The Catholicity of the Society and Synod of St. Timothy?

[FrRobSST]

flameburns623:

Interesting thread. I registered on the SSST forum but it seems pretty inactive over there.

Actually, I noticed that you had joined on my website, www.fatherrob.org, which is my own site. I haven’t been working to heavily on it of late, things have been busy - will probably work on building it up again after the summer trips and church events.

Rob+

 

[dennisknapp]

FrRobSST:

We do not have a formal relationship with the Charismatic Episcopal Church, though I have been invited to concelebrate with their clergy by their bishops and we would invite their clergy to do likewise.

Rob+

How do you reconcile the total lack of evidence for sola fide and sola scriptura within the early Church?

You believe these two late innovation and yet still claim to be heirs of the early Church.

Peace

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Oh ok. Well then thanks to Mother Rome, because even if you have defied some of her teachings and technically makes you heretics and schismatics, she still accepts you and your submission to her for apostolic succession.

But the same explanation seems in contrary for the Catholic Church doesn’t view the sacraments of the Anglican Church as valid with the argument of apostolic succession.

It seems to me that your church is a compromising church, (no pun intended). First, it refers back to the Catholic Church in some matters of faith, yet diverts from her in another matters. You cannot say you don’t agree with the church in some matters concerning salvation and some matters that doesn’t. It’s tantamount to say the church teaches half truths. Now if that’s the case, you can’t refer back to a church that teaches only half truths.

Perhaps your church is just another Anglican Church in formation.

gelsbern:

Validity is a two edged sword. By the order of Melchizedek once ordained always ordained and that also carries over to once consecrated, always consecrated. So the apostolic lines that that particular bishop has are valid and his ordinations would be valid and the sacraments would also be valid. It has happened numerous times in the history of the church.

The Bishop of Utrecht begat the Old Catholic Church
Bishop Duarte-Costa begat the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil
The Polish National Catholic Church was begun by a bishop who was ordained by the Old Catholics.

The list goes on and on of VALID lines, ordinations and sacraments, but there is also a large amount of invalid lines as well.

One thing you might find interesting is that even though the groups mentioned above are technically schismatic, they still submitted to Rome for declaration of their validity. The PNCC, and the Old Catholics went to great lengths to obtain documentation from Rome stating the validity of their lines.

Of course, now, one must keep in mind that the valid lines CAN be lost. For example, a bishop with valid lines “ordains” a woman and later tries to consecrate that woman as a bishop. A sacrament is only valid with proper matter, form and intent. In this case a woman is not proper matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore she could not possibly been ordained, and if she were mistakenly made a bishop, she wouldn’t be, and would not posess valid lines, and therefore any one she ordained or consecrated would not be valid.

 

[gelsbern]

Lumen Gentium:

Oh ok. Well then thanks to Mother Rome, because even if you have defied some of her teachings and technically makes you heretics and schismatics, she still accepts you and your submission to her for apostolic succession.

But the same explanation seems in contrary for the Catholic Church doesn’t view the sacraments of the Anglican Church as valid with the argument of apostolic succession.

We would be considered schismatics, not heretics. The reason that Rome does not view the Anglican Church as having valid succession is that the Anglicans made some changes in the rite of ordination which put doubt in both the form and intent of the rite. Remember that for there to be a valid sacrament that it requires 3 things. Proper matter, proper form and proper intent. The change to the rite put a doubt in 2 out of the 3, form and intent and so Rome does not view Anglican orders as valid, and therefore they lost their apostolic successsion because they didn’t have any valid priest to consecrate as bishops.

It seems to me that your church is a compromising church, (no pun intended). First, it refers back to the Catholic Church in some matters of faith, yet diverts from her in another matters. You cannot say you don’t agree with the church in some matters concerning salvation and some matters that doesn’t. It’s tantamount to say the church teaches half truths. Now if that’s the case, you can’t refer back to a church that teaches only half truths.

Perhaps your church is just another Anglican Church in formation.

I would say that we are in line with the Roman Catholic Church in matters of faith that are required for salvation, BUT in matters of faith that are not inherent for salvation, we leave more wiggle room.

I am sure Fr. Rob will be in to give a better answer.

