Sspx

[Claudius]

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.

And how do you know that what they are teaching is what the Church teaches? You don’t because they are not in communion with the Pope.

Besides, you can go to a real Catholic Church and learn the Catechism. Maybe they won’t have the extraordinary form of the Mass but they will have Mass. If you don’t believe that the Mass is valid than you are just like the people who rejected Jesus in John Chapter 6.

Would you please answer this then:

No, Don’t feel like it. I am not the one who needs to prove anything here.

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.

And what is wrong with alter girls. I don’t like them myself but what is wrong with them theologically?

Please show me a document from the Church that allows halloween masses.

Please show me a document from the Church that allows chiors with skimpy dress.

You know what I will be doing on October 31st. I will be in a cemetary saing the Liturgia Horarum in honor of All Saints day.

What will the SSPX people be doing? A few years ago knew a SSPX family and on October 31st they said they couldn’t participate in Halloween since it was a pagan invention of the Catholic Church so they instead went to celebrate “reformation day” with a bunch of protestants. Those people did everything with protestants. I was really ashamed for them, since they called themselves Catholics but I had not yet learned what the SSPX was. They talked to me from time to time because I knew Latin but they were never interested in learning it. It was just “oooo, you know Latin” like it was magic or something. It’s a language.

You know what, I live in a different country now but I bet those people are still there in Baton Rouge and I bet come October 31st they will be practicing racial slurs and talking about how all the homeless people need to get a life with the protestants as they praise the greatest apostate in the history of the Church, Marty Luther.

 

[nbjayme]

And how do you know that what they are teaching is what the Church teaches?

Wait … wait… i’ve been here in this thread for a while… it seems you did not read everything.
i understand because it’s quite lenghty but if you can be a bit patient you’ll be able to find how i found it out…
review the thread…

You don’t because they are not in communion with the Pope.

Not in communion with the Pope… hmmmm… in what sense? They recognize the Pope’s authority and even cheered at the Vatican (see sspx pilgrimage caught on EWTN tapes). If there is something that they are not in communion with … it’s that wrong actions and teachings against the DOGMA of the Church.

Besides, you can go to a real Catholic Church and learn the Catechism. Maybe they won’t have the extraordinary form of the Mass but they will have Mass. If you don’t believe that the Mass is valid than you are just like the people who rejected Jesus in John Chapter 6.

Yeah, catechism that is of no value to the NO bishops / priests. Like gays are allowed to parade wearing women clothes in celebration of a Catholic Feast.

A NO priest once refused to celebrate mass because of the few people present. What did he get from his seminary catechism?

The TLM is a mass celebrated by the church more than a thousand years. You call it EF today which is brought to you by the POPE himself.

No, Don’t feel like it. I am not the one who needs to prove anything here.

Because you have nothing to prove at all. Your assertions have been covered a whole lot of exchanges and it’s nothing new. Patience is a virtue… read the thread.

And what is wrong with alter girls. I don’t like them myself but what is wrong with them theologically?

You may contact HELLEN HULL HITCHKOCK for that.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9305fea2.asp

Please show me a document from the Church that allows halloween masses.
Please show me a document from the Church that allows chiors with skimpy dress.

The NO bishops and priests have been doing lots of stunt these days. If there are those that will ordain women, dogs, chairs, etc.,
it’s unlikely on the SSPX side.

There are no such documents. That is why one can only wonder where this defiant spirit comes within the ranks of the Bishop, Priests and Laity. And, these are people whom we rather call in “Full communion” with the Church. What a shame!

And speaking of catechism… i’m not quite sure where Vatican II really stand on halloween…

ewtn.com/library/MARY/HALLWEEN.HTM

No clear answers from EWTN of instructing the faithful.

Even in this site:
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9809fea2.asp
Ahem… we should focus on prayer for the relief of souls more than anything else … like hey your custome is neat, our party is not fun. shame shame shame.

