Question on Obedience

[didishroom]

Ok, I stopped by TIA and they compiled a list of priests, mainly SSPX, who were recently expelled for criticising Fellay on his "compromises" with "Newchurch." While TIA thinks these priests as living martyrs, I can sympathize with Fellay as these men are openly trying to sabatoge the reunion with the SSPX and Rome.

But the ony question is why now? The language that these priests use is borderline Sede, accusing the Pope, whom they only refer to as "Ratzinger", as being a modernist and that submission to him is submission to heresy. But it certainly is not new in the SSPX. Williamson and one of the other bishops have called Pope Benedict a heretic before. So can anyone blame the priests for talking like this if this was the enviroment they were learning to be priests in? Do the bishops have a right to demand submission from these priests against their own conscience when this was the whole justification for their initial disobedience to John Paul II?

After the Williamson fiasco all of the controversial Jewish questions disappeared from their websites. Has Fellay actually woken up and deciding to put all this talk about "Newchurch" behind the Society? Has he changed, whether it be for better or worse? Or is he being hypocritical?

I am not looking for a fight. I am truly trying to understand this situation.

Here's the TIA link:http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/107bev04-17-2009.htm

[Rosarium]

Ok, I stopped by TIA and they compiled a list of priests, mainly SSPX, who were recently expelled for criticising Fellay on his "compromises" with "Newchurch." While TIA thinks these priests as living martyrs, I can sympathize with Fellay as these men are openly trying to sabatoge the reunion with the SSPX and Rome.

But the ony question is why now? The language that these priests use is borderline Sede, accusing the Pope, whom they only refer to as "Ratzinger", as being a Modernist and that submission to him is submission to heresy. But it certainly is not new in the SSPX. Williamson and one of the other bishops have called Pope Benedict a heretic before. So can anyone blame the priests for talking like this if this was the enviroment they were learning to be priests in? Do the bishops have a right to demand submission from these priests against their own conscience when this was the whole justification for their initial disobedience to John Paul II?

I said a few weeks ago, and many agreed, that the SSPX has a mix of people, and this reunion will cause it to "split" in a way.

After the Williamson fiasco all of the controversial Jewish questions disappeared from their websites. Has Fellay actually woken up and deciding to put all this talk about "Newchurch" behind the Society? Has he changed, whether it be for better or worse? Or is he being hypocritical?

I think he is being Catholic.

It seem some people (in general, no one specific) have no problem telling a woman their child is in hell for being miscarried because that is what their interpetation of the Council of Trent is, but they balk at the supremecy of the Pope and place themselves about him despite it  being something completely unambigious. For people who accuse the Orthodox of being heretics, they are committing a worse crime.

[didishroom]

I think he is being Catholic.

That doesn't really answer the question. 

It seem some people (in general, no one specific) have no problem telling a woman their child is in hell for being miscarried because that is what their interpetation of the Council of Trent is, but they balk at the supremecy of the Pope and place themselves about him despite it  being something completely unambigious. For people who accuse the Orthodox of being heretics, they are committing a worse crime.

I'm not going to get into that. Another day, perhaps. 

[Rosarium]

That doesn't really answer the question. 

Yeah, sorry about that. I had prepared the quotes then started typing, and I forgot to finish the first part.

But the ony question is why now? The language that these priests use is borderline Sede, accusing the Pope, whom they only refer to as "Ratzinger", as being a Modernist and that submission to him is submission to heresy. But it certainly is not new in the SSPX. Williamson and one of the other bishops have called Pope Benedict a heretic before. So can anyone blame the priests for talking like this if this was the enviroment they were learning to be priests in? Do the bishops have a right to demand submission from these priests against their own conscience when this was the whole justification for their initial disobedience to John Paul II?

It isn't borderline, it is. The past indiscretations of the leaders of the SSPX may come back to haunt them (sow what ye reap), but all that really matters is *now*. What are their attitudes now?

The conscience here is not really that holy. It is now seeming to be a matter of pride. How would they feel to lose their "special" organisation and become fully regularised in the Church like everyone else? If they see full membership in the Church as inferior, it really shows their true attitudes. The priests are shepherds for the people, and the bishops (with the Pope as the head) are the shepherds of the priests (and people). This tugging and pulling on the priests you mentioned is happening with people as well on a bigger scale.

However, what is right is right and always was. The gates of Hell can't prevail, and it is not our place to desert the Church at its most dire time of need. Christ rose after being abandoned, tortured and killed, so shall the Church. It makes you wonder what those people who leave are missing? If they did not sleep and prayed for that hour, would the Church have spread faster? Would they have been given greater tools for spreading the Word? The people who abandon the Church now are harming the Church as much as the forces of Satan. The Church will survive, Satan will lose, the only question is where we will be.

[lamentabili sane]

Ok, I stopped by TIA and they compiled a list of priests, mainly SSPX, who were recently expelled for criticising Fellay on his "compromises" with "Newchurch." While TIA thinks these priests as living martyrs, I can sympathize with Fellay as these men are openly trying to sabatoge the reunion with the SSPX and Rome.

But the ony question is why now? The language that these priests use is borderline Sede, accusing the Pope, whom they only refer to as "Ratzinger", as being a [url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#III" Target="_blank][url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#III" Target="_blank]Modernist[/url][/url] and that submission to him is submission to heresy. But it certainly is not new in the SSPX. Williamson and one of the other bishops have called Pope Benedict a heretic before. So can anyone blame the priests for talking like this if this was the enviroment they were learning to be priests in? Do the bishops have a right to demand submission from these priests against their own conscience when this was the whole justification for their initial disobedience to John Paul II?

