Author Topic: FOR AMBROSE (Read 5548 times)

SJB · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2013, 08:00:28 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: SJB
Quote
Griff himself gives an explanation as to why many, most have not consider or do not believe they have Jurisdiction.

Because they simply cannot. They don't even claim the office in competition with the conciliar bishop.

Lefebvre was a formal Apostolic Bishop. According to his rational he became an un formal apostolic bishop because of he relation or lack thereof to the NO?

It doesn't make sense.

Those who kept the faith and past on Apostolic Succession are the Church, not those who left it and hold the physical buildings.

Lefebvre WAS a true successor to the apostles and he was well educated in the Church. He cannot transmit his office though. Those who hold the offices which have jurisdiction attached. This has nothing to do with who has the keys to the buildings.

Do you really want someone like Cekada to have an office and command authority. He's not even an honest decent man and he isn't well trained. He's good at telling people he is brilliant (referred to as " the greatest theologian in the Church today" in a satellite chapel) but he's not.

Cathedra · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2013, 09:50:45 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: SJB
Quote
Griff himself gives an explanation as to why many, most have not consider or do not believe they have Jurisdiction.

Because they simply cannot. They don't even claim the office in competition with the conciliar bishop.

Lefebvre was a formal Apostolic Bishop. According to his rational he became an un formal apostolic bishop because of he relation or lack thereof to the NO?

It doesn't make sense.

Those who kept the faith and past on Apostolic Succession are the Church, not those who left it and hold the physical buildings.

Lefebvre WAS a true successor to the apostles and he was well educated in the Church. He cannot transmit his office though. Those who hold the offices which have jurisdiction attached. This has nothing to do with who has the keys to the buildings.

Do you really want someone like Cekada to have an office and command authority. He's not even an honest decent man and he isn't well trained. He's good at telling people he is brilliant (referred to as " the greatest theologian in the Church today" in a satellite chapel) but he's not.

Ok, since you are the only enlightened one, why don't you cut to the chase and tell us what is it exactly that YOU believe in and how things precisely stand today?

Tell me,

1- Can public heretics and apostates possess jurisdiction, and are they successors of the Apostles?

2- Do Kasper, Levada, Koch, Mueller and other apostates in the Vatican, possess jurisdiction, and are they valid successors of the Apostles?

3- If not, then wouldn't this implicate the "popes" as well since they hold to the same heresies and apostasy and since all the things that these men did were right under the noses of the v-2 "popes" and there's no way they don't know about it?

4- Does the Novus Ordo possess the 4 marks, and especially, Apostolicity?

5- Does this whole "problem" of jurisdiction, somehow eliminate and does away with the Vatican II apostasy, and all the heresies and errors of Vatican II? Does it "legitimize" and "makes Catholic" the Vatican II religion and its antipopes?

SJB · « **Reply #17 on:** August 23, 2013, 10:12:16 AM »

Quote from: Cathedra

Ok, since you are the only enlightened one, why don't you cut to the chase and tell us what is it exactly that YOU believe in and how things precisely stand today?

5- Does this whole "problem" of jurisdiction, somehow eliminate and does away with the Vatican II apostasy, and all the heresies and errors of Vatican II? Does it "legitimize" and "makes Catholic" the Vatican II religion and its antipopes?

The crisis does not modify Catholic doctrine concerning the nature of the Church and the nature of jurisdiction any more than the "problem of jurisdiction" makes Vatican II and it's aftermath non-existent.

There are differing explanations (some not very good, I agree) for the crisis and all you can do is make your case and not judge others who are resisting the changes. You openly criticize those who resist, calling them "inconsistent" or "illogical" and you, like Cekada, even tell them to accept the errors if they say they are not sedevacantists.

Nishant · « **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2013, 12:37:22 PM »

This is for you, Cathedra.

Quote from: Gueranger, the Liturgical Year, Feb. 22

We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the Apostolic See, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate : it matters not ; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors. '.thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain/ gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her.

