The Mass of Vatican II

[8640]

bear06;1594449:

---

The difference here bear06—is that the SSPX have valid Apostolic Succession and the Church has not (as far a I know) declared them to be a false religion. The protestant and non-christians erroneous doctrines have been condemned

by the Church and are false religions.

The Anglicans also have apostolic succession

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home;1595152:

They may not but I think that the Church would be well within the boundaries to do so.

---

I am not so sure of that. Beginning with the time that they were first excommunicated—the validity of their bishops and priests was recognized by the Church------as long as the SSPX do not deviate (ex. reject Christ’s divinity, the Holy Sacrifice, the priesthood) it does not seem the Church will reject their validity.

 

[Damascus]

bear06;1595171:

---

I am not so sure of that. Beginning with the time that they were first excommunicated—the validity of their bishops and priests was recognized by the Church------as long as the SSPX do not deviate (ex. reject Christ’s divinity, the Holy Sacrifice, the priesthood) it does not seem the Church will reject their validity.

This is confusing. Schismatics that can have valid orders. Hmm, how does this work with the Eastern Orthodox then? They have valid orders too?
Anglicans? SSPX?

To me, a Schismatic says it all. They defy the Pope. They should not be considered as anything more than troublemakers.

VIVA LA PAPA

or suffer the consequenses of your pride and lack of humility!

 

[bear06]

Walking_Home;1594598:

The Anglicans also have apostolic succession

Actually, I wasn’t going to bring them up because I’ve always been fuzzy on their apostolic succession because of the Old Catholic church (not to be confused with the One, True Chuch) does have valid Apostolic Succession. Walking Home, you have any thoughts on this?

 

[Walking_Home]

8640;1595236:

Actually, I wasn’t going to bring them up because I’ve always been fuzzy on their apostolic succession because of the Old Catholic church (not to be confused with the One, True Chuch) does have valid Apostolic Succession. Walking Home, you have any thoughts on this?

---

Concerning the Anglicans-----I have no idea. Maybe 8640 can share some information on them.

 

[Rara_Avis]

bear06;1594449:

---

the SSPX have valid Apostolic Succession .

I think you would be surprised at exactly how much VAILID apostolic Succession there is roaming around out there!!!

And you would be just as surprised to find out what you think is valid is not. Because of so much abuse - alot of sacraments (Instituted by Christ) are given incorrectly - matter - form and intention.(not there) I have even heard it whispered in lonely dark corridors that certain nameless Bishops are not even priests never mind Bishops … because the sacrament was such a farce - totally void of matter, form and intention … that ideed no valid scarament took place.

Before I follow any priest I follow his line of succession to the letter …

I’m wondering where that Punk Rock Priest came from?

 

[bear06]

Well, this just gets more confusing by the minute. Here’s an interesting article by Jimmy Akin:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/08/valid_protestan.html
Pope Leo XIII, in the papal bull, Apostolicae Curae, declared Anglican orders to be null and void.newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm

So, it doesn’t look like that, at the very least most Anglican priests, have valid holy orders although some may have used a back door by being ordained by schismatics with Apostolic Succession that still have valid holy orders.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home;1594598:

I think you would be surprised at exactly how much VAILID apostolic Succession there is roaming around out there!!!

And you would be just as surprised to find out what you think is valid is not. Because of so much abuse - alot of sacraments (Instituted by Christ) are given incorrectly - matter - form and intention.(not there) I have even heard it whispered in lonely dark corridors that certain nameless Bishops are not even priests never mind Bishops …

because the sacrament was such a farce - totally void of matter, form and intention … that ideed not scarament took place.

Before I follow any priest I follow his line of succession to the letter …

I’m wondering where that Punk Rock Priest came from?​

I am not familiar with what has been going on out there—who has been ordaining who and how. I am getting to the point —where few things shock me.

The situation with the SSPX—I am pretty sure the Church has been keeping track of what is going on with them.

 

[Walking_Home]

Well, this just gets more confusing by the minute. Here’s an interesting article by Jimmy Akin:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/08/valid_protestan.html
Pope Leo XIII, in the papal bull, Apostolicae Curae, declared Anglican orders to be null and void.newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm

So, it doesn’t look like that, at the very least most Anglican priests, have valid holy orders although some may have used a back door by being ordained by schismatics with Apostolic Succession that still have valid holy orders.

