What do SVs think about Marian apparitions?
I was reading through some of the messages of Akita today, and I came across this: "Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests."
This was said in October of 1973. If Akita is truly from God, then this sounds like the Theotokos is affirming Paul VI as a true pope. She speaks as if there is a true pope currently on the throne.
Has this posed a difficulty for SVs, or at least the ones who believe the seat has been vacant since John XXIII?
If there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, then any apparition which refers to a Pope after that date can't be taken seriously.
I'm afraid that I don't take seriously any 20th century or later Marian apparitions and not just because of the Pope issue. There's something about them .....
Quote from: awkward customer on February 21, 2024, 03:38:44 PMI'm afraid that I don't take seriously any 20th century or later Marian apparitions and not just because of the Pope issue. There's something about them .....
So the pre-1958 Popes can't be trusted either?
Quote from: Melkite on February 21, 2024, 02:49:14 PMWhat do SVs think about Marian apparitions?
I was reading through some of the messages of Akita today, and I came across this: "Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests."
This was said in October of 1973. If Akita is truly from God, then this sounds like the Theotokos is affirming Paul VI as a true pope. She speaks as if there is a true pope currently on the throne.
Has this posed a difficulty for SVs, or at least the ones who believe the seat has been vacant since John XXIII?
SV's don't choose their position based on apparitions. They base it on Catholic theology.
And they certainly don't base it on an apparition that was approved by the post-Vatican II "authorities".
Quote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on February 22, 2024, 08:34:10 AMQuote from: awkward customer on February 21, 2024, 03:38:44 PMI'm afraid that I don't take seriously any 20th century or later Marian apparitions and not just because of the Pope issue. There's something about them .....
So the pre-1958 Popes can't be trusted either?
I wouldn't trust Pacelli and his liturgical reforms, to be honest. :cheeseheadbeer:
Quote from: Kaesekopf on February 23, 2024, 11:00:04 AMQuote from: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on February 22, 2024, 08:34:10 AMQuote from: awkward customer on February 21, 2024, 03:38:44 PMI'm afraid that I don't take seriously any 20th century or later Marian apparitions and not just because of the Pope issue. There's something about them .....
So the pre-1958 Popes can't be trusted either?
I wouldn't trust Pacelli and his liturgical reforms, to be honest. :cheeseheadbeer:
Amen, a disaster to put it mildly.
Now who among us will have the balls to talk about St Pius X's reform of the Divine Office? :cheeseheadbeer:
The Post VII "Marian" apparitions, all have one object, which is to keep us in the Conciliar Church and loyal to the "Holy Father"; for example Medjugorge; Bayside; Little Pebble; Christine Ghallager etc. Akita which happened in the 1970's warns us of a "future" crisis?: 1973(Thanks for the news flash) :
QuoteThe work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.
This if 8 years after Vatican II and the destruction of Catholic doctrine and discipline; 3 years after the promulgation of the N.O.M. 10-15 years after the occupation of the Papacy by non-Catholics; etc. etc.
On St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on March 31, 2024, 08:51:53 AMThe Post VII "Marian" apparitions, all have one object, which is to keep us in the Conciliar Church and loyal to the "Holy Father"; for example Medjugorge; Bayside; Little Pebble; Christine Ghallager etc. Akita which happened in the 1970's warns us of a "future" crisis?: 1973(Thanks for the news flash) :
QuoteThe work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.
This if 8 years after Vatican II and the destruction of Catholic doctrine and discipline; 3 years after the promulgation of the N.O.M. 10-15 years after the occupation of the Papacy by non-Catholics; etc. etc.
If wrecktovation and scandal are your guide to when the Church defected, then you would need to declare Pius XII an antipope, along with at least one or two of his predecessors, because that began decades before 1958.
It's just not rational to lump Akita in with those other obvious frauds.
Akita called for conversion, more Rosaries, and more confession; it was given to those already in a vocation; and it didn't make anyone rich.
CJ.
QuoteIf wrecktovation and scandal are your guide to when the Church defected, then you would need to declare Pius XII an antipope, along with at least one or two of his predecessors, because that began decades before 1958.
I don't disagree entirely that the revolution in the Church didn't spring forth from VII like another Palas Athena from the head of Zeus. Up to the death of Pius XII, the doctrine and discipline of the Church remained intact; even in the preparatory documents of Vatican II, the traditional doctrine of the Church was upheld. The doctrines that emanated from the Council were a true revolution in the Church. By 1973 when Akita was issuing its "terrifying" warning of a future disaster in the Church, said disaster was well officially underway and official "Church" policy.
Kind of like an apparition now from Our Lady warning us of the disasters of the Joe Biden administration, but in future terms.
QuoteIt's just not rational to lump Akita in with those other obvious frauds.
One of the other obvious frauds, was "Our Lady of all Nations" of Amsterdam; condemned in the 1950's by the Holy Office. Well the statue that bled and wept a Akita was a copy of Our Lady of Amsterdam. Why would Our Blessed Mother use a statue of a condemned apparition to transmit an authentic message?
QuoteAkita called for conversion, more Rosaries, and more confession; it was given to those already in a vocation; and it didn't make anyone rich.
This does not in itself make the apparition genuine; so did "our Lady of Bayside" and of Medjugorge; and most if not all of the false apparitions.
St. John of the Cross in his "Ascent of Mt. Carmel" stated that when the devil wishes to deceive religious souls, he does so through using genuine religious symbols, such as the Crucifix for his own purpose; but St. John adds, those object; in this case, Rosary, fasting, confession; do not lose their intrinsic and efficacious value. I know of one family that began their journey towards tradition through Bayside and several people over Medjugorge, even a N.O. Priest that joined the SSPX, after years of leading pilgrimages to the place.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 01, 2024, 09:10:29 AMso did "our Lady of Bayside" and of Medjugorge; and most if not all of the false apparitions.
I haven't read closely about Bayside, but Medjugorje did indeed make the "seers" wealthy. It didn't produce any vocations, either.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on March 31, 2024, 08:51:53 AMThe Post VII "Marian" apparitions, all have one object, which is to keep us in the Conciliar Church and loyal to the "Holy Father"; for example Medjugorge; Bayside; Little Pebble; Christine Ghallager etc. Akita which happened in the 1970's warns us of a "future" crisis .....
Exactly.
Unfortunately, the same thing can be said for some of the pre-Vatican II apparitions.
The only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.
Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.
On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)
The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on March 31, 2024, 09:12:44 AMOn St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.
Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:26:23 PMThe only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.
Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.
On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)
The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.
Bishop Williamson is
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:30:50 PMQuote from: Michael Wilson on March 31, 2024, 09:12:44 AMOn St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.
Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."
In which case...why be Catholic?
Quote from: Baylee on April 13, 2024, 01:38:01 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:26:23 PMThe only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.
Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.
On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)
The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.
Bishop Williamson isQuote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:30:50 PMQuote from: Michael Wilson on March 31, 2024, 09:12:44 AMOn St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.
Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."
In which case...why be Catholic?
Ah, but it's the 'New Catholicism' which embraces the liberty of the spirit, rejects the tyrannical father and does its best to ignore the self-sacrificing son.
Quote from: Baylee on April 13, 2024, 01:38:01 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:26:23 PMThe only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.
Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.
On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)
The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.
Bishop Williamson is
?
QuoteQuote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:30:50 PMQuote from: Michael Wilson on March 31, 2024, 09:12:44 AMOn St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.
Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."
In which case...why be Catholic?
I'd would rather have him remain Catholic in spite of this erroneous viewpoint, than formally to embrace heresy, schism, or apostasy.
Whilst Bergoglio et al not being true popes or even Christians seems quite clear to you and I, and many, this is not something that has been definitively declared by the Church
Sedevacantism is so small and begrudgingly accepted precisely because of the difficulties it entails.
Cajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic
can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.
Whilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself.
Let's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."
That is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 02:02:58 PMQuote from: Baylee on April 13, 2024, 01:38:01 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:26:23 PMThe only trad who is "into" Akita is +Williamson.
Most sede and even several SSPX clergy discount most if not all eschatology, especially 20th century, as others have said.
On the sede front, the CMRI are most into Fatima, and on the R&R front, it is mostly the "Fatima industry" types (Gruner, etc.)
The apparition that sede and R&R alike have no problem promoting is La Salette.
Bishop Williamson is
?
QuoteQuote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 01:30:50 PMQuote from: Michael Wilson on March 31, 2024, 09:12:44 AMOn St. Pius's reform of the breviary and Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week; Catholics have to realize that the Church is infallible in its disciplinary laws including the rites and ceremonies for the administration of the sacraments. The contrary opinion was condemned by the Council of Trent, Pius VI in "Auctorem Fidei"; Gregory XVI in "Quo Graviora" etc. etc.
Basically this means that the current discipline of the Church cannot be harmful to souls or be a source of sin or impiety; but rather serves for the edification and salvation of souls. That doesn't mean that each current disciplinary law is the best or most perfect that it can be or that it cannot be improved upon or modified for the good of souls. Of course I am speaking of the disciplinary laws of the Catholic Church, not those of the false N.O. Sect which only serve the purpose of destroying the faith of Catholics and leading men into sin and perdition. Unfortunately the fact that the men who have been wrongfully occupying the See of Peter since 1958, have enacted such bad laws, and they have been falsely mistaken for true Popes by the majority of Catholics; has led many into the false conclusion, that indeed the Church can teach errors, heresies and enact harmful discipline for souls.
Edward Feser just this week posted that Dignitas Infinita proves that "popes can teach error."
In which case...why be Catholic?
I'd would rather have him remain Catholic in spite of this erroneous viewpoint, than formally to embrace heresy, schism, or apostasy.
Whilst Bergoglio et al not being true popes or even Christians seems quite clear to you and I, and many, this is not something that has been definitively declared by the Church
Sedevacantism is so small and begrudgingly accepted precisely because of the difficulties it entails.
Cajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.
Whilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself.
Let's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."
That is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.
I decided against the BW reference, so please ignore. I really hate the edit function when it keeps things you thought you got rid of.
I think you misunderstood the point of my other comment (I should have been clearer). It was a general response to: if popes can teach error, then why be Catholic? What's the point? In other words, if popes can teach error, how do we know that they haven't been in error for centuries? Maybe the Protestants were right. Why not be Protestant?
I agree but the information I posted would their answer, amongst others, I presume.
Bonanventure:
QuoteCajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.
Cajetan, Suarez, Bellarmine etc. etc. Were dealing with the question of a Pope falling into heresy as a
private person, not as Pope. Da Silveria affirmed this several times. With the Vatican II "Popes" we have entered into the Realm of the impossible i.e. A Pope teaching serious errors, heresies, and enacting discipline which leads to the loss of faith and damnation of the faithful.
As all the doctors of the Church affirm, this would entail the defection of the Church.
QuoteWhilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself.
Yes, in the case of a pope falling into heresy as a private person. This isn't the case with the Conciliar Popes.
QuoteLet's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."
"Formal visibility" is defined by the profession of the Catholic faith.
It isn't the sedes that have a problem with formal visibility, it is those who hold that the Catholic Church is composed of members that publicly profess different doctrines. This is the very contention of Vatican II.
QuoteThat is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.
The alternative is that the Conciliar Popes are true Popes and that they and the bishops in union with them can lead the faithful into perdition; in which case the Catholic Church is not the means of salvation instituted by Our Lord for the salvation of mankind.
Quote from: Baylee on April 13, 2024, 02:15:14 PMWhilst Bergoglio et al not being true popes or even Christians seems quite clear to you and I, and many, this is not something that has been definitively declared by the Church
The public profession of a false doctrine entails the automatic loss of membership in the Church.
But, there has been no official declaration of this public fact, so that those who still claim to be Catholics and yet accept Francis as Pope, at least verbally, are still Catholic.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 13, 2024, 03:48:54 PMBonanventure:
QuoteCajetan and Suarez both argue that a known heretic can be pope. Da Silveira argued that a heretical pope's jurisdiction is maintained until the heresy is sufficiently notorious.
Cajetan, Suarez, Bellarmine etc. etc. Were dealing with the question of a Pope falling into heresy as a private person, not as Pope. Da Silveria affirmed this several times. With the Vatican II "Popes" we have entered into the Realm of the impossible i.e. A Pope teaching serious errors, heresies, and enacting discipline which leads to the loss of faith and damnation of the faithful.
