Sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

[Sure]

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

It’s not double-speak at all.

They confer baptism which confers Sacramental Grace. How can Sacramental Grace NOT be a “means” of salvation? Please explain.

A baby who is baptized in an Anglican church and dies shortly afterwards has been saved by the sacramental grace of that baptism. In this way, “Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.”

 

[latinmass]

By using V2 logic, SSPX not being in line with Rome as all of the other schismatics, is still used as a means of salvation for there wayward followers. This is good news for SSPX until Rome comes back in lin with them.

 

[TNT]

It’s not double-speak at all.

They confer baptism which confers Sacramental Grace. How can Sacramental Grace NOT be a “means” of salvation? Please explain.

A baby who is baptized in an Anglican church and dies shortly afterwards has been saved by the sacramental grace of that baptism. In this way, “Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.”

NO ONE is addressing the virtue of a baptized person who has NO faculty of reason.

The quote in context says Nothing about baptized infants. Indeed Baptism is not even used. It uses Liturgical Actions aka Liturgy and worship ceremonies of many kinds, called actions–plural:
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Baptism is not even at issue in the quote.
We are speaking about adults, not JUST little babes.
If you want baptism of infants to be the issue, then find a VAT II quote that addresses it.
Besides, many communities wait until the age of reason to even consider baptizing.

 

[Sure]

NO ONE is addressing the virtue of a baptized person who has NO faculty of reason.

The quote in context says Nothing about baptized infants. Indeed Baptism is not even used. It uses Liturgical Actions aka Liturgy:
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Baptism is not even at issue in the quote.
We are speaking about adults, not JUST little babes.
If you want baptism of infants to be the issue, then find a VAT II quote that addresses it.
Besides, many communities wait until the age of reason to even consider baptizing.

Baptism is a liturgical action that is practiced not only in the Church but outside of it as well. Baptism confers grace. Period. So, disregard the example of the baby, if you like. But we know that baptism is valid “outside” of the Church or rather, “separated brethren” can “access” this grace from the Church.

It would seem that since they use “liturgical action” instead of “liturgy” they are NOT referring to “Mass” but rather other liturgical rites such as baptism or marriage, for instance.

I mean, are the protestant churches NOT being used as a “means of salvation”? Are the people they baptize somehow not receiving God’s grace? Are the natives baptized by non-Catholic missionaries (assuming proper form and matter) not being saved? If these baptisms are valid as the Church has long taught, then they are conferring grace and that grace MUST come through the Church. In this way, they “access the community of salvation” which is the Church. Or are you proposing that they receive some sort of grace that does not come through the Church?

 

[TNT]

Baptism is a liturgical action that is practiced not only in the Church but outside of it as well. Baptism confers grace. Period. So, disregard the example of the baby, if you like. But we know that baptism is valid “outside” of the Church or rather, “separated brethren” can “access” this grace from the Church.

It would seem that since they use “liturgical action” instead of “liturgy” they are NOT referring to “Mass” but rather other liturgical rites such as baptism or marriage, for instance.

Forget it…
And I NEVER mention “Mass” but the SSPX even has a Valid one of those.

 

[Sure]

Forget it…
And I NEVER mention “Mass” but the SSPX even has a Valid one of those.

Absolutely, they do.

Why “forget it”?

Does what I have written not make sense?

It seems that you are reading meanings into the Vatican II document that simply are not there. Obviously, we know that grace is conferred by “separated brethren” in the Sacraments of baptism and marriage. But this grace still comes through the Catholic Church.

 

[vocatio]

What’s the problem. It is clearly obvioius that non-Catholics are by their very existance self condemned to eternal damnation. If one is not in full communion with the Papacy they are in scism and comdemned to hell. Why is this so hard to understand. There are no graces conferred outside of the Roman Catholic Church. My even the Easterns are will have to pay their dues on the judgement day…

Okay. Now I have to explain to my wife why she’s going to hell. She is a convert and was not baptized by a validly ordained Roman Catholic priest in communion with the Holy See. And while I’m at it my son, convert, will be lost too unless he can convince someone to baptize him. Never mind the fact that I in error baptized him a few years back. But at least I’m save now that I’m in the Holy Catholic Church.

