Sspx

[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

Let me make it clear. I accept Vatican II as valid. I accept the teaching of the Church as promulgated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do believe the Church CANNOT teach error in faith and morals. That should make my beliefs and answer clear.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[fbl9]

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

mind dropping me from your list here,i have never stated one way or the other in regards to the Sspx being in comunion partial or otherwise…you have yet to address which doctrines have been aledgely changed by V2,is it because there were none??

 

[SFD]

Let me make it clear. I accept Vatican II as valid. I accept the teaching of the Church as promulgated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do believe the Church CANNOT teach error in faith and morals. That should make my beliefs and answer clear.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Okay, but the question was whether you reject the “partial communion” and “full communion” definition of the Church. If you do, then that means you reject what the “pastoral” Council taught…oops, every Council accepted by the Pope is an act of the Ordinary Magisterium and, as such, connot contain errors in Faith and Morals.

SFD

 

[SFD]

mind dropping me from your list here,i have never stated one way or the other in regards to the Sspx being in comunion partial or otherwise…you have yet to address which doctrines have been aledgely changed by V2,is it because there were none??

The question is about the novel teaching of “partial communion”…not the SSPX’s standing in the Church. We are discussing the very thing you requested of me…you just can’t see it for some reason. The very nature of the Church was changed by this novelty…when pnewton thought is was SSPX’s idea he thought it was wrong and a novel position…but it not their doctrine…it’s the Council’s novel doctrine and it has been implemented by the conciliar popes.

SFD

 

[pnewton]

…when pnewton thought is was SSPX’s idea he thought it was wrong and a novel position…

Again, what I said was that I heard about the term first here from SSPX, that would be posters. I didn’t respond to where you quoted me above because I think it shows exactly what I meant.

 

[SFD]

mind dropping me from your list here,i have never stated one way or the other in regards to the Sspx being in comunion partial or otherwise…you have yet to address which doctrines have been aledgely changed by V2,is it because there were none??

You implied you agreed with them in post #279. Again, this agreement refers to the idea of a “partial communion” versus “full communion” being novel…this has NOTHING to do with the status of the SSPX.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4160486&postcount=279

SFD

 

[SFD]

Again, what I said was that I heard about the term first here from SSPX, that would be posters. I didn’t respond to where you quoted me above because I think it shows exactly what I meant.

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.

So you disagree with this novel doctrine. Now there is a problem to deal with…it came from the Council, approved by a Pope…and it’s been taught by JPII and Benedict XVI.

It’s a new ecclesiology.

SFD

 

[saint_rafael]

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

key words…Legal orders

That’s a heresy. Protestant ministers have no orders. There is no valid orders because they are no orders period. A protestant minister is just like a lay man except he is in a false religion.

Pope Leo XIII that this truth when it came to Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae. Do you deny the teaching of the Church?

 

[saint_rafael]

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)

The Oath was recinded because the Modernists who no longer believed that dogma and truth couldn’t change took control of the Church. The same Modernism that the Oath condemned was embraced by the clerics in the late 20th century.

Pope Pius believed people shouldn’t hold heresy and that most of the so called “education” of the 20th century, was not education, but heresy, nonsence, and total stupidity. The Catholic Biblical scholars were copying the same errors and heresies of the 18th and 19th century Protestant Biblical scholars. That is why most Protestant churches are on the verge of extinction, and Catholics do not believe in the Bible.

 

[Auntie_M]

The Oath was recinded because the Modernists who no longer believed that dogma and truth couldn’t change took control of the Church. The same Modernism that the Oath condemned was embraced by the clerics in the late 20th century.

Pope Pius believed people shouldn’t hold heresy and that most of the so called “education” of the 20th century, was not education, but heresy, nonsence, and total stupidity. The Catholic Biblical scholars were copying the same errors and heresies of the 18th and 19th century Protestant Biblical scholars. That is why most Protestant churches are on the verge of extinction, and Catholics do not believe in the Bible.

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?

 

[ProVobis]

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

SFD

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

 

[Auntie_M]

That’s a heresy. Protestant ministers have no orders. There is no valid orders because they are no orders period. A protestant minister is just like a lay man except he is in a false religion.

Pope Leo XIII that this truth when it came to Anglican orders in Apostolicae Curae. Do you deny the teaching of the Church?