As all the doctors of the Church affirm, this would entail the defection of the Church.
QuoteWhilst Bellarmine and the Jesuits are of the opinion that a heretical pope automatically loses office, the Dominican school of thought does not hold the same. I've heard that from +Sanborn himself.
Yes, in the case of a pope falling into heresy as a private person. This isn't the case with the Conciliar Popes.
QuoteLet's also not mention the biggest arguments against SV, visibility, indefectibility, and how do we get out of this mess if one is a "totalist."
"Formal visibility" is defined by the profession of the Catholic faith.
It isn't the sedes that have a problem with formal visibility, it is those who hold that the Catholic Church is composed of members that publicly profess different doctrines. This is the very contention of Vatican II.
QuoteThat is why it took me years to accept it, and then another year for myself to reveal this to others.
The alternative is that the Conciliar Popes are true Popes and that they and the bishops in union with them can lead the faithful into perdition; in which case the Catholic Church is not the means of salvation instituted by Our Lord for the salvation of mankind.
Never said I agreed with any of those positions, just that, those names and reasons are used contra SVism!
:cheeseheadbeer:
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 13, 2024, 02:16:40 PMI agree but the information I posted would their answer, amongst others, I presume.
I'm sure they would be, but apparently not having all of the answers (mystery) is worse than claiming that true popes can teach errors to the Universal Church (an anti-Catholic statement).
R&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.
How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?
Something's gone wrong.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 09:38:26 AMR&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.
How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?
Something's gone wrong.
All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 14, 2024, 10:17:05 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 09:38:26 AMR&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.
How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?
Something's gone wrong.
All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.
But it can't be part of the Catholic Faith to accept teachings that lead, inevitably, to the conclusion that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can teach and impose error on the Faithful.
Trads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy. A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.
It's been 60 years. That's more than enough time to get it right.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 14, 2024, 10:17:05 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 09:38:26 AMR&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.
How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?
Something's gone wrong.
All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.
As time goes on, it seems that less and less of them even care about doctrine. As Bergoglio and his successors suppress the TLM in the conciliar structure/what purports to be the Catholic Church, most of these trads see/will see the SSPX as merely the most convenient place to go to attend the Latin Mass. They certainly won't go to a sede chapel or even a Resistance chapel.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 14, 2024, 10:17:05 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 09:38:26 AMR&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.
How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?
Something's gone wrong.
All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.
This is a great explanation. I 100% agree.
Also what many seem to forget, is that nobody, including Lefebvre himself, expected this situation to last as long as it had.
The Archbishop famously told the press after the consecrations of June 30, 1988, that all will be well and fixed "within 5 years."
I've met priests of the "Nine" who told me, when they left the SSPX in 1982, they thought this would be over with by the 1990s, certainly before the death of Archbishop Lefebvre, and no way after the year 2000. I personally had contact and knew 4 of the 9.
During the early days, there were many ordinaries and Cardinals, such as Siri, who many thought could be elected and would restore order.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 11:22:50 AMQuote from: Michael Wilson on April 14, 2024, 10:17:05 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 09:38:26 AMR&R Trads who claim that a formal, public heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Church, have aligned themselves with those enemies of the Church who denounce the Papacy.
How did it happen that Trads who claim to be defending Catholicism find themselves agreeing with the heretics and schismatics?
Something's gone wrong.
All trads that originally resisted the teachings of Vatican II in the 1960's (except perhaps Fr. Juaquin Saenz y Arriaga S.J.) could not come up with any better theory at the time,including Msgr. Lefebvre. Thanks to the leadership of Msgr, his prestige and his priestly society, this became "the" accepted and "orthodox" theory for trads. The 'holes' in R&R ism, were not initially evident; and even now that they have been exposed, many people resist rejecting said theory, because it has become part of what they hold to be the Catholic faith. This is quite understandable, as not all trads have either the time or the ability to sift through all the evidence. They know that the SSPX provides them with Catholic doctrine and sacraments; and they are not going to get into such seemingly obscure and technical questions.
But it can't be part of the Catholic Faith to accept teachings that lead, inevitably, to the conclusion that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can teach and impose error on the Faithful.
Trads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy. A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.
It's been 60 years. That's more than enough time to get it right.
Scandalous behavior by sedevacantists have also left a sour taste in the mouths of many, especially long time SSPXers. At least in the United States.
Lawsuits, padlocking churches, suing Archbishop Lefebvre in court. The 9 all did this.
The CMRI had a very rough early history. Some, such as the SSPV, still treat them as having "cooties" til this very day.
I've also frequented the chapels of the "Nine," and can honestly tell you I have seen absolutely abhorrent, scandalous behavior on the part of clergy and laity alike.
Cult like, follow the leader behavior. Jansenism. Violation of the seal of the confessional.
Just take a look at the Una Cum issue, and how they state that Catholics attending an una cum Mass commit "mortal sin."
Look at how Bishop Sanborn and his clergy are now telling the world that all Novus Ordo baptisms after January 1,1990 are "dubious" and require conditional baptism. Do you think these are the types of people Catholics are drawn to?
The best hope would be for the current non sedes to en masse embrace the conclusion. Perhaps they will.
I cannot fault R&R Catholics for not wanting to get involved or aligned with the bulk of sede clergy and groups.
No Saint or doctor or father or theologian ever envisioned 5 or 6 consecutive purported popes, for a period of 60-70 years, doing what we have seen. It is therefore not a surprise that an entire school of thought dedicated to resisting these conciliar popes has emerged, rather than the Catholic world saying that a man that wears white, conducts religious services in St. Peter's, and lives at the Vatican, is somehow not the pope.
The only quasi-analogous historical precedent is the Great Western Schism, which was different in many ways. Antipope Benedict XIII, looked, dressed, acted, and taught as a pope did.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 11:22:50 AMBut it can't be part of the Catholic Faith to accept teachings that lead, inevitably, to the conclusion that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can teach and impose error on the Faithful.
Wether the Vatican II "Popes" were "formal" or "material" heretics, was one of the main objections that the R&Rs raised against S.V.ism. They said: "If a Catholic is merely a "material" heretic i.e. A heretic in good faith, then he is still a Catholic; it would take an official warning to the Pope, from the bishops or Cardinals, in order to arrive at the conclusion that these men are indeed "pertinatious" and are therefore "formal" heretics and non-Popes.
This objection worked for a while, because sedes were not able to arrive at a satisfactory theologically correct response.
The correct response is that bishops and even more, Popes are the masters and teachers of the Church, they are presumed by their studies and position in the Church to know the doctrine of the faith, and therefore if one of them were to publicly hold a heresy, they are presumed by the very law of the Church, to be guilty of being pertinatious and therefore have fallen from office automatically, without any need of a prior warning or admonition; for example can.188 #4, 1917 code.
QuoteTrads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy. A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.
It's been 60 years. That's more than enough time to get it right.
I think that the weight of the prestige and authority of the SSPX weighs heavily on the majority of the trad clergy and faithful; and those who disagree with them on a theological issue (or any other issue for that matter), are considered by that very fact to be "beyond the pale" in tradland.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 14, 2024, 02:43:14 PMScandalous behavior by sedevacantists have also left a sour taste in the mouths of many, especially long time SSPXers. At least in the United States.
Lawsuits, padlocking churches, suing Archbishop Lefebvre in court. The 9 all did this.
The CMRI had a very rough early history. Some, such as the SSPV, still treat them as having "cooties" til this very day.
I've also frequented the chapels of the "Nine," and can honestly tell you I have seen absolutely abhorrent, scandalous behavior on the part of clergy and laity alike.
Cult like, follow the leader behavior. Jansenism. Violation of the seal of the confessional.
Just take a look at the Una Cum issue, and how they state that Catholics attending an una cum Mass commit "mortal sin."
Look at how Bishop Sanborn and his clergy are now telling the world that all Novus Ordo baptisms after January 1,1990 are "dubious" and require conditional baptism. Do you think these are the types of people Catholics are drawn to?
The best hope would be for the current non sedes to en masse embrace the conclusion. Perhaps they will.
I cannot fault R&R Catholics for not wanting to get involved or aligned with the bulk of sede clergy and groups.
No Saint or doctor or father or theologian ever envisioned 5 or 6 consecutive purported popes, for a period of 60-70 years, doing what we have seen. It is therefore not a surprise that an entire school of thought dedicated to resisting these conciliar popes has emerged, rather than the Catholic world saying that a man that wears white, conducts religious services in St. Peter's, and lives at the Vatican, is somehow not the pope.
The only quasi-analogous historical precedent is the Great Western Schism, which was different in many ways. Antipope Benedict XIII, looked, dressed, acted, and taught as a pope did.
Can you back up these accusations, at least the ones about scandalous and abhorrent behaviour? This is a sincere question because I have never heard of such accusations. Meanwhile, the issue of 'The Nine' is about fifty years old and I'm aware of the Una cum issue although I've never heard of Conditional Baptism being suggested.
But whatever anyone says about the foibles of the members of any Priestly Society, either you believe a public, formal heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Faithful - or you don't. The only question that matters is - which position is the Catholic position?
If the Catholic position is that a public, formal heretic cannot possibly be a Pope and impose error on the Faithful and that not only is there no Pope right now but there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, then the onus is on the theologians to try to explain what this could possibly mean. Instead, people seem to be saying that 60 years without a Pope is impossible therefore it can't be happening - when it clearly is.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 05:00:00 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 14, 2024, 02:43:14 PMScandalous behavior by sedevacantists have also left a sour taste in the mouths of many, especially long time SSPXers. At least in the United States.
Lawsuits, padlocking churches, suing Archbishop Lefebvre in court. The 9 all did this.
The CMRI had a very rough early history. Some, such as the SSPV, still treat them as having "cooties" til this very day.
I've also frequented the chapels of the "Nine," and can honestly tell you I have seen absolutely abhorrent, scandalous behavior on the part of clergy and laity alike.
Cult like, follow the leader behavior. Jansenism. Violation of the seal of the confessional.
Just take a look at the Una Cum issue, and how they state that Catholics attending an una cum Mass commit "mortal sin."
Look at how Bishop Sanborn and his clergy are now telling the world that all Novus Ordo baptisms after January 1,1990 are "dubious" and require conditional baptism. Do you think these are the types of people Catholics are drawn to?
The best hope would be for the current non sedes to en masse embrace the conclusion. Perhaps they will.
I cannot fault R&R Catholics for not wanting to get involved or aligned with the bulk of sede clergy and groups.
No Saint or doctor or father or theologian ever envisioned 5 or 6 consecutive purported popes, for a period of 60-70 years, doing what we have seen. It is therefore not a surprise that an entire school of thought dedicated to resisting these conciliar popes has emerged, rather than the Catholic world saying that a man that wears white, conducts religious services in St. Peter's, and lives at the Vatican, is somehow not the pope.
The only quasi-analogous historical precedent is the Great Western Schism, which was different in many ways. Antipope Benedict XIII, looked, dressed, acted, and taught as a pope did.
Can you back up these accusations, at least the ones about scandalous and abhorrent behaviour? This is a sincere question because I have never heard of such accusations. Meanwhile, the issue of 'The Nine' is about fifty years old and I'm aware of the Una cum issue although I've never heard of Conditional Baptism being suggested.
But whatever anyone says about the foibles of the members of any Priestly Society, either you believe a public, formal heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Faithful - or you don't. The only question that matters is - which position is the Catholic position?
If the Catholic position is that a public, formal heretic cannot possibly be a Pope and impose error on the Faithful and that not only is there no Pope right now but there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, then the onus is on the theologians to try to explain what this could possibly mean. Instead, people seem to be saying that 60 years without a Pope is impossible therefore it can't be happening - when it clearly is.
Exactly. You can use poor behavior as an excuse to turn your back on either side. And it's pathetic really, so I do fault those who use these sorts of issues as an excuse.
The only thing that matters is the truth. Either a pope can teach error to the Universal Church or he can not. Anti Catholics and Enemies of the Church have always said he can.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 14, 2024, 05:00:00 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 14, 2024, 02:43:14 PMScandalous behavior by sedevacantists have also left a sour taste in the mouths of many, especially long time SSPXers. At least in the United States.
