Author Topic: SGG.org Website Virtually Offline -74 decrease in traffic in last 3 months (Read 9093 times)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #30 on:** November 19, 2013, 06:54:20 PM »

Quote from: Guest

It is noted that with the exception of TKGS, all the previous posters in this thread including the OP are just time-wasters and gossip-mongers.

Not to mention cowards for remaining anonymous while they spread gossip and accusations, whether founded or unfounded.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #31 on:** November 19, 2013, 07:00:06 PM »

Maybe there is a clandestine war being waged on them by the Dimond brothers. The Dimonds will eliminate all "heretical" trads while they become the prominent go-to-source for the Catholic Faith

:roll-laugh1: :boxer:

Sigismund · « **Reply #32 on:** November 19, 2013, 08:17:55 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

So did Pope Pius XII.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2013, 06:06:34 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

Can you docuмent that?

I know he is in gross error regarding how jurisdiction derives.

Now LAWFUL pertains to jurisdiction, not orders, and since the bishops who ordain traditional priests have no jurisdiction from the pope, either to call priests, erect seminaries or to delegate these priests for their duties — all of which is mandated by and provided for in the 1917 Code of Canon Law based on the teaching of the General Councils and the Roman Pontiffs — these priests cannot possibly be lawful. This teaching in Kinkead’s catechism is taken directly from the Council of Trent, which reads: “If anyone says that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical or canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

BIG GRIFF flat out rejects Pius XII's authoritative teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis on the necessity of obtaining an Apostolic Mandate prior to any episcopal consecration.

He picks and chooses what he likes and dislikes, which is the definition of a heretic ("to pick and choose').

Pius XII's formally condemns all episcopal consecrations attempted without papal approval.

"We warned by virtue of that Universal Teaching Authority which We exercise by Divine Command that this same doctrine as understood by its authors, whether in theory or in the consequences which follow from it, cannot receive the approval of a Catholic, since it turns minds away from the essential Unity of the Church. ...

To this action the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.). The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5.).

It does not escape Us that those who thus withdraw from obedience put forward a practice which was licit in previous centuries in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have, alas, unrighteously assumed. Yet everyone sees that it is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline if in any way at all it is lawful for anyone to restore arrangements which are not valid any longer since the Supreme Authority of the Church has long ago Decreed otherwise. They assuredly in no sense excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." (*Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

From, Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958

Are you condemning Archbishop Lefebvre here?

Do you think SSPX or Bishop Williamson better get “pope” Frankie’s approval if they want to do any episcopal consecrations?

"A vain question deserves nothing but silence." -St. Vincent Ferrer, quotation from his "A Treatise on a Spiritual Life."

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #34 on:** November 20, 2013, 11:19:55 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Let's face it. Heiner loves to play with what he perceives are the 'Big Boys".

Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

It is easy to poke fun when we are anonymous isn't it. These are people with souls who Christ shed every last drop of His blood for. Their life revolves around seeking and sharing truth.

At the end of time everything will be known about everyone and perhaps those of us who slam others will not be laughing so much.

Just a thought.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** November 20, 2013, 11:27:03 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

Can you docuмent that?

I know he is in gross error regarding how jurisdiction derives.

Now LAWFUL pertains to jurisdiction, not orders, and since the bishops who ordain traditional priests have no jurisdiction from the pope, either to call priests, erect seminaries or to delegate these priests for their duties — all of which is mandated by and provided for in the 1917 Code of Canon Law based on the teaching of the General Councils and the Roman Pontiffs — these priests cannot possibly be lawful. This teaching in Kinkead’s catechism is taken directly from the Council of Trent, which reads: “If anyone says that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical or canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

BIG GRIFF flat out rejects Pius XII's authoritative teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis on the necessity of obtaining an Apostolic Mandate prior to any episcopal consecration.

He picks and chooses what he likes and dislikes, which is the definition of a heretic ("to pick and choose').

You know you can e-mail him and get it straight from the horses mouth. He does not deny the mandate and he is aware of the above quotes he maintains the mandate has been passed on by the Apostolic Bishops as he knows, based upon undeniable history, that the mandate can be tacit and or implied.

Write this accusation to him directly, or have someone else do it since you need to be anonymous and see if he denies the mandate or if your above quote is some sort of revelation to him.

