Catholic Online Forum

One of our newer and I guess younger Catholics posted in another thread that he was an independent catholic, frankly I have no idea what that it.

It seems to me to be an Oxy-Moron as catholic means universal, so independent catholic means not part of the universal. ???


Doesn't make sense to me.



Moderators Comment!

For those of you so inclined to flame everyone who disagrees with you, I really don't wish to deal with that so if you can't play nice or at least serious, go play elsewhere.

_________________
Bob C

Politically, maybe?

_________________
-Lou (Louis)

ORA et LABORA
Totus Tuus
Cacciatore/Fungaiolo

In my opinion, it is the new 'nicer' term that Socialist then Liberal then Progressive and now Independent Catholics are identifying themselves as.

Catholic is and should be simply put Catholic. Where there is division there is a need to identify it for what it is and what it means rather than seek a false peace through a delusional compromise of truth.

There are Catholics and then there are all the others -those that call me a Conservative Catholic are one and the same as those that have called themselves Socialist then Liberal then Progressive and now Independent Catholics.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Bob C,
You are right, and for that matter it's very difficult to define them. Or they can't be defined at all, since they have no central authority (no Magisterium.) Some regard them as schismatics, orthers refer to them as heretics. In the Philippines, we call them protestants or "Aglipayans," after their founder, Bishop Gregorio Aglipay. They call us "Romanos."

Here's a page in Wiki that may be of help:
Independent Catholic

Independents also do not have one origin and neither were they established in the same period. For example, the "Philippine Independent Catholic Church" was founded in the late 19th century as a protest against Spain by a Catholic bishop (and therefore they claim apostolic sucession.) My feeling is that the apostolic succession ceased after the first generation of priests, but I can be wrong. It is uncertain if they recognize the Pope or not.

As with Martin Luther, the first thing their priests opted for was to get married. So they have married clergy. They have also translated the Mass into the vernacular long before Vatican II. As with the Catholic Church, they turned their altars around to face the people after Vatican II and continue to profess great devotions to the Blessed Mother.

I am hoping and praying that some day, as Vatican extends a welcoming hand to SSPX, that the rest of the "independents" and sede vacatists will one by one be reunited with the Church.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

Easier to spell than Cafeteria Catholic?

_________________
BobA

Also, there are "independent" churches and chapels.

Father George Stallings (later "bishop") established Imani Temple, described as an independent Catholic community.

Some traditional Catholics who don't attend the Society of St. Pius X or Fraternity of St. Peter chapels will tell you that they go to an "Independent Catholic" church run by a traditionalist priest who is on his own. Across the country, there are breakaway communities that open up and advertise as Independent Catholic churches.

It's hard to say unless you ask a person for a clarification.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Bob,



The way those discussions are heading, it seems an "independent catholic" is one who "thinks for himself" and comes to his own conclusions on the morality of those big Sins, especially fornication, masturbation and homosexual sex. Those "own conclusions" of course are different from what the Catholic Church teaches.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Bob,



I wondered the same thing myself when I read it. Clearly, it is a label he has chosen for himself as a description of himself, and is presumably rather happy with it. But I doubt very much that he is familiar with the term in the sense that it is generally used (see Fr Sotelo above and this:)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independen ... c_churches

In using ordinary and familiar expressions in unusual ways he is far from alone in this Forum.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Father, are those in communion with Rome? It sounds like, pardon the expression, freelance priests who have left the orthodox community and started their own church.

_________________
BobA

That is pretty much how I saw the posts.

_________________
Bob C

BobA:

Any church calling itself "independent" is not in communion with Rome.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

I thought that was the case.

_________________
BobA

[/quote]

One correction, though: SSPX has never been sedevacantist, nor independent. Disobedient, yes, but VERY dependent on true Catholic teaching and Tradition. And, since Truth and Faith as virtues are hierarchically above obedience (also a virtue), it is the duty of every Catholic to be disobedient when Truth and Faith are compromised.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

I recollect Mel Gibson having his own "Independent Catholic" church...

