Sspx

[maurin]

Here I’ll expose the heresy of Auntie M,

Remember these V2 supporters don’t want to give a direct answers. They dodge … why? They don’t discuss… they debate.

Now the topic at hand is if the protestants are legal… examine how the self-wise AuntieM answers:

“They have their own “orders” (not Catholic for sure) but they are LEGALLY ordained by their peers to preach the gospel as they see it.”

AuntieM, highlighted in capital letters the word LEGALLY yet the context of which is not right. To continue…

ordained by their peers to preach the gospel as they see it.

This is what we mean … beautiful words but it doesn’t mean a thing. Because the context of the word legally above is only in light of their peers. Meaning, same people of the same clothes go together. or birds of the same feathers flock together. It does not handle the issue at hand. In fact, AuntieM, cunningly inserts the following statement to
counter his own logic.

They still have to be “legally ordained”,…

Now the question to AuntieM,

If they are legally ordained by their peers who is then to ordain them “legally”?

Are they in “imperfect” communion with the Church?

Maybe an example from secular law would answer this?

If two people enter into a contract–let’s say the one will pay 10,000 dollars to the other who delivers 10 pounds of cocaine, and the other takes the money but does not deliver the cocaine, can the one sue the other in court?

Of course not, because an illegal contract cannot be sustained.

Period.

False ecumenism is tantamount to wishing bon voyage and fare-thee-well to a friend going to New York who you know is about to board a plane to Miami.

 

[nbjayme]

I meant the POSSIBILITY of salvation for those outside the Church prior to Vatican II. Sorry for the lack of clarification.

Which of the word … “NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” is unclear to you?

There are two ways one can be a member in the Church;

1. Explicitly:
   
   Those who believe and are formally baptized by valid orders.
2. Implicitly
   
   Those who were not formally baptized by valid orders in the Church (not of their own fault) and:
   

   - does the Will of God;
   - have no mortal sin;
   - does not despise the Dogmatic Teaching of the Catholic Church;
   - upon knowing about the Catholic Church, they do not doubt and join Her.  (Doubt can be used against a person ... read the catechism again);
   -  do no hide the defects of their false religion / church;
   -  does not hold on to the teaching of their false religion/church. (A little leaven corrupteth the whole dough.)

No one is ever saved being Outside the Catholic Church.

Now, know of a Lutheran that falls in Category 2? (Be sure that all conditions are met).
If you know him/her would you not talk about the Church? If not, then one goes to hell because of negligence.

If there is a 3rd Category you know then bring it up and let’s discuss it in light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[saint_rafael]

What part of the world are you from. Certainly not the US of A…
I am sorry to inofrm you but the Protestant Churches are no where near extinction and Catholics DO still believe in the Bible.
I guess You should’nt be on this “modern age” computer, in this Modern computer age. Don’t watch tv either, it’s too modern, or even use the kitchen “Electric” stove, that’s too modern also. Oh yeah how’s your old out house working for you?.

Get real…Now what is total stupidy?

It is unbeliavable that you are that ignorant when it comes to the faith and theology.

Modernism is the name of the heresy coined by the Church in the 19th and 20th centuries. It has to do with a kind of theological and philosophical thought.

Modernism is not talking about technology or the colloquial use of the word “modern”. In Catholicism it is a heretical system.

You are embarrassing youself.

As far as what is total stupidity, it’s called the 20th century.

 

[Auntie_M]

It is unbeliavable that you are that ignorant when it comes to the faith and theology.

Modernism is the name of the heresy coined by the Church in the 19th and 20th centuries. It has to do with a kind of theological and philosophical thought.

Modernism is not talking about technology or the colloquial use of the word “modern”. In Catholicism it is a heretical system.

You are embarrassing youself.

As far as what is total stupidity, it’s called the 20th century.

Hummmm, if I ever come across a time machine, I send it to you so you can get out of the 20th century since it is not to your liking. Don’t want you to be unhappy.

As you “seem” so knowledgable, maybe you can explain to all of us here where or how “modernism” is in Catholism a heretical system.:bowdown:

 

[Thomas58]

Hummmm, if I ever come across a time machine, I send it to you so you can get out of the 20th century since it is not to your liking. Don’t want you to be unhappy.

As you “seem” so knowledgable, maybe you can explain to all of us here where or how “modernism” is in Catholism a heretical system.:bowdown:

Auntie M,

If you can set aside your reading from a dissenter from church teachings such as Richard McBrien, you might want to read Pascendi Domini Gregis by Saint Pope Pius X as it deals with the errors of Modernists.

