Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: Validity of NO orders  (Read 5609 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Plenus Venter

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1508
  • Reputation: +1233/-97
  • Gender: Male
Re: Validity of NO orders
« Reply #75 on: March 13, 2023, 06:44:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mithrandylan on March 13, 2023, 09:31:00 AM
    .
    Then would you say that it is part of Tradition for the Church to have no opinion on the integrity of the sacramental rites she imposes?
    Not at all, but the Pope has no power to mangle them. We already have the Sacramental rites from the Church, from Tradition, and their integrity and validity are guaranteed. Were the Pope to attempt to revolutionise them (as he did) we ought not to follow, not to listen, not to obey, as Torquemada says. The idea that we could then declare such a Pope a non-Pope, where is that dogma?
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1508
    • Reputation: +1233/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of NO orders
    « Reply #76 on: March 13, 2023, 06:53:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on March 13, 2023, 09:51:52 AM
    I you believe this to be the case, then you've lost the Catholic faith.  If the Church cannot be trusted as a guarantor of valid Sacraments and true doctrine, then the existence of a Church and of a hierarchy is utterly meaningless.  Now Plenus here and Stubborn are empowered to be the sherrifs and enforces of Sacramental validity and sound doctrine, and not the Catholic hierarchy.  This is so preposterous that I have no words.

    This is THE essential role of the Church, to guarantee and safeguard not only true doctrine but all that pertains to the salvation and sanctification of souls (first and foremost, providing valid Sacraments).

    This is Catholicism 101 and what distinguishes Catholicism from the Prots and the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics, who ALL claim (along with many R&R now) that the Church had become corrupt and departed from the Deposit of Revelation, from sound doctrine, and from true moral standards.

    https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
    Promulgating invalid Sacraments would constitute a defection of the Church in the very essence of her mission.

    And your assertion that the Church loses the hierarchy when an Antipope usurps the papacy is absurd, as this has happened many times throughout Church history, nor is the hierarchy lost during any interregnum.  But if legitimate popes could promulgate invalid Sacraments, the Church would effectively be defunct.
    Your quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is spot on Ladislaus. The Church continues as She always has (and yes, even with a Pope) in spite of the illegitimate commands and promulgations from the Pope and many of Her Shepherds, who ought not to be followed: were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of the Faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or the divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over, ignored." - Cardinal Torquemada (Turrecremata) OP (1388-1468), Summa de Ecclesia 
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1508
    • Reputation: +1233/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of NO orders
    « Reply #77 on: March 13, 2023, 08:35:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on March 13, 2023, 07:05:39 AM
    QvD just said he (and many sedevacantists) aren't making it a dogma (ie. binding others' consciences).  They are making conclusions based on theological opinion (primarily that of St Robert Bellarmine).  Why are you continuing to push the line of thought that we're making it dogma and also suggesting that it's not really based on theological opinion (merely "perceived")?

    Also, you say there are many opinions.  Isn't your position based on another theological opinion?  Do you hold that sedevacantists are out of the Church like others on this forum have done?  And if so, wouldn't that be hypocritical of you since your position is only based on an opinion as well?
    No, 2V, I do not hold SVs to be out of the Church, because of the profound confusion, everyone is trying their best to navigate the crisis and stay Catholic. The Shepherd is struck and the sheep truly are scattered: Sedevacantism, Resistance, SSPX, ICK, FSSP, Conciliar...

    Why I used the word 'perceived' is that St Robert Bellarmine's opinion as used by SVs to justify their opinion is completely misrepresented, which has recently been discussed heatedly (as usual) in other threads. Please don't reignite that debate. If you really do want to discuss it, I'll join you in another thread and we can go through his teaching step by step, but I think it has been done to death.