I'll wait for you sharing the response you get but won't hold my breath because then we would have to stop playing "make believe" and stop dragging his name through the mud in our peculiarly Catholic way and accept reality for a change.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #36 on:** November 20, 2013, 11:30:31 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

Can you docuмent that?

I know he is in gross error regarding how jurisdiction derives.

Now LAWFUL pertains to jurisdiction, not orders, and since the bishops who ordain traditional priests have no jurisdiction from the pope, either to call priests, erect seminaries or to delegate these priests for their duties — all of which is mandated by and provided for in the 1917 Code of Canon Law based on the teaching of the General Councils and the Roman Pontiffs — these priests cannot possibly be lawful. This teaching in Kinkead’s catechism is taken directly from the Council of Trent, which reads: “If anyone says that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical or canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

BIG GRIFF flat out rejects Pius XII's authoritative teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis on the necessity of obtaining an Apostolic Mandate prior to any episcopal consecration.

He picks and chooses what he likes and dislikes, which is the definition of a heretic ("to pick and choose').

Pius XII's formally condemns all episcopal consecrations attempted without papal approval.

"We warned by virtue of that Universal Teaching Authority which We exercise by Divine Command that this same doctrine as understood by its authors, whether in theory or in the consequences which follow from it, cannot receive the approval of a Catholic, since it turns minds away from the essential Unity of the Church. ...

To this action the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.). The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5.).

It does not escape Us that those who thus withdraw from obedience put forward a practice which was licit in previous centuries in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have, alas, unrighteously assumed. Yet everyone sees that it is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline if in any way at all it is lawful for anyone to restore arrangements which are not valid any longer since the Supreme Authority of the Church has long ago Decreed otherwise. They assuredly in no sense excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." (*Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

From, Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958

Right. That's why those still providing valid Sacraments should pack it up and go home. (Joke) That is the danger of laymen interpreting canon law and imposing it on others being 100% sure they got it right despite the ramifications it leads to.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #37 on:** November 20, 2013, 11:32:48 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

Can you docuмent that?

I know he is in gross error regarding how jurisdiction derives.

Now LAWFUL pertains to jurisdiction, not orders, and since the bishops who ordain traditional priests have no jurisdiction from the pope, either to call priests, erect seminaries or to delegate these priests for their duties — all of which is mandated by and provided for in the 1917 Code of Canon Law based on the teaching of the General Councils and the Roman Pontiffs — these priests cannot possibly be lawful. This teaching in Kinkead’s catechism is taken directly from the Council of Trent, which reads: “If anyone says that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical or canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

BIG GRIFF flat out rejects Pius XII's authoritative teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis on the necessity of obtaining an Apostolic Mandate prior to any episcopal consecration.

He picks and chooses what he likes and dislikes, which is the definition of a heretic ("to pick and choose').

Pius XII's formally condemns all episcopal consecrations attempted without papal approval.

"We warned by virtue of that Universal Teaching Authority which We exercise by Divine Command that this same doctrine as understood by its authors, whether in theory or in the consequences which follow from it, cannot receive the approval of a Catholic, since it turns minds away from the essential Unity of the Church. ...

To this action the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.). The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5.).

It does not escape Us that those who thus withdraw from obedience put forward a practice which was licit in previous centuries in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have, alas, unrighteously assumed. Yet everyone sees that it is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline if in any way at all it is lawful for anyone to restore arrangements which are not valid any longer since the Supreme Authority of the Church has long ago Decreed otherwise. They assuredly in no sense excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." (*Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

From, Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958

Are you condemning Archbishop Lefebvre here?

Do you think SSPX or Bishop Williamson better get “pope” Frankie’s approval if they want to do any episcopal consecrations?

That is what he is saying and in a sense it is logical if we take those who hold this view to its logical conclusion. The SVs that hold this look to a hidden or NO hierarchy. Those open to the possibility that they are wrong are looked upon as objectively schismatic and a danger to souls.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #38 on:** November 20, 2013, 03:07:29 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

Can you docuмent that?

I know he is in gross error regarding how jurisdiction derives.

Now LAWFUL pertains to jurisdiction, not orders, and since the bishops who ordain traditional priests have no jurisdiction from the pope, either to call priests, erect seminaries or to delegate these priests for their duties — all of which is mandated by and provided for in the 1917 Code of Canon Law based on the teaching of the General Councils and the Roman Pontiffs — these priests cannot possibly be lawful. This teaching in Kinkead’s catechism is taken directly from the Council of Trent, which reads: “If anyone says that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical or canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

BIG GRIFF flat out rejects Pius XII's authoritative teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis on the necessity of obtaining an Apostolic Mandate prior to any episcopal consecration.