Thomas

 

[ProVobis]

Which of the word … “NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” is unclear to you?

Maybe you should take the issue up with the Pope then. I’m simply a non-trad who greatly prefers the EF over the OF.

 

[nbjayme]

Maybe you should take the issue up with the Pope then.

What did the V2 Pope taught then that I need to take the issue up?

(Qoute the Pope, explain. Let your own words then provide understanding of how it is understood NOW then.)

I’m simply a non-trad who greatly prefers the EF over the OF.

Whether you are a non-trad or neo-modernist is beside the point. The Dogma of the Church stands no matter what your opinion of the MASS is.

May you please enumerate to us your reasons of prefering the EF over the OF…

 

[SFD]

Maybe you should take the issue up with the Pope then. I’m simply a non-trad who greatly prefers the EF over the OF.

ProVobis,

The dogma is clear. You cannot say that there is salvation outside the Church. The dogma says there is NO salvation outside the Church.

You cannot explain the dogma by denying it in your explanation.

SFD

 

[ProVobis]

What did the V2 Pope taught then that I need to take the issue up?

(Qoute the Pope, explain. Let your own words then provide understanding of how it is understood NOW then.)

I don’t see your point. You’re inside the Church, aren’t you? Then what’s the problem? I think you’re just being argumentative. Same goes to SFD.

May you please enumerate to us your reasons of prefering the EF over the OF…

Do we need reasons for preference? I think we all have preferences for a whole lot of things. De gustibus non est disputandum.

I’ll leave you guys with the last word on this. Apparently I struck a nerve or two.

 

[SFD]

I don’t see your point. You’re inside the Church, aren’t you? Then what’s the problem? I think you’re just being argumentative. Same goes to SFD.

The problem is that modern “Catholics”, including clergy and hierarchy, think and teach that there is abundant salvation outside the Church. They effectively and many times outright deny a dogma of the Church.

Do we need reasons for preference? I think we all have preferences for a whole lot of things. De gustibus non est disputandum.

I don’t believe it’s a matter of preference.

I’ll leave you guys with the last word on this. Apparently I struck a nerve or two.

Not at all, I’m quite calm. I just didn’t want you to say that there is salvation outside the Church…there isn’t. That’s all.

SFD

 

[nbjayme]

I don’t see your point. You’re inside the Church, aren’t you? Then what’s the problem? I think you’re just being argumentative. Same goes to SFD.

You told me to take up the issue with the Pope… is there something that we don’t know? (Quote the Pope and expound…)

Do we need reasons for preference?

We’ll you said yourself you prefer EF over OF. Quite intruiguing … (please do enumerate and tell us)…
But then, if you must need to communicate to yourself about this for a while … we can wait until your next post.

Take time.

 

[fbl9]

hi SFD…so far we have the same view in regards to salvation outside the church…i guess i missed where exactly you stated the partial communion was the “doctrine” in question…however it remains that some eastern churches still have valid orders and you SFD if no other option exist can recieve communion in such a church.now if you can recieve communion does that not imply some sort of communion with the true church…BTW there was not one document (to my limited knowledge) produced by V2 that is expressed ex cathedra…

 

[fbl9]

You may have intermixed things.

Freewill is given upon man and the decision to Repent is always left on man’s choice.

But why you would say it’s without the Spirit? That I do not understand. As you can read from previous posts the Holy Spirit assists you but the decision and act of “Repenting” is left on a person.

Now, in scripture, God can directly cause a person to convert – but this is what we call selective acts of God. It does not fall in the general case.

Let’s say in the case of abortion. Politicians who we thought to be “Catholic” hold a different view than the Church and they are not likely to change their position no matter what the prompting of their conscience is (if they even have).

How was Abraham justified? Was it all a Freewill act of Abraham? Meaning, Abraham chose what God expect of him? Or was he “pushed” by the Holy Spirit to do what God expect of him?

we are getting closer now what caused the man to decide to repent.having his heart pierced?by what and who did the piercing?(acts after S.t Peter’s first sermon)…prt2…and that is held by the church as to be the sin that can’t be forgiven ,the sin against the Holy Spirit>>prt3…scripture isn’t clear either way is it?we are not told he did it all on his own accord or if the Spirit helped in Abrham’s decsion making…

 

[nbjayme]

hi SFD…so far we have the same view in regards to salvation outside the church…i guess i missed where exactly you stated the partial communion was the “doctrine” in question…however it remains that** some eastern churches still have valid orders** and you SFD if no other option exist can recieve communion in such a church.now if you can recieve communion does that not imply some sort of communion with the true church…BTW there was not one document (to my limited knowledge) produced by V2 that is expressed ex cathedra…

hello fbl9,

The statement though is quite vague.
Not all of the eastern churches are in schism… some of them are very much in communion with the Roman Church.

