Author Topic: Archbishop Thuc - Consecrations (Read 30841 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #75 on:** February 12, 2012, 07:26:01 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Don't be dense. I did ask you to explain how the doctrine of necessity doesn't take the decisions out of the pope's hands.

Yeah, and I told you you could read all about it in this forum's library in the article titled, On the a doctrine of Necessity, and then to please explain why all the saints and Doctors quoted therein are wrong.

So again, what Are you waiting for???

:ready-to-eat:

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #76 on:** February 12, 2012, 07:31:59 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: Seraphim

It seems to describe your personal position, does it not?

Not in the least. Sedevacantism does not recognize Benedict XVI as the Pope. That's an entirely different thing. That is the only reason we do not submit to him. The essence of schism is to refuse submission to someone who is recognized to be the Pope. You could, in theory, accuse sedevacantists of being wrong about who the Pope is (heck, saints have been wrong on that!) - but you could not accuse them of the sin of schism.

The point being that you accuse others of schism without knowing what schism

Interesting: You can avoid schism by simply refusing to acknowledge the pope (which is the traditional definition of schism)!

And you want to accuse the SsPX of using necessity in a convenient way???

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #77 on:** February 12, 2012, 07:36:45 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Quote from: Seraphim

The ignorance manifest in your response only demonstrates your failure to read the article on necessity, leaving you willfully ignorant in the matter.

I'm sorry, but I don't know which article you are referring to. Please give me the link or the post number where it's linked. I would be more than happy to interact with it. Who wrote it, and when?

Quote

Had you read it, you would not have made such a foolish comment purporting to limit the scope of the excusing cause of necessity against juridical and doctrinal acts of the pope.

We'll see just how "foolish" that was.

Quote

According to your rationale, St Athanasius would have either been forced to back Pope Liberius in his signing of the docuмent favoring Arianism, or declared the See of Rome vacant.

I prefer to take St. Robert Bellarmine's position on that:

"Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew [then] to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic."

(http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm.htm)

Nope.

Go to this forum's library and look it up like anyone else would.

Trinity · « **Reply #78 on:** February 12, 2012, 08:01:22 PM »

Katholikos scroll down the first page in the library and you will find it.

Just as I thought, Seraphim. You are a charlatan and big bag of hot air like SJB and that bunch. It's a mystery to me why you think you can come on here and sway everyone with your fancy footwork. I wasn't even entertained, much less persuaded of anything. You really are a deceitful person, you know, pretending to have viable arguments when you have nothing. Well, I'm not going to play your games any more so you might as well run along home. I hear your village has lost its idiot. TA!

SJB · « **Reply #79 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:16:23 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

Katholikos scroll down the first page in the library and you will find it.

Just as I thought, Seraphim. You are a charlatan and big bag of hot air like SJB and that bunch. It's a mystery to me why you think you can come on here and sway everyone with your fancy footwork. I wasn't even entertained, much less persuaded of anything. You really are a deceitful person, you know, pretending to have viable arguments when you have nothing. Well, I'm not going to play your games any more so you might as well run along home. I hear your village has lost its idiot. TA!

Well Mary, its comforting to know cathinfo hasn't lost you as it's village idiot. Imagine how proud Cupertino must feel knowing you're on his team. :rolleyes:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #80 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:17:37 PM »

Quote from: katholikos

Since the death of Pope Pius XII, we've found ourselves in an unprecedented and very difficult situation. Many good people tried to do the right thing, but they went back and forth between what to believe and what to do, because no matter what they did, they encountered problems. Regardless of what ABL may have done or intended to do, the facts, after over 50 years of this mess, are that the SSPX-type "resistance" position is not tenable because contradictory, and ditto for the Novus Ordo and indult/motu positions. Sedevacantism remains as the only possible position, without contradictions, though it does have its problems.

I wasn't so much talking about ABL's position, I was just saying that it is absurd to refer to ABL and the Society as a cult and say ABL was a "confused and contradictive figure".

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #81 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:22:34 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Well Mary, its comforting to know cathinfo hasn't lost you as it's village idiot.

I think it's quite pathetic that you resort to calling a woman "a village idiot". You are so uncharitable it's disgusting, and what's sad is that you play innocent. Back in August you intentionally kept mis-spelling Daegus' screen-name as "Dogus" and then acted shocked when he picked back at your screen-name.

SJB · « **Reply #82 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:35:19 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: SJB
Well Mary, its comforting to know cathinfo hasn't lost you as it's village idiot.

I think it's quite pathetic that you resort to calling a woman "a village idiot". You are so uncharitable it's disgusting, and what's sad is that you play innocent. Back in August you intentionally kept mis-spelling Daegus' screen-name as "Dogus" and then acted shocked when he picked back at your screen-name.

Then don't give her a pass to make these types of comments to others.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #83 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:37:46 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Then don't give her a pass to make these types of comments to others.

What was that you were griping at me about a few months ago about how I shouldn't go around correcting everyone? I sense a double standard. Furthermore, her comment was not the same as yours.

SJB · « **Reply #84 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:45:06 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: SJB
Then don't give her a pass to make these types of comments to others.

What was that you were griping at me about a few months ago about how I shouldn't go around correcting everyone? I sense a double standard. Furthermore, her comment was not the same as yours.

You either need thicker skin or you just like to complain about me. I'm not sure which, to be honest.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #85 on:** February 12, 2012, 09:46:47 PM »

Quote from: SJB

You either need thicker skin or you just like to complain about me. I'm not sure which, to be honest.