And therefore there are no alternatives in communion with rome for the sspx. Repent!!! Repent!!

I will clarify anything from above if you ask.

 

[catharina]

---

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.

You’re a real comedian - or something like that. My opinion is that it is the Pope’s prerogative to address matters concerning the four excommunicated bishops - if they repent. It’s also the Pope’s choice as to when and where to address new issues re SSPX as such arise: such as regarding those people who are actively following those bishops.

An available link that attempts to EXPLAIN Rome’s decision re the excommunicated men and why all who attend SSPX Masses should take caution is contained in the following. It refers to the eventual and likely compromising of one’s own conscience if/when one seeks to build/support a house with leaders who are excommunicated, if I might use that humble analogy. If/when the Vatican has more to say about it then I’m sure all of us will hear about it. Meanwhile the linked response EXPLAINING the Vatican’s stance is a helpful beginning.

Excommuinciations are not declared lightly or unnecessarily.

72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:W8aqzwRBorMJ:www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM+fellay,+society+of+st.+pius+X,+excommunicated&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
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.

You’re a real comedian - or something like that. My opinion is that it is the Pope’s prerogative to address matters concerning the four excommunicated bishops - if they repent. It’s also the Pope’s choice as to when and where to address new issues re SSPX as such arise: such as regarding those people who are actively following those bishops.

An available link that attempts to EXPLAIN Rome’s decision re the excommunicated men and why all who attend SSPX Masses should take caution is contained in the following. It refers to the eventual and likely compromising of one’s own conscience if/when one seeks to build/support a house with leaders who are excommunicated, if I might use that humble analogy. If/when the Vatican has more to say about it then I’m sure all of us will hear about it. Meanwhile the linked response EXPLAINING the Vatican’s stance is a helpful beginning.

Excommuinciations are not declared lightly or unnecessarily.

72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:W8aqzwRBorMJ:www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM+fellay,+society+of+st.+pius+X,+excommunicated&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

---

Now look at who really acting funny. First you say it is the Pope’s prerogative to address matters with the SSPX --then you qualify it with how you want it done —that they repent. That blows the credibility of your post --out of the boat.

 

[catharina]

---

Now look at who really acting funny. First you say it is the Pope’s prerogative to address matters with the SSPX --then you qualify it with how you want it done —that they repent. That blows the credibility of your post --out of the boat.

You surely sound like a very silly man - do you intend to be so funny? There is (HISTORICALLY) one solution to resolve any excommunication and only the Pope can enact it:

The excommunicated must become repentant and then the Holy Father is free to accept them back into the Church.

FIRST STEP of those wayward: REPENTANCE.

What religion did you say you practice?

 

[vocatio]

Oh! I didn’t know my credability depends on my posts. I better recant what I posted Maybe only those in communion with the Holy See are condemned? Or is this a matter of whether or not in time a reunion will occur.

Okay, I was being sarcastic a little. My personality is a bit odd admitedly. Personally, it seems that there is an air of dissent among those willing to risk separation from the Church by participating or leading in a group that may even potentially be scimatic. It takes a lot of umph to do something like that. However, it takes true humility to stay in ocmmunion while petitioning personal desires. When we try to take time into our hands rather than leave it up to God in His time, we are not being truely humble before God and man. We’ver become arrogant. Now I’m not saying all SSPX are arrogant, there are arrogant people everywhere. I pray that I never fall pray to that [again]. I wonder if there is a sense of lack of trust in God among those rejectign V2. Many took advantage of the times, not the message of V2. An old sergeant Major of mine use to say “there ain’t no right way to do wrong”. 2 wrongs do not make a right. The end does not justify the means is another one of my favorite sayings from another source. Even though the claims of preserving the “truth” or “tradition” are nobel it still does not justify carrying out something against the wishes of the Holy See. That leads to other beliefs that reject the infalability of the Holy See, which is another topic altogether.

