Author Topic: AGAIN Defending the False Assertion That SV Leads to the Disappearance of (Read 3019 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #30 on:** July 07, 2016, 10:59:49 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.

I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.

A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.

Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.

The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.

Arvinger · « **Reply #31 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:09:09 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Exilenomore
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.

I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.

A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.

Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.

The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.

But there was no point in the history when the Church did not have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction possesing Episcopal sees. You admitted that lack of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction means defection of the Church - thus, can you name me one bishop who, according to you, has ordinary jurisdiction? If you can't, it means you are unable to identify Church hierarchy which must exist for the continuity of the Apostolic Succession and you cannot defend sedevacantism against the charge of disappearence of the Church.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #32 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:31:40 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Exilenomore
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Have bishops been consecrated and granted ordinary jurisdiction in the past during an interregnum? Yes or no? There is one correct answer to that question.

I am not aware of such occasions in history, but it would be possible if Pontifical law during those hypothetical times explicitly permitted the election of bishops to dioceses during interregna. I have already addressed this objection of yours, but it is completely beside the subject matter at hand. Your bishops do not possess episcopal seats, and they do not even claim to do so. Also, there is no interregnum at present, as there is a Pope of Rome reigning in the seven-hilled city, recognised by the whole Apostolic Episcopate. Your bishops do not have potestas ordinaria.

A diocese is the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction of a bishop. The Canon which I cited states that this jurisdiction exists within the Church by divine law. Your bishops have no dioceses. How many times do I have to repeat this? It is not very difficult to understand.

Your whole pretended hierarchy hinges on an imagined invisible transmission of authority, while the visible transmission of ecclesiastical authority is one of the defining elements of the true Church which make her recognisable as such. Your sedevacantist 'church' is a phantom.

The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.

But there was no point in the history when the Church did not have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction possesing Episcopal sees. You admitted that lack of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction means defection of the Church - thus, can you name me one bishop who, according to you, has ordinary jurisdiction? If you can't, it means you are unable to identify Church hierarchy which must exist for the continuity of the Apostolic Succession and you cannot defend sedevacantism against the charge of disappearence of the Church.

I maintain that the known Catholic Bishops have it based upon the tacit approval of the Holy See.

There is much disagreement about this. Many far more knowledgeable than me disagree. My response is can they definitively disagree or is this only their opinion which, IMO is based solely upon ecclesiastical law not Divine Law.

Your saying "things appear to be this way to me therefore SV cannot be true".

But how things appear to you is not necessarily true. In fact you have it backwards. Saying a dead man appears to be dead but their is no apparent cause of death does not change the fact.

The SV says a public heretic cannot be Pope and Francis is a public heretic. Even more that a valid pope cannot bind and maintain on the Church what the false Popes purport to bind and maintain on the Church. There is no way around this whether we want to have a Pope or not.

The result is confusion. All knowledgeable SVs know there must be at least one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction for the Church not to have defected and they all insist on it.

Most claim they are with the NO or hidden. I claim, admitting I could be wrong, that they are with are traditional Catholic Bishops whether they make the claim for themselves or not.

We are in a terrible situation and we should have charity prevail on these things. The next valid pope will hopefully settle the issues that have come up since 1958.

All ask you. What Bishop do you submit to? Who is your hierarchy?

qeddeq · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2016, 11:39:58 AM »

This is your Bishop :
"We have to look inside the church for a formal recognition of the kind of interpersonal relationship that is also present in many gαy couples. Just as there are a variety of legal frameworks for partners in civil society, one must arrive at a diversity of forms in the church. … The intrinsic values are more important to me than the institutional question. The Christian ethic is based on lasting relationships where exclusivity, loyalty, and care are central to each other."