But SSPX is firm on issues of doctrines:

“We have a duty, as Catholics, to practice ONLY those rituals designed for the honor of God and the relief of the suffering souls and given to us by Holy Mother Church as a means of furthering our salvation also. To partake in the practice of pagan and devil-honoring rituals is to offend God in a most demeaning way. We should therefore strive rather to return to the beautiful customs of our forefathers and practice in its entirety and with all the purity of its original intention, the customs of All Hallow’s Eve.”

sspx.org/Seasonal/history_of_halloween.htm

You know what I will be doing on October 31st. I will be in a cemetary saing the Liturgia Horarum in honor of All Saints day.

sspxasia.com/Documents/The_Church_Year/All_Souls.htm
sspxasia.com/Documents/The_Church_Year/All_Saints.htm

What will the SSPX people be doing? …

That’s more of a family problem not of SSPX. See link above.

You know what, I live in a different country now but I bet those people are still there in Baton Rouge and I bet come October 31st they will be practicing racial slurs and talking about how all the homeless people need to get a life with the protestants as they praise the greatest apostate in the history of the Church, Marty Luther.

Martin Luther have no room with the SSPX.
sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm

 

[nbjayme]

let’s go with Greek orthodox

Meaning those in schism? (You really ought to be more specific for the rest of us to be able to follow).

What does the church teach regarding schismatics? You mean there are schismatics that are inside the Church?

Schism Schism, n. [OE. scisme, OF. cisme, scisme, F. schisme,
L. schisma, Gr. schisma, fr. schizein to split; akin to L.
scindere, Skr. chid, and prob. to E. shed, v.t. (which see);
cf. Rescind, Schedule, Zest.]
Division or separation; specifically (Eccl.), permanent
division or separation in the Christian church; breach of
unity among people of the same religious faith; the offense
of seeking to produce division in a church without
justifiable cause.
[1913 Webster]

How do you define schism?

 

[Auntie_M]

To all of the “LEARNED” sspxers here

You defend the SSPX because you are fed false info and believe it. You refuse to listen to anyone other than your SSPX fed people. I personally have seen your Famous Editor in Missouri and heard him bragg about having the Vatican on the run!!!
They fight against something they claim to want to be with?
Nonsense. That is just a smokescreen.

How can someone who fights against the Roman
Catholic Church call himself a ROMAN Catholic…This is bull

Just as alot of what they teach is.

If anyone wants to side with someone FIGHTING against the Vatican, then they are the ones OUTSIDE the church.

Prove me wrong, please…in actual Vatican terms not SSPX terms.

Just WHAT IS THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE SSPX

They have not agreed to the Pope’s terms. They are dragging their feet in doing so, so where does that leave all you SSPX believers?

OUT IN THE COLD… …( Can I send you all a blanket…)

Lord, forgive them, they know not what they do…

 

[Psalter]

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

Hey SFD, wasn’t there some encyclical where Pius XII warned us about people who would try to turn the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” into a “meaningless formula”?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Ok Ok. I have just spent the last hour searching the web for anything from Rome on what the official standing of the SSPX is.

From everything I have been able to find it appears that at this Point the SSPX are not excommunicated. They are in irregular canonical standing which if left as is stands could lead to full schism.
People on both sides of this issue need to step back and let those in the position of authority do what needs to be done. I have read on the thread every opinion from they are heretics to they are the last stance to preserving the True Church. As with most issue the true answer more than likely is somewhere near the middle.

I Love the Traditional Latin Mass, I would Love to see the Old calender be put back in uses, I would love to see a return to a more traditional teaching a observance of disciplines that the Church had over these many years. However what needs to be remembered is that the form of the Mass is a discipline and not Dogma and as such can be changed the NO and the TML(EF) are both equally valid.

