Author Topic: Jurisdiction, Plants and Divided Clergy and Laity (Read 6497 times)

Lover of Truth · « **on:** June 04, 2012, 08:06:52 AM »

It looks like Griff might answer my objection in part 3.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Jun/12junstr.htm

I might not be a plant but I have contributed to the evil with my blabber mouth. This despite the fact that I am rather quiet in person. I have had two public lapses into vengeance in my 7 years as a SV not learning much from my first mistake. I am scanalized when people I hold in high esteem act in a none-Catholic way but then I end up acting worse than they.

Dear Lord have mercy on me, a sinner.

I await an opportunity for someone I look up to to hurt me again so I can keep my mouth shut and offer it up like real Catholics do!

Elizabeth · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:04:50 AM »

Maybe it's just me, but I can not understand what Mr. Ruby is driving at.

That there are paid Novus Ordo Plants around the traditional chapels? I wouldn't put it past them.

There are corrupt trad chapels and Mass centres, no doubt about that. Is he saying they are run by plants?

But mostly, I don't seem to understand what Mr. Ruby means. He said he is going to cause suspicion, but I do not understand who he is suspicious of.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2012, 09:43:09 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

I don't seem to understand what Mr. Ruby means.

You are not alone.

Quote from: Mr. Ruby

So they try the same technique they employed in eclipsing the true Church at Vatican II: Infiltrate, sow division and doubt by casting aspersions against this traditional priest or that true bishop or even devout laity because they know the Traditional Bishops have the true authority handed down by Christ to teach, sanctify and rule. [emphasis mine]

Quote from: Mr. Ruby

I believe these false brothers are in fact paid Novus Ordo plants, craftily inserted among us to spread their confusion and division and overall "rubber-room-ism" that has become far more rampant in exactly the period of time that such problems should all have been winding down. They are the ones who spread the wicked rumors about our clerics being limited to mere supplied jurisdiction or epikeia or what not [...] [emphasis mine]

This is simply inaccurate, and quite silly. Moreover, this illustrates the problems and frustrations that non-sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantist polemicists have with the explanation of the present day crisis of the Church as set forth by the sedevacantists: the flagrant ignorance of the principles of theology and Canon Law; the recourse to extravagant conspiracy theories about "infiltration" or demonic influence without considering the predicament more carefully; the proclivity to categorize those of different mind as "false brothers;" &c.

A consistent sedevacantist would admit that it is precisely because the Apostolic See is vacant (according to their understanding) that no traditionalist Bishop can claim both formal and material apostolicity: only the latter can be ascribed to them [1] without infringing the ecclesiological doctrines taught by the theologians and manualists of past ages and enshrined in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II.).

The reality is that the clerici acephali, the episcopi vagantes, of our day may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law (cf. Can. 953: “Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifice ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato;” Can. 2370: “Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, pres-byteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum Can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit"), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate.

Although, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard, the fact remains that these Bishops and the clerics they have elevated to Sacred Orders have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor ordinary jurisdiction (habitual or delegated) since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147: § 1. Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta).

It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3: “Ex divina institutione sacra hierarchia ratione ordinis constat Episcopis, pres-byteris et ministris; ratione iurisdictionis, pontificatu supremo et episcopatu subordinato; ex Ecclesiae autem institutione alii quoque gradus accesere” [emphasis mine]; Can. 109: “Qui in ecclesiasticam hierarchiam cooptantur, non ex populi vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione adleguntur; sed in gradibus potestatis ordinis constituuntur sacra ordinatione; in supremo pontificatu, ipsomet iure divino, adimpleta conditione legitimae electionis eiusdemque acceptationis; in reliquis gradibus iurisdictionis, canonica missione” [emphasis mine]).

Although the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given, this is only so by reason of the authority of the Pope since the magisterial authority of the Bishops, whether collectively or singly, is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. Can. 1326: "Episcopi quoque, licet singuli vel etiam in Conciliis particularibus congregati infabillitate docendi non polleant, fidelium tamen suis curis commissorum, sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis, veri doctores seu magistri sunt” [emphasis mine]).

Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (Session XXIII, De reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to be incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1: “Quemlibet clericuм oportet esse vel alicui dioecesi vel alicui religioni adscriptum, ita ut clerici vagi nullatenus admittantur” [emphasis mine]).

