Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Daegus

Quote from: LordPhan

Some people do misuse the word Apostate. Apostate means someone who was baptised who loses all Christian Faith.

That happens with a lot of people these days, unfortunately.

You're one of the biggest culprits.

The biggest culprit of what?

If find this last sentence to be a bold statement and from what I understand, you made it:


Which means virtually nothing if you're a deceiver and are leading people to the Vatican II apostate "Church".

I did make that statement, yes, but I still don't see what point it is that you're trying to make.

Sure, you're saying that the Catholic Church is apostate.  Is that a fair assessment?

The Catholic Church cannot apostatize from the truth.

But the majority of its members can.

This Bishop IS a valid priest, he was ordained by Cardinal Siri, so he can validly offer the holy sacrifice, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

However, the 1968 episcopal rite of Consecration is sacramentally flawed in its form, therefore it cannot be confected as a real sacrament. THerefore, he is no Bishop, and all his ordinations are invalid.

The Reason is, is that it no longer signifies what it effects. It no longer signifies the establishment of a bishop to rule and govern the faithful, ordain priests, and administer the sacrament of confirmation.

THerefore, due to inadequate form, it is invalid.

"Pius XII declared that the form for
Holy  Orders  (i.e.,  for  diaconate,  priesthood  and  episcopacy)  must  univocally
(=unambiguously) signify the sacramental
effects  —  the  power  of  Order  and  the
grace of the Holy Ghost.
(4)  For  conferring  the  episcopacy,
Pius  XII  designated  as  the  sacramental
form  a  sentence in the traditional Rite  of
Episcopal  Consecration  that  univocally
expresses (a) the power of the Order that abishop  receives  and  (b)  the  grace  of the
Holy Ghost."

I.E. "The  Paul  VI  form  for  episcopal
consecration  appears in  a  special  Preface
in  the  rite,  and  the  complete  text  of  the
form is as follows:"

“So  now  pour  out  upon  this  chosen
one  that  power  which  is  from  you,  the
governing  Spirit whom  you  gave to  your
beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given
by him to the holy apostles, who founded
the Church in every place to be your temple  for the  unceasing  glory  and  praise  of
your name.”

While it seems to mention the grace of
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  new  form  does  not
seem  to  specify  the  power  of  the  Order
supposedly being conferred. Can it confer
the  episcopacy?

No.

THis is why I do not like this Thread. Just being honest. :)

Well, the problem here is that the so called "Conciliar Church" aka Newchurch is not identical with the Catholic Church.
If I understand Daegus, that is what he means. When he's saying that the "Conciliar Church" is schismatic and heretical, well he's just quoting our appreciated Archbishop Lefebvre.


Let's quote some traditional experts:

And if we apply to today's Church also the second part of the comparison with a rotten apple, we can say that it is genuinely useful to speak of two churches, the "Conciliar church" and the Catholic Church, because Conciliarism is to be found in real life all through the Church, although in their pure state Conciliarism and Catholicism exclude one another like apple and rot. But they are not in real life separable any more than are the rot from its apple or any parasite from its host. In real life there is only one Church, the Catholic Church, suffering today all over from the Conciliar rot.

(EC 200: Apples rotting, 14 May 2011)

And Bishop Williamson also quoted a famous sentence of Archbishop Lefebvre just recently:

When Archbishop Lefebvre was threatened for the first time with "excommunication" from the Newchurch, we remember his reply: "How can I be put out of a 'church' to which I have never belonged?"

(EC 214: Greek Gifts, 20 August 2011)

Archbishop Lefebvre talked very radical and direct about the conciliar church, and we traditional catholics love it. Please have a look at Archbishop Lefebvre's circular letter on 29 July 1976, for example. If somebody has got the official English translation, please quote it. Meanwhile I'm going to translate the regarding part of his letter's official German translation:

This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because she broke with the catholic Church, i.e. with the Church of all times. The conciliar church has got her new dogmas, her new priesthood, her new institutions, her new liturgical cult, which have been condemned by several official and final docuмents. [..]
The church which confirms such errors is schismatic and heretical at the same time. [..]
The pope, the bishops, the priests and the laity breaks with the catholic Church in so far as they cling to this new church.

