"Oh!....but we must have that imaginary status of "full Communion"....!"

... an "imaginary status" used by three popes and a Vatican decree. -as noted in my earlier reply which you "stopped reading". Ostriches and sand have nothing on you, baby.

It's interesting that the Vatican promised that they would make the transcript of the doctrinal talks with the SSPX in 2009 transparently public. They have still to this day not released it. Why? Could it be that they were trumped in the debate-discussions by the SSPX in demonstrating that there are no actual doctrinal questions but only a problem of hermeneutics- the interpretation of the Council. This seems to be more indicative of church politics than anything doctrinal.

Why? The Vatican is notoriously laggard on releasing such information. Very low priority. Since, as you acknowledge, they haven't released those transcripts, there is nothing supporting your fantasies of super-SSPX theologians layin' the smack down in debates. Let's hope their debate team wasn't stacked with the same nabobs who convinced Abp. Lefebvre he could lawfully appoint bishops without Papal approval. :D

"that there are no actual doctrinal questions but only a problem of hermeneutics."

Your theory is directly contradicted by then-Pope Benedict XVI's own statement. "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified,... That pope, (as opposed to his woeful successor) was an extremely well-read scholar, so he's undoubtedly well aware of the distintion between doctrine and hermeneutics. So no one less than the Pope (at that time) himself said there are doctrinal questions.

As you have previously pointed out, the former B16's statement does not meet the criterion of infallibility. It seems if a group is actually schismatic then it would be easily and quickly identifiable. For example, Anglicans and the Orthodox were declare schismatic for denying the papal office, and additionally Lutherans denied 5 of the 7 sacraments, and all three schismatics set up their own new church structures. not very difficult to ascertain. In contrast the SSPX has not done any of those things.

Two questions come to mind. What exactly are the Catholic doctrines that the SSPX Catholic order denies? What point or tenet of the Apostolic deposit of faith do they deny?

Moreover, Vatican 2 was a sui generis Council b/c it did not clarify, explicate, or promulgate any new Catholic doctrines. By its very definition it was pastoral and not doctrinal.

The reason why these questions are never answered is b/c the SSPX has not denied any doctrines! They just refused to go along with the pastoral innovation, i.e refused to interpret the Council in a modernist way.

I did not use "fake quotes" when referring to FSSP -- the quotes were used as a way of expressing sarcasm about the nonsensical controversy of who is in "Full Communion" and who is not.

I am well aware of the situation of the SSPX -- for example, the fact they have received faculties directly from the Pope to hear Confessions of "real live Catholics"; to absolve Catholics of sin and to preside at the Nuptial Masses of "real live Catholics".

And these faculties were granted without proscription of any kind on where or when or who, and without prohibition of their continuing to offer Masses in their Chapels for the Catholic Faithful, most of whom come out of sheer desperation (and I know many) because their Novus Ordo parishes are circuses and occasions of unspeakable sacrilege (like the teenager I saw playing with a consecrated Host two pews in front of me after receiving Holy Communion...)

The Pope cannot grant faculties and jurisdiction to non-Catholic Ministers, so I disagree with the make-believe notion that they are "not in full Communion" with the Church....who made up that make-believe status anyway?

Where is the term "not in full Communion with the Church" defined in an explicit manner in Canon Law? It's not. It's made up.

The fact is that the Pope granted faculties -- and the jurisdiction to exercise them -- to SSPX with the full understanding THAT THEY WOULD USE THEM. If that is not clear authorization to "exercise their ministry in a legitimate way", then what exactly is it?

Or is there some kind of bizarre dimension in which they are "authorized" but not "legitimate" -- in the Church when using their faculties, then suddenly out of the Church when not using their faculties....?

It's an absurd notion that completely disregards a crisis of unimaginable proportions in which God certainly wants these Priests to feed the souls who come to them in desperation....which accounts for the miracle of Pope Francis granting them the very faculties necessary for them to continue without any qualms of conscience concerning jurisdiction.