Evidently you don’t know much about the Protestants…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. They still have to be “legally ordained”, and you know some even preach very close to what the Catholic church teaches.

Do I deny the teaching…absolutely NOT. But you deny any teaching since Vat II. You are even denying the fact that the famous Pius X taught…Do not question the Pope, he is infallable…(This is what Pius X taught. but I guess you can believe some and not believe some of his teachings, huh?) Just as you are doing with post Vat II.

That’s where the rubber meets the road…It’s a fact.

 

[Auntie_M]

The danger of socialism in Italy (during Pius Xth reign) and a fear that the papacy might be totally isolated, pushed the Holy See closer to the “liberal” Italian government, and Pius IX’s PROHIBITION against Catholics involving themselves in Italian political life was allowed to fall in abeyance and was finally abolished in 1919. So Pius X, himself, involved himself with “moderism” in politics.

Pius allowed “some” modernism when it was in his best interest and disallowed other modern ideas, Like higher education! He was not an intellectual himself, so he made little use of education.

He was a simple and straightforward and extremely pious man, but he reacted to the problem of Moderism with a severity and a lack of comprehension, that was to damage the Church for generations.
There were, as are today and throughout history, people who took an idea and went off the deep end. Moderism in Pius time arose out of the attempt to apply the lessons learned from the theory of evolution and the techniques of modern historical scholarship to the study of the Bible and the history of doctrine. A wholly praiseworthy idea and attracteded some of the brightest intellects of the late 19 and 20 centuries. But there were also some things written and said that were just not compatible with Christianity. This was more likely to occur after the individuals who made these statements had been excommunicated or their books put on the “index”. (Statements made in retaliation to their excommunication or that would hurt their book sales)

This whole thing has taken a completely different shift from what was actually the purpose. As with alot of things, it has been blown out of preportion.

There are alot of good Popes and bad Popes in the history of the church. If we were to go back and really read all the papal letters, I am sure “someone” could find another “Cause” to rally against.

It is usually best to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Auntie_M]

BEFORE Pius X

Pope Eugenius at the Council of Florence established that differences in rites (the way the liturgy is performed) do not necessarily mean a difference in belief.

In his day, Conciliarism was a theory that church authority comes from God, but thru the people. (People ruled the Pope, not the Pope ruling the people). Eugenius asserted his authority over this council and the “conciliarist” movement faded away as a serious attempt to govern the church.

So, the conciliar church is people trying to govern. Who is NOT abiding by the Pope’s decision and who is? Those who do not recognize the Pope or abide by what he says is the real conciliar church.

Will the REAL conciliar church please stand up.

 

[nbjayme]

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

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?

 

[SFD]

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

This seems to wreck the dogma of “No Salvation Outside the Church”, does it not?

There is no salvation outside the Church. Period. That’s what the dogma says. There may be however, persons within the Church by desire. These are individual cases that we can never know about here on earth.

As to those who die outside the Church’s visible communion, but after a life of apparent virtue, with the possibility of invincible ignorance of the Church and true supernatural faith, their salvation is certainly possible. However, it would be a mistake to presume that case to be a common one. For if, for such people, actual membership of the visible Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation, it remains the ordinary means of salvation, and the ordinary channel of those graces and helps to salvation which men commonly stand in need of. And it is not readily to be conceded that God bypasses the economy of salvation which He has established and promulgated. Nor are such people excused from the ordinary duties of prayer to obtain the grace of fidelity to God, perfect contrition to recover grace after grave sin, etc.

SFD

 

[nbjayme]

Evidently you don’t know much about the Protestants…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. They still have to be “legally ordained”,…

“Not Catholic for sure” …

Isn’t it already clear that when we speak of Valid and Legal, it always pertains on how the Church see it?

So what if they have their own orders … it sure is not Valid and Legal as the Church is concerned.

See… these V2 supporters just go where the wind bloweth… even they don’t have a clear compass.

and you know some even preach very close to what the Catholic church teaches.

Almost all protestants have a level of close teaching with the Church. But a blind cannot always lead the Blind.

And a small leaven becomes poison to the soul.

Galatians 5:9 A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.

That sure is a leaven idea above.

 

[nbjayme]

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?

 

[nbjayme]

AuntieM,

Any actions of the Pope can have negative and positive effects… the question is to whom? To those who spread heresies? … or to those who keep the Faith?

