Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on May 28, 2014, 07:46:08 AM
-
Hello Pete-
Since on the one hand, you claim to be an indultarian;
And since that position is incompatible with sedevacantism;
Yet on the other hand, you claim all the R&R arguments against sedevacantism are insufficient;
Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.
PS: Please be sure to use the same rigor you claim the sedevacantists use, and be sure to avoid the emotionalism you claim the R&R camp uses.
:popcorn:
-
If Pete is an indult man, then he too is in the R&R camp, although in its milder form.
-
So let's hear his refutation of sedevacantism...if he really has one.
It seems incongruous to me a man would chastise the SSPX for being "more Catholic than the pope," yet not bat an eyelash against those who say there hasn't been a pope for 55+ years.
But to take the indultarian position, it presupposes he has refuted/rejected the sedevcantist position.
But since he is not satisfied with the R&R arguments, I would like to read his own non-emotionalized refutation.
-
So let's hear his refutation of sedevacantism...if he really has one.
It seems incongruous to me a man would chastise the SSPX for being "more Catholic than the pope," yet not bat an eyelash against those who say there hasn't been a pope for 55+ years.
But to take the indultarian position, it presupposes he has refuted/rejected the sedevcantist position.
But since he is not satisfied with the R&R arguments, I would like to read his own non-emotionalized refutation.
Well there are those considerations as well. We'll see.
-
Phariseeism.
-
I suspect Pete Vere's argument would boil down to the fact that the Vatican II council and the changes thereafter posited no substantial changes to the Catholic Church, all the novelties and abuses regrettable as they may be, are only accidental to the nature of the Church.
However, I would certainly be interested in reading Pete's own defense of why he went from SSPX to Ecclesia Dei, rather than sedevacantist.
:cheers:
:popcorn:
-
I tried this a few times. He never responds. He rather waits on the sidelines throwing punches against the SSPX trying to give fuel to sedevacantists. With intentions like that, I would like to see him off of the subgroup SSPX resistance.
-
I think this thread is taking the wrong tone. If someone wants to debate Peter Vere, then IM him. If Peter Vere brings the topic up in a thread, then present your side.
This whole "calling out" people is primarily for the playground. :wink:
Even though Mr. Vere is an indultarian and a novus ordite and a conciliarist, I actually enjoy reading his posts. I recently read the book he co-authored with Patrick Madrid and am wondering whether or not to address a particular issue in the book but, if I do follow up and ask him, it will be in the IM or it would be in a more even tempered manner than this thread and its title.
I think I prefer :cheers: or :pc: over :boxer:.
-
Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.
http://www.amazon.fr/Liberte-Religieuse-Tradition-Catholique-Vol/dp/2906972231/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401313481&sr=1-4
-
Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.
http://www.amazon.fr/Liberte-Religieuse-Tradition-Catholique-Vol/dp/2906972231/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401313481&sr=1-4
Pete-
I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.
Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?
In which case, is not your choice of indultarianism is based on the very emotionalism you accuse Bishop Williamson and the R&R crowd of.
-
Hello Pete-
Since on the one hand, you claim to be an indultarian;
And since that position is incompatible with sedevacantism;
Yet on the other hand, you claim all the R&R arguments against sedevacantism are insufficient;
Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.
PS: Please be sure to use the same rigor you claim the sedevacantists use, and be sure to avoid the emotionalism you claim the R&R camp uses.
:popcorn:
I realize that "calling people out" puts a nasty taste in the mouths of many.
HOWEVER, I think Sean Johnson has a very serious point here.
Pete Vere seems to be a very anti-SSPX individual who has allied himself with the sedevacantists when it suits his cause. He claims he's not encouraging sedevacantism, but it's not open for debate: He most certainly is.
He can pretend that is not his aim, but that doesn't matter.
It's not that I care what side a given person supports, but let's be honest about what side we believe and represent, shall we?
-
As a SV, I do not see PV encouraging SVism per se. I see him making a judgment on which position makes the most sense/is more consistent between R&R and SV. I don't see him saying a person should be SV because obviously he is not.
I actually see him as a more of an unbiased observer considering most of us are either R&R or SV. I find it interesting to hear his take knowing he is not SV.
-
If Pete is an indult man, then he too is in the R&R camp, although in its milder form.
To say that the Indult is a more mild form of R&R would be to assume I am resisting: a) the post-conciliar papacies; and/or b) Vatican II, and/or c) the Novus Ordo.
I am not.
I accept each of the above as valid AND licit, although - obviously - I prefer the TLM personally, and support it. But this should not be interpreted as resistance to the Novus Ordo, and/or the post-conciliar papacies, and/or Vatican II.
In fact, I have come to appreciate and view Vatican II quite differently after studying the history and Tradition of our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. For those interested in understanding the Second Vatican Council through the eyes of Eastern Catholic Tradition, I would highly recommend the following book:
https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction
-
I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.
Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?
Sean, not sure if you followed the French debates over sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism), or whether you have read Mgr des Lauriers' "cahiers de Cassiciacuм", but essentially the debate between ED/SP trads and sedes has always come down to the issue of religious liberty.
This is unlike both groups debate with the R&R, which is essentially over ecclesiology.
But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.
So yes, it comes down to this one work authored by Dom Basile Valuet, a traditional Benedictine ordained personally by Mgr Lefebvre. The great irony is that he originally set out to write his doctoral thesis from the R&R position of attempting to prove a rupture between Vatican II definition of religious liberty and Apostolic Tradition.
-
Dedicate advocates of Modernism exercise complete power over the channels of Catholic information and communications. After actually reading the Vatican 2 docuмents, one finds that there is nothing positively contradictory to Church dogma, only ambiguous statements that were manipulated by the enemies of the Church and those with an agenda. The problem is not in the text, per say, but resides more in its actual implementation. The crisis is not of doctrine, but of practice.
Religious Liberty and denial of EENS have been evils of Modernism (synthesis of all heresies) happening way before Vatican 2, as stated and confirmed by several pontiffs, including Pope Pius XII and Pius X.
But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.
-
I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.
Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?
Sean, not sure if you followed the French debates over sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism), or whether you have read Mgr des Lauriers' "cahiers de Cassiciacuм", but essentially the debate between ED/SP trads and sedes has always come down to the issue of religious liberty.
This is unlike both groups debate with the R&R, which is essentially over ecclesiology.
But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.
So yes, it comes down to this one work authored by Dom Basile Valuet, a traditional Benedictine ordained personally by Mgr Lefebvre. The great irony is that he originally set out to write his doctoral thesis from the R&R position of attempting to prove a rupture between Vatican II definition of religious liberty and Apostolic Tradition.
Sorry, but this answer does not suffice; not nearly so:
1) The sedes have many more arguments for the invalidity of the recent popes than the mere promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae;
2) In order for you to remain in your indultarian position, you must be able to overcome them;
3) But far from being able or willing to do so, you post sympathetically to their arguments.
4) It is, therefore, neither believable nor possible to reduce all their arguments to this single issue, then pretend that since this singular issue has been answered to your satisfaction, none of the other arguments remain.
5) Rather, this gives the appearance of the very charge you lay against Bishop Williamson: Evasion of the issues.
6) And in that case, your position is (likewise) sentimental, not doctrinal.
But there is more at issue here than the mere insufficiency of your position:
There is the matter of intention and motive for posting on this forum:
Just as it would be incongruent for me to be a regular poster on Catholic Answers or EWTN (those sites promoting almost nothing of my beliefs on the disputed issues of the day), so too is your presence as pretty much the only regular contributing indultarian on this forum.
I would imagine one embracing your position to be quite turned off by a forum such as this.
Yet, you remain.
Moreover, the lion's share of your posting focuses on attacking the R&R position...even to the point of promoting sedevacantist apologetics.
In fact, I cannot remember you ever initiating a single argument against any of their apologetics.
It gives rise to the suspicion that your primary purpose on this forum is to continue to wage the warfare against your ancient enemy: the SSPX.
Now, if that is your purpose, then come out and say it.
That you claim to simultaneously find the sedevacntist apologetics more persuasive than the R&R on this matter of the pope, yet have no answer to those same sedevacantist arguments yourself (nor do you even attempt to refute them), seems to bolster this suspicion that your primary purpose is to discredit the SSPX/Resistance, insofar as you can.
And that you should have arrived on this forum precisely at a time when there was potential for the Resistance to lean towards sedevacantist agnosticism (a danger which now seems to have passed), and made posts which seemed capable of promoting that drift, is interesting.
But since some of what I write here deals with the internal forum, I shall take your response at your word.
If you say your purpose here is not what it seems to me to be, well, who am I to say otherwise?
But what certainly will stand, is the recognition that, while attacking the antisedevacantist arguments of the SSPX as insufficient, your own position on the matter is even less well founded.
You don't even have "insufficient" arguments.
You have no argument at all, except on one specific issue, and pretend it pre-empts all the other issues.
Realizing that to be the case, it would be better for you to keep your opinions to yourself, lest by your persistent biased attacks, someone were to "call you out" for your own explanations. :wink:
Pax Tecuм,
Sean
-
There are many problems with the sede claim. First, you are not Catholic. One can put a mitre on and hold a crosier, but he is no more a bishop than you or me. Your religion is man generated - every sede group in man generated! A layman in just about every case sought out episcopal ordination and broke from the Church.
Most sede camps are severely undereducated! In fact CMRI consults "Novus Ordo" theologians on issues! Ha! At least SSPX has a quality seminary and if accpted back in the church would retain all canonical offices. CMRI, not so much. They would be lay people again - thus begging the question - Do CMRI adherents really want the "crisis" to end?
Another issue is that sede groups are not unified and if I am not mistaken, the latin mass is not what we are talking about. The list goes on and on. Here is the edict against Thuc. Enjoy.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Notification*
His Excellency Mons. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, in the month of January 1976 ordained several priests and bishops in the village of Palmar de Troya in Spain, in a way which was completely illicit. Consequently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 September of the same year, issued a decree (cf. AAS LXVIII, 1976, p. 623), mentioning the canonical penalties incurred both by himself and by the others who were thus illicitly ordained by him.
Later the same Prelate requested and obtained absolution from the excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See which he had incurred.
It has now come to the knowledge of this Sacred Congregation that His Excellency Mons. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, since the year 1981, has again ordained other priests contrary to the terms of canon 955. Moreover, what is still more serious, in the same year, disregarding canon 953, without pontifical mandate and canonical provision, he conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin. Subsequently Moises Carmona in his turn conferred episcopal ordination on the Mexican priests Benigno Bravo and Roberto Martínez, and also on the American priest George Musey.
Moreover, His Excellency Ngô-dinh-Thuc wished to prove the legitimacy of his actions especially by the public declaration made by him in Munich on 25 February 1982 in which he asserted that "the See of the Catholic Church at Rome was vacant" and therefore he as a bishop "was doing everything so that the Catholic Church of Rome would continue for the eternal salvation of souls".
After duly pondering the seriousness of these crimes and erroneous assertions, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, by special mandate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, deems it necessary to renew the prescripts of its decree of 17 September 1976, which in this case is applied fully, namely.
1) Bishops who ordained other bishops, as well as the bishops ordained, besides the sanctions mentioned in canons 2370 and 2373, 1 and 3, of the Code of Canon Law, incurred also, ipso facto, excommunication most specially reserved to the Apostolic See as stated in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of 9 April 1951 (AAS XLIII, 1951, p. 217 f.) The penalty contained in canon 2370 applies also to assisting priests, should any have been present.