One must therefore conclude that all the present day traditionalist clerics are clerici vagi. Supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora are all that the present-day clerics can claim solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia. In going any further than this, they risk transgressing the limitations of their limited competence (in order of ecclesiastical authority) and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament all the more. It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinions or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, precisely because the Roman Pontiff is presently out of the equation in the practical order (according to the sedevacantists), such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise, one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is absurdly bereft of the sensus Catholicus.

------------------------

Notes:

[1] The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, vide “apostolicity (mark of the Church),” (Rev. Frs. Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, Salvatore Garofalo; trans. Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Doronzo; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1952).[/size]

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2012, 09:51:40 PM »

Another problem with Mr. Ruby's article is that he seems to categorically and exclusively co-equate the sedevacantist "movement" with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. It would be erroneous and schismatic, and even bordering on heresy, to assert that those who call themselves "sedevacantists" alone constitute the true children of Holy Mother Church, or that the Church is to be found only in their midst.

Such a train of thought only brings up and exacerbates grave questions regarding Apostolicity and how this indispensable note of the Church can be reconciled with the phenomenon of acephalous clerics, the lack of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, the present identity of the Ecclesia docens, etc.

Certain sedevacantists have also erred in stating categorically that Christ Himself reigns over the Church, and that suffices to explain away the above-mentioned questions.

Actually, if not carefully worded, this sort of theory can easily lead to serious errors and even heresy.

The first footnote on the following page taken from Msgr. Charles Journet's The Church of the Word Incarnate: An Essay of Speculative Theology (trans. A.H.C. Downes; London: Sheed and Ward, 1954) elucidates upon this saddening misunderstanding.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #4 on:** June 05, 2012, 06:52:25 AM »

You seem to know more about Griff than Griff himself knows. Among some sedevacantists he is considered to be too lenient on his insistence that you do not have to be a SV to be a member of the Catholic Church.

When people start talking about contemporaries on this blog is when falsities and all the negative results that come with it arise.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #5 on:** June 05, 2012, 07:05:13 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: Elizabeth
I don't seem to understand what Mr. Ruby means.

You are not alone.

Quote from: Mr. Ruby
So they try the same technique they employed in eclipsing the true Church at Vatican II: Infiltrate, sow division and doubt by casting aspersions against this traditional priest or that true bishop or even devout laity because they know the Traditional Bishops have the true authority handed down by Christ to teach, sanctify and rule. [emphasis mine]

Quote from: Mr. Ruby
I believe these false brothers are in fact paid Novus Ordo plants, craftily inserted among us to spread their confusion and division and overall "rubber-room-ism" that has become far more rampant in exactly the period of time that such problems should all have been winding down. They are the ones who spread the wicked rumors about our clerics being limited to mere supplied jurisdiction or epikeia or what not [...] [emphasis mine]

This is simply inaccurate, and quite silly. Moreover, this illustrates the problems and frustrations that non-sedevacantists and anti-sedevacantist polemicists have with the explanation of the present day crisis of the Church as set forth by the sedevacantists: the flagrant ignorance of the principles of theology and Canon Law; the recourse to extravagant conspiracy theories about "infiltration" or demonic influence without considering the predicament more carefully; the proclivity to categorize those of different mind as "false brothers;" &c.

A consistent sedevacantist would admit that it is precisely because the Apostolic See is vacant (according to their understanding) that no traditionalist Bishop can claim both formal and material apostolicity: only the latter can be ascribed to them [1] without infringing the ecclesiological doctrines taught by the theologians and manualists of past ages and enshrined in the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in the Apostolic Constitution Providentissima Mater (27 May 1917; A.A.S., vol. IX, pars II.).

The reality is that the clerici acephali, the episcopi vagantes, of our day may have ostensibly imperiled their salvation in risking the possibility of incurring serious censures and scandal, as well as committing sacrilege and mortal sin in having attained to the sacred Episcopacy contrary to the norms of Canon Law (cf. Can. 953: “Consecratio episcopalis reservatur Romano Pontifice ita ut nulli Episcopo liceat quemquam consecrare in Episcopum, nisi prius constet de pontificio mandato;” Can. 2370: “Episcopus aliquem consecrans in Episcopum, Episcopi vel, loco Episcoporum, pres-byteri assistentes, et qui consecrationem recipit sine apostolico mandato contra praescriptum Can. 953, ipso iure suspensi sunt, donec Sedes Apostolica eos dispensaverit"), for they have been consecrated as Bishops, and have themselves consecrated other Bishops, without Apostolic mandate.

