CathInfo.com

Holiness in doctrine, you mean such as saying that false religions have seeds of the Word?

Is that a doctrine of the faith, taught by the Church or Scripture, found anywhere in the sources of revelation?  Has it been taught with authority?  Even if I granted such a notion, what does it really mean anyway?  That truth is found in false religions and all truth is referred ultimately to the Word?

Holiness in the sacraments, you mean in the bastardized and invalid New Rite of Consecration?

 

The liturgy that surrounds the Blessed Sacrament and the Blessed Sacrament itself are two entirely different things.  The gratuitous claims of invalidity can be gratuitously denied.  Why do you people continue to parrott such unproven mantras?  Do you think it somehow justifies your opinions?  

Or how about the Mass without any consecration at all entirely approved of by JPII?

 

Again, an entirely separate question.  Arguing that a particular consecration form is valid or not does not touch upon the notion of the holiness of the Sacraments themselves.  Be that as it may, the opinion to which you refer is merely that, a non-binding opinion issued by a Congregation.  Such judgments are not irreformable and consequently essentially fallible.  Your citation of this case merely demonstrates that modern clerics lack the theological training to deal with these questions in a sound manner.  Certainly injurious to Catholics, no?    

I won't speak about the "for all" in the Novus Ordo Mass because you will say that it isn't the official Novus Ordo Mass, and apparently you think that the true Church is kept alive by a rubric preserved in glass somewhere that is never used...

It has been demonstrated that "for all" does not invalidate the form.  I'm not sure what you mean by "keeping the Church alive."  In fact, it is dying before our eyes.  

As for individual members being "sinners," it is now nigh-on two years since I've been here that you refuse to address the real issue which is that heretics are not just sinners, but non-Catholics.

 

You beg the question by stating this truism.  But in fact, it is generally agreed that occult heretics retain membership in the Church.  Pretty injurious to the Church, no?  There are varying degrees of error as well, a fact that you simply refuse to deal with because it throws a wrench in your opining.  

They are not members of the Church.  What does it say about you that you are TRYING to confuse people, to make them equate those who commit mortal sins of the flesh or whatever, with heretics?  You are intellectually dishonest.

 

I'm not trying to confuse people.  I'm driving the point home that the Church can be injured by sinners of all kinds.  You brought up heretics.  Even one Catholic in a state of mortal sin is harmful to the Church.  Do you understand this?  

You know very well that mortal sinners are dead members of the Church; and heretics are not in the Church at all.  But in your posts, you blur the difference -- now why would someone who wants the truth do that, hm?  The irony of you always talking about distinctions is so very rich... You are the last person who should accuse anyone else of not making distinctions.  All I can say is that for someone who wants to be the lay version of Garrigou-Lagrange you certainly aren't very rigorous in your arguments, relying on a bunch of sophistry and hedging.

Well, that's true if my opponent injects superfluous statements into my points and thereby chastizes me for not making proper distinctions, then I concede your point.    

If a heretic could be Pope, when the Holy Ghost has promised the Pope would be infallible on faith and morals, how would we ever know where the truth is?

 

Your begging the question.  An heretic cannot be Pope.  Whether this or that man is an heretic is a question of fact.  That is what begging the question means, assuming something is true that is yet to be proven.

If a Pope could disfigure the Deposit of Faith, Christ's Church has no meaning, no sense.

 

Why? If a single bishop could disfigure the deposit of faith, or even a large body, and yet admit that Christ's Church still has "meaning," where do you draw the line?  

As to the rest of your comments, I have directly challenged your notions in several threads.  Until you deal with them, I have nothing more to say regarding your "logical conclusions."

Caminus, the 1968 order of episcopal consecration can be deomnstrated as invalid based on this fact:

1. They used an "eastern form."
2. This "eastern form" come from the maronite rite of the enthronement of a patriarch.
3. A patriarch is already a Bishop!

Therefore, the rite has, at its basis, prayers which are substantially different and not the same as prayers of episcopal consecration.

Therefore the rite cannot be valid.

A scrament must signify what it effects, and effect what it signifies (Pope Leo XIII). None of the essential prayers signify the effect: The elevation of a man into the episcopate and its duties.

Therefore, it is invalid.

If you want a detailed answer, say so.