We have been Traditionalist Catholics for 45 years. We had NO ONE....ABSOLUTELY NO ONE following Vatican II to give us the true Faith EXCEPT for SSPX and INDEPENDENT PRIESTS.

Canon Law itself says that "The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls...."

SSPX has never, ever failed to fulfill that mission and that mandate during the last 45 years when we had no one else -- just as they did during the "pandemic", when no one else would give us the Mass and the Sacraments. SSPX did....they did not leave us orphans, and they obeyed God rather than man.

AND -- SSPX Priests were the only ones who stood against the liberal Democrat Governors in the most outrageously abusive states in this country....taking these tyrants to court and demanding we be given back our right to worship and congregate as Catholics, even as these same Governors allowed retail businesses to operate while closing down churches.

NO ONE from the FSSP did that -- nor a single Bishop, even though they were offered free legal representation in court.

This is not to say that I don't love and revere the FSSP Priests....I certainly do, and I am deeply grateful for them. In fact, I attend an FSSP chapel, now that it is finally reopened.

But the FSSP is under the foot of their modernist Bishops....it is an imperfect solution to the Church crisis....and Rome is now preparing to suppress Tradition once again.

SSPX believes that no Bishop and no Pope ever had the right to abrogate the Traditional Mass (an opinion since upheld by the Commission put in place by Pope Benedict XVI to examine the question) nor to force upon the faithful the atrocity of the New (Protestantized) Mass. They are right, and were always right to resist.

And one day Archbishop Lefebvre will be vindicated and canonized.

P.S. Just in....no sooner did I conclude this comment than I saw the following article posted showing FSSP being expelled from their diocese by their Bishop. Exactly what I was saying.....

After 23 Years: French Archbishop Expels Fraternity of Saint Peter

"the quotes were used as a way of expressing sarcasm about the nonsensical controversy of who is in "Full Communion" and who is not."

That's how "fake quotes". So yeah, you did use them @Ave Crux .

"for example, the fact they have received faculties directly from the Pope to hear Confessions of "real live Catholics"; to absolve Catholics of sin and to preside at the Nuptial Masses of "real live Catholics"

Being granted limited faculties is not the same as having FULL faculties. SSPX-groupies love implying otherwise, though.

"so I disagree with the make-believe notion that they are "not in full Communion" with the Church....who made up that make-believe status anyway?"

Oh, I'm gonna enjoy this. :D

Historically, the Vatican decree "Unitatis Redintegratio" stated, "large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church. ...Men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect."

...an imperfect communion is, by definition, not full. Strike One. :D

Saint John Paul II stated in his Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei" that Abp. Lefebvre "frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church."

Obviously, The Pope who excommunicated Lefebvre understood the disctintion between "full communion with the Church" and the inverse. Strike Two. :D

So did Pope Benedict XVI. ;-) in his motu proprio "Ecclesiae Unitate" he invited "the Bishops and the 'Society of St Pius X' to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church." Notice: he invited them to rediscover the path to full commuion. Meaning they are NOT in full communion with the Church. Strike Three and you're out. :D

Now it's time for batting practice. :D

His successor has confirmed this. Pope Francis, in his Apostolic Letter, "Misericordia Et Misera" wrote (while extending the faculty to absolve sin), "For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year."

When the current pontiff hopes SSPX priests will strive for "the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church" then he acknowledges they do NOT have full communion in the Catholic Church" right now.

Is that "make-believe" enough for you, honey? ;-)

"Where is the term "not in full Communion with the Church" defined in an explicit manner in Canon Law? It's not. It's made up."

Wrong. Canon 205 lays out the basic requirement for full communion. "Those baptised are in full communion with the catholic Church here on earth who are joined with Christ in his visible body, through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance."

Degrees of imperfect (i.e. not in full) communion with the Catholic Church is expressly discussed in the Catechism Of The Catholic Church CCC 838.

