L
- Status
B
bear06
Guest
It’s a sedevacantists website and there feelings on the ordinations of priests is, well, sedevacant. The Church cannot contradict Tradition which is a point the sedevacantists agree. Therefore, since this is the case, the Pope can’t be the true pope because he’s contradicted Tradition. Their arguments are very circular and go back to the same conclusion.
A
AJV
Guest
Previous thread on the subject of ordinations
And most people are forever saying that mantra of “six Protestant ministers” but when asked, can never say what exactly they did.
And most people are forever saying that mantra of “six Protestant ministers” but when asked, can never say what exactly they did.
B
BobP123
Guest
I understand this passage as basically suggesting that if the New Order Rite is valid, then all Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist liturgies are valid as well.
I’m going to have to reread it for clarification.
U
Uxor
Guest
I know personally speaking with Protestant and Methodist converts who have said that the New Order Mass is exactly the same as the Protestant and Methodist Service except for the Consecration.
And why is that called New Order…is there a link with the One World Order?
B
Brendan
Guest
The current Anglican Ordinal would normally be valid, but there was an interium ordinal ( the Edwardian) that WAS invalid. That was in place long enough that all the Anglican Bishops with valid Orders had died before the Ordinal was changed (and on top of that, a large number of ‘bishops’ were merely appointed during the Purtian\Cromwellian era.
There was a movement within 19th century Anglicanism (called the Oxford Movement) that also attempted to restore this lost Apostolic sucession by inviting Old Catholic bishops to co-consecrate.
The Lutheran Ordinal is invalid and always has been.
F
Freshman88
Guest
First of all I want to say I am nothing close to a sedevacant, and I think they are very wrong. However, I think your’re misunderstanding their arguement.
The Church cannot contridict Tradition, but that is limited to the area of teachings. Based on this fact, they argue that any new teachings that contradict Traditional teachings are not valid teachings. This is very true, one of the requirements of infalibility is that it cannot contradict Tradition. I have to say that they are correct but they take the application of this thought way too far by coming to the conclusion that the Chair is empty, which is ludicris.
Or at least, that’s how I understand it. I still don’t understand how they reach the conclusion that they have.
C
carl36
Guest
The pope is the one who authentically interprets both Scripture and Tradition.
At least that’s what he stated when Fr Feeney was excommunicated, years before the second Vatican Council.
A
AJV
Guest
I realized that the link did not discuss for bishops only for priests.
The very fact that they are quoting this is laughable in itself.
The Anglican Ordinal in question contains no reference to the High Priesthood it is true, not even the word.
The Traditional Ordination contains no direct phrase “High Priest” but context wise contains 2 (can stretch it to 3).
The NO Ordinal contains at least 6 direct references using the phrase “High Priest(hood)” not to mention other references identifying with the Priesthood of Christ. This is within the Rite itself excluding the Introduction to it, which can be used for ex adiunctis.
As for sacrifice the old Ordinal only said “offere” in the rite for Epicopal Consecration itself (I take it that sacrifice would be assumed) whereas the new says “sacrificii oblatione”. As to the change in the form, I believe it was the SSPX publication, the Angelusl, which published the comparison of the new rite with those of the East concluding that they were valid particularly when compared with those of the Coptic Church. It has been removed from the internet. I think, ut I will try and see if I can find it.
A
AJV
Guest
Which particular Methodist branch did they come from that uses the NO exactly? Or were they just referring generally? Could you please ask them and tell how exactly it resembles the NO? Wording wise, etc.
A
AJV
Guest
Exactly!
I would be in poor form if I said it because it would appear as if i’m avoiding the question, but the burden is not on me to prove what they did: it is on people who quote them to say it. But nobody does that…why? Is it because they don’t know? all they can say is “This was omitted. Must have been those Protestant observers”. and if they don’t know, then why are quoting?
What would you like to know with respect to? The Divine Office? The Mass?
B
BobP123
Guest
Certainly not to spread Catholic Theology, I hope.
T
ThereCanBeOnly1
Guest
How about this?Exactly!
I would be in poor form if I said it because it would appear as if i’m avoiding the question, but the burden is not on me to prove what they did: it is on people who quote them to say it. But nobody does that…why? Is it because they don’t know? all they can say is “This was omitted. Must have been those Protestant observers”. and if they don’t know, then why are quoting?
What would you like to know with respect to? The Divine Office? The Mass?
Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the
Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” (Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)
A
AJV
Guest
If you just think about it for a second, since when did the Calvinists start believing in the Real Presence.? And the NO makes it emphatic:How about this?
Paul VI even admitted to his good friend Jean Guitton that his intention in changing the Mass was to make it Protestant.
Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI) wrote: “The intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the [New] Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or, at least to correct, or, at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the
Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist Mass.” (Rama Coomeraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, Tan Books, p. 34.)
In the Eucharistic Prayers
In the Prayers before Communion of the priest
In the Ecce Agnus Dei and the response
Not to forget the variable prayers which frequently refer to it.
Just in case anyone is interested, here is the outline of one of Calvin’s original services from roughly after the sermon to the communion
Initial Exhortation –As our Lord Jesus Christ did not only offer his body and blood once on the cross……”
The elder reads 1 Corinthians 11.
“Eucharistic Prayer”- actually what most authors characterize as a second exhortation since it is addressed ot the congregation- in it they excommunicated sinners, read the names of those who could receive, reminded the congregation of Christ’s promise (First then, let us believe in those promises which Jesus Christ, who is the unfaling truth, etc.)
Ends with the so called- “Reformed Sursum Corda” – “Therefore lift up your hearts on high, seeking the heavenly things in heaven, where Jesus Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, and do not fix your eyes on the visible signs which are corrupted through usage”
Conclusion: “Only then will our souls be disposed to be nourished and strengthened by his substance when they are raised above all earthly things and carried as high as heaven to enter the kingdom of God where he dwells. Let us therefore be content to have the bread and wine as signs and evidences, spirutally seeking the reality where the word of God promisies we shall find it”
Lord’s Prayer (some place it earlier and link the end of the “Eucharistic Prayer” to it)
Communion
Nunc Dimittis,
etc.
And even the “higher” elements like in the Mescersburg-style liturgies which try to incorporate Eucharistic elements do not come close. e.g.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
They were invited as observers. Protestants were invited to Trent, as well, and given safe passage, though they declined.
C
carl36
Guest
Some ministers from the Swedish Lutheran church who are “high-church” use the Roman Missal of 1969 for their Mass (yes they call it Mass) in the vernacular. Since they are not validly ordained, there is no Eucharist. This would never have happened with the Mass of Pius V because it’s too “Catholic”. they even “celebrate it ad orientem” as most of the “high masses” are done in that sect.
Could you imagine the Protestants who are doing this?
Besides, a lot of “catholic” immigrants mostly from Latin America, cannot see the difference between the Lutheran services and the Catholic Mass so they end up joining the Protestants.
U
Uxor
Guest
I spoke to an immigrant several months ago. Where I live is very multicultural, people from all over the world and different parts of the country, mainly immigrants. This immigrant saw a vast difference in the Catholic Church in America compared to where she came from. She was contemplating changing religions because of it and was seeking information regarding a Protestant Church, down the street from the Catholic Parish. I told her the only thing is you won’t have the Eucharist anymore if you change. She didn’t seem to understand that. It was like it didn’t matter, she is under the impression because they are a christian church, Christ would be present in the form they offer. I also took to mean she had already attended the Protestant Church because of several things she described about their services and gatherings afterswards. I was pretty surprised.
- Status