If I had opportunity in my choice we’d disolve many things that divide the east and the west. We’ve go to a pre-Trent divine liturgy and return to some of the old hard rules. Far too many people seem to have taken a lot of this for granted. But as a friend of mine said at the beginning of the semester when scolding my wife for our son tearing a book in a CCD class without evidence that he did it and while my wife was the teacher, he said it’s a good thing we’re not in charge of the Church because there would be no Church. Well we don’t have that much authortity and it really implies that we are human and make mistakes. If someone knowingly swings to SSPX understanding why they shouldn’t do what they are doing…I just wouldn’t want to be that person. However, if someone thinks that’s odd to say…then turn the table. I someone knowingly swings to the Holy See understanding why they shouldn’t do what they are doing…then what does that mean. This sounds crazy to some of you, but having grown up with a father in the SSPX and me being in communion with the Holy See with all of those that performed illicit acts and taught heresy…I was so confused that I finally came to a conclusion that all who called themselves Catholic don’t know truth anymore than anyone and I became easy pray to look for how can I tell…so I went straight to scripture and eventually crossed the Tiber in the wrong direction to find myself miserable and finally returning years later desiring to be Episcopal, Orthodox …anything that looked apostolic and not “Roman Catholic”. I’m Catholic, happy that the TLM is back for those like my father that loved it so much, and still trying to figure out whether or not it is appropriate for women to even speak in Mass as just one example of my concupicense showing. I’m working out one detail after another.

Dissent is dissent whether it is left or right. I’m still confused if anyone is officially dubbed “in schism” or “excommunicated”. I view from a Catholic perspective the SSPX just like I see the Orthodox, even though they claim to be in communion with the Holy See. I believe that many of them do believe they are doing the right thing. But the danger is that they are in fact creating a new Church, like the Orhtodox Church. My fear is that this is not reversable now. A personal pragematic opinionated view, not an official or theological view.

Struggling to understand.

 

[catharina]

Vocatio, I agree that the radical conservatives and the radical liberals present ugly problems for the Church - and remarkably each group blames the other for its own struggles. Perhaps if they STOPPED fighting, the Church would be better off.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Now look at who really acting funny. First you say it is the Pope’s prerogative to address matters with the SSPX --then you qualify it with how you want it done —that they repent. That blows the credibility of your post --out of the boat.

You surely sound like a very silly man - do you intend to be so funny? There is (HISTORICALLY) one solution to resolve any excommunication and only the Pope can enact it:

The excommunicated must become repentant and then the Holy Father is free to accept them back into the Church.

FIRST STEP of those wayward: REPENTANCE.

What religion did you say you practice?

---

I see your are still pulling names out of your bag–it is sad and a pity really --that your bag is turning into a bottomless pit.

I believe-- I have mentioned this to you prior. It will be up to the Pope to decide on matters with the SSPX and you opinion will not be part of the package.

You see—I don’t place qualifiers, restrictions on how the Pope will handle this situation. It is up to the Pope to decide if there will be repentence, or not—It will be his decision as to what terms Rome and the SSPX finally come to.

 

[catharina]

---

I see your are still pulling names out of your bag–it is sad and a pity really --that your bag is turning into a bottomless pit.

I believe-- I have mentioned this to you prior. It will be up to the Pope to decide on matters with the SSPX and you opinion will not be part of the package.

You see—I don’t place qualifiers, restrictions on how the Pope will handle this situation. It is up to the Pope to decide if there will be repentence, or not—It will be his decision as to what terms Rome and the SSPX finally come to.

Really, you might have a problem with reading comprehension.

As I said (repeatedly):

1. one issue is the four excommunicated bishops.
2. another issue is whether or not there proves to be a problem with sspx.

TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

You must really enjoy argument. You fight when there is no fight.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
I see your are still pulling names out of your bag–it is sad and a pity really --that your bag is turning into a bottomless pit.

I believe-- I have mentioned this to you prior. It will be up to the Pope to decide on matters with the SSPX and you opinion will not be part of the package.

You see—I don’t place qualifiers, restrictions on how the Pope will handle this situation. It is up to the Pope to decide if there will be repentence, or not—It will be his decision as to what terms Rome and the SSPX finally come to.

Really, you might have a problem with reading comprehension.