Am I right to ask to which “some” you are referring to?

 

[Claudius]

I’m trying to determine what YOU believe. Who are the SSPX mixing with? And why would they mix ordinations? That is your assertion, not mine.

I didn’t assert it, I said that I pray it never happens.

Sacramental theology says differently. That’s a rash judgment, don’t you think? … and false to boot.

I can not agree. You need to reread the cannons and St. Aquinas.

And if the consecrating Bishop is valid

Big IF there in the case of SSPX since they were consecrated without apostolic mandate and we can not be sure that the correct form was used. Also the cannons of the Church specifically state that THREE bishops are needed to consecrate a man Bishop unless you are in dire circumstances. Saying “oh, no one agrees with me” is not a dire circumstance and as far as I understand would make the ordinations non cannonical for at least three reasons.

Invalid form, or at least unknown
Not enough Bishops
No Apostolic mandate

(the SSPX bishops are unquestionably valid, btw)

That remains to be seen. I will accept this if reunion with the Catholic Church happens. If it does not then that very well could be the Holy Spirit protecting the Church from accepting men as Bishops who in fact are not.

and he uses the proper form

The proper form requires an Apostolic Mandate unless in DIRE Circumstances and THREE Bishops unless in Dire Circumstances. There was no Dire Circumstance so the proper form was then not used at all.

(the old rite is a proper form),

The ROMAN RITE is the proper form with in the ROMAN RITE, not the so called old rite, which we can not even be sure was followed correctly. Also, you are going to have a hard time selling this to a Maronite, or a Coptic, or a Chaldean.

then the sacrament is valid.

Sacraments are valid when the Church lead by the Pope with the protection of the Holy Spirit says it is valid and not before.

If you think that there can be some internal dissent that causes invalidity, you are incorrect. The Church supplies for that defect and the very use of the proper form supplies the defective intention. If this were not true, we all could doubt every sacrament because we cannot read minds and hearts, only externals.

The problem here is that The Church did not supply the intent. The Church specifically told old boy to NOT DO IT. How can the Church make up for his malintent when the Church was against his action?

If LaFleur thought that he was consecrating Bishops into a kind of Bishophood that is different from the authority exersised by Roman Catholic Bishops in communion with the Pope than he did not consecrate Christian Bishops. He can call them whatever he wants but they have Zero authority to govern in the Church.

This is also wrong. If the matter and form are used the intention is there.

Not true. A comedian on TV can stage a mock baptism and it would not be valid, even if he did triple submersion and said all the right words. If the person baptizing has no intention to baptize and the person being baptized has no intention to be baptized into the Catholic Church, then a baptism does not take place.

You are the one who has the lack of understanding. It is apparent that you don’t know much about Sacramental Theology.

Yes and it is appearent that you need to learn Latin and re-read the Summa Theologica.

And you’d be wrong.

And which ordinary in the Church in union with Pope Benedict XVI says that I am wrong?

That might happen in the conciliar church…aren’t they the ones that invite all the false religions to Assisi every once and a while?

We do not co-consecrate with them. We convert them. Something the SSPX is too afraid to do.

We follow the cannons of the Church. We do not co-consecrate with Greek/Slav schismatics, or Copt/Syriac/Armenian Schismatics. We do co-consecrate with the Assyrian Church of the East because that Schism has ended in all but name. The Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church are going to reunite and be completely in union with the Church.

By the way, calling us the conciliar Church is a correct thing to say but you mean it out of hate. If you do not accept the council than you are a heretic. We are the Catholic Church, you are in schism if you really believe what you have written to be true. You can go ahead and turn in your “I’m a Catholic” card.

Another ridiculous statement. One cannot “lose” validity.

Tell that to the anglos.

It sounds like you might be schismatic…cutting yourself off from other Catholics is a schismatic act.

Cutting yourself off from the Pope is a Schismatic act which is exactly what the SSPX has done. You should all adopt a different name because you aren’t worthy of the term Catholic anymore.

Go read some basic Sacramental Theology…then come back here to correct your gross misstatements.

Please learn Latin and go read the Summa Theologica and come back and correct your misstatements.

With Love,

Claudius

 

[fbl9]

hello fbl9,

The statement though is quite vague.
Not all of the eastern churches are in schism… some of them are very much in communion with the Roman Church.