Lawsuits, padlocking churches, suing Archbishop Lefebvre in court. The 9 all did this.
The CMRI had a very rough early history. Some, such as the SSPV, still treat them as having "cooties" til this very day.
I've also frequented the chapels of the "Nine," and can honestly tell you I have seen absolutely abhorrent, scandalous behavior on the part of clergy and laity alike.
Cult like, follow the leader behavior. Jansenism. Violation of the seal of the confessional.
Just take a look at the Una Cum issue, and how they state that Catholics attending an una cum Mass commit "mortal sin."
Look at how Bishop Sanborn and his clergy are now telling the world that all Novus Ordo baptisms after January 1,1990 are "dubious" and require conditional baptism. Do you think these are the types of people Catholics are drawn to?
The best hope would be for the current non sedes to en masse embrace the conclusion. Perhaps they will.
I cannot fault R&R Catholics for not wanting to get involved or aligned with the bulk of sede clergy and groups.
No Saint or doctor or father or theologian ever envisioned 5 or 6 consecutive purported popes, for a period of 60-70 years, doing what we have seen. It is therefore not a surprise that an entire school of thought dedicated to resisting these conciliar popes has emerged, rather than the Catholic world saying that a man that wears white, conducts religious services in St. Peter's, and lives at the Vatican, is somehow not the pope.
The only quasi-analogous historical precedent is the Great Western Schism, which was different in many ways. Antipope Benedict XIII, looked, dressed, acted, and taught as a pope did.
Can you back up these accusations, at least the ones about scandalous and abhorrent behaviour? This is a sincere question because I have never heard of such accusations.
Yes this is all firsthand experience.
QuoteMeanwhile, the issue of 'The Nine' is about fifty years old
Actually 42 years.
Quoteand I'm aware of the Una cum issue although I've never heard of Conditional Baptism being suggested.
https://inveritateblog.com/2023/09/01/can-novus-ordo-baptisms-be-trusted-as-valid/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCOZAnN9wU
This even prompted an SGG aligned cleric to attack this position:
https://www.fatherlehtoranta.com/post/the-correct-use-of-conditional-baptism
QuoteBut whatever anyone says about the foibles of the members of any Priestly Society, either you believe a public, formal heretic can be Pope and can teach and impose error on the Faithful - or you don't. The only question that matters is - which position is the Catholic position?
If the Catholic position is that a public, formal heretic cannot possibly be a Pope and impose error on the Faithful and that not only is there no Pope right now but there hasn't been a Pope since 1958, then the onus is on the theologians to try to explain what this could possibly mean. Instead, people seem to be saying that 60 years without a Pope is impossible therefore it can't be happening - when it clearly is.
As I've said repeatedly, I am not saying that I disagree. I'm just stating the reality "on the ground."
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 14, 2024, 02:43:14 PMI've also frequented the chapels of the "Nine," and can honestly tell you I have seen absolutely abhorrent, scandalous behavior on the part of clergy and laity alike.
Cult like, follow the leader behavior. Jansenism. Violation of the seal of the confessional.
I'm assuming that the second sentence explains the first. If not, please elaborate or in a PM is also fine.
QuoteLawsuits, padlocking churches, suing Archbishop Lefebvre in court. The 9 all did this.
Just point of information: One of the 9 did not padlock his church during Covid, if that's the time frame you're referring to. The church was locked from the inside 10 minutes after the start of Mass, when public services were banned by civil authorities. Perhaps I misunderstand you and you are referring to a different context or situation.
QuoteLook at how Bishop Sanborn and his clergy are now telling the world that all Novus Ordo baptisms after January 1,1990 are "dubious" and require conditional baptism. Do you think these are the types of people Catholics are drawn to?
I will answer that question with a No. However, what I've heard from SV clergy (one of them) is not conditional baptism but "questionably consecrated hosts." In fact, I was angrily confronted by one of them with that phrase.
To me, that kind of behavior is the bottom line -- not because the nature of it was rude, to put it mildly, but because the entire thrust of it was to have a priest of the Roman Catholic Church interrogate and confront a layperson, without provocation, and try to force that layperson into inappropriately making a dogmatic statement about ecclesiastical matters. Talk about irony.
Supposed "knowledge" about what the pope is and isn't, including knowledge about what the Church has taught about heresy, the papacy, etc. is on a completely different plane from having the authority to make a dogmatic statement about a current pope. Academic knowledge is not authority. At her most traditional and orthodox, the Church has never taught that academic knowledge confers authority to lay people or even certitude about ecclesiastical situations. That would be a very modernist position because it would be rejecting the hierarchical structure of the church and its traditional position of strict distinctions between roles of clergy and roles of laity.
Bonaventure referred to "most Catholics." In my experience with both well-informed and minimally informed Catholics -- about doctrine, and about differences between traditionalism and modernism -- they do not feel comfortable at all subverting church structure, no matter how disappointing, how seemingly ambiguous, how alarmingly unorthodox.
If most Catholics believed that the entire mainstream church structure was not to be trusted (in its evaluation of Francis, and/or its evaluation of doctrine) -- that it was so unreliable that avoiding everything related to contemporary Rome was necessary to be a true Catholic, they would also believe that the Church has defected and that therefore Jesus Christ is a liar, which is blasphemy. (And why bother to profess Catholicism?)
Most Catholics have neither time nor interest in playing canon lawyer -- online or IRL. And they think -- logically -- that when a priest confronts them, demanding an unprovoked "answer" to a question they never asked -- that priest has reversed the authority structure and is asking the layman to take on the Church hierarchy, which is not the Catholicism that the layperson learned, no matter when he/she was born.
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 02:15:50 AMSupposed "knowledge" about what the pope is and isn't, including knowledge about what the Church has taught about heresy, the papacy, etc. is on a completely different plane from having the authority to make a dogmatic statement about a current pope. Academic knowledge is not authority. At her most traditional and orthodox, the Church has never taught that academic knowledge confers authority to lay people or even certitude about ecclesiastical situations. That would be a very modernist position because it would be rejecting the hierarchical structure of the church and its traditional position of strict distinctions between roles of clergy and roles of laity.
Can you explain which authority prevents laypeople, priests and bishops expressing the opinion that the Conciliar 'popes' are not Catholic and therefore not Popes? What is this authority that prevents me stating my opinion on this matter?
Maybe you're confusing an opinion about a current pope with a "dogmatic statement about a current pope"? Nobody to my knowledge has made any dogmatic statements which, obviously, they can't.
I've come to the conclusion that Sedism scares people. They are too frightened to consider it because of what it might mean. And so they hide behind the SSPX and other R&R Trad groups, imagining that this is a safe position because of - authority. But does any Trad group, R&R or Sede, have authority?
It's understandable that the Sede position is just too terrifying for some people. If that's the case, then admit it. And in the meantime, please stop attacking a position which you can't adopt, not because it's wrong, but because it frightens you.
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 02:15:50 AMI will answer that question with a No. However, what I've heard from SV clergy (one of them) is not conditional baptism but "questionably consecrated hosts." In fact, I was angrily confronted by one of them with that phrase.
To me, that kind of behavior is the bottom line -- not because the nature of it was rude, to put it mildly, but because the entire thrust of it was to have a priest of the Roman Catholic Church interrogate and confront a layperson, without provocation, and try to force that layperson into inappropriately making a dogmatic statement about ecclesiastical matters. Talk about irony.
Were there any previous interactions between you and this priest? If so, what were they like? It does appear that this priest was rude which was wrong and unbecoming of a priest, but I have to wonder whether it was completely out of the blue.
Why is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"? Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.
If the Novus Ordo isn't valid - why would it be - then all those Catholics who are too busy or lazy to question the Conciliar 'popes' are only getting a wafer.
Surely, in charity, they should be informed of this possibility.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 15, 2024, 05:39:24 AMWhy is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"? Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.
If the Novus Ordo isn't valid - why would it be - then all those Catholics who are too busy or lazy to question the Conciliar 'popes' are only getting a wafer.
Surely, in charity, they should be informed of this possibility.
I'm guessing it was the way that the priest spoke.
However, "questionably consecrated hosts" isn't even just a concern for the Novus Ordo priests. As time marches on, this is also a possibility in the FSSP, ICKSP and SSPX since not all of their priests were ordained in the Old Rite or ordained by a bishop who was consecrated in the Old Rite. If I ever had to go to any of these groups, I would have to first research the priest's ordination and the bishop who ordained him.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 15, 2024, 05:39:24 AMWhy is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"? Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.
I won't address the content of the remark at the moment, although a non-SV priest who heard about it would have been offended, of course, at the remark, because it implies that his ordination was a mere empty ceremony and not an effective sacrament. (I did not repeat the phrase to any priest, so as not to offend, but I'm sure they've heard the phrase themselves and/or read it.) It's certainly the equivalent of approaching a couple married through the administration of a priest ordained in the new rite, and telling that couple that they're "not really married" or "not really married in any Catholic sense." It's one thing to privately believe that; it's another to accuse another Catholic of invalid sacraments in administration or reception.
I'm referring, Awkward, to what I've said in a couple of ways in my previous post -- which is, the remark was entirely inappropriate for the occasion (I have not revealed here the details of the occasion) and was delivered, in its tone, as a hostile and unprovoked attack on me personally for failing to join his SV cause and chapel -- even though that was a fact that I never introduced to him; I was merely respectfully visiting. Frankly, I showed far more respect to him than he to me.
Continuing along the lines of Bonaventure's emphasis (the reason more Catholics don't join the SV movement as a matter of practice), I would say that a general affect of anger is very unattractive. It's unattractive in us laypeople, it's unattractive in a Catholic priest of any persuasion or formation; it's unattractive online.
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 11:06:25 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 15, 2024, 05:39:24 AMWhy is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"? Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.
I won't address the content of the remark at the moment, although a non-SV priest who heard about it would have been offended, of course, at the remark, because it implies that his ordination was a mere empty ceremony and not an effective sacrament. (I did not repeat the phrase to any priest, so as not to offend, but I'm sure they've heard the phrase themselves and/or read it.) It's certainly the equivalent of approaching a couple married through the administration of a priest ordained in the new rite, and telling that couple that they're "not really married" or "not really married in any Catholic sense." It's one thing to privately believe that; it's another to accuse another Catholic of invalid sacraments in administration or reception.
I'm referring, Awkward, to what I've said in a couple of ways in my previous post -- which is, the remark was entirely inappropriate for the occasion (I have not revealed here the details of the occasion) and was delivered, in its tone, as a hostile and unprovoked attack on me personally for failing to join his SV cause and chapel -- even though that was a fact that I never introduced to him; I was merely respectfully visiting. Frankly, I showed far more respect to him than he to me.
Continuing along the lines of Bonaventure's emphasis (the reason more Catholics don't join the SV movement as a matter of practice), I would say that a general affect of anger is very unattractive. It's unattractive in us laypeople, it's unattractive in a Catholic priest of any persuasion or formation; it's unattractive online.
We all have anecdotes, Miriam. I have a few myself. It's hardly surprising, really, given the kind of situation we are faced with today. In fact, it's something of a miracle that Trads manage to keep going at all.
But aside from the manner of the priest in your anecdote, whether or not he was rude and abrasive - what if he's right. What if Novus Ordo hosts are indeed "questionable consecrated? Shouldn't Catholics be aware of this possibility? And what if Novus Ordo Bishops aren't really Bishops because the new Rite of Consecration isn't valid as the late Fr Anthony Cekada maintained?
I would tend to be more angry with the fakers who currently occupy the Vatican than with a Sede priest who pointed out this fact, no matter how angry he was, assuming he was right, of course, which he is.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 15, 2024, 11:59:40 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 11:06:25 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 15, 2024, 05:39:24 AMWhy is it rude to refer to "questionably consecrated hosts"? Unless it was the way he said it, not what he said.
I won't address the content of the remark at the moment, although a non-SV priest who heard about it would have been offended, of course, at the remark, because it implies that his ordination was a mere empty ceremony and not an effective sacrament. (I did not repeat the phrase to any priest, so as not to offend, but I'm sure they've heard the phrase themselves and/or read it.) It's certainly the equivalent of approaching a couple married through the administration of a priest ordained in the new rite, and telling that couple that they're "not really married" or "not really married in any Catholic sense." It's one thing to privately believe that; it's another to accuse another Catholic of invalid sacraments in administration or reception.