Although, because of a salutary and necessary application of the principles of epikeia, there is no moral culpability to be imputed to them in this regard, the fact remains that these Bishops and the clerics they have elevated to Sacred Orders have, strictly speaking, no proper ecclesiastical office nor ordinary jurisdiction (habitual or delegated) since they lack the requisite Canonical mission (cf. Can. 147: § 1. Officium ecclesiasticuм nequit sine provisione canonica valide obtineri. § 2. Nomine canonicae provisionis venit concessio officii ecclesiastici a competente auctoritate ecclesiastica ad normam sacrorum canonum facta).

It must be emphasized that the sacred Episcopate is subordinated unto the Supreme Pontiff in the order of jurisdiction (cf. 108, § 3: “Ex divina institutione sacra hierarchia ratione ordinis constat Episcopis, pres-byteris et ministris; ratione iurisdictionis, pontificatu supremo et episcopatu subordinato; ex Ecclesiae autem institutione alii quoque gradus accesere” [emphasis mine]; Can. 109: “Qui in ecclesiasticam hierarchiam cooptantur, non ex populi vel potestatis saecularis consensu aut vocatione adleguntur; sed in gradibus potestatis ordinis constituuntur sacra ordinatione; in supremo pontificatu, ipsomet iure divino, adimpleta conditione legitimae electionis eiusdemque acceptationis; in reliquis gradibus iurisdictionis, canonica missione” [emphasis mine]).

Although the Bishops are truly doctors and teachers for those souls whose pastoral care they have undertaken or have been given, this is only so by reason of the authority of the Pope since the magisterial authority of the Bishops, whether collectively or singly, is dependent upon the jurisdictional and magisterial primacy of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. Can. 1326: "Episcopi quoque, licet singuli vel etiam in Conciliis particularibus congregati infabillitate docendi non polleant, fidelium tamen suis curis commissorum, sub auctoritate Romani Pontificis, veri doctores seu magistri sunt” [emphasis mine]).

Moreover, Holy Mother Church, since the Sacred Council of Trent (Session XXIII, De reformatione, caps. 11, 13, 16), has ordained that all clergy are to be incardinated into a diocese or ingress unto Holy Religion (cf. Can. 111, § 1: “Quemlibet clericuм oportet esse vel alicui dioecesi vel alicui religioni adscriptum, ita ut clerici vagi nullatenus admittantur” [emphasis mine]).

One must therefore conclude that all the present day traditionalist clerics are clerici vagi. Supplied jurisdiction given by the Church in the various individual instances wherein acts that are necessary for the spiritual welfare of the faithful need to be performed in both the internal and external fora are all that the present-day clerics can claim solely relying on the prudent application of the principles of epikeia. In going any further than this, they risk transgressing the limitations of their limited competence (in order of ecclesiastical authority) and exacerbate their problematic Canonical predicament all the more. It is precisely because the present day clerics do not have a Canonical mission that they cannot publicly bind individual consciences to their private opinions or practical judgments, save insofar as they conform with the doctrines and customs sanctioned by Holy Mother Church. Nor can they ascribe to themselves the dignities and prerogatives of the Bishops and Priests that ruled over the faithful in ages past by authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

Normally, the Bishops and Priests would be given unquestionable credibility and authority, but, precisely because the Roman Pontiff is presently out of the equation in the practical order (according to the sedevacantists), such can no longer be the case. In doing otherwise, one would perhaps substantiate the anti-sedevacantists' claims that the sedevacantist faithful discard the reverence and veneration due to the Papacy alone, whilst adhering to the vagrant clerics in an irony that is absurdly bereft of the sensus Catholicus.

------------------------

Notes:

[1] The Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, vide “apostolicity (mark of the Church),” (Rev. Frs. Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolanti, Salvatore Garofalo; trans. Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Doronzo; Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1952).[/size]

I remember asking this question on line here about 5 or 6 times. I am glad someone has finally come around to finally try to answer the question.

If you watch these videos from Griff you will see that 90% of it is from a theology manual by Van Noort.

I believe it is important for the valid bishops to unite and believe it is a great scandal to the detriment of many souls that they do not. He is trying to do something about it. I admire his courage, and the fact that he gets it strait from a pre-V2 theology manual. I'm not sure God would leave the Bishops as mere sacrament machines, I was inclined to think that way but am not sure now. It seems to me that you say the are without wording it that way. I got chastized here for saying we did not owe them our obedience. And Griff gets chastized for saying we do. Tough crowd.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2012, 07:30:04 AM »

Actually, I did not say we did not owe them our obedience, but asked if we did, and got accused repeatedly of telling people not to obey their bishops. But this was one guy who was unhinged. So tough "crowd" might not be the word for it.