Official German version was:

Diese konziliare Kirche ist eine schismatische Kirche, weil sie mit der katholischen Kirche, mit der Kirche aller Zeiten gebrochen hat. Sie hat ihre neuen Dogmen, ihr neues Priestertum, ihre neuen Institutionen, ihren neuen Kult, die von der Kirche schon in gar manchen amtlichen und endgültigen Dokumenten verurteilt sind. [..]
Dieses Recht auf Religionsfreiheit ist blasphemisch, denn es bedeutet, daß Gott Absichten zugeschrieben werden, die Seine Majestät, Seine Glorie, Sein Königtum zerstören und dieses Recht schließt die Gewissensfreiheit, die Gedankenfreiheit und alle freimaurerischen Freiheiten mit ein. Die Kirche, die solche Irrtümer bejaht, ist zugleich schismatisch und häretisch. [..]
In dem Maß, als der Papst, die Bischöfe, die Priester oder die Gläubigen dieser neuen Kirche anhängen, trennen sie sich von der katholischen Kirche.

Very different from what Daegus actually said.  Daegus called it an "Apostate" Church, which is all very different from what Archbishop Lefebvre said.

But I'll concede that he didn't really want to say that after all.

Well, the problem here is that the so called "Conciliar Church" aka Newchurch is not identical with the Catholic Church.
If I understand Daegus, that is what he means. When he's saying that the "Conciliar Church" is schismatic and heretical, well he's just quoting our appreciated Archbishop Lefebvre.


Let's quote some traditional experts:

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

And if we apply to today's Church also the second part of the comparison with a rotten apple, we can say that it is genuinely useful to speak of two churches, the "Conciliar church" and the Catholic Church, because Conciliarism is to be found in real life all through the Church, although in their pure state Conciliarism and Catholicism exclude one another like apple and rot. But they are not in real life separable any more than are the rot from its apple or any parasite from its host. In real life there is only one Church, the Catholic Church, suffering today all over from the Conciliar rot.

(EC 200: Apples rotting, 14 May 2011)

And Bishop Williamson also quoted a famous sentence of Archbishop Lefebvre just recently:

Quote from: Bishop Williamson

When Archbishop Lefebvre was threatened for the first time with "excommunication" from the Newchurch, we remember his reply: "How can I be put out of a 'church' to which I have never belonged?"

(EC 214: Greek Gifts, 20 August 2011)

Archbishop Lefebvre talked very radical and direct about the conciliar church, and we traditional catholics love it. Please have a look at Archbishop Lefebvre's circular letter on 29 July 1976, for example. If somebody has got the official English translation, please quote it. Meanwhile I'm going to translate the regarding part of his letter's official German translation:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because she broke with the catholic Church, i.e. with the Church of all times. The conciliar church has got her new dogmas, her new priesthood, her new institutions, her new liturgical cult, which have been condemned by several official and final docuмents. [..]
The church which confirms such errors is schismatic and heretical at the same time. [..]
The pope, the bishops, the priests and the laity breaks with the catholic Church in so far as they cling to this new church.

Official German version was:

Diese konziliare Kirche ist eine schismatische Kirche, weil sie mit der katholischen Kirche, mit der Kirche aller Zeiten gebrochen hat. Sie hat ihre neuen Dogmen, ihr neues Priestertum, ihre neuen Institutionen, ihren neuen Kult, die von der Kirche schon in gar manchen amtlichen und endgültigen Dokumenten verurteilt sind. [..]
Dieses Recht auf Religionsfreiheit ist blasphemisch, denn es bedeutet, daß Gott Absichten zugeschrieben werden, die Seine Majestät, Seine Glorie, Sein Königtum zerstören und dieses Recht schließt die Gewissensfreiheit, die Gedankenfreiheit und alle freimaurerischen Freiheiten mit ein. Die Kirche, die solche Irrtümer bejaht, ist zugleich schismatisch und häretisch. [..]
In dem Maß, als der Papst, die Bischöfe, die Priester oder die Gläubigen dieser neuen Kirche anhängen, trennen sie sich von der katholischen Kirche.

