Page 10 of 10
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2024 10:25 pm
by Judas Maccabeus
JayP wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 9:32 pm
LOL.
SSPX - Society of St. Pius X. The Catholic break away group originally lead by Archbishop Lefebvre which did not accept adoption of the Novus Ordo mass and would only accept the Latin Tridentine Mass. eventually somewhat reunited (officially) but again increasing distant from Pope Francis (who hates them and the feeling is returned),
FSSP - Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. A society founded and still remaining within the RCC dedicated t9 only using the Tridentine Mass. was really created as a response to the SSPX movement.
Not that many of you will care but Apostolic view of Novus Ordo versus Tridentine ebbs and flows. There is often significant “political” associations with the different movements. For example FFSP priests while dedicated to the Tridentine Mass must make a statement they do NOT reject the validity of the Novus Ordo nor do they reject any teachings from Vatican II. Pope Benedict gave more leeway including issuing a Moto Propio that any Priest could say the Latin Mass, the Francis tightened that up. Francis would consider those who attend Latin Mass to be his enemies (and he is right! LOL)
Francis does not hold any credibility in my book either, neither my neighbor, the one who mostly attends the dioceses Latin masses, but I think sometimes she goes to the SSPX chapel. She used to be charismatic, took her nominally catholic husband to one of those and freaked him out. He goes nowhere now.
Are you going to mention the Sedevacantism movement? We have those as well.
Oh, yes, Hitler did like his dog…….until he poisoned her with Cyanide.
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:37 pm
by JayP
I believe it is fair to say. Sedevacanist is by definition not Catholic, although I am sure they disagree.
Interestingly enough, prior Pomtificate sedevacanists had no leg to stand on, but the view that Radzinger was forced to resign makes an academic argument plausible that Francis was illegitimately named Pope (i.e. Benedict was still Pope and with his death the seat is vacant).
Myself, it’s a pointless view.
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:01 pm
by Josh
JayP wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:37 pm
I believe it is fair to say. Sedevacanist is by definition not Catholic, although I am sure they disagree.
Interestingly enough, prior Pomtificate sedevacanists had no leg to stand on, but the view that Radzinger was forced to resign makes an academic argument plausible that Francis was illegitimately named Pope (i.e. Benedict was still Pope and with his death the seat is vacant).
Myself, it’s a pointless view.
There’s a name for those who don’t think Francis is legitimate but I can’t remember what it is. Certainly an “interesting” worldview.
I actually like a lot of things about Francis, particularly his stance on war.
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 6:33 pm
by MaxPC
NedFlanders wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 6:43 pm coming to conclusions about others by what others say about others lets us misunderstand just about everything and keeps us on our high horse.
Quite. Spot on.
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 8:28 pm
by ohio jones
MaxPC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 5:18 pm
ohio jones wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:11 pm
MaxPC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 9:36 am
OJ, here is the teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is an official teaching document of the Magisterium. I excised the relevant bits but I would also caution that this excerpt is also a part of a larger section and should be read in the context of the whole which is far too long to post here. You can find the rest of Part III: Life in Christ at the Vatican website.
You could have included the link to that, you know.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7N.HTM
But my question was a historical one concerning
when the universal requirement was instituted. The catechism does not appear to address that.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Follow the footnotes.
Happy Easter.
The footnotes do not address the question of historicity.
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2024 9:15 pm
by MaxPC
ohio jones wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 8:28 pm
MaxPC wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 5:18 pm
Elementary, my dear Watson. Follow the footnotes.
Happy Easter.
The footnotes do not address the question of historicity.
They lead you to the sources. Have you read all of the sources, Watson?
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2024 11:46 pm
by Judas Maccabeus
JayP wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:37 pm
I believe it is fair to say. Sedevacanist is by definition not Catholic, although I am sure they disagree.
Interestingly enough, prior Pomtificate sedevacanists had no leg to stand on, but the view that Radzinger was forced to resign makes an academic argument plausible that Francis was illegitimately named Pope (i.e. Benedict was still Pope and with his death the seat is vacant).
Myself, it’s a pointless view.
So, than in your view, recognition of the current pope is the test of if one is catholic or not/
The two views I have e-card are that all popes after Joh XXIII are illicit because Vatican II was heretical in its content and means of adoption, or that Francis is illegitimate due to the circumstances around his resignation and the elevation of Francis. Take your pick.
I suspect you would find me more friendly to individual Catholics than you think. It is the institution that i have an issue with.
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:48 am
by Josh
Isn’t acceptance of the Pope’s authority the central difference between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and various Old Catholic groups?
Re: Questions about Communion / Lord's Supper
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:16 pm
by JayP
My comment about Sedevacanists was simply that the rationale or justification is different between those basing in on Vat II Issues versus the unusual situation with Benedict’s retirement (who I will probably always call Ratzinger). I pass no opinion on either, just explaining why the rationale is different.
Belief in the Pope is not the only requirement to be Roman Catholic, but surely rejection of the Papal office certainly seems inconsistent.
Myself I simply consider Francis a very bad Pope, but Pope nonetheless
The Orthodox do not dispute the man we call Pope is bishop of Rome, they simply feel all bishop including him are equal.
There are other reasons for the split between the groups, especially the Filoque and it’s doctrinal impacts.