Sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter down_under
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SemperFidelis: TMC
I think it would be a capital idea to head any thread that intends to criticize the SSPX, with TMC’s Quote from VATT II !
 
TNT said:
OK, I’ll paste the meat of the teaching:
These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
…
separated Churches …have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

…Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation

If all this is so, and no exceptions are stated, then why would a “separated church” like the SSPX have to join the VAT II church in the first place?

It is clear from VAT II that they are not deprived of the means of salvation at all, even if the VAT II church considers them “deficient”, and “most certainly can truly engender a life of grace.…”

They look and act just like the Roman Catholic Church of say 1962. So, how “deficient” are they?
They reject only VAT II of 1965.

The EO reject a whole host of Councils and the whole dogma of the Papacy to boot. Yet they are also included in this Salvation umbrella.

So why all the concern?
Click to expand...
I agree that salvation is available to the traditionalists whether involved in SSPX within the Church, or in one of the actively schismatic “traditional Catholic” churches. My point is that many “traditionalists” on this forum have said that the Church’s teaching on ecumenism as put forth in Unitatis Redintegratio is wrong.

Do SSPX followers and other traditionalists agree that salvation is also available to Lutherans and to Baptists? Does a baptism in a Baptist church give access to the community of salvation? I have understood that this is the teaching that causes so many problems with traditionalists.
 
TNT said:
SemperFidelis: TMC
I think it would be a capital idea to head any thread that intends to criticize the SSPX, with TMC’s Quote from VATT II !
Click to expand...
I think you and others are misunderstanding what is said in the document. You should remember that there are separated christian churches which retain some Sacraments.

Do the separated churches not have valid Baptism?

Do they not have valid Sacramental marriages?

The Church has long taught that they do.

These are real sacraments which confer real grace despite the fact that, in a sense, they occur in a “separated” fashion. Insofar as these sacraments confer grace, they do so through the One Church. Even though they are separated, they still participate in the Holy Catholic Church in some limited fashion.

To disagree with this, is to disagree with Church teaching that has existed long before Vatican II.
 
Sure said:
I think you and others are misunderstanding what is said in the document. .
Click to expand...
Let’s not play that game of you are enlightened and others are not enlightened, OK? In the least you come off arrogant at most you come off as insulting the intellect of others of which you know nothing at all.

The point being made is WHAT does the VAT II church teach? And TMC has done a fine job of laying that out regarding those not visibly joined to the VAT II church.

RE:
To disagree with this, is to disagree with Church teaching that has existed long before Vatican II.
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant what those not visibly joined to the VATT II church believe.
What matters is that the members of the VAT II church are required to hold to the quote by TMC. Period.

Therefore, the SSPX or the EO have a valid path to the community of salvation IN THE EYES of any true VAT II church member.
Even IF the VAT II church says that certain sacraments of the SSPX or SSPV or Anglican or whatever are invalid, it makes no salvational difference to the VAT II church or its members because it holds, without exception to what “deficiencies” they have, the teaching of effective salvation access by these other churches or communities.
To wit:
These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
…
separated Churches …have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

…Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation
 
TNT said:
Let’s not play that game of you are enlightened and others are not enlightened, OK? In the least you come off arragant at most you come off as insulting the intellect of others.

The point being made is WHAT does the VAT II church teach? And TMC has done a fine job of laying that out regarding those not visibly joined to the VAT II church.

RE:

It is irrelevant what those not visibly joined to the VATT II church believe.
What matters is that the members of the VAT II church are required to hold to the quote by TMC. Period.

Therefore, the SSPX or the EO have a valid path to the community of salvation IN THE EYES of any true VAT II church member.
Even IF the VAT II church says that certain sacraments of the SSPX or SSPV or Anglican or whatever are invalid, it makes no salvational difference to the VAT II church or its members because it holds, without exception to what “deficiencies” they have, the teaching of effective salvation access by these other churches or communities.
To wit:
**These liturgical actions must be regarded as **capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
…
separated Churches …**have been **by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

…Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation
Click to expand...
Excellent remarks!

The Modernist/liberals are ready to accept Hindu/Muslim/Pagan/Cult/Mormon/Protestant/Buddhist/etc., but have a very hard time accepting the SSPX who are Catholic.

What difference does it make anyway since Vatican II teaches that one can be saved in another religion and that the Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church???:confused: (This ideology if of course Ridiculous since the Universal Church is the Catholic Church).
TNT said:
If all this is so, and no exceptions are stated, then why would a “separated church” like the SSPX have to join the VAT II church in the first place?
Click to expand...
I would love to hear answer from the modernist/liberals for this purely legitimate Question!
 
