Author Topic: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all? (Read 29981 times)

songbird · « **Reply #100 on:** September 10, 2019, 06:19:03 PM »

Who cares about the "ring"! Where is the "Tiara"? Who was the last one to be crowned with the Tiara? Why was the Tiara let go of? Is the Tiara in a museum? So, who has the authority? Very sad! IF the pope was truly sorry, say like St. Paul, would the fruits not show? Yes, and are those fruits showing? No!

Our Lady warned us that the enemy Satan, would see the dogmas destroyed. We must be on our guard to pray the mysteries of the Rosary, the Apostles Creed and etc.
If there is a fruit to be had, to support a true pope with authority, he would say and demand the Mass, the Mass Christ said.

It is true, that any man can be in the popes position, question is do they have authority, and the answer right now is NO. Their fruits publicly show this.

Bataar · « **Reply #101 on:** September 11, 2019, 04:08:13 PM »

Quote from: Praeter on September 10, 2019, 05:45:00 PM

It is usually conceded that R&R's disobey the Pope, but when do they actually do so? Before this is conceded, I think we need some examples that demonstrate it.

And let's not forget that most sedevacantists disobey/reject the revise Holy Week liturgies that were promulgated by Pius XII, the last pope they accept. How is that not recognizing and resisting Pius XII? And every sedevacantist bishop is guilty of rejecting the teaching of Pius XII, who forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate. It was already forbidden in the 1917 code. Pius XII just attached the more sever penalty of excommunication to those broke the law. If everything contained in an encyclical "demands assent," as the sedes always say (quoting Pius XII in Humani Generis), why did every single sede bishop, without exception, refuse to give his assent to Pius XII teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis, which forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate?

According to canon law, if a church law ceases to be working for the good of the church, that law ceases to be valid. The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.
As to bishops being consecrated without a mandate, that goes back to the same canon law. According to SVs, the church lives on through them as the NO is a new/separate church. If they did not have the ability to consecrate bishops, the church would definitely end so that law is definitely doing harm, not good so it's invalid.

Praeter · « **Reply #102 on:** September 11, 2019, 04:58:29 PM »

Quote from: Bataar on September 11, 2019, 04:08:13 PM

According to canon law, if a church law ceases to be working for the good of the church, that law ceases to be valid. The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.
As to bishops being consecrated without a mandate, that goes back to the same canon law. According to SVs, the church lives on through them as the NO is a new/separate church. If they did not have the ability to consecrate bishops, the church would definitely end so that law is definitely doing harm, not good so it's invalid.

Okay, just to make sure I understand what you saying. You believe Catholics are permitted to "sift" the laws of the Church to determine for themselves which are good and which are not, and are only required to obey those that they believe are beneficial for the Church?

And can you cite the canon from the 1917 or 1983 Code that you are referring to?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #103 on:** September 11, 2019, 07:08:53 PM »

Quote

The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.

The Holy Week changes are not evil and they aren't good. They just are. The intent behind them is irrelevant, if the changes themselves aren't anti-catholic. Example: Susan holds a grudge against her sister-in-law, Judy. She makes a cherry pie for Judy's party, knowing that Judy is allergic to cherries and she wants to make Judy mad. Susan's INTENTION is sinful but the cherry pie itself is not. It's just a pie. In the same way, the Holy Week changes were INTENDED to be a stepping stone towards modernism, so the intention is a sin. But I don't think the changes crossed the line into anti-catholic theology or a protestant liturgy. So the sin of intention is far greater than the actual changes. As such, the arguments against them are over-blown. Same goes for the 1962 missal.

Incredulous · « **Reply #104 on:** September 11, 2019, 09:56:10 PM »

The Church in the 1940's under Pope Pius XII's papacy, was similar to Toledo Spain in 711.

Like the Jews living within the Catholic city, the Pope "opened the gates" and internal attack against our Church has yet to cease.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all? (Read 29981 times)

songbird

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Bataar

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Praeter

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Pax Vobis

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?

Incredulous

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?