2) In accordance with canon 2374 priests illicitly ordained in this way are ipso facto suspended from the order received, and they are also irregular should they exercise the order (canon 985, 7).
3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in forceuntil repentance.
Moreover, this Sacred Congregation deems it its duly earnestly to warn the faithful not to take part in or support in any way liturgical activities or initiatives and works of another kind which are promoted by those mentioned above (1).
-
Please enlighten us with the line of argumentation you used to refute sedevacantism, to arrive at indultarianism.
http://www.amazon.fr/Liberte-Religieuse-Tradition-Catholique-Vol/dp/2906972231/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401313481&sr=1-4
Wait, so he used a 12 volume 5,500 word tract written to attempt to explain away Religious Tolerance in favor of freedom of conscience and freedom from the eternally binding fact of the 1st commandment and the responsibility of nations to promote the common good, and all this is what convinces that he should attend Nocus Ordo parishes and the new sacraments?
-
I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.
Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?
Sean, not sure if you followed the French debates over sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism), or whether you have read Mgr des Lauriers' "cahiers de Cassiciacuм", but essentially the debate between ED/SP trads and sedes has always come down to the issue of religious liberty.
This is unlike both groups debate with the R&R, which is essentially over ecclesiology.
But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.
So yes, it comes down to this one work authored by Dom Basile Valuet, a traditional Benedictine ordained personally by Mgr Lefebvre. The great irony is that he originally set out to write his doctoral thesis from the R&R position of attempting to prove a rupture between Vatican II definition of religious liberty and Apostolic Tradition.
Sorry, but this answer does not suffice; not nearly so:
1) The sedes have many more arguments for the invalidity of the recent popes than the mere promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae;
2) In order for you to remain in your indultarian position, you must be able to overcome them;
3) But far from being able or willing to do so, you post sympathetically to their arguments.
4) It is, therefore, neither believable nor possible to reduce all their arguments to this single issue, then pretend that since this singular issue has been answered to your satisfaction, none of the other arguments remain.
5) Rather, this gives the appearance of the very charge you lay against Bishop Williamson: Evasion of the issues.
6) And in that case, your position is (likewise) sentimental, not doctrinal.
But there is more at issue here than the mere insufficiency of your position:
There is the matter of intention and motive for posting on this forum:
Just as it would be incongruent for me to be a regular poster on Catholic Answers or EWTN (those sites promoting almost nothing of my beliefs on the disputed issues of the day), so too is your presence as pretty much the only regular contributing indultarian on this forum.
I would imagine one embracing your position to be quite turned off by a forum such as this.
Yet, you remain.
Moreover, the lion's share of your posting focuses on attacking the R&R position...even to the point of promoting sedevacantist apologetics.
In fact, I cannot remember you ever initiating a single argument against any of their apologetics.
It gives rise to the suspicion that your primary purpose on this forum is to continue to wage the warfare against your ancient enemy: the SSPX.
Now, if that is your purpose, then come out and say it.
That you claim to simultaneously find the sedevacntist apologetics more persuasive than the R&R on this matter of the pope, yet have no answer to those same sedevacantist arguments yourself (nor do you even attempt to refute them), seems to bolster this suspicion that your primary purpose is to discredit the SSPX/Resistance, insofar as you can.
And that you should have arrived on this forum precisely at a time when there was potential for the Resistance to lean towards sedevacantist agnosticism (a danger which now seems to have passed), and made posts which seemed capable of promoting that drift, is interesting.
But since some of what I write here deals with the internal forum, I shall take your response at your word.
If you say your purpose here is not what it seems to me to be, well, who am I to say otherwise?
But what certainly will stand, is the recognition that, while attacking the antisedevacantist arguments of the SSPX as insufficient, your own position on the matter is even less well founded.
You don't even have "insufficient" arguments.
You have no argument at all, except on one specific issue, and pretend it pre-empts all the other issues.
Realizing that to be the case, it would be better for you to keep your opinions to yourself, lest by your persistent biased attacks, someone were to "call you out" for your own explanations. :wink:
Pax Tecuм,
Sean
Interesting theory, Sean. I may give it some thought.
:cheers:
-
I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.
Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?
Sean, not sure if you followed the French debates over sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism), or whether you have read Mgr des Lauriers' "cahiers de Cassiciacuм", but essentially the debate between ED/SP trads and sedes has always come down to the issue of religious liberty.
This is unlike both groups debate with the R&R, which is essentially over ecclesiology.
But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.
So yes, it comes down to this one work authored by Dom Basile Valuet, a traditional Benedictine ordained personally by Mgr Lefebvre. The great irony is that he originally set out to write his doctoral thesis from the R&R position of attempting to prove a rupture between Vatican II definition of religious liberty and Apostolic Tradition.
Sorry, but this answer does not suffice; not nearly so:
1) The sedes have many more arguments for the invalidity of the recent popes than the mere promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae;
2) In order for you to remain in your indultarian position, you must be able to overcome them;
3) But far from being able or willing to do so, you post sympathetically to their arguments.
4) It is, therefore, neither believable nor possible to reduce all their arguments to this single issue, then pretend that since this singular issue has been answered to your satisfaction, none of the other arguments remain.
5) Rather, this gives the appearance of the very charge you lay against Bishop Williamson: Evasion of the issues.
6) And in that case, your position is (likewise) sentimental, not doctrinal.
But there is more at issue here than the mere insufficiency of your position:
There is the matter of intention and motive for posting on this forum:
Just as it would be incongruent for me to be a regular poster on Catholic Answers or EWTN (those sites promoting almost nothing of my beliefs on the disputed issues of the day), so too is your presence as pretty much the only regular contributing indultarian on this forum.
I would imagine one embracing your position to be quite turned off by a forum such as this.
Yet, you remain.
Moreover, the lion's share of your posting focuses on attacking the R&R position...even to the point of promoting sedevacantist apologetics.
In fact, I cannot remember you ever initiating a single argument against any of their apologetics.
It gives rise to the suspicion that your primary purpose on this forum is to continue to wage the warfare against your ancient enemy: the SSPX.
Now, if that is your purpose, then come out and say it.
That you claim to simultaneously find the sedevacntist apologetics more persuasive than the R&R on this matter of the pope, yet have no answer to those same sedevacantist arguments yourself (nor do you even attempt to refute them), seems to bolster this suspicion that your primary purpose is to discredit the SSPX/Resistance, insofar as you can.
And that you should have arrived on this forum precisely at a time when there was potential for the Resistance to lean towards sedevacantist agnosticism (a danger which now seems to have passed), and made posts which seemed capable of promoting that drift, is interesting.
But since some of what I write here deals with the internal forum, I shall take your response at your word.
If you say your purpose here is not what it seems to me to be, well, who am I to say otherwise?
But what certainly will stand, is the recognition that, while attacking the antisedevacantist arguments of the SSPX as insufficient, your own position on the matter is even less well founded.
You don't even have "insufficient" arguments.
You have no argument at all, except on one specific issue, and pretend it pre-empts all the other issues.
Realizing that to be the case, it would be better for you to keep your opinions to yourself, lest by your persistent biased attacks, someone were to "call you out" for your own explanations. :wink:
Pax Tecuм,
Sean
Interesting theory, Sean. I may give it some thought.
:cheers:
Very elaborate and well written analysis. I especially liked and agreed with this part.... And that you should have arrived on this forum precisely at a time when there was potential for the Resistance to lean towards sedevacantist agnosticism (a danger which now seems to have passed), and made posts which seemed capable of promoting that drift, is interesting.
You generated just the kind of response I imagined. He just kind of shrugs it off and says something neutral to hope it won't attract too much thought or attention.
-
There are many problems with the sede claim. First, you are not Catholic. One can put a mitre on and hold a crosier, but he is no more a bishop than you or me. Your religion is man generated - every sede group in man generated! A layman in just about every case sought out episcopal ordination and broke from the Church.
Most sede camps are severely undereducated! In fact CMRI consults "Novus Ordo" theologians on issues! Ha! At least SSPX has a quality seminary and if accpted back in the church would retain all canonical offices. CMRI, not so much. They would be lay people again - thus begging the question - Do CMRI adherents really want the "crisis" to end?
Another issue is that sede groups are not unified and if I am not mistaken, the latin mass is not what we are talking about. The list goes on and on. Here is the edict against Thuc. Enjoy.
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Notification*
His Excellency Mons. Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, titular Archbishop of Bulla Regia, in the month of January 1976 ordained several priests and bishops in the village of Palmar de Troya in Spain, in a way which was completely illicit. Consequently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 17 September of the same year, issued a decree (cf. AAS LXVIII, 1976, p. 623), mentioning the canonical penalties incurred both by himself and by the others who were thus illicitly ordained by him.
Later the same Prelate requested and obtained absolution from the excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See which he had incurred.
It has now come to the knowledge of this Sacred Congregation that His Excellency Mons. Ngô-dinh-Thuc, since the year 1981, has again ordained other priests contrary to the terms of canon 955. Moreover, what is still more serious, in the same year, disregarding canon 953, without pontifical mandate and canonical provision, he conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin. Subsequently Moises Carmona in his turn conferred episcopal ordination on the Mexican priests Benigno Bravo and Roberto Martínez, and also on the American priest George Musey.
Moreover, His Excellency Ngô-dinh-Thuc wished to prove the legitimacy of his actions especially by the public declaration made by him in Munich on 25 February 1982 in which he asserted that "the See of the Catholic Church at Rome was vacant" and therefore he as a bishop "was doing everything so that the Catholic Church of Rome would continue for the eternal salvation of souls".
After duly pondering the seriousness of these crimes and erroneous assertions, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, by special mandate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, deems it necessary to renew the prescripts of its decree of 17 September 1976, which in this case is applied fully, namely.
1) Bishops who ordained other bishops, as well as the bishops ordained, besides the sanctions mentioned in canons 2370 and 2373, 1 and 3, of the Code of Canon Law, incurred also, ipso facto, excommunication most specially reserved to the Apostolic See as stated in the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of 9 April 1951 (AAS XLIII, 1951, p. 217 f.) The penalty contained in canon 2370 applies also to assisting priests, should any have been present.
2) In accordance with canon 2374 priests illicitly ordained in this way are ipso facto suspended from the order received, and they are also irregular should they exercise the order (canon 985, 7).
3) Finally, as regards those who have already received ordination in this illicit manner, or who will perhaps receive ordination from them, whatever about the validity of the orders, the Church does not nor shall it recognize their ordination, and as regards all juridical effects, it considers them in the state which each one had previously, and the above-mentioned penal sanctions remain in forceuntil repentance.
Moreover, this Sacred Congregation deems it its duly earnestly to warn the faithful not to take part in or support in any way liturgical activities or initiatives and works of another kind which are promoted by those mentioned above (1).
[/quot
Wow.
Leaving out all the rest of this post, #3 is news to me!
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Do I have this right?
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.
Indeed it would - if the CMRI cared what "Rome" thinks.
-
Clarification:
I personally have no animus towards Pete.
Quite the contrary, I find him a very likeable guy:
Hunter/fisher/motorcycles/ultimate fighting/beer drinker/etc.
What's not to like?
There are a few others here on this forum who are actually personal (i.e., real world) friends of mine, with whom I clash swords occassionally, but it is nothing against them, and I presume/hope they think the same.
My only purpose in this thread was to find out if Pete had an agenda.