"If that is not clear authorization to "exercise their ministry in a legitimate way", then what exactly is it?"

It's a stop-gap measure of convenience and misguided ecumenical outreach, two things for which Francis is notorious. It's "for the pastoral benefit of the faithful" to quote the Pope. Granting SSPX priests the ability to perform some faculties (but not all) is NOT allowing them to "exercise their ministry in a legitimate way". What kind of two-bit, penny-ante "ministry" does a priest exercise when he's forbidden the full range of faculties and even then apply for special permission from the local Ordinary whose diocese they are in, even to exercise those? That isn't a rhetroical question, as the SSPX currently show.

It's given Lefebvrists a way to shamelessly misuse Papal generosity to falsely legitimize themselves just the way you're doing right now.

"It's an absurd notion that completely disregards (blah...blah.. blah... hyperbole stacked on hyperbole)"

Unfortunately for you, the current status and exact limitations of the SSPX are clearly defined, even if they're extremely technical.

"We have been Traditionalist Catholics for 45 years."

Good for you. Fallacious appeal to authority, in this case your own.

"We had NO ONE....ABSOLUTELY NO ONE following Vatican II to give us the true Faith EXCEPT for SSPX and INDEPENDENT PRIESTS."

...because every priest that had been saying the Latin Mass instantly stopped after Vatican II, amirite? Quit re-writing history.

"Canon Law itself says that "The highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls...."

First, you're not even citing the appropriate Canon number. facepalm.jpg

Second, that's typical of the way the SSPX slathers its "re-interpretation" of Church law over everything.

Activists could use your argument to justify the Church abandoning its laws on anything, all in the name of "the salvation of souls". For a 45 year "Traditionalist Catholic" you sound a lot like Fr. James Martin SJ when he's pandering to perverts.

"and they obeyed God rather than man."

They obeyed their own interpretation of "god" instead of God's Church whose lawful right it is to make those interpretations. Practically speaking, the SSPX is no different than the German bishops and every yee-haw Lutheran today. They too "obey God rather than man" Like so many idiots they claim they're obeying "god" to justify whatever fool notion pops into their head.

"SSPX Priests were the only ones who stood against the liberal Democrat Governors..."

Irrelevant to their status in the Church or the limitation of their faculties. Non Sequitur Fallacy.

"But the FSSP is under the foot of their modernist Bishops..."

That's how the chain of command works in the Church. It doesn't change just because some jumped-up archbishop decides he "listened to God rather than man" and supposedly "god" told him the laws of the Church no longer applied to him anymore.

If you knew more about how the FSSP actually works, which you clearly do not, you'd realize exactly how skilled they are at obeying the letter of a diocesan decree while circumventing it in practice. They are superb legalists who put me to shame.

"And one day Archbishop Lefebvre will be vindicated and canonized."

I'm sure there are Lutherans who say the same about their own excommunicated dimwit.

Next time you bring up that prediction, make sure to mention the obsese, little cherubs showering the both of them with rose petals on that glorious never to come day.

"than I saw the following article posted showing FSSP being expelled from their diocese by their Bishop. Exactly what I was saying..."

No, that isn't 'exactly' what you're saying at all because no explanation has been given. Since you don't know the reason, literally, you don't know what you're talking about.

...which, by now, is no surprise. ;-)

"as any Catholic- even those who mostly attend Novus Ordo masses can licitly receive confession or marriage with a SSPX priest." @philosopher

And this is how the SSPX fans encroach beyond what was originally granted. SSPX priests are allowed to "assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest)..."

"Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass."

...again, notice all the additional pre-conditions. before even considering granting an SSPX priest this faculty.

Also, check that word "may". He (the Ordinary) may grant the faculties (or he may not) It's their choice.

Which shows, technically, the SSPX priest does not have those faculties until they are granted to him. Oh dear. That's straight from CDF. :P

"The pope cannot grant such faculties to schismatics."

