Questions for SST

  1. What year did this church begin ?
  2. Who is your patriarch ?
  3. What is your churches stand on abortion ?
  4. What is your churches stand on contraception ?
  5. Do you allow women priests ? deacons ?

Just curious

  1. There is only one Church, and she began in 33 AD at Pentecost. We are a Synod within the Church. Our Synod formed formally in 2004 after several years of convergence.

  2. We do not have a patriarch. We have bishops, presbyters, and deacons. All bishops are equal, and while we have a presiding bishop, the position is not one of authority over the other bishops. (The PB is elected by his peers, the bishops, in private at the Altar at the beginning of the second day of our Triannual Episcopal Council.)

  3. We are opposed to abortion.

  4. We do not endorse contraception.

  5. Only men can be bishops or priests or deacons. We do have women deaconesses, following the ancient Eastern custom and tradition.

[quote=FrRobSST]1. There is only one Church, and she began in 33 AD at Pentecost. We are a Synod within the Church. Our Synod formed formally in 2004 after several years of convergence.

  1. We do not have a patriarch. We have bishops, presbyters, and deacons. All bishops are equal, and while we have a presiding bishop, the position is not one of authority over the other bishops. (The PB is elected by his peers, the bishops, in private at the Altar at the beginning of the second day of our Triannual Episcopal Council.)

  2. We are opposed to abortion.

  3. We do not endorse contraception.

  4. Only men can be bishops or priests or deacons. We do have women deaconesses, following the ancient Eastern custom and tradition.
    [/quote]

I am wondering,

  1. Does your Synod accept Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidei?

  2. What is your synods view of baptism and communion?

Peace

[quote=dennisknapp]I am wondering,

  1. Does your Synod accept Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidei?

  2. What is your synods view of baptism and communion?

Peace
[/quote]

  1. We accept both Scripture and Tradition, properly understood, recognizing that the Scriptures contain all things that are necessary to salvation (and thus all things summarized in the Creeds) while at the same time recognizing that the Church’s ancient tradition, handed to her by the Apostles is used as the means for understanding and handing on the correct way of believing the Scriptures. Thus, so long as Tradition and Scripture do not come in opposition (which they never can if the Tradition is true) there is no combat between Scripture and tradition. Further, to reject tradition wholesale is to reject God speaking through Paul.

On the issue of Sola Fide… we believe that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works… it is the redemptive work of Christ that is imputed to us by the working of the Spirit in Baptism… but works and faith are inseperable and virtually indistinguishable in the life of a Christian (or at least they should be). In other words, all our works, without Christ, will never save us… and all our foul works, with Christ, can be cleansed when one seeks baptism and makes regular use of the sacraments of reconciliation and eucharist.

  1. On Baptism and Communion… we believe they are the most important sacraments, they are the ones that are instituted in form, matter, and intent (including verbage) by the Jesus. Baptism in our Synod can be viewed in either eastern or western manners, but we definately believe in baptismal regeneration and that it is the washing away of sin. Communion is a participation in the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, made present under the forms of bread and wine. We cannot explain how this happens, save to say that when the Holy Spirit descends upon the Eucharist and the Words of Institution are said, what were common bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ. This is a mystery, and we define it no further.

Rob+

On your Synod’s website is says this:

Article Four
The Scriptures

“Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. **Consequently whatever is not read in Scripture nor can be proved from 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. By Holy Scripture is meant those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments whose authority has never been doubted within the church. We accept the books of the Apocrypha as valuable for examples of life, instruction in behavior, and the history of Jewish people, but refrain using them for the establishment of doctrine.”

Does this not say that Tradition is in under the Authority of Scripture, ie sola Scriptura? Where is this taught in the early Church? Isn’t this article Protestant in nature?

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

Can you show me where faith alone is taught in the early Church? Again, isn’t this Protestant in nature?

Article Nine
The Nature of Good Works
Although good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow on after justification, can never atone for our sins or face the strict justice of God’s judgment, they are nevertheless pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and necessarily spring from a true and living faith. Thus a living faith is as plainly known by its good works as a tree is known by its fruit.

Do you agree when the Catechism say this about Justification:

1991 Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.41

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42 1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because "heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away."43 He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.

