Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul  (Read 4354 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 984
  • Reputation: +135/-52
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
« Reply #105 on: June 09, 2018, 03:41:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You can't prove that it was valid.  Now, if said priest offered a Catholic Mass, then proceeded to take the Host for Satanic purposes, that would be one thing.  But if a consecration were made in the context of a Satanic ritual, that would not be valid.

    That makes sense, otherwise one could argue a priest would confer the sacrament by merely performing, "This is My Body", without the rest of the rite.

    Take out everything else, would it still be a valid confection of the sacrament?

    Matter, bread. Form, the words of consecration, intention, within the confines of a Catholic rite.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #106 on: June 09, 2018, 03:43:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Matter, form and intent don't matter if the NO mass is not Catholic.
    .
    "And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith."

    That's a reference to conciliarism, not a per se invalidity of the NOM.

    And of course, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of many non-Catholic sacraments, so long as they preserve proper form, matter, and intent (e.g., the baptisms of schismatics and heretical sects).
    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 ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #107 on: June 09, 2018, 03:45:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There johnson goes again.  ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.

    Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church. 

    Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #108 on: June 09, 2018, 03:48:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
  • There johnson goes again.  ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.

    Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church.  

    Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.

    Ignoramus-

    This is just for you:  It is Archbishop Lefebvre himself explaining he often uses hyperbole to make a point.  Only dunces like you try to make him literal:

    Archbishop Lefebvre Explains Himself
    by
    Sean Johnson
    9/6/17

    It would seem that the Jonestown Sect has for its only purpose to attack Bishop Williamson (and those aligned with him).  The Sect has nothing else to really offer; it exudes only bitter zeal; it reveals nothing of any interior life; there is no evidence of holiness and sanctity from any of its adherents; it shows no good fruits.  It exists only as the beneficiary of a parasitic and symbiotic relationship to Bishop Williamson, in much the same way the Ecclesia Dei communities survive on the spiritual legacy of the Archbishop and Society they opposed: Without Bishop Williamson, Jonestown fades into immediate irrelevancy.  And so, it travels the world attacking the Bishop who ironically gives them life, and whom they must continue to attack if they are to sustain their diminishing flock of zealots.
    The latest attempt to grab some attention comes from Tony La Rosa, in an article he has titled, "The Conciliarization of Bishop Williamson's Thinking Regarding the Catholic Church."
    The stated thesis of Mr. La Rosa's article is to demonstrate that Bishhop Williamson no longer adheres to Archbishop Lefebvre's distinction between the "conciliar church" and the "Catholic Church," and he begins his argument with this Archbishop Lefebvre blurb (formatting his), quoted in Avrille's journal Sel de la Terre, #36, p. 10):
    “How could it be more clear?! From now on it is the conciliar church one must obey and be faithful to , and not to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents. This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist on obedience to the church of today, making abstraction of the Church of yesterday, as if it didn’t exist anymore. […] The church which affirms such errors is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm for the Catholic faith is Tradition.”
    Those were the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976.
    Sound like an open and shut case?
    Well, read that 1976 quote in conjunction with this later one from 1980, in which the Archbishop explained to priests on retreat at Econe how they ought to understand him when he speaks strongly, referring to the church, council, or conciliarists as "schismatic":
    "I am not saying that in words one cannot use one phrase and then oppose it with another one, pull it out of context and, thus, make me say things that are not in my mind. I have sometimes dared to use strong phrases, for example, that the Council was more or less schismatic. In a certain sense it is true because there is a certain break with Tradition. So in the sense that the Council is in breach with Tradition, it can be said, to some extent, that it is schismatic. But when I said that, it was not to say that the Council is really, profoundly schismatic, definitively. You have to understand everything I say. The Council is schismatic insofar as it breaks with the past, that is true. But that does not mean that it is schismatic in the precise, theological sense of the word.
    So when you take terms like that, you can say, “You see ! If the Council is schismatic, the pope who signed the Council is schismatic, and all the bishops who signed the Council are schismatics, so that we no longer have the right to be with them.” This is false reasoning. It’s madness, it does not make sense!"  http://tradidi.com/articles/abl-schismatic-council/
    But this is not the position Mr. La Rosa attributes to Archbishop Lefebvre.
    In fact, Mr. La Rosa makes the Archbishop say exactly the opposite, and comes to the conclusion that:
    "It is clear from these words that the Archbishop understood the Catholic Church and the conciliar “church” to be two formally separate entities even though they share material elements (e.g., members of the hierarchy)."
    In fact, it is exactly the opposite which is clear.
    And from this point, Mr. La Rosa moves on to an easy, but erroneous, conclusion regarding Bishop Williamson:
    "It is sad, however, that Bishop Richard Williamson has deviated from the Archbishop’s position on this significant matter.  It is the purpose of this post to show the conciliarization of Bishop Williamson’s thinking regarding the Catholic Church."
    But the deviation is not Bishop Williamson's, but rather, Mr. La Rosa's, who has very obviously erred in the matter because he based the entire substance of his article on a singular Archbishop Lefebvre quote, apparently never thinking to check this quote against other pronouncements of the Archbishop on the same subject.
    Scholarly research requires more than mere quote mining.
    Our contention is that the 1976 quote is clearly to be read within the context of the Archbishop's later 1980 explanation, and that explanation is clearly this:
    When the Archbishop refers to the council, new Mass, conciliarists, or conciliar church as "schismatic," he -by his own words- does not meant to be taken literally, but rather, as making a metaphorical comparison as a means by which to distinguish Tradition from conciliar innovation and modernism.
    Some (like the learned Fr. Gleize), have gone in the other direction, saying that when Archbishop Lefebvre has referred to a "conciliar church" (and therefore to the council, conciliarists, etc), he was only speaking of a certain "spirit of the council."
    This seems to us to understate the matter considerably, since such an understanding would rob the term "conciliar church" of any practical usefulness in distinguishing Tradition from modernism.
    On the other hand, others (like Mr. La Rosa, et al.) have given this tendency of the Archbishop to speak of "conciliarists," or a "conciliar church," or the Council as "schismatic" an excessively rigorous interpretation, which would have the Archbishop formally and theologically declaring them to be schismatic properly speaking (a claim the Archbishop expressly denies in the 1980 quote above).
    Quite clearly, there cannot be "one pope for two churches," as other learned clergy have opined, since the papacy does not allow for "dual citizenship:" One who is a member of another religion/church cannot also be the pope of the Catholic Church, any more than the Dalai Llama could be pope, and for this simple reason: The Catholic religion is exclusive.  Consequently, the natural and inevitable result of believing in "one pope for two churches" is sedevacantism and ecclesiavacantism, once this realization sinks in to the minds of those who profess this theory (even if, in order to resist that inevitable conclusion, they forcibly pre-empt their minds from continuing in that direction).
    If one properly understands the distinction between the merely "authentic magisterium" (i.e., The teaching of lawful authorities which nevertheless, having no basis in Tradition, can never be binding, and therefore exist only at the level of personal opinion, even if taught universally by these ecclesiastical authorities) versus the "ordinary magisterium" (whose teachings are all backed by Tradition, and which is infallible for precisely that reason), then it is not necessary to seek another dangerous model to distinguish between Catholic tradition and conciliar novelty, such as the "conciliar church" explanation (and all the confusion and haggling which ensues from any discussion of that concept, as the three positions, and the present debate, clearly illustrate).
    And so we return to a common theme amidst this crisis (in both the Church and the SSPX): Maintaining balance, falling neither into excess nor defect.
    It is not that Bishop Williamson has "conciliarized his thinking," but rather, that Mr. La Rosa not properly understood Archbishop Lefebvre's mind on this important point.
    Fortunately, we have the Archbishop's own explanation regarding his statements in this regard, and owe Samuel at the Tradidi blog a debt of gratitude for finding and translating that important explanation.
    But there will be more attempts to sink Bishop Williamson.
    There HAS to be more attempts.....if the Sect is to survive.
    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 #109 on: June 09, 2018, 03:48:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Duplicate.
    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 TxTrad