He picks and chooses what he likes and dislikes, which is the definition of a heretic ("to pick and choose').

Pius XII's formally condemns all episcopal consecrations attempted without papal approval.

"We warned by virtue of that Universal Teaching Authority which We exercise by Divine Command that this same doctrine as understood by its authors, whether in theory or in the consequences which follow from it, cannot receive the approval of a Catholic, since it turns minds away from the essential Unity of the Church. ...

To this action the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.). The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5.).

It does not escape Us that those who thus withdraw from obedience put forward a practice which was licit in previous centuries in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have, alas, unrighteously assumed. Yet everyone sees that it is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline if in any way at all it is lawful for anyone to restore arrangements which are not valid any longer since the Supreme Authority of the Church has long ago Decreed otherwise. They assuredly in no sense excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." (*Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

From, Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958

Right. That's why those still providing valid Sacraments should pack it up and go home. (Joke) That is the danger of laymen interpreting canon law and imposing it on others being 100% sure they got it right despite the ramifications it leads to.

*Layman Griff Ruby's own manifested words from his own website: www.the-pope.com/glossary.html (11/20/13)

*Papal Mandate: the order given by the pope to consecrate a bishop. Required as of April 9, 1951 for the consecration of any bishop. The current crisis in the Church has required that this particular law be broken in order that the Church may continue to exist. Also sometimes called an "Apostolic Mandate."

Comment: This heretical view of Ruby's posted now on his webste, is exactly what the schismatic Chinese "bishops" ipso facto condemned by Christ's Vicar, Pius XII, held.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #39 on:** November 20, 2013, 06:55:16 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

Can you docuмent that?

I know he is in gross error regarding how jurisdiction derives.

Now LAWFUL pertains to jurisdiction, not orders, and since the bishops who ordain traditional priests have no jurisdiction from the pope, either to call priests, erect seminaries or to delegate these priests for their duties — all of which is mandated by and provided for in the 1917 Code of Canon Law based on the teaching of the General Councils and the Roman Pontiffs — these priests cannot possibly be lawful. This teaching in Kinkead’s catechism is taken directly from the Council of Trent, which reads: “If anyone says that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical or canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

BIG GRIFF flat out rejects Pius XII's authoritative teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis on the necessity of obtaining an Apostolic Mandate prior to any episcopal consecration.

He picks and chooses what he likes and dislikes, which is the definition of a heretic ("to pick and choose').

Pius XII's formally condemns all episcopal consecrations attempted without papal approval.

"We warned by virtue of that Universal Teaching Authority which We exercise by Divine Command that this same doctrine as understood by its authors, whether in theory or in the consequences which follow from it, cannot receive the approval of a Catholic, since it turns minds away from the essential Unity of the Church. ...

To this action the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.). The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5.).

It does not escape Us that those who thus withdraw from obedience put forward a practice which was licit in previous centuries in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have, alas, unrighteously assumed. Yet everyone sees that it is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline if in any way at all it is lawful for anyone to restore arrangements which are not valid any longer since the Supreme Authority of the Church has long ago Decreed otherwise. They assuredly in no sense excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." (*Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

From, Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958

Are you condemning Archbishop Lefebvre here?

Do you think SSPX or Bishop Williamson better get “pope” Frankie’s approval if they want to do any episcopal consecrations?

"A vain question deserves nothing but silence." -St. Vincent Ferrer, quotation from his "A Treatise on a Spiritual Life."

It was not vain questioning and you did not remain silent. You posted an inapplicable quote in an attempt to silence me.

The papal decree applies to all.

Either it is justifiable in certain situations to consecrate without papal mandate or it isn’t.

Were Archbishop Lefebvre and De Castro Mayer justified?

During this crisis could there be justification for future consecrations without a papal mandate?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #40 on:** November 21, 2013, 02:51:28 AM »

You have altered your original post (inquiry).

You now state: "The papal decree applies to all."

Reply: Of course. To a validly consecrated "saintly" bishop or a "rouge" bishop, who possesses canonical mission - they are required to obtain a papal mandate prior to any episcopal consecration - to avoid ipso facto severance from the Body of Christ/damnation. Anyone with primitive reading skills and sincerity has to grasp this.