Very different from what Daegus actually said. Daegus called it an "Apostate" Church, which is all very different from what Archbishop Lefebvre said.

Well, it's a fluent passage from the "schismatic and heretical" Newchurch to an "apostate" one.

But I think the main point here is, that Archbishop Lefebvre distinguishes between the real Church and the conciliar church, which Bishop Williamson names "Newchurch".
The Archbishop said that the "conciliar church" is schismatic and heretical, and Deagus apparently says that the Newchurch is apostate. Not so much of a difference in the result, I think.

By the way, both bishops several times spoke about the "apostates in [New-] Rome". The Archbishop even said that Newrome is occupied by anti-christs.
So I think we could say, Daegus is in good company. :-)

It's just that so many catholics today who think they're traditional -- including Menzingen and Stuttgart, alas -- don't want to hear the clear words of Archishop Lefebvre (or Bishop Williamson) anymore. What they said is handled as "controversial" today and censored. But censoring the truth always results in a crash landing.
 


Eleison Comments CXCIV
2 April 2011

Now where?
[..]
Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX? The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible.

Kyrie eleison.

Very well said, Hollingsworth. Herein lies the rub!

Quote from: Augustine Baker

Very different from what Daegus actually said. Daegus called it an "Apostate" Church, which is all very different from what Archbishop Lefebvre said.

Well, it's a fluent passage from the "schismatic and heretical" Newchurch to an "apostate" one.

But I think the main point here is, that Archbishop Lefebvre distinguishes between the real Church and the conciliar church, which Bishop Williamson names "Newchurch".
The Archbishop said that the "conciliar church" is schismatic and heretical, and Deagus apparently says that the Newchurch is apostate. Not so much of a difference in the result, I think.

By the way, both bishops several times spoke about the "apostates in [New-] Rome". The Archbishop even said that Newrome is occupied by anti-christs.
So I think we could say, Daegus is in good company. :-)

It's just that so many catholics today who think they're traditional -- including Menzingen and Stuttgart, alas -- don't want to hear the clear words of Archishop Lefebvre (or Bishop Williamson) anymore. What they said is handled as "controversial" today and censored. But censoring the truth always results in a crash landing.
 


Eleison Comments CXCIV
2 April 2011

Now where?
[..]
Then back to our original question: where now for the SSPX? The answer is clear. It must continue along the path set for it by its Founder, namely firm resistance to the (at least objective) apostates in Rome, making known as widely as possible the Archbishop's diagnosis of the otherwise insoluble problems of Church and world. His solution is simply to maintain Catholic life in accordance with the pre-Conciliar Catholic doctrine and morals of all time, for the greater glory of God and for the salvation of as many souls as possible.

Kyrie eleison.

There's a pretty big chasm between  apostate "Church" and identifying those who may or may not be apostates in the Curia and elsewhere.

In any case, I don't agree that Voris is encouraging people to follow an apostate "Church" as some of the intransigents here suppose.

Quote

It's just that so many catholics today who think they're traditional -- including Menzingen and Stuttgart, alas -- don't want to hear the clear words of Archishop Lefebvre

I think we can still refer to them as "traditional," but that they do not want to hear the clear words of the Archbishop seems to be the only reasonable conclusion which one can draw.  I don't say that Bp. Fellay & Co. are not traditional anylonger,  but nevertheless, they seem to be pursuing a path of tradition which diverges greatly from the one forged by their founder.  The Archbishop and his senior bishop, in all of their sermons and writings that I know anything about, made a clear distinction between New and Old Church.  They told us in no uncertain terms that they were two different churches.  Under the direction of this present regime, i.e. the successors of the Abp. that distinction seems to be blurred.  Herein lies the rub, from my point of views anyway.

And yet, they pray for the Pope and the local ordinary.

There's even a photograph of Benedict XVI in the foyer.