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

The above quote attributed to me, was not made by me.

_________________
Bob C

I messed up quoting a little, sorry. Couldn't do anything now.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

Fred,



Given that neither Truth nor Faith have infact been "compromised", the question simply doesn't arise. You may care to remember that schismatical acts are sinful.


Also, I'm sure you must remember this charming scene:



http://the-pious-spinster.blogspot.com. ... ience.html

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Oh yes, there are questions where Truth and Faith were compromised. To give you some example points, I have here a petition that was sent to the pope a few months ago: "Petition by Polish intellectuals requesting a more in-depth study of the Second Vatican Council".

-Questions concerning religious liberty

-Ecumenism in the light of Church's traditional teaching Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

-Doctrine on collegiality which not only diminishes the traditional authority of local Bishops, but also puts the primacy of Rome under question. In a sense, draws democratic mechanisms into the Church.

And, here we touch only the highest level where the compromises were somewhat cautious and open to different interpretations. Locally there have been so many abuses that we could spend months discussing them here. I have no intention of doing that, really.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

James,

Every day on this forum we read posts about priests and bishops who are compromising Truth and Faith.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

David,

I knew that Fred was talking about the Council.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Fred,

The Council's teachings on the three subjects you've mentioned are all perfectly clear. In no way do those teachings compromise Truth or Faith.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Fred,
And they all justify disobedience to the point of founding/joining an alternative church? I read in Sandro Magister's column (can't provide a link now, sorry) that Romano Amerio himself didn't join SSPX.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

Dean,


It seems to me that the problem today, is that is exactly that problem. What you have quoted are regarded first and formost as the "big sins".

Pass by on the other side of the road as in the parable of the "good Samaritan", that's not a big sin. Do nothing for those starving in other parts of the world or in my own country, that's not a big sin, they should be able to care for themselves etc. etc.

Of course I agree that the sins you mentioned are sins, but it seems to me that often we get bogged down in fighting those sins, whilst ignoring the sins that break the commandment of the new law, and I am sure you don't need me to quote that.

Sincerely

Peter

_________________
"Lord to whom shall I go? Thou hast the words of eternal life"

Peter,

As I mentioned in another thread we conservatives seem very willing to obey our bishops on the issues we agree with them on and less willing to obey them on issues that disagree with our political agenda. The difference is that the issues the liberals disobey on are slightly more fundamental and less negotiable.

I would rather face God and answer why I didn't vote against the death penalty or welfare expansion or illegal immigration than why I didn't vote for abortion or homosexual marriage.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

When you recall "Extra Ecclesiam...", and compare it with the bs written in Nostra Aetate, you couldn't say that. Even a protestant can find from his Bible verses like "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." and wouldn't dream of bluffing about moslems like in the aforementioned declaration. This is pure apostasy!



Not necessarily only that. All abuses are important, and it is really good that in this situation that pure Catholic teaching has been made available through the Society. And, beyond doubt this fact has a a disciplinary effect on liberal Bishops as well. Also, the "extraordinary" Mass didn't come out of the blue. If it were not the Society keeping it alive, it would have been forgotten altogether by now - and Church's selfdestruction would have been much more successful. Now there's at least hope that things may be restored.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

Fred,



No. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were not apostates.



No. Pure Catholic teaching is to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the new Catechism.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Jeff,



Why not try to get it right on all of them?

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Fred,

If read in context, Vatican II does not actually contradict previous teaching. The problem lies in vagueness, loose terminology, and people forgetting/ignoring everything prior. I'm just going to ask the question: have you read the documents for yourself? Most people - liberals or trads - who talk a lot about it haven't.

And, frankly, if I were of the opinion that Rome had gone potty, I wouldn't set up an independent church. I'd cross the Bosphorous and join my friends over there. No, the SSPX isn't sede, but independents on the trad side usually are. I think the stereotyped SSPX 'sedeprivationism' actually less tenable.

FWIW I'm 28 and about as traditional as they come. I attend the NO because it is my only way to assist at Holy Mass (I'd need a plane to get to a TLM, or any Eastern Liturgy).

