new age movement:: pathway to hell??

[miyay]

---

OT: love and fear are polar opposites which make all other things in between, possible

[handsoff241]

no yay,.. the polar opposite of love is indifference.

[regnauld]

no yay,.. the polar opposite of love is indifference.

And where does indiference come from if not from FEAR TO LOVE?

[NASYO]

the polar opposite of love is indifference.

so let's settle indifference by listening to "Imagine"

[Hellblazer 2.1]

what do you guys suggest? leave them alone so that they will condem themselves?? we are christians here were suppose to admonish people who are in error,, do you think God will blame them if we die?? it is just a caution to them ,.,this is a forum, this is not fancy chit chat...we are discussing about facts here not just words.

wow, mr.suave. such a noble deed, indeed. but no thanks.

[regnauld]

Why is the NEW AGE MOVEMENT a great threat to conservatives or traditionalists of the Roman Church?

Wasn't Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre excommunicated for not supporting the VATICAN II?

[Hellblazer 2.1]

because the Church doesn't want to lose control of its flock.

[regnauld]

because the Church doesn't want to lose control of its flock.

Would that mean less donations?

[Hellblazer 2.1]

i don't want to comment on that, mr.regnauld.

[regnauld]

When a Person is excommunicated by the Roman Empire I mean Roman Church, does that mean he will go to hell? Sounds like Heretics go to hell!

Wasn't ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE excommunicated for consecrating bishops unlawfully?

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm

JUNE 29, 1987Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, experiencing failing health, aware of his episcopal duty to pass on the Catholic Faith and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic priests, decided to consecrate bishops and announced that, if necessary, he will do so even without the pope’s permission.

Above: "Operation Survival" on June 30th 1988. From left to right: Bishops de Galleretta, Tissier de Mallerais, de Castro Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bishops Williamson and Fellay

The four new bishops after receiving their crosiers and being enthroned

JUNE 17, 1988 Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382 (1983 Code of Canon Law), he and the bishops consecrated by him would be excommunicated for proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby infringing the laws of sacred discipline.
JUNE 30, 1988Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated four bishops.
JULY 1, 1988
Cardinal Gantin declared the threatened excommunication (according to canon 1382) to have been incurred. He also called the consecrations a schismatic act and declared the corresponding excommunication (canon 1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of “schism".
JULY 2, 1988
In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the pope repeated Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schismatic mentality and threatened generalized excommunications (cf. QUESTION 12).
Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because:

Bishop de Castro Mayer
gives a brief sermon during
which he declares that his
participation in the ceremonies
serves as a profession of Faith.

• A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity1:

• if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
• and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

FOOTNOTES FOR ITEM 1
* ("The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." (Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX II])
1And yet objectively there is. (Cf. Is Tradition Excommunicated? pp.27-36 [APPENDIX II])
2Excommunication for unlawful consecrations (canon 1382) or schism (canon 1364) are of this kind.

• No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. the Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136 [APPENDIX II]). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
• Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (PRINCIPLE 8). No “authority,” [PRINCIPLE 9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.
• The Church’s approving the SSPX (QUESTION 2) allow it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic tradition.