If he changes Canon Law, he can. ;-) Incidentally, The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms performed by the Orthodox. as valid, meaning schismatics already DO have faculties granted to them. Surprise! :D

"Incidentally, The Catholic Church recognizes baptisms performed by the Orthodox. as valid, meaning schismatics already DO have faculties granted to them."
---
Schismatics and heretics have no faculties whatsoever to perform the Baptism. However, the baptism performed by anyone (including but not limited to Mohammedans, Jews and atheists) with (at least implied) intention to do what the Church does is valid.

"And this is how the SSPX fans encroach beyond what was originally granted."
----
The Vatican recognizes marriages of two Protestants concluded in front of a poor heretical pastor. However, it has problems with marriages of two Catholics concluded before the SSPX priest. The ecumenical Catch 22 I suppose.

"Schismatics and heretics have no faculties whatsoever to perform the Baptism." @V.R.S.

Canon Law 844 §3 disagrees.

"Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches"

vatican.va/…anonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann834-878_en.html

This is corroborated by the Vatican's decree, "Unitatis Redintegratio"

"These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy." -

vatican.va/…-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Since the Church recognizes the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism when performed by an Orthodox priest as valid, and because he is a schismatic, then he does have the faculties to perform a valid sacrament of Baptism -as recognized by The Catholic Church.

:D

Well @Ultraviolet has made another grave error here.....

I quote:
"Since the Church recognizes the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism when performed by an Orthodox priest as valid, and because he is a schismatic, then he does have the faculties to perform a valid sacrament of Baptism -as recognized by The Catholic Church."

FACULTIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADMINISTER THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM...AND BAPTISM IS ALWAYS VALID WHEN THE PROPER MATTER, FORM AND INTENTION ARE USED, REGARDLESS OF WHO ADMINISTERS THE BAPTISM.

"Canon the law implicitly recognizes that Baptism can always be validly administered by anyone with the right intention..."

AND....schismatics, such as the Orthodox do not have faculties recognized by the Church since they are not under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, rendering the necessity moot.

Thus, this is not the reason why Catholics may have recourse to such non-Catholic ministers in case of necessity.

Since Orthodox Church Sacraments are valid (due to confirmed apostolic succession), any Catholic may receive the Sacraments validly from a validly ordained, non-Catholic minister in case of necessity.

THIS PERMISSION HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THEY HAVE FACULTIES -- THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY FACULTIES FROM -- OR RECOGNIZED BY -- THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND WHETHER THEY HAVE ALLEGED FACULTIES FROM WITHIN THEIR OWN HIERARCHY IS IRRELEVANT.

It is the same with a suspended Catholic Priest who does not have faculties, yet who may absolve a Catholic from sin in case of necessity.

What is amazing (and revealing) is that Ultraviolet immediately defends the validity of Sacraments received from Orthodox ministers (although falsely claiming this is because they somehow have "faculties" to bestow them) while disparaging the fully Catholic Priests of SSPX.

Well @Ave Crux has made another grave error here... really. :D

You use quotes and italics to show I supposedly wrote, "Canon the law implicitly recognizes that Baptism can always be validly administered by anyone with the right intention..." (followed by your huge rebuttal)

This isn't a statement I made. Dummy. So your ranty-rant rebuttal and gloating about "grave errors" doesn't even apply. You don't know which user you're even arguing with anymore. Don't bother back-editing your mistake to "fix" it or make it "vanish" like you've done in the past. I already screen-capped you.. Gotcha! :D

"What is amazing (and revealing) is that Ultraviolet immediately defends the validity of Sacraments received from Orthodox ministers"

Which statement are you even referring to? I'd ask you to quote me directly but you can't even do that without lousing it up entirely.