Magisterial Teaching: "Yet everyone sees that it (to consecrate without papal mandate) is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline ... We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, BUT FOR THE WHOLE CHURCH--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." -Pius XII's, from his Encyclical, Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958. (*Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

For study purposes, from the SSPX's Angelus Online (June 1982)

A Warning To Traditional Catholics Concerning False Shepherds

http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=639: ---

Lefebvre: "They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church ... It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God."

During his recent visit to America, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre referred several times to the report that several individuals including some claiming to be "traditional" priests had attempted to have themselves consecrated bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre totally condemned their actions and warned all Catholics to have nothing to do with them. 'They will bring ruination and scandal on the Church," Archbishop Lefebvre replied when asked his opinion of the scandal-ridden "consecrations."

"It is a direct result of what happens when one loses faith in God and separates himself with Rome and the Holy Father," Archbishop Lefebvre stated, "and the enemies of the Church, including those who so strongly promote Modernism, will try to associate us and other good traditional Catholics with these (fanatics) in hopes of trying to bring discredit upon the good as well as the evil."

Archbishop Lefebvre also stated that the actions of Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, the former Vietnamese Bishop who participated in the so-called "consecrations," are quite questionable in view of the fact that he is the same individual *responsible for the Palmar de Troya fiasco which took place in Spain some years ago. A "visionary" of sorts, Clemente Dominguez de Gomez induced Thuc to ordain and consecrate him and then proceeded to proclaim himself Pope. This group scandalized the world by conferring orders indiscriminately on anyone who presented themselves to "Pope" Gomez. The sect now claims hundreds of clerics, including large numbers of 14 and 16-year-old bishops and cardinals.

*(Comment from CI poster: It is well-known by Traditionalists that it was Lefebvre himself who advised the psuedo-mystics of Palmar de Troya to seek out Bishop Thuc to "ordain/consecrate" them.)

Soon after the questionable ordinations, Bishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc renounced his actions and published a letter saying that the "orders" he had conferred were null and void because he had withheld all intention of conveying orders to the Palmar de Troya sect. Given his past performances, there is no reason to believe that his present fiasco is any more credible.

Referring to Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre said, "He seems to have lost all reason."

The proof of these individuals' bad intention is clearly evident in the fact that the new sect which includes Father Moise Carmona and Father Adolfo Zamora of Mexico; Father Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., of France; and Father George Musey of America; have already conducted meetings with small groups of traditional Catholic priests and have announced their intention of calling their own "Council" and selecting one or more popes!

Faithful Catholics are reminded that their faith prevents them from having any contact whatever with these schismatics and heretics, and that they are not permitted to support them in any way. All involved have incurred automatic excommunication, and all who support or affiliate themselves with them do likewise.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #41 on:** November 21, 2013, 06:50:17 AM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Quote from: Guest
Griff Ruby isn't "big", he's Huge ... GARGANTUAN!!

Griff Ruby believes in evolution.

Can you docuмent that?

I know he is in gross error regarding how jurisdiction derives.

Now LAWFUL pertains to jurisdiction, not orders, and since the bishops who ordain traditional priests have no jurisdiction from the pope, either to call priests, erect seminaries or to delegate these priests for their duties — all of which is mandated by and provided for in the 1917 Code of Canon Law based on the teaching of the General Councils and the Roman Pontiffs — these priests cannot possibly be lawful. This teaching in Kinkead’s catechism is taken directly from the Council of Trent, which reads: “If anyone says that those who have not been rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical or canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema.”

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

BIG GRIFF flat out rejects Pius XII's authoritative teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis on the necessity of obtaining an Apostolic Mandate prior to any episcopal consecration.

He picks and chooses what he likes and dislikes, which is the definition of a heretic ("to pick and choose').

Pius XII's formally condemns all episcopal consecrations attempted without papal approval.

"We warned by virtue of that Universal Teaching Authority which We exercise by Divine Command that this same doctrine as understood by its authors, whether in theory or in the consequences which follow from it, cannot receive the approval of a Catholic, since it turns minds away from the essential Unity of the Church. ...

To this action the warning words of the Divine Teacher fittingly apply: "He who enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up another way, is a thief and a robber" (John 10:1.). The sheep indeed know the true shepherd's voice. "But a stranger they will not follow, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5.).

