Sspx

[SFD]

is this a reference to the doctrine of …there is no salvation outside of the church…?may i ask you SFD which spirit cause one to repent of thier sinful ways and choose to live a life that is pleasing to God?

Now, let me ask you…explain the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for us…not in your own words, but from a catechism maybe.

SFD

 

[SFD]

not the substance, only the rhetoric
I didn’t know I was the topic of this thread.

Oh, newton…I’m not “circular”…just all “rhetoric” and “off topic”. Good observation. Ok, I’m bringing up the topic…now is it “off-topic”?

SFD

 

[fbl9]

Now, let me ask you…explain the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for us…not in your own words, but from a catechism maybe.

SFD

why?that would not be me explaining it now would it?rather repeating the words of someone else… you haven’t an answer for my other question???..

 

[fbl9]

No, it is not. If you’d read some of my other posts you’d see that quite clearly. The question is about the nature of the Church.

SFD

is not salvation part of the nature of the church?the mass is not the nature of the church rather it is the expression of the church.

 

[nbjayme]

What does this poster expect when he comes on to a Catholic website and find people loyal to the Holy Father? There are a billion Catholics in the world a a relatively small number of SSPX. This is a Catholic website, not an SSPX website.

The SSPX is Catholic. You assert much yet the Authorities of the Church are not too quick to call the SSPX in schism.
I’ve read the Catechism Book of SSPX, very much Catholic.

Numerous times discussion and recruitment for the SSPX has become so intense that the discussion has had to be banned.

Who is recruiting who? I’m simply explaining where SSPX stands as an insider.
And that’s all you boys can do here… ban people who do not share your views.

If you feel you have the upperhand in this turf well, beats me.



As far as your argument goes… it didn’t pass litmus test.

 

[nbjayme]

is not salvation part of the nature of the church?the mass is not the nature of the church rather it is the expression of the church.

You’re downgrading the role of the Eucharist as the epicenter of Salvation.

As you said it is an expression … of what? Of the Faith … go talk to RyanML…

Therefore, that expression (Mass) helps set the barometer of how rich the Faith of the Church is.

Read your catechism … er pre-VaticanII catechism that is.

Peace.

 

[nbjayme]

why?that would not be me explaining it now would it?rather repeating the words of someone else… you haven’t an answer for my other question???..

Am i sensing a ‘my-explanation-is-better-than-the-catechism’ attitude? (I thought we are to listen to the Church).

Who is in the circus now?

Paging RyanML…

 

[RyanML]

Am i sensing a ‘my-explanation-is-better-than-the-catechism’ attitude? (I thought we are to listen to the Church).

Who is in the circus now?

Paging RyanML…

I think we would have to agree to disagree…continuing the debate is like beating a dead horse. It ain’t goin anywhere!

 

[fbl9]

You’re downgrading the role of the Eucharist as the epicenter of Salvation.

As you said it is an expression … of what? Of the Faith … go talk to RyanML…

Therefore, that expression (Mass) helps set the barometer of how rich the Faith of the Church is.

Read your catechism … er pre-VaticanII catechism that is.

Peace.

open your eyes and read dude/dudette…the nature of the church is SALVATION…the mass is an expression of the nature of the church which is SALVATION…but i have read prevatican 2 catechism,

 

[fbl9]

Am i sensing a ‘my-explanation-is-better-than-the-catechism’ attitude? (I thought we are to listen to the Church).

Who is in the circus now?

Paging RyanML…

first i was asked to explain the doctrine in question,then i was told to use the a word for word copy,(not explain it but copy what is written)…and who is the lead clown?younbjayme?

 

[nbjayme]

first i was asked to explain the doctrine in question,then i was told to use the a word for word copy,(not explain it but copy what is written)…and who is the lead clown?younbjayme?

word for word? copy and paste? or would you rather rightly interpret it as basing the catechism and not from your own head?

didn’t know you’re fond of clowns? (worst that i thought.)

 

[nbjayme]

open your eyes and read dude/dudette…the nature of the church is SALVATION…the mass is an expression of the nature of the church which is SALVATION…but i have read prevatican 2 catechism,

yes open your eyes and read the entire document of pre-vatican2 regarding the Mass…

Are you proposing that the Eucharist is simply an Expression of the Faith?



Or which part of the Mass you refer to?.. first part, 2nd part, 3rd part… can the mass be a mass without it’s entirety?

 

[Thomas58]

The issues the SSPX have with the VII Church are now, and have always been, primarily, doctrinal. The Tridentine Mass is a big piece of the puzzle, but it is only one piece. These issues pertain to the very nature of the Church itself, which in the eyes of the SSPX, have been changed by Vatican II.

