Sspx

[SFD]

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,

*121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved. Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never–even in the past–had the slightest doubt of that fact–what will become of him? If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister–not being a true priest–has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition–that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic–with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts–might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter. I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

Whose definition? No schism. Internal matter. Bishops have been excommunicated, priests suspended, but Masses valid. No mortal sin for simply attending an SSPX Mass.

Hey, let us use our rhetoric at least. The funny thing is, I was actually reading where even St. Paul used rhetoric a little. In Philipians, he called the Judaizers those of the mutilation.

Seriously, I think we all should agree that no question ever existed concerning the state of any but LeFebvre and the four bishops he consecrated. There is no question but that the SSPX has a valid (and beautiful Mass), even if it is illicit. I can not imagine any situation in which attending an SSPX church could be considered grave enough matter to be mortal sin.

But being the modern American Catholic liberal I am, I don’t believe in sin anymore.

 

[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…

My point, thou fool. Here is what I asked you:

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.

What does the CHURCH THINK? What the Church teaches is what YOU should believe and think! You feel that if you don’t come up with it on your own…it’s inferior to learning it from a catechism. You’ve got it backwards.

SFD

 

[SFD]

SFD:

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.

I don’t follow you. Changes are one thing…there have been many times of changes. A completely new mass and sacraments are unpresidented…a “new theology” is unpresidented.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Matthew 5:22

But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

 

[fbl9]

…Can they be saved who remain outside the true church because they do not know it is the true church…they who remain outside the catholic church through no grave fault of their own and do not know it is the true church can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them…1.God condemns no man except for grave sin.Therefore He will not condemn those who through not fault of their own are unaware of His command to belong to the true church,provided they serve Him faithfully according to thier conscience,having a sincere desire to do His will in all things,and therefore implicitly wish to become members of His church.They are members of the church in desire.taken from "My Catholic Faith"by most reverend Louis Laravoire Morrow,S.T.D. Bishop of Krishnagar revised 1958…Radio replies first volume Fathers Rumble and Carty with preface by Bishop Fulton J. Sheeen Imprimatur Joannnes Gregorius Murray (Die 11a Februarii,1938)536.Do you maintain that ine is obliged to jion your infalliable,one holy,catholic ,apostolic and indefectible church,if he wishes to be saved? if a man realizes that the Catholic church is the true church he must join it to save his soul.That is the normal law.But if he does not realize this obligation,is true to his conscience,even though it be errorness,and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience he will get to heaven.In such a case it would not have been his fault that he was a non catholic and God makes every allownace for his good faith…explained to you now???i apologize to you SFD for my disrespectful post to you…again i ask you which spirit cause one to repent of thier sins and choose to live a life pleasing to God?BTW i was writting this post while you where calling me a fool still the apology stands …

 

[fbl9]

My point, thou fool. Here is what I asked you:

What does the CHURCH THINK? What the Church teaches is what YOU should believe and think! You feel that if you don’t come up with it on your own…it’s inferior to learning it from a catechism. You’ve got it backwards.

SFD

where did you come up with that conclusion?refernce to learning from a cathecism is inferior…never call me a fool again it will come back to haunt you in the worst ways…like maybe cause of your arrogance i walk away from the truth.that i would be lost would be whose fault?yours dude…who so ever shall cause a scandel might as well be cast into the sea with a millstone about his neck…mind you i will never again walk away from the church…why? by the grace of God almighty i know it is the truth…note it is know not mere belief…

 

[nbjayme]

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?

The Holy Spirit inspires the Person does the repenting… or would you like to hear St. John the Baptist discourse.

Calling somebody a clown does not raise your reasoning level.

I think it’s better you open a thread regarding Nature of Mass and/or Church as the discussion can make things off-topic here. We’ll continue our discussions there.

 

[nbjayme]

Repentance is FREEWILL…

It is caused by a person responding to God’s Grace.

 

[nbjayme]

…Can they be saved who remain outside the true church because they do not know it is the true church…they who remain outside the catholic church through no grave fault of their own and do not know it is the true church can be saved by making use of the graces which God gives them…

Read the Bible first… before your personal exhortations.

1.God condemns no man except for grave sin.Therefore He will not condemn those who through not fault of their own are unaware of His command to belong to the true church,provided they serve Him faithfully according to thier conscience,having a sincere desire to do His will in all things,and therefore implicitly wish to become members of His church.

Sin separated US from God. And, they continue to be separated from the Church because of sin. You’re a confused lot due to this Vatican II Teachings.

What did the Bible tell you? There were Jews separated from the True Church and God called them directly in the Church because they are worthy of receiving salvation. Either you believe God exists and does what is proper or not!

Don’t make God like a clown…

Do you maintain that ine is obliged to jion your infalliable,one holy,catholic ,apostolic and indefectible church,if he wishes to be saved?