_________________
Jules Xx


What will become of sinners?

Julie,



...I'd know that the fault had to be my own, not Rome's. The Bishop of Rome cannot err. (And neither can any of the 21 Ecumenical Councils.)



Oh, I don't think Islam is the answer.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

It is chiefly in the hermeneutics, yes. Most problems (but not strictly 100% of them) arise from the fact that the documents of Vatican II were not interpreted in the light of previous teachings, the Tradition - and that is what most of the Fathers could have in mind during the Council. So, the false inerpretation we have seen is a direct abuse of the Council itself. But... the facts are as they are, and in this abused situation something had to be done. And Society did it very well.



By the way, death penalty is not entirely non-Christian or something to be ashamed of. It is only because of the alignment with European left-wing politicians that Church has begun talking against it. True religion has nothing to do with it either way, and we never have to answer God if we supported it or not. It's entirely your own business. Capital punishment was in Vatican's legislation until 1969.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

Fred,



What is "Vatican's legislation"?

Apart from the promulgation of the new order of Mass and the reformed General Calendar, what happened in 1969?



No. The SSPX did it very badly. "Rome has erred and must be reformed"? That's exactly what Cranmer said; exactly what Calvin said; exactly what Luther said. The logic of your postion simply doesn't hold.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

I have crossed the Bosphorous many times by car over the bridge and by boat, didn't see that either side was any better.

_________________
Bob C

As you no doubt know, Vatican is an independent state, and this state has it's own legislature (laws). Until 1969 there were laws in Vatican that determined death penalty for certain crimes.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

Bob,



Julie was referring to the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Fred,



Not quite. Under Article 22 of the Lateran Concordat, when crimes are committed within the Vatican City State, the Italian state prosecutes and imprisons criminals at Vatican expense. Capital punishment existed in the Vatican City State only because it existed in the Italian state.

Our enemies often make much of the fact that the Vatican City State has no "age of consent". The reason is quite simple; at the time of the Concordat, 1929, the Italian state had no "age of consent".

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Vatican and Italy have agreed only that Italy carries out the penalties. The judical part, as well as court and convicting the criminals is entirely in Vatican's own hands. By the way, Italy abolished capital punishment in 1948--21 years earlier, so there's no connection.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

And your point is, I was merely referring to my adventures in Turkey.

_________________
Bob C

Seamus,

Rome cannot err. But my belief in that is a leap of faith. I must choose to believe it, no? To make a different choice is to no longer be Catholic. That was my point.

Bob,

Humour appreciated.

_________________
Jules Xx


What will become of sinners?

Excuse me?

You may not understand Church teachings or the documents of Vatican II or agree with them, that's fine. But you may not call these teachings and documents "bs". You are standing on thin ice if you continue with such language of Church teachings.

The Second Vatican Council not only affirms Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but teaches and promulgates it. Perhaps this is a little too deep for some, but they have no right to condemn what their minds can't get round to understanding the clarity with which Vatican II teaches it in Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Of course Rome can err. If at one time it is in a position that Jews need a prayer for their conversion to Our Lord, and at the other this prayer is changed into essentially approving and blessing their current state being away from Him, then obviously one of these positions must be erroneous. There is no other way.

There are certain very strict conditions to an infallible teaching, and the last time that a Pope taught something infallibly -- "ex cathedra", was in 1950.

Criticizing all other statments or actions does not make you less Catholic. You are even bound to do so, when for example you see a photograph of Pope (John-Paul II) kissing the Koran -- a book that contains commandments to persecute non-Muslims (i.e Christians!). That's failing to do so that makes you less Catholic.

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

Fred,

The Church cannot err when teaching faith and morals. Those who erred are those who believe Rome has erred in these. And by the way Vatican II did not teach any new dogmas.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

This is only partially true. First Vatican Council taught that there are three conditions that have to be met in order a teaching to be considered as infallible:

1. The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.

2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.

3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.

Last time this happened was 62 years ago.

