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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Is Francis the Pope?  (Read 4829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12457
  • Reputation: +8250/-1568
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Francis the Pope?
« Reply #45 on: December 29, 2019, 01:25:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on December 29, 2019, 10:28:13 AM
    When was the 2nd edition published?




    1st: 1979. 2nd: 1993.



    Quote
    Then of course the SSPX has sneakily been modifying other books toward the same end (eg., no longer including active participation in the NOM in the examination of conscience of Christian Warfare, while injecting the conciliar Divine Mercy devotion into the same revision.  Meanwhile, it’s German bookstores sell materials by Ratzinger, Schneider, and even von Balthasar (while other volumes omit the “St.” title from the books by saints, etc).

    Is Poche giving lessons to the SSPX in altering texts?
    Logged

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12457
    • Reputation: +8250/-1568
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #46 on: December 29, 2019, 01:49:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    …The new rite of ordination uses an unquestionably valid centuries old sacramental form that was eventually discarded in favour of the one form which became standard throughout the Latin Patriarchate. …


    "unquestionably"?  The validity has been questioned, so the use of "unquestionably" is risible.

    "centuries old"? Sounds like more self-serving, pseudo-antiquarian agitprop to me.
    Logged

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #47 on: January 01, 2020, 04:11:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • 《The validity has been questioned, so the use of "unquestionably" is risible.》

    Mark 79 is risible, because his doubt is a mere negative doubt, and is therefore worthless. A researcher who was sent to Rome investigate the history of the rite of ordination; explained to me that he was able to find the docuмentary proof that there were three variant formulae used as the form of the sacrament during the Middle Ages: one with "ut", one with "et", and one with an ";", and no conjunction. The form of the sacrament of priestly ordination is not a novel formula; and it does express the intention to confer the priesthood, which suffices ad validitatem.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46089
    • Reputation: +27151/-5013
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #48 on: January 01, 2020, 04:14:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Don Paolo on January 01, 2020, 04:11:12 PM
    A researcher who was sent to Rome investigate the history of the rite of ordination; explained to me that he was able to find the docuмentary proof that there were three variant formulae used as the form of the sacrament during the Middle Ages: one with "ut", one with "et", and one with an ";", and no conjunction. 

    That would be a very important find.  Could someone actually publish these findings?  Until then, we can't go by the word of some anonymous "researcher".
    Logged

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #49 on: January 01, 2020, 04:34:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • I don't want to mention the researcher's name without his permission. He found the books containing the docuмentary evidence in the Anselmianum library.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46089
    • Reputation: +27151/-5013
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #50 on: January 01, 2020, 05:53:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Don Paolo on January 01, 2020, 04:34:59 PM
    I don't want to mention the researcher's name without his permission. He found the books containing the docuмentary evidence in the Anselmianum library.

    That's understandable.  But if someone could post copies from the books, that would be great.  I did the same type of research at one point.  When Bishop Kelly was going around saying that some of the ordinations done by +Lefebvre were invalid because he only laid one hand on the ordinand instead of the two indicated in the rubrics, I went to The Catholic University of America library and found medieval texts in which the rubric for priestly ordination specified only one hand, dextram.  It appeared that the modern reference to the plural was a reference to both the co-ordaining bishops as well as all the priests who also laid their hands on the ordinands.
    Logged

    Offline Quo vadis Domine

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4750
    • Reputation: +2896/-667
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #51 on: January 01, 2020, 06:50:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on January 01, 2020, 05:53:18 PM
    That's understandable.  But if someone could post copies from the books, that would be great.  I did the same type of research at one point.  When Bishop Kelly was going around saying that some of the ordinations done by +Lefebvre were invalid because he only laid one hand on the ordinand instead of the two indicated in the rubrics, I went to The Catholic University of America library and found medieval texts in which the rubric for priestly ordination specified only one hand, dextram.  It appeared that the modern reference to the plural was a reference to both the co-ordaining bishops as well as all the priests who also laid their hands on the ordinands.
    Lad, you should publish those findings. Did you present them to Bishop Kelly? 
    I found that a sufficient argument against the “one hand Dan” nonsense was Pope Pius XII’s sacramentum ordinis where he declares: “In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.” 

    Father Cekada also did an admirable job destroying their ridiculous argument.
    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: 46089
    • Reputation: +27151/-5013
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #52 on: January 01, 2020, 07:26:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on January 01, 2020, 06:50:50 PM
    Lad, you should publish those findings. Did you present them to Bishop Kelly?
    I found that a sufficient argument against the “one hand Dan” nonsense was Pope Pius XII’s sacramentum ordinis where he declares: “In order that there may be no occasion for doubt, We command that in conferring each Order the imposition of hands be done by physically touching the head of the person to be ordained, although a moral contact also is sufficient for the valid conferring of the Sacrament.”

    Father Cekada also did an admirable job destroying their ridiculous argument.