But He was not satisfied with this. He moreover willed that the spiritual power exercised by her pastors should come from a visible source, so that the faithful might have a sure means of verifying the claims of those who were to guide them in His name. Our Lord (we say it reverently) owed this to us; for, on the last day, He will not receive us as His children, unless we shall have been members of His Church, and have lived in union with Him by the ministry of pastors lawfully constituted. Honour, then, and submission to Jesus in His vicar! honour and submission to the vicar of Christ in the pastors he sends!

No bishop can claim a share in the power of the keys, the right to rule and the obedience of the faithful, unless he has received a demonstrable canonical mission from the Apostolic See. The role of bishops consecrated in an emergency situation under epikeia is something else entirely, which has already been amply demonstrated in this thread with several quotes from the said bishops themselves.

Cathedra · « **Reply #19 on:** August 23, 2013, 07:21:14 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Cathedra
Ok, since you are the only enlightened one, why don't you cut to the chase and tell us what is it exactly that YOU believe in and how things precisely stand today?

5- Does this whole "problem" of jurisdiction, somehow eliminate and does away with the Vatican II apostasy, and all the heresies and errors of Vatican II? Does it "legitimize" and "makes Catholic" the Vatican II religion and its antipopes?

The crisis does not modify Catholic doctrine concerning the nature of the Church and the nature of jurisdiction any more than the "problem of jurisdiction" makes Vatican II and it's aftermath non-existent.

True.

But then you say,

Quote from: SJB

There are differing explanations (some not very good, I agree) for the crisis and all you can do is make your case and not judge others who are resisting the changes. You openly criticize those who resist, calling them "inconsistent" or "illogical" and you, like Cekada, even tell them to accept the errors if they say they are not sedevacantists.

I never tell anyone to accept anything false.

I shouldn't even be saying this but OBVIOUSLY, all the times i ask "why don't you obey your pope? why are you not in communion with your bishop? why do you avoid them? why do you not receive the novus ordo "sacraments"?" etc. etc. is to show the utter falsity of the r&r position.

It's called satire. Get it?

The fact is the r&r position has ZERO theological backing.

The sedevacantist has all of it.

And you get angry i don't approve of thinking "oh well, we can all believe whatever on this and we're both fine".

Think again.

Cathedra · « **Reply #20 on:** August 23, 2013, 08:29:32 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

This is for you, Cathedra.

For me why?

Look what it says:

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the Apostolic See, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority."

What hypocrisy.

You never answered to what i said in previous posts.

The Novus Ordo is missing all 4 marks, and especially, APOTOLICITY.

Quote from: Nishant

No bishop can claim a share in the power of the keys, the right to rule and the obedience of the faithful, unless he has received a demonstrable canonical mission from the Apostolic See.

There we go again.

You people are in such a dense spiritual fog it's incredible.

Nishant · « **Reply #21 on:** August 24, 2013, 03:33:42 PM »

Charming as ever, I see.

Cathedra, weren't you just bragging on the other thread how you alone are so open to the truth and being willing to learn while everyone else was so closed to it? This thread was specifically about the hierarchy. The fact that a canonical mission in the form of a Papal mandate is necessary obviously has unpleasant implications for those who wish to postulate an extended vacancy in the Holy See.

Your post is a non sequitur. Dom Gueranger says it is a necessary condition that they be sent, not that it is a sufficient condition, as if he or any author says jurisdiction cannot be lost. Nor does he say the right of bishops, which is a true right, is absolute, even if it remains, not even the right of the Pope is absolute, much less an individual bishop. Apostolicity as an external mark for bishops, closely linked to the Petrine succession, and is the primary consideration, it is like genealogical sucession from King David the Messiah would have as Christ did. it Yes, we agree Apostolicity of doctrine is not unimportant, and heresy or liberalism disqualifies a bishop from having a claim on our obedience. The faithful must protect themselves in these extraordinarily difficult times from ravenous wolves by seeking true shepherds to provide for their faith, sacraments and spiritual needs.

Cathedra · « **Reply #22 on:** August 24, 2013, 04:07:47 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Charming as ever, I see.

Cathedra, weren't you just bragging on the other thread how you alone are so open to the truth and being willing to learn while everyone else was so closed to it?