The "intrinsic values" of a committed sodomite relationship are more important than the "institutional question", aka church dogma. What are these "bishops" in newchurch bound by? Can you tell me how such a statement from a bishop is even possible? He is not aware of the fundamentals of catholic dogma?

qeddeq · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2016, 01:02:41 PM »

the anti-SV people want some sort of tribunal before they can declare that the sky is blue. They want a trial for the pope to prove what is already publicly known, or "notorious", although a notorious heretic is ipso facto outside the church. What sort of trial do you propose? Who will be the judges? On what basis will they judge him? Canon law? I'm not sure the pope can be tried on the basis of canon law. I would like to see the details of this proposed tribunal. I would gladly welcome such an inquisition, not just for the pope but for all the bishops and clergy.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2016, 02:35:40 PM »

Quote from: qeddeq

This is your Bishop :

What, you think it is impossible that a Bishop would propagate heresy? If that were the case, then Nestorius would not have held his infamous Christmas sermon many centuries past.

Quote from: qeddeq

I'm not sure the pope can be tried on the basis of canon law. I would like to see the details of this proposed tribunal.

The Pope cannot be tried on the basis of human laws, since he is above these, but before he loses the papal office, he must nevertheless have spurned public admonitions directed to him by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. This is all basic. God hates disorder, and the system of the Sedevacantists is just that; disorder. The Church, being a public society, simply does not work that way. Added to that, the whole Episcopate cannot be unaware of a Pope losing his office, due to the theological principle of universal recognition, since the God-given quality of indefectibility excludes the possibility of the Church submitting itself to a principle of schism, which a false pope essentially is.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The answer to the question is that it has happened before and there is nothing hypothetical to that fact.

What happened before? That the universal Church has been bereft of bishops in possession of episcopal seats? No, that has never happened before, it is not happening today, and it will never happen in the future. And I was not saying that this was hypothetically possible; I was referring to appointment of bishops to dioceses, with the explicit jurisdiction to do so, during interregna, and not to your mutilated concept of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Read what I have written, and then read what you have answered. That is troll behaviour, and if you insist on continuing it, then do not bother expecting more responses from me. I am not foolish enough to waste my time with such games.

qeddeq · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2016, 03:33:44 PM »

has your bishop been admonished that he is teaching heresy? Do you think he will be admonished?
Suppose an entire ecuмenical council were to teach heresy, and that all of the bishops and popes thereafter were to teach this heresy. Who admonishes them?

Exilenomore · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2016, 03:55:22 PM »

A heresy can never be universally taught within the Church by all the bishops alive.

Reform will come. If you will not receive rational argumentation, then the facts of history yet to be written will confound you when they will unfold before your eyes. God has always preserved his Holy Church Catholic, even during the darkest hours, and he will continue to do so. He will exalt her, perhaps through (and I say it with sadness) the crucible of persecution. Next year, the centennial of the Fatima apparitions will have dawned upon mankind, and we will have to wait and see what will take place. From the request of the Sacred Heart of Jesus for the consecration of France to the French Revolution, there were a hundred years. In 1917, the Immaculate Heart of Mary requested the consecration of Russia, and a hundred years will soon have passed.

Denying the possibility of reform within the Church is an act of faithless souls. The Church is a divine institution, and she has seen empires totter and the destruction of nations; she, however, has survived them, and she will survive her present tribulations as well.

qeddeq · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2016, 08:12:23 PM »

are you denying that vatican 2 was heresy? the entire church has taught it since 1965.I'm trying to grasp your theory: vatican 2 taught substantial heresy, all the popes and bishops have taught this heresy for some 50 years(except the SV and sspx groups) and yet you maintain that this body remains the catholic church. We are not talking about reform in the sense of reforming an abuse, we are talking about substantial heresy, a rupture with the church's teaching that has lasted for many decades. Your theory cannot explain this. Your theory also cannot explain the future: that it has grown worse. I want you to tell me that vatican 2 was not substantially heretical in its teachings.

qeddeq · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2016, 09:38:54 PM »

1)"reform will come". Tell me how this reform can come about. Do you mean the repudiation of Vatican 2? If that happens, then this group of reformers will have to declare that V2 was not a true council of the church. They will need to declare that it was not an act of the extraordinary magisterium but a false council.
They will then need to declare that all the popes until that point were at least material heretics. They will need to change the church root and branch from the seminaries to the grade school classrooms. All of the encyclicals written since 1962 will need to be declared heretical insofar as they taught the heresies of vatican 2.
2) now who currently teaches correct doctrine and practice? We have such a group. What happens when they try to reform the church? They lose all canonical status. These "reformers" have existed for 50 years but what reception do they get?
3)If it were not for the SV groups you wouldn't have a valid mass. You would have the novus ordo missae, which is not valid. You would certainly not have the tridentine mass. That would've dead and buried, never to be seen again. You would not have a roman missal issued before 1962, when substantial changes were made to the liturgy to placate Jєωs and protestants.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #40 on:** July 08, 2016, 03:27:49 AM »

Quote from: qeddeq

are you denying that vatican 2 was heresy?

