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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16

Author Topic: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies  (Read 20205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8316
  • Reputation: +4706/-754
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    • Twitter
Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
« Reply #195 on: January 25, 2022, 04:49:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 25, 2022, 02:29:51 PM
    BTW, in case people haven't noticed, Giacomo = Boca
    No doubt. :popcorn:
    Logged
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline Prayerful

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1002
    • Reputation: +354/-59
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #196 on: January 25, 2022, 06:05:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Giacomo - Boca was the Pistrina Liturgica guy? He really didn't like Fr Cekada RIP or Bp Dolan, and seemed to hate them to a degree which was unreasoning. Perhaps they plagiarised part of a St Lawrence Press Ordo, perhaps Bp Dolan made some mistakes in his newsletter, but he was running like three anti-Cekada blogs. I guess he resigned or was dismissed as maybe a teacher or even priest, judging from my memory of its text. It seemed a bit excessive.
    Logged

    Offline Giacomo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 17
    • Reputation: +24/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #197 on: January 25, 2022, 06:27:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • No, Ladislaus. In your reply #207, you are wrong, and you obviously have not read and digested the 36-page Pistrina refutation of Cekada's failed effort as well as Sacramentum Ordinis. Put very simply, Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution is an infallible papal declaration that applies only to the Roman rite. Pius specifically decreed that both hands constituted the matter of the sacrament of priestly ordination in said rite. Less than two hands = a defect in the sacrament. Inasmuch as the Church has not definitively pronounced on question of whether a one-handed sacerdotal ordination is valid or invalid, such a defective ordination is therefore doubtful. And a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all. Case closed -- at least until a restored Church decides to settle the question for good. In the meantime, faithful Catholics will avoid receiving sacraments from anyone so ordained (and anyone on whom such a person has conferred holy orders).
     
    And Emile, in your reply #209, you have borne out what I’ve said about those who do not bother to seek the truth. You only needed to pay a nominal fee (to Scribd) to find out – but you don’t want to take that step, because you’re really not interested in seeking the truth.  Thank you for proving my point. 
    Logged

    Offline Emile

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2166
    • Reputation: +1511/-85
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #198 on: January 25, 2022, 07:12:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giacomo on January 25, 2022, 06:27:48 PM
    And Emile, in your reply #209, you have borne out what I’ve said about those who do not bother to seek the truth. You only needed to pay a nominal fee (to Scribd) to find out – but you don’t want to take that step, because you’re really not interested in seeking the truth.  Thank you for proving my point.
    :laugh1::laugh1:
    You won't take a few minutes to post what you would like us all to read?

    Thank you for verifying for me that you are not really interested in the truth of the matter (whether a one-handed ordination is valid or no) but are motivated primarily by a desire for revenge.

    In all seriousness though, I really have seen people waste years, even decades, of their lives letting themselves be consumed with vengeance. After a time it becomes part of who they are; they lose themselves and become their hatred. (Melancholics seem prone, I suppose because we have a tendency to replay events over and over in our mind to the point of losing sight of all else.)

    Whatever +Dolan, et al. did or did not do is definitely NOT worth your soul. The temptation of desire-for-revenge is just a cross that you have to bear, many others have more difficult burdens. Don't waste any more time, one does not know how much is left.

    P.S. As much as it stings your pride, you do have friends that really care and want to help.

    :pray:  I request everyone reading this to pray for all involved. :pray:
    Logged
    Patience is a conquering virtue. The learned say that, if it not desert you, It vanquishes what force can never reach; Why answer back at every angry speech? No, learn forbearance or, I'll tell you what, You will be taught it, whether you will or not.
    -Geoffrey Chaucer

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #199 on: January 25, 2022, 07:48:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giacomo on January 25, 2022, 06:27:48 PM
    Inasmuch as the Church has not definitively pronounced on question of whether a one-handed sacerdotal ordination is valid or invalid, such a defective ordination is therefore doubtful.

    Nope.  It's a defect in the Roman Rite, but since it's valid in the Eastern, it's not an essential defect; otherwise the Eastern Rite would not be valid either.  Run along now, Boca.
    Logged

    Offline Marcellinus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 116
    • Reputation: +99/-14
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #200 on: January 25, 2022, 09:24:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 25, 2022, 07:48:22 PM
    Nope.  It's a defect in the Roman Rite, but since it's valid in the Eastern, it's not an essential defect; otherwise the Eastern Rite would not be valid either.  Run along now, Boca.
    Me thinks the Lay Pulpit may be lurking around along with Pistrina...
    Logged

    Offline Marion

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1867
    • Reputation: +759/-1134
    • Gender: Male
    • sedem ablata
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #201 on: January 25, 2022, 09:48:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Marcellinus on January 25, 2022, 09:24:23 PM
    Me thinks the Lay Pulpit may be lurking around along with Pistrina...