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 285
    • Reputation: +115/-130
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #110 on: June 09, 2018, 03:57:26 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • There johnson goes again.  ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.

    Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church.  

    Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.
    one can only lead a horse to water...

    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #111 on: June 09, 2018, 04:04:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • one can only lead a horse to water...
    ya, then the horse changes the water into koolaid.

    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #112 on: June 09, 2018, 04:08:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • johnson, how much of what ABL said the new church is not catholic for you to understand it is not catholic?

    No catholic = no intention of the Catholic church.

    Is that simple enough?


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #113 on: June 09, 2018, 04:14:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is Archbishop Lefebvre himself explaining he often uses hyperbole to make a point.  Only dunces like you try to make him literal:

    If he did, then it's incredibly irresponsible of him to be so imprecise when people's souls are on the line.

    or, rather,

    SJ = BS.

    +Lefebvre's position and his rhetoric changed over the years, depending on whether or not he FELT closer to Rome or more alienated by Rome.  So, in this sense, the Archbishop was not consistent and this was a failure on his part.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #114 on: June 09, 2018, 04:15:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • That makes sense, otherwise one could argue a priest would confer the sacrament by merely performing, "This is My Body", without the rest of the rite.
    ...as was often done in the gulags behind the iron curtain (though the wine was also consecrated).
    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 #115 on: June 09, 2018, 04:16:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • If he did, then it's incredibly irresponsible of him to be so imprecise when people's souls are on the line.

    or, rather,

    SJ = BS.

    "IF" he did?

    I put the quote right in front of your face, but I suppose you can't be bothered by quotes which disrupt your narrative.
    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: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #116 on: June 09, 2018, 04:17:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ...as was often done in the gulags behind the iron curtain (though the wine was also consecrated).

    It's one thing to say the Rite minimalistically, as in the gulag scenario, but quite another when you put alongside it stuff that in the external forum puts it into a non-Catholic context.

    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +135/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #117 on: June 09, 2018, 04:17:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No catholic = no intention of the Catholic church.

    Emphasis needs to be placed that the rite itself is not Catholic.

    Article 9. Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article9

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15239
    • Reputation: +8039/-2523
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #118 on: June 09, 2018, 04:18:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "IF" he did?

    I put the quote right in front of your face, but I suppose you can't be bothered by quotes which disrupt your narrative.

    Quotes without any context, as per usual, in particular, WHEN he said them.  +Lefebvre is known for having vacillated.  I put quotes from him in front of you, and you just fled the discussion like a baby and started a new thread.  There were many times that +Lefebvre says it's entirely likely that the See has been vacant, but you stick your fingers in your ears and start chanting "la la la".


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #119 on: June 09, 2018, 04:19:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Emphasis needs to be placed that the rite itself is not Catholic.

    Article 9. Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article9

    You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?
    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