LoT wrote:
We are talking about Bishops in the Novus Ordo structure that we know nothing about either way except that they are in the Novus Ordo structure.
You have brought them up. I speculate as none of us knows anything about them except that they are very old and had proper theological training but did not resist as the other four bishops did.
They are living under the structure of the Conciliar church, but not necessarily adhering to the sect. There is a difference. Let me ask you, where was the Church in the A.D. 1966?
There is no proof that they are adhering to the sect or that they are heretics. The Conciliar church is not a condemned sect and many Catholics who still have the faith, fail to recognize that a split has occurred.
Is this calumny and detraction. This debate can quickly dissolve into an accusation fest against each other.
I never said detraction, only calumny. Calumny is defined as "the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty." (1908 CE). I also do not see this as a debate. You said you were open to the truth, and that is the only reason I am discussing this with you. I also said that I do not believe that you are guilty of calumny, I believe that you have not reflected on the implications of the position you hold.
You can't prove they are traditional, I can't prove that they are NO. The only thing that weighs the speculation on one side or the other is the unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty. they officially have resided in the Novus Ordo structure since its inception. Whose assumption would seem incorrect to the unbiased observer?
The terms "traditional" and "Novus Ordo" are vague. They are either heretics, schismatics or apostates or they are not. If these bishops have kept the Faith, and have not embraced heresy, they are still Catholic, and by that retain their offices.
Any unbiased observer who is just would suspend judgment on the matter until he has reviewed the evidence of a case for heresy. If he was just, he would not assume anything until the facts are clear. The fact that these bishops have remained under a string of heretical antipopes, does not in and of itself mean that they are heretics. There must be more than this, it is not enough. Justice demands that the accuser can demonstrate that these bishops adhere to heretical propositions, (beliefs contrary to
de fide teachings of the Church.)
1. The Bishops in the Novus Ordo structure are probably not Novus Ordo
2. The Bishops in the Novus Ordo structure are not Novus Ordo
Again, this terminology is vague. Are these bishops still Catholic or have they defected into heresy? If they are heretics, and one is ready to accuse them of it, he needs to put forth his specific accusation stating the dogma they are denying and the evidence to support it.
Is my speculation that does not accuse anyone of anything so out of line? Again I think we have to move past that point if you are going to suggest that #1 is calumny.
We can move past this if you will admit that there is no reason to believe at present that any bishops who make up the hierarchy are heretics. Do you also agree that they have the right to their good names and that the charge of heresy against them cannot be assumed?
So we are clear, I am not interested in the possible charge against them that they are derelict in their duties. I am not accusing them of this, but it is irrelevant. Dereliction of duty does not cause the immediate loss of office as heresy does. That would be a charge that a future pope can make against them in this world, and a charge they will have to answer for at their judgment.
Th only charges that are important to our discussion are heresy, schism, and apostasy, as these involve the
ipso facto loss of their offices prior to the judgment of the Church.
Do you agree if we could prove they are Novus Ordo that they would have lost their formal apostolic succession and no longer be members of the Church? Would you insist that they still have jurisdiction?
Again this is vague. If you can prove that any of them individually are heretics, schismatics or apostates, then I will most certainly agree that they are outside the Church and have lost their offices. i would have to have moral certainty that they are guilty of these crimes, with no reasonable excusing factor. As i have said previously, I have yet to see a case against any of them.
Can we move on or is this debate over before it had a chance to get off the ground?
I never agreed to a debate. You asked me to convince you, and that you were open to the truth. You are putting forth good questions, and I am answering all of them as quickly as I can. Also, whether you realize it or not, we have covered a lot of ground already.
One of the main points of Mr. Ruby's theory relies on the absence of the hierarchy, those bishops who are lawfully sent. I am attempting to show you that Mr. Ruby or yourself cannot "assume" these bishops out of the Church.
I am hoping that once you recognize who the hierarchy are, that we will be on solid ground to demonstrate who the hierarchy are not.
If we knew nothing about Bishop Pivuranus other than he resides in traditional circles would we accuse someone who concluded he was a traditional bishop of crossing some line or making an assumption he could not prove?
No, we can make assumptions, just not assumptions that include that someone is guilty of a crime. I can assume tomorrow will be a sunny day, but I cannot assume that Bishop X is a heretic.
How can we base what type of Bishops they are if we can't go by what Church they reside in?
The Conciliar church is not a condemned sect. It is a sect that has poorly counterfeited the Church in a.universal way. If any Catholic fails to identify this sect and remains in it thinking it is the Church, he is not guilty of schism. So long as the Catholics in question keep the Faith, they keep their membership in the Church.
I would think you need to either grant my point or we will just agree to disagree. May point is not that they are definitely NO bishops but that it would seem they are by the Church they have resided in since its inception. We would agree that they did not resist like Thuc or Lefebvre. What are we to think? If we think anything. You brought them up so what are we to think?
Archbishop Thuc did not initially resist the Conciliar church, he fully adhered to it. By saying that I am not accusing him of heresy, just that he did not resist until many years later.
The same for Archbishop Lefebvre, although he began his resistance much sooner than Thuc. He tried very hard to remain under Paul VI, and even sought and obtained approval to begin the Society.
You ask, what are we to think. The answer is this: The hierarchy has remained intact throughout the entire crisis. They are less visible than the hierarchy was previously, but they are visible. A Catholic who seeks to find them, with enough resources and effort could locate them. They have always remained visible throughout the crisis. They have been with us all along, but they are disoriented.
It is a test of Faith for us to believe that despite all appearances that the Church has remained essentially intact, with its hierarchy not destroyed, and the diocese of Rome not defecting.
In order to accept this, all assumptions of guilt regarding the remaining members of the hierarchy must be discarded. We must behave as Catholics and use the methods of identifying heresy that the Church has taught us, and not presume that any baptized Catholic has fallen into heresy, especially the hierarchy.
Your point, it seems, hinges on:
We know they exist but they are not what they seem. It is not clear why they did not resist as Lefebvre and Thuc did. But we can't assume anything.
Obviously if they are Novus Ordo you would agree that they do not have jurisdiction or you would not be stressing that we cannot assume they are Novus Ordo so much. So at least that is something we agree on.
I do not agree with anything that does not use terms used by the Church. The term "Novus Ordo" cannot be justly used in an accusation, it is vague.
I will agree with you if you rephrase it and say, "If these bishops are heretics they have no jurisdiction." I am saying that you cannot assume that these bishops are heretics, schismatics or apostates.
But by insisting that we cannot assume anything bad, you seem to insist that we must assume something good without having any reason to do so and contrary to how it appears. We must assume something contrary to how it appears. They must be true Catholics even if they appear not to be. That is what you base your argument on. It is not something I would want to hinge the result of the whole debate on.
I am not saying that you must assume something good. I am urging you to suspend your judgment, to keep yourself open to the evidence which may surface, and until then do not assume that they are heretics and have lost their offices.
I am not telling you to assume something contrary to how it appears. I am telling you to not assume anything. How does it appear anyway? As I said before, what direct evidence are you relying on to form an assumption that they are heretics and by that have lost their offices. Adherence to the antipope is not itself a heresy, so that alone should not be your basis of an assumption.
I never said this would be an easy discussion, it is never easy to challenge your own assumptions. But, that is what I am asking you to do if you want to get to the truth. God bless.
Topic: FOR AMBROSE (Read 6544 times)