"...while disparaging the fully Catholic Priests of SSPX." @Ave Crux
Since you've taken to making similar demands (and I answered every one of them), now it's my turn. Cite Canon Law's explicit definition of "fully Catholic. :D

All together now, assume the position, "I STOPPED READING..." . :D

You also wrote: "THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY FACULTIES FROM -- OR RECOGNIZED BY -- THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,"

...contradicted by "Unitatis Redintegratio". again... "These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments" , Do you have the faculty to celebrate Mass, even though you are a Catholic? Or absolve sins? No.Yet a schismatic Orthodox priest does. Y'all should lay off the caps lock. You're calling attention to a comment where you made an absolute fool of yourself in more ways than one.

@Ultraviolet
"Canon Law 844 §3 disagrees.

"Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches"

---
The Canon Law does not regulate here faculties of schismatics and heretics. The above paragraph (2nd sentence) refers to "members of other Churches" (i.e. persons being baptized) and Catholic "ministers" (i.e. the baptizers).

---

"Since the Church recognizes the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism when performed by an Orthodox priest as valid, and because he is a schismatic, then he does have the faculties to perform a valid sacrament of Baptism -as recognized by The Catholic Church."

To make the above fallacy even more absurd:
Since the Church recognizes the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism when performed by a Muslim, and because he is an Mohammedan infidel, then he does have the faculties to perform a valid sacrament of Baptism... obviously not, however he can validly baptize if the matter, form and intention are there.

"The Canon Law does not regulate here faculties of schismatics and heretics." @V.R.S.

It's not supposed to. The Canon Law cited shows the faculties of -some- schismatics are valid, which contradicts your previous claim, namely, "Schismatics and heretics have no faculties whatsoever to perform the Baptism."

The schismatic Orthodox do, therefore your claim is false.

"The above paragraph (2nd sentence) refers to "members of other Churches" (i.e. persons being baptized) and Catholic "ministers" (i.e. the baptizers)."

...who, as Canon Law states, "are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches". That second second sentence shows the validity of the sacraments of the Eastern Churches. Who, pray tell, administers those sacraments? ;-)

"To make the above fallacy even more absurd:
Since the Church recognizes the validity of the Sacrament of Baptism when performed by a Muslim,

...except the Church doesn't recognize Muslim "sacraments". Speaking of fallacies, you just made a classic. Pic related.

I quoted "Unitatis Redintegratio" as corroboration of the Orthodox.for a reason. Obviously you chose to ignore it because it contradicts your contrived "fallacy". Must be a slow day on the Polish forums if you're sniffing around the tail-end of arguments here. :D

" The Canon Law cited shows the faculties of -some- schismatics are valid"
---
You fail to distinguish: 1) validity of the Sacrament, 2) faculty to administer the Sacrament, 3) liceity of the Sacrament.
Canon Law 844 §3 regulates liceity of administering the Sacraments by Catholic ministers to members of "other Churches". Period.

"...except the Church doesn't recognize Muslim "sacraments". Speaking of fallacies, you just made a classic."
---
There are no "Muslim sacraments" and there are no "Orthodox" or "Protestant" sacraments. There are Catholic Sacraments that may be in some cases administered validly even by non-Catholics.

"You fail to distinguish: 1) validity of the Sacrament, 2) faculty to administer the Sacrament, 3) liceity of the Sacrament."

No examples or evidence supplied. Try showing it after saying it. :D

"Canon Law 844 §3 regulates liceity of administering the Sacraments by Catholic ministers to members of "other Churches". Period.

Argumentum Ad Nauseam Fallacy. You're deliberately ignoring the point demonstrated in Canon Law and it shows.

Schismatic Orthodox can receive Catholic sacraments because the sacraments they've already received by their own schismatic priests (starting with Baptism) are recognized by the Catholic Church.. Ergo, those schismatic priests have valid, by Catholic standards, faculties to administer the sacraments.

Again, I point to the, by now, repeatedly quoted passage in "Unitatis Redintegratio" which you also keep ignoring for the same reason. There, the Church is even more explicit in clarifying this point which is why you won't discuss it.

