Sspx

[fbl9]

.

So where does the idea of “imperfect communion” come from again? Are you to put your opinion above V2 doctrines?

i suppose the eastern churchs are in perfect communion then?

 

[SFD]

i suppose the eastern churchs are in perfect communion then?

Why don’t you address this? You, Pnewton, and DeaconEd all thought the SSPX made up the term “partial communion”. You didn’t know where it really originated…and now you’re stuck.

The eastern churches are not in communion at all. They are schismatics…and heretics since after Vatican I. Schismatics are by definition “cut off” from the Mystical Body. There are severed members and are no longer part of the Body. There is NO communion with the true Church.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

Just a clarification, I did not say I thought one way or another where the term came from. I only said that I heard it first here from the SSPX as an alternative to being in schism. I prefer clarity of the latter term.

 

[SFD]

Just a clarification, I did not say I thought one way or another where the term came from. I only said that I heard it first here from the SSPX as an alternative to being in schism. I prefer clarity of the latter term.

This is what you said, post #264:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4156596&postcount=264

pnewton:

SFD:

The idea of “imperfect communion” is a novelty and is nowhere to be found in the teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II.

I agree. There is no such thing, at least in my opinion. That is just a term I picked up here by SSPX to avoid the term schism.

 

[Claudius]

Who would they mix order with and why would they need to? They have four Bishops with valid orders right now. Are you suggesting that their acceptance of some who were ordained in the new rite would be that invalid source?

SFD

If you believe that priest ordained using the newer rite are invalid that you can take a hike. If that is what the SSPX believes that I will go ahead and say that their orders are invalid because it will happen sooner or later.

In order for a sacrement to be valid, the person performing the sacrement must have the intention of doing what the Church does.

So an priest who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist can not consecrate. He has no intention of consecrating, not even if he puts on all the vestments and does the rite. If he has no intention of doing what the Church does, than he has not done what the Church does.

Someone who wants to baptize someone into their idea of Christianity that excludes Catholics does not baptize at all because they do not have the intention of making the other person a real Christian.

So if the SSPX believe that the ordinations currently being performed in the Catholic Church are invalid, it means that they do not understand the Sacrement of Holy Orders. If they do not have the proper understanding of it then they can not have the proper intention to do what the Church does. Without the intention to do what the Church does, they do not ordain.

Because of this, I will go ahead and say that all bishops and priest ordained by SSPX people are invalid ordinations, if the SSPX does not accept ordinations performed in the Catholic Church which we know to be valid.

They can go co-consecrate with anglos and hindus and whatnot, but they have no business in the Catholic Church.

Now I don’t know what the exact possition of the SSPX is on this but if they do not accept ordinations in the Catholic Church to be valid, then they have lost the validity of their own orders now or soon will.

If they do believe that, then we Catholics should cut off all reconciliation efforts with them and treat them as protestant apostates. We must not support them, go to their chapels or give their “priest” any honor so as not to dishonor our validly ordained priest of the Latin Rite.

 

[nbjayme]

babble on…doesn’t make clear your intent of the post…and again your failure to read the actual words causes you miss the mark…"…to know and remember…"do you not understand what the word remember means,

“Remember” is not repentance…

The decision to repent and change have already been decided by the person concerned.

“to know and remember” —> is not an act of repentance.

There are people who know they have sinned and what they do is sin, but it is no guarantee they are to repent. Now clear enough???

if God doesn’t open the door for salvation all the freewill repenting in the world isn’t going to help you…

Correct! There’s no need to repent since it avails nothing and why would God call on repentance if there is no end purpose of it noh?

 

[SFD]

If you believe that priest ordained using the newer rite are invalid that you can take a hike.

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.

If that is what the SSPX believes that I will go ahead and say that their orders are invalid because it will happen sooner or later.

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

In order for a sacrement to be valid, the person performing the sacrement must have the intention of doing what the Church does.

And if the consecrating Bishop is valid (the SSPX bishops are unquestionably valid, btw), and he uses the proper form (the old rite is a proper form), then the sacrament is valid. 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.

So an priest who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist can not consecrate. He has no intention of consecrating, not even if he puts on all the vestments and does the rite. If he has no intention of doing what the Church does, than he has not done what the Church does.

This is wrong, as indicated above.

Someone who wants to baptize someone into their idea of Christianity that excludes Catholics does not baptize at all because they do not have the intention of making the other person a real Christian.

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

So if the SSPX believe that the ordinations currently being performed in the Catholic Church are invalid, it means that they do not understand the Sacrement of Holy Orders. If they do not have the proper understanding of it then they can not have the proper intention to do what the Church does. Without the intention to do what the Church does, they do not ordain.

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

Because of this, I will go ahead and say that all bishops and priest ordained by SSPX people are invalid ordinations, if the SSPX does not accept ordinations performed in the Catholic Church which we know to be valid.

And you’d be wrong.

They can go co-consecrate with anglos and hindus and whatnot, but they have no business in the Catholic Church.

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?

Now I don’t know what the exact possition of the SSPX is on this but if they do not accept ordinations in the Catholic Church to be valid, then they have lost the validity of their own orders now or soon will.

Another ridiculous statement. One cannot “lose” validity.

If they do believe that, then we Catholics should cut off all reconciliation efforts with them and treat them as protestant apostates. We must not support them, go to their chapels or give their “priest” any honor so as not to dishonor our validly ordained priest of the Latin Rite.

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

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

SFD

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

So you think it is erroneous as well?