Peace

[quote=dennisknapp]On your Synod’s website is says this:

Does this not say that Tradition is in under the Authority of Scripture, ie sola Scriptura? Where is this taught in the early Church? Isn’t this article Protestant in nature?

[/quote]

Actually, it says nothing about tradition at all. The article is not about tradition, it is about Scripture. Every tradition that is of God is backed up in the Scriptures, which is a fruit of the Tradition of the Church. The Church adopted the Scriptures as her written guide and canon of faith, together with the creeds, and is bound to those scriptures in perpituity. That is tradition.

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

Can you show me where faith alone is taught in the early Church? Again, isn’t this Protestant in nature?


Our works, without faith, are but chaff to be burned in the fires of hell. They are useless if not for the merits of our Lord. When we have done all that he has asked, we are still to call ourselves unprofitable servants, because we have earned nothing… Christ has earned for us the salvation he imputes to us… but we who are saved must have works, the two are utterly inseperable. I would suggest that you read the Lutheran/Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith for further viewpoints on this topic. At any rate, if you can show me where a tally of our works will get us into heaven, I may relent… and I will freely admit that it is entirely probably that the phrase grace should have been substituted for faith in the Article. Our Articles are a bind of unity in our Synod, they are NOT infalliable or unchangable. Our Scriptures and Creeds, they are.

**

Do you agree when the Catechism say this about Justification:

**

I see nothing immediately objectionable, but it is late.

Rob+

[quote=FrRobSST]1. There is only one Church, and she began in 33 AD at Pentecost. We are a Synod within the Church. Our Synod formed formally in 2004 after several years of convergence.


[/quote]

This is, uh… puzzling. This is the first I’ve heard of the SST. Just out of curiousity, what religion were the majority of your constituents before you formed in 2004?

[quote=DeFide]This is, uh… puzzling. This is the first I’ve heard of the SST. Just out of curiousity, what religion were the majority of your constituents before you formed in 2004?
[/quote]

Catholic/catholic.

If you are asking what label was given to the groups we belonged to previously, the list is too long.

[quote=FrRobSST]1. There is only one Church, and she began in 33 AD at Pentecost. We are a Synod within the Church. Our Synod formed formally in 2004 after several years of convergence.

[/quote]

Fr Rob,
I find this claim very interesting.

To be a Synod within the Church should you not be recognized by that Church?

I think if you claimed to be Orthodox you would be viewed as a vagante Church because their leaders and members (if any) do not belong to a church (other than the one they themselves created).

Now on to some questions.

a) What kind of education do your pirests and deacons undergo before ordination?

b) What are the requirements to be a bishop?

c) Can your bishops be married?

what is SST? this is the first i’ve heard of this.

[quote=bengal_fan]what is SST? this is the first i’ve heard of this.
[/quote]

The SST is both a religious order called the Society of St.Timothy, and it is also an association of independent catholic churches and their clergy, it is called the Synod of St. Timothy.

If you click on my name in the signature, it will take you to the Synod website where you can read about it.

The SST is a relatively new Church formed with similarities to the Orthodox. They deny Papal infallibly as no one man in the chair of Peter can speak infallibly for God. Since they believe this, they also deny Christ. Incarnate, Christ as a man, spoke for God. Infallibly. Therefore, who knows who they are?

[quote=iwonder] Therefore, who knows who they are?
[/quote]

They are Christians! :slight_smile:

[quote=Mickey]They are Christians! :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Whatever floats your boat.

[quote=iwonder]Whatever floats your boat.
[/quote]

I guess a more appropriate question is who knows what manner of Christians these are?
Peter denied Christ three times. Judas betrayed Him. Both are Christians. So, you say the SST are Christians? I ask what manner of Christian? They have already denied Peter as Christ’s successor. So now what type of Christian are we talking about?

[quote=iwonder]Whatever floats your boat.
[/quote]

I guess a more appropriate question is who knows what manner of Christians these are?
Peter denied Christ three times. Judas betrayed Him. Both are Christians. So, you say the SST are Christians? I ask what manner of Christian? They have already denied the Pope in the Chair of Peter as Christ’s successor. So now what type of Christian are we talking about?

Personnally, and perhaps a bit bluntly, I think a Christian either is or is not a Christian…

IS, if they not only believe in Christ, not only follow His teachings, but also accept everything, everything, He gave to us (sacraments, Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium etc etc etc)

IS NOT, if they deny even one teaching.

