Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 16:03:12 GMT -5
He asked if we had any questions. That was my idea. I apologize for having ideas on your forum. You can have all the ideas you want but you cannot represent the forum as far as doing a QandA with a notable personage. Go to proboards main site and build your own forum and grow it to over 150 members and you can set up any event you want. Its free at proboards. I would never anticipate the members would conduct a Q&A with a "notable person" and post it at your forum without the administrator having no insight into it. That is absurd. Fess said he already had an interview scheduled with him and asked if we had questions for him. My suggestion was to see if perhaps he'd find out of Fr. Jenkins would be open to questions from members of this forum as its own session. It was merely an idea and that is all.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 26, 2018 17:10:55 GMT -5
Btw my question is still hanging there...why dont you regularly attend the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul the 6th Vinny? Or do you? I would like an answer in this thread. Its a problem because as laity you have no right to reject the novus ordo if Paul6th was a true Pope.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 18:52:53 GMT -5
Btw my question is still hanging there...why dont you regularly attend the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul the 6th Vinny? Or do you? I would like an answer in this thread. Its a problem because as laity you have no right to reject the novus ordo if Paul6th was a true Pope. I could easily attend the mass in the Western Rite. I could attend the Latin Rite as well. I explained it in my introduction why I attend the Divine Liturgy. I am not being disobedient to the papacy by attending the Eastern Rite. If I was, then you are too. Does your Bishop know you are a sedevacantist? Does your bishop know you are the moderator and administrator of a forum that espouses the sedevacantist position? Has your Bishop given you permission to administer and moderate this forum?
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Feb 27, 2018 4:30:10 GMT -5
Inpefess, you said on p. 1 that Father Jenkins is not a sedevacantist. How would you describe his position, and is it representative of the SSPV as a whole?
The SSPV usually is listed among the sedevacantist groups. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 27, 2018 5:34:33 GMT -5
I could easily attend the mass in the Western Rite. I could attend the Latin Rite as well. I explained it in my introduction why I attend the Divine Liturgy. I am not being disobedient to the papacy by attending the Eastern Rite. If I was, then you are too. Does your Bishop know you are a sedevacantist? Does your bishop know you are the moderator and administrator of a forum that espouses the sedevacantist position? Has your Bishop given you permission to administer and moderate this forum? Your dodging...itsokay. Im Byzantine rite by birth. So I actually shouldnt attend the ROMAN rite (never heard of the western rite...now whos playing with words) I dont have to divulge my personal opinions to my priest or bishop. You on the other hand are required to attend if its available the Mass of your Baptismal Rite. You dodged it...because you don't have a logical answer. That is one that doesnt contradict your position. You avoid the NO mass because you know its defective. But a defective mass CANNOT be promulgated by a true pope.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 7:15:01 GMT -5
Inpefess, you said on p. 1 that Father Jenkins is not a sedevacantist. How would you describe his position, and is it representative of the SSPV as a whole? The SSPV usually is listed among the sedevacantist groups. Thank you. This is a very involved question, but I will be as brief as I can. The SSPV isn't SVist, though groups who can't see beyond the false SVist-SPist dichotomy always link them in with SVists because they don't know what else to do with them. Dogma is concerned with certain theological truths that are always true (like the infallibility of the papacy); dogmatic facts are concerned with the application of those theological truths to this or that historical case (whether this or that man truly occupies that papacy). The dogma is the papacy; the dogmatic fact is whether this or that man factually occupies that papacy, which is necessary to know before the guarantees of the dogma apply to him, personally. The question of sedevacantism is not a question of dogma, simply, but is a question of dogmatic fact. Sedevacantist don t dispute the dogma of the papacy; they dispute whether this or that claimant in history factually occupies that office requisite for the guarantee of the dogma. There are only two ways we can know with absolute certainty the status of papal occupancy: [1] universal acceptance, and [2] the authority of the Church. Do to the fact that these claimants are recognized universally not as occupying the Catholic papacy simply but instead as occupying the Novus Ordo papacy, which is altogether something different, we lack the universal recognition necessary for absolute certainty. Likewise, do to the absence of the authority of the Church to definitively determine and declare the status of the papacy leaves us with no other authority by which we can proceed to know this status with absolute certainty. But the presence of objective doubt with regard to that status, do to all that these so-called popes have done to the Church, means that we are allowed to hold our own private opinions on the matter. Far from imposing them upon others as a condition of being Catholic (since, absent the certainty of the magisterium they are nothing but opinions), these opinions oblige the conscience to act in accordance with them, provided the opinions are in conformity the mind, tradition, and teaching of the Church. In this case, for example, it is obvious that even in the absence of an authoritative decision from the Church, Catholics may never remain in moral communion with the works of darkness. There are objective doubts surrounding the validity of these modern popes, and in light of all the evil that they