VII reforms destroy the priesthood with an invalid rite of consecrating bishops

[awkward customer]

Oh dear, I misunderstood.  I clicked on the link you provided but didn't make the connection.

So it looks like salvation won't be coming from the East after all.  I was hoping for a solution to the problem that doesn't involve the end of the world.   

I am of the opinion that we are most certainly in the End Times.

I've had the same opinion for some time.  For a brief moment I thought the Eastern Rite Bishops might be a way out and that the end of the world could be delayed for a while..

But even if there are only 10 validly consecrated Bishops left in the world, including the Eastern Rite Bishops, then there's at least a consolation to be had.  It means that Christ hasn't been truly present at many of the ghastly, blasphemous liturgical concoctions that the NO 'bishops' and 'priests' have managed to concoct over the decades.

If the first NO 'bishop' was 'consecrated' in 1969/70, how many men who were 'ordained' by them think they are priests and are not.  And that was over 50 years ago.  How many priests does the Western Church still have?  The proportion of Catholics who are only receiving a wafer at the NO will have increased year by year and will soon approach 100 per cent.




 

[LausTibiChriste]

Many of the priests celebrating the NO Mass might not be validly ordained, or even most of them.  Vatican II has turned priests into presiders not just in name and according to liturgical function but in actual reality.  No bishops, no priests.   

AFAIK, the Eastern Orthodox priests and bishops are validly ordained and they have valid Sacraments. What advantage is there for an Eastern Orthodox Christian to convert to Catholicism where there is a serious doubt about the validity of many of the Catholic Sacraments? And there is discussion about recent Catholic Popes being fake Popes and the Catholic Church being a counterfeit Church.

Good question.

While schismatic, there is way less doubt for the validity of EO sacraments than there is in the Catholic Church these days (depending on which way you swing).

Ironic..

[Bataar]

Would a valid Catholic be able to go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy at this time? Since the biggest issue (maybe I'm over simplifying it) is their lack of union with the pope, since there is no valid pope for them to be in union with, would it be possible to go to their service until a valid pope is present again? This is just a theoretical question.

[LausTibiChriste]

Would a valid Catholic be able to go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy at this time? Since the biggest issue (maybe I'm over simplifying it) is their lack of union with the pope, since there is no valid pope for them to be in union with, would it be possible to go to their service until a valid pope is present again? This is just a theoretical question.

Interesting question too.

I'll preface by saying I don't know much about the SV argument, never looked into it. But also, my personal opinion is that Frank ain't the Pope. Also, I'm retarded (most of you are well aware) and so I'm just spit balling at this point.

But,
If Orthodox have valid sacraments;
If Orthodox don't mention Frank in the Canon;

Then what difference is there with SVism?

The problem with calling Orthodox heretics is that the points Catholics take with them (Divorce, contraception, papacy) are bullshit (on both sides). The Orthodox, for better or worse (probably better in this case) don't have a unified body like we do, so they don't have a unified doctrine. You're probably scoffing at this as a Catholic but 5 minutes on this forum will show you we don't either.


1) Divorce - They only permit it in serious cases and it usually goes to a tribunal. No different than an annulment. MANY priests are against divorce period, and won't even let it go to a tribunal. To say "the Orthodox allow divorce" is lazy at best, stupid at worst.

2) Contraception - Let's be honest, the official Church accepts and promotes NFP hard, which is no different. Same as divorce, there are MANY priests who will not allow it. IF a priest allows it, its through eikonomia - same as masturbation being a venial sin if it's a habit as Catholics are wont to say. It's the same thing, cloaked under different words.

3) Papacy - They accept Peter as First among equals, they just don't like the meddling bullshit Rome does. And if you think that is a slight as a Trad you better look in the mirror. Rome has F*cked us harder than anyone. They have a point. AND, Rome has always let Eastern Catholic Patriarchs/Exarchs have a good deal of autonomy (but they like to f*** the Melkites for some reason)...so why can't Moscow/Constantinople have the same? That's how it was in the first millenium.