And also to point out that if he is an indultarian, he ought to be spending his time helping us R&R types defend the legitimacy of the recent popes, rather than voice his judgment on the superiority of sedevacantist arguments (which tends to reaffirm them in their error).
That's all.
Perhaps I could have said that all in a different way, if I came across offensively.
And if I did, I apologize.
Pax Tecuм,
Sean
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.
Indeed it would - if the CMRI cared what "Rome" thinks.
What a juvenile comment!
As if a true Catholic could just break off from Eternal Rome.
:facepalm:
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.
Indeed it would - if the CMRI cared what "Rome" thinks.
What a juvenile comment!
As if a true Catholic could just break off from Eternal Rome.
:facepalm:
Oh, step off, Cantarella. If you honestly think those clowns who occupy the Vatican represent Eternal Rome, you're an absolute fool. I honestly don't give a damn what Bergoglio thinks. And it's quite appropriate that you use the "facepalm" icon, because you can't see what's right in front of you.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Do I have this right?
Very close.
Rome recognizes the SSPX consecrations as illicit, but valid. (With the exception of Bishop Rangel who, once he reconciled was recognized as both valid and licit).
However, in terms of the Archbishop Thuc consecrations Rome refuses to rule on their validity.
Additionally, SSPX-ordained/consecrated clergy who are reconciled to Rome are allowed to continue exercising their order once reconciled.
In contrast, Thuc-ordained/consecrated clergy are reconciled at the order to which they had been ordained prior to receiving Thuc orders (or as laity if they were lay prior to receiving Thuc orders).
I am very surprised you are not aware of this, Sean, as it was common knowledge among all trads when I became a traditionalist 25 years ago.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Do I have this right?
Very close.
Rome recognizes the SSPX consecrations as illicit, but valid. (With the exception of Bishop Rangel who, once he reconciled was recognized as both valid and licit).
However, in terms of the Archbishop Thuc consecrations Rome refuses to rule on their validity.
Additionally, SSPX-ordained/consecrated clergy who are reconciled to Rome are allowed to continue exercising their order once reconciled.
In contrast, Thuc-ordained/consecrated clergy are reconciled at the order to which they had been ordained prior to receiving Thuc orders (or as laity if they were lay prior to receiving Thuc orders).
I am very surprised you are not aware of this, Sean, as it was common knowledge among all trads when I became a traditionalist 25 years ago.
My (mis?)understanding was that there was a question as to the validity of Thuc orders, based on his mental state.
But it seems that the post provided says that the Thuc consecrations were valid, but illicit.
Did I misread that, or was the post inaccurate?
Because if the consecrations were illicit (and therefore valid), how can the priestly ordinations be invalid?
-
My (mis?)understanding was that there was a question as to the validity of Thuc orders, based on his mental state.
Your understanding (not misunderstanding) is correct.
It's a question, not a conclusion.
Basically, Rome's position is that it does not know whether or not the consecrations are valid, nor does it see any point in investigating the question. This is because Rome judges the consecrations to be of such an illicit nature as to prevent Rome from allowing those possessing these orders to exercise them should they reconcile with the Church.
-
Oh, step off, Cantarella. If you honestly think those clowns who occupy the Vatican represent Eternal Rome, you're an absolute fool. I honestly don't give a damn what Bergoglio thinks. And it's quite appropriate that you use the "facepalm" icon, because you can't see what's right in front of you.
AND
Most sede camps are severely undereducated! In fact CMRI consults "Novus Ordo" theologians on issues!
This is right. The above comment is a clear example of the type of response one usually gets from the vast majority of sedevacantists here when trying to deal with serious matters. Never a theological response to serious questions, but a repetition of biased -copied and pasted- propaganda combined with vulgar words and personal attacks.
-
My (mis?)understanding was that there was a question as to the validity of Thuc orders, based on his mental state.
Your understanding (not misunderstanding) is correct.
It's a question, not a conclusion.
Basically, Rome's position is that it does not know whether or not the consecrations are valid, nor does it see any point in investigating the question. This is because Rome judges the consecrations to be of such an illicit nature as to prevent Rome from allowing those possessing these orders to exercise them should they reconcile with the Church.
What is also interesting, then, is that rather than "sanate" or consecrate/ordain conditionally, Rome chooses to laicize.
I wonder why Rome chooses the path of laicization, rather than sanation?
Is it just because they think these guys too far gone to really trust after such sanation/conditional consecration/ordinations?
-
Oh, step off, Cantarella. If you honestly think those clowns who occupy the Vatican represent Eternal Rome, you're an absolute fool. I honestly don't give a damn what Bergoglio thinks. And it's quite appropriate that you use the "facepalm" icon, because you can't see what's right in front of you.
AND
Most sede camps are severely undereducated! In fact CMRI consults "Novus Ordo" theologians on issues!
This is right. The above comment is a clear example of the type of response one usually gets from the vast majority of sedevacantists here when trying to deal with serious matters. Never a theological response to serious questions, but a repetition of biased -copied and pasted- propaganda combined with vulgar words and personal attacks.
What serious question? What personal attack? Oh, when you called my comment "juvenile?" To say that Bergoglio is an usurper and a clown requires no theological response. Let me make this as clear as I can for you: We sedes do not recognize Francis' supposed authority; therefore, we don't care what he or his minions think. You seem to spend a lot of time here. Do you ever cook or clean?
-
Matthew, is it time to boot the Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoist trolls?
-
Is it just because they think these guys too far gone to really trust after such sanation/conditional consecration/ordinations?
It likely has to do with initial questions surrounding Archbishop Thuc's mental state during the Palmar de Troya consecrations. Reportedly he agreed to perform them after being convinced that Pope Paul VI had been taken prisoner in the Vatican and replaced with a fake Paul VI. The information was allegedly relayed to an intermediary through an apparition of the Blessed Mother.
A friend of mine who is a Vietnamese priest and a canon lawyer knew Archbishop Thuc, and helped bring about his eventual reconciliation with Rome. He claims that Archbishop Thuc was definitely showing signs of weakened mental state around the time of these consecrations, likely due to the combination of advanced years and the amount of human suffering and trauma he had suffered during the communist revolution in Vietnam.
In terms of the quality of ordinands, I would agree that the Palmar de Troya consecrations were absolutely scandalous. But at the other end of the spectrum, Mgr Guerard des Lauriers (who incidentally was the doctoral adviser of my former indult pastor and professor of theology) was of such a quality as to far surpass the four candidates consecrated by Mgr Lefebvre. So one sees both ends of the spectrum here.
-
So what's your story Pete? It appears that you are a sworn enemy of the SSPX, or is it just simply the founder? What is your beef about seriously? Some little personal trivalty?
That was nice how you present a slanted version of Msr Guarard des Lauriers. He was a professor at Econe, we all know this. And he was expelled by Mons Lefebvre for causing confusion (kinda like you're doing). Namely, with a crock thesis that reeks of errors that the pope can only materially be the pope and this thesis has been proven false and modified by its supporters due to not being possible to extend to our own times.
Then of course, there are the reports that during the consecrstion if Mons de Lauriers, he had to keep telling Mons. Thuc that he could not say JP2s name, so again we have the presentation of a doubtful mental awareness.
-
Well, given the last posts by Pete and Centro, I think we can safely eliminate all Thuc pedigree from the list of available "saviors" of the Church.
Who does this leave standing in the sedevacantist orb for bishops?
Just the SSPV?
-
And also to point out that if he is an indultarian, he ought to be spending his time helping us R&R types defend the legitimacy of the recent popes, rather than voice his judgment on the superiority of sedevacantist arguments (which tends to reaffirm them in their error).
I don't think it can be done from the R&R position.
Sedevacantism has always been more intellectually based, as opposed to R&R'ism which was more emotionally-based. Sedes tend to quote theologians and Church doctors. R&R'ers tend to appeal to alleged apparitions.
That said, R&R'ers (like yourself) usually attempt to refute sedevacantism by attacking sede ecclesiology. Of course, a staple polemic of R&R'ers (like Mgr Williamson) has long been that Indult trads and conservative Catholics share a common ecclesiology with sedes. So I am a tad perplexed as to why R&R'ers here on CI would be shocked by my not joining them in attacking sedevacantism. Is my ambivalence not consistent with your longstanding polemic?
On the other hand, where Indult and sede theologians usually engage in serious debate is with regards to Religious Liberty. Every high profile sede that came over to the Indult position, of who I am aware, did so after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty is reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. However, most R&R share a common understanding with sedes on this particular issue.
-
And also to point out that if he is an indultarian, he ought to be spending his time helping us R&R types defend the legitimacy of the recent popes, rather than voice his judgment on the superiority of sedevacantist arguments (which tends to reaffirm them in their error).
I don't think it can be done from the R&R position.
Sedevacantism has always been more intellectually based, as opposed to R&R'ism which was more emotionally-based. Sedes tend to quote theologians and Church doctors. R&R'ers tend to appeal to alleged apparitions.
That said, R&R'ers (like yourself) usually attempt to refute sedevacantism by attacking sede ecclesiology. Of course, a staple polemic of R&R'ers (like Mgr Williamson) has long been that Indult trads and conservative Catholics share a common ecclesiology with sedes. So I am a tad perplexed as to why R&R'ers here on CI would be shocked by my not joining them in attacking sedevacantism. Is my ambivalence not consistent with your longstanding polemic?
On the other hand, where Indult and sede theologians usually engage in serious debate is with regards to Religious Liberty. Every high profile sede that came over to the Indult position, of who I am aware, did so after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty is reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. However, most R&R share a common understanding with sedes on this particular issue.
In other words, forget about the 50 other sedevacantist arguments.
Solve apprehensions about Dignitatis Humanae, and they will all come back?
I can't think of a single sedevacantist that this approach would work on.
They would just proceed to the next issue.
Perhaps 30 years ago, Dignitatis Humanae was one of the only issues that caused them to jump ship.
But in 2014, their arguments and issues are so numerous that unless combatted at the level of ecclesiology, there is no hope of ever bringing them back.
That's my opinion, anyway.
-
Well, given the last posts by Pete and Centro, I think we can safely eliminate all Thuc pedigree from the list of available "saviors" of the Church.
Who does this leave standing in the sedevacantist orb for bishops?
Just the SSPV?
It is really is only a dilemma for R&R adherents.
As an Indult trad, I recognize the diocesan bishops in communion with Pope Francis. So the Thuc consecrations were unnecessary in my opinion.
Realistically, it is not a problem recognizable to sedes either. After all, they do not recognize the post-conciliar papacies as a valid. So the Holy See's judgment in their opinion is meaningless.
-
In other words, forget about the 50 other sedevacantist arguments.
Solve apprehensions about Dignitatis Humanae, and they will all come back?
Yep.
-
If Pete is an indult man, then he too is in the R&R camp, although in its milder form.
To say that the Indult is a more mild form of R&R would be to assume I am resisting: a) the post-conciliar papacies; and/or b) Vatican II, and/or c) the Novus Ordo.
I am not.
I accept each of the above as valid AND licit, although - obviously - I prefer the TLM personally, and support it. But this should not be interpreted as resistance to the Novus Ordo, and/or the post-conciliar papacies, and/or Vatican II.
In fact, I have come to appreciate and view Vatican II quite differently after studying the history and Tradition of our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters. For those interested in understanding the Second Vatican Council through the eyes of Eastern Catholic Tradition, I would highly recommend the following book:
https://melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/introduction
So you confirm your recognition but as to any resistance it would be safe to say then, that you see no crisis in the Church, or conciliar novelties of which you might disapprove?