I'm referring, Awkward, to what I've said in a couple of ways in my previous post -- which is, the remark was entirely inappropriate for the occasion (I have not revealed here the details of the occasion) and was delivered, in its tone, as a hostile and unprovoked attack on me personally for failing to join his SV cause and chapel -- even though that was a fact that I never introduced to him; I was merely respectfully visiting. Frankly, I showed far more respect to him than he to me.
Continuing along the lines of Bonaventure's emphasis (the reason more Catholics don't join the SV movement as a matter of practice), I would say that a general affect of anger is very unattractive. It's unattractive in us laypeople, it's unattractive in a Catholic priest of any persuasion or formation; it's unattractive online.
We all have anecdotes, Miriam. I have a few myself. It's hardly surprising, really, given the kind of situation we are faced with today. In fact, it's something of a miracle that Trads manage to keep going at all.
But aside from the manner of the priest in your anecdote, whether or not he was rude and abrasive - what if he's right. What if Novus Ordo hosts are indeed "questionable consecrated? Shouldn't Catholics be aware of this possibility? And what if Novus Ordo Bishops aren't really Bishops because the new Rite of Consecration isn't valid as the late Fr Anthony Cekada maintained?
I would tend to be more angry with the fakers who currently occupy the Vatican than with a Sede priest who pointed out this fact, no matter how angry he was, assuming he was right, of course, which he is.
And there a number of Novus Ordo priests who are coming to the same conclusion even if it might have offended them at first. They are more concerned with learning the truth about their ordination than worrying about their feelings. Sorry for the awful formatting, but here's a recent example (Father De Saye):
Letter of Former Novus Ordo Priest
Michael DeSaye to His Friends on the Reasons
for His Departure from the Novus Ordo
Dear Friends,
A short while ago, I requested that Bishop
O'Connell accept my resignation from the Diocese of
Trenton and the removal of my priestly faculties. Upon
informing the Bishop that I was in agreement with the
position of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Florida, a
position called sedevacantism, and that I intended to
pursue studies there, I also received notice of excommunication for the crime of schism.
I assure you that this decision was not made lightly, nor was it a reaction to any stimulus of emotion,
anger, stress, or frustration. My motivation was not
tactical or political, nor was I desirous for a career
change. The decision was the result of prayer and contemplation, and from an independent study of the
teachings of the popes and doctors of the Church. It
was a decision that became necessary for me to make
because of a conclusion derived from applying traditional principles of Catholic theology. Permit me to
offer a brief explanation of how I reached this decision,
along with a list of references that support it.
In my research, I came to understand that the
Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) teaches error
against Catholic faith and morals, and is irreconcilable
with the previous magisterium of the Catholic Church.
It is a Catholic doctrine that the Church of Christ
cannot err when it teaches universally concerning matters of faith and morals. The reason for this inerrancy
is that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, whom
Our Lord sent to teach us "into all truth" (John 16:13).
In theology, the common term for this inerrancy is
indefectibility. For two thousand years, from the time
of the Apostles to the present day, the Catholic
Church has consistently taught the true faith and
morals of Jesus Christ and his Church to the Catholic
faithful. She has done so without the slightest deviation, i.e. without the slightest defect. This indefectibility is not an accident of history, but an essential property of the Church.
The Second Vatican Council is commonly held to
be a general or ecumenical council of the entire
Catholic Church, duly promulgated, and upheld by
successive popes until the present day. It is commonly
held to teach universally, with the authority of Christ,
concerning matters of faith and morals.
In reality, this council clearly and absolutely contradicts the previous magisterium of the Catholic
3
Church on those same matters of faith and morals.
These contradictions present an enormous problem for
Catholics. For contradictions in matters of faith and
morals cannot exist at the universal level in the
Catholic Church, since she is protected from error in
these matters by the Holy Spirit. If Catholics were to
accept the council as having been promulgated with the
authority of Christ, then Christ would be leading the
whole Catholic Church away from Himself. Catholics
would be obliged to confess that the gates of hell have
prevailed against the Church, contrary to the prophecy
of Our Lord. She would have defected from her divine
bridegroom by the universal promulgation of a false
faith. But this is impossible according to the perennial
Catholic doctrine which has been taught repeatedly by
the Church's magisterium from the apostles until the
present day. It is impossible to apply the counterargument that these teachings were only applicable to modern times rather than all times, for such an argument is
rooted in modernism, and would end by reducing the
entire magisterium to contingencies. It also does not
help us to apply the hermeneutic of continuity, for
hermeneutics can only help to show continuity if continuity already exists.
Therefore, we must conclude that the Second Vatican Council did not come from the universal teaching
authority of the Catholic Church. The popes who
promulgated Vatican II did not possess the authority
over the Church to teach universally in the name of
Christ. They were legally delegated to receive the papacy, but did not actually receive the spiritual authority from God to rule, sanctify, and teach the Catholic
Church. Their authority was only an apparent authority. They were not true popes.
This position has a rather unattractive-sounding
name: sedevacantism. It is the position of those Catholics who, by applying the logic of indefectibility,
conclude to a present vacancy of the See of Peter, due
to the universal promulgation of error. Sedevacantism
is the only theologically correct observation concerning
the present crisis in the Church because it is the only
position based on traditional Catholic principles. It is
not a schismatic sect based on personal feelings.
This conclusion is profoundly difficult to process
emotionally. Catholic instinct shuns the idea of a false
pope who is only an apparent authority, rather than a
real authority. Many practical questions immediately
spring to mind: how could a pope be legally elected and
not have the papacy? Are Catholics allowed to make a
judgement of this sort? How could thousands of bishops be wrong? If this thesis is true, then where is the
Catholic Church? How do apostolic succession and
jurisdiction function in this context? How would the
present crisis be resolved?
These are good questions that deserve to be answered, but it would require too much space for this
brief letter. The point that I wish to articulate here is
that, as difficult as it might be, Catholics are bound to
reject falsehoods taught against the faith, even when
they come from apparent authorities. If we who live in
these times wish to preserve our Catholic faith, which
is necessary for our salvation, then it is essential that
we acknowledge Vatican II as invalid, along with the
papacies of those who promulgated it and continue to
promulgate it.
Our Lord said that pseudo-prophets and pseudoChrists would rise up and deceive, if possible, even the
elect. St. Paul taught that even if he or an angel from
heaven should teach a gospel against what he has
taught, let him be cursed. In the Apocalypse, St. John
predicted a worldwide religious deception. Thus we
have direct warnings from Sacred Scripture that a fate
such as what is described here would someday befall
mankind. It is not for us to choose the times in which
we live. It is for us to witness to the truth, even at
great personal cost.
Fr. Michael DeSaye
List of References
1. The principal error of Vatican II (the heresy of 'partial
communion') condemned by the Catholic Church:https://
mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/
Triple-Column-Ecclesiology.pdf
2. A common conservative or 'trad' objection is that we
should acknowledge Vatican II andFrancis as something like
wayward authorities. Even though they impose universal
errors upon us, we should ignore them until a future traditional pope arrives to fix the situation.This position has also
been condemned by the Catholic Church:
Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter 3, No. 2
Pope Leo XIII: Epistola Tua (1885)
Pope Leo XIII: Est Sane Molestum (1888)
Pope Pius XII: Mystici Corporis (1943), No. 41
3. Answers to common questions arising as a result of
sedevacantism:
Traditionalmass.org
Romancatholicinstitute.org
Novusordowatch.org
4. I was personally astonished to discover how many
times, and with such great force, the popes and saints condemned the errors of Vatican II (please email me for a detailed list of these teachings). In reflecting on the reason why
I did not learn these teachings in seminary, it became evident
that the academic program for priests has taken great care to
remove certain aspects of the previous magisterium, saints,
and doctors of the Church because they are not in conformity with Vatican II. This is the principal reason why I
am currently seeking additional formation at Most Holy Trinity Seminary.
Whatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.
That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.
Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.
If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?
Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.
Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
That's why, I am at the point in my life where I don't pay attention to the correct theory- whether the SSPX is right and Rome "converts," the totalist Sedes are right, the CT people are right, an eastern bloc "bishop in the woods" emerges, Siri was actually pope in exile and has his own hierarchy, etc it is going to take a miracle (such as the conversion of Bergoglio), just for the first domino to fall.
I often think of where I was in 2005, or 2006, trying my best to live Catholicism "in the parish," and then, as an FSSPer, SSPXer, and so on. I try to remain humble that this is a long journey that takes decades, and is still not over.
The only people I can think of that immediately declared and went SV in the late 1960s were Francis Schuckhardt and Joaquin Saenz Arriaga. Literally everyone else on earth was a "recognize and resister," at some point.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 15, 2024, 03:23:38 PMWhatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.
That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.
Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.
If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?
Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.
Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
That's why, I am at the point in my life where I don't pay attention to the correct theory- whether the SSPX is right and Rome "converts," the totalist Sedes are right, the CT people are right, an eastern bloc "bishop in the woods" emerges, Siri was actually pope in exile and has his own hierarchy, etc it is going to take a miracle (such as the conversion of Bergoglio), just for the first domino to fall.
I often think of where I was in 2005, or 2006, trying my best to live Catholicism "in the parish," and then, as an FSSPer, SSPXer, and so on. I try to remain humble that this is a long journey that takes decades, and is still not over.
The only people I can think of that immediately declared and went SV in the late 1960s were Francis Schuckhardt and Joaquin Saenz Arriaga. Literally everyone else on earth was a "recognize and resister," at some point.
As to your bolded. If you think my point that those who think a Catholic pope can teach heresy and error to the universal church think similarly to those who have been against the papacy and the Catholic Church is the same as dogmatic sedevacantism, then ban me. I don't think it's the same thing, but I'm not going to pussy foot around here. I'm guessing there are a few posters who will be very happy with that.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 15, 2024, 03:23:38 PMWhatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.
That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.
Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.
If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?
Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.
Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
That's why, I am at the point in my life where I don't pay attention to the correct theory- whether the SSPX is right and Rome "converts," the totalist Sedes are right, the CT people are right, an eastern bloc "bishop in the woods" emerges, Siri was actually pope in exile and has his own hierarchy, etc it is going to take a miracle (such as the conversion of Bergoglio), just for the first domino to fall.
I often think of where I was in 2005, or 2006, trying my best to live Catholicism "in the parish," and then, as an FSSPer, SSPXer, and so on. I try to remain humble that this is a long journey that takes decades, and is still not over.
The only people I can think of that immediately declared and went SV in the late 1960s were Francis Schuckhardt and Joaquin Saenz Arriaga. Literally everyone else on earth was a "recognize and resister," at some point.
Fantastic post, mate.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 15, 2024, 03:23:38 PMWhatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.
That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.
Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.
If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?
Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.
Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
And not only will such a scenario not (by itself) solve the crisis in Rome, it will have no effect on our personal salvations. A few of us have said the latter repeatedly. It will do no good at my Personal Judgment to claim that any sins of mine are excused by a rotting papacy ("because" I had no decent Pope to follow, and supposedly I was deserving of a better one). I have the exact same moral culpability that I would have if Pope St. Pius X or some other reliable pope were in office during my lifetime.
(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome
even intellectually.(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what
he is doing and the state of
his office and
his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of
their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Quote from: Baylee on April 15, 2024, 03:33:44 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 15, 2024, 03:23:38 PMWhatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.
That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.
Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.
If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?
Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.
Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
That's why, I am at the point in my life where I don't pay attention to the correct theory- whether the SSPX is right and Rome "converts," the totalist Sedes are right, the CT people are right, an eastern bloc "bishop in the woods" emerges, Siri was actually pope in exile and has his own hierarchy, etc it is going to take a miracle (such as the conversion of Bergoglio), just for the first domino to fall.
I often think of where I was in 2005, or 2006, trying my best to live Catholicism "in the parish," and then, as an FSSPer, SSPXer, and so on. I try to remain humble that this is a long journey that takes decades, and is still not over.
The only people I can think of that immediately declared and went SV in the late 1960s were Francis Schuckhardt and Joaquin Saenz Arriaga. Literally everyone else on earth was a "recognize and resister," at some point.