Thorn · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:21:43 AM »

I didn't read read Griff's article in Daily Catholic as I stopped reading Griff years ago. At first I read whatever he wrote as it was well written & informative. Then I felt like Elizabeth more & more so quit reading him as he had some very good ideas but would then descend into some twisted 'logic' as if he had some wires loose in his think tank. If I remember correctly, he used to be NO so that may explain it. It was too frustrating & time consuming for me to refute him & besides it was above my pay grade! So thank you, Hobbledehoy, for your masterful job!! Please send your post to him. I think he needs to read it. You'd be doing a fellow Catholic a favor. You're the right one to go nose to nose with him.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:23:15 PM »

Quote from: Thorn

I didn't read read Griff's article in Daily Catholic as I stopped reading Griff years ago. At first I read whatever he wrote as it was well written & informative. Then I felt like Elizabeth more & more so quit reading him as he had some very good ideas but would then descend into some twisted 'logic' as if he had some wires loose in his think tank. If I remember correctly, he used to be NO so that may explain it. It was too frustrating & time consuming for me to refute him & besides it was above my pay grade! So thank you, Hobbledehoy, for your masterful job!! Please send your post to him. I think he needs to read it. You'd be doing a fellow Catholic a favor. You're the right one to go nose to nose with him.

No offense but the thread is about this particular article, which would have to be read in order to be commented upon.

We can come to de fide conclusions about our contemporaries and figure they don't improve after we have come to a conclusion about them in the past or the negative conclusions we so readily conclude about others can be etched in stone regardless of their accurateness. But again this entirely avoids the point of the thread.

In response to Hobbleday's response I would suggest the possibility that during times of long interregnum's in the past that bishops indeed consecrated other bishops and they were not condemned by the new Pope when he came into office.

At the very least this may have been done in countries where the faith was in the extreme minority and persecuted and where correspondence with Rome was not as easily done as in our day, especially when said Bishop was a prisoner. Additionally, I would say that during the Great Western Schism that Bishops did indeed consecrate other Bishops without a valid Pope giving the mandate and when all was settled this Bishops consecrating other Bishop's without a valid Papal mandate were never revoked or reprimanded.

Further I will say that our times have not been anticipated and certainly not the length of time which the pre-Vatican II theologians did not think to be possible.

Additionally, to say we have the right to epekia, which I do not believe anyone argues, but to say it does not function fully would mean that the result of epekia would only take partial effect:

Yes you can consecrate Bishops to preserve the faith as must be done and as a valid Pope would have you do but once consecrated they must function with a hand tied behind their back.

And would Sacraments given under epikia be valid but without their full effect merely because there has not been a Pope in existence for 50 years? This is what you imply about the Bishops under epekia, why would it not be the case for the Sacraments?

Taken further this seems to imply that we could not elect a pope because they do not have the authority to do so. I say all this playing devil's advocate as I have held the position you state and currently I am not sure one way or the other.

I would say there is a lack of charity calling something "silly" that has been written by someone who puts forth more effort than most to unite the Bishops as we so desperately need. And who is as outraged as you are when laity spread bad things about clergy, and other laypeople, as I have wrongly done, even when it is true. And who tries to motivate people like me, as I have proven to be spiteful two times, to see how that is not the Catholic way to act. This is a knowledgeable man who cares more than most and knows more than most of the average Joe’s in the pew like me. His work is well intended and rightly motivated. No one has written more extensively against Feeneyism than he. It is sad to see how easily we disparage one another.

Has your opinion on this matter been defined in some binding matter? In a way that gives us the answer to our particular circuмstance of being without a visible head for 50 years? Being Popeless for that long does not open up the possibility of there being some necessary jurisdiction in the Church which if foreseen would be provided for? Some who take your view use that as an excuse to stay at home. Is it possible that even you might possibly misinterpret something or fail to make an obscure but necessary distinction somewhere?

I feel better now. I'm moving on.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #9 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Maybe it's just me, but I can not understand what Mr. Ruby is driving at.

That there are paid Novus Ordo Plants around the traditional chapels? I wouldn't put it past them.

There are corrupt trad chapels and Mass centres, no doubt about that. Is he saying they are run by plants?

But mostly, I don't seem to understand what Mr. Ruby means. He said he is going to cause suspicion, but I do not understand who he is suspicious of.