God Bless our beloved Pope Benedict and his efforts to have the misguided teaching that have happened since VII corrected. Please, I don’t want to get into a discussion on what those are. As I truly believe that the Priest and Bishops that made them did so in true heart felt desire to do what what right. As with every thing there must be a learning curve. and we now can look back and see were we need to back up and what needs to be maintained. Remember at one time all confession were public and so was penance, I would not want to return to that disciple.

I am thankful for the SSPX as they have taken a stance on what they felt have been errors made. I do think that they have been mistaken on all that they have done ( they are human) I just pray that they and the Holy Father can mend this before They become more that just a voice of traditional practice into a full blown schismatic group.

 

[Fran65]

Excellent post Scott. I’m glad you came along.

Karen

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Excellent post Scott. I’m glad you came along.

Karen

Thank you Karen. In a topic such as this it is often forgotten that we are all part of the same family, and that non walking this earth (Jesus is the Exception) has ever been entirely correct on everything.

 

[SFD]

Hey SFD, wasn’t there some encyclical where Pius XII warned us about people who would try to turn the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” into a “meaningless formula”?

Mystici Corporis, I believe.

 

[SanJudas]

What will the SSPX people be doing? A few years ago knew a SSPX family and on October 31st they said they couldn’t participate in Halloween since it was a pagan invention of the Catholic Church so they instead went to celebrate “reformation day” with a bunch of protestants. Those people did everything with protestants.

This is a pack of vile lies, as you well know. The SSPX defends the Church of old. It would never accuse the Church of having “invented” Halloween. There is no such thing as “reformation day,” and even if there were, the SSPX would not celebrate it with protestants. The SSPX has been the major critic of the “new ecumenism” ushered in after Vatican II.

I was really ashamed for them, since they called themselves Catholics but I had not yet learned what the SSPX was. They talked to me from time to time because I knew Latin but they were never interested in learning it. It was just “oooo, you know Latin” like it was magic or something. It’s a language.

You should be ashamed for yourself, for spreading this malicious slander. The SSPX uses Latin every week in its Masses and each parishioner has a Latin/English missal. All SSPX seminarians learn Latin as part of their training for the priesthood.

You know what, I live in a different country now but I bet those people are still there in Baton Rouge and I bet come October 31st they will be practicing racial slurs and talking about how all the homeless people need to get a life with the protestants as they praise the greatest apostate in the history of the Church, Marty Luther.

Just for the sake of any honest people who innocently happen across this thread with the hope of learning something, I will relate my own experience with the Society. I attend an SSPX chapel. The ethnic constituency of the parishioners is about 33% non-European ancestry, mostly Mexican with a few Philippinos, one African-American family and a couple of elderly Black ladies who come alone, with the remainder being at least half Polish/Czech descent. In other words, a typical mixture at any Catholic Church in Southeast Texas. The economic class of parishioners is predominantly blue collar. Not exactly a group prone to racial slurs or insults against the homeless.

In reference to “Marty” Luther, it was a recently deceased Pope who stated that we have much to learn from him, not the SSPX, which has always been firm in its rejection of the principles of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[SFD]

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

What is the reason you think it might happen? Anything can happen…anything is possible…but we don’t normally conjecture about something unless we have a solid reason to do so. Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.

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

You need to read some Sacramental Theology Books instead of doing your own theology by interpreting the Canons of Trent and the Summa for yourself.

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.

The fact of the existence an apostolic mandate does not guarantee the correct form is used…that is silly. Also, you should know that only a positive doubt can cause one to question validity…never a negative doubt.

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.

Quote the source for this. A canon law commentary maybe?

Invalid form, or at least unknown
Not enough Bishops

No.

No Apostolic mandate

True.

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.

Their validity is not questioned by anyone who understands Sacramental Theology. You don’t understand it, that is clear from your earlier posts.

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 proper form in the Rite. The mandate is something else. They are both required normally…are you saying every bishop ever consecrated was given a direct mandate from the pope by name? Sources please?

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.

