Author Topic: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite  (Read 4961 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Asbury Fox

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Reputation: +9/-18
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
« Reply #150 on: June 19, 2017, 01:43:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Does Siscoe believe as you do that Bergolio is an apostate?

    How far back does your apostate belief go; John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, B-16?

    I don't know if Siscoe believes Bergoglio is an apostate. I don't believe John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI were apostates. They each were infected with varying degrees of Modernism, but none of them were out and out apostates. Pope Francis is a true out and out Modernist, who I believe to have lost the Catholic faith. I hope that his pontificate draws to a close shortly. God will take care of Pope Francis in due time.


    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #151 on: June 19, 2017, 02:07:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • The Church has declared them saints. I don't think they should have been saints.  It was a mistake. This is possible because canonizations are not infallible. With the changes Pope John Paul II made to the canonization process, the common opinion of theologians today is that canonizations are not infallible.

    Padre Pio is a true saint. Worthy of being a saint. Not the other three.


    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +196/-637
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #152 on: June 19, 2017, 04:35:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • The Church has never officially defined the process of how a Pope is deposed. There is no official Church teaching. The common opinion of the theologians has been that the Popes can loose their office through heresy. 136 Church theologians are in agreement. Only Bouix disagreed. The greatest saints and doctors of the Church have commented. Four of the greatest theologians are in agreement. That would be Bellarmine, Suarez, Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas. Before and after Vatican I, their teachings on the deposition of a Pope continue to be taught by the theologians of the Church.

    "All of which helped the Church come to a conclusion."

    There has been no conclusion. The Church has never defined any teaching on the deposition of a Pope.


    Interesting development here. You say nothing about the meaning of "ipso facto". Does this mean that you see the error?

    Also, if you claim it has never been defined by the Church, then what gives you the right to insist that the truth is the reconciliation of all the historical opinions and not let everyone choose their preference?

    As well, if St. Francis de Sales is opposite to another historical theological opinion, as I said before, opposites cannot be reconciled.


    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #153 on: June 19, 2017, 04:57:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • Interesting development here. You say nothing about the meaning of "ipso facto". Does this mean that you see the error?


    As well, if St. Francis de Sales is opposite to another historical theological opinion, as I said before, opposites cannot be reconciled.

    No. I still hold to my position. A Pope is judged a heretic by the Church through an ecumenical council and he falls from his office ipso fact from that point in time. The ipso facto occurs once the Church has found him to be a heretic. That is what St. Francis de Sales meant. It is not ipso facto at the moment of the sin, but at the moment of conviction of the crime. St. Francis de Sales holds to the positions of Bellarmine and Suarez. Francis de Sales, Bellarmine, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas are all in agreement on the necessity of the Church to judge the crime, but the disagreement is at what point in time a Pope looses his office after Church judgement.  

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +196/-637
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #154 on: June 19, 2017, 05:19:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • No. I still hold to my position. A Pope is judged a heretic by the Church through an ecumenical council and he falls from his office ipso fact from that point in time. The ipso facto occurs once the Church has found him to be a heretic. That is what St. Francis de Sales meant. It is not ipso facto at the moment of the sin, but at the moment of conviction of the crime. St. Francis de Sales holds to the positions of Bellarmine and Suarez. Francis de Sales, Bellarmine, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas are all in agreement on the necessity of the Church to judge the crime, but the disagreement is at what point in time a Pope looses his office after Church judgement.  


    Apparently, we should take care of talking about the meaning of "ipso facto" first. You are merely CHOOSING to believe it means something you prefer, but what you believe is contrary to all definition and usage. Do you care? You are are saying that the Saint and Doctor "meant" something, even though his words most obviously show the contrary.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.


    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #155 on: June 19, 2017, 05:22:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1



  • Also, if you claim it has never been defined by the Church, then what gives you the right to insist that the truth is the reconciliation of all the historical opinions and not let everyone choose their preference?


    I have no problem with everyone choosing their theological opinions regarding the deposing of a Pope, but I am going  to insist that the Cajetan/John of St. Thomas version to be the correct one. Just because Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary de fide in 1950, doesn't mean it wasn't true before 1950 in the preceding 19 centuries.

