Author Topic: John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble  (Read 5990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caminus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3015
  • Reputation: +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
« Reply #45 on: September 24, 2011, 07:15:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Gregory I
    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.


    I'm not even sure if this merits a response.  :facepalm:

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #46 on: September 24, 2011, 07:54:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's not a calumy to criticize Mr. Vennari's writing.

    Mr. Vennari seems like a nice man (I always thought Catholic Family News was a good read), but this is a hack-job, especially considering the importance of the topic

    Bringing up the issue of an imprimatur for the "superb" 100 years of Modernism in the same list as the question to whether future superior generals would be like Archbishop Lefebvre shows something on an egological ontology, (or perhaps the hopelessly parochial and mindless confusion of someone stuck in the SSPX orbit)

    The actual fundamental disagreements on theology and philosophy are secondary to a purely formal recognition and a meaningless imprimatur?  And a meaningless imprimatur ranks up with the question as to who will lead the society and how will bishops be consecrated?  

    There is no sense of proportion in this essay, but anyone who would follow the SSPX wherever they go cannot have any sense of the relative importance of things.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #47 on: September 25, 2011, 02:59:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I spoke with the District Superior of Canada today, and I asked him if all the Bishops would be at the meeting and he stated he thinks so. His Sermon today involved the Preamble and that it would be rejected if it had conditions.

    On AngelQueen someone posted that the USA District Superior stated something similar in St. Mary's.


    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #48 on: September 25, 2011, 04:24:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    Quote from: Gregory I
    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.


    I'm not even sure if this merits a response.  :facepalm:



    Caminus, if anything the sedes here should be saying that to you... YOU are not really worthy of any responses due to your dishonesty in this argument and in general towards promotion of the SSPX.

    How dare you say that Gregory's valid topic and post is not worthy of a response.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #49 on: September 25, 2011, 04:36:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • P.I.O., why did Fr. Cekada write such a long and detailed essay attempting to demonstrate the invalidity of the ordination rite when he could have easily proved it by a three sentence syllogism?  Does that make sense to you?  Neither you, nor Gregory, understand that which you speak about.  


    Offline Santo Subito

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 600
    • Reputation: +84/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #50 on: September 25, 2011, 04:49:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • FLUB

    Offline PartyIsOver221

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +640/-0
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #51 on: September 25, 2011, 06:28:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    P.I.O., why did Fr. Cekada write such a long and detailed essay attempting to demonstrate the invalidity of the ordination rite when he could have easily proved it by a three sentence syllogism?  Does that make sense to you?  Neither you, nor Gregory, understand that which you speak about.  



    What does that matter?

    Why did God allow 27 books to be in the New Testament for the end result of humans knowing what was needed for salvation? Couldn't He just have allowed 3 sentences saying Jesus is God, whole in the Trinity and if you are in His Church with baptism and a state of grace, you will attain Heaven.

    A bunch of extra FLUB in those extra words of the New Testament, I know .....

    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-105
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #52 on: September 25, 2011, 09:00:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    P.I.O., why did Fr. Cekada write such a long and detailed essay attempting to demonstrate the invalidity of the ordination rite when he could have easily proved it by a three sentence syllogism?  Does that make sense to you?  Neither you, nor Gregory, understand that which you speak about.  


    Then explain to me, why am I WRONG?

    Your disdain is neither the magisterium, nor is it proof. It is just the sounding of a gong, and the clanging of a cymbal, as are the words of all who presume and have not charity.

    Prove me wrong.
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila


    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1542
    • Reputation: +659/-105
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #53 on: September 25, 2011, 10:05:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And SANTO you miss the point JPII is not a heretic because he utilized the extraordinary magisterium to promote heresy, he is a HERETIC because in his "magisterial" writings he REVEALS in a public, manifest and notorious fashion his heretical understanding of various issues of the faith.

    His promulgation of the heresy for others to believe is irrelevant: What matters is the manifest and public nature of the heresies he espoused.

    THAT is what makes him a heretic.
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

    Offline Stephen Francis

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 682
    • Reputation: +861/-1
    • Gender: Male
    John Vennari on the Doctrinal Preamble
    « Reply #54 on: September 25, 2011, 10:42:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • G-1, never mind that Wojtyla prayed with and for pagans. He opened Church property, including consecrated chapels, for the use of these heretics in their false religions.

    http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_JP2_photos.php

    The funniest thing I have read in a VERY long time, however, had to be that quote from Ratzinger about how the Vat-2 types embrace the entirety of tradition.

    HA!

    So, that little "oopsie" in Quo Primum, you know, the one about the Tridentine Mass being irreplaceable and VALID FOR ALL TIME AND NEVER TO BE ABROGATED... does Joseph Ratzinger embrace THAT, too? I hardly think so.

    Fellay is going to play whatever political games he needs to in order to stay afloat. The only thing he should be having 'dialog' with Ratzinger about is Ratzinger's confession of the heresies he has promoted, the crimes he guilty of and the multitude of other offenses he is party to because of his status in the NO.

    Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
    This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat [the Papacy] is now openly proposed as a rewar

     

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