How did the declaration against modernism hurt the Dogma of the Catholic Church?

And questions from …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4165223&postcount=314

 

[nbjayme]

AuntieM,

Why dig up the grave of Pope Eugenius? Or is there a pope eugene I don’t know that existed after Pope Pius V.

St. Pope Pius V since then codified a Missal to be observed “uniformly”. An, indult was only given on those that have been celebrated more than 200 years before the time of declaration.

Any change in the mass were organic however the new mass is (as V2 supporters put it) a break in Tradition.

The TLM stands out against the NO because it has an “Unequivocal Expression of Faith”.

Would you please explain and answer the post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4161680&postcount=287

Benedict XVI 19 April 2005 present
John Paul II 16 October 1978 2 April 2005
John Paul I 26 August 1978 28 September 1978
Paul VI 21 June 1963 6 August 1978
John XXIII 28 October 1958 3 June 1963
Pius XII 2 March 1939 9 October 1958
Pius XI 6 February 1922 10 February 1939
Benedict XV 3 September 1914 22 January 1922
Pius X 4 August 1903 20 August 1914
Leo XIII 20 February 1878 20 July 1903
Pius IX 16 June 1846 7 February 1878
Gregory XVI 2 February 1831 1 June 1846
Pius VIII 31 March 1829 1 December 1830
Leo XII 28 September 1823 10 February 1829
Pius VII 14 March 1800 20 August 1823
Pius VI 15 February 1775 29 August 1799
Clement XIV 19 May 1769 22 September 1774
Clement XIII 6 July 1758 2 February 1769
Benedict XIV 17 August 1740 3 May 1758
Clement XII 12 July 1730 6 February 1740
Benedict XIII 27 May 1724 21 February 1730
Innocent XIII 8 May 1721 7 March 1724
Clement XI 23 November 1700 19 March 1721
Innocent XII 12 July 1691 27 September 1700
Alexander VIII 6 October 1689 1 February 1691
Innocent XI 21 September 1676 12 August 1689
Clement X 29 April 1670 22 July 1676
Clement IX 20 June 1667 9 December 1669
Alexander VII 7 April 1655 22 May 1667
Innocent X 16 September 1644 7 January 1655
Urban VIII 6 August 1623 29 July 1644
Gregory XV 9 February 1621 3 July 1623
Paul V 16 May 1605 28 January 1621
Leo XI 1 April 1605 12 April 1605
Clement VIII 30 January 1592 3 March 1605
Innocent IX 29 October 1591 30 December 1591
Gregory XIV 5 December 1590 16 October 1591
Urban VII 15 September 1590 27 September 1590
Sixtus V 24 April 1585 27 August 1590
Gregory XIII 13 May 1572 10 April 1585
Pius V 7 January 1566 1 May 1572
Pius IV 25 December 1559 9 December 1565
Paul IV 23 May 1555 18 August 1559
Marcellus II 9 April 1555 1 May 1555
Julius III 7 February 1550 23 March 1555
Paul III 13 October 1534 10 November 1549
Clement VII 26 November 1523 25 September 1534
Adrian VI 9 January 1522 14 September 1523
Leo X 9 March 1513 1 December 1521
Julius II 31 October 1503 21 February 1513
Pius III 22 September 1503 18 October 1503
Alexander VI 11 August 1492 18 August 1503
Innocent VIII† 29 August 1484 25 July 1492
Sixtus IV 9 August 1471 12 August 1484
Paul II 30 August 1464 26 July 1471
Pius II 19 August 1458 14 August 1464
Calixtus III 8 April 1455 6 August 1458
Nicholas V 6 March 1447 24 March 1455
Eugene IV† 3 March 1431 23 February 1447
Martin V† 11 November 1417 20 February 1431
Gregory XII†‡ 30 November 1406 4 July 1415
Innocent VII† 17 October 1404 6 November 1406

You read the history of the Church but it seems you’re not in sync with the event. Or is it that “Catholic Scholars” nowadays use history to push their reasoning, basing in the time when the matter was not yet decided upon.

Just as Protestants would question the validity of the Catholic Bible because there were debates among the bishops (before the matter was decided upon).

Yes, for the sake of your so-called “education” you seem not to be in touch of the Church’s Growth in Faith and Liturgy.