As I said (repeatedly):

1. one issue is the four excommunicated bishops.
2. another issue is whether or not there proves to be a problem with sspx.

TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.

You must really enjoy argument. You fight when there is no fight.

---

No problem with my comprehension–though it is becoming more clear–that You cannot or will not comprehend–it will be the Pope who will decide the specifics of the matter with the SSPX (without your (name removed by moderator)ut). What is coming thru from your side-is that you want to restrict the Pope–based on what you want to happen.

By the way–It would seem-- you are the one who enjoys trying to pick a fight. You do carry the emmunition --that bag full of names that you like to throw…

 

[Sure]

---

No problem with my comprehension–though it is becoming more clear–that You cannot or will not comprehend–it will be the Pope who will decide the specifics of the matter with the SSPX (without your (name removed by moderator)ut). What is coming thru from your side-is that you want to restrict the Pope–based on what you want to happen.

By the way–It would seem-- you are the one who enjoys trying to pick a fight. You do carry the emmunition --that bag full of names that you like to throw…

Since we seem to be getting back to the topic of the SSPX, yes it is the Pope who has decided their status as excommunicated (priests suspended a divinis) and the Pope who may or may not decide to change their status in the future.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
No problem with my comprehension–though it is becoming more clear–that You cannot or will not comprehend–it will be the Pope who will decide the specifics of the matter with the SSPX (without your (name removed by moderator)ut). What is coming thru from your side-is that you want to restrict the Pope–based on what you want to happen.

By the way–It would seem-- you are the one who enjoys trying to pick a fight. You do carry the emmunition --that bag full of names that you like to throw…

Since we seem to be getting back to the topic of the SSPX, yes it is the Pope who has decided their status as excommunicated (priests suspended a divinis) and the Pope who may or may not decide to change their status in the future.

---

Yet I do not freeze him in time and bind him—in that he could not have taken and the current Pope is taking – benevolent steps toward the SSPX-- to facilitate reconciliation. Those who worked closely with our late Pope and now work closely with our current Pope–would be in a position to know any changing views toward the SSPX.

 

[Sure]

---

Yet I do not freeze him in time and bind him—in that he could not have taken and the current Pope is taking – benevolent steps toward the SSPX-- to facilitate reconciliation. Those who worked closely with our late Pope and now work closely with our current Pope–would be in a position to know any changing views toward the SSPX.

Neither do I in anyway freeze him in time or attempt to bind him. But until such time as he proclaims otherwise, I will continue to speak the facts about the SSPX: that their bishops are excommunicated (all are excommunicated in the diocese of Lincoln, NE), their priests suspended, their confessions invalid, their Masses illicit and associating with such organizations is not recommended in any way. If any of this changes, I will certainly change as well, but for now, these facts remain.

 

[Walking_Home]

Neither do I in anyway freeze him in time or attempt to bind him. But until such time as he proclaims otherwise, I will continue to speak the facts about the SSPX: that their bishops are excommunicated (all are excommunicated in the diocese of Lincoln, NE), their priests suspended, their confessions invalid, their Masses illicit and associating with such organizations is not recommended in any way. If any of this changes, I will certainly change as well, but for now, these facts remain.

---

Well you just negated your first statement with your second–so you did freeze and bind our late Pope and now do the same with our current Pope. You have put their minds on the matter of the SSPX in suspended animation.

 

[catharina]

---

No problem with my comprehension–though it is becoming more clear–that You cannot or will not comprehend–it will be the Pope who will decide the specifics of the matter with the SSPX (without your (name removed by moderator)ut). What is coming thru from your side-is that you want to restrict the Pope–based on what you want to happen.

By the way–It would seem-- you are the one who enjoys trying to pick a fight. You do carry the emmunition --that bag full of names that you like to throw…

Sorry, I disagree.

There is a big problem with your comprehension. An excommunication issued by a Pope can only reach a point of new resolution through a Pope. Period. The end.

Any issue that is troublesome or proves to be problematical with sspx will be settled at the discretion of the Pope - alone - not by any secret society subcribed to (or imagined by) “Walking Home.”