Neither. :)

A Blessed Sunday to all.

God Bless.

Nishant · « **Reply #86 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:33:45 AM »

Quote from: katholikos

I think that's funny. The essence of the sin of schism is refusing to properly submit to the person recognized to be the Roman Pontiff.

It is true that being mistaken about the identity of the Roman Pontiff does not by itself constitute schism (which pre-Vatican II theologians have held, and which is my considered opinion as well), but the difficulty is that this was only often granted by both sides practically in Church history when there were two or more visible claimants to the Petrine See, which is not currently the case. For example, St.Vincent Ferrer and St.Catherine of Sienna were found on different sides during the deplorable confusion of their day.

But if one can personally decide a succession of Popes are simply antiPopes with no Cardinals remaining, no identifiable visibility of the Church enduring, with no end in sight, frankly, I don't know. Where does it end?

The situation is exponentially more complicated and requires all sorts of things, including the divine promise, the indefectibility of the Roman Church, the visibility of the Church and several other dogmas to be taken account of.

This is why I think the Archbishop considered it imprudent and at best an uncertain or speculative position to be tolerated. As for the SSPX, epikeia and the doctrine of necessity is well founded. But even more than that, the 1983 code which would currently apply is so lax that one could argue, as Michael Davies I think successfully does, that the charge of schism cannot be made to stick.

Quote from: Cupertino

Why try to represent what he thought in 1979 when 7 years later (1986) he most clearly and publicly changed his mind?

Because all the reasons he offered for thinking so, ("The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades ... Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen?" all held as true in 1979 as they did in 1986 as they did after the deplorable events of Assisi, as they did after the Econe consecrations, as they did after the fallout with Rome, as they did at his death in 1991, as they do today and still "puts the Church into an inextricable situation"

Perhaps, Cupertino, you should consider that the Archbishop heard all the reasons you offer for sedevacantism and rejected them for reasons that you have not considered. Those closest to him can vouch that he never changed his mind inspite of, humanly speaking, being given every reason by his shoddy treatment, in favor of doing so.

Cardinal Ratzinger is reported to have said that among the two regrets of his life was what happened between Rome and the Society. Though I don't agree with the Archbishop on every count, inclining myself to the FSSP view, I believe as he did, and as the Society believes, that the difficulties started from Rome and the solution will come from Rome. And pretty much everyone whether FSSP or SSPV or one who is grateful for the Indult/Motu owes a debt of gratitude to them.

And whatever anyone may think, if Tradition flourishes today worldwide at least as much as it does, if Rome has recognized that the traditional Lass Mass was never abrogated, if today every priest is at least free de jure to celebrate the Tridentine form, then the glory redounds in the highest measure to the Society of Saint Pius X.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #87 on:** February 13, 2012, 06:18:22 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: Seraphim
On p. 506 of Bishop Tissier de Mallerais's "Marcel Lefebvre," we read the following:

"Perhaps one day in 30 or 40 years, a meeting of cardinals gathered together by a future pope will study and judge the reign of Paul VI; perhaps they will say that there were things that ought to have been clearly obvious to people at the time, statements of the pope that were clearly against tradition.

"At the moment I prefer to consider the man on the chair of Peter as pope, and if one day we discover for certain that the pope was not the pope, at least I will have done my duty."

According to that book, when did ABL actually pen these words?

Oh yes, now bishop Tissier is lying.

What some people won't do to protect their positions rather than learn the truth!

katholikos · « **Reply #88 on:** February 13, 2012, 04:54:10 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Interesting: You can avoid schism by simply refusing to acknowledge the pope (which is the traditional definition of schism)!

Excuse, but my position that Benedict XVI is the result of evaluating evidence in the light of Catholic principles and teachings. (You seem to insist, quite rashly, that I simply don't want him to be the Pope, and so therefore I have conveniently concluded he isn't. You don't even know me.)

But that wasn't the point. I am not trying to debate sedevacantism right now (though I'd be happy to do that with you privately if you like).

My point is merely to make you understand what schism is and isn't. The essence of schism includes that the man who is being refused submission to, be recognized as the Pope. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into your conception of things right now, but that's what schism is. That is part of the traditional definition of schism.

You can believe sedevacantists are wrong all you like, but schism is not a fair accusation. The schismatic refuses submission to a man he believes is the Pope. He who refuses submission to someone (whether Pope or not) because he does not believe him to be the Pope, may be right or wrong on that point, but he's not a schismatic. That's all I'm trying to say.

“Finally, one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected (as happened after the election of Urban VI), or who would resist him as a civil authority and not as pastor of the Church.” (Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicuм [Rome: Gregorian 1937], 7:398.)

katholikos · « **Reply #89 on:** February 13, 2012, 05:00:23 PM »

Quote from: Seraphim

Nope.

Go to this forum's library and look it up like anyone else would.

Boy, your attitude is just exuding Christian charity, huh? Excuse me, but I am not a regular visitor to this forum, and as you can see by the number of my posts, have hardly posted anything. I don't know how things work here. I just now, based upon your kind direction, saw there is a library. I see that the article on the "doctrine of necessity," as you call it, is simply the old theological study put out by the SSPX over 10 years ago.

Well, I will be happy to discuss it with you, but privately, not publicly. The reason is simply that if I do it publicly, there will be a plethora of responses, comments, counter-responses, etc., and I can kiss life as I know it good-bye. It will become a never-ending hydra of postings.