Author Topic: Things I wish to discuss (Read 4447 times)

LordPhan · « **Reply #15 on:** July 02, 2011, 12:55:03 PM »

Quote from: Nonno

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.

I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.

You need a lesson on Catholic beliefs sir. There are no Catch 22's in Catholicism despite what the Neo-Cath's and some Sede's tell you.

If your Father tells you to kill your neighbour you do not sin by disobeying him, because he has told you to do something contrary to the faith and therefore lost his previously rightful authority.

Likewise if a Priest tells you to do something sinful or heretical he loses his authority over the Father, and likewise to the Bishop over the Priest and the Pope over the Bishop.

This has always and everywhere been believed.

Jim · « **Reply #16 on:** July 02, 2011, 01:00:25 PM »

Let me just note, I want to discuss these things because of the very Catholic discussions I have read on other fora (HMiS discussing with Gladius, John Lane and the Robert Bellarmine forum, etc.) I do not believe it is a dogma to hold the we do not have a Pope. It is quite a difficult thing to say, actually.

I do, however, have a question: do the majority of sedes hold that the new priestly ordinations are invalid?

LordPhan · « **Reply #17 on:** July 02, 2011, 01:17:27 PM »

Quote from: Jim

Let me just note, I want to discuss these things because of the very Catholic discussions I have read on other fora (HMiS discussing with Gladius, John Lane and the Robert Bellarmine forum, etc.) I do not believe it is a dogma to hold the we do not have a Pope. It is quite a difficult thing to say, actually.

I do, however, have a question: do the majority of sedes hold that the new priestly ordinations are invalid?

Most of your questions to the sede's would be better posed in the Crisis section since Sede's are allowed to speak their minds in that subforum and only in that subforum.

This is an SSPX forum that allows other Trads to join with us.

Most of us in the SSPX and the non-dogmatic sede's aswell would also agree with you that it is not dogmatic whether or not the Pope is a true Pope.
We await a declaration from a future Pope and/or Council to say so.

In the meantime, knowing that what they are preaching is contarary to the faith we disobey them as is neccessary for our salvation.

To answer your immediate question, even the SSPX doubts the new ordinations and when a NO Priest realizes the errors of the V2 Anti-Church and asks to join the SSPX he is conditionally ordianed(The condition of course being that he was not legitamately ordained already in the first place, since one can only be given Holy Orders once, same with Baptism, if someone doubts the validity of their baptism for some reason SSPX will conditionally baptise them)

Hope that Helps and Welcome to the forums.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #18 on:** July 02, 2011, 01:18:26 PM »

Quote from: Jim

I do, however, have a question: do the majority of sedes hold that the new priestly ordinations are invalid?

You are relating two things here which aren't necessarily tied together. Most (all?) sedes believe it to be invalid. Some non-sedes also believe it to be invalid. I don't know if the SSPX has an official position on this, but in practice they suggest it is valid.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #19 on:** July 02, 2011, 01:24:45 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

To answer your immediate question, even the SSPX doubts the new ordinations and when a NO Priest realizes the errors of the V2 Anti-Church and asks to join the SSPX he is conditionally ordianed(The condition of course being that he was not legitamately ordained already in the first place, since one can only be given Holy Orders once, same with Baptism, if someone doubts the validity of their baptism for some reason SSPX will conditionally baptise them)

LP,
Do you know if the SSPX requires conditional ordination?
At one point, they did not, but I don't know what their practice is currently.

LordPhan · « **Reply #20 on:** July 02, 2011, 01:41:14 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: LordPhan
To answer your immediate question, even the SSPX doubts the new ordinations and when a NO Priest realizes the errors of the V2 Anti-Church and asks to join the SSPX he is conditionally ordianed(The condition of course being that he was not legitamately ordained already in the first place, since one can only be given Holy Orders once, same with Baptism, if someone doubts the validity of their baptism for some reason SSPX will conditionally baptise them)

LP,
Do you know if the SSPX requires conditional ordination?
At one point, they did not, but I don't know what their practice is currently.

I believe they do not require it. I asked this question to my Priest awhile ago, he said most of the NO Priests ask for it. But I don't believe he said it would be required. I probably should have worded my last post better.

TKGS · « **Reply #21 on:** July 02, 2011, 08:13:34 PM »

In regards to whether or not "most" sedevacantists hold that the current ordination rites are invalid, I doubt anyone here can answer that since I don't think anyone on this forum knows most sedevacantists.