It does not escape Us that those who thus withdraw from obedience put forward a practice which was licit in previous centuries in order to justify themselves with regard to those functions which they have, alas, unrighteously assumed. Yet everyone sees that it is the overthrow of all Ecclesiastical Discipline if in any way at all it is lawful for anyone to restore arrangements which are not valid any longer since the Supreme Authority of the Church has long ago Decreed otherwise. They assuredly in no sense excuse their way of acting by appealing to another custom, and they indisputably prove that they follow this line deliberately in order to escape from the discipline which now prevails and which they ought to be obeying.

We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." (*Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

From, Pius XII's Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958

Right. That's why those still providing valid Sacraments should pack it up and go home. (Joke) That is the danger of laymen interpreting canon law and imposing it on others being 100% sure they got it right despite the ramifications it leads to.

*Layman Griff Ruby's own manifested words from his own website: www.the-pope.com/glossary.html (11/20/13)

*Papal Mandate: the order given by the pope to consecrate a bishop. Required as of April 9, 1951 for the consecration of any bishop. The current crisis in the Church has required that this particular law be broken in order that the Church may continue to exist. Also sometimes called an "Apostolic Mandate."

Comment: This heretical view of Ruby's posted now on his webste, is exactly what the schismatic Chinese "bishops" ipso facto condemned by Christ's Vicar, Pius XII, held.

It was referred to as a "law", "something required as of April 9, 1951" not a doctrine, otherwise it would be a "doctrine" required since "33 A.D.". Again we are talking about the disciplinary aspect of it.

As far as I know. I have not seen convincing (to me) proof to the contrary. Though I accept whatever the Church teaches on the issue even if I am not aware of what she teaches, and or even if I do not fully understand what she teaches.

If it can be proven to me that she teaches what you believe her to teach I accept it. Objectively if she teaches what you claim she teaches I accept it without realizing it yet.

I would be like an "R and R" that does not realize we must submit to what all valid Popes bind on the Church, but if he did he would become Novus Ordo or SV.

I will accept what the lay people teach the Church teaches on Jurisdiction as appertaining to our times once I am convinced they are right. I don't have money riding on either side.

One position makes more sense to me than the other. For instance when I see "law" I am able to distinguish the difference between discipline and doctrine. Others may not notice or understand the difference. And when it is brought to their attention they may refuse to acknowledge it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #42 on:** November 21, 2013, 06:53:09 AM »

Quote

During this crisis could there be justification for future consecrations without a papal mandate?

That is the $10,000,000 question.

If the mandate has not been tacit and or implied in our situation I would argue that there could be justification for the post-conciliar consecrations "without a papal mandate".

I am open to the possibility that the mandate was implied and or implicit and I base this on undeniable past history.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #43 on:** November 21, 2013, 09:09:06 AM »

(DZ 1831)

First, jurisdiction comes from The Supreme Pontiff alone. Thus this concerns Divine decree, the essence of the Faith, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church as established by Christ.

These novel "tacit/implicit" words of yours, are mere inventions to subvert the divinely decreed hierarchical order/discipline of the Church. Its Petrine Authority ... exactly what Pius XII solemnly condemned and warned against in 1958, in his providential Ad Apostolorum Principis.

Magisterial Teaching from Encyclical of Pius XII (June 29, 1958): "We mean that Discipline which has been established not only for China and the regions recently enlightened by the light of the Gospel, but for the whole Church--a Discipline which takes its sanction from that Universal and Supreme Power of caring for, ruling and governing which Our Lord granted to the Successors in the Office of St. Peter the Apostle.

Well known are the terms which the *Vatican Council Solemnly defined." (Extract from Encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis of June 29, 1958 *Vatican Council, Session IV, Chap. 3, p. 484.)

(DZ 1831)

The Vatican Council teaches that “If anyone thus speaks, [denying] that the Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in those things that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world…OVER THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL ALTOGETHER AND INDIVIDUALLY; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA,” (DZ 1831).

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #44 on:** November 21, 2013, 09:44:11 AM »

People have been validly consecration Bishops without a formal mandate. This is a historical fact. Tacit and implicit are legitimate words to describe the facts of history.

People who agree with you and know Church history agree that this has been the case in the past.

Author Topic: SGG.org Website Virtually Offline -74 decrease in traffic in last 3 months (Read 9093 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus