Sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

[Sure]

---

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.

How does that negate it??? I merely listed the current official teaching of the Church. None of us can read minds so absent that ability, we can read the actual documents pertaining to the subject. That’s what I listed. OF COURSE, if the Pope wants to change this official teaching he will, but so far he hasn’t. There is no contradiction here.

Let’s take for example, the rule on fasting before Communion. Currently, it is a minimum of one hour. We know this by reading the official documents. Now, am I in anyway “freezing or binding” Pope Benedict by stating this teaching? No, I am merely stating the current teaching and it remains the teaching until he decides to change it.

 

[TNT]

There is really no justifiable reason for you 2 to be posting like this…Just walk away from it…swallow any pride…say a little prayer…end it.
SSPX SSPV EO, baptist, have been determined in Ecumenical Council of the VAT II church to be a Christ approved and assisted means of salvation so it makes no difference if they are or are not in excommunicated state.
Say goodby and Let it go.

 

[Sure]

There is really no justifiable reason for you 2 to be posting like this…Just walk away from it…swallow any pride…say a little prayer…end it.
SSPX SSPV EO, baptist, have been determined in Ecumenical Council of the VAT II church to be a Christ approved and assisted means of salvation so it makes no difference if they are or are not in excommunicated state.
Say goodby and Let it go.

Welcome back!

I explained earlier in the thread that you misunderstand what that Vatican II document means. I provided clear examples of ways in which non-catholics confer sacramental grace through the Church.

I had asked you before:

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?

Please answer. Thanks!

 

[vocatio]

TNT,
What about the Campbellite Church? You know…the church of Christ…the one true church that we all know was established 33 A.D.

 

[TNT]

Welcome back!

I explained earlier in the thread that you misunderstand what that Vatican II document means. I provided clear examples of ways in which non-catholics confer sacramental grace through the Church.

I had asked you before:

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?

Please answer. Thanks!

I have no idea where it comes from. As long as it arrives & is on time it works for me. As long as you don’t start excluding any church in particular as an exception.
My whole point was that the SSPX member is, according to the VAT II document, receiving those salvation graces as well, and in sufficiency to make them a means of salvation. So QUIT worrying about them not being visible members of the VAT II church…
If the VAT II church wants to telegraph “grace” to everyone without distinction, more power to them.

Now here is your misunderstanding:
I NEVER said or implied that the VAT II document as quoted was not correct…NEVER.
All I was doing was cashing in on it for the SSPX and not just old time protestants & EO’s.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
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.

How does that negate it??? I merely listed the current official teaching of the Church. None of us can read minds so absent that ability, we can read the actual documents pertaining to the subject. That’s what I listed. OF COURSE, if the Pope wants to change this official teaching he will, but so far he hasn’t. There is no contradiction here.

Let’s take for example, the rule on fasting before Communion. Currently, it is a minimum of one hour. We know this by reading the official documents. Now, am I in anyway “freezing or binding” Pope Benedict by stating this teaching? No, I am merely stating the current teaching and it remains the teaching until he decides to change it.

Originally Posted by Sure
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:

---

Nice try–but in essence you did negate, freeze and bind–when you state --“But until such time…” .

I agree–none of us can read minds–but the men who work closely with the Pope would be able (by way of communicating with him)to know what is in the Pope’s mind. The Pope could well be facilitating reconciliation and this would be reflected in the statements these men make.

 

[Sure]

I have no idea where it comes from. As long as it arrives & is on time it works for me. As long as you don’t start excluding any church in particular as an exception.
My whole point was that the SSPX member is, according to the VAT II document, receiving those salvation graces as well, and in sufficiency to make them a means of salvation. So QUIT worrying about them not being visible members of the VAT II church…
If the VAT II church wants to telegraph “grace” to everyone without distinction, more power to them.

Grace comes through Christ’s Church. As long as form and matter are observed baptism by non-catholics is valid (even the SSPX recognizes this). So, the statement in Vatican II, that the separated brethren “access the community of salvation” is true.

However, there is a huge difference between recognizing that some sacraments can be conferred outside the Church (not a novel idea) and that one does not have to be Catholic. The very same documents says: **“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.” **

Saying that “baptism by heretics can be valid” is not the same as saying “one need not be Catholic.” Otherwise the Church has been in error since the 3rd century!

 

[Sure]

---

Nice try–but in essence you did negate, freeze and bind–when you state --“But until such time…” .

I agree–none of us can read minds–but the men who work closely with the Pope would be able (by way of communicating with him)to know what is in the Pope’s mind. The Pope could well be facilitating reconciliation and this would be reflected in the statements these men make.