SFD

When it refuses to accept and believe that the magisterium is the sole teaching authority of the Church, the only answer can be yes.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[nbjayme]

For St. Athanasius, it is that Traditional Teaching of the Church – meaning, what the Church has always taught throughout the century. In his time, majority of Bishops did not follow the Teaching of the Magisterium – even the fact that they are those who are in Authority.

network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2007/07/08/what-s-latin-for-no-one-is-happy.aspx
"The New Mass for Good Friday has the following prayer:

Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, **that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant**. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption. "

Are they Jews to continue on the covenant with Moses or to accept the Messiah and his New covenant shed by His Blood?

“to his covenant” is not precise and can lead to a different interpretations. This is the danger of V2 actions because they leave much room for interpretation, all for the sake of “appeasing”.

And what of the ‘partial’ communion?

 

[fbl9]

the greek churches are heretical and schismatic yet some retain VALID orders,is this because(regarding vadility) they retain the proper rites then?the orders being valid means that also the Eucharsit is valid and one (latin rite catholic) may partake of communion in an greek church…although this is only if no other option exists or is life threating cases…if then one can partake of commnion in such a church it stands to reason then that they are in what could be called “partial” union with the catholic church?

 

[fbl9]

“Remember” is not repentance…

The decision to repent and change have already been decided by the person concerned.

“to know and remember” —> is not an act of repentance.

There are people who know they have sinned and what they do is sin, but it is no guarantee they are to repent. Now clear enough???



Correct! There’s no need to repent since it avails nothing and why would God call on repentance if there is no end purpose of it noh?

it is clear to me you have never been driven by the Holy Spirit,otherwise you would understand…i knew what i was doing was sin and repented yet i was without the spirit…now i know my sins for what they are and it by the power of the Holy Spirit that i know these sins…and “remember” is not knowing either.outta here for a while

 

[ProVobis]

These churches are NOT anything but outside. If you think the Baltimore Catechism says otherwise, then quote that section.

SFD

Which church isn’t the issue. It’s one of salvation.

 

[Auntie_M]

the greek churches are heretical and schismatic yet some retain VALID orders,is this because(regarding vadility) they retain the proper rites then?the orders being valid means that also the Eucharsit is valid and one (latin rite catholic) may partake of communion in an greek church…although this is only if no other option exists or is life threating cases…if then one can partake of commnion in such a church it stands to reason then that they are in what could be called “partial” union with the catholic church?

The way I understand it, their orders ARE valid, but not LICIT within the Catholic Church.
Just as with any minister of any religion, their orders are valid. They are not legally ordained within the Catholic Church. (Hence, they are not legally a Roman Catholic Priest, )

They would be a legal minister in any Protestant church.

 

[SFD]

When it refuses to accept and believe that the magisterium is the sole teaching authority of the Church, the only answer can be yes.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed B,

You misunderstand. You don 't agree with “partial communion”…that is what I believe YOU stated.

This idea (partial communion) comes from Vatican II, NOT the SSPX (as pnewton, fbl9,and YOU previously stated). When the implementers of Vatican II refuse to accept traditional and settled Catholic doctrines such as the definition of the Church…do you reject them as well?

SFD

 

[SFD]

Which church isn’t the issue. It’s one of salvation.

If the Catholic Church is the Ark of Salvation…it does matter which Church. That should be obvious.

SFD

 

[Auntie_M]

Who would they mix order with and why would they need to? They have four Bishops with valid orders right now. Are you suggesting that their acceptance of some who were ordained in the new rite would be that invalid source?

SFD

Valid …Yes LICIT…no
Bottomline…

All Protestant ministers carry “valid” orders. But not all have Legally Valid Roman Catholic orders.

key words…Legal orders

 

[Auntie_M]

The Oath against Modernism was a great decision from Pope Pius X. Of coarse it had a devastating blow against so called “Catholic scholarship”. He tried to kick out all the heretics. It was a beautiful oath that sent all the heretics running.

The Biblical scholars wre trying to push their abominations into the Church. They were trying to turn the Bible into a book of myths full of allegory, myth, stories and stripping it of anything supernatural. They didn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus, hated miracles, and mocked revelation.

The Oath against Modernism was done away with by Pope Paul VI in the 60’s, and not by Pope Benedict.
Fr. Malachi Martin said that even in the 60’s the clergymen were laughing over the Oath because most of them did not have the faith.

It was a mistake to get rid of such a great protection for the Church and it was such a great confirmation of dogma.

The “Oath” was recinded because it was put into place to deter education. Pius did not believe people should be educated, as they might see some fault in him. That’s fact…
(The history of the Catholic Church)

 

[Auntie_M]

Deacon Ed B,

You misunderstand. You don 't agree with “partial communion”…that is what I believe YOU stated.

This idea (partial communion) comes from Vatican II, NOT the SSPX (as pnewton, fbl9,and YOU previously stated). When the implementers of Vatican II refuse to accept traditional and settled Catholic doctrines such as the definition of the Church…do you reject them as well?

SFD

Maybe you could educate us all on why or how the Catholic Church has gone off the deep end. In detail, please, I really don’t read between the lines very easy.

 

[SFD]

Valid …Yes LICIT…no
Bottomline…

All Protestant ministers carry “valid” orders. But not all have Legally Valid Roman Catholic orders.

key words…Legal orders

All Protestant ministers carry “valid” orders? This is embarrassingly wrong.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

The “Oath” was recinded because it was put into place to deter education. Pius did not believe people should be educated, as they might see some fault in him. That’s fact…
(The history of the Catholic Church)

Believe very little of what McBrien say, especially when he tries guess at what other people believe. The man is as out of step as a Catholic can get with Catholic orthodoxy.