Author Topic: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite  (Read 6752 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Asbury Fox

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Reputation: +9/-18
  • Gender: Male
Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
« Reply #150 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: +219/-643
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #151 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

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2055
    • Reputation: +1096/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #152 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

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2055
    • Reputation: +1096/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #153 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
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #154 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
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #155 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: 5861
    • Reputation: +3433/-291
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #156 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.  

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #157 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
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #158 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.

    Offline BumphreyHogart

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 689
    • Reputation: +219/-643
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #159 on: June 20, 2017, 05:56:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.


    You should realize that in response to what I said was true you reacted that the Church has not defined what is the truth. Now, here you claim what the truth is!  You need to get your story straight.

    No, the Church doesn't have to define it. Yes, there can be the truth without a Church definition. The one you posit is not the truth, and here is why...

    Theologians primarily write for other theologians, not the general public. What is approved for the general public is the truth, even without a solemn definition. Always has been.

    Revisit St. Robert Bellarmine. In his time he directly covered the 5 extant opinions on this matter, and he said that the 5th opinion was the "true" one. St. Francis de Sales echoed this around the same time. Notice that both are Doctors of the Church, and Saints. The two theologians you are trying to promote on this question are not. For good reason.

    Next, the quote by St. Francis de Sales was written, not to other theologians, but to Protestants, because it is the truth. A Saint doesn't categorically express something as true if it were merely an opinion with other valid opinions, but fail to mention the others. For example, there is an equal opinion about whether souls in purgatory can pray for us, and this is precisely why you will not find one or the other presented in an approved Catholic book as being categorically the truth. No responsible author would dare. Nor get approval.

    Additionally, this quote by St. Francis was in a work publicly approved by a pope on the occasion of his elevation to the title of "Doctor". This was 7 years after Vatican I, and Pope Pius IX called his work, "a full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion".

    7 years before that, at the Council of the Vatican, a question was asked to all the Council fathers, and the answer that came back for all was what St. Robert and St. Francis said was the truth.

    As well, this is categorically stated as the truth ever since Vatican I. In 1887, Elements of Ecclesastical Law was a canon law work for the English speaking clergy, and the Holy Office scrutinized it and approved. It contains the same truth.

    As does the Catholic Encyclopedia and A Catholic Dictionary. All the same, categorically teaching it as true, without a hint there is any other valid opinion on this.

    The S&S book is a tragedy for traditionalists, mutilating the meaning of "ipso facto" to make it mean something not traditional, and to oppose all the sources I have just related say it was the truth, in the manner I am explaining. It's actually a modernistic move to redefine a clear traditional concept in order to twist the truth.
    "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

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2055
    • Reputation: +1096/-564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #160 on: June 20, 2017, 08:09:56 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Quote from: Last Tradhican on Yesterday at 06:33:03 PM
    Quote
    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.

    Asbury Fox replied: 
    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

    I said calling a sedevacantes a sect and heretical is irrational, now you are damning them to hell. You are your own worst witness my friend.  For your own sake, I would suggest that you keep such opinions to yourself, for you are labeling yourself as a nut case. I would suggest that you speak in speculative terms rather than in such dogmatic tones.
    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 MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5861
    • Reputation: +3433/-291
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #161 on: June 20, 2017, 08:14:33 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.
    Since you believe your pope is apostate and therefore has lost, if he ever had, the Faith.  
    You believe the Church has failed, and you find safety in numbers as most of those who tear down their pope and defend him at the same time.  
    Sedevacantist position is to defend the Papacy not the man sitting there. Sedevacantist although small in numbers but believe the Church lives on, pure and untampered with.  
    God has given us Bishops and a visible Church, study up!
    Luke 18; 8    "when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
     

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #162 on: June 20, 2017, 12:51:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since you believe your pope is apostate and therefore has lost, if he ever had, the Faith.  
    You believe the Church has failed, and you find safety in numbers as most of those who tear down their pope and defend him at the same time.  
    Sedevacantist position is to defend the Papacy not the man sitting there. Sedevacantist although small in numbers but believe the Church lives on, pure and untampered with.  
    God has given us Bishops and a visible Church, study up!
    Luke 18; 8    "when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"
     

    I do not believe the Church has failed, Sedevacantists believe the Church has failed. I believe we have a valid Pope. The see is not vacant. We have a college of cardinals. We have cardinals. We have valid bishops in every diocese of the Church. We have valid diocene priests in every diocese.

    You Sedvacantists  cannot claim the Church lives on, without a Pope, cardinals, bishops, dioceses, and priests. You deny that all this exists. Jesus did ask that when he returned would he find faith, but he knew there would be a Church with a Pope and bishops:

    Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #163 on: June 20, 2017, 01:01:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • You should realize that in response to what I said was true you reacted that the Church has not defined what is the truth. Now, here you claim what the truth is!  You need to get your story straight.


    You do know that I am merely choosing a position, as I am free to do, and claiming that I believe it to be the truth. Just because the Church hasn't defined a position, doesn't mean we can't choose one ourselves and advocate for it. I have a right to believe and defend the theological opinion I think is the truth, and you have the right to believe in another theological opinion and claim it as the truth. When the Church makes a definition, we will know who was right and which was the truth.

    Between the positions of Bellarmine/Suarez and Cajetan/John of St. Thomas, I believe the Dominicans were correct in deciding at which moment in time a Pope looses his office after the ecumenical council..

    Offline Asbury Fox

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 66
    • Reputation: +9/-18
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Traditional rite of ordination vs new rite
    « Reply #164 on: June 20, 2017, 01:15:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Revisit St. Robert Bellarmine. In his time he directly covered the 5 extant opinions on this matter, and he said that the 5th opinion was the "true" one. St. Francis de Sales echoed this around the same time. Notice that both are Doctors of the Church, and Saints. The two theologians you are trying to promote on this question are not. For good reason.


    St. Robert Bellarmine believed that the crime of heresy must be established by Church first before he lost his office. An ecumenical council had to find the Pope guilty for heresy. God immediately severs the bond between the man and the office and he falls ipso facto from the office before a declaration of deprivation of the Church, in contrast to Cajetan/John of St. Thomas who teach that the Pope doesn't fall until the declaration of deprivation. That a Pope falls immediately ipso facto after an ecumenical council establishes the crime is the fifth option. That is what you Sedevacantists miss. Both Bellarmine and Suarez believed in Church authority using human judgement, must establish the crime through an ecumenical council first, before the divine punishment of ipso facto loss of office. 

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16