As to your bolded. If you think my point that those who think a Catholic pope can teach heresy and error to the universal church think similarly to those who have been against the papacy and the Catholic Church is the same as dogmatic sedevacantism, then ban me. I don't think it's the same thing, but I'm not going to pussy foot around here. I'm guessing there are a few posters who will be very happy with that.
The policy of the forum has been posted and stickied since 2014, 7 years before you even registered here.
QuoteDogmatic sedevacantism may be said to be a general attitude toward the current crisis in the Church which regards the state of the Seat of Peter to be practically de fide. This means that one who believes that the Seat is currently occupied has lost their Catholicity (or, at the very least, experiences a dramatically reduced Catholicity) due to grave error which is likely at least materially heretical.
Dogmatic sedevacantism is forbidden on this forum and is subject to moderation. While Suscipe Domine is a sedeplenist forum, sedevacantists are welcome to post here in all sub-fora. However, it is also the stance of the forum that the question of the loss of a valid papacy in the occasion of heresy is an open one among Catholics with no binding, universal Magisterial teaching on the subject. Therefore, Catholics are free to hold varying opinions on the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar papacies. Any posts which claim or even imply a superiority in the faithfulness or orthodoxy of Catholics who hold a varying opinion on the state of the papacy will be subject to discipline.
See: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8151.0
Here's what I said in Post 25 -
QuoteTrads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy. A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.
In other words, if a Catholics insist that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can impose errors on the Faithful then they will be
inadvertently making the enemies of the Church
who reject the Papacy very happy indeed.
Tell me what is factually wrong about the above statements.
How's this for an anecdote?
R&R Trads have told me, more than once, that a Pope can be a heretic.
I'm wondering what anyone new to the Faith would think of that.
So...youre saying that according to the rules it is not allowed to say that Enemies of the Church and anti Catholics have said some of the same things as R&R folks have. If it's true, why is it not allowed? Why shouldn't R&R folks have to explain why that's a false statement?
Like I said, I see nothing wrong with my statements. Let the R&R argue against them or ban me. I will not pussyfoot around here nor cater to the R&R majority.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 16, 2024, 03:34:53 AMHere's what I said in Post 25 -
QuoteTrads have surely had the time by now to examine these ideas and realise that they are not getting sound doctrine from any R&R source because R&R places them in the position of agreeing with the heretics and schismatics who reject the Papacy. A formal, public heretic is no Pope and to say that he is puts R&R Trads in the same camp, although inadvertently, as the enemies of the Church.
In other words, if a Catholics insist that a Pope can be a formal, public heretic who can impose errors on the Faithful then they will be inadvertently making the enemies of the Church who reject the Papacy very happy indeed.
Tell me what is factually wrong about the above statements.
Exactly. I'm sure that these people don't
wish to say things like the enemies of the church, but they are, in fact, saying things like the enemies of the church.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 15, 2024, 03:23:38 PMWhatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.
That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.
Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.
If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?
Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.
Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
That's why, I am at the point in my life where I don't pay attention to the correct theory- whether the SSPX is right and Rome "converts," the totalist Sedes are right, the CT people are right, an eastern bloc "bishop in the woods" emerges, Siri was actually pope in exile and has his own hierarchy, etc it is going to take a miracle (such as the conversion of Bergoglio), just for the first domino to fall.
I often think of where I was in 2005, or 2006, trying my best to live Catholicism "in the parish," and then, as an FSSPer, SSPXer, and so on. I try to remain humble that this is a long journey that takes decades, and is still not over.
The only people I can think of that immediately declared and went SV in the late 1960s were Francis Schuckhardt and Joaquin Saenz Arriaga. Literally everyone else on earth was a "recognize and resister," at some point.
There would not be a solution to the problem perse if certain things you described above happened, but it would help a lot.
As per what Miriam pointed out, if the expression of anger were diminished in many sedevacantists, more traditinalists would be attracted to their position. Perhaps to get a more hopeful expression from them can be found in the Catholic Family Podcast Youtube channel. Kevin Davis is great, and the channel provides excellent Catholic content. I like the Monday Mornings with Matt and Kevin show.
You're right that many sedevacantists were at one time recognize and resisters. That is understandable especially if they were at one time unsure of what to make of situation of the crisis in the Church.
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 15, 2024, 03:23:38 PMWhatever theory ends up being correct, ultimately, only God will be able fix and solve this crisis. He will do so in such a clear fashion, that no men will be able to take even a morsel of credit.
That's why my days of being a keyboard warrior are mostly behind me. Bergoglio will continue to spew heresy. I will still have to fulfill my duties of state.
Convincing others that my position is the correct one, and stating that FSSPers, SSPXers, and even the Archbishop himself, are taking a position that is aligned with enemies of the Church - where does that get anyone? That savors of Dogmatic Sedevacantism, and goes contrary to the policy and rules of this forum - which is officially opionist.
If everyone on this forum, every single member, embraced Sede Vacante tomorrow, would that change anything?
Let's say that tomorrow, the Superiors General of the SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, and all "regularized" trads embraced SV. Let's then say that all SV clergy - SGG, CMRI, even SSPV, all met up, conditionally consecrated and ordained everyone so that there were 0 doubts as to validity, did the same to all of the "Ecclesia Dei" or "motu" clergy, and we have all trad clergy officially Sedevacantist.
Would that solve the crisis? No - only God would. The NO apparatus would still continue on, and will continue on, until God decides to end this.
And not only will such a scenario not (by itself) solve the crisis in Rome, it will have no effect on our personal salvations. A few of us have said the latter repeatedly. It will do no good at my Personal Judgment to claim that any sins of mine are excused by a rotting papacy ("because" I had no decent Pope to follow, and supposedly I was deserving of a better one). I have the exact same moral culpability that I would have if Pope St. Pius X or some other reliable pope were in office during my lifetime.
(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly. Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument. Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid. Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
Quote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the
validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge
in persona Christi.Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available --
contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMThere would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced......
..... Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Miriam, why do you repeatedly accuse Sedes of doing something that they are not doing?
Because the problem with your endless assertion of this point is that Sedes have never claimed to make dogmatic pronouncements about anything.
You keep making this point, over and over again. In fact you've been saying this forever, that Sedes have no right or authority to do something - that they are not doing.
And as for Fr Ripperger's observation - doesn't he know that demons are liars.
Honestly ....
Quote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 02:09:10 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMThere would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced......
..... Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Miriam, why do you repeatedly accuse Sedes of doing something that they are not doing?
Because the problem with your endless assertion of this point is that Sedes have never claimed to make dogmatic pronouncements about anything.
You keep making this point, over and over again. In fact you've been saying this forever, that Sedes have no right or authority to do something - that they are not doing.
And as for Fr Ripperger's observation - doesn't he know that demons are liars.
Honestly ....
I noticed you have repeatedly asked this same question but never get an answer. It's probably like when I kept asking why Miriam repeatedly called sedevacantism a sect months ago. She never answered and she never recanted her comments. I think if one keeps this in mind, one can better understand where she is coming from in her posts.
I'd also add that it's not just the sedevacantists who question the validity of the New Rites. The SSPX used to question them and I'm pretty sure The Resistance still does. Also, these questions did not start with the laity.
You're right, Baylee. I've asked Miriam to justify her assertion several times and she never does. Instead she just repeats the same assertion over and over again, claiming that Sedes have no authority to do what they're not doing, if you see what I mean. I don't understand it.
Quote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Quote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)
Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 02:09:10 AMMiriam, why do you repeatedly accuse Sedes of doing something that they are not doing?
By "dogmatic" assertion I mean making a statement that is never challenged and is merely assumed to be a fixed premise, such as one or all of the post-V2 sacramental rites are invalid. As Bonaventure just restated as well, it is merely opinion by a certain faction of laity and clergy that the new rites lack validity. When a premise is treated as if it is not to be questioned, then the speaker/writer has every freedom to build an argument from a false premise and continue to demand that debaters address the "logic" of their argument.
An unquestioned premise is the equivalent -- to a Catholic --of dogma.
QuoteAnd as for Fr Ripperger's observation - doesn't he know that demons are liars.
He wasn't referring to what the demons
say; he was referring to their obvious and spontaneous recognition during exorcism sessions, shown by immediate fear and submission, etc. He has reported often about how their behavior is limited by Our Lord, and how swiftly they are subdued in His presence or Our Mother's.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMQuote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)
Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.
If one reads Fr Cekada's explanation for his position he used Catholic teaching to come to it. And nowhere did he say Michael Schiavo had a "God given right to murder his wife".
Here is what he said and wrote on this very forum:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10617.0
I think one could conclude either way if people lost the emotion involved.
As for the una cum issue even the more moderate sede Clergy responses to it say....its ok if it's the only mass available.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMLaity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
Have no clue what vagi clergy means. Otherwise, yes: Until and Unless.
I want to mention a few other things:
1. I think there is a tendency among us trads -- and often we don't recognize it because it is a natural reflex and often subconscious -- to make definitive statements since
the Church leadership is so wantonly mute. Refusing to lead, as reprehensible as it is, does not allow others (unappointed people) the automatic authority to step in. I'm not accusing anyone on the forum of this; I'm just admitting that I have seen such an impulse in myself and others IRL.
Modern clergy seem incapable of responding Yes or No to matters clearly needing a definitive response, and I get how frustrating that is. But we also can't transfer our frustration to our fellow trads. It sometimes seems as if those who affiliate with the SV position are transferring that frustration to their Catholic brothers and sisters, making the latter accountable for Yes and No, instead of directing that (legitimate) demand where it belongs.
2. Clarification on an earlier remark of mine about the NOM environment in which I sometimes experienced greater Eucharistic grace than when receiving at a TLM (and I attributed that to my own disposition). In most NOM environments it would be near to impossible for me to have a proper disposition. I am very affected by my immediate environment, but especially at Mass. What interferes with communion with a small "c" at most NOM's is the atmosphere (lack of disposition) of many of the other attendees. How is it possible to filter out chatty, grinning, demonstrative, and physically active people within a few rows of oneself? What it does for the Catholic trying to concentrate is drive up the Anger Index.
Second problem is the sometimes dramatic shift in body language when a NOM congregation approaches HC. Even when they are composed and focused before HC, their behavior after the Agnus Dei/Lamb of God is scandalous. Recently I was attending one such Mass at a local church, although it wasn't the Mass I was assisting at that day, which was a TLM. The entire congregation suddenly converged toward the center aisle without any hint of reverence whatsoever. It was as if it was a City Council meeting open to the public, and all had been advised to exit quickly due to a possible hazard in the hall. Very, very casual body language, no hands folded or arms at side: at the very moment that they should be most reverent they were the least reverent.
The very different setting I was referring to was opposite. Mass was always dark, lit with only candles, and all of the congregation was contained, silent, and highly reverent. There was order, and people approached HC row by row, respectfully. No mass exodus toward the nearest Exit sign. It was far quieter than most TLM's, actually.
3. I think we have to consider also what the uncharitable effect is of telling other Catholics, or even implying to them, that they have not received sacramental graces.
Quote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMPope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
What a relief. A quiet voice of sanity and reason among all the kerfuffle.
To all those who object to questions being raised about the validity of NO bishops, priests and sacraments -
- are you sure that the NO Rite for the consecration of bishops is valid?
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMI like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....
What?
Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.
At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.
Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.
Do people really base their rejection of the Sede position on the personality traits and foibles of Sede clergy?
Quote from: Baylee on April 17, 2024, 10:19:23 AMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMQuote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)
Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.
If one reads Fr Cekada's explanation for his position he used Catholic teaching to come to it. And nowhere did he say Michael Schiavo had a "God given right to murder his wife".
Here is what he said and wrote on this very forum:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10617.0
I think one could conclude either way if people lost the emotion involved.
As for the una cum issue even the more moderate sede Clergy responses to it say....its ok if it's the only mass available.
He did say that Michael had the authority from God to make the decision that he made. Did you read the link you posted?
QuoteFurther, in my opinion, Mrs. Schiavo's husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) — and not her parents — had the sole right before God to deter-mine whether these means should have continued to be used.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 12:23:44 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMI like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....
What?
Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.
At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.
Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.
Michael Schiavo did not simply decide to remove the feeding tube, but all food and water, even from the mouth.
