Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul  (Read 4492 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3736
  • Reputation: +3625/-1041
  • Gender: Male
Rule Violator #2: JPaul
« on: June 04, 2018, 10:31:56 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!11
  • Asked whether Archbishop Lefebvre contradicted the Council of Trent by calling the NOM evil, JPaul responded,

     “If he did not reject the New Order service as such [per se, SJ] then yes he was.”

    Well, not only did ABL reject the per se invalidity of the NOM, but actively endorsed participation of it in the early years, and like BW, even allowed exceptional attendance at it in the mid/late 1980s, per Fr. Crowdy.

    Therefore, according to JPaul, ABLs position was against the faith, and he becomes Violator #2.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #1 on: June 04, 2018, 10:50:29 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :sleep:


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #2 on: June 04, 2018, 10:54:03 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Logic is not your strength, SeanJohnson.

    Just because you say that the NOM might be valid doesn't mean you consider it good and Catholic.

    Just because you say that some people can attend it under certain circumstances (basing it on the moral theology regarding material participation) doesn't mean you consider it OBJECTiVELY good and Catholic.

    Both +Lefebvre and +Williamson clearly consider the NOM defective/bad/non-Catholic.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #3 on: June 04, 2018, 10:54:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And +Lefebvre clearly changed his mind after the "early years".

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #4 on: June 04, 2018, 11:20:19 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!6
  • And +Lefebvre clearly changed his mind after the "early years".
    ...after which point (long after the 1981 Pledge of Fidelity), he continued to permit people in difficult circumstances to participate in the NOM, per the testimony of Fr Crowdy in the UK.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #5 on: June 04, 2018, 11:22:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!7
  • Logic is not your strength, SeanJohnson.

    Just because you say that the NOM might be valid doesn't mean you consider it good and Catholic.

    Just because you say that some people can attend it under certain circumstances (basing it on the moral theology regarding material participation) doesn't mean you consider it OBJECTiVELY good and Catholic.

    Both +Lefebvre and +Williamson clearly consider the NOM defective/bad/non-Catholic.
    Duh...
    Pretty sure you are familiar with my published work making those same arguments (but then reading comprehension is often an impediment to partisanship, and must frequently yield to it).
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #6 on: June 04, 2018, 11:23:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1

  • Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #7 on: June 04, 2018, 11:25:27 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3

  • More psychological projection of your own undesirable traits to others.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #8 on: June 04, 2018, 11:31:40 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • Translation (a la Jaynek):

    “Please quit responding; he’s already got two of us!”
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #9 on: June 04, 2018, 12:37:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Translation (a la Jaynek):

    “Please quit responding; he’s already got two of us!”

    I don't care what you think you have.  I'm just bored with you and choose to no longer entertain you.  If Matthew wants to ban me, he's already got plenty of grounds and ammunition.  Your trolling posts add nothing.

    :sleep:

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #10 on: June 04, 2018, 01:01:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • I don't care what you think you have.  I'm just bored with you and choose to no longer entertain you.  If Matthew wants to ban me, he's already got plenty of grounds and ammunition.  Your trolling posts add nothing.

    :sleep:
    I thought you weren’t going to respond! :laugh2:
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #11 on: June 04, 2018, 01:30:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church. That has been my opinion for over ten years. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #12 on: June 04, 2018, 01:51:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I thought you weren’t going to respond! :laugh2:

    And I thought you were going to stop posting on CI.

    :laugh2:

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #13 on: June 04, 2018, 01:52:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Asked whether Archbishop Lefebvre contradicted the Council of Trent by calling the NOM evil, JPaul responded,

     “If he did not reject the New Order service as such [per se, SJ] then yes he was.”

    Well, not only did ABL reject the per se invalidity of the NOM, but actively endorsed participation of it in the early years, and like BW, even allowed exceptional attendance at it in the mid/late 1980s, per Fr. Crowdy.

    Therefore, according to JPaul, ABLs position was against the faith, and he becomes Violator #2.
    Thank you Sean,  The Church says that no matter the circumstance, it is a mortal sin to approach a doubtful sacrament. You can make what you will of that.   You may also want to consider renaming your position to that of Modified Novus Ordo. MNO, instead of R&R. That more accurately reflects its true nature, and dispenses with the implied contradiction of R&R.
     The Faith of the Catholic Church is not represented by the Archbishop's theological opinions of the Novus Ordo, and to disagree with them is not a defection from the Catholic Faith, and that is what really counts in times of confusion.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #14 on: June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!6
  • Thank you Sean,  The Church says that no matter the circumstance, it is a mortal sin to approach a doubtful sacrament. You can make what you will of that.   You may also want to consider renaming your position to that of Modified Novus Ordo. MNO, instead of R&R. That more accurately reflects its true nature, and dispenses with the implied contradiction of R&R.
     The Faith of the Catholic Church is not represented by the Archbishop's theological opinions of the Novus Ordo, and to disagree with them is not a defection from the Catholic Faith, and that is what really counts in times of confusion.
    Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
    The minister may or may not be, depending.
    Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
    I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


     

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