    If you are taking it as certain Catholic teaching that Francis is not Pope, and making it the basis of your actions, then you are making it 'dogma'. If it is certain, then it does bind Catholic consciences, whatever anyone may say. If it is not certain, then it should not be affirmed. You cannot depose a Pope on an opinion, it is that simple. As St Robert Bellarmine says: "they object the Papist bishops have left the true faith, therefore they are no longer bishops...I respond...we cannot depose catholic bishops...unless they are legitimately judged and condemned; for in every controversy, the condition of the one possessing it is better" (On The Church, Bk IV, Ch VIII, The Fifth Mark: Apostolic Succession). Fr Chazal says it eloquently in Contra Cekadam: "The practical behaviour of Catholics does not depend in any way on an opinion. What you say as a private person is not a dogma... and before Vatican II no dogma on this intricate, controversial and until then academic question had ever been formulated. On the contrary, with the exception of the time of Gratian, the constant unanimity was that there is no unanimity on this question."

    So, no, my position is not based on a theological opinion. It is based on common sense and the natural law as much as on Catholic teaching as expressed above by St Robert and Fr Chazal. If there are contrary opinions among theologians and the Church has not settled the matter, then we are obliged, in the practical order, to reserve our judgement and leave the matter for the Church to settle.

    It is a very serious question, in my opinion. While I certainly do not hold SVs outside of the Church, there is real danger, especially for future generations, that schism will result. If there is no Pope and no hierarchy, where will the next Pope come from? What if Sts Peter and Paul do not come down from Heaven to designate? Will a future Pope be accepted by the SVs? By some, no doubt, but almost certainly a new schism will result. 

    The other very grave concern is that many SVs stop attending Mass and frequenting the sacraments for no other reason than the priest says 'una cuм'. Not only do they not pray for a Pope who needs prayers more than ever, but they fail in their religious obligations. They bring up their family right beside a church, yet those poor children may never see the inside of a church, let alone attend daily Mass and visits to the Blessed Sacrament. All because of an 'una cuм'. Now you say you are not a 'dogmatic sedevacantist' so I presume that would not be your case. But it is the case with some of my family. That is a tragedy. That is not Catholic. That is a danger to souls. That is a deception of the devil.

    Then, if you look at every Sedevacantist group, all of them exist because someone has made a dogmatic decision that the Pope cannot be Pope, and has taken positive action to 'save' the Church precisely because this was held to be an essential truth. It has always taken the form of a priest, convinced of this notion, who has approached a bishop to have himself consecrated in order to 'save' the Church. That in itself is enough for me. That is the Church turned upside down. It is a strange conception of how Divine Providence would work. Fr Pfeiffer shares this same bizarre concept without perhaps the SV doctrine.
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1508
    • Reputation: +1233/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of NO orders
    « Reply #78 on: March 13, 2023, 08:45:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: OABrownson1876 on March 13, 2023, 02:05:16 PM
    I have been rereading this thread and one thought stands out. Concerning Fr. Cekada's commentary on the New Rite, the employ of the words "spiritus principalis," is vague in and of itself.  Lucifer is a spiritus principalis if you consider what St. Thomas said, that he was a prince of the Dominions.  Every angel is a 'spiritus.'  We know that most of the changes in the Church were masonically  orchestrated.  The argument can be made that spiritus principalis may or may not signify God.
    OAB, I have not studied this issue closely, but I think Fr Pierre-Marie demonstrates in his study that a Benedictine from the early 20th Century, made a comparison with Eastern Rites and discovered this very same wording in two of their rites. I'm not here making any statement about validity, or what these rites were, just that these very same words are found in Eastern Catholic liturgies. Do you know anything about this and whether or not it is true? I plan to study it further when I get more time.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 11967
    • Reputation: +7517/-2254
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of NO orders
    « Reply #79 on: March 13, 2023, 10:02:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    OAB, I have not studied this issue closely, 
    :laugh1:  Understatement of the year
    Logged

    Offline Plenus Venter

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1508
    • Reputation: +1233/-97
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Validity of NO orders
    « Reply #80 on: March 14, 2023, 12:39:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 13, 2023, 10:02:17 PM
    :laugh1:  Understatement of the year
    Well, it is only March after all. You might outdo me yet!
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
    « previous next »