The SSPV thoroughly refuted Cekada's argument.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
As Dr. James Gebel said:
Quote9) Oral or stomach tube feeding via an "NG" (nasogastric tube) (a tube put down one's throat to the stomach) or (more commonly) via a "G-tube" are routinely used to feed stroke victims, both temporarily and indefinitely in patients with stroke or other brain injuries who cannot feed themselves, whether due to swallowing problems (which occur at least temporarily in most stroke victims). Such feeding and hydration are by modern medical standards considered as ordinary and unburdensome as eating and drinking on one's own. Such feedings are, in fact, less expensive than what an average American spends on food and water, and are easily administered a few times a day by a family member, requiring much less effort than cooking three meals a day. Terri Schiavo's husband, parents, or siblings could easily administer such feedings. They are by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard (moral, medical, or economic).
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 12:54:22 PMQuote from: Baylee on April 17, 2024, 10:19:23 AMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMQuote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)
Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.
If one reads Fr Cekada's explanation for his position he used Catholic teaching to come to it. And nowhere did he say Michael Schiavo had a "God given right to murder his wife".
Here is what he said and wrote on this very forum:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=10617.0
I think one could conclude either way if people lost the emotion involved.
As for the una cum issue even the more moderate sede Clergy responses to it say....its ok if it's the only mass available.
He did say that Michael had the authority from God to make the decision that he made. Did you read the link you posted?
QuoteFurther, in my opinion, Mrs. Schiavo's husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) — and not her parents — had the sole right before God to deter-mine whether these means should have continued to be used.
Yes, I did. Notice he did not say he had the right to "murder" her. That was your wording.
Cekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.
You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.
The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.
Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?
My original point stands.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 01:54:13 PMCekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.
You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.
The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.
Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?
My original point stands.
Yes, you keep pushing the false accusation that Fr Cekada approved
murder.
Quote from: Baylee on April 17, 2024, 01:58:38 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 01:54:13 PMCekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.
You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.
The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.
Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?
My original point stands.
Yes, you keep pushing the false accusation that Fr Cekada approved murder.
It's not false.
He stated what Michael did was licit. He was wrong.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 02:02:42 PMQuote from: Baylee on April 17, 2024, 01:58:38 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 01:54:13 PMCekada stated that Michael had the right to make the decision he made, which led to the murder of Terri.
You can call it whatever you like. The reality is that, only his closest confreres, Sanborn and Dolan, agreed with him.
The CMRI, SSPV, SSPX, Vatican, Etc. all disagreed.
Do you attend an "una cum Mass?" Do you know that, if you do, those clergy with whom Cekada aligned himself (at SGG and MHT) will deny you the sacraments?
My original point stands.
Yes, you keep pushing the false accusation that Fr Cekada approved murder.
It's not false.
He stated what Michael did was licit. He was wrong.
Fr Cekada did not approve murder. If he thought it was "murder" he wouldn't have approved it. And anyone who can look at this objectively can see that saying he approved murder is a false accusation.
You can call it whatever you like. Cekada approved the denial of food and water to Terri Schiavo, directly and immediately resulting in her death.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 01:03:54 PMQuote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 12:23:44 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMI like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....
What?
Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.
At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.
Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.
Michael Schiavo did not simply decide to remove the feeding tube, but all food and water, even from the mouth.
The SSPV thoroughly refuted Cekada's argument.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
As Dr. James Gebel said:
Quote9) Oral or stomach tube feeding via an "NG" (nasogastric tube) (a tube put down one's throat to the stomach) or (more commonly) via a "G-tube" are routinely used to feed stroke victims, both temporarily and indefinitely in patients with stroke or other brain injuries who cannot feed themselves, whether due to swallowing problems (which occur at least temporarily in most stroke victims). Such feeding and hydration are by modern medical standards considered as ordinary and unburdensome as eating and drinking on one's own. Such feedings are, in fact, less expensive than what an average American spends on food and water, and are easily administered a few times a day by a family member, requiring much less effort than cooking three meals a day. Terri Schiavo's husband, parents, or siblings could easily administer such feedings. They are by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard (moral, medical, or economic).
OK, so Fr Jenkins came up with a different conclusion while also applying Catholic principles. However, in the matter of the New Rites (which is what we were discussing before you brought up the Schiavo case) they both agree. In fact, all of the sede clergy agree with him on the New Rites.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 12:29:11 PMDo people really base their rejection of the Sede position on the personality traits and foibles of Sede clergy?
And emotional reasons. Don't forget the emotion.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 01:03:54 PMQuote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 12:23:44 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMI like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....
What?
Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.
At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.
Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.
Michael Schiavo did not simply decide to remove the feeding tube, but all food and water, even from the mouth.
The SSPV thoroughly refuted Cekada's argument.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
As Dr. James Gebel said:
Quote9) Oral or stomach tube feeding via an "NG" (nasogastric tube) (a tube put down one's throat to the stomach) or (more commonly) via a "G-tube" are routinely used to feed stroke victims, both temporarily and indefinitely in patients with stroke or other brain injuries who cannot feed themselves, whether due to swallowing problems (which occur at least temporarily in most stroke victims). Such feeding and hydration are by modern medical standards considered as ordinary and unburdensome as eating and drinking on one's own. Such feedings are, in fact, less expensive than what an average American spends on food and water, and are easily administered a few times a day by a family member, requiring much less effort than cooking three meals a day. Terri Schiavo's husband, parents, or siblings could easily administer such feedings. They are by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard (moral, medical, or economic).
Dr James Gebel never examined Terry Schiavo in person, according to Fr Cekada. He made his assessment from video footage and copies of scans and medical reports alone.
Plus, are we basing our definitions of Ordinary and Extraordinary treatment on what the Conciliar Church says? I understand that it was JPII who decided that feeding tubes constituted Ordinary treatment.
So, here is Fr Cedaka's response to Dr Gebel. (from the site you linked to.)
QuoteDear Dr. Gebel,
Someone forwarded to me your comments about my articles on the Schiavo case..
A number of other people involved in health care have written to me about the medical aspects of the case.
I not qualified to decide whether your medical opinion or other conflicting medical opinions about PVS, therapy, etc. are more in accord with the principles of medical science.
But common sense tells me that the method you used to arrive at your opinion -- reviewing CT images, watching a video and reviewing summary/excerpts regarding testimony given in deposition transcripts -- is no substitute for examining a live patient.
Unlike other doctors directly involved in the case, moreover, you have not been cross-examined on either your methods or your conclusions. Be that as it may, I am qualified to speak about the moral issues in the case, and indeed, I am also obliged to do so.
If what you seem to be claiming is true and Terri Schiavo was somehow able to eat and drink by natural means, there is no dispute that those who cared for her would have been obliged to provide her with food and drink. To have withheld these would have been a mortal sin (unjust direct homicide) against the Fifth Commandment.
However, my writings on the Schiavo case centered on something else: the principles that Catholic moral theology would apply to removing a feeding tube.
I do not want my parishioners to be left with the impression -- due to the high emotions and bitter controversy fanned by the morally bankrupt media and by various lay and clerical grandstanders -- that something is a mortal sin when it is not.
Who knows when any one of my flock may be called upon to deal with the issue of a feeding tube for himself or a family member?
Here, put very bluntly, are the two essential questions in moral theology that I have sought to resolve:
(1) Does the Fifth Commandment under pain of mortal sin always require a sick person who is unable to eat or drink by natural means to have a doctor shove a tube into his nose or poke a hole into his stomach in order to provide food and water?
(2) Does the Fifth Commandment under pain of mortal sin then always forbid such a person to have these tubes removed, no matter what grave burdens -- pain, revulsion, depression, expense, etc. -- their continued use may impose on him or another?
The answer to both questions is no.
Having a hole poked in you, a tube shoved in and then having to eat and drink that way would be burdensome for any normal man.
Like the IV drip mentioned by the moral theologian McFadden (whom I quoted elsewhere), one could maintain this procedure would be morally compulsory "as a temporary means of carrying a person through a critical period."
"Surely," however, "any effort to sustain life permanently in this fashion would constitute a grave hardship." (Medical Ethics, 1958, p.269.)
(Perhaps some priest, layman or doctor who rejects this conclusion could get his own feeding tube inserted, live that way for fifteen years, and let us all know in 2020 whether the experience was a grave hardship or not. Any takers?)
Insisting (as some have done in the Schiavo case) that one is bound to this under pain of mortal sin (otherwise, euthanasia! murder!) contradicts Pius XII's teaching that one is bound only to use "ordinary means," which he defined as those "that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another."
Imposing "a more strict obligation," the pontiff warned, "would be too burdensome for most people and would render the attainment of a higher, more important good too difficult."
So, even though as a doctor you may well consider poking holes into people and inserting permanent feeding tubes "by no logical measure extraordinary or unduly burdensome by any reasonable standard, moral, medical or economic," Catholics must nevertheless draw their understanding of extraordinary means from the Church's moral teachings -- rather than from the practices and pronouncements of the medical-industrial complex.
In sum, by the standards of Catholic moral theology, the permanent use of a feeding tube constitutes extraordinary means and is therefore not obligatory. Like all such means, one is free to use it, "as long as one does not fail in some more serious duty." (Pius XII)
But one cannot maintain that a Catholic is always bound to use a feeding tube under pain of mortal sin – still less, that the refusal to do so constitutes "murder."
Don't try to invent a mortal sin where there is none.
Something that frequently gets overlooked is that Terry Schiavo had the eating disorder Bulimia which is likely to have been the result of childhood trauma. I can only imagine the distress that someone with this condition would experience as a result of being of being continuously fed through a tube inserted into her stomach. Her family were entitled to object to the withdrawal of the machinery that kept their traumatised daughter breathing, but it was her husband who had the final say, traditionally speaking.
I agree that a feeding tube could be a temporary measure following a stroke, for example, and where recovery is possible. But as a means of prolonging life indefinitely, that's a different matter, especially when there is no indication that recovery is possible in any way.
It's worth emphasising that Terry Schiavo could not take food or liquid by mouth. That's why she needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach.
The issue surely hinges on whether feeding tubes inserted into the stomach constitute 'Ordinary' or 'Extraordinary' treatment especially when there is no hope of recovery and being fed like this will be the permanent, long term state of the patient. John Paul II said they do. But what did the pre-Conciliar Popes say?
Interestingly, when the Catholic Princess Grace of Monaco suffered a haemorrhagic stroke while driving in 1981, then lost control of her car, went over the edge of a cliff and suffered another stroke, the Catholic doctors at the Catholic hospital advised her Catholic husband Prince Ranier that she would never recover. And so Prince Ranier made the decision to switch off her life support machine.
Was he wrong?
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMQuote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)
Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.
Novus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread. Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 05:02:08 PMIt's worth emphasising that Terry Schiavo could not take food or liquid by mouth. That's why she needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach.
One of the very first things the doctor points out is that it is not true that she could not swallow.
"4) The parts of Terri Schiavo's brain which would allow her to swallow on her own were intact and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one's own saliva."
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
I only really noticed this point for the first time rereading it now, because the family that makes these calendars
https://www.liturgyofthehome.com/
have a little boy
(please pray for him!!)
in the hospital since the last few months because he had a tumor removed that was affecting the left side of his brain which you need to swallow. Unfortunately even after having the tumor removed he can't swallow and it is really a big deal like the doctor's response says and a completely separate, obvious, immediate life and death situation that requires lots of intervention.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 12:23:44 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMI like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....
What?
Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.
At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.
Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.
Not sure if you are aware, but pretty much every single one of your statements here is false. Perhaps go back and read through the facts of the case.
Quote from: queen.saints on April 18, 2024, 12:37:10 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 05:02:08 PMIt's worth emphasising that Terry Schiavo could not take food or liquid by mouth. That's why she needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach.
One of the very first things the doctor points out is that it is not true that she could not swallow.
"4) The parts of Terri Schiavo's brain which would allow her to swallow on her own were intact and, in fact, she did not suffer from medically significant dysphagia (swallowing difficulty). If she had, she would have been dead long ago from a condition known as aspiration pneumonia, an infection in the lungs which is the result of inhaling one's own saliva."
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
The doctor who never met Terri Schiavo, who never actually examined her in person, but who came to the "facts" by looking at the scans and notes and watching the videos her family made by shining strong lights into her eyes?
Is that the doctor you mean?
The doctor who was never cross-examined on his claims.
