Sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

[BobP123]

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.

And this is an argument for what? That defying all tradition is a good thing? While you may have a good point in perhaps implying that conservatives are basically slow-moving liberals and give them strength in the long run, nevertheless there will always be those that still think that there should be some visible elements of tradition that link us to the past.

By the way, you haven’t showed how giving communion to younger people or more frequent communion is always a good thing, but that’s probably a matter for another thread.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

But where does Vatican II give you the idea that they are not missing anything? **And by your logic then, where is the argument that they are missing something?**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?**You are missing TNT’s point and furthermore you are not fully understanding the V2:

By TNT: “… it really doesn’t matter because Christ is using them as a means of salvation anyway”.**

So As I have and others have been trying to explain, 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???

separated Churches …have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.

Therefore the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI,. etc. need not reconcile with the Vatican (According to Vatican II).

Hence, one need not be Catholic to be entitled to Salvation (according to Vatican II).

 

[DustinsDad]

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.

I don’t think it’s the same thing at all - not even related. Regulating when and how the Sacraments are administered is and has always been a function of the authority of the Church. The wisdom and prudential decisions on when the best time and approach to their administration can indeed vary over time and always has differed somewhat within Christendom itself.

Praying with and alongside non-Christian/pagan/and polytheistic false religions for “world peace” was unprecedented and strikes at the very core of (and contradicts) what the One True Religion has taught since day one. About itself, about salvation, and about peace itself (which is only possible through, with and in Christ).

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[catharina]

www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/dramaatfatima.asp

I shall try to find links to others…in the USA and Australia…

You needn’t bother looking for other sources. I read the link.

Bishop Fellay and the others are excommunicated. It is no surprise to me that when those in power at Fatima realized the nature of this schismatic group, they took action to make the group feel unwelcome. I believe that those in schism, those who have abandoned their faith, are far more antagonistic toward the Church than those (like Hindus) who have never known the truth.

The group under the “guidance” of the four bishops attempted to announce to the world “We are the true Church.” I can only guess that the Hindus did not attempt to do that nor would they.

 

[TNT]

You needn’t bother looking for other sources. I read the link.

Bishop Fellay and the others are excommunicated. It is no surprise to me that when those in power at Fatima realized the nature of this schismatic group, they took action to make the group feel unwelcome. I believe that those in schism, those who have abandoned their faith, are far more antagonistic toward the Church than those (like Hindus) who have never known the truth.

**The group under the “guidance” of the four bishops attempted to announce to the world “We are the true Church.” **I can only guess that the Hindus did not attempt to do that nor would they.

Are you making this up on the fly or was it a hidden part of the news story?
Further, ask any Hindu if he thinks his so called religion is false and not true religion. Do you suppose he’ll tell you, “Oh, we are a false religion.”
No. They believe they are the only true religion for mankind, and often beat hell out other groups to bring home the point in India and its surrounds.
The LAST thing any SSPX member would resort to would be a physical conflict. The multiple aggressions initiated came from the VAT II church of love, tolerence & peace. Further, it was in the form of cowardly BULLYING, and not reasoned, considerate dismissal of the SSPX group.
And, lest you forget, your own VAT II church declares the SSPX and all other “churches and communities” belong to the SAME Community of Salvation.
So, your point of justification is denied by your own church…DOGMATICALLY in VAT II.

 

[TMC]

www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/dramaatfatima.asp

I shall try to find links to others…in the USA and Australia…

This was not a “pilgrimage.” It was a public rebuke to the Pope and a public relations stunt. One of the priests involved in the stunt referred to Roman Catholicism as “the devil-inspired new religion.” Has a traditionalist Catholic been turned away from a Church or Shrine outside of a media-invited protest event?

 

[catharina]

Are you making this up on the fly or was it a hidden part of the news story?
Further, ask any Hindu if he thinks his so called religion is false and not true religion. Do you suppose he’ll tell you, “Oh, we are a false religion.”
No. They believe they are the only true religion for mankind, and often beat hell out other groups to bring home the point in India and its surrounds.
The LAST thing any SSPX member would resort to would be a physical conflict. The multiple aggressions initiated came from the VAT II church of love, tolerence & peace.
And, lest you forget, your own VAT II church declares the SSPX and all other “churches and communities” belong to the SAME Community of Salvation.
So, your point of justification is denied by your own church…DOGMATICALLY in VAT II.

My “own Church?” You belong to another Church?

The four bishops in action have been excommunicated. They would not be welcomed into a RC Church to lead a prayer service of any kind. They would be (and will be) welcomed as penitents.

End of story.