-
In other words, forget about the 50 other sedevacantist arguments.
Solve apprehensions about Dignitatis Humanae, and they will all come back?
Yep.
In other words, when those who have held on to reality and sanity can be convinced, that they are actually insane, they will then return to the asylum.
Intriguing idea......
-
I understand that this book may have answered your questions regarding the orthodoxy/unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, but it is hardly a refutation of sedevacantist apologetics.
Am I to understand from this response that you really have no doctrinal refutation for the sedevacantist arguments (except perhaps on this one issue)?
Sean, not sure if you followed the French debates over sedevacantism (or sedeprivationism), or whether you have read Mgr des Lauriers' "cahiers de Cassiciacuм", but essentially the debate between ED/SP trads and sedes has always come down to the issue of religious liberty.
This is unlike both groups debate with the R&R, which is essentially over ecclesiology.
But back to sede apologetics. Most notable (former) sedes in Europe who came over to the then-indult, now-extraordinary form, did so shortly after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty was reconcilable with Catholic Tradition. The Society of St Vincent Ferrer is one good example. L'Abbe Bernard Lucien is another one.
So yes, it comes down to this one work authored by Dom Basile Valuet, a traditional Benedictine ordained personally by Mgr Lefebvre. The great irony is that he originally set out to write his doctoral thesis from the R&R position of attempting to prove a rupture between Vatican II definition of religious liberty and Apostolic Tradition.
The false teaching on religious liberty from Vatican II is only one piece of a large pie. I have no doubt that we, as the "sedes" are right on this point though, as post Vatican II teaching and "papal" statements support our position that Vatican II broke from Tradition on this point.
"Pope" Francis recently taught:
Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right and I cannot fail to express my hope that it will be upheld throughout the Middle East and the entire world. The right to religious freedom “includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship… [it also includes] the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public”
. SOURCE (http://mobile.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/speeches/2014/may/docuмents/papa-francesco_20140524_terra-santa-autorita-amman.html)
Do you believe this "Papal" teaching explaining religious freedom is compatible with pre-Vatican doctrine?
This teaching above is but one example among many from the post Vatican II "Popes" that have taught the same.
So, while many apologists for Vatican II will argue that there is an orthodox interpretation for Dignitatis Humanae, the "Popes" bishops and theologians after Vatican II all interpreted with the unorthodox interpretation.
For those claiming that the teaching of the Conciliar church on religious liberty is reconcilable with pre-Vatican II teaching, realize that you are opposed by "Papal teaching" from the (your) post V2 Popes, the teaching of the (your) bishops, the "ecclesia docens," and the consensus of (your) theologians for the last 50 years.
-
Well, given the last posts by Pete and Centro, I think we can safely eliminate all Thuc pedigree from the list of available "saviors" of the Church.
Who does this leave standing in the sedevacantist orb for bishops?
Just the SSPV?
It is really is only a dilemma for R&R adherents.
As an Indult trad, I recognize the diocesan bishops in communion with Pope Francis. So the Thuc consecrations were unnecessary in my opinion.
Realistically, it is not a problem recognizable to sedes either. After all, they do not recognize the post-conciliar papacies as a valid. So the Holy See's judgment in their opinion is meaningless.
You misunderstand my question:
If sedes have to consider Thuc consecrations as invalid, what other sede bishops from non-Thuc lineage are left?
-
In other words, forget about the 50 other sedevacantist arguments.
Solve apprehensions about Dignitatis Humanae, and they will all come back?
Yep.
Well, the recent post from Ambrose (a couple posts above this one) runs contrary to your contention when he says Dignitatis Humanae is "one piece of the pie."
In other words, many more issues to be solved before a modern day sede will accept the pope.
PS: As an aside, these issues will continue to multiply for them, since they deny the existence of an authentic (i.e., fallible) universal ordinary magisterium.
In doing so, they preclude their own return.
And that is the main reason polemics must be directed at the level of ecclesiology, rather than a single issue (ignoring the 200 others).
-
....... when I became a traditionalist 25 years ago.
And he's a comedian too. :roll-laugh2:
-
....... when I became a traditionalist 25 years ago.
And he's a comedian too. :roll-laugh2:
There are traditional Catholics who go to the Indult. That is how I converted. It is probably how crossbro converted also. It is not a situation where outside the SSPX there is no salvation, nor is it the case that outside the SSPX there is no traditional Catholics or latin masses.
The only reason I would hesitate to go to the indult is because of the questionable ordination rite of the new priests. That is the one and only advantage of the SSPX as far as I can see. Challenging vatican 2 is not necessary to live as a Catholic, and the mass is the same in indult as in sspx.
-
As an aside,
Sean,
In other words, many more issues to be solved before a modern day sede will accept the pope.
Many of these issues, it seems, will never be solved due to the fact that over the last four decades, many of the SV's contentions have been vindicated by real facts.
It is indeed a conundrum, and comes down to one question, Is the Conciliar church, the Church of the New Advent, the Catholic Church?
One has to stand on one side of this issue or the other, there is no third position as related to it. The answer determines one's orientation and actions.
-
soulguard,
The only reason I would hesitate to go to the indult is because of the questionable ordination rite of the new priests.
But, there is the rub... a very serious matter when receiving the Sacraments
-
It is indeed a conundrum, and comes down to one question, Is the Conciliar church, the Church of the New Advent, the Catholic Church?
One has to stand on one side of this issue or the other, there is no third position as related to it. The answer determines one's orientation and actions.
Well observed, and spoken.
As much as Mgr Williamson has tried to reduce traditional Catholicism to alleged international political cօռspιʀαcιҽs, questionable apparitions, and women boycotting trousers, at the core of traditionalist debate are questions concerning ecclesiology.
Indult trads get this.
Sedes get this.
Which is why most of our hardcore theological debate has come down to Vatican II's understanding of Religious Liberty.
There may be other issues that divide us, but they are minor compared to this one.
-
If sedes have to consider Thuc consecrations as invalid, what other sede bishops from non-Thuc lineage are left?
That's the thing, Sean. Other than the SSPV, who are sede-agnostic (or as some posters here refer to it, sede-doubtist), the majority of sedes do not consider Thuc-line bishops and priests to be invalidly ordained/consecrated.
So most sedes don't consider it an issue.
-
Sedevacantism is an old error, and the SSPX has refuted it many times, with very solid doctrinal and theological reasons, which it is unnecessary to go into here. Let's come to religious liberty, because the heresy of indifferentism it has led to in practice (as the Popes of old with remarkable prescience forewarned) still afflicts countless millions of souls in the Church.
I know there've been attempts to show the text of Dignitatis Humanae is only ambiguous, and ultimately reconciliable with Tradition, though even some of these condede its practical application has been flawed. But there have been other very exhaustive studies showing otherwise.
Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, Pope Leo XIII in Libertas and also in Immortale Dei] and finally Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas and Pius XII in Ci Riesce express the traditional teaching. This last sums up two important principles, relating to why tolerance can sometimes be allowed, but never liberty as was traditionally defined.
First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.
A false religion is not a good to which liberty is owed as a matter of justice, but on the contrary is an evil even the toleration of which requires a proportionate cause, and can only be permitted in the interests of a greater general good, as Pius XII goes on to say.
The major, though not only, heresy widely held in Conciliar circles relating to this matter is that religious liberty includes a natural right to error, a right to choose a false religion. This heterodox understanding was pan-universal in the newChurch.
+ABL had asked long ago, "Could it, please, be explained to us how man can have a natural right to error?"But now, after almost 50 years of giving an impression otherwise, the Roman authorities themselves concede in the doctrinal talks with the Society that yes, in reality, there is no right to error. +BF said, "In our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error, or right to choose each one his religion is false. "
Whether DH actually says there is or is not a natural right to error is another question, but the undeniable fact is that almost everybody thought it did - and they were wrong, as even Rome now(though not yet as openly and as firmly as the Society would like) admits. This is another proof of the possibility and necessity of resistance to many of the private and non-infallible acts of the Pope.
And the failure to resist would have had everyone thinking there really is a natural right to error. I can show you, dear Pete, several apologists who before this had publicly stated that error had rights, contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church, and rebuked traditional Catholics for saying that that was impossible and heterodox.
-
Pete Vere, does Fr. Valuet Basile conclude in his book that a statement like the one Ambrose quoted are in conformity with Catholic tradition? For reference:
Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right and I cannot fail to express my hope that it will be upheld throughout the Middle East and the entire world. The right to religious freedom “includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship… [it also includes] the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public
Or would he conclude that such a statement is manifestly heretical, and not even in conformity with the teaching of Vatican II?
-
....... when I became a traditionalist 25 years ago.
And he's a comedian too. :roll-laugh2:
There are traditional Catholics who go to the Indult. That is how I converted. It is probably how crossbro converted also. It is not a situation where outside the SSPX there is no salvation, nor is it the case that outside the SSPX there is no traditional Catholics or latin masses.
The only reason I would hesitate to go to the indult is because of the questionable ordination rite of the new priests. That is the one and only advantage of the SSPX as far as I can see. Challenging vatican 2 is not necessary to live as a Catholic, and the mass is the same in indult as in sspx.
The Mass is important, but I never said there were not Catholics that attended the Novus Ordo. No one considered the question of Indult/SSPX/whatever an issue and it wasn't brought up.
It is obvious that for Pete's liberal stance on Vatican 2 and religious liberty + the deception that he coauthored that he is not a Catholic.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.
If the CMRI is correct about Rome, why would this be bad news?
If the CMRI is incorrect about Rome, then they should be concerned with received the Sacrament of Penance.
Other arguments come from a position of vanity.
-
Matthew, is it time to boot the Neo-Feeneyite Novus Ordoist trolls?
This may actually deserve a thread all to itself. Feeneyite novus ordites!
How, in the name of Our Lord, does one reconcile the novus ordo with EENS? The two are mutually exclusive. If Feeneyites are novus ordites because Fr. Feeney sought after and received penance in 1978, then they don't follow an idea they follow a man.
-
Every high profile sede that came over to the Indult position, of who I am aware, did so after being convinced that Vatican II's understanding of religious liberty is reconcilable with Catholic Tradition.
Can you sum up that argument in a couple of paragraphs? Or perhaps in a 500 - 800 word essay? It would be great if it was a separate thread, though.
Or cut and paste the principal points from some other author who you feel makes an excellent case.
-
Oh, step off, Cantarella. If you honestly think those clowns who occupy the Vatican represent Eternal Rome, you're an absolute fool. I honestly don't give a damn what Bergoglio thinks. And it's quite appropriate that you use the "facepalm" icon, because you can't see what's right in front of you.
AND
Most sede camps are severely undereducated! In fact CMRI consults "Novus Ordo" theologians on issues!
This is right. The above comment is a clear example of the type of response one usually gets from the vast majority of sedevacantists here when trying to deal with serious matters. Never a theological response to serious questions, but a repetition of biased -copied and pasted- propaganda combined with vulgar words and personal attacks.
What serious question? What personal attack? Oh, when you called my comment "juvenile?" To say that Bergoglio is an usurper and a clown requires no theological response. Let me make this as clear as I can for you: We sedes do not recognize Francis' supposed authority; therefore, we don't care what he or his minions think. You seem to spend a lot of time here. Do you ever cook or clean?