Is the Catholic Church the Church of Christ, or does the Church of Christ “subsist in” the Catholic Church?

Instead of calling to conversion those of non-Catholic sects or false non-Christian religions, the VII Church has “dialogue” with them.

The Social Kingship of Christ the King has been replaced by Religious Liberty.

These are the issues that Archbishop Lefebvre was concerned about and this was the reason he felt that the consecrations of 1988 were necessary; to preserve the faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

Without the consecrations there would have been no Fraternity of St. Peter nor any other Traditional fraternity to preserve Tradition, nor the Motu Proprio.

An excellent narrative of the events leading up to the episcopal consecrations is: “Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican” by Fr. Francois Laisney. It contains documents and correspondence between the Archbishop, John Paul II, and then Cardinal Ratzinger.

Thomas

 

[fbl9]

yes open your eyes and read the entire document of pre-vatican2 regarding the Mass…

Are you proposing that the Eucharist is simply an Expression of the Faith?



Or which part of the Mass you refer to?.. first part, 2nd part, 3rd part… can the mass be a mass without it’s entirety?

2)is then the Eucharist the nature of salvation or the expersion of salvation? 3)depends on factors such as danger of life…ie.the commies are knocking on the door one doesn’t have time for the whole of mass but one can have enough time to consencrate the host…take a little look the apostles and kindered went to the temple to hear the word,then went home for comunion…

 

[fbl9]

word for word? copy and paste? or would you rather rightly interpret it as basing the catechism and not from your own head?

didn’t know you’re fond of clowns? (worst that i thought.)

so you are the lead clown then by the way since you are answering for SFD perhaps you could answer the one SFD didn’t answer either…which spirit causes one to repent and choose to live a life pleasing to God?

 

[pnewton]

The issues the SSPX have with the VII Church are now, and have always been, primarily, doctrinal. The Tridentine Mass is a big piece of the puzzle, but it is only one piece. These issues pertain to the very nature of the Church itself, which in the eyes of the SSPX, have been changed by Vatican II.

Then some one is moving the goalposts in the middle of the game. The reason given originally for the consecration was to preserve priests of celebrating the TLM, lest it be abandoned for good. Lefebvre used this as the reason that an emergency existed, not a plethora of doctrines that he did not see eye to eye with the Church on. I stated earlier when the justification changes, then it was not a justification, but rather an excuse.

Preserving the TLM was the justification used. Why? Because there was nothing in Church doctrine that prevents or every prevented a traditional priest from holding the beliefs that traditionalist hold. The Church simply can not allow any bishop to pack the episcopal ranks with those that agree with them by ordaining bishops on their own. Would LeFebvre’ followers agree that liberal and modernist bishops should be allowed the same freedom to ordain as bishops anyone they want without approval from the Holy See? Of course not.

Only preservation of the TLM offered any hope of making the pitch that an emergency existed… at least until now. That is why ne excuses have to come forward.

 

[ProVobis]

Can you show us any reference prior to the council of this novel idea of “partial” and “full” communion.

Can you show in the history of the Church where so many changes were made and you were frowned upon, suspended, or excommunicated if you didn’t go along with all the changes?

I guess we should be happy the Spirit of Vatican II Church still calls itself Catholic and we still have a Pope.

 

[ProVobis]

Amen, and very well said! I would only disagree with the last statement: the SSPX are. by definition, in schism.

Whose definition? No schism. Internal matter. Bishops have been excommunicated, priests suspended, but Masses valid. No mortal sin for simply attending an SSPX Mass. All follow the approved 1962 Missal. Forget logic or what should be. Roma locutus est.

That said, certain priests can be abrasive. However, I haven’t heard one that has expressed any Catholic untruths from the pulpit yet. And no attacks against the Pope either.

 

[SFD]

why?that would not be me explaining it now would it?rather repeating the words of someone else… you haven’t an answer for my other question???..

Why should anyone (including yourself) care what you think compared to a catechism or a manual of theology approved by the Church. You could also quote some popes as well. Try Pius IX, for example.

Hearing the Church is what we are called to do…repeating what is in the catechism is all the teaching we are allowed to do. We are not to “do our own theology” and pretend to teach others what we might think about settled issues. These are not matters of free opinion.

SFD

 

[fbl9]

Why should anyone (including yourself) care what you think compared to a catechism or a manual of theology approved by the Church. You could also quote some popes as well. Try Pius IX, for example.

Hearing the Church is what we are called to do…repeating what is in the catechism is all the teaching we are allowed to do. We are not to “do our own theology” and pretend to teach others what we might think about settled issues. These are not matters of free opinion.

SFD

are you daft or just stupid.you asked me to explain…my copying is not me explaining,i don’t really care what you think…still don’t have an answer do you…