 

[oat_soda]

I would say that we are in line with the Roman Catholic Church in matters of faith that are required for salvation, BUT in matters of faith that are not inherent for salvation, we leave more wiggle room.

let me guess, you allow priests to be married and contraception and divorse in marriage. both are related to an improper understanding of the sexual union. not to say a married priesthood is inhierently evil like contraceptives, but it should be no reason to not be in union w/rome.

it’s interesting how a disordered view of sexuality has caused so much division in the church today. i.e. luther, henry 8th, gene robinson… etc.

 

[gelsbern]

oat soda:

let me guess, you allow priests to be married and contraception and divorse in marriage. both are related to an improper understanding of the sexual union. not to say a married priesthood is inhierently evil like contraceptives, but it should be no reason to not be in union w/rome.

it’s interesting how a disordered view of sexuality has caused so much division in the church today. i.e. luther, henry 8th, gene robinson… etc.

Yes to married men becoming priests, no to contraception, divorce and same sex unions.

If a married priesthood was evil, Jesus would have only picked men who were single. St. Paul would have in 1 Timothy 3 instructed that bishops and deacons should be single instead of husband of one wife, and finally, the early church fathers would have outlawed it way before it was outlawed in around 415AD. And finally, your eastern brethren who are in communion with Rome, who does allow married men to become priests must be inherently evil then as well, and Rome who accepts married men who convert to who were ministers before to remain priests within it’s own, must be evil too. That is if we go from your point of view.

Anyway, the areas where there is more wiggle room actually hardly any of them deal with sexuality. Most of them deal with Marian doctrines, and the intercession of the saints.

I’ll give an example, if a catholic never called upon the saints, is it still possible he/she would still go to heaven? If then answer is no, then one MUST believe in the intercession of saints for salvation, but since there is no requirement to call upon the saints for salvation, then one does not have to believe in the intercession of saints and is safe in viewing Jesus as the only mediator between us and God… Therefore, there is wiggle room in regards to the belief in the intecession of saints.

That is only one example.

 

[dennisknapp]

gelsbern:

Yes to married men becoming priests, no to contraception, divorce and same sex unions.

If a married priesthood was evil, Jesus would have only picked men who were single. St. Paul would have in 1 Timothy 3 instructed that bishops and deacons should be single instead of husband of one wife, and finally, the early church fathers would have outlawed it way before it was outlawed in around 415AD. And finally, your eastern brethren who are in communion with Rome, who does allow married men to become priests must be inherently evil then as well, and Rome who accepts married men who convert to who were ministers before to remain priests within it’s own, must be evil too. That is if we go from your point of view.

Anyway, the areas where there is more wiggle room actually hardly any of them deal with sexuality. Most of them deal with Marian doctrines, and the intercession of the saints.

I’ll give an example, if a catholic never called upon the saints, is it still possible he/she would still go to heaven? If then answer is yes, then one MUST believe in the intercession of saints, but since the answer there is no requirement to call upon the saints for salvation, then one does not have to believe in the intercession of saints and viewing Jesus as the only mediator between us ang God… Therefore, there is wiggle room in regards to the belief in the intecession of saints.

That is only one example.

Again, how do you reconcile the total lack of evidence for sola fide and sola scriptura within the early Church?

You believe these two late innovation and yet still claim to be heirs of the early Church.

I have been waiting for a response by Fr. Rob, but to no avail.

Peace

 

[gelsbern]

dennisknapp:

Again, how do you reconcile the total lack of evidence for sola fide and sola scriptura within the early Church?

You believe these two late innovation and yet still claim to be heirs of the early Church.

I have been waiting for a response by Fr. Rob, but to no avail.

Peace

I will call Fr. Rob tonight and have him give his response.

For me personally I don’t believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura and it is a point of discussion on how to better clarify the articles that they have.

I personally (but remember I am only a deacon) would like to see the articles we have modified.

For example in Article Four on Scripture, I would prefer it to be edited to read.

Holy Scripture and tradition teach all things necessary for salvation. However, tradtion which cannot be backed by Scripture cannot be demanded from any person to believe it as an article of the faith. Nor is any such thing to be thought necessary or required for salvation…

and in article eight on justification, I would rather have it read.

We are accounted righteous before God solely on account of the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through grace and not on account of our own good works or of what we deserve. Consequently the teaching that we are justified by grace and maintain that justification through faith and works is a most wholesome and comforting doctrine.

But, the Synod set up the articles to be in such a way that everyone involved with the Synod could accept them to some extent and they are not concrete in there even within those articles there is a bit of “wiggle room” for bishops and presbyters to best minister to their parishes. Because of that, you might find one parish utilizes practices and devotions that expand on the faith listed in the articles, but none that will contradict those articles.

 

[WBB]

Holy Scripture and tradition teach all things necessary for salvation. However, tradtion which cannot be backed by Scripture cannot be demanded from any person to believe it as an article of the faith. Nor is any such thing to be thought necessary or required for salvation…

If that is how you want it written, then you do not understand the role of Tradition in the Catholic faith. That is basically sola scriptura in all honesty because it puts the authority of Scripture above that of Tradition. Tradition in the Catholic faith is the lens through which we are able to focus and understand the Scriptures. It is not the Scriptures that are the lens through which Tradition is focused. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean in this statement.

 

[Mickey]

gelsbern:

If a married priesthood was evil, Jesus would have only picked men who were single. St. Paul would have in 1 Timothy 3 instructed that bishops and deacons should be single instead of husband of one wife, and finally, the early church fathers would have outlawed it way before it was outlawed in around 415AD. And finally, your eastern brethren who are in communion with Rome, who does allow married men to become priests must be inherently evil then as well, and Rome who accepts married men who convert to who were ministers before to remain priests within it’s own, must be evil too. That is if we go from your point of view.

Hi gelsbern!

I think you mis-read oat soda’s post. He said: not to say a married priesthood is inhierently evil like contraceptives…

Blessings,
mickey

 

[Mickey]

gelsbern:

but since there is no requirement to call upon the saints for salvation, then one does not have to believe in the intercession of saints and is safe in viewing Jesus as the only mediator between us and God…
That is only one example.

I am curious. Do **you **believe in the intercession of saints?

 

[gelsbern]

Mickey:

Hi gelsbern!

I think you mis-read oat soda’s post. He said: not to say a married priesthood is inhierently evil like contraceptives…

Blessings,
mickey

Doh! So I did, my apologies Oat Soda, if I could go back and edit it I would.

Thanks Mickey for pointing that out.

 

[gelsbern]

Mickey:

I am curious. Do **you **believe in the intercession of saints?

Me, personally. Yes. In fact in all truth, the ONLY differences I have with Rome is, Papal infallibilty, married men not being able to be priests, and requiring an indult for Latin Mass.

Other than that, for me personally I believe everything else Rome does.

The other thing is I see more commonalities than difference in the different catholic faiths, (east, west, independent, and Rome) and pray every day for a communion that is based on what the different catholics have in common rather than a communion based on doing away with what is different.

In fact if Rome had not been such boneheads when I approached them in my late 20’s in regards to the priesthood I would probably still be in the Roman Catholic Church. God has been calling me since I was 12, but I ignored Him for a long time and made a few wrong turns. Perhaps it was just the vocations director I spoke with, but after all the hoops that they set up and the fact that I was told I had to have absolutely zero debt in order to even start seminary I got the impression that the Roman Catholic Church really didn’t need priests, and so I searched went where I felt l would still able to do God’s calling for me even if it wasn’t in union with Rome. I am 35 now, and it’s been about 8 years of discernment that brought me to the independent catholics. So it wasn’t a spur of the moment decision, and it really wasn’t out of arrogance or anger, it was out of a strong desire to do what God has been calling me to do, and I felt that it was being impeded by Rome.

 

[gelsbern]

WBB:

If that is how you want it written, then you do not understand the role of Tradition in the Catholic faith. That is basically sola scriptura in all honesty because it puts the authority of Scripture above that of Tradition. Tradition in the Catholic faith is the lens through which we are able to focus and understand the Scriptures. It is not the Scriptures that are the lens through which Tradition is focused. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean in this statement.

And perhaps I am having difficulty explaining it.

What I am trying to say is that it is from the church where we learn what is necessary for salvation and all of the traditions and teachings of the church which the church has specified are inherently necessary for salvation can all be found in scripture.

I hope this explains it a little better

 

[Mickey]

gelsbern:

married men not being able to be priests

Byzantine Catholic priests can be married!

gelsbern:

In fact if Rome had not been such boneheads when I approached them in my late 20’s in regards to the priesthood I would probably still be in the Roman Catholic Church.