I’m sorry, perhaps it was not clear, “But until such time” refers to when I will change what I say.

You see, what I say is determined on what the Church teaches and not what rumors may be leaked by men who know the Pope. Are you saying that we ought to base our understanding of Church teaching on rumors or hearsay? That does not seem like a good idea.

 

[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…

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.”

---

catharina–you have just made my case. That is what I have been saying all along. It is up to the Pope to decide on the matter with the SSPX. It has been you — who has been putting qualifiers and restrictions on how the Pope is to handle the situation.

Do you often indulge in the type of tactic–to make a switch in this manner and then top it off–with some type of derogatory remark on the state of a person’s imagination.

 

[catharina]

Grace comes through Christ’s Church. As long as form and matter are observed baptism by non-catholics is valid (even the SSPX recognizes this). So, the statement in Vatican II, that the separated brethren “access the community of salvation” is true.

However, there is a huge difference between recognizing that some sacraments can be conferred outside the Church (not a novel idea) and that one does not have to be Catholic. The very same documents says: **“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.” **

Saying that “baptism by heretics can be valid” is not the same as saying “one need not be Catholic.” Otherwise the Church has been in error since the 3rd century!

Thank you very much and that’s the primary difference for those who have received “a part of the faith” through the long-held traditions of their familiy and society and those who have received the whole of the faith within the Church and who have then chosen disobedience to and separation from the Church in this day and age.

(For example, the four still-living “bishops.”)

 

[catharina]

---

catharina–you have just made my case. That is what I have been saying all along. It is up to the Pope to decide on the matter with the SSPX. **It has been you — who has been putting qualifiers and restrictions on how the Pope is to handle the situation. **

Do you often indulge in the type of tactic–to make a switch in this manner and then top it off–with some type of derogatory remark on the state of a person’s imagination.

No. I think you might have a problem with comprehension since I have never said what you want to attribute to me. It’s a problem - but it’s not my problem.

 

[vocatio]

Grace comes through Christ’s Church. As long as form and matter are observed baptism by non-catholics is valid (even the SSPX recognizes this). So, the statement in Vatican II, that the separated brethren “access the community of salvation” is true.

However, there is a huge difference between recognizing that some sacraments can be conferred outside the Church (not a novel idea) and that one does not have to be Catholic. The very same documents says: **“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.” **

Saying that “baptism by heretics can be valid” is not the same as saying “one need not be Catholic.” Otherwise the Church has been in error since the 3rd century!

So…does this mean that my wife’s marriage is valid and sacramental since July 1989 and mine is valid in February 2007? She did not grow up Catholic. I grew up mixed up.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Nice try–but in essence you did negate, freeze and bind–when you state --“But until such time…” .

I agree–none of us can read minds–but the men who work closely with the Pope would be able (by way of communicating with him)to know what is in the Pope’s mind. The Pope could well be facilitating reconciliation and this would be reflected in the statements these men make.

I’m sorry, perhaps it was not clear, “But until such time” refers to when I will change what I say.

You see, what I say is determined on what the Church teaches and not what rumors may be leaked by men who know the Pope. Are you saying that we ought to base our understanding of Church teaching on rumors or hearsay? That does not seem like a good idea.

Quote=Sure
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:​

I understood what you meant–but are you not also saying that until such time as he proclaims otherwise—you will not acknowledge that the Pope could be making benevolent advances toward the SSPX-- via the statements made by those who work closely with him.

 

[catharina]

Quote=Sure
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:​

I understood what you meant–but are you not also saying that until such time as he proclaims otherwise—you will not acknowledge that the Pope could be making benevolent advances toward the SSPX-- via the statements made by those who work closely with him.

Isn’t it common knowledge that the Pope is making benevolent advances toward sspx - as did JP II. The problem is not with the Pope’s advances; if there is a problem, it will be one of obedience. Before any questioning and accusations resume, Ill offer an example. Did devotees of sspx allow excommunicated bishops to lead them in a visit to Fatima? Yes? Then that’s a problem.

 

[TNT]

Grace comes through Christ’s Church. As long as form and matter are observed baptism by non-catholics is valid (even the SSPX recognizes this). So, the statement in Vatican II, that the separated brethren “access the community of salvation” is true.

However, there is a huge difference between recognizing that some sacraments can be conferred outside the Church (not a novel idea) and that one does not have to be Catholic. The very same documents says: **“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.” **

Saying that “baptism by heretics can be valid” is not the same as saying “one need not be Catholic.” Otherwise the Church has been in error since the 3rd century!