    While deposing a Pope is open to debate, what is not, is heretical position of the Sedevacantist sect's position on the Pope and the Church. That there has been no Pope since 1958 is heretical denying of Vatican I's teaching on perpetual Popes. Because Popes fall into heresy and go crazy, does not give Catholics the right to go crazy and fall into heresy themselves. That there has been no Pope since 1958, when six conclaves have occurred, and have elected six men to the papacy, is heretical insanity.

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #156 on: June 19, 2017, 05:30:54 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

  • Apparently, we should take care of talking about the meaning of "ipso facto" first. You are merely CHOOSING to believe it means something you prefer, but what you believe is contrary to all definition and usage. Do you care? You are are saying that the Saint and Doctor "meant" something, even though his words most obviously show the contrary.

    "...Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity.."

    The ipso facto happens when he is explicitly a heretic. He falls ipso facto when he becomes explicitly a heretic. You have to figure out what St. Francis means by "explicitly a heretic"

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +196/-637
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #157 on: June 19, 2017, 05:40:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • "...Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity.."

    The ipso facto happens when he is explicitly a heretic. He falls ipso facto when he becomes explicitly a heretic. You have to figure out what St. Francis means by "explicitly a heretic"


    A Saint becomes a "Doctor of the Church" because he has a talent for clear, precise and concise teaching.  He wrote what he did to Protestants, so he expected even them to understand what he meant. It isn't a proper theological term...it is a human description. If you look in a Thesaurus it means "obvious".  You should find it strange to ask what he meant by the term, when he used it with Protestants and expected them to easily understand.

    In addition, how incompetent do you make St. Francis de Sales to be that he couldn't convey a simply thought that "ipso facto" should means "after" the Church makes the declaration (as you allege)?  Sorry, but YOU are the one who is twisting what he most obviously meant by his very words.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.


    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1032
    • Reputation: +596/-263
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #158 on: June 19, 2017, 06:33:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • While deposing a Pope is open to debate, what is not, is heretical position of the Sedevacantist sect's position on the Pope and the Church.
    They are not a sect and they are not heretical or schismatic, the sedevacantes are infinitely closer to your thinking than the popes of Vatican II church who you do not call heretical. Calling a sedevacantes a sect and heretical is irrational.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1032
    • Reputation: +596/-263
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #159 on: June 19, 2017, 06:52:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't believe John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI were apostates. They each were infected with varying degrees of Modernism, but none of them were out and out apostates. Pope Francis is a true out and out Modernist...
    They were all modernist and heretics, same dung in different packaging. That is what I meant when I say you have been dragged through miles of heresies. You were slow boiled to accept the heresies of these popes. They were all destroyer "popes", the devil himself could not have done a better job of "deceiving the elect".
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #160 on: June 19, 2017, 08:02:37 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • They were all modernist and heretics, same dung in different packaging. That is what I meant when I say you have been dragged through miles of heresies. You were slow boiled to accept the heresies of these popes. They were all destroyer "popes", the devil himself could not have done a better job of "deceiving the elect".

    There is a difference between a heretic and an apostate.  A heretic denies a Catholic dogma or doctrine. an article of faith. An apostate looses the faith. Looses the faith of Christ. Francis is an apostate and the others were merely heretics. I have never accepted the heresies of any of these Popes. I do not hold a single Modernist heresy. 


    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #161 on: June 19, 2017, 08:18:58 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • They are not a sect and they are not heretical or schismatic, the sedevacantes are infinitely closer to your thinking than the popes of Vatican II church who you do not call heretical. Calling a sedevacantes a sect and heretical is irrational.

    Those clerics and laity in the Church who have embraced Modernism are heretics. Sedevacantists unfortunately have fallen into heresy because of their reaction to these Modernist heretics. Both are going to the pit because of their different heresies. The Modernists for accepting Modernism and the Sedevacantists for embracing a Protestant heresy of denying a visible Church and for believing the Church has defected. Denying Vatican I and the attributes of the Church. Schismatic for rejecting the authority and validity of the Popes elected since 1958.