Sometimes, VRS, what you (repeatedly) won't address is an admission of error in itself.. ;-)

"There are no "Muslim sacraments" and there are no "Orthodox" or "Protestant" sacraments."

For the Orthodox, the Catholic Church herself contradicts your claim in "Unitatis Redintegratio". .

"These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments"

You're wrong. Simple as that and no amount of your verbal tap-dancing is going to change an explicit and direct contradiction by a Vatican decree.

For the Protestants, "What Makes Us Protestant: Why Just Two Sacraments?"

Even Muslims scholars grudgingly acknowledge a parity between their own pracitices and those of Christianity.
..
"In the English language, the pillars of Islam are often referred to as Islamic rituals, Islamic rites, or even Islamic sacraments, as an approximation to the Christian sacraments, rites, rituals and religious ceremonies. "

Rituals and Sacraments (Sunni Islam) -Dr. Adil Ozdemir

stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=encounter

Different Muslim sects even have different sacraments.

"However, Shi‘is engage in other rituals and sacraments that Sunnis do not. "

Rituals and Sacraments (Shi‘i View) Dr. Liyakat Takim Ibid.

...which parallels the difference in sacraments between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Your statement is wrong in literally all three religious groups you cited.

You've been disproven and thus discredited by the Catholic Church's own decree.

Go back to the Polish side of GTV, V.R.S. It's been a while since you've been thoroughly smacked around here in the English language part of GTV.

Obviously you've forgotten one important thing: you're out of your depth here. ;-)

@Ultraviolet your points seem evasive. Even if the Orthodox were given faculties, which I don't think is the case, since by your logic Baptists and Oneness Pentecostals would also have faculties. For example, even a lay Catholic can baptize a person, but that ability to give the sacrament in certain extraordinary circumstances does mean that Rome has granted them official sacramental faculties. There is no ministerial role or title in the Church as a lay baptizer. And no ordinary laymen runs around proclaiming that they have been given sacramental faculties...The reason being b/c the don't have any.

All that aside, the heart of the issue, which I think you are evading is first, the distinction between the schismatic churches who have structurally placed themselves outside the fold of Holy Mother Church and a Catholic association of SSPX priests who were granted full regularized status as a religious order in their inception but later were forced into an irregular status, as I have argued out of Church politics. The Vatican dialog with Anglicans and Orthodox have been officially ecumenical - an outside the house approach, in contrast to the Vatican-SSPX discussions, that is non-ecumenial -this is one of our own Catholic order's internal disagreements- an in house approach. And second, Catholic doctrines. The schismatic churches deny Catholic doctrines. The SSPX do not.

@Ultraviolet
TL(&TR):DR. I will refer only to two important things:
1. I have noticed that since our last discussion you have not learned the meaning of non sequitur, e.g.
"For the Orthodox, the Catholic Church herself contradicts your claim in "Unitatis Redintegratio". .
"These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments"

No, it does not contradict. Because the above refers to the "true" i.e. Catholic sacraments. In particular, each sacrament to be valid requires the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does:
"Si quis dixerit christianos omnes in verbo et omnibus sacramentis administrandis habere potestatem: a[nathema] s[it].
Si quis dixerit in ministris dum sacramenta conficiunt et conferunt non requiri intentionem saltem faciendi quod facit Ecclesia: a[nathema] s[it]"

Conc. Tridentinum, Sessio VII, De Sacramentis

2. "Different Muslim sects even have different sacraments."
---
I did not know you had become a public heretic and blasphemer. The sacrament is a sign instituted by Christ to give the God's grace (cf. e.g. the Baltimore Catechism). Practices of Mahuméticae perfídiae & pravae sectae infidelitátis (as the Rituale Romanum used to say in the Baptismal rite -before the novus ordo ab chao revolution ) do not bring any.