TMC said:
I agree that salvation is available to the traditionalists whether involved in SSPX within the Church, or in one of the actively schismatic “traditional Catholic” churches. My point is that many “traditionalists” on this forum have said that the Church’s teaching on ecumenism as put forth in Unitatis Redintegratio is wrong.

Do SSPX followers and other traditionalists agree that salvation is also available to Lutherans and to Baptists? Does a baptism in a Baptist church give access to the community of salvation? I have understood that this is the teaching that causes so many problems with traditionalists.
Click to expand...
In the end, it doesn’t matter what they believe or disbelieve. What does matter to those who are VAT II church members is that they MUST believe that those separated churches do have access to the community of salvation.
So this grave concern for the souls of say, SSPX or Anglican or EO is overstated when VAT II church members start harping about some “requirement” to join up to the VAT II church for their salvation.

In other words, why criticize a separated church member who is part of the community of salvation already?
That’s my point. QUITE throwing criticisms at their position or beliefs.
 
TNT said:
…Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation
Click to expand...
Yes the protestants churchs are a means of salvation also. somehow by Gods infinite grace. for those who follow there concience. But there is no gauarentee of salvation outside the church which is where sspx by her own admission is. You might be able to get to heaven, but I can’t say for sure for any given individual.
 
down_under said:
Yes the protestants churchs are a means of salvation also. somehow by Gods infinite grace. for those who follow there concience. But there is no gauarentee of salvation outside the church which is where sspx by her own admission is. You might be able to get to heaven, but I can’t say for sure for any given individual.
Click to expand...
The Quote by TMC of the VAT II belief says nothing for or against any guarantee, in or out of the VAT II church visible membership.
Come now, I doubt that anyone becomes SSPX because it violates their conscience. Some have joined straight out of a non-catholic religion.
As far as individuals go, who can say for sure about their ultimate salvation (with or without visible VAT II church membership) anyway?
 
TNT said:
Let’s not play that game of you are enlightened and others are not enlightened, OK? In the least you come off arrogant at most you come off as insulting the intellect of others of which you know nothing at all.

The point being made is WHAT does the VAT II church teach? And TMC has done a fine job of laying that out regarding those not visibly joined to the VAT II church.

RE:

It is irrelevant what those not visibly joined to the VATT II church believe.
What matters is that the members of the VAT II church are required to hold to the quote by TMC. Period.

Therefore, the SSPX or the EO have a valid path to the community of salvation IN THE EYES of any true VAT II church member.
Even IF the VAT II church says that certain sacraments of the SSPX or SSPV or Anglican or whatever are invalid, it makes no salvational difference to the VAT II church or its members because it holds, without exception to what “deficiencies” they have, the teaching of effective salvation access by these other churches or communities.
To wit:
**These liturgical actions must be regarded as **capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
…
separated Churches …**have been **by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

…Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation
Click to expand...
I am not understanding your point.

Do some separated churches have access to some (not all) Sacraments?

It would seem that sacramental graces are sometimes conferred to those ‘separated.’ Of course, not ALL Sacraments are conferred. And of course, it would not be wise to seek salvation through a church that can only offer you some of the Sacraments.
 
Sure said:
I am not understanding your point.

Do some separated churches have access to some (not all) Sacraments?
Click to expand...
The VAT II church position on SSPX, SSPV et al is that they have valid but illicit sacraments as well as invalid sacraments like Confirmation, Confession. But it really doesn’t matter because Christ is using them as a means of salvation anyway.
It would seem that sacramental graces are sometimes conferred to those ‘separated.’ Of course, not ALL Sacraments are conferred. And of course, it would not be wise to seek salvation through a church that can only offer you some of the Sacraments.
Click to expand...
That is of course reactionary against VAT II as quoted by TMC and me.
It says nothing about some caution needed by non-VAT II churches or danger from missing some sacrament(s).
After all, the “Community” or “church” of Anglicans or Lutherans or Methodists or Baptists are missing at least 5 of them.
The VAT II quote does not deminish their opportunities or participation in the community of Salvation at all because of that.

Does that help?
 
TNT said:
The VAT II church position on SSPX, SSPV et al is that they have valid but illicit sacraments as well as invalid sacraments like Confirmation, Confession. But it really doesn’t matter because Christ is using them as a means of salvation anyway.