    Normal in these times, when there is no apostolic mandate.
    Logged
    That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church. (Dei Filius)

    Offline Giacomo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 17
    • Reputation: +24/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #202 on: January 28, 2022, 03:00:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Emile, in your reply #216, you have done it again: instead of making a sincere, open-minded effort to evaluate one’s position based on its merits, you went the “ad hominem” route and chose to attack me personally, asserting that I am “motivated primarily by a desire for revenge.”  “Revenge”?  Against whom?  I referred you to a site that – if you were genuinely interested in finding out the truth -- you could investigate.  It is a “pay” site (and the “link” is very lengthy), so it would take several posts (and more than your alleged “a few minutes”) to get it all in (as there is a “word limit” for each post) – and I didn’t want to fill up Matthew’s blog with a whole series of “posts.”  It just wasn’t feasible.  No, “revenge” had nothing to do with it (nor do I know who is supposed to be the target of my so-called “revenge”).  Again, it was about feasibility.  So, Emile, it seems that it is you who are “consumed with vengeance,” fabricating (and leveling) such a fanciful accusation against me.   
    Logged

    Offline Emile

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2166
    • Reputation: +1511/-85
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #203 on: January 28, 2022, 04:15:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Giacomo on January 28, 2022, 03:00:03 PM
    Emile, in your reply #216, you have done it again: instead of making a sincere, open-minded effort to evaluate one’s position based on its merits, you went the “ad hominem” route and chose to attack me personally, asserting that I am “motivated primarily by a desire for revenge.”  “Revenge”?  Against whom?  I referred you to a site that – if you were genuinely interested in finding out the truth -- you could investigate.  It is a “pay” site (and the “link” is very lengthy), so it would take several posts (and more than your alleged “a few minutes”) to get it all in (as there is a “word limit” for each post) – and I didn’t want to fill up Matthew’s blog with a whole series of “posts.”  It just wasn’t feasible.  No, “revenge” had nothing to do with it (nor do I know who is supposed to be the target of my so-called “revenge”).  Again, it was about feasibility.  So, Emile, it seems that it is you who are “consumed with vengeance,” fabricating (and leveling) such a fanciful accusation against me. 
    :confused: Uh, you do know that you can attach a PDF file to a post, don't you? It really would only take minutes.
    Logged
    Patience is a conquering virtue. The learned say that, if it not desert you, It vanquishes what force can never reach; Why answer back at every angry speech? No, learn forbearance or, I'll tell you what, You will be taught it, whether you will or not.
    -Geoffrey Chaucer

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #204 on: January 28, 2022, 04:29:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 25, 2022, 02:29:51 PM
    BTW, in case people haven't noticed, Giacomo = Boca

    I know them both and you are wrong.  C'est la vie.

    Two accounts, two very different people.
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #205 on: January 28, 2022, 04:30:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Prayerful on January 25, 2022, 06:05:51 PM
     I guess he resigned or was dismissed as maybe a teacher or even priest, judging from my memory of its text.

    :laugh1:  Not even close.
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #206 on: January 28, 2022, 04:31:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DigitalLogos on January 25, 2022, 04:49:52 PM
    No doubt. :popcorn:

    100% doubt, as it is nonsense.
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4187
    • Reputation: +2431/-557
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #207 on: January 28, 2022, 04:48:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 25, 2022, 07:48:22 PM
    Nope.  It's a defect in the Roman Rite, but since it's valid in the Eastern, it's not an essential defect; otherwise the Eastern Rite would not be valid either.  Run along now, Boca.


    Just an aside, a major reason that Sacramentum Ordinis was issued was to allay doubts that the ordained person may have regarding the validity of his ordination. Also, there is no getting around this text from Sacramentum Ordinis:

    ”That no occasion for doubt may be offered, we command that in any conferring of orders the imposition of hands be made by physically touching the head of the one to be ordained, although even the moral touch suffices for performing a sacrament validly." (Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, DS 3861 [Dz. 2301]).”

    This is so pathetically silly!
    Logged
    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41868
    • Reputation: +23920/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #208 on: January 28, 2022, 04:51:34 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: gladius_veritatis on January 28, 2022, 04:31:19 PM
    100% doubt, as it is nonsense.

    In either case, they’re joined at the hip.  One gets banned and the other immediately surfaces spouting the same nonsense.
    Logged

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8017
    • Reputation: +2452/-1105
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dolan v. Sanborn - Bp. Sanborn replies
    « Reply #209 on: January 28, 2022, 04:57:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 28, 2022, 04:51:34 PM
    In either case, they’re joined at the hip.  One gets banned and the other immediately surfaces spouting the same nonsense.

    While that may or may not be the case, your previous comment, uttered with a great deal of certitude, is false. 
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."
    Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16
    « previous next »