Author Topic: AGAIN Defending the False Assertion That SV Leads to the Disappearance of (Read 7638 times)

Arvinger · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:16:14 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not looking for people to get angry or defensive in an insecure way over the topic but to discuss it calmly and dispassionately. SV is the cause of our problems not the solution. It does not solve all the problems but merely shows why every thing is such a mess and why so many good willed people are legitimately confused and why so many bad willed people are having a field day with the ignorant.

None of the posts you quoted (I actually read some of that on John Lane's forum) answers any of the objections I brought up. If SV cannot explain where is Church hierarchy, which must include bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (bunch of SV bishops with jurisdiction supplied by invisible Church does not suffice), then it must be rejected a false diagnosis of the crisis. As I said, Bishop de Lauriers went to great length to address the problem of Apostolic Succession in Cassiciacuм Thesis, and I think he was quite succesful. On the other hand, Fr Cekada's take on sedevacantism (whole Novus Ordo is entirely illegitimate and the hierarchy consist of few Traditionalist bishops) has no leg to stand on in dealing with the problem of Apostolic Succession.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:19:59 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not looking for people to get angry or defensive in an insecure way over the topic but to discuss it calmly and dispassionately. SV is the cause of our problems not the solution. It does not solve all the problems but merely shows why every thing is such a mess and why so many good willed people are legitimately confused and why so many bad willed people are having a field day with the ignorant.

None of the posts you quoted (I actually read some of that on John Lane's forum) answers any of the objections I brought up. If SV cannot explain where is Church hierarchy, which must include bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (bunch of SV bishops with jurisdiction supplied by invisible Church does not suffice), then it must be rejected a fale diagnosis of the crisis. As I said, Bishop de Lauriers went to great length to address the problem of Apostolic Succession in Cassiciacuм Thesis, and I think he was quite succesful. On the other hand, Fr Cekada's take on sedevacantism (whole Novus Ordo is entirely illegitimate and the hierarchy consist of few Traditionalist bishops) has no leg to stand on in dealing with the problem of Apostolic Succession.

Well stated.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #7 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:41:00 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not looking for people to get angry or defensive in an insecure way over the topic but to discuss it calmly and dispassionately. SV is the cause of our problems not the solution. It does not solve all the problems but merely shows why every thing is such a mess and why so many good willed people are legitimately confused and why so many bad willed people are having a field day with the ignorant.

None of the posts you quoted (I actually read some of that on John Lane's forum) answers any of the objections I brought up. If SV cannot explain where is Church hierarchy, which must include bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (bunch of SV bishops with jurisdiction supplied by invisible Church does not suffice), then it must be rejected a false diagnosis of the crisis. As I said, Bishop de Lauriers went to great length to address the problem of Apostolic Succession in Cassiciacuм Thesis, and I think he was quite succesful. On the other hand, Fr Cekada's take on sedevacantism (whole Novus Ordo is entirely illegitimate and the hierarchy consist of few Traditionalist bishops) has no leg to stand on in dealing with the problem of Apostolic Succession.

You pit Cekeda against de Lauriers while John Lane disagrees with them both. SV diagnoses the problem. SV does not have to explain where the hierarchy anymore than R & R does.

Arvinger · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:45:09 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not looking for people to get angry or defensive in an insecure way over the topic but to discuss it calmly and dispassionately. SV is the cause of our problems not the solution. It does not solve all the problems but merely shows why every thing is such a mess and why so many good willed people are legitimately confused and why so many bad willed people are having a field day with the ignorant.

None of the posts you quoted (I actually read some of that on John Lane's forum) answers any of the objections I brought up. If SV cannot explain where is Church hierarchy, which must include bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (bunch of SV bishops with jurisdiction supplied by invisible Church does not suffice), then it must be rejected a false diagnosis of the crisis. As I said, Bishop de Lauriers went to great length to address the problem of Apostolic Succession in Cassiciacuм Thesis, and I think he was quite succesful. On the other hand, Fr Cekada's take on sedevacantism (whole Novus Ordo is entirely illegitimate and the hierarchy consist of few Traditionalist bishops) has no leg to stand on in dealing with the problem of Apostolic Succession.

You pit Cekeda against de Lauriers while John Lane disagrees with them both. SV diagnoses the problem. SV does not have to explain where the hierarchy anymore than R & R does.

If the diagnosis is incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church then it must be rejected as false. If you cannot demonstrate where is Church hierarchy and bishops with ordinary jurisdiction then effectively you admit that the Apostolic Succesion has ceased, which is heretical. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your diagnosis is compatible with Catholicism.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** July 06, 2016, 11:51:10 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth

I'm not looking for people to get angry or defensive in an insecure way over the topic but to discuss it calmly and dispassionately. SV is the cause of our problems not the solution. It does not solve all the problems but merely shows why every thing is such a mess and why so many good willed people are legitimately confused and why so many bad willed people are having a field day with the ignorant.

None of the posts you quoted (I actually read some of that on John Lane's forum) answers any of the objections I brought up. If SV cannot explain where is Church hierarchy, which must include bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (bunch of SV bishops with jurisdiction supplied by invisible Church does not suffice), then it must be rejected a false diagnosis of the crisis. As I said, Bishop de Lauriers went to great length to address the problem of Apostolic Succession in Cassiciacuм Thesis, and I think he was quite succesful. On the other hand, Fr Cekada's take on sedevacantism (whole Novus Ordo is entirely illegitimate and the hierarchy consist of few Traditionalist bishops) has no leg to stand on in dealing with the problem of Apostolic Succession.

You pit Cekeda against de Lauriers while John Lane disagrees with them both. SV diagnoses the problem. SV does not have to explain where the hierarchy anymore than R & R does.

If the diagnosis is incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church then it must be rejected as false. If you cannot demonstrate where is Church hierarchy and bishops with ordinary jurisdiction then effectively you admit that the Apostolic Succesion has ceased, which is heretical. The burden of proof is on you to prove that your diagnosis is compatible with Catholicism.

Who do true Catholics submit to? I maintain that is where the hierarchy is. What bishop do you submit to?

In the history of the Church have bishops been consecrated who subsequently gained with ordinary jurisdiction without the expressed approval of a Pope or during a time of interregnum?