Every person on earth is expected to join the Infallible Church. Do what you have to do and God will do what He can for the salvation plan. It’s God’s job to send men to those who have not heard of Him… even a free air ticket … he’ll send a guide. Read the Bible.

if a man realizes that the Catholic church is the true church he must join it to save his soul.That is the normal law.But if he does not realize this obligation,is true to his conscience,even though it be errorness,and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience he will get to heaven.In such a case it would not have been his fault that he was a non catholic and God makes every allownace for his good faith…explained to you now???

Since the fall of Adam all generations are in exile even if we were unaware of it. We need to accept God’s salvation plan or rot.

i apologize to you SFD for my disrespectful post to you…again i ask you which spirit cause one to repent of thier sins and choose to live a life pleasing to God?BTW i was writting this post while you where calling me a fool still the apology stands …

There is no such spirit… repentance is FREEWILL. That is what God expects of us. His gifts are faith, charity, chastity, miracles, etc. etc. But repentance is of the person’s choice.

 

[nbjayme]

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.

Not paying attention are we? There was no goal post change.

The need for keeping the TLM because it is in consonant with the Unequivocal Expression of Faith and even RyanML knows it cannot be simply abrogated. Not only that, every priests have the right to use it without scruples or fear of ecclesiasistical punishment.

But then reality shows that most priests and bishops abandoned TLM in favor of a non-organic NO (see RyanML’s post regarding the Pope or was it then Cardinal Ratzinger?).

Marcel Lefebvre already read the documents of Vatican II, and somehow see things that cannot be reconciled with the numerous decleration and exhortation of Popes pre-V2. Thus, there is a need to form priests who shall continue the TLM and the Teachings of the Church.

V2 supporters are happy of the summurom pontificum because (they hope) that TLM will be in wider use. Yet that is what Marcel Lefebvre wanted all along… that there are priests and bishops who learns the TLM by their heart and provide a wider use of this to the faithful.

Now, the new priests and bishops do not understand TLM and see no need of it. They are applying a cold shoulder even in the face of summorum pontificum / motu propio. And, frankly, the summorom pontificum simply placed TLM to a nostalgia mode.

old priests and bishops have forgotten how to celebrate the TLM and were clumsy to say the least…

V2 supporters read lots of documents but failed to see reality as providing facts.

 

[nbjayme]

Re: Nallus Sallus
“No salvation outside the Catholic Church.”

If God condemns no man then therefore it stands to reason He gives all the necessary grace to such person in holding the True Faith – this then by responding positively to God’s grace a person attains unity inside the Church. And, when attaining the knowledge of the Visible Church, that same person rejects it ---- it becomes of him a detriment to his salvation.

The Catechism did not mean to say … “Protestants can remain protestants.” (or for whatever religion they may be in).

 

[SFD]

Matthew 5:22

But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

Yes, but misapplied (if you meant it for my comments). The term “Thou fool” was not to be taken as a personal judgment.

SFD:

What does the CHURCH THINK? What the Church teaches is what YOU should believe and think! You feel that if you don’t come up with it on your own…it’s inferior to learning it from a catechism. You’ve got it backwards.

Now, one is truly foolish to reject what the Church teaches for their own judgment on a settled matter. EENS is a dogma of the Church…those who are if fact saved will be saved inside the Church, otherwise the dogma would be false, which is impossible and heretical to assert.

Understanding the meaning of “outside” and “Church” is where the confusion lies for many today.

SFD

P.S.
It might be wise to remember also, that no one is saved until the particular judgment, at the end of their life.

 

[nbjayme]

those who are if fact saved will be saved inside the Church, otherwise the dogma would be false, which is impossible and heretical to assert.

True, true. It’s clearly explained in the catechism. Therefore, they were saved because they became part of the Church.
Therefore, no one can be saved while remaining outside the Church.

Understanding the meaning of “outside” and “Church” is where the confusion lies for many today.

Amen to that.

 

[nbjayme]

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.

And how you think the liberal and modernist bishops will continue on the Tradition and Faith of the Church?

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.

According to RyanML the NO church right now is in a decline of vocation and convents abandoned… why so? And smoke coming in the Church… do please settle that first with RyanML before saying it’s another excuse.

 

[fbl9]

Read the Bible first… before your personal exhortations.

Sin separated US from God. And, they continue to be separated from the Church because of sin. You’re a confused lot due to this Vatican II Teachings.

What did the Bible tell you? There were Jews separated from the True Church and God called them directly in the Church because they are worthy of receiving salvation. Either you believe God exists and does what is proper or not!

Don’t make God like a clown…


Every person on earth is expected to join the Infallible Church. Do what you have to do and God will do what He can for the salvation plan. It’s God’s job to send men to those who have not heard of Him… even a free air ticket … he’ll send a guide. Read the Bible.

Since the fall of Adam all generations are in exile even if we were unaware of it. We need to accept God’s salvation plan or rot.