Don't forget the "any true Catholic" comment.....
Cantarella is a hypocrite.
-
Religious freedom is in fact a fundamental human right and I cannot fail to express my hope that it will be upheld throughout the Middle East and the entire world. The right to religious freedom “includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship… [it also includes] the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.
However,
Justice therefore forbids and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness, namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of the truth are, as it were, engraved upon it.
By degrees the religion of Christ was put on the same level with false religions and placed ignominiously in the same category with them.
The Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not on that account, condemn those rulers, who for the sake of securing some great good of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no once shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will.
It seems that there is great disparity between the approach of the conciliar popes with that of those before.
How can Religious Liberty be ever reconciled with Church dogma and Tradition?.
-
I always thought the ecuмenism piece was the bigger issue, but perhaps that's wrapped up with religious liberty.
-
Pete Vere, does Fr. Valuet Basile conclude in his book that a statement like the one Ambrose quoted are in conformity with Catholic tradition?
Well Dom Basile wrote his doctoral thesis when St John Paul II was reigning Pope, so naturally he does not deal with Pope Francis's statement. But yes, Dom Basile traced the history of religious liberty within Catholic doctrine from the Patristic age to the Medieval scholastics all through the various papal docuмents, to the Second Vatican Council. So naturally I would assume he would find Pope Francis' statement reconcilable with Apostolic Tradition.
That being said, Dom Basile is still alive. One could simply ask him by writing him at Ste Madeleine du Barroux Traditional Benedictine Monastery in France. Here is their website:http://www.barroux.org/
-
I always thought the ecuмenism piece was the bigger issue, but perhaps that's wrapped up with religious liberty.
No, religious liberty is the big one.
Part of the problem is that many people confuse ecuмenism with interfaith, and within ecuмenism they confuse "church" with "ecclesial communion". The texts pertaining to ecuмenism are much more nuanced once one understands the proper definitions being used.
Basically, ecuмenism pertains only to dialogue or activity between validly baptized Christians. When non-Christian religions are involved, it is not ecuмenism but interfaith. And the rules for interfaith are much less permissive.
Likewise, a "Church" in Catholic docuмents that pertain to ecuмenism means one of the Eastern non-Catholic Churches that possess the traditional hierarchy of bishop-priest-deacon, as well as all seven sacraments recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. So basically the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Churches of the East.
Protestants, on the other hand, are defined as "Ecclesial Communions".
Thus ecuмenism was not as big an issue to leading sede theologians at the time, as religious liberty was. Especially since the Catholic Church has always practiced ecuмenism with the Orthodox Church, to greater or lesser extent, since the split.
In fact, if Vatican II broke with previous ecuмenical councils in one respect, it was that it was the first ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church to which the Eastern Orthodox bishops were not invited as full participants.
-
Can you sum up that argument in a couple of paragraphs? Or perhaps in a 500 - 800 word essay? It would be great if it was a separate thread, though.
Fr Louie-Marie de Blignieres and the Fraternity of St Vincent Ferrer are probably the best example. Fr de Blignieres had co-founded the FSVF with Mgr Guerard des Lauriers as a sedeprivationist order.
Their main argument was that religious liberty, as defined by Vatican II, was irreconcilable with Apostolic Tradition.
After becoming convinced that he was wrong and the two were reconcilable, Fr de Blignieres and the FSVF renounced the sede position and publicly embraced the Ecclesia Dei position. It is said that Mgr des Lauriers was part of the reconciliation, however, some dispute this.
-
So you confirm your recognition but as to any resistance it would be safe to say then, that you see no crisis in the Church, or conciliar novelties of which you might disapprove?
Most novelties of which I would disapprove have slowly been working their way out of the Church. There have always been novelties and excesses following most ecuмenical councils. Vatican II is no different. It is just a matter of giving history following the Council enough time to sift reform from novelty.
-
There have always been novelties and excesses following most ecuмenical councils. Vatican II is no different. It is just a matter of giving history following the Council enough time to sift reform from novelty.
As history proves, there has always been great turmoil and ruptures after each ecuмenical council. A later example of this is the schism of the Old Catholics, which began in 1871 right after Vatican I, when the protesters against papal infallibility voted at the Council of Munich to constitute themselves a separate Church.
-
I always thought the ecuмenism piece was the bigger issue, but perhaps that's wrapped up with religious liberty.
You are generally correct. The council was a complete package all serving one agenda. Issues such as religious liberty, ecuмenism, liturgical reform, the changing of definitions such as Tradition, the relativizing and legitimizations of Islam, Protestantism, and eastern religions, the raising of Judaism and the Jews to an equal level with the Christians, and the re-defining of the very nature of the Church, as well as the suppression of Tradition, were all integral part of the plan.
They were successful beyond their dreams. Carnal men, hirelings of the world wrested the power of the Church from the Catholic shepherds and remade it in their own image and to their own ideals, giving birth to the Church of the New Advent, the Conciliar church.
-
So you confirm your recognition but as to any resistance it would be safe to say then, that you see no crisis in the Church, or conciliar novelties of which you might disapprove?
Most novelties of which I would disapprove have slowly been working their way out of the Church. There have always been novelties and excesses following most ecuмenical councils. Vatican II is no different. It is just a matter of giving history following the Council enough time to sift reform from novelty.
The novelties which are working themselves out are giving way to more serious devilish deviations. Given enough time they will far outstrip anything which we have seen. Francis is just flashing us a few previews of what is yet to come.
Vatican II was not a typical council with a few novelties here and there, the Council was a novelty in and of itself.
By your comments I would then conclude, that you do not admit to the existence of a grave crisis in the Church which was put into motion by the conciliar revolution.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.
Indeed it would - if the CMRI cared what "Rome" thinks.
What a juvenile comment!
As if a true Catholic could just break off from Eternal Rome.
:facepalm:
Yes it is a shame that Vatican II et al broke from Eternal Rome.
-
Sedevacantism is an old error, and the SSPX has refuted it many times, with very solid doctrinal and theological reasons, which it is unnecessary to go into here.
Could you perhaps link to some of these very solid doctrinal and theological refutations of sedevacantism put forward by the SSPX or Resistance? Or even some other R&R source? Those I have read thus far have been very weak and easily refuted by sedes.
The idea that a valid Pope, in union with the world's bishops, could promulgate an invalid or intrinsically evil liturgical rite strikes me as theological novelty unheard of before the Second Vatican Council.
-
Hello Pete. I'm with you in that it must either be Indult or Sedevacantism for me; either with Rome or against Rome. The SSPX has never made sense to me.
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them? To me, the only way that these canonizations be viable is if somehow these men really were prisoners to masonic Cardinals, in the way that Malachi Martin used to suggest. Barring that - and to me even that seems a very argument - these men were among the worst in history, and far from being saints they were veritable antichrists, for this reason: they absolutely and utterly failed to take a stand against the modern world, and instead chose to fornicate with the world and yield to many of the principles of masonry, failing totally in their care of souls.
What's your opinion? Is my characterization of them just mistaken? Or are the canonizations not infallible (how can that be)?
-
By your comments I would then conclude, that you do not admit to the existence of a grave crisis in the Church which was put into motion by the conciliar revolution.
Throughout the Church's history ecuмenical councils have always taken place around times of crisis. Vatican II was no different. The crisis that took place in the Church around this time on account of the great upheavals in European society and elsewhere would have taken place no matter what. Remember that about two-thirds of the world was under communism at the time.
I have several friends who were priests behind the iron curtain. Some still are, being Asian. Their description of Vatican II and how it facilitated preserving the faith under harsh persecution makes sense. Additionally, Vatican II also liberated the Eastern Catholic Churches to restore their Apostolic Traditions after centuries of forced Latinization.
But back to my previous point. The high percentage of abandonment of the Catholic faith among second and third generation traditionalists, once they are grown up and emancipated from mom and dad, tells me this crisis would have come whether or not there was a Vatican II.
-
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Second, I cannot really speak to St John XXIII as I know little about him. However, I have heard some sedevacantists who hold he was the last valid pope make the argument that he was in fact more traditional than Pope Pius XII. I am not saying I agree with these claims -- again, I'm more familiar with Pius XII's papacy than that of St John XXIII - but enough to say it is disputed even among sedes.
As far as St John Paul II, when one looks at the total picture of how he put up a fight against the culture of death, sparking the imagination of a whole new generation of young Catholics, how he inspired Catholics behind the iron curtain and in China to keep the faith, how he liberated Eastern Catholics from centuries of forced Latinization and provided them with "top cover" to restore their Eastern Catholic Tradition. And the reform to canon law.
Additionally, unlike Paul VI, St John Paul II never really enforced Mgr Lefebvre's suspension a divinis for illicitly ordaining priests, and tried to work out an agreement through then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
Overall, a pretty good track record.
-
P.S. Shawn - Given that you are a Resistance supporter, I would not get too comfortable with the difference between how Rome treats Mgr Lefebvre's ordinations/consecrations and how Rome treats those of Archbishop Thuc.
Remember that Rome treated the four SSPX bishops differently when they were united as a group. In fact, at the time Rome insisted upon negotiating with the four bishops as a group, and not as individuals. (Originally five, but Rome was willing to make a side deal with Mgr Rangel given the special circuмstances of Campos.) This means that Mgr Fellay is unlikely to have expelled Mgr Williamson from the SSPX without having first obtained at least tacit approval from Pope Benedict.
It also means that Rome may have written off Mgr Williamson and the Resistance. In which case, it is very probable that Rome may refuse to recognize orders conferred by Mgr Williamson after his exclusion from the SSPX.
-
By your comments I would then conclude, that you do not admit to the existence of a grave crisis in the Church which was put into motion by the conciliar revolution.
Throughout the Church's history ecuмenical councils have always taken place around times of crisis. Vatican II was no different. The crisis that took place in the Church around this time on account of the great upheavals in European society and elsewhere would have taken place no matter what. Remember that about two-thirds of the world was under communism at the time.
I have several friends who were priests behind the iron curtain. Some still are, being Asian. Their description of Vatican II and how it facilitated preserving the faith under harsh persecution makes sense. Additionally, Vatican II also liberated the Eastern Catholic Churches to restore their Apostolic Traditions after centuries of forced Latinization.
But back to my previous point. The high percentage of abandonment of the Catholic faith among second and third generation traditionalists, once they are grown up and emancipated from mom and dad, tells me this crisis would have come whether or not there was a Vatican II.
Yes, this is so in that at such times the Church would deal directly with the problems of the time by calling a council and doing what the Church as always done, clarify doctrine and condemn error.
Vatican II did no such thing. It was clearly a vehicle to introduce false ideas and overturn the structures of the Church. It came at a time of crisis as an opportunist who would steal a man's cloak while he slept.
The forces behind it had waited for centuries to accomplish the task.
As for communism, Vatican II did nothing but enable it a bit longer by accommodating that which the Church had rightly always stood against.
How logical can it be to say that the faith could be preserved by the corruption and undermining of the same? The Faith is strengthened and purified in the flames of persecution not by bathing it in the waters of error and heresy.
And what do the Eastern Catholic churches have who have imbibed in Vatican II? They have Conciliarism, the humanist love affair with the world.
They have what their Orthodox brethren have attributed to the western Church for centuries, corrupted doctrines and heresy.
The subtext of your statements are clearly an effort to recast the conciliar debacle as a somewhat normal event in the march of time and the life of the Church, and beyond that, that it was legitimate, timely, and even a good thing.
Almost sixty years have passed, and seven conciliar popes, if they were that, have come and gone. The Church lies in ruins, the body of Christ is rent asunder and the souls of its members are awash in worldliness, confusion, and error.
The supreme law of Mother Church has been suspended in the favor of social work, political considerations, and carnal concerns.
Some of us who actually remember the old Faith, the "old believers" if you will. We do still discern that which carries the mark of the Devil, we acknowledge the true nature of the "council" and its instigators, and we are not deceived.
-
What about this, Pete?
(http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/JP2_Pictures_with_Pagans_and_Infidels/Assisi1986.jpg)
As for "inspiring young Catholics", inspiring them with what? With a kind of New Age "togetherness" which stinks of religious indifferentism? Apparently there are barely any devout Catholics left today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myGzvGCgnsc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myGzvGCgnsc)). As for me, I'm a young Catholic (or at least I'm trying to be) and it wasn't encouraging to me to see things like the image above, when what I was looking for in the Catholic Church in the first place is the dogmatic, apostolic of 2000 years "outside of which there is no salvation". What kind of message does this send to young Catholics? I get the feeling from the last few Popes that they couldn't care less if I was Catholic, Protestant or Atheist, and they view the Catholic Church as just a place to hang out and spread "good vibes". Again, this might just be poor characterization on my part, so please correct me if I'm mistaken. It just seems to me that Rome has totally sold out to the world.
-
P.S. Shawn - Given that you are a Resistance supporter, I would not get too comfortable with the difference between how Rome treats Mgr Lefebvre's ordinations/consecrations and how Rome treats those of Archbishop Thuc.
Remember that Rome treated the four SSPX bishops differently when they were united as a group. In fact, at the time Rome insisted upon negotiating with the four bishops as a group, and not as individuals. (Originally five, but Rome was willing to make a side deal with Mgr Rangel given the special circuмstances of Campos.) This means that Mgr Fellay is unlikely to have expelled Mgr Williamson from the SSPX without having first obtained at least tacit approval from Pope Benedict.
It also means that Rome may have written off Mgr Williamson and the Resistance. In which case, it is very probable that Rome may refuse to recognize orders conferred by Mgr Williamson after his exclusion from the SSPX.
You cannot discuss this matter accurately, without considering the unmentioned dynamic which has been left out here, which is that the Jews demanded that Williamson be expelled for his views concerning that protected group. Of course Benedict would be pleased if this was done to placate them.
A number of Benedict's congregational lackey's proposed that one cannot be a member of the Catholic Church if one holds such opinions.
Rome wanted the four bishops but the others wanted three bishops sans Williamson, who was the victim of the stronger power.
It leads one to wonder who Bishop Fellay believed he was actually negotiating with?
Remember, Nostra Aetate was declared as non-negotiable requirement for a reconciliation.
Whatever Conciliar Rome recognizes or does not, valid orders will be just that, and when the Catholic order is once again restored in Rome all proper and valid orders will be confirmed.
-
McFiggly,
As for "inspiring young Catholics", inspiring them with what?
Not to purity, and not to contemplation or reverence. Just google a video of his World Youth Days.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
Those would be very bad news for the CMRI, indeed.
Sean,
It is the right of Rome to not recognize orders even if valid when they come from disobedience. It is the authority of the Church to decide to accept or reject and in the case of CMRI, they are simpletons parading as legit priests and bishop. Sorry, but you are wrong.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
It doesn't really matter what apostate "Rome" views as valid, now does it!
In truth, if someone were to seriously question the CMRI consecrations they would certainly have to question the Liénart ordinations :wink:
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
It doesn't really matter what apostate "Rome" views as valid, now does it!
In truth, if someone were to seriously question the CMRI consecrations they would certainly have to question the Liénart ordinations :wink:
You are right, and this slippery slope of questioning sacramental validity when the matter and form can be verified, along with no evidence of a contrary intention, is an evil rigorism and based in unsound and uncatholic principles.
This logic is straight out of Hell. There are now people doubting the validity of of The consecrations/ordinations of Archbishop Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Dolan, Bishop Pivarunas, Bishop Williamson, and the list can go on.
There seems to be no end for those who are actively trying to find a supposed defect in sacramental validity.
So long as the matter and form can be verified, and there is no evidence of a contrary intention, a Catholic must never doubt the validity of a sacrament.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
It doesn't really matter what apostate "Rome" views as valid, now does it!
In truth, if someone were to seriously question the CMRI consecrations they would certainly have to question the Liénart ordinations :wink:
You are right, and this slippery slope of questioning sacramental validity when the matter and form can be verified, along with no evidence of a contrary intention, is an evil rigorism and based in unsound and uncatholic principles.
This logic is straight out of Hell. There are now people doubting the validity of of The consecrations/ordinations of Archbishop Thuc, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Dolan, Bishop Pivarunas, Bishop Williamson, and the list can go on.
There seems to be no end for those who are actively trying to find a supposed defect in sacramental validity.
So long as the matter and form can be verified, and there is no evidence of a contrary intention, a Catholic must never doubt the validity of a sacrament.
Agreed!
-
It is the right of Rome to not recognize orders even if valid when they come from disobedience. It is the authority of the Church to decide to accept or reject and in the case of CMRI, they are simpletons parading as legit priests and bishop.
I hope "Over-Righteousness" with his mauvais esprit was one of the trolls banned!
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
It doesn't really matter what apostate "Rome" views as valid, now does it!
In truth, if someone were to seriously question the CMRI consecrations they would certainly have to question the Liénart ordinations :wink:
You are right, and this slippery slope of questioning sacramental validity when the matter and form can be verified, along with no evidence of a contrary intention, is an evil rigorism and based in unsound and uncatholic principles.
False. This is not an evil rigorism. It is actually a matter of utter importance for a true Catholic. According to Canon Law, the only minister that can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest alone. This is true also for the sacraments of confirmation, penance, matrimony, and extreme unction.
Sacramental validity is of utter importance and it is not to be taken lightly. No validly ordained clergy, not sacraments! Simple. Is someone receives Holy Communion from an invalidly ordained priest, he/she is certainly not eating Jesus. It defeats the whole purpose of the Faith and undermine the absolute need of the Sacraments.
-
Was Pete Venear banned?
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32012&min=70#p1)
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, or, should we employ its synonym, "dull?" These Newcanonizations were an obvious attempt to Newcanonize the heresies of Vat.II, and the unclean spirit thereof. You see, it's not possible for the Church to canonize an event like Vat.II, but by Newcanonizing two of its adherents, this is an indirect approval of the impossible. The same trick was played at the so-called promulgation of the Newmass (which was not a promulgation). The last page was a promulgation of the preceding pages. A real promulgation does not need to be promulgated. This goes to show that the content under the title "Pomulgation" was in fact no such thing. So too with the Newcanonizations. It's all smoke and mirrors, a great sign and wonder "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand" (Matt. xxiv. 24-25).
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Second, I cannot really speak to St John XXIII as I know little about him. However, I have heard some sedevacantists who hold he was the last valid pope make the argument that he was in fact more traditional than Pope Pius XII.
That was a typo. What they were trying to say is: John XXIII was in fact more TRANSITIONAL (not 'traditional') than Pope Pius XII.
I am not saying I agree with these claims -- again, I'm more familiar with Pius XII's papacy than that of St John XXIII - but enough to say it is disputed even among sedes.
As far as St John Paul II, when one looks at the total picture of how he put up a fight against the culture of death, sparking the imagination of a whole new generation of young Catholics,
Let's see, that would be his whirlwind international tours like the one I met him on, where he went out of his way to denounce capital punishment, even though it has every place proper to a well-ordered society, and IT'S NOT a sin, and ignored the ritual human sacrifice of pre-born children by wanton abortion (which is an anti-sacrament of satanism), which is one of the four sins that cries to heaven for vengeance (willful murder of the innocent). Check.
how he inspired Catholics behind the iron curtain and in China to keep the faith,
And just what "faith" is it, that he inspired them to "keep?" Indifferentism? (Assisi I AND II) Universal salvation? (Under his watch the American bishops demanded priests to say "and for all" instead of "and for many" in the consecration of the wine at Mass, and he never did diddly SQUAT about it.)
how he liberated Eastern Catholics from centuries of forced Latinization and provided them with "top cover" to restore their Eastern Catholic Tradition.
I don't know about that -- maybe there was something useful in what he did.
And the reform to canon law.
What the 1983 Code of Canon Law is, words can't adequately pronounce. Suffice it to say that the errors and stench of Vat.II become Church law in this way. Another "abomination of desolation, he that readeth, let him understand" (Matt. xxiv. 15).
IOW -- you should not be surprised when Catholics head for the hills, that is, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Additionally, unlike Paul VI, St John Paul II never really enforced Mgr Lefebvre's suspension a divinis for illicitly ordaining priests, and tried to work out an agreement through then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
Oh, right. It took him just ONE DAY to come out with Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which means he had it prepared in advance, and there was no problem letting all the bishops of the world lie to their flocks calumniating the Society as "SCHISMATIC!!!" No problem, for pete vere. Say no more!
Why would he have to go to the trouble of "enforcing" anything? The fact of the stupid announcement is all that mattered. The deed was done. Let the chips fall as they may.
Overall, a pretty good track record.
Overall, the track record is pretty good, is it?
On the contrary,
Overall, the track record is abominable. But then, you couldn't be blind to see that, or deaf to hear it.
.
-
Was Pete Venear banned?
In English you'd be trying to say "Pete Veneer."
If he was banned, it would say so under his name/avatar/stats at his posts.
But it does not say that. So he is not banned.
.
-
Neil Obstat,
Pete Vere said:
McFiggly said:
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, etc.
Excellent synopsis Neil!
-
Neil Obstat,
Pete Vere said:
McFiggly said:
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, etc.
Excellent synopsis Neil!
Thank you, J.Paul.
Why not just quote the whole thing? This isn't Catholic Answers, you know! Karl Keating isn't peeking over your shoulder and breathing down your neck, here!! HAHAHAHAHA
This gives me an opportunity to fix a few spots -- so thank you!
.
.
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32012&min=80#p4)
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32012&min=70#p1)
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, or, should we rather employ its synonym: "dull?"
{dull, dulled, round, rounded, edgeless, insensitive, obtuse, pointless, unsharpened}
These Newcanonizations were an obvious attempt to Newcanonize the heresies of Vat.II, and the unclean spirit thereof. You see, it's not possible for the Church to canonize an event like Vat.II, but by Newcanonizing two of its adherents, its proponents, its exponents, two of its FRONT MEN, this is an indirect approval of the impossible. The same trick was played in the so-called promulgation of the Newmass (which was not a promulgation). The last page was a promulgation of the preceding pages. A real promulgation does not need to be promulgated. This goes to show that the content under the title, "Pomulgation," was in fact no such thing. So too with the Newcanonizations. It's all smoke and mirrors, a great sign and wonder "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand" (Matt. xxiv. 24-25).
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Second, I cannot really speak to St John XXIII as I know little about him.
Thank you for admitting you know little about John XXIII. You're not alone, because most of the world had forgotten all about him. They had to hurry up and Newcanonize him before Modernists start questioning whether he ever really existed, like they do regarding Our Lord Himself, or St. Philomena. Even people who knew him recall how forgettable he was. They can hardly recall Roncalli [/size](joke). Which is a curious thing, since traditionally, one of the criteria for canonization is that the person being canonized must have a CULTUS, or a FOLLOWING, that is, some significant number of people who revere his memory and even pray to him (or her) for his intercession, and it is what happens in ANSWER to these prayers that any miracles are seriously considered -- but nobody was praying to John XXIII, and nobody was receiving any miracles, and nobody is following his cult with reverence to his memory as a model of Christian heroic virtue. Sound like a saint?
