of illegal immigration you are speaking, so I won't try to address that. My original point was that the statement, 'No human is illegal,' is weird. This is because it obfuscates what is actually being said. When I asked if 'human' refers to man's 'essence', you said yes. That means we have the statement. 'No human nature/essence is illegal.' That would mean the opposite is true as well. 'Every human nature/essence is legal.' What do those statements even mean? How can you take an abstract thing and predicate a particular relation to it? You might as well say 'No human nature is small.' If in the statement, 'no human is illegal', the word 'human' refers to a concrete human being, then to say 'no human being is illegal, i.e., has the status of being in contravention with the law', then it is clearly false. The criminal is a human being, and he has a status which is in contravention with the law. One doesn't say the 'criminal is illegal', because the very word criminal implies this status. The word immigrant does not imply illegality, that is why one distinguishes between the two, the legal or illegal immigrant.
Whether deliberately or not, you further blur the question by saying 'it is not a crime for an alien to remain in the country'. The question is not the 'remaining' but the 'coming into' the country illegally. The first point on the link you posted is that coming into the country illegally IS a crime. To say 'remaining' is not a crime, is like saying for a murderer to go shopping is not a crime, so why is he being arrested? He's not being arrested for shopping, he's being arrested for the murder. That is the act which put him in contravention of the law. To close, I will say that I agree that we are moving towards a police-state. But I don't think that comes from the current work of ICE or Trump. I think it is rather the agenda of the radicals on the Left.
No Human is Illegal
??? wierd. 'Illegal' means contrary to the law. Are you suggesting that MAGA is claiming that a 'human is illegal' according to their very essence??? very wierd post. It is not a crime in the sense of being a felony, but in the sense of being at contradiction with the law of the land, it certainly is. That's why it allows for deporation. You're position is simply that a gov't is not allowed to enforce immigration law; which necessarily presupposes that it is immoral for a gov't to have immigration law. Most people would disagree. Btw, careful about locking your own home or car... that might be considered domestic immigration law. :-)