Sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

[paramedicgirl]

Thank you that interesting brief. It’s far more than any sspx adherent will admit here. Actually, all they say here is “we’re the best and Rome and the Pope stink” but in more socially acceptable words. I know only that if/when sspx adherents follow the lead of excommunicated bishops, they are in grave danger of facing excommunication for their rebellion against the Faith.

Do you have a reference for that quote?

 

[catharina]

All this chatter is irrelevant:
VAT II Says Dogmatically:
Read![sign]

For the Spirit of **Christ has not refrained from using **the SSPX as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
[/sign]
So it makes no difference if they are schismatic, Lutheran, excommunicated, or establishing their own church. VAT II says they (their church) is also a means of salvation. And, the Spirit of Christ is using them for that purpose.
Period.
So follow the VAT II teaching instead of ignoring it.

So you enjoy taking things to ridiculous extremes. Nevertheless, as ALWAYS, there is a monumental difference between those who are practicing Catholics within the Church who chose to walk away - and those who have never been practicing Catholics within the Church and are therefore incapable of fully choosing to reject truth.

 

[Aramis]

Thank you that interesting brief. It’s far more than any sspx adherent will admit here. Actually, all they say here is “we’re the best and Rome and the Pope stink” but in more socially acceptable words. I know only that if/when sspx adherents follow the lead of excommunicated bishops, they are in grave danger of facing excommunication for their rebellion against the Faith.

I don’t know about that. That’s farther than I’m willing to speculate.

 

[catharina]

Do you have a reference for that quote?

Follow the yellow brick road for you? No thanks.
However if you want to see the relevant material, you might read the following threads:

sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

Pope JP2 a Liberal?

When a pope makes mistakes …

If you were Pope…

 

[paramedicgirl]

Follow the yellow brick road for you? No thanks.
However if you want to see the relevant material, you might read the following threads:

sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

Pope JP2 a Liberal?

When a pope makes mistakes …

If you were Pope…

If you put words into someone’s mouth, my dear, the onus is on you to prove it’s not slander by referencing a quote. Sorry. Thought you knew that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t know about that. That’s farther than I’m willing to speculate.

It wasn’t farther than Ecclessia Dei was prepared to go. In it, the faithul are warned against the grave sin of schism by attendance at SSPX services.

Of course, that plain statement of fact will be construed as “bashing.”

 

[catharina]

If you put words into someone’s mouth, my dear, the onus is on you to prove it’s not slander by referencing a quote. Sorry. Thought you knew that.

So let’s see. You think WH has a wonderful reputation. I think it’s likely that we need NOT get to know each other. Besides, you have your reference material now. Go for it. Read the threads.

My dear.
Thought you knew that.

Read the threads.

 

[paramedicgirl]

So let’s see. You think WH has a wonderful reputation. I think it’s likely that we need NOT get to know each other. Besides, you have your refernce material now. Go for it. Read the threads.

My dear.
Thought you knew that.

Read the threads.

Nah. I’m not going down that yellow brick road. You spat out the quote. Now tell us where you found it.

 

[catharina]

Nah. I’m not going down that yellow brick road. You spat out the quote. Now tell us where you found it.

Primary lesson in Theology and Psychiatry:

Do not ever address an individual who claims to be a “We” or an “Us.”

Bye, my dear. It’s been swell or something.

 

[TNT]

So you enjoy taking things to ridiculous extremes. Nevertheless, as ALWAYS, there is a monumental difference between those who are practicing Catholics within the Church who chose to walk away - and those who have never been practicing Catholics within the Church and are therefore incapable of fully choosing to reject truth.

If it is rediculous extremes, then VAT II is rediculous to you.

Where pray tell is this distinction made in the entire discourse of the document such that it OVERRIDES the part I quoted?
First, you make a serious presumptive error in:
"incapable of fully choosing to reject truth"
At least 30% of most sects especially Evangelicals, in protestantism are catholics who left the church. Not because they saw it as a REJECTION of truth, but called by their conscience to say nothing of protecting their young boys from predators, and their pockets from embezzelers.

Second of all, 65% of the SSPX membership was raised in the SSPX. Only about 30% were ever in the VAT II church in the first place, and they left from demands of conscience, which the VAT II church states may NOT be coerced OR threatened and to which all have an inalienable God given right to follow in matters of Faith.
So this accusation of:
“**fully choosing to reject truth” **is nothing but a calumny on your part. You know NOTHING at all about them REJECTING the truth.That’s just your mental position on the matter. Commonly called a Malicious Predjudice. You ASSUME bad faith and/or evil intent.
Shame!

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paramedicgirl
Nah. I’m not going down that yellow brick road. You spat out the quote. Now tell us where you found it.

Primary lesson in Theology and Psychiatry:

Do not ever address an individual who claims to be a “We” or an “Us.”

Bye, my dear. It’s been swell or something.

---

I guess when someone has empty hands—“Bye” would look like a valid answer.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Primary lesson in Theology and Psychiatry:

Do not ever address an individual who claims to be a “We” or an “Us.”

Bye, my dear. It’s been swell or something.

Even though your response doesn’t merit an explanation, I think it’s clearly obvious I was speaking on behalf of those you were addressing. You just keep sidestepping the issue, because you can’t tell us where you found that juicy little little quote - when you said this:

It’s far more than any sspx adherent will admit here. Actually, all they say here is “we’re the best and Rome and the Pope stink”

Clearly it is your opinion you are voicing. And we all know that. Yes, WE do.