I think the Roman Catholic Church lost a good man. This is unfortunate.

gelsbern:

God has been calling me since I was 12, but I ignored Him for a long time and made a few wrong turns.

When I was 8, people would ask me what I wanted to be when I grow up–and I would say, “a priest”! Since then I’ve made more than a few wrong turns.

 

[WBB]

gelsbern:

And perhaps I am having difficulty explaining it.

What I am trying to say is that it is from the church where we learn what is necessary for salvation and all of the traditions and teachings of the church which the church has specified are inherently necessary for salvation can all be found in scripture.

I hope this explains it a little better

Yeah. That explains it better, however, I don’t think you can separate Scripture from Tradition. The two are intertwined in such a way that you can’t experience one without the other. This is the biggest hurdle I find when discussing the faith with Protestants (not calling you a Protestant, just giving an example); the idea that you can separate Scripture from Tradition or Faith from Works. They are as inseparable as the Holy Trinity!

 

[iwonder]

WBB:

Yeah. That explains it better, however, I don’t think you can separate Scripture from Tradition. The two are intertwined in such a way that you can’t experience one without the other. This is the biggest hurdle I find when discussing the faith with Protestants (not calling you a Protestant, just giving an example); the idea that you can separate Scripture from Tradition or Faith from Works. They are as inseparable as the Holy Trinity!

Hey, gelsberg is pulling your leg. Go to truecatholic.org and take a look at their new pope. piux xxx

 

[dennisknapp]

iwonder:

Hey, gelsberg is pulling your leg. Go to truecatholic.org and take a look at their new pope. piux xxx

They are not the same group.

Peace

 

[iwonder]

dennisknapp:

They are not the same group.

Peace

Yes they are. Look at Fr. Robert Lyons SSt., after ordination by Pope Pius what his name. Helloooooooo. Pretty pictures of their pope. he is supposed to be the true Pope you know, not Pope Benedict. My guess is that the Vatican wouldn’t have anything to do with Father Robert lyons, so he needed a new Pope real quick.
I;m telling you- this SST group is having a real good time with the Catholics on this board. go to truecatholic.org, click on ordination of Pope pius XIII, then click on ordination of Father Robert Lyons, SST.(Synod of St. Timothy)
come on Roman Catholics- life is too short to be arguing with a hoax.
Perhaps Fr. Lyons would like to enlighten us as to Pope John XXIII’s initiation into the Rosicrucian Monastary. Or perhaps he would like to tell us of all the heriesies of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
I challenge every Roman Catholic who posted to the SSt threads to read about all of this on truecatholic. org and admire Fr. Lyons in his picture of ordination by another anti pope.

 

[dennisknapp]

iwonder:

Yes they are. Look at Fr. Robert Lyons SSt., after ordination by Pope Pius what his name. Helloooooooo. Pretty pictures of their pope. he is supposed to be the true Pope you know, not Pope Benedict. My guess is that the Vatican wouldn’t have anything to do with Father Robert lyons, so he needed a new Pope real quick.
I;m telling you- this SST group is having a real good time with the Catholics on this board. go to truecatholic.org, click on ordination of Pope pius XIII, then click on ordination of Father Robert Lyons, SST.(Synod of St. Timothy)
come on Roman Catholics- life is too short to be arguing with a hoax.
Perhaps Fr. Lyons would like to enlighten us as to Pope John XXIII’s initiation into the Rosicrucian Monastary. Or perhaps he would like to tell us of all the heriesies of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
I challenge every Roman Catholic who posted to the SSt threads to read about all of this on truecatholic. org and admire Fr. Lyons in his picture of ordination by another anti pope.

I am not defending what the SST believe but the truth about them and there association with truecatholic.org needs to be addressed.

First truecatholic.org and SST believe different things. truecatholic.org believe basic Catholic doctrine as expressed in Vatican I. This group is schismatic as well, but more in line with Catholic theology then the SST.

The SST is essentially Protestant in their understanding of Scripture and Tradition, and hold more in common with Traditional Anglicians than Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

http://www.truecatholic.org/pix/rl-ord-lyonsandpiusxiii.jpg This is a picture of the Fr. Lyons from truecatholic.org.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This is the Fr. Lyons who posts on the board and is a part of SST.

See the difference?

Peace