Catholics vs the SSPX

[stmaria]

Pope Leo XIII‘Satis Cognitum” 5.2 “Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived: separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic-the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member

Here we are getting closer to something that may contradict current Church teaching. I would understand this to mean that when someone deliberately severs himself from Christ he is refusing grace. I understand that you and many others would say that it means that anyone who leaves the Church for any reason is damned. If that it was it means, then Leo XIII was simply wrong.

 

[stmaria]

Did those Popes recognize some non-catholic sacraments? Or did they not?

Baptism and Marriage

think you are misunderstanding what vatican II says. This section is not speaking about the eastern churches because they are not “separated”. Also, then what on earth would they mean by “communities”?

Communities are Protestant churches as explaind by Pope Benedict.
insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-july10-07.htm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – In a brief document, the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated Churches and communities.
Touching an ecumenical sore point, the document said some of the separated Christian communities, such as **Protestant communities, **should not properly be called "Churches" according to Catholic doctrine because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. "

Do you believe that the orthodox have valid sacraments? If they do, then those sacraments confer grace. Where do you propose that this grace comes from, if not through the Church???

Of course the orthodox have vaild sacraments

 

[TMC]

Pope Leo was wrong?

I don’t think Leo was wrong because I think he can be read consistently with the Church’s current teaching. If he is at variance with current Church teaching I am standing by the current teaching.

Anyone who knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church and refuses to enter, for any reason, cannot be saved. They have amputated themselves. If you refuse Christ’s church, you are refusing Christ.

This is obviously true. I don’t think that those who fail to join, or those who leave, the Church do so believing that it is “the true Church.” They stay away or leave because they believe the opposite. If someone truly believes that the Episcopals/Methodists/Baptists are correct, joins that Church and is the best Christian he knows how to be will he not be saved?

It means what it says the Church is NOT invisible or intangable. It is an error to "imagine that ,many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond. "Only the Catholic Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ.

Yes the Church is visible and tangible. Yes, only the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. I am not sure what “united by an invisible bond” means, but I know that non-Catholic Christians can be saved by the grace that flows through the Church without formally or consciously joining the Church. This is what the Church teaches, do you not believe it?

Doctrine cannot change.What was once believed. must always be believed. The Holy Spirit is not ambigious. Pope John said the Vatican Council would present Catholic doctrine with the same meaning but in a different way. My question is why? Past Popes were not ambigious.The Documents of Vatican II are. Past Popes were more militant, not afraid to offend. They believed in true ecumenism. They believed that all must return to the One True Church.

Truth cannot change. Beliefs can change. Understandings can change. The Church’s core teaching on this issue has remained the same - that all salvation comes from the Church. The understanding of this has evolved. We have not believed for centuries that submitting to the secular power of Rome was required for salvation, for example. We know that salvation comes through the Church, but we also know that salvation is offered to all. The Church teaches that grace is mysteriously extended to some that are not formal members of the Church.

This is what the Church teaches in this matter. It is not ambiguous. It is called ambiguous only by those that don’t want to follow it. Neither Pope John Paul II nor Benedict XVI are ambiguous on this issue.

 

[Sure]

http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2007/newsflash-july10-07.htm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – In a brief document, the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation reaffirmed that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church, even if elements of truth can be found in separated Churches and communities.
Touching an ecumenical sore point, the document said some of the separated Christian communities, such as **Protestant communities, **should not properly be called "Churches" according to Catholic doctrine because of major differences over the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. "

Of course the orthodox have vaild sacraments

So, we are in agreement then that some separated churches (like the orthodox) and communities (like anglicans) have some valid sacraments (some have more than others) which, of course, confer grace?

And we agree that this is not a new teaching, but has been a longstanding teaching of the church, correct?

Because that is all that is referred to in this section of the documents of Vatican II. This is no new theory and aligns perfectly with the statements of previous Popes. It simply says that insofar as they confer God’s grace through valid sacraments, these separated churches or communities act as a “means of salvation”, BUT it is “only through Christ’s Catholic Church…that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.”

I hope this helps to clarify my position.

God bless!

 

[GerardP]

The SSPX is a schismatic group and no faithful Catholic should ever willingly go to an SSPX Mass.

Thanks for clearing that up and dragging the conversation back to square one.

I am not sure if it would be alright to go to an SSPX Mass if that is the only thing around or not. Personally, I would never go to an SSPX Mass unless it was my absolute only choice and even then I’m not sure that I’d go.

First, you’ve undermined your own position with your second sentence. and second, It’s your loss.

 

[GerardP]

And, of course, we have absolutely no way of varifying their source. Sorry but since the internet has exactly one entry for this quote (the one you already gave), I’ll take it with a grain of salt. And, yes, I’m saying that people should be suspect of this quote.

Bear,

Did you ever see the previous post where I provided a link to your question about Paul VI saying he was “about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse?”

The people at Tradition in Action provided the source for you with photo images of the original article in Italian.

traditioninaction.org/Questions/F031_TrumpetsApocalipse.html

 

[bear06]

Bear,

Did you ever see the previous post where I provided a link to your question about Paul VI saying he was “about to blow the seven trumpets of the Apocalypse?”

The people at Tradition in Action provided the source for you with photo images of the original article in Italian.

traditioninaction.org/Questions/F031_TrumpetsApocalipse.html

Well, that was mighty nice of them. That said, I don’t lose sleep over this one. I’ve used it myself when inviting 20 kids to my daughter’s birthday party

 

[GerardP]

Well, that was mighty nice of them. That said, I don’t lose sleep over this one. I’ve used it myself when inviting 20 kids to my daughter’s birthday party

I don’t want you to lose sleep over it. But you don’t have to doubt the truth of it anymore like you were.

If the Pope says he’s blowing the horns of the Apocalypse, I understand that’s not to be taken with any seriousness or questions. It was just that good-‘ol kidder Paul VI joshin’ with everybody.

 

[bear06]

I don’t want you to lose sleep over it. But you don’t have to doubt the truth of it anymore like you were.

If the Pope says he’s blowing the horns of the Apocalypse, I understand that’s not to be taken with any seriousness or questions. It was just that good-‘ol kidder Paul VI joshin’ with everybody.

Well thank you for providing the proof. That said, he wasn’t “joshin’ with everybody” he was talking to a friend. And, that friend clarified what he thought him to mean.

 

[pnewton]

Thanks for clearing that up and dragging the conversation back to square one.

It may be square one, but it is a point we need to never lose sight of, at least for those of use who believe this to be the truth.

 

[jfallaw]

Daniel,

There’s a search function you can use on the site. I suggest you seearch the Ask Apologist Forum for the items you listed. All of these have been asked and answered. I understand you might not like some aspects of the Mass, but it is valid and good.

One thing to keep in mind is that the similiarities that you might find between protestant services and the ordinary Mass is that they are both based on “surprise!” the Catholic Mass. So, it is not unusual that there are similiarities. In fact there are many similiarities between the OF Mass, the EF Mass, and “gasp” some Protestant services. The Protestant service resembles the Catholic Mass not the other way around.

With the obvious exceptions of Lutheran and Episcopalian services, the Church of Christ and a few other protestant churches I’ve visited have similarities to the mass (very slight similarities). They are not all ‘holy rollers’ either. Some actually worship in a respectful atmosphere.