I tend to believe that most sedevacantists would agree that all of the rites of the Novus Ordo are of, at least, questionable validity. It has been widely publicized that Father Michael Oswalt received a conditional ordination from Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI. That indicates that the official position of the CMRI is that the new ordination rites could possibly be valid.

One of the SSPX priests who come to my parish introduced himself during his first sermon by telling us that he was conditionally ordained by the SSPX. He said that he had no doubts that his ordination was valid, but the SSPX wanted to remove all doubt. Whether this is "official" policy of the SSPX or if they had some information specific to his ordination, I don't know.

Even as a sedevacantist, I accept the possibility that Benedict 16 may somehow be a pope that retains sufficient administrative authority to keep the organ of the Holy See running, appoint cardinals, etc., while having no actual jurisdiction over the faith and morals of the Church since he routinely denies the faith and teaches error and has done so throughout his public life. I understand completely that this is a possibility that the Church, when the crisis has been resolved, will have to rule upon. On the other hand, I also believe that when the Catholic Church truly has a new pope, he will order the bishops whom we now call "independent", sedevacantist, SSPX, etc., whose lines are undoubtedly through true pre-Vatican II bishops and whose consecrations back to those bishops were in the traditional rite to conditionally ordain and consecrate all Catholic bishops who remain in communion with him. I say "remain in communion" because many conciliar bishops will abandon a true pope who insists upon returning to the traditional faith.

Jim · « **Reply #22 on:** July 02, 2011, 09:52:32 PM »

I think the reason Fr. Oswald was ordained sub cond. was because the bishop was consecrated in the new rite. The same with FSSP priests ordained by Bp. Bruskewitz, etc. From what I have read, the problem in the new rite is the English translation of presbyterate instead of priest. If done in Latin say by JP II or Paul VI, or maybe in another language sub as Spanish or italian were it was translated better, would there be doubts? My question is should I doubt the ordination of a priest in English in the new rite, who was ordained by a a bishop consecrated in the old rite?

Jim · « **Reply #23 on:** July 02, 2011, 09:55:35 PM »

I hope that everyone can be patient and bear with me and my questions.

Nonno · « **Reply #24 on:** July 03, 2011, 03:09:25 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

No, the Church did not approve the Novus Ordo. It was approved by the Vatican II anti-church and by a man (Paul VI) who was a Freemason and an anti-pope. And I say he was an anti-pope not based on my own opinion, but on Church teachings. Anyone who joins Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is automatically excommunicated from the Church, so when I say he's an anti-pope I'm saying so according to what the Church teaches.

I agree the Church did not approve of the Novus Ordo, because you have to have a true pope that makes that approval.

Really, the Freemason thing is a moot point since a pope is above canon law, and that excommunication is not divine law. Neither would his being a Freemason invalidate the election because Pius XII legislated to suspended all excommunications for the sake of the election. What makes Paul VI a false pope is divine law - that it is impossible the Holy Ghost would have allowed a true pope to have promulgated the things he did.

Nonno · « **Reply #25 on:** July 03, 2011, 03:24:36 AM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: Nonno
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.

I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.

You need a lesson on Catholic beliefs sir. There are no Catch 22's in Catholicism despite what the Neo-Cath's and some Sede's tell you.

If your Father tells you to kill your neighbour you do not sin by disobeying him, because he has told you to do something contrary to the faith and therefore lost his previously rightful authority.

Likewise if a Priest tells you to do something sinful or heretical he loses his authority over the Father, and likewise to the Bishop over the Priest and the Pope over the Bishop.

This has always and everywhere been believed.

A Catch-22 is an unsolvable dilemma. I created no such thing. The Church herself ruled at Trent:

"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."

If Paul VI & Co. were true popes, one would be anathema to say the Novus Ordo Mass is anything but good and holy. It's not an unsolvable dilemma because the Church has approved of the beliefs that there can be anti-popes, that there can be false popes, and even that popes can automatically cease to be popes through heresy. I believe they are false popes, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is NOT from the Church.

LordPhan · « **Reply #26 on:** July 03, 2011, 04:49:44 AM »

Quote from: Nonno

Quote from: LordPhan
Quote from: Nonno
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.

I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.

You need a lesson on Catholic beliefs sir. There are no Catch 22's in Catholicism despite what the Neo-Cath's and some Sede's tell you.

If your Father tells you to kill your neighbour you do not sin by disobeying him, because he has told you to do something contrary to the faith and therefore lost his previously rightful authority.

