Author Topic: Outstanding Sermon on Sedevacantism by Fr. Pfeiffer (Read 48173 times)

Emerentiana · « **Reply #75 on:** May 06, 2014, 01:35:43 PM »

The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.

SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.

Charlemagne · « **Reply #76 on:** May 06, 2014, 01:43:23 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

The SSPX has valid priests. The FSSP does not. All of their priests today have been ordained bu Novus Ordo Bishops. They are NOT the same as the SSPX, who have validly ordained priests, for the most part, except the Novus Ordo priests that have joined them and have not been reordained.

SSPX priests are forbidden to say mass in the Novus Ordo churches.

Agreed. It just reminded me of when the FSSP was created. "Don't have anything to do with that nasty SSPX! See, we can offer a Latin Mass, too! We'll even give you a bishop!" It kept dollars in the Conciliar Church, but where's that promised bishop?

Ekim · « **Reply #77 on:** May 06, 2014, 02:17:42 PM »

Mithrandylan,

Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place. Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.

I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula. Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.

Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #78 on:** May 06, 2014, 03:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Ekim

Mithrandylan,

Just because a Pope (or priest for that matter) says the words to confect a sacrament, does not always mean that the sacrament takes place. Not only must the words be correct, but so must be the matter.

I know that canonizations are not sacraments, but they most certainly follow a formula. Francis may have said the words at the canonizations, but the "Matter" in which they were pronounced over was highly deficient.

Heck, even the New York Times posted an article with the heading "A Saint He Aint".

The "matter" for canonizations is a dead person. The infallibility of the Church protects a non-saint dead person from being canonized. What you are arguing is just another procedural argument, which has already been debunked. Undue process led to deficient matter slipping through the procedural cracks and onto the canonization assembly line.

It is not so. Besides the fact that the Church's infallibility in secondary objects covers canonizations, at least in this particular instance you actually have an ex cathedra definition. If Francis is a true pope, he is exercising his authority as the head of the Church to define/declare a matter and binding the whole Church to it. Per Vatican I, these pre-requisites guarantee infallibility, which is an impossibility of error-- that is, it is not possible that he could be wrong. This is dogma, by the way.

This idea has been circulating on another forum. See here: http://abple febvref orums./t hread/2238/canoniza tions-infalible-judgement -church?page=9

(remove spaces)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #79 on:** May 06, 2014, 03:03:57 PM »

Look, obviously JPII is not a saint. The problem is in how people are arriving at that conclusion. The sedevacantists say that it is because Francis is not the pope, and cannot bind anyone to anything anymore than the mailman can.

The non-sedevacantists are arguing a whole host of erroneous ideas. They deny the existence of secondary objects of infallibility or they add conditions to papal infallibility or disregard it all together, preferring an understanding of infallibility that amounts to "the Church is infallible when it's right" or "the pope is infallible when he's right."

These are serious errors, not only opposed to the opinions of the saints, popes and theologians, but even opposed to dogmatically defined truths.