Terri Schiavo needed a feeding tube inserted into her stomach precisely because she could
not eat and drink on her own. But carry on believing the doctor who never examined her in person over the doctors who did.
Quote from: queen.saints on April 18, 2024, 01:04:37 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 12:23:44 PMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMI like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada) ....
What?
Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.
At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.
Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.
Not sure if you are aware, but pretty much every single one of your statements here is false. Perhaps go back and read through the facts of the case.
Which statements are false?
The one about feeding tubes being Extraordinary treatment?
Is that false?
If Terri Shiavo was murdered by her husband, then Princess Grace of Monaco was also murdered by her husband.
The fact is, neither of them was murdered. Their husbands and doctors - the doctors who actually examined their patients in person, that is - were acting in conformity with Church teaching on Ordinary/Extraordinary teachings and it is only people caught up in some kind of ill-informed emotionalism fuelled by a dodgy doctor who believe otherwise.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 18, 2024, 02:19:46 AMQuote from: queen.saints on April 18, 2024, 01:04:37 AMQuote from: awkward customer on April 17, 2024, 12:23:44 PMForcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone with lifelong Bulimia whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition, who is effectively brain dead and who is being forced to breathe by a machine, could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment in some quarters.
At any rate, such treatment, given involuntarily, goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment, which we are entitled to refuse.
Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out, thank goodness.
Not sure if you are aware, but pretty much every single one of your statements here is false. Perhaps go back and read through the facts of the case.
Which statements are false?
Line by line:
1)
"Forcing a feeding tube into the stomach of someone"The feeding tube had already been in place for years with no problems. The very manual that Fr. Cekada quotes says that once a treatment is already in place it would be extremely ill advised to remove it even when it is causing extreme pain and no perceivable benefit, because of the possible scandal. In this case there was no pain and plenty of benefit.
Added to that, her own nurses said they had been able to feed her normally until her husband told them to stop.2)
"with lifelong Bulimia" a- the bulimia is highly disputed
b- even if true, is only claimed to have been present for a short period of time.
3)
"whose body has been destroyed by the ravages of that condition"Her body was in a healthy, fed, state for 15 years before she was forcibly starved to death and was strong enough to take two weeks to die, which is very good. 4)
"who is effectively brain dead"She was able to interact and smile with her family and friends. She was not even unconscious, let alone brain dead.5)
"who is being forced to breathe by a machine"Completely false. She was able to breathe fine on her own. 6)
"could easily count as cruel and unusual punishment"There was never any case presented that she herself found the feeding tube itself to be at all painful, let alone cruel.
The question was of whether or not her husband, not her, found it burdensome for her to be alive at all in her condition, regardless of feeding method, because he claimed she told him she'd rather die than be a burden.
On the other hand, she was in complete agony and distress for two weeks without water or food.7)
"such treatment, given involuntarily"Never any evidence that she wouldn't have agreed to it. 8 )
"goes way beyond what the Church has traditionally described as 'Extaordinary' treatment"Pope Pius XII says that "ordinary means" are those that are "do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another".
Everyone agrees that food and water, administered normally, is "ordinary means" so this can serve a baseline for what cannot be considered a "grave burden".
And yet, as many people have already pointed out, a PEG feeding tube is often cheaper and easier than mouth feeding. It is even less burdensome than the most basic care we are obliged to provide.
And in this case, she was denied even regular food and water for two weeks. 9)
"which we are entitled to refuse."The very manual that Fr. Cekada quotes says that we are not allowed to deny even extraordinary care in all circumstances.10)
"Fr Cekada was one of the few, sane commentators who pointed this out"Fr Cekada's original arguments were proven wrong and/or irrelevant to the particular case at hand; he then changed his arguments to be entirely different ones, again, not relevant to the case and purely hypothetical.
Quote from: Bataar on April 18, 2024, 12:19:34 AMNovus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread. Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.
Not to mention getting true absolution in the confessional.
Thanks for trying to bring this thread back to the discussion of the New Rites. It's interesting that the Schiavo case was brought up rather than argue against Fr Cekada's in-depth study on the New Rites (which ALL sede clergy agree with not to mention others who are NOT sede).
It seems that there are those here who will question/sift quite a bit about the Novus Ordo church, its hierarchy, and its teachings. For example, they believe it promulgated errors, heresy, false doctrine at Vatican II or its canonizations are false,
but it's not even possible that the very same hierarchy could have promulgated false rites? :huh: It's this refusal to even look at this which boggles my mind.
Perhaps those who wish to continue speaking about the Schiavo case can resurrect the thread I posted above (or create a new one?)
Quote from: awkward customer on April 18, 2024, 02:28:43 AMthe doctors who actually examined their patients in person
In the United States, there is no shortage of vultures in the medical profession who will coach family to remove nutrition and hydration from someone who is obviously still capable of assimilating it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
And just a reminder that feeding tubes are such ordinary means these days that even the North Korean Prison system provides them to prisoners when necessary. It was only when he was returned to America that Otto Warmbier was promptly killed by his own parents.
Quote from: Bataar on April 18, 2024, 12:19:34 AMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMQuote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)
Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.
Novus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread. Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.
Sure, and the same priests who have prominently made the argument that declares that they are "invalid" or "dubious" have also declared that attending an "una cum Mass" is a "mortal sin," that a single una cum Mass is more offensive to almighty God than every single abortion ever performed in history, and would deny the sacraments, including communion and absolution, to someone who attended an SSPX Mass, Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, etc. if said "una cum."
These are the men that
@Baylee and
@awkward customer are valiantly defending and championing in this thread.
I wonder if these individuals attend an "una cum" Mass, whether SSPX or otherwise. Even if on vacation, for example.
If they did, the late Fr. Cekada would refuse them communion and absolution, as would Bishop Dolan, and as will Bishop Sanborn.
It all goes back to my original point that these are not infallible, authoritative arbiters of the faith. Rather, vagi (wandering), autocephalus clergy, answerable to only themselves, who have their own agendas.
So yes, one could be worshipping bread or not; these men would also argue that one who does not go to their approved list of Masses are also committing "mortal sins."
Their unofficial mouthpiece, True Restoration/Heiner, is now warning people to stay away from the CMRI, and these same people cannot get on the same page about baptisms. Sanborn/MHT/RCI have declared that, unless one has positive proof via video/photos/testimony, all "NO Baptisms" performed after January 1, 1990, are dubious and need to be conditionally performed, before one can receive sacraments from them.
If that is the lot one wishes to associate with, be my guest.
I've got nothing more to say or add to this conversation.
Quote from: queen.saints on April 18, 2024, 08:54:28 AMhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
And just a reminder that feeding tubes are such ordinary means these days that even the North Korean Prison system provides them to prisoners when necessary. It was only when he was returned to America that Otto Warmbier was promptly killed by his own parents.
But are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment according to the Church? This is the crux of the matter not whether the secular world thinks and acts as if they are.
Rather than continue to disrupt the thread, maybe a new thread is needed which addresses this question.
To "excommunicate" people for attending "Una Cum" masses is way beyond the powers of any priest or even bishop; especially non-residential bishops who have no ordinary jurisdiction. The Church has not made any official declaration on the status of the Conciliar Popes, either for or against; even on the "intrinsic" validity of the new sacramental rites; so the views of trads on this subject, remain on the level of "opinions"; and have no juridic effect on the Catholic faithful.
So one can regard such "excos" as totally worthless.
Quote from: Bonaventure on April 18, 2024, 09:41:40 AMQuote from: Bataar on April 18, 2024, 12:19:34 AMQuote from: Bonaventure on April 17, 2024, 09:47:11 AMQuote from: Bataar on April 17, 2024, 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMQuote from: Bataar on April 16, 2024, 10:00:18 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 15, 2024, 05:55:04 PM(1) Lay people have zero responsibility to solve the crisis in Rome even intellectually.
(2) Lay people have no responsibility to resolve the crisis on a personal level, either. If it is God's judgment, at my death, that I should have "made a decision" about PF or whoever, He will surprise me with that news at that time, and until then, no one is authorized to tell any other Catholic about a manufactured moral responsibility to "figure it all out."
We are responsible to comply with divine positive law and the precepts of the Church whether or not PF is doing so and whether or not he imagines (wrongly) that he is at liberty to change divine law, such as the Sixth Commandment -- and whether or not we make a public statement about what he is doing and the state of his office and his soul.
The people who may very well be held responsible are the clerical personnel involved in a refusal to lead and a refusal to clarify -- a refusal to complete the duties of their own ecclesiastical state in life, which are not a lay person's state in life. We don't have to internalize other people's responsibilities to act on heresy, let alone take the blame for the sins of confused hierarchy or outright heretics. We have plenty of our own sins, and we will be responsible only for those.
Completely agree with Bonaventure that only God can solve this, and even most N.O. priests at this time, not to mention all trad priests I'm acquainted with, are convinced that both the Church and the world are too far gone at this point for either to repair itself without divine intervention.
Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
Let's say that sedevacantists are right for this argument.
Bishops consecrated in the rite of Paul VI are not valid and therefore, none of the priests they've ordained are valid.
Therefore, none of the priests in question are actual priests and none of their sacraments are valid. Lay people have an obligation to receive valid sacraments. If they are going to these lay priests, they are not receiving valid sacraments and are therefore, in unknowing disobedience to God. If the above scenario is true, would you agree that lay people do have an obligation to make a change to ensure they receive valid sacraments?
(I separated out the non sequiturs for emphasis.) There would be no situation that the pre-V2 Church has ever proposed to the faithful that would entail lay people making a judgment about the validity of a sacramental rite -- for any of the 7 sacraments. And this is one of the root problems with SV'ism in principle. Again, lay people have zip authority to make dogmatic pronouncements outside of the deposit of faith and outside of confirming what the pre-V2 Church has pronounced.
A rite is a change in certain externals of form; it is not a change in doctrine. What priests are allowed to say -- and have said -- are observations or perceptions of the efficacy of certain rites. Thus, Fr. Ripperger has weighed in on the superior form of the traditional rite of baptism, largely because of the extensive exorcisms and the general thoroughness of it. Ditto for him and other priests when it comes to Extreme Unction vs. the (new) Anointing of the Sick.
Superiority of form is a separate matter than validity. Validity for a sacrament consists of essential form and essential matter. Thus, we must hear, "I absolve you..in the name of...[etc.]" at the end of our Confession, and we have a right to insist on having our real sins heard and not hear an abusive priest dismiss our recital "because one sin is enough." Maybe the second sin is a mortal one; how would he know that? I mean technically, the matter is our sorrow/contrition, but he needs to know: contrition for what? Or he will not be able to act as the judge in persona Christi.
Many modern priests use a variety of "rites" for Confession, and we've all been there: more often than not, such confessions are highly disappointing, to say the least. But if they meet the bare minimum requirements for matter and form (including our part), then the sacrament has been administered and received, albeit not ideally or as profoundly as possible.
But because the Sacrament of Penance seems to be subject to the most regular abuse by diocesan priests, I do avoid their confessionals if possible. That said, the most powerful confessional experience I ever had was to a very holy diocesan-ordained priest whose adult Masses and children's Masses I attended regularly when my children were little. I also studied with him in theology school, which was how I got to know him. In confession, he read my soul. He was the only priest to have done that, and I have never had that experience before or after that. When a priest reads your soul, you know without question that Jesus Christ is present in that moment...unless you're like the ancient Romans and believe superstitiously in divination. Or -- and I know this is a sensitive word but it applies in this case -- if one believes that one has Gnostic knowledge about the efficacy of newer sacramental rites that the rest of us lack.
There have been a few occasions in which I have received more sacramental graces at a very reverent N.O.M. Holy Communion (in the past) than at a TLM. The only difference in those particular cases? My disposition.
These differences and exceptions are not meant to blur the clear differences between old and new rites. I offer them in sincere disclosure but also to illustrate how important it is not to arrogate to ourselves judgments that only the Church can make about validity of sacraments. We should always seek the highest rite we can for the fullness of graces available -- contingent upon our disposition - but validity itself is an absolute quality, not a matter of degree. A rite is valid or invalid, not valid or "questionable." Form and matter.
