Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 53

Author Topic: SSPX Fake Priests  (Read 114878 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #195 on: August 05, 2025, 08:31:18 AM »
Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 05, 2025, 07:52:25 AM
Yes, we are living in similar times to V2 or covid, where the following are everywhere -- gaslighting, half-truths and social pressure to accept authority.

Yeah.  Now, the SSPX also gaslight that it's the sedevacantists driving this attack on the validity of NO Orders becaues they "need themt to be invalid".  Utterly ridiculous.  As I mentioned, I would LOVE to be able to drive 5 minutes to see "Father Bob" down the street if I needed to go to Confession, and also to not pray that I would wait til the weekend (when the priest was in town) before dropping dead, and therefore having the opportunity to receive Last Rites.  I have these lists I periodically update of retired pre-V2 Novus Ordo priests in the area we could seek out in an emergency, and that list gets shorter every year.

No, we do not "need" for them to be invalid any more than we "need" the Eastern Orthodox Orders and Liturgy to be invalid in order to recognize that they're schismatic.

Now, I would PREFER that New Orders be invalid in that I would prefer that Our Lord not be subjected to all the sacrileges and blasphemies to which He would be subject in the Novus Ordo ... but that's not a motivation here.  I'm sure the Apostles would have preferred that Our Lord not be crucified, but at the end if God has willed that Our Lord be mistreated in the NOM like He was at His Passion, who am I to say otherwise.

But, no, there's no theological need that SVs have that the NO Orders be invalid.  Zero.

On the contrary, the neo-SSPX have a political need to assert their validity ... since to say otherwise would be a non-starter for any talks with the Novus Ordo.  "Hello, Mr. Prevost ..."
Logged

Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #196 on: August 05, 2025, 08:56:05 AM »
Quote from: Änσnymσus on August 04, 2025, 01:20:01 PM
A positive doubt doesn't automatically render something invalid; on this we agree.
.

This is irrelevant. A doubtful sacrament must be treated as invalid since only certainly valid sacraments can be used. This is the teaching of Pope Innocent IX, as someone posted a bit earlier.


Quote
We also agree that only the Church - the Pope - can declare on a Positive Doubt.

No, this is totally false. So, the Church tells us water must be the matter of baptism, and if someone baptizes using apple juice instead, we must consider the baptism as certainly valid until a pope tells us it's not? :facepalm:

Doubt exists when the matter and form that the Church teaches about the sacrament are not used. But this is the case in the new rite of holy orders, which uses words that are different from what Pius XII told us are necessary for validity. Therefore it is doubtful.

In other words, a pope has already declared on the positive doubt here; it was Pope Pius XII.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #197 on: August 05, 2025, 09:44:09 AM »
Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2025, 08:56:05 AM
This is irrelevant. A doubtful sacrament must be treated as invalid since only certainly valid sacraments can be used. This is the teaching of Pope Innocent IX, as someone posted a bit earlier.

Right, and there's only one "edge case" practical difference.  One MAY avail oneself of a Sacrament laboring under positive doubt in danger of death when there are no certainly-valid alternatives available (in a timely fashion) ... but you can't do that with a certainly invalid Sacrament.

If I were on my deathbed and all I could get was absolution from a Novus Ordo presbyter, I might take a shot.  But, absent such dire circuмstances, it's indeed irrelevant.  But I would and could not call in, say, an Anglican "minister", since Pope Leo XIII taught quite clearly that their Orders are "absolutely null and utterly void".
Logged

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #198 on: August 05, 2025, 09:52:55 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 05, 2025, 08:31:18 AM
Yeah.  Now, the SSPX also gaslight that it's the sedevacantists driving this attack on the validity of NO Orders becaues they "need themt to be invalid".  Utterly ridiculous.  As I mentioned, I would LOVE to be able to drive 5 minutes to see "Father Bob" down the street if I needed to go to Confession, and also to not pray that I would wait til the weekend (when the priest was in town) before dropping dead, and therefore having the opportunity to receive Last Rites.  I have these lists I periodically update of retired pre-V2 Novus Ordo priests in the area we could seek out in an emergency, and that list gets shorter every year.

No, we do not "need" for them to be invalid any more than we "need" the Eastern Orthodox Orders and Liturgy to be invalid in order to recognize that they're schismatic.

Now, I would PREFER that New Orders be invalid in that I would prefer that Our Lord not be subjected to all the sacrileges and blasphemies to which He would be subject in the Novus Ordo ... but that's not a motivation here.  I'm sure the Apostles would have preferred that Our Lord not be crucified, but at the end if God has willed that Our Lord be mistreated in the NOM like He was at His Passion, who am I to say otherwise.

But, no, there's no theological need that SVs have that the NO Orders be invalid.  Zero.

On the contrary, the neo-SSPX have a political need to assert their validity ... since to say otherwise would be a non-starter for any talks with the Novus Ordo.  "Hello, Mr. Prevost ..."
I see. So you are Sedevacantist. No wonder you are so anti-SSPX and anti-Church. No wonder you disregard all authority except your own. YOU have decided there is a positive doubt where both the Church and the SSPX have declared there is not. You even have the audacity to speak of the 'new' SSPX when you disregard the 'old'. I repeat, I do not recognize your new religion with you as self-declared Pope.
Logged

Änσnymσus

  • Guest
Re: SSPX Fake Priests
« Reply #199 on: August 05, 2025, 10:04:15 AM »
Quote from: Yeti on August 05, 2025, 08:56:05 AM

No, this is totally false. So, the Church tells us water must be the matter of baptism, and if someone baptizes using apple juice instead, we must consider the baptism as certainly valid until a pope tells us it's not? :facepalm:

Doubt exists when the matter and form that the Church teaches about the sacrament are not used. But this is the case in the new rite of holy orders, which uses words that are different from what Pius XII told us are necessary for validity. Therefore it is doubtful.

In other words, a pope has already declared on the positive doubt here; it was Pope Pius XII.
Twists and turns; keep with the context. I said only the Church, when it comes to an official Rite itself, can declare upon a positive doubt. However, and I made this clear too, if individual abuses or lapses occur during this Rite - outside of this Rite - then a case for a positive doubt could be made - and presented to the proper authorities. With to Pope Pius XII, I only have your word that the New Rite does not measure up to what this Holy father stipulated. Both the Church itself and the OLD leadership of the SSPX have told me that the New Rite - in its original Latin form - does measure up. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 53
« previous next »