Author Topic: Depressed (Read 13292 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #75 on:** July 31, 2014, 04:41:48 AM »

Bruce, the word used was option, not opinion.

It was not only the Mass that was changed after Vatican 2. All the sacraments were tampered with. This includes the sacrament of Holy Orders.

See here: http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-chp7.htm

and here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinatio.htm

Francisco · « **Reply #76 on:** July 31, 2014, 05:09:12 AM »

TTo help you also try taking a daily health tonic, containing vitamins and other nutrients to improve overall well-being, making it perhaps easier to cope with your situation. I would think that there are many in the same situation as you.

trickster · « **Reply #77 on:** July 31, 2014, 06:46:13 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: trickster
Quote from: 2Vermont
Married. Moving is not an option. We have one diocesan TLM, but I doubt the validity of the priest. And he's pro-VII.

What does the opinion of a priest have to do with his Holy Orders? Unless you suspect he was ordained by a bishop who's line is in question? Saying and participating in mass does not have anything to do with whether one supports or rejects Vatican II. I might be missing something...I am good at that.. but that is my initial reaction anyhow..

Bruce
Trickster

The priest was ordained in the New Rite, but more importantly the bishop who ordained him was also consecrated in the New Rite. Most sedevacantists and certain other Trads question the validity of the New Rites....especially the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. You might want to start a new thread or search the forum about this.

Thanks 2Vermont, that makes sense, as other posters have talked about novus ordo ordination too....now here's the biggie. Pope Francis himself was ordained after the Vatican II... so what are the implications here? Does the validity of the ordination and then later bishop ordination come into play...

Bruce

trickster · « **Reply #78 on:** July 31, 2014, 06:53:10 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

Bruce, the word used was option, not opinion.

It was not only the Mass that was changed after Vatican 2. All the sacraments were tampered with. This includes the sacrament of Holy Orders.

See here: http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/melchisedech-chp7.htm

and here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinatio.htm

Hello Nadir. I think I responded too quickly to the thread, as now that I look at it, the thread is about many other things, but I just picked up and responded to this particular point.

I will read those two docuмents you referred me to, cause, most of us really don't understand that the sacraments themselves have been tampered with, and while adjustment is ok, one cannot change the meaning of the sacraments... now have they changed to the point of misrepresenting the intent of the sacrament taught via scripture and tradition. I can't comment on that because I haven't identified the issues yet and how the novus ordo theologian explains these changes...

I am starting a four year undergraduate program in philosophy, so I will have plenty fo time to delve into these issues (allbeit from a philosophical perspective taught in a publically funded university ... as that is the only university I can afford), so I do appreciate the references that you send me.

Take care - by the way have you voted in the survey I sent ... I want to know whether people prefer Bruce or Trickster...and then I will use that handle here on CathInfo....

Take care.

Bruce
Trickster

2Vermont · « **Reply #79 on:** July 31, 2014, 12:10:42 PM »

Quote from: trickster

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: trickster
Quote from: 2Vermont
Married. Moving is not an option. We have one diocesan TLM, but I doubt the validity of the priest. And he's pro-VII.

What does the opinion of a priest have to do with his Holy Orders? Unless you suspect he was ordained by a bishop who's line is in question? Saying and participating in mass does not have anything to do with whether one supports or rejects Vatican II. I might be missing something...I am good at that.. but that is my initial reaction anyhow..

Bruce
Trickster

The priest was ordained in the New Rite, but more importantly the bishop who ordained him was also consecrated in the New Rite. Most sedevacantists and certain other Trads question the validity of the New Rites....especially the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. You might want to start a new thread or search the forum about this.

Thanks 2Vermont, that makes sense, as other posters have talked about novus ordo ordination too....now here's the biggie. Pope Francis himself was ordained after the Vatican II... so what are the implications here? Does the validity of the ordination and then later bishop ordination come into play...

Bruce

Sure does. If he is not a true bishop then he can't be the "Bishop of Rome".

He is the first post-conciliar "pope" who was ordained in the New Rites. He's also the most in-your-face modernist of them all. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Please start a new thread because you've resurrected an old thread of mine and I've got people thinking I'm still in this depressed state. LOL.

songbird · « **Reply #80 on:** July 31, 2014, 02:37:26 PM »

Francisco: Yes, try B complex shots which are very beneficial!

MariaCatherine · « **Reply #81 on:** August 17, 2014, 09:39:57 AM »

I found this recently. I post it here although I've only glanced at it very briefly.

http://depressedandcatholic.com/