Fr. Ripperger, who quite prefers the TLM and I believe says it exclusively -- has no patience with assertions that hosts consecrated by diocesan priests are "not really consecrated." He says that the proof that these hosts bear the divinity of Christ is that the demons respond exactly the same to hosts consecrated by any Catholic priest. He has seen the syndrome many times and has watched the demons respond no differently to either.
Pope Pius XII infallibly declared what is required in the sacramental form for the consecration of a bishop. Paul VI changed the form. His new form does not match what Pius XII declared is required for validity. It matches the Anglican form which Pope Leo XIII declared to be utterly null and void. Therefore it's reasonable to assert that bishops consecrated in the new form are not valid the same as a baptism is not valid if the priest says, "We baptize" instead of "I baptize".
Laity or vagi clergy can assert whatever they like, but until and unless the Church definitively settles the matter, any such assertion will remain simply a private opinion.
I like to remind myself that, the same clergy that are the biggest asserters that the 1968 NREC is "invalid" and the 1968 NRPO is "doubtful" also promulgated the idea that Michael Schiavo had a "God given right" to murder Terri Schiavo (Cekada), and the Prefect of Sanborn's seminary (Despósito), has stated that one "una cum Mass" is more offensive to Almighty God than every single abortion in the history of mankind. (Source: https://x.com/frdesposito/status/434837570053087232?s=46)
Funnily enough, that would mean that the una cum ordination rite and subsequent Mass of his superior and the man who ordained him (Sanborn) was also more offensive to Almighty God, than aforementioned abortions.
Novus Ordo sacraments either are valid or they aren't. It doesn't matter if the hierarchy declares anything or not. If the solemn, holy and orthodox priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass, if he wasn't ordained by a valid bishop, then what he's distributing to his congregation is just bread. Therefore, the laity should try to be informed so they can know if they're receiving the body and blood of Jesus or just bread.
Sure, and the same priests who have prominently made the argument that declares that they are "invalid" or "dubious" have also declared that attending an "una cum Mass" is a "mortal sin," that a single una cum Mass is more offensive to almighty God than every single abortion ever performed in history, and would deny the sacraments, including communion and absolution, to someone who attended an SSPX Mass, Eastern Rite Divine Liturgy, etc. if said "una cum."
These are the men that @Baylee and @awkward customer are valiantly defending and championing in this thread.
I wonder if these individuals attend an "una cum" Mass, whether SSPX or otherwise. Even if on vacation, for example.
If they did, the late Fr. Cekada would refuse them communion and absolution, as would Bishop Dolan, and as will Bishop Sanborn.
It all goes back to my original point that these are not infallible, authoritative arbiters of the faith. Rather, vagi (wandering), autocephalus clergy, answerable to only themselves, who have their own agendas.
So yes, one could be worshipping bread or not; these men would also argue that one who does not go to their approved list of Masses are also committing "mortal sins."
Their unofficial mouthpiece, True Restoration/Heiner, is now warning people to stay away from the CMRI, and these same people cannot get on the same page about baptisms. Sanborn/MHT/RCI have declared that, unless one has positive proof via video/photos/testimony, all "NO Baptisms" performed after January 1, 1990, are dubious and need to be conditionally performed, before one can receive sacraments from them.
If that is the lot one wishes to associate with, be my guest.
I've got nothing more to say or add to this conversation.
I see you keep focusing on certain sede clergy and ignoring that they
aren't the only clergy (sede or non-sede) to assert the NO Ordinations and Consecrations are at least doubtful.
I'm not surprised you have nothing else to add here. You probably shouldn't since you only seem capable of adding emotional comments to the thread. A discussion could be had about the New Rites, but you're too wrapped up in your hatred for/resentment towards certain members of the clergy.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 18, 2024, 09:50:54 AMTo "excommunicate" people for attending "Una Cum" masses is way beyond the powers of any priest or even bishop; especially non-residential bishops who have no ordinary jurisdiction. The Church has not made any official declaration on the status of the Conciliar Popes, either for or against; even on the "intrinsic" validity of the new sacramental rites; so the views of trads on this subject, remain on the level of "opinions"; and have no juridic effect on the Catholic faithful.
So one can regard such "excos" as totally worthless.
And no one here said differently. But some folks
refuse to even discuss or consider that the opinion that the NO rites are doubtful could be......CORRECT! It's the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala!"
You've been here longer than me: has anyone really tried to discuss the conclusions of many sede AND non-sede clergy regarding the New Rites? Or has it always been pushed aside because it might get people upset?
Quote from: awkward customer on April 18, 2024, 09:50:37 AMQuote from: queen.saints on April 18, 2024, 08:54:28 AMhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Warmbier
And just a reminder that feeding tubes are such ordinary means these days that even the North Korean Prison system provides them to prisoners when necessary. It was only when he was returned to America that Otto Warmbier was promptly killed by his own parents.
But are feeding tubes Ordinary or Extraordinary treatment according to the Church? This is the crux of the matter not whether the secular world thinks and acts as if they are.
Rather than continue to disrupt the thread, maybe a new thread is needed which addresses this question.
This is actually not even the crux of the matter, which is pointed out in the response to Fr. Cekada by Fr. Jenkins.
As Fr. Cekadas own sources state, even in cases of extraordinary means, the question of whether or not they were properly prepared for death before falling ill is the most important question, followed by the wishes of the sick individual who is the only one with a right in the matter (not their spouse or any other person), and after that, there are also the questions of possible scandal, the question of what a normal, "conscientious" man would decide under the circumstances (not an adulterer who publicly admitted to previously trying to kill her by infection before he found out that was illegal) etc. which all have a part to play in the morality.
And the fact that in this particular case normal oral feeding was classified as experimental therapy and forbidden by the court is clearly amoral.
And, yes, what the developed (and even undeveloped) world considers ordinary means absolutely plays a part in deciding what can reasonably constitute a "grave burden".
I really agree with Awkward that there are two fundamentally competing discussions going on here. It would be helpful if a poster or a mod would separate them, please, so that those interested in only one of the two discussions, OR both, could continue.
Quote from: Baylee on April 18, 2024, 10:47:19 AMAnd no one here said differently. But some folks refuse to even discuss or consider that the opinion that the NO rites are doubtful could be......CORRECT! It's the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala!"
You've been here longer than me: has anyone really tried to discuss the conclusions of many sede AND non-sede clergy regarding the New Rites? Or has it always been pushed aside because it might get people upset?
We have discussed it in the past; and the issue of the validity of the N.O. Was once "the" issue among trads; but now the field of battle has shifted more towards the validity of the Conciliar Popes; especially since the issue of "authority"is more far reaching and affects the validity issue i.e. What is the degree that Catholics are bound to submit to the Council; the N.O.M.; the New Code of Canon Law; and the magisterial decrees of the Conciliar Church. Why is this? Because if the Conciliar Popes are true Popes, then Vatican II is a true Council; the Conciliar decrees must be accepted by the faithful; the reformed sacramental rites are legitimate, valid and work for the edification and salvation of souls; same for the New Code of Canon Law; the Ecumenical directory; Balamaand and Abu Dhabi declarations etc. etc. If these are not true Popes then the contrary is true.
That is were the R&R position is radically contradictory; to whit: The R&R's want to have their cake (Pope and hierarchy) and 'eat them too' i.e. Decide when and to what measure they will submit to said hierarchy (mostly not at all).
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 18, 2024, 11:43:54 AMQuote from: Baylee on April 18, 2024, 10:47:19 AMAnd no one here said differently. But some folks refuse to even discuss or consider that the opinion that the NO rites are doubtful could be......CORRECT! It's the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying "lalalalalalala!"
You've been here longer than me: has anyone really tried to discuss the conclusions of many sede AND non-sede clergy regarding the New Rites? Or has it always been pushed aside because it might get people upset?
We have discussed it in the past; and the issue of the validity of the N.O. Was once "the" issue among trads; but now the field of battle has shifted more towards the validity of the Conciliar Popes; especially since the issue of "authority"is more far reaching and affects the validity issue i.e. What is the degree that Catholics are bound to submit to the Council; the N.O.M.; the New Code of Canon Law; and the magisterial decrees of the Conciliar Church. Why is this? Because if the Conciliar Popes are true Popes, then Vatican II is a true Council; the Conciliar decrees must be accepted by the faithful; the reformed sacramental rites are legitimate, valid and work for the edification and salvation of souls; same for the New Code of Canon Law; the Ecumenical directory; Balamaand and Abu Dhabi declarations etc. etc. If these are not true Popes then the contrary is true.
That is were the R&R position is radically contradictory; to whit: The R&R's want to have their cake (Pope and hierarchy) and 'eat them too' i.e. Decide when and to what measure they will submit to said hierarchy (mostly not at all).
Maybe the validity of the NO
Mass was discussed because I've been trying to search for threads about the validity of the NO Rites of Ordination and Consecration and coming up pretty empty. Whenever I find one it never goes beyond one page. It seems as if that topic hits too close to home and people just don't want to "go there".
Can someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?
Quote from: queen.saints on April 18, 2024, 11:20:29 AMThis is actually not even the crux of the matter, which is pointed out in the response to Fr. Cekada by Fr. Jenkins. .......
I've just started another thread in the General Catholic discussion subforum so that the dispute over the Schiavo case can be continued there.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 18, 2024, 12:36:36 PMCan someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?
This is an excellent question.
It goes back to the fact that if the Vatican II Popes are true Popes, then there is no grounds for doubting the validity of the sacramental rites that they published; in fact it would be heretical. If they are not whom they purport to be, then the question is legitimate even necessary.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on April 18, 2024, 12:36:36 PMCan someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?
Some traditionalist have done so, such as Fr. Barbara in his "Fortes in Fide" magazine during the 1970's on the application of the "Apostolicae Curae" criteria to the N.O.M. and of course Fr. Cekada in his critique of the New Rite of orders.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on April 18, 2024, 01:00:34 PMQuote from: LausTibiChriste on April 18, 2024, 12:36:36 PMCan someone explain to me why the Anglican rites were declared null and void but the same reasoning for their abrogation doesn't apply to the new rites?
Some traditionalist have done so, such as Fr. Barbara in his "Fortes in Fide" magazine during the 1970's on the application of the "Apostolicae Curae" criteria to the N.O.M. and of course Fr. Cekada in his critique of the New Rite of orders.
What did they say?
LTC, Thank you for asking.
Here are Father's writings on the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration in full (his original and his follow up):
https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf
https://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NuEpConObjex.pdf
He explains that the power to ordain was removed from the New Rite and then refers to AC here:
The removal of the power to ordain from the Anglican form for episcopal consecration was among the
reasons adduced by Leo XIII for declaring Anglican orders invalid, "because among the first duties of the episcopacy is that of ordaining ministers for the Holy Eucharist and sacrifice."
He doesn't elaborate on AC, but one of the big issues with the form of the NREC is it's missing the power to ordain. I would read the document in full to better understand.
Quote from: awkward customer on April 18, 2024, 12:51:50 PMQuote from: queen.saints on April 18, 2024, 11:20:29 AMThis is actually not even the crux of the matter, which is pointed out in the response to Fr. Cekada by Fr. Jenkins. .......
I've just started another thread in the General Catholic discussion subforum so that the dispute over the Schiavo case can be continued there.
Thank you!
You can read all of Fr. Barbara's issues of "Fortes in Fide" (English) online here: http://www.the-pope.com/fif.html
The one I was referring to was the "Special edition on the Mass"
On Father Noel Barbara; he stated that if you look at the following paragraphw of Apostolicae Curae:
Quote30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.
All this can be applied to a T to the men who ordered, designed and promulgated the N.O.M. (As well as the documents of VII).
1. Consider the time and circumstances under which the reforms were undertaken.
2. The men who ordered them.
3. By whom it was publicly authorized.
4. The "animus" of the N.O. Against the Catholic Mass and the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice including the real presence.
5. "The abettors who associated themselves with members of heterodox sects.
6. "The ends that they had in view" i.e. A new "ecumenical" prayer service acceptable to Protestants.
7. "under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers." (Think of the prayers of Consecration narrated now in a "narrative" voice)
8. The deliberate removal of all the explicitly prayers that made the propitiatory end of the Holy Sacrifice evident, especially those of the Offertory.
In the next paragraph, Pope Leo stated:
QuoteIn this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.
Fr. Goes into much more detail, but this is the gist of it.