You bet i am, which is why i asked previously somewhere for anyone to show me what theologians, popes, saints etc. teach that you can "resist" the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church for decades; that you can declare that sacraments promulgated by the Church can be held as illegitimate or even doubtful; that you can reject and "resist" a Pope's laws, doctrine, discipline and liturgy.

THIS is what i'm asking. Don't start getting into the jurisdiction issue which has nothing to do with this.

Quote from: Nishant

This thread was specifically about the hierarchy. The fact that a canonical mission in the form of a Papal mandate is necessary obviously has unpleasant implications for those who wish to postulate an extended vacancy in the Holy See.

I already posted how it doesn't, and instead it's for people like you that it poses problems because you do not even submit to these people and act like they don't even exist anyways.

Quote from: Nishant

Your post is a non sequitur.

Ha!

A non sequitur eh? You quoted that to supposedly refute what i say, and when i point out that the very same quote instead refutes you, you say that is a non sequitur.

Here it is again:

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the Apostolic See, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority."

Do you "honor and obey" "Call me Jorge", Mueller, Kasper, Koch, Bertone, Sodano, Schonborn, etc.? Did you "honor and obey" Paul 6 to Benedict 16?

Quote from: Nishant

Yes, we agree Apostolicity of doctrine is not unimportant, and heresy or liberalism disqualifies a bishop from having a claim on our obedience. The faithful must protect themselves in these extraordinarily difficult times from ravenous wolves by seeking true shepherds to provide for their faith, sacraments and spiritual needs.

At least you kinda answered this time.

Ok, it is patently clear the Novus Ordo is missing all 4 marks, and especially Apostolicity, so why do you obstinately regard it as the true Church and it's "pope" as real Popes?

Nishant · « **Reply #23 on:** August 24, 2013, 04:30:25 PM »

Quote from: Cathedra

You bet i am, which is why i asked previously somewhere for anyone to show me what theologians, popes, saints etc. teach that you can "resist" the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church for decades; that you can declare that sacraments promulgated by the Church can be held as illegitimate or even doubtful; that you can reject and "resist" a Pope's laws, doctrine, discipline and liturgy.

This thread is about the hierarchy. As to your question above, I'll bump your old thread and answer you in a while. Per usual, in that thread, you misrepresented, misunderstood or misconstrued almost everything Fr. Scott said in the article I gave you from beginning to end, confusing negative and positive doubt, not distinguishing validity and legitimacy, the integrity and essence of the sacramental form etc. Why was I not surprised?

Quote

Here it is again

I already answered their right to be honored and obeyed is a true right but not an absolute right. It is contingent on the fulfillment of their duties in safeguarding the deposit of faith and never wavering from it.

Quote

At least you kinda answered this time.

Heh. You know, if absolutely everything you said was true, at most it would prove I'm inconsistent, it wouldn't prove your position is right. It's manifest that you haven't thought about any of these things in any way beyond the typical sedevacantist gripes with non-sede trads that you've read. Do you understand why Vatican I says it is a dogma that St. Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the Church? Have you ever pondered the necessary and inseparable links between the formal Apostolic succession and the actual Petrine succession? Let me ask, do you think there is a point beyond which an interregnum cannot be extended, or do you think an indefinite interregnum is possible? It really shouldn't be too difficult, even for you, to see how that postulate necessitates the eventual disappearance of the hierarchy. That is how and why Peter will have perpetual successors and that constrains the maximum length an interregnum can take. That is one of the many reasons the SSPX is not sedevacantist.

Of course you don't want to do these things. You'd much rather go around telling people they're bad willed because they don't listen to you, that they're obstinate because they can see what you cannot, that they're soft sedevacantists because they're not dogmatic sedevacantists like you and what not.

Cathedra · « **Reply #24 on:** August 24, 2013, 05:11:06 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Quote from: Cathedra
You bet i am, which is why i asked previously somewhere for anyone to show me what theologians, popes, saints etc. teach that you can "resist" the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church for decades; that you can declare that sacraments promulgated by the Church can be held as illegitimate or even doubtful; that you can reject and "resist" a Pope's laws, doctrine, discipline and liturgy.

This thread is about the hierarchy. As to your question above, I'll bump your old thread and answer you in a while.

By all means do that, i will be waiting.