Question: So why does he qualify for Newcanonization?
Answer: It's not canonization, it's Newcanonization. That's why. They just pulled out all the stops to make it APPEAR to be a canonization, you know, with all the Latin they had to dust off which hadn't been uttered for the past 40 years (since about 1974 when all the world's liturgies finished going vernacular).
Of course, the GIVEAWAY was all the ridiculous modernization of half of the Chant -- newfangled wacko gibberish sung by the choir, while the people are given alternating traditional chant, that is, stuff they recognize and can actually SING.
However, I have heard some sedevacantists who hold he was the last valid pope make the argument that he was in fact more traditional than Pope Pius XII.
That was a typo. What they were trying to say is: John XXIII was in fact more TRANSITIONAL (not 'traditional') than Pope Pius XII.
I am not saying I agree with these claims -- again, I'm more familiar with Pius XII's papacy than that of St John XXIII - but enough to say it is disputed even among sedes.
Maybe you should become informed before you spout your opinions. Read up on John XXIII (a good source is P. Hebblethwaite (http://books.google.com/books/about/Pope_John_Xxiii.html?id=1TkbAAAAIAAJ), an author who really TRIES to make the case for "good pope John's" credibility, but is honest about the facts) and find out how his 'virtues' were markedly inferior to Pius XII's, and then ask yourself, if you dare, why does this John XXIII, who has no following, get Newcanonized when Pius XII, who does have a following, not get canonized?
John XXIII opened the infamous Council that Pius XII wouldn't dare to open. Sound like a saint? Pius XII didn't dare open the Council because he knew most of the world's bishops had insufficient formation in the Faith, but John didn't care about that. Sound like a saint? John said that he had a 'sudden inspiration' to open the Council. But that was a lie. Sound like a saint? The fact was, he had been urged to open the Council by advisers whose agenda was to revolutionize the Church and John didn't mind letting them in to positions of power. Sound like a saint?
As far as St John Paul II, when one looks at the total picture of how he put up a fight against the culture of death, sparking the imagination of a whole new generation of young Catholics,..
Let's see, that would be his whirlwind international tours like the ones I met him on, where he went out of his way to denounce capital punishment, even though it has a sound place proper to a well-ordered society (IT'S NOT a sin), and he ignored the ritual human sacrifice of pre-born children by wanton abortion (which is an anti-sacrament of satanism), which is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance (willful murder of the innocent). -- Check.
..how he inspired Catholics behind the iron curtain and in China to keep the faith,
And just what "faith" is it, that he inspired them to "keep?" Indifferentism? (Assisi I AND II) Universal salvation? (Under his watch the American bishops demanded priests to say "and for all" instead of "and for many" in the consecration of the wine at Mass, and he never did diddly SQUAT about it.) Communion-in-the-hand? (That's a whole topic unto itself -- but the world's eyes were upon him for many years while he personally gave Communion ONLY on the tongue, even while other 'ministers' in his presence gave it out in-the-hand. All the while he A) never spoke about the abuse, B) never issued any directive to prevent it, C) never reprimanded anyone on planet earth for practicing it, D) never denounced any bishop anywhere who punished priests for refusing to give communion-in-the-hand (Fr. Schell in California was one of these, who lost his salary, pension, health insurance, apartment, access to the church and permission to say Mass, all because he would not give communion-in-the-hand. And he was not the only one to lose all these things for that reason.
..how he liberated Eastern Catholics from centuries of forced Latinization and provided them with "top cover" to restore their Eastern Catholic Tradition.
I don't know about that -- maybe there was something useful in what he did, after all.
And the reform to canon law.
What the 1983 Code of Canon Law is, words can't adequately pronounce. Suffice it to say that the errors and stench of Vat.II become Church law in this way. Another "abomination of desolation, he that readeth, let him understand" (Matt. xxiv. 15).
IOW -- you should not be surprised when Catholics head for the hills, that is, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Additionally, unlike Paul VI, St John Paul II never really enforced Mgr Lefebvre's suspension a divinis for illicitly ordaining priests, and tried to work out an agreement through then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
Oh, right. It took him just ONE DAY to come out with Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which means he had it prepared in advance, and there was no problem letting all the bishops of the world lie to their flocks calumniating the Society as "SCHISMATIC!!!" No problem, for pete vere. Say no more!
Why would he have to go to the trouble of "enforcing" anything? The fact of the stupid announcement is all that mattered. The deed was done. Let the chips fall as they may.
Overall, a pretty good track record.
Overall, the track record is pretty good, is it?
On the contrary,
Overall, the track record is abominable. But then, you couldn't be blind to see that, or deaf to hear it.
.
.
.
In the end, they had to hurry up and Newcanonize John XXIII along with JPII, because their memory was fading fast, especially the latter. This is the age of pop stars and sports heroes, when icons of the past are like yesterday's newspapers. You're not "with it" if you don't keep up with the latest fads. Trend setters get all the attention. Movers and shakers are revered. JPII's popularity was a flash in the pan. It mostly consisted of a strange blend of Polish nationalism. Even in Poland his memory is fading fast, and it's only been 9 years. So they had to push through this charade. Newchurch is desperately trying to keep up with the world, and the world is 'moving' faster today than it ever has in the past. It's a tall order, these Newcanonizations. It's a whole new ball game keeping up with the world, the flesh and the devil.[/size]
.
-
Neil Obstat,
Pete Vere said:
McFiggly said:
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, etc.
Excellent synopsis Neil!
Thank you, J.Paul.
Why not just quote the whole thing? This isn't Catholic Answers, you know! Karl Keating isn't peeking over your shoulder and breathing down your neck, here!! HAHAHAHAHA
This gives me an opportunity to fix a few spots -- so thank you!
.
.
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32012&min=80#p4)
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32012&min=70#p1)
What I'd like to ask is your opinion on the recent canonizations of Popes John XIII & John Paul II. What do you make of them?
First, let's be blunt: despite what anyone else claims, these canonizations are a reaffirmation of the validity and the liceity of the the Second Vatican Council.
Thank you for being blunt, or, should we rather employ its synonym: "dull?"
{dull, dulled, round, rounded, edgeless, insensitive, obtuse, pointless, unsharpened}
These Newcanonizations were an obvious attempt to Newcanonize the heresies of Vat.II, and the unclean spirit thereof. You see, it's not possible for the Church to canonize an event like Vat.II, but by Newcanonizing two of its adherents, its proponents, its exponents, two of its FRONT MEN, this is an indirect approval of the impossible. The same trick was played in the so-called promulgation of the Newmass (which was not a promulgation). The last page was a promulgation of the preceding pages. A real promulgation does not need to be promulgated. This goes to show that the content under the title, "Pomulgation," was in fact no such thing. So too with the Newcanonizations. It's all smoke and mirrors, a great sign and wonder "insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand" (Matt. xxiv. 24-25).
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Second, I cannot really speak to St John XXIII as I know little about him.
Thank you for admitting you know little about John XXIII. You're not alone, because most of the world had forgotten all about him. They had to hurry up and Newcanonize him before Modernists start questioning whether he ever really existed, like they do regarding Our Lord Himself, or St. Philomena. Even people who knew him recall how forgettable he was. They can hardly recall Roncalli [/size](joke). Which is a curious thing, since traditionally, one of the criteria for canonization is that the person being canonized must have a CULTUS, or a FOLLOWING, that is, some significant number of people who revere his memory and even pray to him (or her) for his intercession, and it is what happens in ANSWER to these prayers that any miracles are seriously considered -- but nobody was praying to John XXIII, and nobody was receiving any miracles, and nobody is following his cult with reverence to his memory as a model of Christian heroic virtue. Sound like a saint?
Question: So why does he qualify for Newcanonization?
Answer: It's not canonization, it's Newcanonization. That's why. They just pulled out all the stops to make it APPEAR to be a canonization, you know, with all the Latin they had to dust off which hadn't been uttered for the past 40 years (since about 1974 when all the world's liturgies finished going vernacular).
Of course, the GIVEAWAY was all the ridiculous modernization of half of the Chant -- newfangled wacko gibberish sung by the choir, while the people are given alternating traditional chant, that is, stuff they recognize and can actually SING.
However, I have heard some sedevacantists who hold he was the last valid pope make the argument that he was in fact more traditional than Pope Pius XII.
That was a typo. What they were trying to say is: John XXIII was in fact more TRANSITIONAL (not 'traditional') than Pope Pius XII.
I am not saying I agree with these claims -- again, I'm more familiar with Pius XII's papacy than that of St John XXIII - but enough to say it is disputed even among sedes.
Maybe you should become informed before you spout your opinions. Read up on John XXIII (a good source is P. Hebblethwaite (http://books.google.com/books/about/Pope_John_Xxiii.html?id=1TkbAAAAIAAJ), an author who really TRIES to make the case for "good pope John's" credibility, but is honest about the facts) and find out how his 'virtues' were markedly inferior to Pius XII's, and then ask yourself, if you dare, why does this John XXIII, who has no following, get Newcanonized when Pius XII, who does have a following, not get canonized?
John XXIII opened the infamous Council that Pius XII wouldn't dare to open. Sound like a saint? Pius XII didn't dare open the Council because he knew most of the world's bishops had insufficient formation in the Faith, but John didn't care about that. Sound like a saint? John said that he had a 'sudden inspiration' to open the Council. But that was a lie. Sound like a saint? The fact was, he had been urged to open the Council by advisers whose agenda was to revolutionize the Church and John didn't mind letting them in to positions of power. Sound like a saint?
As far as St John Paul II, when one looks at the total picture of how he put up a fight against the culture of death, sparking the imagination of a whole new generation of young Catholics,..
Let's see, that would be his whirlwind international tours like the ones I met him on, where he went out of his way to denounce capital punishment, even though it has a sound place proper to a well-ordered society (IT'S NOT a sin), and he ignored the ritual human sacrifice of pre-born children by wanton abortion (which is an anti-sacrament of satanism), which is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance (willful murder of the innocent). -- Check.
..how he inspired Catholics behind the iron curtain and in China to keep the faith,
And just what "faith" is it, that he inspired them to "keep?" Indifferentism? (Assisi I AND II) Universal salvation? (Under his watch the American bishops demanded priests to say "and for all" instead of "and for many" in the consecration of the wine at Mass, and he never did diddly SQUAT about it.) Communion-in-the-hand? (That's a whole topic unto itself -- but the world's eyes were upon him for many years while he personally gave Communion ONLY on the tongue, even while other 'ministers' in his presence gave it out in-the-hand. All the while he A) never spoke about the abuse, B) never issued any directive to prevent it, C) never reprimanded anyone on planet earth for practicing it, D) never denounced any bishop anywhere who punished priests for refusing to give communion-in-the-hand (Fr. Schell in California was one of these, who lost his salary, pension, health insurance, apartment, access to the church and permission to say Mass, all because he would not give communion-in-the-hand. And he was not the only one to lose all these things for that reason.
..how he liberated Eastern Catholics from centuries of forced Latinization and provided them with "top cover" to restore their Eastern Catholic Tradition.