---

It is confusing—whether some Anglicans have or not- valid orders.
Maybe some—like you mention—used a back door.

 

[bear06]

It all just bring me back to the question on whether or not valid Apostolic Succession has anything to do with “false religions”. Oh well. I’ve submitted a query to the AAA forum. We’ll see what they say.

 

[bear06]

---

It is confusing—whether some Anglicans have or not- valid orders.
Maybe some—like you mention—used a back door.

Jimmy Akin mentions a Brazilian schismatic group. I don’t think it could be Campos because they came back before August when the thread was started. I wonder who else is down there. Did Campos split when they came back?

 

[Walking_Home]

Jimmy Akin mentions a Brazilian schismatic group. I don’t think it could be Campos because they came back before August when the thread was started. I wonder who else is down there. Did Campos split when they came back?

---

I don’t know whether Campos group split. I have been thinking about the Anglicans. Those Anglicans who sought valid orders—and did find bishops to ordain them----if their doctrine is corrupted—whether the ordinations even took.

 

[Walking_Home]

Now I am wondering also—if some Anglicans did get themselves ordained----whether the Church accepts them as valid.

 

[Rara_Avis]

Anglicans do not have valid orders because the sacrament is corrupt - the line of succession was broken.

The Church is very exact yet simple - you start messing with it and that’s what you get … a mess. There are very EXACT things that have to take place in every scarament to validate it. When they do not take place the scarament becomes null and void … no matter who preformed it.

Point in case … the priest in Austrailia who baptised 100’s of babies over the last several years and instead of saying the words - I baptise you in the Name of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit used some goofy version of his own. The validity of all those baptism came into question.

So with so many reject clergy running around out there doing willy nilly what ever they feel like - Validity is a question regarding ALL Sacraments - no matter who they say they are in union with.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Thanks Bear 06.,

So are the SSPX schismatic or not? Yeah or neigh?

The SSPX are not schismatic. Nor does the Church consider them as such.

The SSPX situation is considered an internal Church matter. Schismatics are not inside the Church.

 

[bear06]

Anglicans do not have valid orders because the sacrament is corrupt - the line of succession was broken.

Well, yes it was because they were not using the proper form. That said, it appears that some are now approaching schismatic groups with valid succession and they are ordaining them.

The Church is very exact yet simple - you start messing with it and that’s what you get … a mess. There are very EXACT things that have to take place in every scarament to validate it. When they do not take place the scarament becomes null and void … no matter who preformed it.

 

[Damascus]

The SSPX are not schismatic. Nor does the Church consider them as such.

The SSPX situation is considered an internal Church matter. Schismatics are not inside the Church.

Finally an answer to a simple question!

Thanks Dr. Bombay!

 

[bear06]

The SSPX are not schismatic. Nor does the Church consider them as such.

The SSPX situation is considered an internal Church matter. Schismatics are not inside the Church.

You’ll have to excuse Bombay. Somebody slipped him some cool-aid while he wasn’t looking and he hasn’t been the same since.

If anyone is confused, here’s some help:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html

Let’s not forget the Apostolic Letter (I’m sure someone, somewhere will be posting an excerpt from an interview which does not trump Ecclesia Dei):

Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy – constitutes a schismatic act[3]

adoremus.org/EcclesiaDei.html

And our own CA thinks they’re in schism.
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea2.asp

And before the cool-aid incident our own Bombay:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=453571&postcount=37
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=551195&postcount=149

 

[Walking_Home]

Well, yes it was because they were not using the proper form. That said, it appears that some are now approaching schismatic groups with valid succession and they are ordaining them.

Please read Akin’s article:

 

[Damascus]

You’ll have to excuse Bombay. Somebody slipped him some cool-aid while he wasn’t looking and he hasn’t been the same since.

If anyone is confused, here’s some help:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html

Let’s not forget the Apostolic Letter (I’m sure someone, somewhere will be posting an excerpt from an interview which does not trump Ecclesia Dei):

adoremus.org/EcclesiaDei.html

And our own CA thinks they’re in schism.
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0301fea2.asp

And before the cool-aid incident our own Bombay:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=453571&postcount=37
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=551195&postcount=149

Darn Doctors! I think they all work for the Drug companies!

Be gone *&^^%

Thanks Bear -

I almost fell for his deception.

Whats up doc?