That is of course reactionary against VAT II as quoted by TMC and me.
It says nothing about some caution needed by non-VAT II churches or danger from missing some sacrament(s).
After all, the “Community” or “church” of Anglicans or Lutherans or Methodists or Baptists are missing at least 5 of them.
The VAT II quote does not deminish their opportunities or participation in the community of Salvation at all because of that.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
But where does Vatican II give you the idea that they are not missing anything? If you read these documents in light of tradition as they should be, where is the conflict?

What is the specific problem with the section you highlighted? Is it not true? Do you believe that grace is conferred through these Sacraments celebrated by other christian denominations?

Thanks
 
TNT said:
The Quote by TMC of the VAT II belief says nothing for or against any guarantee, in or out of the VAT II church visible membership.
Come now, I doubt that anyone becomes SSPX because it violates their conscience. Some have joined straight out of a non-catholic religion.
As far as individuals go, who can say for sure about their ultimate salvation (with or without visible VAT II church membership) anyway?
Click to expand...
I agree that there are no guarantees in any Church. I also agree that conscience is an important part of this, and that SSPX followers do so because of conscience.

This may be the first time I have agreed with traditionalists about just about anything on this forum. My question is whether traditionalists are equally ready to believe that liberals are acting according to conscience, and trying just as hard as traditionalists to do what is right in God’s eyes? If we can agree on that we are really getting somewhere.
 
TMC said:
My question is whether traditionalists are equally ready to believe that liberals are acting according to conscience, and trying just as hard as traditionalists to do what is right in God’s eyes?
Click to expand...
Sort of like the act-on-your-conscience advice many priests were giving out (before HV was issued) when asked about using artificial birth control pills?
 
TMC said:
I agree that there are no guarantees in any Church. I also agree that conscience is an important part of this, and that SSPX followers do so because of conscience.

This may be the first time I have agreed with traditionalists about just about anything on this forum. My question is whether traditionalists are equally ready to believe that liberals are acting according to conscience, and trying just as hard as traditionalists to do what is right in God’s eyes? If we can agree on that we are really getting somewhere.
Click to expand...
Well, you have to read my Sig. about the liberal mind, then decide:angelqueen.org
 
TNT said:
Well, you have to read my Sig. about the liberal mind, then decide:angelqueen.org
Click to expand...
Michael Weiner as a theological resource?

I agree liberal reasoning makes no sense. However, the same liberal reasoning used by people like Archbishop Milingo and Cardinal Mahoney is the same reasoning used by Archbishop Lefebvre. They decide that what they desire personally is more important than laws and papal mandates. They’re all in the same vein.
 
I think that much controversy could have been avoided had Vatican II been conducted in a way closer to previous Councils, i.e., documents that gave specific intrepretations of the results of the council, and instructions on implementation.

I always said that if Cardinal Wojtyla and Archbishop Sheen had taken the prominent roles in VII that Cardinal Bugnini and Archbishop Lefebvre had, many of the problems in the Church today wouldn’t exist. The people that prepared and promulgated the VII documents didn’t see “The Spirit of Vatican II” coming, and now we’re all paying the price.
 
TNT said:
Well, you have to read my Sig. about the liberal mind, then decide:angelqueen.org
Click to expand...
St. Piux X allowed small children to receive the Eucharist but those who had objections, over time, died out. That Pius X made such an enormous move in reviving an attitude and practice of the Church after hundreds of years of doing things another way, seems no different from John Paul II’s idea to host a gathering in Assisi for all who would attend, IMO.

Don’t you think many people (at the time) might have considered the decision approved by Pius X (re children and the Eucharist) to be an act of sheer liberalism?

He “went against” centuries of custom.
 
ThereCanBeOnly1 said:
Excellent remarks!

The Modernist/liberals are ready to accept Hindu/Muslim/Pagan/Cult/Mormon/Protestant/Buddhist/etc., but have a very hard time accepting the SSPX who are Catholic.

What difference does it make anyway since Vatican II teaches that one can be saved in another religion and that the Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church???:confused: (This ideology if of course Ridiculous since the Universal Church is the Catholic Church).

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 It is so sad when the folk who attend SPPX chapels go on pilrimage and are denied entrance to the great Churches and Shrines of Christendom but pagans and heathens are greeted with open arms…
Click to expand...
 
"It is so sad when the folk who attend SPPX chapels go on pilrimage and are denied entrance to the great Churches and Shrines of Christendom but pagans and heathens are greeted with open arms…"

When and where has that happened?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top