spitzer72 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

As a Catholic, I know that you have a reason to give when you excommunicate someone. The problem is that yet no reason have been given by Rome. And if you were really following the Pope, you should agree that the FSSPX is as much catholic as the "orthodox" pretend to be, like the Pope recognize them!For your information Rome said that the sacraments given by the FSSPX are valid and that we are Catholics.How can you say this and on the other hand pretend that we aren't?

spitzer72 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

SSPX never said that they wanted to break away. So they aren't separated and true Catholics. To refuse a consecration the Pope should give some valid reason what are they?Oh simply nothing until now...So we are waiting...

nuduaspiaggia (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

He is the only one in the Roman rite that can consecrate a bishop, and if a bishop is consecrated without his presence, it can only be done with his consent. You seem nothing more than a non-Catholic, ignoring the primacy of Peter instituted by Christ Himself.

spitzer72 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

1. If the Pope doesn't want bishops to be consecrated HE has to give a VALID reason. A bishop has the right to consecrate priest to be bishops. Today the FSSPX is always waiting for the reasons.2. Orthodoxy isn't the synonym of "conformity". Once you will understand this maybe you will change your opinion. Religious integrity could be a synonym.

nuduaspiaggia (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The primary rule of orthodoxy is to conform; SSPX goes out of its way to stick out. Furthermore, its hierarchy has wrongly and independently consecrated bishops, an act which, in the Roman rite, can only be performed by the Roman Pontiff.

spitzer72 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Listen to me: Vatican II is the only concil of the history that was pastoral, it means that it is not infaible. The Pope can erase it now if he wants.The new mass is heterodox in the point pf view of the Tradition.Mgr. Lefebvre never said he was leaving the Holy See, never. He simply said that he doesnt accept Vatican II, the new mass made in 3 months because of the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition, that's all.You cannot excomunicate someone whiout giving doctrinal reasons that's all

nuduaspiaggia (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Williamson has no Apostolic authority.

nuduaspiaggia (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The liturgy and sacramental formulae to which you refer were formulated at the Council of Trent after the Protestant Reformation, it is not even 600 years old. Before the Tridentine reforms, there were liturgies and sacramental formulae of varying types throughout the Catholic world (Mozarabic, Gallican, Ambrosian, Sarum, Benoventan, Roman, etc.).

Eskadron22 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

That is absurd, your quote from the bible refers to the creation of the H. Church - it does not give the left-wing churchdestroyers carte blanche to massacre the 1800 year old liturgy, the sacraments, to commit blasphemy during the communion, to remove the altar and the relics of the saints. Besides that there were some clear instructions from former popes not to tamper with the liturgy. But the problem goes much deeper than that. Vat2 gave us nothing positive, it was political.

nuduaspiaggia (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Not true. Remember that the Roman curia has every right to change the liturgy, a right given by Christ. "Whatever you bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, is loosed in heaven."