    I sent my docuмents to Father Cekada regarding the silly one-hand issue ... since he was at the time actively working on his own rebuttal.  Not sure what, if anything, he ever did with them.
    Logged

    Offline Mr G

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2355
    • Reputation: +1523/-91
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #53 on: January 02, 2020, 10:29:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Don Paolo on December 29, 2019, 10:27:15 AM
    In the last analysis, what matters is not what Michael Davies was thinking, but only the sacramental doctrine of the Church. The new rite of ordination uses an unquestionably valid centuries old sacramental form that was eventually discarded in favour of the one form which became standard throughout the Latin Patriarchate. It is not defective. Therefore, the new rite does not suffer a "defect of form" as did Parker's Anglican rite, which destroyed the validity of Anglican orders, as Leo XII taught in Apostolicæ Curæ.
    Yes, looking back, it appears the SSPX would have agreed; as they never had any issue with the matter and form of the new rite of ordination, but they did with the intention (which they qualify):  

    http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/Priestly-Ordinations-New-Vs-Old-Rite.htm
    On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.
               

    The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better. 
    The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest: 

          The abolition of this precision in the new rite of the priestly ordination (even if the rite remains valid in itself by the unchanged matter and form) makes the doctrine expressed by the new rite dangerously close to the Protestant doctrine.  This is not surprising since the end of all the liturgical reforms after the Vatican II Council was ecuмenism.

                Something else, which is also not surprising, alas, is that now, many new priests do not know anymore what the priesthood is.  Consequently, this leads to all priestly problems, such as married priests (at least 70,000 priests have abandoned their priesthood since the last Council).

               And do the bishops themselves know well what a priest is?  We hope so, because with this new rite, some bishops could have an intention opposite to the intention of the Church when they ordain priests, and in that case the ordination would be invalid, or at least doubtful.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3162
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #54 on: January 02, 2020, 10:46:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mr G on January 02, 2020, 10:29:53 AM
    Yes, looking back, it appears the SSPX would have agreed; as they never had any issue with the matter and form of the new rite of ordination, but they did with the intention (which they qualify):  

    http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/Priestly-Ordinations-New-Vs-Old-Rite.htm
    On June 18, 1968, Pope Paul VI promulgated a new rite for the priestly ordination.
              

    The matter and the form of the sacrament [1] remained almost the same as in the rite promulgated by Pope Pius XII in November 1948. There are only two small changes in the form, which do not however affect the meaning of the sacrament; in fact, they specify it better.
    The novelty and danger of the new rite consists especially in the abolition of the two ceremonies by which the bishop clearly explains the powers of the Catholic priest:

         The abolition of this precision in the new rite of the priestly ordination (even if the rite remains valid in itself by the unchanged matter and form) makes the doctrine expressed by the new rite dangerously close to the Protestant doctrine.  This is not surprising since the end of all the liturgical reforms after the Vatican II Council was ecuмenism.

               Something else, which is also not surprising, alas, is that now, many new priests do not know anymore what the priesthood is.  Consequently, this leads to all priestly problems, such as married priests (at least 70,000 priests have abandoned their priesthood since the last Council).

              And do the bishops themselves know well what a priest is?  We hope so, because with this new rite, some bishops could have an intention opposite to the intention of the Church when they ordain priests, and in that case the ordination would be invalid, or at least doubtful.

    Would be interesting to know what changes Pius XII made in 1948 (and why).

    That was the same year Bugnini took charge of tinkering with the Mass.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6293
    • Reputation: +3330/-1939
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #55 on: January 02, 2020, 12:45:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Don Paolo on December 29, 2019, 10:27:15 AM
    In the last analysis, what matters is not what Michael Davies was thinking, but only the sacramental doctrine of the Church. The new rite of ordination uses an unquestionably valid centuries old sacramental form that was eventually discarded in favour of the one form which became standard throughout the Latin Patriarchate. It is not defective. Therefore, the new rite does not suffer a "defect of form" as did Parker's Anglican rite, which destroyed the validity of Anglican orders, as Leo XII taught in Apostolicæ Curæ.
    I read Michael Davies  book like 3 times, I've had it for almost 25 years. Most of what he writes appears to be saying that the new ordination rite is at best weak. Then at the end he says two things which really negates anything he said in favor of the validity, he says

    1) that his analysis only involves the new ordination rite in it's original Latin form, and that scarcely any priests are ordained in Latin and moreover the ordaining bishops adlib the ceremony

    2) In the final analysis the new rite is valid because it is promulgated by the pope.

    So, that is no relief for those like I that have doubts about the new ordination rite. I do not believe with certainty of faith that Paul VI was a real pope. I do not believe with certainty of faith that any Novus Ordo rite ordained "priest" is a priest. The easiest thing for a priest like you to do is to go get conditionally ordained, it would have saved you a lot of wasted time. No one like me is going to risk their salvation based on the fallible opinion of someone who has a stake in the new ordination rite. It is real easy to just tell someone that they can go to mass and receive the sacraments from any Novus Ordo priest, it has no effect on the person giving the advice. It is like the book "Parachuteless Skydiving" by Hugo First.

    Go get conditionally ordained and then  everyone will have no doubts about your validity.
    Logged

    Offline Don Paolo

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 481
    • Reputation: +90/-108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Francis the Pope?
    « Reply #56 on: January 02, 2020, 02:57:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • So, in one man's opinion, Michael Davies only, "appears to be saying that the new ordination rite is at best weak," but does not actually say it is "weak". Unless he says, exactly why he believes it to be weak, rather than just appearing to say it, according to someone else's interpretation, then it's useless to bring Davies' opinion into the discussion. According to Trent, "materia et forma sacramenti essentia efficitur". If there is a valid matter and a form that expresses the intention of the rite, then the rite is certainly valid. Full Stop.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
    « previous next »