"@Ultraviolet your points seem evasive."
Perhaps they seem that way to you. @philosopher That in no way presupposes they are.

"Even if the Orthodox were given faculties, which I don't think is the case, since by your logic Baptists and Oneness Pentecostals would also have faculties."

That isn't my logic and I'll explain why. The Orthodox are schismatics, meaning they refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff. According to the Church, their doctrine (and the sacraments thus dervied) is still in line with that of The Church.

Baptists and Pentecostals are Lutherans and thus heretics. Meaning, they deny some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. This is why an Orthodox can attend a Catholic Mass and, assuming they recognize they have no mortal sins, receive Holy Communion. A Baptist or a Pentecostal could not and probably would not even want to. They tend to sarcastically disparage the real presence and the Host calling it, among other things, a "death cookie."

"There is no ministerial role or title in the Church as a lay baptizer."

I'll take your word for it, since it's a moot point. Orthodox priests are not laity but they are schismatics, yet the Church does recognize Orthodox sacraments as valid, i.e. "true". It is impossible for a priest to enact a "true" sacrament without having the faculties to do so. This is what infuriates the SSPX fans so much. The Church, out of clemency, have granted the SSPX priests only limited faculties to perform only certain sacraments and only with a number of preconditions. The Church makes no such distinction for the sacraments of the orthodox.

Putting it simply, experience has taught The Chruch even a bunch of schismatic orthodox are more trustworthy than the SSPX in terms of adhering to Catholic doctrine. :D

"but later were forced into an irregular status, as I have argued out of Church politics.".

Actually, no. You didn't argue that at all. Your original position was and I quote, "there are no actual doctrinal questions but only a problem of hermeneutics- the interpretation of the Council."

You then claimed it "seems to be more indicative of church politics than anything doctrinal."

...and that does not follow.

Hermeneutics deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts. That goes right to the heart understanding and interpreting doctrine.

"Church politics" is, like most politics, a purely temporal and entirely secular affair.... who has power, who wants power, who owes favors, influence peddling, etc.

In any event, Benedict XVI flatly contradicted your speculation, citing "doctrinal questions" and you haven't in any way shown he was in error.

Likewise, you haven't shown any evidence for your beliefs the Church's theologians lost a debate with the SSPX over doctrine. Your speculations are without support.

"All that aside, the heart of the issue, which I think you are evading is first, the distinction between the schismatic churches who have structurally placed themselves outside the fold of Holy Mother Church..."

Wrong on all counts.

First, the "heart of the issue," what sent Ave Crux into another foaming at the mouth frenzy, is that I reminded her (with CDF citations) the SSPX's priests do NOT have full faculties and are not in full communion with The Church. Whatever small clemency granted by Francis and Benedict does not demonstrate otherwise. The SSPX and their groupies never tire of conflating "some" with "all" in an effort to legitimize the Society's position.

Second, I have been typing the proverbial "text walls" delineating the distinctions between The Church, the Orthodox, the SSPX, the distinctions between respective faculties the latter two have, and the Church's interpretation thereof. I haven't been "evading" a damned thing.

At this point if you truly feel otherwise then you simply haven't been paying attention.

"The schismatic churches deny Catholic doctrines. The SSPX do not."

In point of fact, since the SSPX are -not- in full communion with the Church, and the reason Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated was refusal to submit to the Supreme Pontiff.

The SSPX technically are schismatics. If your first sentence was correct, that would make "schismatic churches" heretics and their sacraments as worthless as those of the Lutherans who also deny Catholic dotrine.

In the case of the orthodox (as opposed to other unnamed "schismatic churches"), the Church has explicitly stated otherwise.

"TL(&TR):DR." @V.R.S.

First, you're a liar an you just discredited yourself.

If my statement was "too long, didn't read" then how are you able to quote from it since you claim you didn't read it? All you've confirmed is that you lie as easily as you breathe and have little interest in the subject except as an excuse for an argument.