So that aside, I want to propose a question:

Given that the Orthobros don't have a unified doctrine on the issues we take with them (you can't blanket them as heretics. Schismatic at best but SSPX had the same label for forever (still do)).

Given their sacraments are always valid.

Why can a Catholic, wishing to remain loyal to the Church that Christ established, not receive in their Church, if the situation necessitates? Particularly from a sede point of view when they're non-una cum??

[Bonaventure]

Then what difference is there with SVism?

Most SVs process the Catholic faith perennially held apart from V2.

Eastern Orthodox do not. They reject:

Vatican I
Trent
Immaculate Conception
Assumption
Purgatory
Original Sin

[Bonaventure]

3) Papacy - They accept Peter as First among equals, they just don't like the meddling bullshit Rome does. And if you think that is a slight as a Trad you better look in the mirror. Rome has F*cked us harder than anyone. They have a point. AND, Rome has always let Eastern Catholic Patriarchs/Exarchs have a good deal of autonomy (but they like to f*** the Melkites for some reason)...so why can't Moscow/Constantinople have the same? That's how it was in the first millenium.

Sedes would say that that isn't "Rome."

SSPX would say its modernists occupying Rome and appeal to Tradition or "Eternal Rome."

[LausTibiChriste]

Then what difference is there with SVism?

Most SVs process the Catholic faith perennially held apart from V2.

Eastern Orthodox do not. They reject:

Vatican I
Trent
Immaculate Conception Not entirely
Assumption What?
Purgatory  No
Original Sin. then why do they have Baptism?

Of course they reject Trent and Vatican I but that's understandable given the situation and the nature of those councils.

To say nothing of the fact that there are not a few Trads who also reject VI

[Bonaventure]

To say nothing of the fact that there are not a few Trads who also reject VI

I'd respectfully contend that anyone who rejected Vatican I ought to call themselves an Old Roman Catholic or Gallican, not a Roman Catholic.

[Bonaventure]

Why can a Catholic, wishing to remain loyal to the Church that Christ established, not receive in their Church, if the situation necessitates? Particularly from a sede point of view when they're non-una cum??

It is a tough situation.

Per the 1983 Code of Canon Law, one could certainly receive from the Orthodox.

From a sede point of view, my opinion would be that, per Canon 2261 of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code:

§ 1. One excommunicated is prohibited from confecting and administering licitly the Sacraments and Sacramentals, except for the exceptions that follow.
§ 2. The faithful, with due regard for the prescription of § 3, can for any just cause seek the Sacraments and Sacramentals from one excommunicated, especially if other ministers are lacking, and then the one who is excommunicate and approached can administer these and is under no obligation of inquiring the reasons from the one requesting.
§ 3. But from a banned (vitandus) excommunicate and from others excommunicated after a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has come, only the faithful in danger of death can ask for sacramental absolution according to the norm of Canons 882 and 2252 and even, if other ministers are lacking, other Sacraments and Sacramentals.

My humble opinion is that one may. It depends on many, many circumstances that only a confessor would know.

Archbishop Lefebvre called the Novus Ordo a "bastard Mass."

His handpicked successor, Bishop Williamson, famously said "the rule of rules is this, do whatever you need to nourish your faith." This included attending a Novus Ordo.

St. Pius X never saw the current situation we are all in.

It's all part of the trad gambit.

If SV is true, then these times were never imagined by any saint, doctor, or theologian.

If Bergoglio is the pope, he recently said that we have infinite dignity and that the sole criterion for how Christ will judge us is the corporal works of mercy.

[Bonaventure]

@LausTibiChriste

You aren't sede.

Per the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

"Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that the danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid" (canon 844 §2).

[LausTibiChriste]

@LausTibiChriste

You aren't sede.

Per the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

"Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that the danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid" (canon 844 §2).

Thanks B.

I am well aware of that Law and as you stated, am not a sede, so I follow it.

For the record, I have never received, nor plan to receive any time soon, communion at an EO parish.