And yes, Vatican II didn't teach any new dogmas. Therefore, there is no need to believe its documents are sacred. It's teachings and even more the strange interpretations of its documents that came later must stay on the table to be debated and rejected if needed to.
Just take a look: who are those who want to make criticizing Vatican II a taboo, and who are those who question some of its outcomes? First group consists mostly of liberal theologians and Bishops. The same people that want even further development: female and married priests and same-sex marriages and so on. The second group consists of truly faithful Catholics who have great concerns on how the Church of the living is self-destructing herself. By their fruits you'll know them...

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

I find them strikingly similar.

"My interpretation of Vatican II is right. Your interpretation of Vatican II is wrong."

Neither is exhibiting obedience and docility to the Church.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Fred,

Thinking you're more Catholic than the pope is a good sign of Protestantism. Jes' sayin'. Popes can get stuff wrong, when not teaching ex cathedra. However, the whole College of Bishops acting in concert? Hmmm... I'll trust them over you.

Which isn't to say I don't think a certain bp wasn't great right up until he jumped out of the Boat.

_________________
Jules Xx


What will become of sinners?

Fred,

Second Vatican Council (V2) reaffirms all previous teachings of the Church, it is a continuation of V1, which prematurely ended before all deliberations it had hope to cover. You are talking as though only the pope can proclaim dogmas, the ordinary teaching of the Church can, as long as they are in union with the Pope.

The documents of the V2 are sacred because they did not change anything the Church has taught but reaffirmed what has been believed since the time of the apostles. What it did bring to the world is a fuller understanding of the respective Church teachings.

What happened in the aftermath of V2, though, is that the clowns of the "liberal theologians and Bishops" and the so-called "truly faithful Catholics", who today call themselves "traditionalists", misinterpreted V2 according to their respective misguided beliefs. One group thought it was a licence to do anything they wanted, the other believed the Church junked tradition. Both were wrong and not reading and understanding what our current Pope Benedict XVI calls the hermeneutic of continuity.

I am sorry to say this, but the SSPX falls under the second group and their stubbornness to understand what was actually taught at V2 is stalling and probably derailing their return to the fold.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

Fred,



False. The very wording of Humanae Vitae makes it clear that it is intended as an infallible teaching. That the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood is also an infallible teaching (the CDF response to a Dubitum on the subject made that perfectly clear).

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Ian,
Fred's church does not believe in collegiality.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

But they also believe the pope's wrong. Illogical, no?

Btw, the amusing thing is that the SSPX and SSPV have such a Vatican II notion of the episcopacy...

_________________
Jules Xx


What will become of sinners?

I guess there is no need to continue this conversation. I will not convince you, nor will you convince me. And neither of us are theologians. The Society is going to continue their discussions with Rome, let them argue

But, I thought I'll tell you a funny story. In the country where I'm in, every year there is a religious festival, which has participants from different Christian denominations. Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Catholic. The festival is mainly in the form of lectures. In previous years is is our Bishop himself who has always honored this event with his presence. He and at least one more priest gave lectures. It has always been regarded as a exemplary ecumenical event.

This year was different. The organizer had the impudence of asking a Society's priest to take part in it! The Bishop just could not believe his eyes: the organizers who are from his own "flock" and such insolence! He immediately removed himself from it, and also forbid any of his priests to take part. So, this year Catholics were represented only by the Society, which did very well: the prest gave a lecture on liberty, based on Libertas Praestantissimum by Pope Leo XIII.

But the funiest part appeared on the local Catholic website. It now announced that this festival has nothing to do with the Church, and it's teachings do not represent Catholic teachings. As somebody would expect something of the kind of an ecumanical festival which has all those different lecturers! Of course, everybody understood what was written between the lines. It was like a message from Cardinal Richelieu (not the real one, but the personnage of Dumas!) stating that those faithful to the Cardinal will not attend to an event of Monseur Treville

So, as you see, things are shifting in very unexpected ways these days...

_________________
Fred

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in prælio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto præsidium.

I would be interested in links to this coverage, Fred.

_________________
Jeff Stevens