There is no such spirit… repentance is FREEWILL. That is what God expects of us. His gifts are faith, charity, chastity, miracles, etc. etc. But repentance is of the person’s choice.

again you don’t read do you the words you quoted aren’t mine but copied from the sources listed in the postand those sources were printed long before V2…as for calling you a clown take a look back and you will see you called me a clown too…i think you are the one who is confused…baltimore catechism explained states the same things i have posted this was printed first in 1891 reprinted in 1921…are you saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t convict one of thier sins???that God give salvic grace to man because of a man’s own merit…

 

[fbl9]

Yes, but misapplied (if you meant it for my comments). The term “Thou fool” was not to be taken as a personal judgment.

Now, one is truly foolish to reject what the Church teaches for their own judgment on a settled matter. EENS is a dogma of the Church…those who are if fact saved will be saved inside the Church, otherwise the dogma would be false, which is impossible and heretical to assert.

Understanding the meaning of “outside” and “Church” is where the confusion lies for many today.

SFD

P.S.
It might be wise to remember also, that no one is saved until the particular judgment, at the end of their life.

“my point,thou fool” sounds like you meant it this way so either you are trying to weasel your way out or just can’t admit your error…if you actually read the post you would have noted the sources but as it stands it is plain you didn’t…enlighten us all o wise one just what is the meaning of the phrase"outside the church"

 

[Fran65]

Although the question was not addressed to me I would like to offer an answer from the Catechism. “Outside the Church” are all those who are not

“Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those *who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. *Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not 'in heart.” CCC 837

God bless
Karen

 

[Thomas58]

pnewton: 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.

Are you really trying to say that the Archbishop had no problems with Vatican II other than the Novus Ordo Mass? Of course Archbishop Lefebvre had doctrinal problems with VII from the start, that is why the Society was founded in the first place.

Archbishop Lefebvre essentially was asking for 3 things from Rome.

1. A Commission to be established to care for the different traditional works, to support them and protect them from local Bishops.
2. A canonical status for the Society that was to include 3 bishops, a Superior General and 2 auxiliaries.
3. Jurisdiction would have been through these bishops and not from the local bishop.

The Archbishop had worked tirelessly in negotiations with Rome to achieve these objectives. On 4/08/88 John Paul II wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger urging him to find a solution for “the family of tradition.”

On 05/03/88 Cardinal Ratzinger gave the Archbishop a letter asking him for an indefinite postponement of the consecrations. Later Cardinal Ratzinger said that there would be the eventuality of a bishop commited to Tradition. A suitable agreement could never be reached. If anyone “moved the goalposts” it was Rome; telling the Archbishop one thing one day and a different thing the next.

It became obvious that the tactic of Rome was to drag its feet indefinitely. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre was 83 years old. He felt that he had no other recourse but to go ahead with the consecrations in order for the Society to be able to continue and to preserve the Traditional Mass and the Traditional practices and teachings of the Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

Less than 3 years after the episcopal consecrations Archbishop Lefebvre passed on to his Eternal reward.

Thomas

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Are you really trying to say that the Archbishop had no problems with Vatican II other than the Novus Ordo Mass? Of course Archbishop Lefebvre had doctrinal problems with VII from the start, that is why the Society was founded in the first place.

Archbishop Lefebvre essentially was asking for 3 things from Rome.

1. A Commission to be established to care for the different traditional works, to support them and protect them from local Bishops.
2. A canonical status for the Society that was to include 3 bishops, a Superior General and 2 auxiliaries.
3. Jurisdiction would have been through these bishops and not from the local bishop.

The Archbishop had worked tirelessly in negotiations with Rome to achieve these objectives. On 4/08/88 John Paul II wrote a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger urging him to find a solution for “the family of tradition.”

On 05/03/88 Cardinal Ratzinger gave the Archbishop a letter asking him for an indefinite postponement of the consecrations. Later Cardinal Ratzinger said that there would be the eventuality of a bishop commited to Tradition. A suitable agreement could never be reached. If anyone “moved the goalposts” it was Rome; telling the Archbishop one thing one day and a different thing the next.

It became obvious that the tactic of Rome was to drag its feet indefinitely. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre was 83 years old. He felt that he had no other recourse but to go ahead with the consecrations in order for the Society to be able to continue and to preserve the Traditional Mass and the Traditional practices and teachings of the Faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

Less than 3 years after the episcopal consecrations Archbishop Lefebvre passed on to his Eternal reward.

Thomas

I can not question any of the information that you have provided here. What I know is that since John Paul II indult and i do not know what year that was there has been offered through out the USA parishes that have offered the TLM. Granted not nearly enough and I pray that even now more begin to offer the Mass in the EF. I find that I understand the position of Archbishop Lefebvre I do not believe that he was correct in going in opposition to Rome. There were other options. I do find it troubling that there are those that accuse the officials of the church as shall we say less than honest in how they were interacting with Archbishop Lefebvre.

I am also trouble that even know there are those within the SSPX that refuse to humble themselves and come back to full communion within the Church.

Was it not but 500 years ago that a similar situation arose and now 500 years later we have a whole comunity of Christians outside the church. This need not have happened then and Pray GOD it does not happen again. I implore all involved on both sided of this issue to turn back to what Christ has commissioned us to be and that is one.