Vatican II was a Council, not a doctrine by itself. Texts such as Dignitatis humanae, that have emanated from the Pope and a certain amount of Council Fathers contain grievous errors, and they must be condemned and renounced. The formulations used by the Supreme Pontiff to authorise such texts were of a low binding force, and they are comparable to those used when, for example, approving a book. People stare themselves blind upon the titles of docuмents ("constitution", "encyclical" etc.), but the magisterium of the Church does not work in such a bureaucratic way. The formulations in the texts themselves are what matter, and a Pope could even solemnly define a dogma during a sermon, if the necessary criteria would be fulfilled. The form of expressions used by Pope Paul VI made the convening of an Eucuмenical Council pointless.

Furthermore, none of the Vatican II texts containing errors have been signed by all the Bishops. You are wrong to claim that the whole Episcopate teaches these errors.

God has preserved His Church unto our days, and He will continue to do so. As I have already said, reform (which will include the extirpation of heresy) will come, and those who deny that it is possible are saying that the arm of God is too short, which is a blasphemy.

And it is not true that you Sedevacantists are the reason why the old Mass still exists within the Church. God does not need you to preserve the authentic Roman liturgical traditions.

qeddeq · « **Reply #41 on:** July 08, 2016, 10:39:32 AM »

I take that long winded answer as a no, that you do not deny that V2 taught substantial heresy. We have your admission.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #42 on:** July 08, 2016, 10:53:11 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Exilenomore
Quote from: Lover of Truth
What bishop do you submit to?

Monseigneur Johan Bonny, per gratiam Apostolicae Sedis Antverpiae Episcopus.

Is he a valid Bishop with ordinary jurisdiction?

Dear Exilenomore,

Your "Bishop" may not even be a priest. In order to accept him as a Bishop or priest, I would first have to be certain about the validity of the new ordination rite and the new formula for consecrating bishops. I am not certain about them. Was he ordained by a new rite bishop in the old or new rite of ordination?

I believe this is where LOT was going with his question, and you did not respond to him.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** July 08, 2016, 11:05:03 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

The formulations used by the Supreme Pontiff to authorise such texts were of a low binding force, and they are comparable to those used when, for example, approving a book.

Nice try, but, uhm, no. Not even close.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #44 on:** July 08, 2016, 11:38:47 AM »

Quote from: Exilenomore

God has preserved His Church unto our days, and He will continue to do so. As I have already said, reform (which will include the extirpation of heresy) will come, and those who deny that it is possible are saying that the arm of God is too short, which is a blasphemy.

And it is not true that you Sedevacantists are the reason why the old Mass still exists within the Church. God does not need you to preserve the authentic Roman liturgical traditions.

I agree God doesn't need Sedevacantism to preserve the authentic Roman liturgical, however God uses us as His instruments as He had done over and over again in the history of His Church, using His faithful as instruments.

Get one thing straight, to accept Sedevantism does not mean we deny the Papacy we are Ultramontane in our belief. We defend the Pope and his authority, you are defending error. One can't defend error in matters of faith and morals and still be Catholic because the Church is a DIVINE INSTITUTION, it can not lead souls to Hell.

Those who have separated from the novus ordo are His remnant; to dare say that those who are keeping the faith and want nothing to do with heresy claim "the arm of God is too short" are the lost. Those who say that! They put their faith in material things, not in the spiritual. They judge the Church to be where the buildings, land and possessions including treasures such as relics, writings of True Popes are kept to be the Church, but in truth they have robbed those from the Church. They disregard completely what the definition of The Church IS.

Why? Would the Vatican name their new telescope on Mount Graham after Lucifer? That alone should wake up anyone with an ounce of grace.

http://tinyurl.com/jtr5ch6