The Roman Rite prior to 1968 is used. It is unquestionably valid. To say otherwise is nonsense.

Also, you are going to have a hard time selling this to a Maronite, or a Coptic, or a Chaldean.

I don’t see your point.

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

The essential form for priestly ordination and the consecration of a bishop was laid down by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis. What is truly in question is the rite approved by Paul VI…it appears to be lacking the essential form as laid out in Sacramentum Ordinis.

The problem here is that The Church did not supply the intent.

According to you?

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?

It does not make the consecration invalid…but valid and illicit. If what you say is true.

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.

Did Lefebvre say he was consecrating differently? For a different purpose?

He can call them whatever he wants but they have Zero authority to govern in the Church.

But they’re not governing…they operate under supplied jurisdiction. They provide the sacraments and that is all.

Your problem is that you don’t see any real ecclesiological problem in the Church. Everything is hunky-dory in your world…the land of the conciliarists.

From the beginning of the crisis traditional Catholics have raised what can be described as the “ecclesiological problem” - or as Ratzinger put it in Chile in 1988,

“All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people.”

He echoes Frank Sheed, who wrote a book in 1967 entitled, quite extraordinarily, “Is It the Same Church?” and of course Archbishop Lefebvre, who in 1976 famously declared,

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church…”

This problem has not disappeared - quite the contrary. It has become more and more manifest that the Conciliar Church lacks the four marks of unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, that the Catholic Church always necessarily possesses.

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.

In this situation the lack of intent is manifest in public. He says he has no intention to baptise.

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

Why? I’ve read the Dogmatic and Sacramental Theology Manuals…these are the approved authors who explain the mind of the Church.

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

?

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

SSPX accepts some priests from the conciliar church.

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.

This is irrelevant.

By the way, calling us the conciliar Church is a correct thing to say but you mean it out of hate.

It’s not hate, my friend. It charity…calling the wolf a wolf…and humility, fleeing the wolf.

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.

And you’ve played your desperate “you’re not a Catholic!” card.

Tell that to the anglos.

Pope Leo XIII did not make Anglican Orders invalid…he merely defined them as invalid…they were made invalid and were always invalid with the changes in the their ordinal.

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.

You choose to bury your head in the sand.

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

I’d rather read the Theologians approved by the Church first…then the Summa.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Okay, Claudius…I missed this post…if I’d seen it I would have known you were a fraud.

Claudius:

What will the SSPX people be doing? A few years ago knew a SSPX family and on October 31st they said they couldn’t participate in Halloween since it was a pagan invention of the Catholic Church so they instead went to celebrate “reformation day” with a bunch of protestants.

How could the Church invent a pagan event? This is so silly.

Those people did everything with protestants. I was really ashamed for them, since they called themselves Catholics but I had not yet learned what the SSPX was.

This doesn’t even make sense.

They talked to me from time to time because I knew Latin but they were never interested in learning it. It was just “oooo, you know Latin” like it was magic or something. It’s a language.

From what you’ve said here on this forum (several times telling me to learn Latin) I’d tend to believe that you think your “knowledge” of Latin is like “oooh” magic.

From now on, quote your sources and we’ll see who you really are, Claudius.

SFD

 

[Claudius]

What is the reason you think it might happen? Anything can happen…anything is possible…but we don’t normally conjecture about something unless we have a solid reason to do so. Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.

Not true. Satan can not defeat God. That can’t happen.

Also, the Church can not fall into error because Lord Jesus promised that it would not.

You need to read some Sacramental Theology Books instead of doing your own theology by interpreting the Canons of Trent and the Summa for yourself.

So I have to read your books but not the cannons of the Church?

The fact of the existence an apostolic mandate does not guarantee the correct form is used…that is silly. Also, you should know that only a positive doubt can cause one to question validity…never a negative doubt.

So you admit that SSPX did things the wrong way but you want to defend it.

Quote the source for this. A canon law commentary maybe?