People agree with Elizabeth but she says she wouldn't put it past the Nordites to infiltrate us. Is this what is agreed with? All people of integrity and honesty, in the know, agree with Elizabeth and Griff that there are corrupt trad chapels. Is this what is agreed with, Griff is agreed with again. Again, she does not seem to be questioning jurisdiction but the "suspicion".

I believe Griff is trying to get someone to fess up and admit he is wrong about jurisdiction or at least could be wrong. He has never condemned anyone by name before publically. He seems tempted to do so now. He sees some, that in his view, and in many people's on this site's view that cause needless division and he is wondering about their motivation. Are they plants, or is there some other reason why they cause division "needlessly".

That is all. We need not condemn what we do not understand. And there is certainly no need to call what and advocate states in his effort to unite us "silly".

He is trying to unite the clergy and laity. Give him a break.

Okay. I'm done for real.

Bye now.

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #10 on:** June 05, 2012, 09:44:54 PM »

Quote from: John Gregory

I would say there is a lack of charity calling something "silly" that has been written by someone who puts forth more effort than most to unite the Bishops as we so desperately need.

Quote from: John Gregory, again

And there is certainly no need to call what and advocate states in his effort to unite us "silly".

Okay... someone obviously doesn't follow his own advice:

Quote from: John Gregory to Thorn

No offense but the thread is about this particular article, which would have to be read in order to be commented upon.

And John deemed fit to play amateur casuist (again, and with the concomitant rants, disingenuous insinuations, nonsensical rhetoric that garbs itself in words of piety, &c., that have been seen before on this forum) without reading carefully what I had written:

Quote

Quote from: Mr. Ruby
So they try the same technique they employed in eclipsing the true Church at Vatican II: Infiltrate, sow division and doubt by casting aspersions against this traditional priest or that true bishop or even devout laity because they know the Traditional Bishops have the true authority handed down by Christ to teach, sanctify and rule. [emphasis mine]

Quote from: Mr. Ruby
I believe these false brothers are in fact paid Novus Ordo plants, craftily inserted among us to spread their confusion and division and overall "rubber-room-ism" that has become far more rampant in exactly the period of time that such problems should all have been winding down. They are the ones who spread the wicked rumors about our clerics being limited to mere supplied jurisdiction or epikeia or what not [...] [emphasis mine]

This is simply inaccurate, and quite silly.

The emphasized pronoun above referred to the errors regarding jurisdiction that Mr. Ruby committed in his essay, which I had underlined in order to emphasize and to clarify that it was this that I was addressing and not whatever else Ruby was writing or what his attempt may have been. I thought that was obvious, but... oh well.

Like Elizabeth, I could not make sense of what Ruby was writing, but his errors regarding jurisdiction were the things I noticed, which is why I provided the citations.

Quote

And Griff gets chastized for saying we do. Tough crowd.

Uh, no chastisement here, but I will spare John the grammatical casuistry.

His interpretation and confusing reaction to what I posted are manifestations of the reason why I have kept him on ignore: but there are ways of reading an ignored forum member's posts without deactivating the ignore function...

Thanks to Matthew for that!

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #11 on:** June 06, 2012, 08:06:51 AM »

Quote from: Hobbledehoy

Quote from: John Gregory
I would say there is a lack of charity calling something "silly" that has been written by someone who puts forth more effort than most to unite the Bishops as we so desperately need.

Quote from: John Gregory, again
And there is certainly no need to call what and advocate states in his effort to unite us "silly".

Okay... someone obviously doesn't follow his own advice:

Quote from: John Gregory to Thorn
No offense but the thread is about this particular article, which would have to be read in order to be commented upon.

And John deemed fit to play amateur casuist (again, and with the concomitant rants, disingenuous insinuations, nonsensical rhetoric that garbs itself in words of piety, &c., that have been seen before on this forum) without reading carefully what I had written:

Quote
Quote from: Mr. Ruby
So they try the same technique they employed in eclipsing the true Church at Vatican II: Infiltrate, sow division and doubt by casting aspersions against this traditional priest or that true bishop or even devout laity because they know the Traditional Bishops have the true authority handed down by Christ to teach, sanctify and rule. [emphasis mine]

Quote from: Mr. Ruby
I believe these false brothers are in fact paid Novus Ordo plants, craftily inserted among us to spread their confusion and division and overall "rubber-room-ism" that has become far more rampant in exactly the period of time that such problems should all have been winding down. They are the ones who spread the wicked rumors about our clerics being limited to mere supplied jurisdiction or epikeia or what not [...] [emphasis mine]

This is simply inaccurate, and quite silly.