Quote from: Nishant

Per usual, in that thread, you misrepresented, misunderstood or misconstrued almost everything Fr. Scott said in the article I gave you from beginning to end, confusing negative and positive doubt, not distinguishing validity and legitimacy, the integrity and essence of the sacramental form etc. Why was I not surprised?

I did no such thing, but if you say i did, prove it.

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
Here it is again

I already answered their right to be honored and obeyed is a true right but not an absolute right. It is contingent on the fulfillment of their duties in safeguarding the deposit of faith and never wavering from it.

Exactly. Note the bolded part.

And it is precisely because these men apostatized and did not fulfill their duties (if they ever had such a duty to begin with) and because they did not and do not safeguard the deposit of Faith and most certainly wavered and do waver from it that they are not Catholic, have no authority and do not represent the Church and cannot be considered to do so.

This is just public heresy and apostasy of course, which automatically and without any declaration expels and did expel them from the Church.

Quote from: Nishant

Quote
At least you kinda answered this time.

Heh. You know, if absolutely everything you said was true, at most it would prove I'm inconsistent, it wouldn't prove your position is right. It's manifest that you haven't thought about any of these things in any way beyond the typical sedevacantist gripes with non-sede trads that you've read.

As a matter of fact i have, and i do every day.

Quote from: Nishant

Do you understand why Vatican I says it is a dogma that St. Peter will have perpetual successors in the primacy over the Church?

Yes because some heretics said that the power of the primacy died with St. Peter and any valid Pope did not hold the power.

Quote from: Nishant

Have you ever pondered the necessary and inseparable links between the formal Apostolic succession and the actual Petrine succession?

Yes.

Quote from: Nishant

Let me ask, do you think there is a point beyond which an interregnum cannot be extended, or do you think an indefinite interregnum is possible?

The Church has never defined how long interregnums have to last, and even Fr. O Reilley said it could last for decades and there would be no problem, but antisedevacantists sure think they have the authority to define how long they are to last eh?

Quote from: Nishant

It really shouldn't be too difficult, even for you, to see how that postulate necessitates the eventual disappearance of the hierarchy.

No it doesn't and what Cekada said about this proves it.

Quote from: Nishant

That is how and why Peter will have perpetual successors and that constrains the maximum length an interregnum can take. That is one of the many reasons the SSPX is not sedevacantist.

Now you only said "perpetual successors", giving the impression that there ALWAYS has to be a Pope, but omitted "in the primacy", which is what Vatican I said.

In the process you also put a limit on interregnums, something which even the Church has never done.

So we see that "reason" the sspx rejects sv is just invalid.

Quote from: Nishant

Of course you don't want to do these things. You'd much rather go around telling people they're bad willed because they don't listen to you, that they're obstinate because they can see what you cannot, that they're soft sedevacantists because they're not dogmatic sedevacantists like you and what not.

Like i said i do this every day and i am always seeking to learn more.

I go by the facts and the facts are against r&r, simple as that.

If they would be in favor of it, i would be r&r, but the fact is that they're not.

Matto · « **Reply #25 on:** August 24, 2013, 05:14:55 PM »

I have a question for you, Cathedra. Who, among all the bishops, has ordinary jurisdiction and is therefore a successor of the apostles?

Cathedra · « **Reply #26 on:** August 24, 2013, 05:35:08 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I have a question for you, Cathedra. Who, among all the bishops, has ordinary jurisdiction and is therefore a successor of the apostles?

I've already said i don't know.

Do you?

By the way, how is it that John Lane got banned from ignis ardens, but Cekada is still there? :confused1:

Come to think of it, what is Cekada doing there in the first place, and how was he even allowed there?

Matto · « **Reply #27 on:** August 24, 2013, 05:36:35 PM »

Quote from: Cathedra

I've already said i don't know.

Do you?

No I don't know either, but I believe that there has to be some bishops with jurisdiction.

Cathedra · « **Reply #28 on:** August 24, 2013, 05:40:15 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Cathedra

I've already said i don't know.

Do you?

No I don't know either, but I believe that there has to be some bishops with jurisdiction.

I'm not entirely sure about that, but i don't reject it either.