I said a few weeks ago, and many agreed, that the SSPX has a mix of people, and this reunion will cause it to "split" in a way.

After the Williamson fiasco all of the controversial Jewish questions disappeared from their websites. Has Fellay actually woken up and deciding to put all this talk about "Newchurch" behind the Society? Has he changed, whether it be for better or worse? Or is he being hypocritical?

I think he is being Catholic.

It seem some people (in general, no one specific) have no problem telling a woman their child is in hell for being miscarried because that is what their interpetation of the Council of Trent is, but they balk at the supremecy of the Pope and place themselves about him despite it  being something completely unambigious. For people who accuse the Orthodox of being heretics, they are committing a worse crime.

Your "opinion" here is the unorthodox one. The question is this; What does the Church teach?

Pope Pius XII

Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours

And please don't tell me this isn't infallible. This is the teaching of the Church.

[didishroom]

Let's move it if it's going to turn into a Limbo Debate.

[Rosarium]

Your "opinion" here is the unorthodox one. The question is this; What does the Church teach?

I didn't express my opinion on the matter. You have no idea if it is unorthodox or not.

Pope Pius XII

Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours

And please don't tell me this isn't infallible. This is the teaching of the Church.

I never said it wasn't. Read what I said. This is another discussion, and one I do not do. The point is in some people's effforts to be orthodox they focus on a few little things and reject the big issues. The importance of baptism is high, very high. It is the only means of salvation available to us. It is wrong to put restrictions on God however; nothing is impossible with God. All we can do is hope and pray for what we cannot do, and do what we can. We are not here to judge. I have an opinion on this matter, but I do not typically express it because it is futile.

[lamentabili sane]

Your "opinion" here is the unorthodox one. The question is this; What does the Church teach?

I didn't express my opinion on the matter. You have no idea if it is unorthodox or not.

Your opinion was very strongly implied, but you're right, it does not matter. What does the Church teach? That is all that matters.

Pope Pius XII

Supernatural life

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death's threshold.

Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours

And please don't tell me this isn't infallible. This is the teaching of the Church.

I never said it wasn't. Read what I said. This is another discussion, and one I do not do.

Then don't imply something and then say you don't discuss it.

The point is in some people's effforts to be orthodox they focus on a few little things and reject the big issues.

It's important to get the "little things" right when they are truthes. The denial or even weakening of these truthes must be avoided as well.

The importance of baptism is high, very high. It is the only means of salvation available to us.

That's not what Pius XII said. He said FOR infants and those who have not the use of reason, it is the ONLY way.

It is wrong to put restrictions on God however; nothing is impossible with God.

God reveals things through his Church. That's what you can't put any restrictions on.

All we can do is hope and pray for what we cannot do, and do what we can.

Can you hope and pray that dogmas are not really true? Truthes revealed by God and taught by HIS Church are never restrictions, they are truth.

We are not here to judge. I have an opinion on this matter, but I do not typically express it because it is futile.

You needn't judge anybody when you simply follow what the Church teaches. Pius XII is very clear in the text I quoted, why do you think you can disregard it?

If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.

[Rosarium]

Your opinion was very strongly implied, but you're right, it does not matter. What does the Church teach? That is all that matters.

If anything, I implied I agree on that. I'm not saying what I do believe (I expressed it once, and I feel such discussions are useless and needlessly hurt those who are concerned with others).

The point was they focus on details which are useless for salvation, even if true, while forgetting the institituion of the Church, a bigger and more important truth (to follow, anyway).

God does not care if we believe in a single dogma while willingly forsaking the institution of His Church.

If someone has a totally unorthodox thought on the matter (say, reincarnation for all souls which never reach the age of reason), but doesn't spread this heresy (if it is one, I'm not putting a lot of thought into the example) and accepts all other teachings of the Church, they are probably in God's better graces than those who accept the teaching to the letter on a single issue, and reject the authority of the Pope and Church and at the same time elevate oneself to have authority which they do not.

[lamentabili sane]

Your opinion was very strongly implied, but you're right, it does not matter. What does the Church teach? That is all that matters.

If anything, I implied I agree on that.

So Pius XII was just expressing the constant teaching of the Church on this matter. We must all accept this.

I'm not saying what I do believe (I expressed it once, and I feel such discussions are useless and needlessly hurt those who are concerned with others).

You just stated above that what you believe is what the Church has always taught and what Pius XII taught. You needn't be concerned with "hurting others feelings" whilst expressing a truth such as this.

The point was they focus on details which are useless for salvation, even if true, while forgetting the institituion of the Church, a bigger and more important truth (to follow, anyway).

All truths are important for salvation. You don't seem to understand that we cannot avoid embracing "lesser" truths just because their denial (or positive doubt) has a censure less than heresy.

God does not care if we believe in a single dogma while willingly forsaking the institution of His Church.

And you get to define what "forsaking the institution of His Church" means, right? The Church teaches these "other truths" are related to the dogmas and cannot be denied without harming the understanding of the dogmas. One who rejects these "details" rejects the teaching of the Church!

If someone has a totally unorthodox thought on the matter (say, reincarnation for all souls which never reach the age of reason), but doesn't spread this heresy (if it is one, I'm not putting a lot of thought into the example) and accepts all other teachings of the Church, they are probably in God's better graces than those who accept the teaching to the letter on a single issue, and reject the authority of the Pope and Church and at the same time elevate oneself to have authority which they do not.

This is incorrect. By the pertinacious denial of a dogma, one puts himself outside the Church. You needn't spread your heresy to be a heretic. Where did you learn this?

The sin of Heresy becomes a crime when it is made public. The punishment for that crime (if it has indeed occurred) is automatic excommunication and loss of membership in the Church.