Why would I quote a commentary on cannon law when I can quote the actual cannon?

Their validity is not questioned by anyone who understands Sacramental Theology. You don’t understand it, that is clear from your earlier posts.

It it is questioned, which is why reconciliation is taking so long.

The proper form in the Rite. The mandate is something else. They are both required normally…are you saying every bishop ever consecrated was given a direct mandate from the pope by name? Sources please?

The Church said don’t do it, and he went ahead and did it. You say “normally” as if somehow your guy got a pass on doing things the right way.

The Roman Rite prior to 1968 is used. It is unquestionably valid. To say otherwise is nonsense.

Sure, I buy that, but do we know for sure, 100% that he used the right form. I can’t say I know that. The fact that he was engaging himself in a schismatic act that got him excommunicated from the Church puts this in doubt for me. I can’t say what he did besides something that got him excommunicated.

I don’t see your point.

Than read it again.

The essential form for priestly ordination and the consecration of a bishop was laid down by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis. What is truly in question is the rite approved by Paul VI…it appears to be lacking the essential form as laid out in Sacramentum Ordinis.

Not so, you are now the person who needs to go and learn about sacramental theology. If you think that ordinations in the rite of Paul VI are invalid than I will not hold any hope for the SSPX. You are in schism the same as the Russians. I also will hold no hope for the continued validity of your order, if in fact they are even valid now.

According to you?

I am not alone in what I say.

It does not make the consecration invalid…but valid and illicit. If what you say is true.

And why oh why would I ever want to go to an illicit priest or a defrocked priest or a laciated priest? I like to have peace of heart when I recieve the sacraments.

Did Lefebvre say he was consecrating differently? For a different purpose?

And that is the right question. Did he? I don’t know. I have doubts about his good faith in administering the sacraments.You don’t want to assure me but attack the fact that I doubt his honesty. Was he or was he not excommunicated?

But they’re not governing…they operate under supplied jurisdiction. They provide the sacraments and that is all.

Tell that to the SSPX people in Wisconsin who are granting annulments left and right. A couple can’t get an annulment from the Church so they go pay $500 to the SSPX and get one without even a hearing.

Your problem is that you don’t see any real ecclesiological problem in the Church. Everything is hunky-dory in your world…the land of the conciliarists.

Not quite but I am not going to attack the Church or say that it is not now the ONE TRUE CHURCH because I disagree with cheesy music or other liturgical abuses. There is a right way to insist on orthodoxy and holiness in the Church and a wrong way. SSPX is the wrong way and they are getting out of control.

Let us keep in mind that this reactionary mindset is what created schism in the past. We had a council and the Church upheld what it has always taught, but this group or that group couldn’t take it and left. They then insist that they are the ones who really uphold the way the Church has always beleived and to prove that they become very strick on PREX.

This is what happened with the Assyrian Church of the East. They rejected a council and began telling people that they were the older authentic Christianity.

This happened again with the Coptics, Armenians and Syriacs, when they couldn’t accept the outcome of a council. They enshrined their PREX into stone, never changing and attacking the Catholic Church for every “inovation” that was included over the years.

This happened again when the Greeks and Slavs could not accept a council, two in fact, that upheld the Filioque and the importance of Papal Primacy. They the enshrined their Prex into stone and refuse to change and damn us for every little change that ever happens.

Ancient PREX does not equal ancient belief.

The SSPX is acting just like all the schismatics before them.

From the beginning of the crisis traditional Catholics have raised what can be described as the “ecclesiological problem”

I am a traditionalist Catholic. As for the SSPX, I think you have to be Catholic before you can call yourself a traditionalist Catholic.

In this situation the lack of intent is manifest in public. He says he has no intention to baptise.

So the question I ask is, since it was very public, and he knew he was going to be excommunicated, did LaFluer have intent or did he have a lack of intent manifest in public.