The emphasized pronoun above referred to the errors regarding jurisdiction that Mr. Ruby committed in his essay, which I had underlined in order to emphasize and to clarify that it was this that I was addressing and not whatever else Ruby was writing or what his attempt may have been. I thought that was obvious, but... oh well.

Like Elizabeth, I could not make sense of what Ruby was writing, but his errors regarding jurisdiction were the things I noticed, which is why I provided the citations.

Quote
And Griff gets chastized for saying we do. Tough crowd.

Uh, no chastisement here, but I will spare John the grammatical casuistry.

His interpretation and confusing reaction to what I posted are manifestations of the reason why I have kept him on ignore: but there are ways of reading an ignored forum member's posts without deactivating the ignore function...

Thanks to Matthew for that!

I overestimated Hobbles. Not much charity there. I try to enlighten the confused when I can if they seem receptive others ignore and put down. These blogs truly can be a pathway to Hell.

I have tried to communicate with Hobbles to learn as I admire his learning and grasp of the faith. Now I know why I have never received a response.

Thanks Hobbles.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #12 on:** June 06, 2012, 02:31:57 PM »

I'm a little curious as why someone would tell me he has me on ignore and but has ways of reading what I post (not ignoring me). Is there some reason to make me aware of this other than to hurt me? Why would someone go out of his way to let me know he is ignoring me and then also read my posts?

Emerentiana · « **Reply #13 on:** June 06, 2012, 03:14:18 PM »

If you want to attack Griff Ruby, MR John Gregory(Lover of Truth as you call yourself here), why dont you contact him in person on Daily Catholic, the website you also write for, instead of attacking him here, and trying to discredit him. :argue:

Hobbledehoy · « **Reply #14 on:** June 06, 2012, 09:29:39 PM »

Quote from: John Gregory

I overestimated Hobbles.

Yeah, I hope others do not commit that mistake too. Really, I truly do: I am not being facetious when I write this.

Quote

Not much charity there.

Not much logic here, not at all...

Quote

These blogs truly can be a pathway to Hell.

Then John should stop "blogging" then.

Quote

I have tried to communicate with Hobbles to learn as I admire his learning and grasp of the faith. Now I know why I have never received a response.

No rational creature should admire me. Only the Saints are to be admired: no living person who is yet a viator in this world is worth idealizing.

Quote

I'm a little curious as why someone would tell me he has me on ignore and but has ways of reading what I post (not ignoring me). Is there some reason to make me aware of this other than to hurt me? Why would someone go out of his way to let me know he is ignoring me and then also read my posts?

To explain to John why I haven't responded to his messages: because I never got them, because he is on ignore.

This sentimental egocentricity is a bit unnerving. I was not trying to hurt John, but trying to respond to his ridiculous accusation that I was opposing Mr. Ruby's attempts to unify the sedevacantists. I also never said on this thread that the clergy are "Sacramental machines." I merely pointed out the principles of Canon Law as they apply to our times.

Quote

Thanks Hobbles.

Well, speaking of unanswered questions, John can thank me by answering this:

Quote from: Hobbledehoy at the Four Marks November Article thread

Quote from: Lover of Truth
IF WHAT TOM WROTE IS TRUE WHO WOULDN'T BE? THIS PERTAINS TO THE SOULS OF SEMINARIANS AND SOULS OF THEIR POTENTIAL FLOCK, ESPECIALLY IF THEY LOST THEIR VOCATION AS A RESULT.

Really!? Well, let's see...

Then why haven't you condemned Jim Gebel, Sr., for his libelous slander against these same Seminarians:

http://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2012/01/retracting-support-for-paul-petko.html

Why haven't you condemned Petko for his campaign against the Seminarians?

Why haven't you condemned Craig Toth for quitting the Seminary faculty only to conspire against St. Albert's, and therefore jeopardizing the futures of these same young men?

He was only using them as pawns for this:

http://materdeicmriwatch.blogspot.com/

All to lead up to this:

http://pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com/2012/03/top-reasons-for-lay-governance-5.html

All you had to answer to my posts pertaining to this mess have been meaningless or irrelevant questions, some posted with sock puppet accounts.

Beware of the fires of Gehenna...

For someone who is all about "charity," John has been quite remiss in rebuking the foul blogs and their authors who still continue their campaign against the Seminarians. Even when everything's over, and SAG has moved on, Jim, Janet and Craig are still harping on these matters.

So why hasn't John rebuked these individuals publicly just as he has attacked others in the past, if he is yearning for unity and peace in the "traditional movement"...?