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]

Author Topic: 1968 RITE OF PRIESTLY ORDINATION  (Read 5865 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Twice dyed

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 894
  • Reputation: +340/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • Violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. EX: 35, 6.
Re: 1968 RITE OF PRIESTLY ORDINATION
« Reply #30 on: Yesterday at 05:27:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on Yesterday at 12:53:54 PM
    So ... yeah, we know that the final determination requires authority, but we can make arguments and establish some significant positive doubt.

    But then you contradict yourself.  IF these guys have been Popes, they have in fact already determined with papal authority that these Rites are valid.  So the case is closed.  That is in fact the single strongest argument in favor of the validity of the Rites, even if it rests on the disputed premise of their legitimacy ... but most R&R will not go there,

    because they've spent decades arguing against the Church's disciplinary infallibility,

    since that same infallibility, which would ensure the validity of the Rites, would also ensure that the Church..."
    "...because they've spent decades arguing against the Church's disciplinary infallibility,..."

    SSPX= R&R, so I don't think we are talking about the same Church... +L preached mostly about the infallibility of Eternal Rome, the Church of Tradition, the TRUE Church.  Can you give examples that they were arguing against the Church's disciplinary infallibility?  They would criticize N.O. church ( in the real SSPX) . I not  2 % theologian.
    Laymen can doubt sacraments, and they should rebuke bishops  'to their face' if something isn't done correctly. +L even considered N.O. baptisms to be valid,

    ["... je ne dis pas que tous les sacrements soient invalides, ni qu’ils soient hérétiques, mais ils sont empoisonnés : ils ont une autre orientation, ] 1976, Associations St Pie V, 
    {...I don't say that all the sacraments are invalid, neither that they are heretical, but that they are poisoned,: they have an other orientation..."

    because so many things were deleted in the N.O. rite. But at other times he would simply say: "This is not my problem, it is God's problem". or something very close to that. This is the reason for Conditional sacraments, no?
    Logged
    The measure of love is to love without measure.
                                     St. Augustine (354 - 430 AD)

    Offline Horatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 45
    • Reputation: +61/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1968 RITE OF PRIESTLY ORDINATION
    « Reply #31 on: Yesterday at 09:42:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
    • I actually don't really believe in the Church's disciplinary infallibility. Despite being the common opinion of theologians, it remains an opinion. I find it interesting that when the Church defined infallibility, She only bothered to do so regarding Her solemn magisterium. Why not just tell us clearly that Her universal laws and rites are also dogmatically impeccable? She didn't bother and it wouldn't have been that hard. Makes me wonder. Even about the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48150
    • Reputation: +28406/-5312
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1968 RITE OF PRIESTLY ORDINATION
    « Reply #32 on: Yesterday at 10:53:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Horatius on Yesterday at 09:42:44 PM
    I actually don't really believe in the Church's disciplinary infallibility. Despite being the common opinion of theologians, it remains an opinion. I find it interesting that when the Church defined infallibility, She only bothered to do so regarding Her solemn magisterium. Why not just tell us clearly that Her universal laws and rites are also dogmatically impeccable? She didn't bother and it wouldn't have been that hard. Makes me wonder. Even about the Universal, Ordinary Magisterium.

    Even if it hasn't been defined, that's objectively heretical and will be condemned as such when this all blows over.  So, according to you, the Church can fail in her mission of saving souls by, oh, promulgating a Mass that offends God and brings harm to souls, or establish a cult for "saints" who are likely in Hell and at the very least were enemies of the Faith.  It's terrifying to see how many of you are losing the faith.  That's to say nothing about how idiotic it is to assert that because Vatican I had not defined it ... yet ... that it isn't true.

    Dogmatically impeccable?  That's not a thing.

    As for why not define it ... well, Vatican I was interrupted by various wars the Masons started to interrupt it.  So they may have gone on to define it.  But even if they chose not to, that could be fur any number of reasons.  Even with what they did define, there were many inopportunists who didn't think it should be defined, even while believing it to be true.

    God permitted them not to define it to be a test of faith today ... one that you are failing.
    Logged

    Offline Horatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 45
    • Reputation: +61/-37
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 1968 RITE OF PRIESTLY ORDINATION
    « Reply #33 on: Today at 12:44:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • It may indeed be erroneous, but outright heretical, no. These things are not defined. It is theological discussion that usually gives the Church reason to lay down definitively teaching on a certain point. I would probably be raked over the coals if I were saying this before the council because no theologian could ever dream of the cataclysm we are witnessing today. But the situation being what it is, where theology as it had been expounded up till the 60s doesn't really give a good answer as to what's going on right now, I feel pretty confident that the true Church when she addresses the crisis is going to either tell us it was a mystery or give us a surprising explanation. I'll follow what I witnessed BP. Williamson saying once upon a time: "the Church is less infallible than we thought." 

    All in all, I think you and I sit in exactly the same boat. I call into question above what was once held as certain by most men of theology; but you do the same by maintaining that the entire Church can peaceably adhere to an altogether illegitimate, false hierarchy. Of course you are one that feel entitled to tell me that I've lost the faith and that I will be condemned. I suppose that is because the situation is all so obvious and clear to you. 

    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 [3]
    « previous next »