A Catholic mathematical equation....

[savienu]

I implied nothing here. Why aren't you wacking Scipio for saying the FSSP is not as close to the Truth as the SSPX? I wasn't saying here that the SSPX didn't have Truth. I was objecting to his saying the FSSP had less "Truth." I think alot more than Cardinal Castrillion would object to that. But nooooooooo,there are always different rules when it comes to the SSPX. Rome criticizes the SSPX:pay no heed! Rome defends the SSPX: Obey Rome or else, heretics!

My opinion: The FSSP was only formed to draw traditionally-minded Catholics away from the SSPX.  Those who enjoy and frequent FSSP have the SSPX to thank.  Without them, there would have been no need for the FSSP, and they thus would never have come to be.  If the SSPX didn't have the Truth, why start a copy-cat organization whose biggest fundamental difference with SSPX is official affiliation with Rome?

So what? The SSPX has a monopoly on Traditionalism? And saying you're in Communion in Rome but disobeying the pope is ok?

Are you still tap dancing on the "in Communion with Rome" question?

Why can you not answer this directly? you said earlier (do you need me to pull the quote back up?) That the SSPX is not in communion with Rome. Cardinal Castrillon says they are. Please address this.

Do a simple search within this forum for Cardinal Castrillon's statements. It's all there

If the SSPX was in communion, full communion that is, with Rome, then they would have the Pope's permission to exercise their ministry.  As of today, no such permission from the Pope exists for them to preside at and administer Sacraments.  So, are people talking about full communion or an imperfect communion?
So...................is there a mathematical concept for full communion as being different from any other kind of communion?

Yeah

Perfect communion with the 20 centuries teaching of the Faith: 83 83 80 88

Heresy: 78 79

And you: 84 69 68 73 79 85 83

Shouting does not make your point.

Just for clarification, what do the numbers you've listed mean? Maybe it's a silly question, but clearly I'm out of the loop. 

[lumine]

Perfect communion with the 20 centuries teaching of the Faith: 83 83 80 88

Heresy: 78 79

And you: 84 69 68 73 79 85 83

Just for clarification, what do the numbers you've listed mean? Maybe it's a silly question, but clearly I'm out of the loop. 

I wasn't sure if there was a meaning behind the numbers, either.  Scipio a has the answer to that question.

[Joan of Arc]

I implied nothing here. Why aren't you wacking Scipio for saying the FSSP is not as close to the Truth as the SSPX? I wasn't saying here that the SSPX didn't have Truth. I was objecting to his saying the FSSP had less "Truth." I think alot more than Cardinal Castrillion would object to that. But nooooooooo,there are always different rules when it comes to the SSPX. Rome criticizes the SSPX:pay no heed! Rome defends the SSPX: Obey Rome or else, heretics!

My opinion: The FSSP was only formed to draw traditionally-minded Catholics away from the SSPX.  Those who enjoy and frequent FSSP have the SSPX to thank.  Without them, there would have been no need for the FSSP, and they thus would never have come to be.  If the SSPX didn't have the Truth, why start a copy-cat organization whose biggest fundamental difference with SSPX is official affiliation with Rome?

So what? The SSPX has a monopoly on Traditionalism? And saying you're in Communion in Rome but disobeying the pope is ok?

Are you still tap dancing on the "in Communion with Rome" question?

Why can you not answer this directly? you said earlier (do you need me to pull the quote back up?) That the SSPX is not in communion with Rome. Cardinal Castrillon says they are. Please address this.

Do a simple search within this forum for Cardinal Castrillon's statements. It's all there

If the SSPX was in communion, full communion that is, with Rome, then they would have the Pope's permission to exercise their ministry.  As of today, no such permission from the Pope exists for them to preside at and administer Sacraments.  So, are people talking about full communion or an imperfect communion?
So...................is there a mathematical concept for full communion as being different from any other kind of communion?

Imperfect communion? isn't that like being "a little bit pregnant?"

One is either in Communion with the Holy Father or not. The SSPX is They follow all legitimate superiors in whatever they command us regarding the Catholic faith. Except that which is contrary to the Magisterium . We have a lot of various writings of saints to back us up on that.

[lumine]

If the SSPX was in communion, full communion that is, with Rome, then they would have the Pope's permission to exercise their ministry.  As of today, no such permission from the Pope exists for them to preside at and administer Sacraments.  So, are people talking about full communion or an imperfect communion?
So...................is there a mathematical concept for full communion as being different from any other kind of communion?

Imperfect communion? isn't that like being "a little bit pregnant?"

One is either in Communion with the Holy Father or not. The SSPX is They follow all legitimate superiors in whatever they command us regarding the Catholic faith. Except that which is contrary to the Magisterium . We have a lot of various writings of saints to back us up on that.

No, full or imperfect communion isn't like being pregnant.  Not really an analogy that fits the situation.

This excerpt from what Pope Benedict XVI wrote does not say that the SSPX is in full communion with the Church.  If they were in full communion with the Church, the Pope wouldn't have issued this:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html


The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

[Joan of Arc]

If the SSPX was in communion, full communion that is, with Rome, then they would have the Pope's permission to exercise their ministry.  As of today, no such permission from the Pope exists for them to preside at and administer Sacraments.  So, are people talking about full communion or an imperfect communion?
So...................is there a mathematical concept for full communion as being different from any other kind of communion?

Imperfect communion? isn't that like being "a little bit pregnant?"

One is either in Communion with the Holy Father or not. The SSPX is They follow all legitimate superiors in whatever they command us regarding the Catholic faith. Except that which is contrary to the Magisterium . We have a lot of various writings of saints to back us up on that.

No, full or imperfect communion isn't like being pregnant.  Not really an analogy that fits the situation.

This excerpt from what Pope Benedict XVI wrote does not say that the SSPX is in full communion with the Church.  If they were in full communion with the Church, the Pope wouldn't have issued this:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html


The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

My "little bit pregnant          ' analogy is a perfect analogy. You are either pregnant or not. There is no "in-between." Same regarding communion with The Pope. There is no such thing as "half communion." Why you don't understand that is beyond me..

This has all been covered many times.   

-If by "legitimate." you mean "licit," there is argument for that, (although that can be refuted canonically too).

-If by legitimate, you are saying that they are not granted ordinary faculties, This is true. We avail ourselves of supplied jurisdiction. Again this is a "dead Horse."

-If you are saying that We do not have valid orders for our priests that is ridiculous. Again 

Please put out an original argument that has not already been refuted ad nauseam

[matthew_talbot]

Sorry meant to post something in another forum..oops.. ;D

[lumine]

I still think that your avatar is cool

Mine?  Thanks.

"Give me a kiss to build a dream on"......(not you personally, Matthew, it's from one of Louie's songs)

[lumine]

Please put out an original argument that has not already been refuted ad nauseam

Just because something has been refuted ad nauseam doesn't mean that any of the refutations were correct.
If these Bishops and Priests were considered to be in full communion by the Pope, then they would be able to "legitimately" exercise their ministries in the Church.

I think that's clear enough.  I didn't say that you had to agree with me.

[lumine]

Sorry meant to post something in another forum..oops.. ;D

Does that mean that you don't like my avatar?
Yours makes me hungry.  I haven't had venison or deer meat in a long time.........................Venison is good

[Scipio_a]

The sad thing is you and those of the same line of thought have not refuted anything.  You've (not just you) just made accusations ad naus and those have been refuted clearly and concisely.