All im saying is that this doesn't legitimize the v-2 antipopes and the novus ordo since they don't have it either.

Ambrose · « **Reply #29 on:** September 13, 2013, 02:20:00 AM »

LoT wrote:

Quote

I am open. I have nothing invested in one opinion or the other. I just want the truth and I know this is a topic that I am woefully unqualified to speak. Please help me here. If anyone can and will do it it is you. If you prefer to PM that will be fine as well. Whatever works best for you.

LoT,

I apologize for the lengthy delay in answering you. You caught me at a very busy time when you posted this, and answering this point will take some time.

It is very edifying for me to hear of your openness to the truth. I hope that the truth will come out in this discussion. I have no need for PM, nothing here is personal or private. If Griff Ruby wishes to personally discuss this with me on this forum, I am open to that as well.

Griff Ruby wrote:

Quote

We traditional Catholics ARE the Church; the Holy Ghost is with us, and only us, in that special manner promised to the Saints upon the ascension of our Lord: I will be with you always! Our prayers, and no one else's, have the power and authority to bring about wondrous Apostolic miracles, to drive out the demons, to break the satanic strongholds, to deliver whole nations from bondage to sin. So what goes wrong? What is our failure, or our sin, that God should punish those of us who alone comprise His Own true Church with such distressing troubles as ought to not ever take place among what saints we are?

After reading Mr. Ruby's lengthy article, I must say that this is the beginning of the problem. There is no such thing as a traditional Catholic, all Catholics are traditional. Does he mean that only Catholics who attend SSPX, CMRI, other groups and independent priests are the only Catholics? That appears to be his meaning.

Does Mr. Ruby believe that Catholics duped by the Conciliar church are outside the Church? If so, under what principle does he derive this conclusion?

A Catholic cannot lose his membership in the Church except for very specific reasons. Erroneous adherence to an antipope is not one of them. If a man believes the Catholic Faith, and attends the Novus Ordo believing it to be the Mass, he is a Catholic.

If a bishop professes the Catholic Faith, believes in the claim of the antipope, and even says the Novus Ordo, that would not mean that he is outside the Church. The Conciliar church is not a condemned sect. A Catholic, even a bishop, could fail to identify that a split has happened, and that on December 7, 1965, a sect was formed.

Only those bishops, priests and laity that have willfully and knowingly separated themselves from the Church by adhering that this new sect can be guilty of schism. Only those who have publicly professed heretical teachings while knowing that there is a conflict between their propositions and the teaching of the Church, can have fallen away due to heresy.

For example, if a bishop believes the Catholic Faith, but states that he accepts Vatican II, but does not believe any heresy, he has not lost his membership in the Church. Hersey is a direct denial of a de fide teaching. Secondly, if a bishop adopted error, but not heresy, he might be guilty of mortal sin, but he would not be a heretic, and would not be outside the Church or deprived of his office.

What may surprise you is that in my opinion, most Catholics still reside under the structure of the Conciliar church. We are not the majority, we are the minority. These Catholics are victims of a great crime, they have been robbed, but I think that many of them have not knowingly adopted heretical propositions or willed that they separate from the Church.

If a Catholic is to lose his membership in the Church due to heresy, he must understand the conflict between his belief and the teaching of the Church. The conflict must be direct, it cannot be a secondary position derived through faulty logic. A heretic must deny a de fide teaching.

I highly doubt that Mr. Ruby has knowledge about every man and woman throughout the world who states that they are Catholic. Each baptized member of the Church has the right to his good name, and no private judgment should ever be formed against anyone unless the facts can lead to a moral certainty that the person is either a heretic or a schismatic.

Even if such a judgment could be made against any Catholic, whether he be a bishop, priest or layman, it would not bind anyone. Only the Church can publicly and blindingly judge.

The Catholics trapped under the Conciliar church cannot be judged as a group as the Conciliar Church has not yet been declared as a sect, and its leaders have not yet been excommunicated. So long as Catholics in this situation believe the Faith, and maintain unity with the Church, they remain Catholics.

The hierarchy is made up of those bishops who possess a mission from the Church who have not lost their offices due to heresy or schism.