I don't know about that -- maybe there was something useful in what he did, after all.
And the reform to canon law.
What the 1983 Code of Canon Law is, words can't adequately pronounce. Suffice it to say that the errors and stench of Vat.II become Church law in this way. Another "abomination of desolation, he that readeth, let him understand" (Matt. xxiv. 15).
IOW -- you should not be surprised when Catholics head for the hills, that is, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Additionally, unlike Paul VI, St John Paul II never really enforced Mgr Lefebvre's suspension a divinis for illicitly ordaining priests, and tried to work out an agreement through then-Cardinal Ratzinger.
Oh, right. It took him just ONE DAY to come out with Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which means he had it prepared in advance, and there was no problem letting all the bishops of the world lie to their flocks calumniating the Society as "SCHISMATIC!!!" No problem, for pete vere. Say no more!
Why would he have to go to the trouble of "enforcing" anything? The fact of the stupid announcement is all that mattered. The deed was done. Let the chips fall as they may.
Overall, a pretty good track record.
Overall, the track record is pretty good, is it?
On the contrary,
Overall, the track record is abominable. But then, you couldn't be blind to see that, or deaf to hear it.
.
.
.
In the end, they had to hurry up and Newcanonize John XXIII along with JPII, because their memory was fading fast, especially the latter. This is the age of pop stars and sports heroes, when icons of the past are like yesterday's newspapers. You're not "with it" if you don't keep up with the latest fads. Trend setters get all the attention. Movers and shakers are revered. JPII's popularity was a flash in the pan. It mostly consisted of a strange blend of Polish nationalism. Even in Poland his memory is fading fast, and it's only been 9 years. So they had to push through this charade. Newchurch is desperately trying to keep up with the world, and the world is 'moving' faster today than it ever has in the past. It's a tall order, these Newcanonizations. It's a whole new ball game keeping up with the world, the flesh and the devil.[/size]
.
Just trying not to clog up the thread, but here is another opportunity if you have overlooked anything.
-
Was Pete Venear banned?
In English you'd be trying to say "Pete Veneer."
If he was banned, it would say so under his name/avatar/stats at his posts.
But it does not say that. So he is not banned.
.
Yeah, sure veneer, venere, venereal, I don't really care how its spelled.
-
Just trying not to clog up the thread, but here is another opportunity if you have overlooked anything.
Thank you. I did overlook something: two close-parentheses in the following paragraph:
And just what "faith" is it, that he inspired them to "keep?" Indifferentism? (Assisi I AND II) Universal salvation? (Under his watch the American bishops demanded priests to say "and for all" instead of "and for many" in the consecration of the wine at Mass, and he never did diddly SQUAT about it.) Communion-in-the-hand?
That's a whole topic unto itself -- but the world's eyes were upon him for many years while he personally gave Communion ONLY on the tongue, even while other 'ministers' even in his presence gave it out in-the-hand. All the while he A) never spoke about the abuse, B) never issued any directive to prevent it, C) never reprimanded anyone on planet earth for practicing it, D) never denounced any bishop anywhere who punished priests for refusing to give communion-in-the-hand (Fr. Schell in California was one of these, who lost his salary, pension, health insurance, apartment, access to the church and permission to say Mass, all because he would not give communion-in-the-hand. And he was not the only one to lose all these things for that reason.)
Additionally:
JPII managed to give the impression that he was 'traditional' to those who wanted to believe it, while he did nothing to defend tradition when bishops all over the world openly acted to destroy it. You would have to have lived through this to know it happened because hardly anyone spoke about it. While it was happening it was too unbelievable, that it was not possible to put it into words, but now we can look back at it with objectivity, if we dare. Curiously, too many can't seem to manage this objectivity when they continue to defend the memory of JPII as if his pontificate was an example of holiness. He may have been the Holy Father but his papacy wasn't a very good example of holiness. And its effect on Poland has been disastrous.
Poland -- Most providentially, just as I was typing this, I was playing a recording of a recent Fr. Hewko sermon, when he explains the effect of JPII on Poland:
"...Jesus Christ founded His Church on Tradition, so that when any time comes, like at Vat.II when the pope and bishops go with a new doctrine, THEY are the ones schismatic. They are the ones turning their back on Tradition and the Faith. They are the ones that have fabricated a new religion. And that defines our crisis now.
"We're not schismatic disobedient dissidents! We haven't changed the Faith! We want to be FAITHFUL to the religion of all time! We want to be FAITHFUL to the Mass of all time! And it is not we who have changed it, but it's modernist Rome and the conciliar church, and that's why we REJECT the conciliar church. And we make WAR with the conciliar church, because it's taking, literally taking millions of souls to hell!
"Fr. Pfeiffer was recently in Poland, and an old priest, who is an exorcist told him: MUSLIMS have tried to destroy Catholic Poland and they never succeeded. They became stronger in the Faith, and fought -- the great Hussars [17th cent.] went to BATTLE against the Muslims, and WON, through Our Lady. He said Communists have tried to destroy Catholic Poland [20th c.], and they never succeeded. There were many martyrs. The same could be said about Ukraine. And also, the nαzιs tried to crush Poland [20th c.]. And he said, Poland always kept the Faith.
"But what made Poland fall? What destroyed the Faith in Poland? Pope John Paul II! The pope of the conciliar church -- the pope who promoted false religious liberty, the false Newmass, the false doctrines and the new doctrines of the fabricated conciliar church. And this conciliar church is persecuting Tradition. And that's why we're having Mass here, and it's also why the Society of St. Pius X has already gone over, by accepting the Doctrinal Declaration (AFD) and not fighting against that which undermines the complete Catholic Faith, they have gone over to the enemy. And they're doing it in a muddled fashion, a seductive fashion, a deceitful fashion, as we all know, and these are all the works of the darkness. That's how the devil works, in the darkness..." (25:33)
Hear the rest (dur. 38:25) :
http://www.mediafire.com/listen/m5udvviv2573hp6/Fr+D+Hewko%2C+5-18-14+Milton+ON.mp3
.
-
.
That should be a new thread.
.
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
It doesn't really matter what apostate "Rome" views as valid, now does it!
In truth, if someone were to seriously question the CMRI consecrations they would certainly have to question the Liénart ordinations :wink:
You are right, and this slippery slope of questioning sacramental validity when the matter and form can be verified, along with no evidence of a contrary intention, is an evil rigorism and based in unsound and uncatholic principles.
False. This is not an evil rigorism. It is actually a matter of utter importance for a true Catholic. According to Canon Law, the only minister that can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest alone. This is true also for the sacraments of confirmation, penance, matrimony, and extreme unction.
Sacramental validity is of utter importance and it is not to be taken lightly. No validly ordained clergy, not sacraments! Simple. Is someone receives Holy Communion from an invalidly ordained priest, he/she is certainly not eating Jesus. It defeats the whole purpose of the Faith and undermine the absolute need of the Sacraments.
So, it's ok to ignore sacramental theology in favor of pet opinions that support particular groups?
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
It doesn't really matter what apostate "Rome" views as valid, now does it!
In truth, if someone were to seriously question the CMRI consecrations they would certainly have to question the Liénart ordinations :wink:
You are right, and this slippery slope of questioning sacramental validity when the matter and form can be verified, along with no evidence of a contrary intention, is an evil rigorism and based in unsound and uncatholic principles.
False. This is not an evil rigorism. It is actually a matter of utter importance for a true Catholic. According to Canon Law, the only minister that can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest alone. This is true also for the sacraments of confirmation, penance, matrimony, and extreme unction.
Sacramental validity is of utter importance and it is not to be taken lightly. No validly ordained clergy, not sacraments! Simple. Is someone receives Holy Communion from an invalidly ordained priest, he/she is certainly not eating Jesus. It defeats the whole purpose of the Faith and undermine the absolute need of the Sacraments.
So, it's ok to ignore sacramental theology in favor of pet opinions that support particular groups?
And if one were to question the Liénart consecrations, one would have to seriously question the Rampolla consecrations (of which all bishops in America trace their lineage). Under such reckless scrutiny, the entire Church's apostolic lineage seems to have been invalidated because of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the gates of Hell have prevailed...... :facepalm:
-
Rome recognizes the validity of these episcopal consecrations as illicit (and therefore valid), but does not recognize the validity of Thuc bishops' priestly ordinations?
It doesn't really matter what apostate "Rome" views as valid, now does it!
In truth, if someone were to seriously question the CMRI consecrations they would certainly have to question the Liénart ordinations :wink:
You are right, and this slippery slope of questioning sacramental validity when the matter and form can be verified, along with no evidence of a contrary intention, is an evil rigorism and based in unsound and uncatholic principles.
False. This is not an evil rigorism. It is actually a matter of utter importance for a true Catholic. According to Canon Law, the only minister that can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist, is a validly ordained priest alone. This is true also for the sacraments of confirmation, penance, matrimony, and extreme unction.
Sacramental validity is of utter importance and it is not to be taken lightly. No validly ordained clergy, not sacraments! Simple. Is someone receives Holy Communion from an invalidly ordained priest, he/she is certainly not eating Jesus. It defeats the whole purpose of the Faith and undermine the absolute need of the Sacraments.
So, it's ok to ignore sacramental theology in favor of pet opinions that support particular groups?
And if one were to question the Liénart consecrations, one would have to seriously question the Rampolla consecrations (of which all bishops in America trace their lineage). Under such reckless scrutiny, the entire Church's apostolic lineage seems to have been invalidated because of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the gates of Hell have prevailed...... :facepalm:
Meanwhile, while everyone was scrutinizing, Mons. Thuc was busy being manipulated and lied to while consecrating known non-Catholic ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and having Mons Des Lauriers tell him he wasn't suppose to say Joahnes Paulo 2 in the rite of consecration of which no witnesses attended.
-
...having Mons Des Lauriers tell him he wasn't suppose to say Joahnes Paulo 2 in the rite of consecration...
While we agree Bishop Des Lauriers was right when advising the Archbishop, I am certain that the ABL consecrations are still valid even though he put an anti-pope's name in the rite of consecration.
In all humility, I must admit that in my youth I believed Karol Józef Wojtyła was the pope.
-
...having Mons Des Lauriers tell him he wasn't suppose to say Joahnes Paulo 2 in the rite of consecration...
While we agree Bishop Des Lauriers was right when advising the Archbishop, I am certain that the ABL consecrations are still valid even though he put an anti-pope's name in the rite of consecration.
In all humility, I must admit that in my youth I believed Karol Józef Wojtyła was the pope.
Forgot to mention Centroamerica, I wouldn't question the validity of SSPX consecrations and ordinations because of the scandalous (and at times even unnatural) nature of some of the candidates. Our consolation is that only a minority were such.
Pax,
Ferdinand
-
...having Mons Des Lauriers tell him he wasn't suppose to say Joahnes Paulo 2 in the rite of consecration...
While we agree Bishop Des Lauriers was right when advising the Archbishop, I am certain that the ABL consecrations are still valid even though he put an anti-pope's name in the rite of consecration.
In all humility, I must admit that in my youth I believed Karol Józef Wojtyła was the pope.
Forgot to mention Centroamerica, I wouldn't question the validity of SSPX consecrations and ordinations because of the scandalous (and at times even unnatural) nature of some of the candidates. Our consolation is that only a minority were such.
Pax,
Ferdinand
I think you missed the point. I stated that about Mons. Thuc because it supports all the claims that he was not of sound mind during the consecrations. Only a speculation.