But I do see vast disconnects between the logic applied @ V2 and that applied at our Eastern brothers.

[Michael Wilson]

Would a valid Catholic be able to go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy at this time? Since the biggest issue (maybe I'm over simplifying it) is their lack of union with the pope, since there is no valid pope for them to be in union with, would it be possible to go to their service until a valid pope is present again? This is just a theoretical question.

No,Catholics may not actively participate in non-Catholic religious services; said participation is a public denial of the faith, and is prohibited by divine law.
The Orthodox's problem isn't the rejection of this or that doctrine, its the rejection of the authority of the Church's magisterium especially the Papacy, to bind them under pain of sin. Once the principle of authority is denied, then there is no longer any unity of faith or government.

[Michael Wilson]

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that the danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid" (canon 844 §2).

This is pure Conciliar church double-speak. The reception of any sacrament except that of Penance (in danger of death) from a non-Catholic minister is strictly prohibited; this is not mere ecclesiastical law but divine law. The very permission of allowing Catholics to receive Holy Communion from non-Catholic ministers, engenders of itself "indiferentism" i.e. The belief that one religion is more or less good as another.
Recently we just celebrated the feastday of St. Hermenegild, the Visigoth prince who converted from Arianism to Catholicism. His father gave him an ultimatum: either receive communion from the hands of an Arian bishop or be executed; St. Hermenegild chose martyrdom. What a reproach for our modern Churchmen who openly advocated "communication in sacris" at Vatican II; have encouraged it ever since then, and inscribed the principle into the 1983 Code of Canon Law. No wonder so many Catholics do not practice the faith and or have abandoned the faith for other religions since the Council.

[JJoseph]

According to Fr Anthony Cekada, the Vatican II Rite for consecrating bishops is invalid.  No bishops means no priests in a generation or two and the elimination of the Catholic priesthood.

If Fr. Cekada is right, the Catholic Church has already defected. We know the Church can't, therefore, Father Cekada is incorrect.

Since it is impossible that the Church can defect, if Fr Cekada was right, the Conciliar Church cannot be the Church and the Vatican is occupied territory.

Actually, the "Conciliar Church" won't just not be the Church, but the actual Catholic Church got defeated and failed in Her Divine Mission, if that's true, and thus the Catholic religion was always a lie, and a brutal one at that. Which, of course, cannot be the case.

Indefectibility requires at least some Catholic Bishops with both valid orders and ordinary jurisdiction. The idea that virtually all of the Church's Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction have already lost valid orders and that the rest are soon going to die is a theological absurdity. You can believe it if you want, on the word of a dead Priest, but it is a lie.

[Stubborn]

Actually, the "Conciliar Church" won't just not be the Church, but the actual Catholic Church got defeated and failed in Her Divine Mission, if that's true, and thus the Catholic religion was always a lie, and a brutal one at that. Which, of course, cannot be the case.

The conciliar church lacks the 4 marks, this exposes it as being impossible to be the Catholic Church. One thing the enemy did not obliterate is the Church's authority structure as this was needed to deceive the people. Whether or not NO priests and bishops are valid or not is actually a mute point because we must avoid them whether or not they are valid due to them being heretics, apostates and flat out enemies of the Church - generally speaking.     

Indefectibility requires at least some Catholic Bishops with both valid orders and ordinary jurisdiction. The idea that virtually all of the Church's Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction have already lost valid orders and that the rest are soon going to die is a theological absurdity. You can believe it if you want, on the word of a dead Priest, but it is a lie.

In an emergency, which we are in, Supplied Jurisdiction = Ordinary Jurisdiction, and the bishops consecrated by +Lefebvre, +Thuc et al are valid - we know not all are valid, but most are valid.

I disagree with Fr. Cekada on many points, but please do not refer to this battle worn priest as "a dead priest" because it is very disrespectful.     

"...If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and Indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility. And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try..." - Fr. Wathen from his book: Who Shall Ascend?