Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul  (Read 3886 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Centroamerica

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2559
  • Reputation: +1542/-425
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2018, 04:57:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When you say "it's sacraments are always doubtful," you must be speaking of the conciliar Church?

    That is obviously nonsense:

    1) There are plenty of priests in the conciliar Church about whose valid ordination there is no doubt whatsoever (either because they were ordained before 1968, or because they left the SSPX to join a diocese, or were ordained in the FSSP back when Cardinal Stickler did ordinations, etc.).

    2) If one of those priests said a NOM, using proper form, matter, and intention, then clearly it is false (and proximate to heresy) to say all "its sacraments are always doubtful."
    You would be rejecting some very basic dogmas of the faith with a position like that.

    PS: Have you ever heard the axiom, "A negative doubt is to be despised?"  A negative doubt is asking yourself the question "what if?"  In sacramental theology, when it comes to judging the validity of a sacrament,  this is never permitted.  What is required to force an abstention is positive (not negative) doubt: A defect in ordination; a contrary intention to doing what the Church does; a substantial mutation in the essential sacramental rite; invalid matter.

    If those 4 things are in place, forming a positive doubt is theologically impossible, and validity is (morally) certain.

    You are broadcasting some very bad advice to the world: You are letting your (rightful) opposition to the conciliar Church adversely affect your doctrine.
    Dear Sean,

    Archbishop Lefebvre and the Dominicans of Avrillé are in direct opposition to your opinions expressed above.

    Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
    Very dear Mr. Wilson,
    thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
    All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.  The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
    We are in the time of great apostasy.
    We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics.  It is necessary everywhere in the world.
    Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
    We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
    I pray for you and your lovely family.
    Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
    Marcel Lefebvre

    http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/


    Obviously the exception would be the valid priests ordained before the change of the Latin Rite, I sometimes confess to one of these retired military priests in avoiding doubtfully ordained Novus Ordo priests. These priests, would have to be Catholic, however, and not modernists. There is also a retired validly ordained priest in the diocese that holds LGSTD "services". 

    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3540
    • Reputation: +3514/-769
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #46 on: June 08, 2018, 05:09:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?

    I don't know.

    But here is a thought that nags at me:

    Under St. Pius X, there were no successful pressure attempts by the modernists to get him to "ease up" in the battle against modernism.

    Where he found them, he scotched them.

    They were underground in survival mode.

    But under Benedict XV, things lightened up quite a bit.

    Whether this was because of some overzealous mistakes that had been made, or because he had other priorities, the modernists were able to regather under his command.

    Their new tactic was to organize and pressure bishops, cardinals, and even Popes.

    If you read the book "The Liturgical Movement" by Fr. Diddier Bonneterre (Angelus Press) he goes into this a bit.

    In the seminary (Liturgy I class), Fr. Iscara read to us from the memoirs of Dom Lambert Beauduin (proto-modernist liturgist), who goes into considerably more detail about how the modernists sought out liberal bishops to extend to them indults to experiment way back in the 19-teens.  Then the liberal bishops would organize conferences, retreats, seminars, etc to spread their ideas, and pressure Rome for more indults.  

    These methods resulted in the grotesque Dialogue Mass (all the principles of the Novus Ordo, way back in the 19-teens).

    Of course they gathered steam, and the Popes -all lacking the resolve of Pius X- consistently gave in to the pressure.

    I come back to your question now: Did Paul VI know the rite was evil, or was he just an idiot liberal?

    I think two things:

    1) I think he was weak.
    2) I think he was liberal.

    He was around when the Dialogue Mass came about; he lived through the Pius XII reform.

    Most likely, he thought the trend in liturgical modernism was the Holy Sprit (stupid, but hey: He was a liberal.).  After all, he could look back to Pius XI celebrating the Dialogue Mass, Pius XII destroying Holy Week, and was not the Novus Ordo simply the logical conclusion to all those same pre-conciliar principles?

    The Church needed 5 strong Pope St. Pius X's

    Instead it got those who were susceptible to being influenced by pressure which, combined with a liberalism which robbed them of solidity in their faith, ended in Vatican II (and the post-conciliar deforms).

    This, anyway, is what I think I am inclined to believe.

    It could be way off.
    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: 3540
    • Reputation: +3514/-769
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #47 on: June 08, 2018, 05:15:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • Dear Sean,

    Archbishop Lefebvre and the Dominicans of Avrillé are in direct opposition to your opinions expressed above.

    Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
    Very dear Mr. Wilson,
    thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
    All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.  The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
    We are in the time of great apostasy.
    We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics.  It is necessary everywhere in the world.
    Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
    We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
    I pray for you and your lovely family.
    Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
    Marcel Lefebvre

    http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/


    Obviously the exception would be the valid priests ordained before the change of the Latin Rite, I sometimes confess to one of these retired military priests in avoiding doubtfully ordained Novus Ordo priests. These priests, would have to be Catholic, however, and not modernists. There is also a retired validly ordained priest in the diocese that holds LGSTD "services".

    Dear Centro-

    Yes, that was a very stupid response from Avrille, wasn't it?

    Please ask Avrille to explain how, in the presence of a valid minister, intent, form, and matter, the sacraments could nevertheless be doubtful.

    Presumably, they were supposing that one of those 4 criteria was in doubt to make such a statement.

    But that is not per se the case, as should by now be quite obvious.
    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: 3540
    • Reputation: +3514/-769
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #48 on: June 08, 2018, 05:18:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • I side with Fr. Hesse on the NOM and Fr. James Peek SSPX. The Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil and was never promulgated by Paul VI in any official capacity. As far as I know, it even remains today the official position of the SSPX that the New Mass is intrinsically evil and cannot be attended whatsoever. When Sean Johnson denies this, he actual appears (if not is) dangling on the slippery slope towards Modernism and in accusing (if he does at all) the SSPX of becoming Liberal he would be hypocritical to say the least.

    Again...

    Regarding the New Mass: "...it is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil...I am denying what Mr Davies says you can't: that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church"; that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church. (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, July 3, 1996 and Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

    "For Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX the new mass is intrinsically evil and therefore to be totally rejected." (Fr. Jean Violette, Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

    "...when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil...what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil." (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, October 1996), and


    "Personally, I don't believe in discussions which would not deal with the heart of the matter: with Vatican II, with the new Mass, intrinsically evil as we always said in Tradition, with the new code of Canon Law, which introduces the new Vatican II ecclesiology in the legislation of the Church." [Abbe Benoit de Jorna, Superior of the St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, Interview with Giovanni Pelli, May 15, 2001]

    Centro-

    Do you have ADHD?

    I have explained ad nauseum that the NOM is intrinsically evil.

    To which your incoherent response is apparently to "rebut" me by explicating my own position right back to me??
    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 Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2559
    • Reputation: +1542/-425
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #49 on: June 08, 2018, 05:24:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Centro-

    Do you have ADHD?

    I have explained ad nauseum that the NOM is intrinsically evil.

    To which your incoherent response is apparently to "rebut" me by explicating my own position right back to me??
    You really lack the common decency and respect necessary to engage in discussions like this.
    And the last post of mine was a direct quote from Archbishop Lefebvre, not the Dominicans (of whom you famously would call up to bother in their monastery to argue whether or not good fruits come from the New Mass, if I'm not mistaken.)
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3540
    • Reputation: +3514/-769
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #50 on: June 08, 2018, 05:34:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • You really lack the common decency and respect necessary to engage in discussions like this.
    And the last post of mine was a direct quote from Archbishop Lefebvre, not the Dominicans (of whom you famously would call up to bother in their monastery to argue whether or not good fruits come from the New Mass, if I'm not mistaken.)
    Umm...yes, you are very mistaken:

    I would receive calls from one priest at the Friary to argue with me about whether good fruits could come from the new Mass.

    It was quite a nuisance, and he never made any convincing arguments (nor did he really have any unconvincing ones; he was just concerned a high-profile Tertiary was being made out to be defending the NOM by mischievous or unintelligent spectators).

    You would have done better for your team to have kept quiet about that, eh?

    As regards the Archbishop Lefebvre quote, he is certainly not arguing that the conciliar sacraments are objectively doubtful per se (i.e., even when proper minister, intent, form, and matter are present), but is instead saying that he doubts the intention of conciliar ministers generally.

    The necessary conclusion, therefore, is that if the intention IS present, then the sacrament is not necessarily doubtful.

    And as regards the formation of that intention, here is a thought to ponder on the subject:

    “People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament… The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”

    -Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers

    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 Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6734
    • Reputation: +4158/-520
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #51 on: June 08, 2018, 06:22:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil and was never promulgated by Paul VI in any official capacity.

    I do not know how this position can still be defended.

    It does not make any sense that the Holy See does not really promulgate a rite; but then everyone can see that the "Holy Father" himself and the entire hierarchy has been publicly offering the Sacrifice of the Mass using such evil rite for decades now, one pope after the other.