Likewise if a Priest tells you to do something sinful or heretical he loses his authority over the Father, and likewise to the Bishop over the Priest and the Pope over the Bishop.

This has always and everywhere been believed.

A Catch-22 is an unsolvable dilemma. I created no such thing. The Church herself ruled at Trent:

"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."

If Paul VI & Co. were true popes, one would be anathema to say the Novus Ordo Mass is anything but good and holy. It's not an unsolvable dilemma because the Church has approved of the beliefs that there can be anti-popes, that there can be false popes, and even that popes can automatically cease to be popes through heresy. I believe they are false popes, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is NOT from the Church.

Your understanding of what that quote means is laughable. Your understanding of what constitutes the church(Magisterium) is even more ludicrous. It is not the CHURCH who promulgated the New Mass but MAN who promulgated it.

It is a fact that St. Pius V never promulgated a new mass, he codified it.

The Council of Trent was making a declaration on the Mass of All-Time, the Same Mass that had been said(With various minor changes) always and everywhere.

Whether they are False Popes or not is irrelavent, it is a fact that once elevated to the Chair of Peter no man can be his Judge on whether or not he has fallen into heresy. The ONLY way he can be judged is by the Bishops making a stand against him and putting to him a dogmatically defined truth and him denying it.(This happend before but the Pope recanted his falsehood when it is was put to him) Or a Future Pope condemns him for his beliefs or a Future Pope calls a Council and condemns the past Popes for their heretical beliefs.(This also happened at the Third Council of Constantinople *To the Heretic Honorius Anethama we say, to all heretics anethama* )

I have no problem with you believing that they could be anti-popes but the fact you said that someone who believes they might be real Popes should be oblidged to follow the Novus Ordo when you yourself have stated that you believe it is heresy is MORTAL SIN. You can NEVER tell someone to do that which is evil, nor can you cause the sin of scandal by suggesting that it would ever be licit that which you know is not.

LordPhan · « **Reply #27 on:** July 03, 2011, 04:52:45 AM »

And you most certainly created a catch-22 because you cannot be damned if you do and damned if you don't. That is a protestantism. You should go back and read the Catholic Epistles that teach you to never follow an unlawful command or that state a Servant must serve his master in all things that are Licit and never in anything illicit. I'd go and grab the quotes and everything but I am heading out to Mass and expect to be out all day.

LordPhan · « **Reply #28 on:** July 03, 2011, 05:06:36 AM »

Quote from: Nonno

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
No, the Church did not approve the Novus Ordo. It was approved by the Vatican II anti-church and by a man (Paul VI) who was a Freemason and an anti-pope. And I say he was an anti-pope not based on my own opinion, but on Church teachings. Anyone who joins Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is automatically excommunicated from the Church, so when I say he's an anti-pope I'm saying so according to what the Church teaches.

I agree the Church did not approve of the Novus Ordo, because you have to have a true pope that makes that approval.

Really, the Freemason thing is a moot point since a pope is above canon law, and that excommunication is not divine law. Neither would his being a Freemason invalidate the election because Pius XII legislated to suspended all excommunications for the sake of the election. What makes Paul VI a false pope is divine law - that it is impossible the Holy Ghost would have allowed a true pope to have promulgated the things he did.

Canon Law is dogmatic, any law that has an anethama attached to it is infallible, if it was once infallible it is always infallible, in order for an anethama to have been imposed it must be from the Chair(Ex Cathedra).

Dogmatic laws are Divine laws they are always and everywhere believed, if not always defined.

A Pope is not above Canon law, it has never been believed that he could be above a law with an anethama attached nor can a law that has an anethama attached be reprieved or abrogated. There are diciplanary laws that a Pope is above, but Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not one of those. Freemasons are outside of the Church, they are heretics and enemies of the Church one cannot be inside the church and be her enemy, thus if one is a Freemason one is anathema.

Now Whether or Not Paul VI was a Freemason I do not know. But if he was he would be outside the Church.

Either way, my belief in whether or not these last 4 or 5 Popes were Popes or not has no bearing on my salvation, so long as i keep to the Infallible Magisterium of the Church I will find my way.

Exilenomore · « **Reply #29 on:** July 03, 2011, 07:28:54 AM »

The Honorius Calumny has been refuted by St. Robert Bellarmine. The anti-infallibilists used this 'argument' at the First Vatican Council and it was dismissed.