 

[TNT]

So you enjoy taking things to ridiculous extremes. Nevertheless, as ALWAYS, there is a monumental difference between those who are practicing Catholics within the Church who chose to walk away - and those who have never been practicing Catholics within the Church and are therefore incapable of fully choosing to reject truth.

If it is rediculous extremes, then VAT II is rediculous to you.

Where pray tell is this distinction made in the entire discourse of the document such that it OVERRIDES the part I quoted?
First, you make a serious presumptive error in:
"incapable of fully choosing to reject truth"
At least 30% of most sects especially Evangelicals, in protestantism are catholics who left the church. Not because they saw it as a REJECTION of truth, but called by their conscience to say nothing of protecting their young boys from predators, and their pockets from embezzelers.

Second of all, 65% of the SSPX membership was raised in the SSPX. Only about 30% were ever in the VAT II church in the first place, and they left from demands of conscience, which the VAT II church states may NOT be coerced OR threatened and to which all have an inalienable God given right to follow in matters of Faith.
So this accusation of:
“**fully choosing to reject truth” **is nothing but a calumny on your part. You know NOTHING at all about them REJECTING the truth.That’s just your mental position on the matter. Commonly called a Malicious Predjudice. You ASSUME bad faith and/or evil intent.
Shame!

 

[catharina]

If it is rediculous extremes, then VAT II is rediculous to you.

Where pray tell is this distinction made in the entire discourse of the document such that it OVERRIDES the part I quoted?
First, you make a serious presumptive error in:
"incapable of fully choosing to reject truth"
At least 30% of most sects especially Evangelicals, in protestantism are catholics who left the church. Not because they saw it as a REJECTION of truth, but called by their conscience to say nothing of protecting their young boys from predators, and their pockets from embezzelers.

Second of all, 65% of the SSPX membership was raised in the SSPX. Only about 30% were ever in the VAT II church in the first place, and they left from demands of conscience, which the VAT II church states may NOT be coerced OR threatened and to which all have an inalienable God given right to follow in matters of Faith.
So this accusation of:
“fully choosing to reject truth” is nothing but a calumny on your part. You know NOTHING at all about them REJECTING the truth.That’s just your mental position on the matter. Commonly called a Malicious Predjudice. You ASSUME bad faith and/or evil intent.
Shame!

Another angry dissident? Are you a disseient? I don’t know - but you sound angry.

I do know that now, as always, those who leave the Catholic Church for another faith or for no faith remain in a separate category from those who have never known the fullness of faith in the Church. Similarly while I do feel terribly sorry for any number of people in the two generations who’ve been raised in the sspx, their status has been within the Catholic Church. Only now are some of these choosing to do things that might change that status. Breaking from Rome is always a tragedy. Never having known Rome is a different sort of sorrow.

You can deny you know that but such ignorance would be unlikely for anyone raised in the Faith, in the Church. One who accuses another of calumny might indulge in many errors.

 

[catharina]

Regarding the obvious use of a conflated (and imagined) “we” and “us” it would be well to check with your own theologians as to the usual indication such a use reveals or implies. (Ditto re psychiatry.) No joke: it’s very bad stuff.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Regarding the obvious use of a conflated (and imagined) “we” and “us” it would be well to check with your own theologians as to the usual indication such a use reveals or implies. (Ditto re psychiatry.) No joke: it’s very bad stuff.

So we are all imaginary here are we? If it makes you sleep any better, I can reword the post and put “I” in the text where it says “we”.

 

[TNT]

Another angry dissident? Are you a disseient? I don’t know - but you sound angry.

I do know that now, as always, those who leave the Catholic Church for another faith or for no faith remain in a separate category from those who have never known the fullness of faith in the Church. Similarly while I do feel terribly sorry for any number of people in the two generations who’ve been raised in the sspx, their status has been within the Catholic Church. Only now are some of these choosing to do things that might change that status. Breaking from Rome is always a tragedy. Never having known Rome is a different sort of sorrow.

Ah, Poor B16:
Benedict XVI, Aug. 17, 2005, on Bro. Roger:
“**Bro. Roger Schutz **founder of a non-Catholic sect and extremely knowledgeable about the Catholic Doctrines] **is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; ****he has arrived at **eternal joy…”

Dear Roger knew all the doctrines of the Catholic Church & even buddied with JPII & B16 as well as prominent cath. theologians.
He willingly declined to join the Church!
But there he is according to the VAT II pope:"in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has arrived at eternal joy…"

Your “sorrow” notwithstanding.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Ah, Poor B16:
Benedict XVI, Aug. 17, 2005, on Bro. Roger:
“**Bro. Roger Schutz **founder of a non-Catholic sect and extremely knowledgeable about the Catholic Doctrines] **is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; ****he has arrived at **eternal joy…”

Dear Roger knew all the doctrines of the Catholic Church & even buddied with JPII & B16 as well as prominent cath. theologians.
He willingly declined to join the Church!
But there he is according to the VAT II pope:"**in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has arrived at **eternal joy…"

Your “sorrow” notwithstanding.

Well, that’s good news for followers of Archbishop Lefebvre then, wouldn’t you say? Gives them hope.

 

[Walking_Home]

Regarding the obvious use of a conflated (and imagined) “we” and “us” it would be well to check with your own theologians as to the usual indication such a use reveals or implies. (Ditto re psychiatry.) No joke: it’s very bad stuff.

---

What is becoming even more obvious --is that you are beating around the bush with stuff like the above–and not answering paramedicgirl’s question.

Quote=paramedicgirl
Nah. I’m not going down that yellow brick road. You spat out the quote. Now tell us where you found it.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Well, nighty night to all my imaginary friends out there. :whacky: