The Mass of Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brennan_Doherty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Damascus said:
If this is true, then the women priestess that claim to have been ordained are okay too?
Click to expand...
Read somewhere on this site----that women are invalid matter–so the ordinations to begin with would be invalid.

Valid matter would be men.

Ps. No offense intended to the ladies.
 
bear06 said:
Please! Put on your thinking cap. Lefebvre was excommunicated for his schismatic act of ordaining bishops without papal approval. In turn, those he ordained were also excommunicated for their schismatic act. Ordaining bishops without papal approval is a schismatic act. One is in schism if they participate in a schismatic act. Not only was Bishop Rangel in schism, he was also excommunicated which is why he asked to be absolved from his excommunication.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2CAMPO.HTM
Click to expand...
You said bishops. Who are the others?

You and your ilk should be ashamed for attempting to push people outside the Mystical Body. In case you aren’t aware, you have no authority to do so.

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such.
 
Walking_Home said:
Read somewhere on this site----that women are invalid matter–so the ordinations to begin with would be invalid.

Valid matter would be men.

Ps. No offense intended to the ladies.
Click to expand...
No offense taken in the priestly context. 😉 You are quite correct. No matter who tries to ordain them, they are missing valid matter. Matter, form and intent is required.
 
Dr.Bombay said:
You said bishops. Who are the others?

You and your ilk should be ashamed for attempting to push people outside the Mystical Body. In case you aren’t aware, you have no authority to do so.

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such.
Click to expand...
So is this your version of lalalalalalalalalalala?
4 words: latae sententiae, ipso facto
The Church doesn’t need to declare them schismatics. They just are according to the definition of schism and, in the cases of the bishops, according to canon 1382.

BTW, have you ever seen the declaration of excommunication? It says:
The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur ipso facto the very grave penalty of excommunication.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, it doesn’t say “formally adhere”, it says “support”.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1222
 
bear06 said:
So is this your version of lalalalalalalalalalala?
4 words: latae sententiae, ipso facto
The Church doesn’t need to declare them schismatics. They just are according to the definition of schism and, in the cases of the bishops, according to canon 1382.

BTW, have you ever seen the declaration of excommunication? It says:

Interestingly enough, it doesn’t say “formally adhere”, it says “support”.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1222
Click to expand...
You can provide all the worthless links you want. I have no intention of chasing your wild geese.

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such.
 
But wait, there’s more. I just noticed Canon 1384
Can. 1364 ß1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.
Click to expand...
194 cited above says:
Can. 194 ß1 The following are removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself:
2ƒ one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church;
Click to expand...
And just in case someone was wondering what canon 1336 is:
Can. 1336 ß1 Expiatory penalties can affect the offender either forever or for a determinate or an indeterminate period. Apart from others which the law may perhaps establish, these penalties are as follows:
Click to expand...
1ƒ a prohibition against residence, or an order to reside, in a certain place or territory;
Click to expand...
2ƒ deprivation of power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title or insignia, even of a merely honorary nature;
Click to expand...
3ƒ a prohibition on the exercise of those things enumerated in n. 2, or a prohibition on their exercise inside or outside a certain place; such a prohibition is never under pain of nullity;
Click to expand...
 
Dr.Bombay said:
You can provide all the worthless links you want. I have no intention of chasing your wild geese.

The SSPX is not schismatic nor has the Church declared them as such.
Click to expand...
This “worthless link” contains a document from the Magisterium. I guess your terms would probably express you feelings on Magisterial Decrees.
 
Walking_Home said:
The fact that we are the ONE True Church says it all. It is not what they have in common with us -----it is what they do not have in common that makes them false. Either we are Truth or we are not—which is it.
Click to expand...

Actually - neither 😃​

Jesus Christ is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14) . Not us, not the Faith, not the Church.

Does it really mean nothing that Protestants are our brethren in Christ, that they adore the same Lord, read the same New Testament, share the same Baptism, receive grace & mercy & peace from the gracious God ?

If it were not for the grace working in & through them, far fewer people would know & love & serve God than do so. We and they come to God on the same terms - by faith in Christ; & in no other way. He needs us no more than them - for He stands in need of nothing. But He loves us & them alike - not because we are good, but because He is. And if He does not reject them - how can they reject us, or we them ? ##
 
Walking_Home said:
The fact that we are the ONE True Church says it all. It is not what they have in common with us -----it is what they do not have in common that makes them false. Either we are Truth or we are not—which is it.
Click to expand...

Actually - neither 😃​

Jesus Christ is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14) . Not us, not the Faith, not the Church.

Does it really mean nothing that Protestants are our brethren in Christ, that they adore the same Lord, read the same New Testament, share the same Baptism, receive grace & mercy & peace from the gracious God ?

If it were not for the grace of God working in & through them, far fewer people would know & love & serve God than do so. We and they come to God on the same terms - by faith in Christ; & in no other way. He needs us no more than them - for He stands in need of nothing. But He loves us & them alike - not because we are good, but because He is. And if He does not reject them - how can they reject us, or we them ? ##
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Actually - neither 😃​

Jesus Christ is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14) . Not us, not the Faith, not the Church.

Does it really mean nothing that Protestants are our brethren in Christ, that they adore the same Lord, read the same New Testament, share the same Baptism, receive grace & mercy & peace from the gracious God ?

If it were not for the grace of God working in & through them, far fewer people would know & love & serve God than do so. We and they come to God on the same terms - by faith in Christ; & in no other way. He needs us no more than them - for He stands in need of nothing. But He loves us & them alike - not because we are good, but because He is. And if He does not reject them - how can they reject us, or we them ? ##
Click to expand...
For a minute there—I thought----it does seem we are losing our Catholic identity.

Gottle of Geer----what is a CathoProt.
 
As it appears the topic of “the Mass of Vatican II” has long ago been left, the thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top