 

[catharina]

… and the four know that even if their followers don’t.

 

[TNT]

This was not a “pilgrimage.” It was a public rebuke to the Pope and a public relations stunt. One of the priests involved in the stunt referred to Roman Catholicism as “the devil-inspired new religion.” Has a traditionalist Catholic been turned away from a Church or Shrine outside of a media-invited protest event?

True or false:
“…SSPX had made an agreement with Shrine authorities to be at the Little Chapel at that hour.”

The remark you reference was made AFTER the event was history, and certainly in the heat of mistreatment. It was never part of the event at all.

Now personally, I have no use for Fr Grunter, but I defend his right to organize a pilgrimage, yes that’s exactly what it was. Media or not.
The insane bullying by the Fatima infantile halfwits was bound to stir up emotions, especially when you realize you’ve been thrown into the trick bag of deceit.

Can assume by your total silence on the childish schoolyard bullying initiated by the Fatima officials that you approve of their behavior in managing this event?

 

[Walking_Home]

My “own Church?” You belong to another Church?

The four bishops in action have been excommunicated. They would not be welcomed into a RC Church to lead a prayer service of any kind. They would be (and will be) welcomed as penitents.

End of story.

---

I believe that would be for our current Pope to decide—or have you now become an Pope Benedict XVI’s binding conscience.

 

[catharina]

---

I believe that would be for our current Pope to decide—or have you now become an Pope Benedict XVI’s binding conscience.

The Church welcomes penitents. (not exactly new news.)

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
I believe that would be for our current Pope to decide—or have you now become an Pope Benedict XVI’s binding conscience.

The Church welcomes penitents. (not exactly new news.)

Quote=catharina
The four bishops in action have been excommunicated. They would not be welcomed into a RC Church to lead a prayer service of any kind. They would be (and will be) welcomed as penitents.

---

Always–but it will be up to the Pope to decide on the matter of the SSPX–unless of course–you are binding the Pope on your opinion in this matter.

 

[TMC]

Can assume by your total silence on the childish schoolyard bullying initiated by the Fatima officials that you approve of their behavior in managing this event?

No, you’re right. They handled this poorly and if the article is even close to accurate I agree that their behavior was, at a minimum, rude and uncharitable. This is especially true if this was an arranged trip that the Fatima officials later regretted agreeing to accept.

But I think that in reference to Melanie’s original comment on the event, its not fair to say that SSPX followers are turned away from Shrines and Churches. It happened in this event, but even in this event that descripition is not a full telling of the story.

I think that SSPX Catholics should be welcome everywhere. And I think they generally are. They are in communion with the Church, aren’t they? I think that schismatic traditionalists should be welcomed, too. (Although it gets more complicated when anyone wants to use the Church’s great sites to denounce the Church.)

I have made clear here that I am a big tent kind of guy. Bring everybody in, I say. Let’s focus on our love of Christ, not our differences.

 

[catharina]

---

Always–but it will be up to the Pope to decide on the matter of the SSPX–unless of course–you are binding the Pope on your opinion in this matter.

You can be so laughable.

I’m speaking of the four excommunicated bishops - as I said.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Always–but it will be up to the Pope to decide on the matter of the SSPX–unless of course–you are binding the Pope on your opinion in this matter.

You can be so laughable.

I’m speaking of the four excommunicated bishops - as I said.

---

Be carefull that you don’t choke while you are laughing–but ultimately --it is up to our current Pope (or a next Pope) to handle the matter with the SSPX. Oh --just so this will sink in–your opinion is not binding on the Pope.

 

[TNT]

My “own Church?” You belong to another Church?

The four bishops in action have been excommunicated. They would not be welcomed into a RC Church to lead a prayer service of any kind. They would be (and will be) welcomed as penitents.

End of story.

Not quite:
**Archdiocese of Dublin: Friday 18th January 2002
Inaugural Service (leaders of all Christian denominations in attendance) in St Anthony’s Catholic Church, Clontarf, Dublin at 8.00pm. Preacher: Rev Norman Taggart (Former President of the Methodist Church) **

Sunday 27th January 2002
A combined Service of Praise will take place at 3.30 pm.in Taney Church of Ireland Church [Prot.]. Clergy and congregations of Taney Church of Ireland, Holy Cross Catholic Church and Dundrum Methodist Church,
will participate in Readings from Scripture, Hymns and Prayers…

Parish News Report of St Aloysius Catholic Church, Palo Alto CA (Jan 1971):
"In honor of the Church Unity Octave we will have a ecumenical emphasis. Our neighbors across the street at Wesley Methodist Church have been invited to attend and their minister, Rev. Bob Schlager, will Participate in the service by saying a few words before the end of the Mass. On the following Sunday, Jan. 31st, our parish community has been invited to join in the 11:00AM service at Wesley Methodist. Father Guiness will address the congregation during the service."

