Say what, you go your way in obedience to Cardinal Mahony and those who protect him in the Vatican,
and we'll go ours, OK?
Posted on 09/02/2005 6:51:01 PM PDT by jec1ny
The break in the Apostolic Succession occurred not under Elizabeth, but under Edward VI and his advisers. They and the bishops under them (from their writings at the time) did not believe in any supernatural (they would have said "superstitious") power inherent in Holy Orders. "Ministers of the Gospel" possessed no powers beyond those of other men, but only "authority in the congregation" to preach and teach, to govern the parish church, and to lead services. More importantly, the sacraments themselves (including Holy Orders) were to be regarded merely as ceremonies "employed for the sake of decency and order." In other words, an "outward and visible sign" without any "inward and spiritual grace". Unfortunately, this is entirely consistent with the religious leanings of Edward and his advisers, who were extremely radical.
The prayer book under Elizabeth was revised, adding language that creates a suggestion of intent to impart holy orders as opposed to a merely symbolic ceremony. But, by that time, all the bishops who pre-dated the Edwardine Ordinal were dead. Had the break in the succession actually occurred under Elizabeth, there would be a good argument that the intention was there . . . but unfortunately the mischief had already been done and once the succession was broken it could not be sua sponte repaired.
Read all about it: Apostolicae Curae
And the counterblast from Canterbury and York: Saepius Officio
AAM: the difficulty is that Edward's reign is too short to complete the interruption. To do so required that every bishop be invalidly consecrated and that there be no valid descents. It takes 30 or 40 years to eliminate all traces of valid Succession, which rather requires that the break be under Elizabeth as following the policy of Edward and not allowing for any valid consecrations under Mary (of which several occurred).
But that is a kettle that will not come to boil. I do appreciate your info AAM. Thanks!
On the evidence of the current thread, I am out of sympathy with at least one defender of the SSPX position.
First, I realize that you are playing the shill based on your responses. No rational person would get into a conversation with such a repugnant personality and compliment them so transparently. But you must also realize that whether or not you have sympathy with the SSPX is hardly due to whatever supposed "evidence" you see. I suspect that it is more your "rabid support of Israel" which the issue which has swayed you. So in true charity, I tell you to at least be honest in your posts and not a shill to prop up someone who can't back up their arguments with facts and least of all well-informed and theologically sound.
MurphE/Gerard P: We Catholics may be called to love you (i.e. to want what is best for you: conversion back to Roman Catholicism and your rejection of the schism)
Well, I sure feel the love. And the contradictions from your previous posts. How you are called to "love" and how you "don't care whether or not I as you erroneously refer to it, "come back" is indicative of your consistency. Here's another bit of truth: I've never left and you've obviously never been here.
but, trust me, we do not have to like you and I make no secret of the fact that I do not.
Pal, the day you like me is the day that I'll know I've slipped into the abyss. The last thing I want is for someone with your views, attitudes and ways to like me. I'll stick with the Roman Catholic Church and the Faith of it. Complete and entire, thank you.
Whereas, you have become a paleofussandfeathers politically and a schismatic (a statement of fact and no more a personal attack than calling Martin Luther a Protestant or Adolf Hitler a Nazi).
No. There is the little problem of an objective fact. Calling me a schismatic (a term you refuse to engage in debate in order to reveal the definition) is akin to you calling Martin Luther a Martian and Adolf Hitler a woman or, for that matter calling you well-informed and theologically sound.
Disagreeing with your self-definition is not a personal attack any more than your disagreeing with the fact that I am a Catholic as you are not amounts to a personal attack.
Good run on. Try re-writing it in order to make sense. That will be a real challenge.
Considering the source, why should I be offended????
You don't consider the source. There is no consideration in anything you write. The source by the way is the Catholic Church's teaching.
You post nothing worth arguing with because, as an SSPXer you have nothing valid to say.
Non-sequitur. Again you disagree with the Holy Father. Do you work at being this illogical?
You are neither Catholic nor conservative.
Again, I'll ask. On what authority do you declare this? Answer: again crickets. You are just throwing wildly at this point and I haven't broken a sweat. This is just pathetic. I really feel sorry for you.
You are to the Catholic religion what this execrable Cindy Sheehan woman (She is paleoleftist? Paleopantywaist? What's the difference?????) is to American patriotism: an antonym.
Looking at the source: I'm laughing. "Shall I compare thee to a summer day..? just more blah, blah, blah... You simply don't exhibit the intelligence to engage in a true debate.
Marcel richly deserved his punishment. So will you unless you repent.
Another question you will never address: Repent for what?
Not only COULD POPE John Paul II expel (excommunicate) Marcel, Fellay, Williamson and their illicitly consecrated episcopal colleagues, but he DID.
Not validly. I realize the truth is the last thing you are interested in. Evil is like that as it stumbles around looking for the next club to destroy something with. more later.... How would you prefer I bat your pathetic arguments for Israel out of the park? With facts or should I just post a lot of hot air like you do?
I have actually not mentioned the nation of Israel yet here. And I have rarely mentioned it anywhere it FR.
But you have good instincts, I do firmly support the nation of Israel, though that is entirely outside my religious life.
I could understand if you read my posts as 'shilling'. There is the other way to characterize them as 'soft words to turn away wrath'.
Peace,
Beleg
It is of no concern to me that you are determined in schism and apparently intend to persist until your demise as did your excommunicated master schismatic. God gave you free will and allows you to abuse it.