    We know infallibly that the Church cannot promulgate something intrinsically evil to the faithful; so if this indeed happened, then the only plausible conclusion is that the authority which did it was not legitimate, and because we know that in the Roman Catholic Church, it is the approval of the Pope and nothing else which settles the promulgation, then that to me, is an indication of a false pope.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2559
    • Reputation: +1542/-425
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #52 on: June 08, 2018, 06:29:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My motives for joining the Third Order were not superficial. I joined because of St. Dominic, St. Catherine and the penitents and saints of the order as well as the spiritual benefits for my soul and others’. I would never leave over any petty trifle. 

    I just don’t know what to think when you conflate yourself to being so important and you weren’t even a professed member. It’s as if Sean Johnson is more important than the Dominican Third Order. It’s beneath you. 

    I think you’re great guy and you’re Faith is strong. I consider you a friend so I hope you will settle down with the constant frivolous debating. 
    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3833
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #53 on: June 08, 2018, 06:36:08 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Centro-

    Yes, that was a very stupid response from Avrille, wasn't it?

    Please ask Avrille to explain how, in the presence of a valid minister, intent, form, and matter, the sacraments could nevertheless be doubtful.

    Presumably, they were supposing that one of those 4 criteria was in doubt to make such a statement.

    But that is not per se the case, as should by now be quite obvious.
    Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo.   But that is not the point or even a true fact. 
    A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
     The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
    My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires.  I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.

    Offline hismajesty

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 135
    • Reputation: +89/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #54 on: June 08, 2018, 06:37:49 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Bipolar Batman Sean to the Rescue!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I think Sean that the argument goes that if a priest thinks the Mass is just a meal, which it fundamentally is not, then he is not doing what the Church does.

    If a Bishop ordains, "workers in the community" or some other similar nonsense, then he is not ordaining with the right intention.

    In both cases, the sacrament is so seriously put into doubt that it is safer to re-do it.


    So who's for bets as to how long Sean lasts this time on Cathinfo???

    Do I have takers for a week? 10/1 odds
    2 weeks.... 5/1
    3.... 25/1

    3 months.... 30/1

    For other numbers contact me....
    "....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another" - Church Father Lactentius on the globe earth

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3540
    • Reputation: +3514/-769
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #55 on: June 08, 2018, 06:40:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • My motives for joining the Third Order were not superficial. I joined because of St. Dominic, St. Catherine and the penitents and saints of the order as well as the spiritual benefits for my soul and others’. I would never leave over any petty trifle.

    I just don’t know what to think when you conflate yourself to being so important and you weren’t even a professed member. It’s as if Sean Johnson is more important than the Dominican Third Order. It’s beneath you.

    I think you’re great guy and you’re Faith is strong. I consider you a friend so I hope you will settle down with the constant frivolous debating.

    Once again, you are off target.

    I quit to help Avrille:

    If I am disassociated from them, then nobody can beat them with whatever I happen to be saying at the moment (e.g., regarding +BW in Mahopac; against the NUC priests; etc.).

    Now, if you compare that explanation against the perception you described above, perhaps it will take you off your soap box.

    I only mention this because we are good friends, but your slide towards sedevacantism is affecting your judgment generally.
    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 hismajesty

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 135
    • Reputation: +89/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #56 on: June 08, 2018, 06:41:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • "....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another" - Church Father Lactentius on the globe earth

    Offline hismajesty

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 135
    • Reputation: +89/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #57 on: June 08, 2018, 06:44:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • you do provide good entertainment Sean.... Even if you do have mild depression
    "....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another" - Church Father Lactentius on the globe earth

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3540
    • Reputation: +3514/-769
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #58 on: June 08, 2018, 06:56:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo.   But that is not the point or even a true fact.
    A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
     The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
    My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires.  I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.
    JPaul-

    No amount of distortion, obfuscation, or manufactured re-presentation of my arguments will be able to change the following:

    Valid minister (always discernible by the laity simply by inquiring into the priest's ordination, as is almost standard practice by travelling sedes) + intention, form, and matter = valid sacrament, regardless of context.

    Moreover, unless there is evidence in the external forum of a priest forming a contrary intention, the intention is prersumed valid, as a principle of sacramental theology, thereby yielding moral certitude (which is all the Church requires, and which definitely removes and pre-empts any specious argument regarding in favor of doubt).

    So, the uncertainty you wish to create is not always and necessarily present, which is your contention.

    Your position is preeminently Jansenistic (who rejoiced when people stayed home from Mass for all the bad receptions of Holy Communion it prevented), and therefore definitely not the safer course.
    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: 3540
    • Reputation: +3514/-769
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #59 on: June 08, 2018, 06:58:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!5
  • I think Sean that the argument goes that if a priest thinks the Mass is just a meal, which it fundamentally is not, then he is not doing what the Church does.

    Hi Flats-

    That's why you are a heretic:

    “People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament… The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”

    -Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers
    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