Why? I’ve read the Dogmatic and Sacramental Theology Manuals…these are the approved authors who explain the mind of the Church.

Oh, but you dont’ read the actual cannons of the Church.

SSPX accepts some priests from the conciliar church.

So they think that some validly ordain priest in the Church are not really validly ordained? This proves the curruption in their own order.

This is irrelevant.

Why?

It’s not hate, my friend. It charity…calling the wolf a wolf…and humility, fleeing the wolf.

SO you want to be in schism. You think that all who obey the council are wolves. So the SSPX had to flee. Where is that Christian Courage. What happened to “Christians are the people of indestructable Hope.”

And you’ve played your desperate “you’re not a Catholic!” card.

And you aren’t a Catholic, unless you believe as the anglos do that all are catholics.

Pope Leo XIII did not make Anglican Orders invalid…he merely defined them as invalid…they were made invalid and were always invalid with the changes in the their ordinal.

The anglos made their orders invalid (and they are proving to us just how invalid they are with the new women bishops). I am afraid that without a proper understanding of the sacraments, the SSPX will also make their own orders invalid. Then, when that happens, we will see the Pope have to infallably teach that they are what they are. Got to call a wolf a wolf right. Got to call invalid orders, invalid orders. But I will wait for the Pope to call it. That isn’t my place. As for now, I will question the validity until the Pope lets me know that SSPX orders are valid.

You choose to bury your head in the sand.

SO you flee as you put it but I am burrying my head in the sand. I knew, I just knew there was something wrong with all of the SSPX people. I say in the Church and am faithful to the Gospel and work in the Church to make things better and that is “burying my head in the sand” as you put it but you flee and we are supposed to think that you are in the right. You left the Church to do your own thing, just like a bunch of protestants and you want me to feel bad for remaining in the Church.

I’d rather read the Theologians approved by the Church first…then the Summa.

And now you are claiming that the Summa is not approved by the Church. You must mean your other, completely cut off, schismatic church because the Summa is certainly approved and encouraged by the Catholic Church.

But I get where you are coming from. You allow sedevacantist and heretics to your eucharist so I guess you have to ignore the Summa as well as the Cannons and Scripture.

As for the Catholic Church, we only allow those to come to the Eucharist if a man believes the things which the Church teaches to be true and is so living as Christ has enjoined.

 

[SFD]

Claudius:

SFD:

What is the reason you think it might happen? Anything can happen…anything is possible…but we don’t normally conjecture about something unless we have a solid reason to do so. Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.

Not true. Satan can not defeat God. That can’t happen.

Also, the Church can not fall into error because Lord Jesus promised that it would not.

See, Claudius…you didn’t address the substance of my post here. With respect to the proper or improper form being used in an ordination (and not whether Satan can defeat God, or the Church can teach error)…anything can happen. The question is what did happen.

A negative doubt is not a valid doubt…only a positive doubt can be valid. You brushed over this:

SFD:

we don’t normally conjecture about something unless we have a solid reason to do so. Just because something is possible does not mean it is probable.

Which was the substance of the post.

I may or may not address the rest of that babble you posted.

SFD

 

[Claudius]

This is a pack of vile lies, as you well know. The SSPX defends the Church of old. It would never accuse the Church of having “invented” Halloween. There is no such thing as “reformation day,” and even if there were, the SSPX would not celebrate it with protestants. The SSPX has been the major critic of the “new ecumenism” ushered in after Vatican II.

They why did the SSPX people in Baton Rouge claim that Halloween was an invention of the Catholic Church?

You should be ashamed for yourself, for spreading this malicious slander. The SSPX uses Latin every week in its Masses and each parishioner has a Latin/English missal. All SSPX seminarians learn Latin as part of their training for the priesthood.

I am talking about laymen. I have never meet an SSPX priest, only their laymen. I probably would refuse to meet with the priest if given an opportunity just as I would refuse to meet with a Slav schismatic.