As bored as I am with all things Marcellian schismatic, why bother to extend this further? Bray as a schismatic jackass in the ecclesiastical wilderness as you will. Have the last word. And the later last word. And the still later last word. And a few million later last words after that. It is not as though any actual Catholics are listening to the inanities of your little schism. We actual Catholics have free will as well, among other things, to avoid the near occasion of schismatic sin.
You have made your bed. Lie in it! Ciao!
and we'll go ours, OK?
I have actually not mentioned the nation of Israel yet here. And I have rarely mentioned it anywhere it FR.
Since I could find no reason based in logic for your attitude towards our friend, I knew there had to be some reason for your position.
But you have good instincts, I do firmly support the nation of Israel, though that is entirely outside my religious life.
I simply read it on your profile. In passing, I have to say that I find it disturbing that you have an "outside" to your religious life. It should permeate all of your thinking and actions.
When I was sitting on the other side of this controversy, I did some research wrt the bishops who might have been consecrated under Henry VIII but still under the old form, but survived past the reign of Edward VI and to the alteration of the Ordinal under Elizabeth. I couldn't find any.
Except, of course, as an SSPXer, you have left the Roman Catholic Church
Plainly false.
for the SSPX schism and, if you adhere to the SSPX, for excommunication.
There is no schism and consequently no excommunication. I often go to diocesan and religious priests for confession and they all know I attend and recieve the sacraments at the chapel of the SSPX. They think it's great that there is a force for tradition in the Church. And they love it, when I pass along the pastoral advice the SSPX priests give. "That's great advice....They actually say that? That's better than any parishes I've seen!" are common statements I hear. I predict that the moment God unhardens your heart, it will be because of pastoral advice that has found it's way to you from the SSPX by the efforts of traditionalists like myself and MurphE and Vox. You will never know that of course, until your particular judgment. I certainly hope you will have woken up by then.
Delude yourself as you will that you have something relevant to say to those who are in communion with the Holy See and with their diocesan ordinaries.
Obviously, as I stated above, several diocesan priests I regularly encounter are disagreeing with you. So once again, you have egg all over your face. After all of this, you still can't do any better? You can't possibly be a lawyer. A seven year old would be able to get past the endless and pitiful name-calling that is your only weapon. Though you do ignore the truth with all the fervor of a classic ambulance chaser.
It is of no concern to me...
You mean, truth is of no concern to you.
that you are determined in schism and apparently intend to persist until your demise as did your excommunicated master schismatic.
No schism, no excommunication. If you were interested in the truth (which you are not ) you wouldn't hide behind constand false assertions. Oh well, as much as you write it, I can refute it.
God gave you free will and allows you to abuse it.
The same is true for you. But you aren't concerned about it.
As bored as I am with all things Marcellian schismatic, why bother to extend this further?
Only boring people are bored. Usually, it's a lack of understanding on the part of someone that leads to their boredom. I suppose that's why you have to compensate with the foaming at the mouth foolishness that you spray the internet with.
Bray as a schismatic jackass in the ecclesiastical wilderness as you will.
Yet another pointless falsity. I can sense your frustration because the tactics you employ (ie, the tactics of a two-year old) are hopelessly insufficient to quash the truth.
Have the last word. And the later last word. And the still later last word. And a few million later last words after that.
I will. And the least of those words contains more value than the sum of all your pointless and evil efforts. You have yet to produce a single sentence of value.
It is not as though any actual Catholics are listening to the inanities of your little schism.
Experience tells me differently. And again, it's funny how you are inadvertantly calling the Holy Father himself, not an actual Catholic. You are truly the schismatic it seems, if judged by your own rule. The only inanities my firend, are your tired and worn out second rate lawyeresque sentences that have to be parsed in order to cut through your transparent attempts at propaganda.
We actual Catholics have free will as well, among other things,
You may or may not have been Baptized, but you are simply a bad Catholic if evaluated by the "animus delendi" of your posts.
to avoid the near occasion of schismatic sin.
If you were a real Catholic the virtue of prudence would've told you not to enter into a discussion that was so out of your league. So I suggest you review the eighth commandment. You've sinned against it repeatedly. Repent or burn. (That's another quick lesson for you, since I've had to take you to school yet again. )
You have made your bed.
Snugly in the bosom of Holy Mother Church. That's what Catholics call it. Let me know when you hear it from the pulpit at the Mass you go to, the distorted translation of the inferior "Pauline" rite. (Which I will add, when offered exactly as it is in the version promulgated by Paul VI is valid though still significantly inferior. Translations are dubious though.)
I certainly hope you stick around for the finale, because I'm going to take your propaganda about the origins of Israel and expose them for the myths that they are. From Begin, the bombing of the Rex theater to Truman's part. I make a distinction between the real Stalin and "Uncle Joe". I make the same distinction as regards Israel.
McPhony is not the first utterly unworthy bishop and he won't be the last. If bishops are successors of the apostles (and they are), some are successors to Judas (who was an apostle, too!): McPhony, Zieman, Marcel, Fellay, et al.
If I lived in the LA Archdiocese I would move to one like Rockford or Phoenix or St. Louis or Philadelphia, anticipating your argument that McPhony is a diocesan ordinary.
SSPXers, for the most part, were once Catholic, have previously therefore seen the Light of Jesus Christ and rejected Him and His Church.
That is the problem: your problem and not ours.
Papal supremacy, obligation of obedience to the Holy Father. Rejection of papal authority is doctrinal and not merely disciplinary. You are schismatics. If you adhere to the schism you are excommunicated. (Ecclesia Dei, JP II, 1988).
Quite simple, really and quite true.
2 John 9 ....Whosoever revolteth and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.