When you realize you've lost or start to lose interest, you claim you didn't read the reply, the way Ave Crux does..

Second, the statement you quote isn't a non-sequitur at all. It is a statement about a document with a quotation from the document as support, you illiterate.

Observe:
a.) "For the Orthodox, the Catholic Church herself contradicts your claim in "Unitatis Redintegratio". .
That is a statement about a document.
.
b.) "These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments"
That is a quotation from the document as support.

You're a dismal logician and ironically you commonly attempt to argue from logic when your primary goads for flattering your own intellectual vanity have failed.

"No, it does not contradict. Because the above refers to the "true" i.e. Catholic sacraments."

"Unitatis Redintegratio" does not use the word "Catholic" anywhere in the passage I quoted. As a result, you have no business changing what was written, or attempting to "derive" a meaning not present in the text.

The point here is The Church recognizes "true sacraments" from schismatic Orthodox priests which flatly contradicts your claim "there are no "Orthodox" or "Protestant" sacraments.

Both the Orthodox and the Protestands and the Muslims -do- have sacraments, however only those of the Orthodox are recognized by the Church as "true".

You can't speak Latin, you cant read Latin so don't quote in Latin when you're relying on a translation. If I wrote a two-paragraph Latin essay wildly speculating how your mother had carnal relations with the neighbor's dog, you couldn't understand a sentence of it. You'd get on Google Translate faster than the neighbor's dog got on... well, whatever he got on.

Maybe that example isn't as speculative as it seems. It would explain so much about your upbringing and your personality. Some little dogs love snapping at people's legs just for the heck of it. They don't need a reason, only an excuse. You generally appear in the English language section of GTV only when there's a serious debate.

When it's over, the little dog goes back to yapping in his own back-yard.

Using Latin is another one of your intellectual affectations, the "impressive Latin passage". That particular academic pretention doesn't make you "erudite" and it doesn't slow me down even for a minute. ;-)

If you want to quote Canon I and II, just do so in a manner everybody will understand.

You're just playing your stupid games again, like you always do. Further evidence that, as usual, you argue simply for amusement's sake and in bad-faith.

Here's the English...

"Canon I.If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be anathema. Canon II. If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites: let him be anathema"

...and that has diddly-squat to do with the Church recognizing Orthodox sacraments as "true". It has even less to do with my statement since I'n not claiming anynthing to the contrary.

"I did not know you had become a public heretic and blasphemer."

I haven't and you don't because you're too fixated on trying to find another line of argument. Try reading the quote objectively. Again, it's bad-faith on your part.

When I state, "Different Muslim sects even have different sacraments." That is a factual statement describing the religious beliefs of pagans on sacraments. It in no way reflects any support for their beliefs.

When I quote Muslim scholars, I'm showing support for what Muslims believe about sacraments. That is not what I believe. When I cite the Protestants' claim of having only two sacraments, That is also a factual statement describing the religious beliefs of Christian heretics. Again, It in no way reflects any support for their beliefs.

That should simple enough even for a simpleton transliterating from his native Polish.

By the way, it's worth noting these points appear near the end of the reply you "DR" (Didn't Read)

Again, you're a liar and your own last-ditch stand on this issue proves it.

At this point you're just trying to salvage some kind of a "win" no matter how small. It's the only way you can soothe your freshly bruised ego from a well-deserved beating with a rolled up Vatican decree. :D

No, V.R.S. You're goingo back to the Polish Language section like a bad little puppy, with your head down and your tail dragging between your legs. You get nothing, not even one little table scrap. All you get is one final swat across the nose for snarling at me.

You're all done here. The sooner you accept that fact, the better.:P

@Ultraviolet "three popes beats an archbishop", Even though we don't see eye to eye on the status of the SSPX, that one lifted my spirits.- laughter is the best medicine.

I dont think this debate will end soon, or certainly not if the next pope is a Francesco Jr. Until next time.

Thank you for your prayers, my friend!