Read!
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

YES: It is the SAME as saying “one need not be Catholic.”
Because, they already have the VAT II Church to "derive their efficacy".
**Just to be realllllly clear. **
The document is saying that the VAT II church is saving those outside the visible membership by admitting that they somehow telegraph this “efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church” into the other religions’ “liturgical actions”. And doing so without any distinction made as to WHAT actions if any, are included or excluded.
I know you are trying to define the boundary to just baptism and perhaps matrimony, and excluding others, but you are going well beyond “what is written”. Your project on creating this limited boundary is your own made up boundary. It is nowhere expressed or even implied in the document.

Once again read your own Church authorityconfirms my conclusion:
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…”

Bro Shutz was in his 70’s. Do you think that he’s in heaven as a protestant, knowingly rejecting the Catholic Church just because he was baptized decades ago?

If Roger Shutz can do it entirely outside the visible membership of the VAT II church, who would you dare exclude? No one, so the visible membership idea is unwarranted appendage on your part.

This is the teaching of the VAT II church. I do not attempt to reconcile it with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as you may be doing.
Trying to do so would lead one into twisted logic, made up hypotheses & contradictios.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
catharina–you have just made my case. That is what I have been saying all along. It is up to the Pope to decide on the matter with the SSPX. It has been you — who has been putting qualifiers and restrictions on how the Pope is to handle the situation.

Do you often indulge in the type of tactic–to make a switch in this manner and then top it off–with some type of derogatory remark on the state of a person’s imagination.

No. I think you might have a problem with comprehension since I have never said what you want to attribute to me. It’s a problem - but it’s not my problem

Originally Posted by catharina
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?

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Quote=catharina
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.

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.
.

---

I must say --you have some nerve. You say–you never said what I attribute to you—those are your words up above. You even made a pt. of yelling “REPENTANCE”. That is your restriction on how you want the Pope to handle the SSPX.

I just noticed another one of your inflamatory statements–asking what religion I practice. There may come the time–as you reach into the bag you carry–to come up with such a statement–you are going to fall in–and won’t be able to climb out.

 

[TNT]

Really, I pity the spouse of either one of you.

 

[catharina]

---

I must say --you have some nerve. You say–you never said what I attribute to you—those are your words up above. You even made a pt. of yelling “REPENTANCE”. That is your restriction on how you want the Pope to handle the SSPX.

I just noticed another one of your inflamatory statements–asking what religion I practice. There may come the time–as you reach into the bag you carry–to come up with such a statement–you are going to fall in–and won’t be able to climb out.

As it stands, the excommunicated are restored to Rome by becoming repentant and petitioning the Pope - in that vein. That has been the history of such action. It’s you who keep trying to drag sspx into it. If the time comes when Rome must address actions of sspx, Rome will. That’s Rome’s choice, not mine. (I’m reluctant to say it’s the choice of the Holy Father since the terms Holy Father and Pope seem to throw you into a rage. So yes, of course that does make me wonder what religion you practice.)

As for yelling, who yelled?

Again I’m sorry if I seem to upset you. I wonder why that is. You insulted me for days and I never bit so what’s the deal? In any event, peace to you.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Quote=Sure
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:

I understood what you meant–but are you not also saying that until such time as he proclaims otherwise—you will not acknowledge that the Pope could be making benevolent advances toward the SSPX-- via the statements made by those who work closely with him.

Isn’t it common knowledge that the Pope is making benevolent advances toward sspx - as did JP II. The problem is not with the Pope’s advances; if there is a problem, it will be one of obedience. Before any questioning and accusations resume, Ill offer an example. Did devotees of sspx allow excommunicated bishops to lead them in a visit to Fatima? Yes? Then that’s a problem.

---

Again—you are indulging in putting the slant of your own opinion on what happens between Rome and the SSPX.

Last I heard --Fatima is open to all. Are you saying that it is unethical for a group of protestants or a group of Orthodox to visit Fatima.

 

[catharina]

---

Again—you are indulging in putting the slant of your own opinion on what happens between Rome and the SSPX.

Last I heard --Fatima is open to all. Are you saying that it is unethical for a group of protestants or a group of Orthodox to visit Fatima.

It is usually not at all difficult to understand me - or so I’ve been told all of my life. Of course when another attempts to puts words into my mouth, words that have never even entered my MIND, then communication can become rather distastefully strained.

I’m saying that if sspx devotees chose to allow excommunicated “bishops” to lead them into Fatima, then I can only imagine that’s a problem that will be (or has been) addressed.

That is not some boldly unusual statement. It’s a realistic appraisal.