Guess that puts our separated brethren on real shaky ground… can they even think of calling themselves Christian if they, for example, deny John 6:

or Matthew 16:18

or if they choose their own interpretations of Romans etc…

I say no.

[quote=iwonder]I guess a more appropriate question is who knows what manner of Christians these are?
Peter denied Christ three times. Judas betrayed Him. Both are Christians. So, you say the SST are Christians? I ask what manner of Christian? They have already denied the Pope in the Chair of Peter as Christ’s successor. So now what type of Christian are we talking about?
[/quote]

The simple definition is: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ. I don’t believe you can deny someone the title of “Christian” just because they don’t adhere to certain doctrines of the Catholic faith. That is between them and God.
Addressing your comment on Peter and Judas. Peter repented and wept bitter tears–Judas fell into despair and killed himself. That is the difference. You could draw a parallel to the good theif and the bad theif. One of them repented on the Cross and was promised an eternity of paradise with Jesus. The other did not–and we can imagine where he went.

[quote=MrS]Personnally, and perhaps a bit bluntly, I think a Christian either is or is not a Christian…

IS, if they not only believe in Christ, not only follow His teachings, but also accept everything, everything, He gave to us (sacraments, Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium etc etc etc)

IS NOT, if they deny even one teaching.

Guess that puts our separated brethren on real shaky ground… can they even think of calling themselves Christian if they, for example, deny John 6:

or Matthew 16:18

or if they choose their own interpretations of Romans etc…

I say no.
[/quote]

interesting interpretation. i think i’ll stick with the infallible church and what it says. that if they are properly baptized (i.e. in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) they are Christian. does your denial of this teaching make you not a Christian according to your definition? something to think about.

[quote=ByzCath]Fr Rob,
I find this claim very interesting.

To be a Synod within the Church should you not be recognized by that Church?
[/quote]

We do not believe any one local has jurisdiction over any other local Church, thus we do not accept the claim of universal jurisdiction of any Church. Such a claim is not supported by the scriptures of by the most ancient traditions of the Church which state that where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. We believe that the College of Bishops in apostolic succession are the earthly authority of the Church, mirroring the conciliar arrangement seen in the Acts of the Apostles. Within the Church there are rites, synods, districts, etc… but they are of human origin, not necessary for salvation … what is necessary is following the apostolic model of having a bishop, who with his deacons and presbyters ministers to the needs of the people. These bishops are in the apostolic succession, or else they are not bishops. Local Churches choose to recognize each other in the bonds of communion. Those churches united to the Roman Pontiff are united in Communion with an acceptance of the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff. OUr Churches are united in communion with an acceptance of conciliar goverment.

I think if you claimed to be Orthodox you would be viewed as a vagante Church because their leaders and members (if any) do not belong to a church (other than the one they themselves created).

I am a bit confused about your statement here, can you clarify?

a) What kind of education do your pirests and deacons undergo before ordination?

Please note that what I state in the following responses is always subject to change by our Episcopal Council, and thus could change tomorrow.

In the discipline of our Synod, each candidate’s specific education track is determined by the local bishop. Deacons tend to have less, but also deacons are not seen as a step to the presbyterate in and of themselves. Deacons are more numerous in our polity… they are social ministers, educators, catechists, etc.

Bishops and Presbyters (the Priesthood of the Church) are somewhat interrelated, but to be a presbyter, one must have a Seminary education or the equivalent through similar means. Our Synod’s clergy are educated through a seminary in Louisiana and under the local guidance of their bishop-pastor. Those who are ordained to the presbyterate are first ordained as deacons. IN addition, we tend to confer minor orders at particular points in the instruction of candidates.

b) What are the requirements to be a bishop?

In addition to the requirements in the Scriptures, we require that an individual be a presbyter in good standing, and that he is not recently ordained. They must be at least 35 in practice (though, I suppose, despertate times might well call for desperate measures) or preferrably 40. They must not be new converts or newly accepted into ministry within the Synod.

c) Can your bishops be married?

Yes. All clergy may be married, provided the spouse consents to their ordination or the bishop gives a dispensation. We vow to be chaste, not celibate. Some clergy may take, however, a self-imposed vow of celibacy.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.