Just for the sake of any honest people who innocently happen across this thread with the hope of learning something, I will relate my own experience with the Society. I attend an SSPX chapel. The ethnic constituency of the parishioners is about 33% non-European ancestry, mostly Mexican with a few Philippinos, one African-American family and a couple of elderly Black ladies who come alone, with the remainder being at least half Polish/Czech descent. In other words, a typical mixture at any Catholic Church in Southeast Texas. The economic class of parishioners is predominantly blue collar. Not exactly a group prone to racial slurs or insults against the homeless.

Good for you, maybe you can get word to Baton Rouge that you all are not supposed to believe in racism. One of the ladies there refuses to used pennies because “we don’t teach our children about Lincoln”.

Now sure, Lincoln was a protestant, but so is every person who has their head on a coin or a bill in America with the exception of Kennedy.

I wish they would issue a Vatican Bank credit card with the Papal keys on it for me to use so that I wouldn’t have to touch protestant money again.

 

[SFD]

Claudius:

So the question I ask is, since it was very public, and he knew he was going to be excommunicated, did LaFluer have intent or did he have a lack of intent manifest in public.

Who is LaFluer? Also, it appears that either your English is poor or you just can’t express yourself very well…this entire statement makes no sense.

SFD

 

[Claudius]

See, Claudius…you didn’t address the substance of my post here. With respect to the proper or improper form being used in an ordination (and not whether Satan can defeat God, or the Church can teach error)…anything can happen. The question is what did happen.

A negative doubt is not a valid doubt…only a positive doubt can be valid. You brushed over this:

Which was the substance of the post.

I may or may not address the rest of that babble you posted.

SFD

You still have not shown that LaFluer used the correct form. I have a serious doubt because he was engaging in a schismatic act. That is enought to doubt the validity until the Vatican says the orders are valid.

Someone saying that the Catholic Church does not have valid orders is enough to doubt their validity to you.

For me, if a priest says that the Catholic Church does not have valid orders, that gives me reason to doubt the validity of that one priest’s orders.

Since you say that that SSPX does not accept all priest ordained in the Catholic Church as having valid orders, that gives me reason to doubt their orders.

I was on the forum just going along fine until you said that. As soon as you said that, you put doubt in me as to the validity of SSPX orders.

Now I can’t accept them as valid until the Vatican says possitively that they are.

 

[Claudius]

Who is LaFluer? Also, it appears that either your English is poor or you just can’t express yourself very well…this entire statement makes no sense.

SFD

See, English speakers can’t understand English. This is why you all need to learn your LATIN. Latin is the language of the Church by the way. Also, if you knew a littel French (a vastly superior language to English) than you would know who I was talking about.

 

[SFD]

Claudius:

And now you are claiming that the Summa is not approved by the Church.

Of course not…the Summa is of great weight…it’s when you start doing your own theology that becomes a problem.
1917 CIC:

Can 1366 §1. Ad magisterii munus in disciplinis philosophicis, theologicis et iuridicis, ii, ceteris paribus, iudicio Episcopi et deputatorum Seminarii, praeferantur, qui laurea doctorali potiti sint in Universitate studiorum vel Facultate a Sancta Sede recognitis, aut, si agatur de religiosis, qui simile testimonium a suis Superioribus maioribus habeant.
§2. Philosophiae rationalis ac theologiae studia et alumnorum in his disciplinis institutionem professores omnino pertractent ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia, eaque sancte teneant.
§3. Curandum ut saltem sacrae Scripturae, theologiae dogmaticae, theologiae moralis, et historiae ecclesiasticae, totidem habeantur distincti magistri.

SFD

 

[SFD]

See, English speakers can’t understand English. This is why you all need to learn your LATIN. Latin is the language of the Church by the way. Also, if you knew a littel French (a vastly superior language to English) than you would know who I was talking about.

Why don’t you tell us what you are talking about…are parts of your post in languages other than English?

SFD