**And on and on…
**

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

You needn’t bother looking for other sources. I read the link.

Bishop Fellay and the others are excommunicated. It is no surprise to me that when those in power at Fatima realized the nature of this schismatic group, they took action to make the group feel unwelcome. I believe that those in schism, those who have abandoned their faith, are far more antagonistic toward the Church than those (like Hindus) who have never known the truth.
**It does not matter what you think because according to V2 the separated churches are not deprived of Salvation.
BTW, I have Hindus in my family, Hindus think Catholics are doomed and that Hinduism, the oldest religion in the world, is the only religion.
The SSPX are Catholic, even I can see that and I am not even a member of the SSPX!!!.
It is the Modernists/Liberal sects that are more likely to accept Pagans like HINDUS (as we have seen by your own admission), than Catholics who worship the Triune GOD and hold that The Universal Church is the Catholic Church.
What madness is this?:whacky:
**
The group under the “guidance” of the four bishops attempted to announce to the world “We are the true Church.” I can only guess (better to know than to guess) that the Hindus did not attempt to do that nor would they. ** Again, Hindus could care less about Christianity and this is the same thinking of Islam. Both (Hinduism and Islam) deny the divinity of Yeshua who is Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. Both will tell you that their religion is the only religion for Salvation and that you must convert. **.

Lastly do you not agree with V2 here?:

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]

No, you’re right. They handled this poorly and if the article is even close to accurate I agree that their behavior was, at a minimum, rude and uncharitable. This is especially true if this was an arranged trip that the Fatima officials later regretted agreeing to accept.

But I think that in reference to Melanie’s original comment on the event, its not fair to say that SSPX followers are turned away from Shrines and Churches. It happened in this event, but even in this event that descripition is not a full telling of the story.

I think that SSPX Catholics should be welcome everywhere. And I think they generally are. They are in communion with the Church, aren’t they? I think that schismatic traditionalists should be welcomed, too. (Although it gets more complicated when anyone wants to use the Church’s great sites to denounce the Church.)

I have made clear here that I am a big tent kind of guy. Bring everybody in, I say. Let’s focus on our love of Christ, not our differences.

Fair Enough, well said.

Ok, I think we can call this one a wrap. Everyone has made their points & position clear and the more recent posts are getting personal.
Soooooo, I’m off to some other Thread, if I can find one, to wreck my havoc.
TNThttp://www.geocities.com/sunstar2513007/Lightning02.gif
ps.
I’m making TMC (which are the initials of my Real Name) my official adversarial sidekick.

 

[Sure]

So As I have and others have been trying to explain, 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???

Vatican II doesn’t say this. It says: “These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.” What is the “community of salvation”? - The Church! This statement does NOT say they can be saved. It says they can “access” grace from the Church. Which we already know from waaay before Vatican II because BAPTISM can be valid and confer grace even if done by a separated church. We also know that Vatican II is NOT saying what you state because the paragraph is followed by this: "For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation."

Therefore the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI,. etc. need not reconcile with the Vatican (According to Vatican II).

Hence, one need not be Catholic to be entitled to Salvation (according to Vatican II).

No, therefore they DO need to reconcile since their access to the community of salvation is IMPERFECT and INCOMPLETE and “it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.”

Only a very tortured (that ignores previous Church teaching)reading of Vatican II can conclude that one need not convert and be in union with the Church.

 

[TNT]

Vatican II doesn’t say this. It says: “These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.” What is the “community of salvation”? - The Church! This statement does NOT say they can be saved. It says they can “access” grace from the Church. Which we already know from waaay before Vatican II because BAPTISM can be valid and confer grace even if done by a separated church. We also know that Vatican II is NOT saying what you state because the paragraph is followed by this: "For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation."

No, therefore they DO need to reconcile since their access to the community of salvation is IMPERFECT and INCOMPLETE and “it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is ‘the all-embracing means of salvation,’ that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.”

Only a very tortured (that ignores previous Church teaching)reading of Vatican II can conclude that one need not convert and be in union with the Church.

Enough doublespeak!

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 a means of salvation

More proof:

Cardinal Walter Kasper:
“… today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being Catholics. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”

Benedict XVI,
Theological Highlights of Vatican II, 1966, pages 61, 68: “… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches. … A basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion…”

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…”