    Unrepentant Sedevacantists who go to hell are really going to hate the Church and the conciliar Popes then. Those Modernists Popes who are damned will be damned for their heresies and these Popes became the stumbling blocks that damned the Sedevacantists. Heretical popes and heretical Sedevacantists together in the pit.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5189
    • Reputation: +3090/-106
    • Gender: Female
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #162 on: June 19, 2017, 10:12:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Those clerics and laity in the Church who have embraced Modernism are heretics. Sedevacantists unfortunately have fallen into heresy because of their reaction to these Modernist heretics. Both are going to the pit because of their different heresies. The Modernists for accepting Modernism and the Sedevacantists for embracing a Protestant heresy of denying a visible Church and for believing the Church has defected. Denying Vatican I and the attributes of the Church. Schismatic for rejecting the authority and validity of the Popes elected since 1958.

    Unrepentant Sedevacantists who go to hell are really going to hate the Church and the conciliar Popes then. Those Modernists Popes who are damned will be damned for their heresies and these Popes became the stumbling blocks that damned the Sedevacantists. Heretical popes and heretical Sedevacantists together in the pit.
    Are you speaking of the reaction to the Modernist heretics in the sense that we want nothing to do with them?
    The Church is very visible, we have Bishops, the Eucharist, and people who have the same Faith as the deposit of Faith teaches.  Can't say the same for the Modernists that you adhere too!  In fact your ilk are those who believe the Church has defected, you first say an apostate is someone who has lost the Faith, you admit that Francis is an apostate, therefore he has lost the Faith so you have a Pope that has lost the Faith; how do you spell 
    D E F E C T E D?

    Vatican II does not possess the Four Marks, explain if you think how so.

    Attributes = Authority?  explain with your apostate pope as you call him?  
    Infallibility I thought Vatican II doesn't believe that anymore; see above for INDEFECTIBILITY. 

    You constantly defend while at the same time tear down your position.  Go back and read what you are posting.  
    Galatians 1; 8
    But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #163 on: June 19, 2017, 11:39:03 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are you speaking of the reaction to the Modernist heretics in the sense that we want nothing to do with them?
    The Church is very visible, we have Bishops, the Eucharist, and people who have the same Faith as the deposit of Faith teaches.  Can't say the same for the Modernists that you adhere too!  In fact your ilk are those who believe the Church has defected, you first say an apostate is someone who has lost the Faith, you admit that Francis is an apostate, thereforea he has lost the Faith so you have a Pope that has lost the Faith; how do you spell
    D E F E C T E D?

    Vatican II does not possess the Four Marks, explain if you think how so.

    Attributes = Authority?  explain with your apostate pope as you call him?  s
    Infallibility I thought Vatican II doesn't believe that anymore; see above for INDEFECTIBILITY.

    You constantly defend while at the same time tear down your position.  Go back and read what you are posting.  

    The heretical reaction in in saying that there is no Pope since 1958, no hierarchy, no bishops, or priests because of invalid orders, which is not the case.

    Indefectibility applies to the Church. I have not said the Church has defected, that would be a heresy. Attributes of the Church are visibility, perpetual indefectibility, and infallibility. A Pope who has become apostate is still Pope until he is removed from office. Pope Francis continues to be the Pope with authority and jurisdiction. He is still in the office of the papacy. A Pope does not cease being Pope through apostasy or heresy until a judgement of the Church. Also Pope Francis has not made his apostasy public. He has yet to come out and publicly speak about a loss of faith. Without that it is only speculation on my part. 

    The Four marks belongs to the Church, not an ecumenical council. Councils don't have marks. Only a church does. 

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
      • View Profile
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #164 on: June 19, 2017, 11:48:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church is very visible, we have Bishops, the Eucharist, and people who have the same Faith as the deposit of Faith teaches.  



    What bishops? Sedevacantists believe that there are no bishops except for Sedevacantist bishops and maybe one or two that are still alive since their consecration with the Pius XII rite.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
    Powered by SMFPacks WYSIWYG Editor