Author Topic: Apostolic Church Not Where She Appears To Be? (Read 5111 times)

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #20 on:** September 28, 2012, 11:00:17 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Now we see that you do not agree with Van Noort whereas before I thought you indicated that you would be loath to disagree with him. So we, according to you, have giant theologians disagreeing on the interpretation, yet I must accept de fide what laymen of our day such as John Lane posit as the correct and unquestionable interpretation.

No innovations, we are looking at what has been presented as "proof" to the contary by Van Noort and Pius XII. We look at their exact words and do not find them saying the consent, by doctrine, must be explicit, and they cannot because history would prove them wrong. In ancient times Bishops with full jurisdiction were consecrated without the expressed consent of Popes yet the doctrine which you believe you are defending was always true.

Arguing about explicit or implicit consent is absolutely not necessary, because the implicit consent is still necessary, all theologians agree. I am not a theologian, so I cannot disagree with with Van Noort, but I am free to chose other opinions.

Which Pope then did not disagree or remain silent on traditionalist consecrations, therefore given implicit and not expressed consent?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #21 on:** September 28, 2012, 12:06:12 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Now we see that you do not agree with Van Noort whereas before I thought you indicated that you would be loath to disagree with him. So we, according to you, have giant theologians disagreeing on the interpretation, yet I must accept de fide what laymen of our day such as John Lane posit as the correct and unquestionable interpretation.

No innovations, we are looking at what has been presented as "proof" to the contary by Van Noort and Pius XII. We look at their exact words and do not find them saying the consent, by doctrine, must be explicit, and they cannot because history would prove them wrong. In ancient times Bishops with full jurisdiction were consecrated without the expressed consent of Popes yet the doctrine which you believe you are defending was always true.

Arguing about explicit or implicit consent is absolutely not necessary, because the implicit consent is still necessary, all theologians agree. I am not a theologian, so I cannot disagree with with Van Noort, but I am free to chose other opinions.

Which Pope then did not disagree or remain silent on traditionalist consecrations, therefore given implicit and not expressed consent?

The original consecrators had that assent and the apostolic mission which the passed on. They form the only body of Catholic bishops in existence. And they submit to the Papacy any any Pope should we get one.

If you are arguing from the SV perspective the other conclusion is that the Apostolic Church has gone bye bye.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #22 on:** September 28, 2012, 12:16:49 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The original consecrators had that assent and the apostolic mission which the(y) passed on. They form the only body of Catholic bishops in existence. And they submit to the Papacy any any Pope should we get one.

If you are arguing from the SV perspective the other conclusion is that the Apostolic Church has gone bye bye.

I believe the main problem then lies in the clause which I marked. Is there any magisterial docuмent or extract from a theological treatise, which mentions that apostolic mission can be passed on by Bishops?

SJB · « **Reply #23 on:** September 28, 2012, 12:44:02 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: Pyrrhos
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Now we see that you do not agree with Van Noort whereas before I thought you indicated that you would be loath to disagree with him. So we, according to you, have giant theologians disagreeing on the interpretation, yet I must accept de fide what laymen of our day such as John Lane posit as the correct and unquestionable interpretation.

No innovations, we are looking at what has been presented as "proof" to the contary by Van Noort and Pius XII. We look at their exact words and do not find them saying the consent, by doctrine, must be explicit, and they cannot because history would prove them wrong. In ancient times Bishops with full jurisdiction were consecrated without the expressed consent of Popes yet the doctrine which you believe you are defending was always true.

Arguing about explicit or implicit consent is absolutely not necessary, because the implicit consent is still necessary, all theologians agree. I am not a theologian, so I cannot disagree with with Van Noort, but I am free to chose other opinions.

Which Pope then did not disagree or remain silent on traditionalist consecrations, therefore given implicit and not expressed consent?

The original consecrators had that assent and the apostolic mission which the passed on.

This has been shown multiple times to be false.

Quote

They form the only body of Catholic bishops in existence. And they submit to the Papacy any any Pope should we get one.

Are you backing away from the "papal election" called for by Mr. Ruby?

Quote

If you are arguing from the SV perspective the other conclusion is that the Apostolic Church has gone bye bye.

Not at all, we're just not willing to adopt an error or heresy to explain the crisis.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #24 on:** September 28, 2012, 01:30:10 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: Pyrrhos
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Now we see that you do not agree with Van Noort whereas before I thought you indicated that you would be loath to disagree with him. So we, according to you, have giant theologians disagreeing on the interpretation, yet I must accept de fide what laymen of our day such as John Lane posit as the correct and unquestionable interpretation.

No innovations, we are looking at what has been presented as "proof" to the contary by Van Noort and Pius XII. We look at their exact words and do not find them saying the consent, by doctrine, must be explicit, and they cannot because history would prove them wrong. In ancient times Bishops with full jurisdiction were consecrated without the expressed consent of Popes yet the doctrine which you believe you are defending was always true.

Arguing about explicit or implicit consent is absolutely not necessary, because the implicit consent is still necessary, all theologians agree. I am not a theologian, so I cannot disagree with with Van Noort, but I am free to chose other opinions.

Which Pope then did not disagree or remain silent on traditionalist consecrations, therefore given implicit and not expressed consent?

The original consecrators had that assent and the apostolic mission which the passed on.

This has been shown multiple times to be false.

Quote
They form the only body of Catholic bishops in existence. And they submit to the Papacy any any Pope should we get one.

Are you backing away from the "papal election" called for by Mr. Ruby?

Quote
If you are arguing from the SV perspective the other conclusion is that the Apostolic Church has gone bye bye.

Not at all, we're just not willing to adopt an error or heresy to explain the crisis.

I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

Also, will you eventually respond to my question about whether it is possible for a Pope to be elected or if we have to wait for a miracle?