Quote from: Bonaventure on Today at 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) ....
Quote from: Bataar on Today at 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".
Quote from: Bonaventure on Today at 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.
Quote from: Bonaventure on Today at 09:47:11 AMQuote from: Bataar on Today at 09:29:44 AMQuote from: Miriam_M on April 16, 2024, 10:53:36 PMPope 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 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.Lay people do have an obligation to know the truth so they can act on it accordingly.
(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.
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.
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 (DespĆ³sito), 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: ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez on Today at 09:26:48 AMQuote from: james03 on Today at 08:10:29 AMCopper head. Responsible for a lot of snake bites in the US. Luckily their venom is not particularly lethal, though it creates a nasty wound. They are also not an aggressive snake. However people get tagged on the hand all the time reaching into brush piles and such because they are hard to see.
Might be easier to see when photographed with something newer than a 2002 flip phone
Quote from: awkward customer on Today at 02:09:10 AMMiriam, why do you repeatedly accuse Sedes of doing something that they are not doing?
QuoteAnd as for Fr Ripperger's observation - doesn't he know that demons are liars.
Quote from: Miriam_M on Today at 02:04:07 AMI continue to adjust poorly to today's near-WW3 realities, despite priests telling me I should be "grateful" for this "opportunity for sanctification." That includes this priest.