Am I right to ask to which “some” you are referring to?

let’s go with Greek orthodox

 

[Claudius]

hello fbl9,

The statement though is quite vague.
Not all of the eastern churches are in schism… some of them are very much in communion with the Roman Church.

Am I right to ask to which “some” you are referring to?

There are many eastern Churches but not all of them have valid orders.

The Churches that the Catholic Church accepts as having valid orders are as follows.

The Assyrian Church of the East
The Coptic Orthodox Church and those Churches in communion with it, namely: the Ethiopian Church, Armenian Church, Syriac Church and the Indian Orthodox Church. This Group is called Oriental Orthodoxy.

The third group is the so called Eastern Orthodoxy which includes all the MANY Churches that are in quasi communion with the Patriarch in Constantinople. There seems to be a different one of these for each eastern European country out there but the most important one is Russia.

Several Eastern Churches have lost valid orders in the eyes of the Church for several reasons that are specific to each one of them. Usually it involves a radical change in theology to the point where they can not be called Christians anymore. If they get rid of the Eucharist, then valid orders stop. If they ordain Women or Children too young to fullfill the roles of priest than valid orders stop. For some of them, they insist on having valid orders but it is clear from looking at their case that they were just laymen who got together and opened up the ritual books and put on priest robes and want to be called priest and Bishops. They were never consecrated to begin with by any valid Bishop.

The Three groups of Churches listed above with valid orders have the possibility of reunion with the ONE TRUE Church, the Catholic Church. The ones without it really must convert and recieve ordination anew.

The Eastern Churches, and it is interesting that there are 22 of them but really I think the number should he lower, of course have valid orders because they are in full communion with the Catholic Church. If they had not had valid orders than reunion would have been impossible.

Right now, reunion with the anglos is impossible. They must convert. The Old Catholics, well we should have a synod decide.

As for the SSPX, we need a Synod to decide if they have valid orders and they have to submit to the Church’s authority. If they do not, we can expect that they will be yet another one of these schismatic groups that will just be out there as the centuries go by.

Now I am not completely unsympothetic to their cause. I love Latin and I like the old ways but if they are saying that the current Roman Rite is invalid than I will not hold out any hope for them. They will soon start ordaining women, or dogs, or chairs and start making up fake sacraments like some of the Eastern Churches had done, like the so called sacrament of kingship.

 

[Claudius]

let’s go with Greek orthodox

You should probably put the word orthodox in quotes like this:

“orthodox” since they do not believe all that the Church teaches to be correct and they do not live as Christ has enjoined (by allowing divorce).

The word Orthodox means “correct believing” and such an ajective can only be applied to the Catholic Church in union with Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[nbjayme]

we are getting closer now what caused the man to decide to repent.having his heart pierced?by what and who did the piercing?(acts after S.t Peter’s first sermon)…prt2…and that is held by the church as to be the sin that can’t be forgiven ,the sin against the Holy Spirit

prt3…scripture isn’t clear either way is it?we are not told he did it all on his own accord or if the Spirit helped in Abrham’s decsion making…

Genesis 6:7 He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noe found grace before the Lord. 9 These are the generations of Noe:** Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations**, he walked with God.

Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith, which he had, being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice:

It was held on abraham’s account that is why the Lord is delighted upon him (Abraham).

Man may be imperfect being but it does not mean to say he does not have the ability to win the favour of the Lord.

God giveth us the KNOWLEDGE (to know and remember) but repentance is for us to DECIDE.



Probably it would help you if you will give us the definition of FREEWILL…

What is freewill? Please open a thread as this issue is not anymore in line with the topic of this thread.

 

[nbjayme]

As for the SSPX, we need a Synod to decide if they have valid orders and they have to submit to the Church’s authority. If they do not, we can expect that they will be yet another one of these schismatic groups that will just be out there as the centuries go by.

And how are they not submitting to the Church Authority? Is questioning heresy an act of not submitting to the Church Authority? They have valid orders and there was a necessity to preserve the Faith… I wouldn’t be able to attend a TLM and know of the Catechism of the Church if not for the SSPX. The teaching in the NO Church today allow gays to parade and even allow other religions to come pray and call their god.

Now I am not completely unsympothetic to their cause. I love Latin and I like the old ways but if they are saying that the current Roman Rite is invalid than I will not hold out any hope for them.

Would you please answer this then:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4161680&postcount=287

They will soon start ordaining women, or dogs, or chairs and start making up fake sacraments like some of the Eastern Churches had done, like the so called sacrament of kingship.

That’s your assertion. Meanwhile altar girls are making it’s way to the NO church… and oh, halloween masses, and even choirs wearing skimpy clothes.