have said and done agaoknst the Faith, withdrawal from communion with such a doubtful pope is necessary, even though it does not elevate that withdrawal to the equivalent of some kind of statement or declaration that he is not the pope. That a claimant lose the office due to heresy, schism, or apostasy is a valid, legitimate theological opinion that even the Church has approved. But whether that had happened today is simply one's own private, personal theological opinion on the matter that can bind no one's conscience or exclude one from membership in the Church. This is the position taken by Fr. Jenkins, and is the same position as the SSPV/CSPV. They absolutely reject the plenist-vacantist dichotomy that has wreaked such havok--from the Dimonds to the SSPX--in the traditionalist movememt. For more information on their foundation principles, see their "Statement of Principles in a Time of Crisis" that Dr. Jenkins assisted in writing linked to in my signature line.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 7:31:27 GMT -5
I could easily attend the mass in the Western Rite. I could attend the Latin Rite as well. I explained it in my introduction why I attend the Divine Liturgy. I am not being disobedient to the papacy by attending the Eastern Rite. If I was, then you are too. Does your Bishop know you are a sedevacantist? Does your bishop know you are the moderator and administrator of a forum that espouses the sedevacantist position? Has your Bishop given you permission to administer and moderate this forum? Your dodging...itsokay. Im Byzantine rite by birth. So I actually shouldnt attend the ROMAN rite (never heard of the western rite...now whos playing with words) I dont have to divulge my personal opinions to my priest or bishop. You on the other hand are required to attend if its available the Mass of your Baptismal Rite. You dodged it...because you don't have a logical answer. That is one that doesnt contradict your position. You avoid the NO mass because you know its defective. But a defective mass CANNOT be promulgated by a true pope. You are sorely mistaken. I actually had a long conversation with my priest of the church to which I returned about the Byzantine Rite and whether it was okay to attend there. He advised me it was okay and fulfilled my Sunday obligation. When I use the word Western Rite, it is to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Some of us who understand the entire of the Catholic Church includes the 23 Sui Iuris Churches to comprise the whole of the Catholic Church may use that term when talking with someone. I can attend the Roman Catholic Church, I have no issue attending the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, once I experienced the Latin Mass and the Divine Liturgy, I would prefer those over the Novus Ordo, but this does not mean I could not or would not be able to attend it. However I've noticed I'm about as welcome in the Byzantine Rite at my church as you've also made me here about being there. Anyway Voxx, I'm off to NY to attend to some personal matters and then when I get home I have others to attend to here. I probably won't be back. Playing "ah ha, got ya" is not my idea of walking in the Christian faith. I wish you all the best in your growing forum.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 27, 2018 9:42:30 GMT -5
Gothchya? I didnt say the Byzantine rite didnt satisfy your obligation. But that is an extraordinary action to take if the Mass of Paul6 is available. Playing deceptive games with the truth isnt my idea of a Catholic sense. Have a safe trip. Its obvious youre cutting and running.Its ok. These are confusing days. Your always welcome here. No other forum has been more welcoming to you than this one. Is ingratitude a Catholic trait?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 27, 2018 14:28:39 GMT -5
It should be noted that Catholics do not have to go to their own rite to fulfill their Sunday obligation. This was clear in the 1917 Code, and John Paul II’s 1983 Code taught the same, for those who believe in his claim.
This, however does not absolve one in not obeying the precept of the Church to support ones pastors. This is accomplished by local custom, which is that one is morally obliged to financially support one’s territorially assigned parish of his rite, to the local bishops appeal, and Peter’s Pence for the Pope. If someone thinks Francis is Pope, and by that, logically holds that the structures, sacramental rites, teaching and liturgy, under him in the Roman rite are legit, it poses a real moral dilemma in regards to one’s moral obligation to obey the precept of the Church to support the Church in accordance with custom that all Catholics are obliged by Church law to obey.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 27, 2018 14:44:08 GMT -5
My question that was not answered is what could possibly be wrong with the NO Mass if Paul6 was a Pope. Its obvious vin would rather quit the forum in a huff of insults than answer. Typical of all the defenders of the faux popes.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Feb 27, 2018 17:18:08 GMT -5
My question that was not answered is what could possibly be wrong with the NO Mass if Paul6 was a Pope. Its obvious vin would rather quit the forum in a huff of insults than answer. Typical of all the defenders of the faux popes. It’s a good question Voxx, and it’s just the warm up question for those who wish to defend the claims of Vatican II Popes. The Vatican II sect has broken with the doctrine of the past on so many matters that one would have to make a list. This is abundantly clear for us that read the old books, Catechisms, theology manuals and other approved books on matters of Faith published prior to Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council taught in an ambiguous way so it’s defenders, who still believe the Faith but don’t want to concede that Vatican II was the beginning of a new heretical and schismatic sect, will always try to draw an orthodox interpretation out of it, but the trouble for them is that that Catholic Church does not teach in such a confusing manner where error and truth can both be understood simultaneously, and more importantly, all of the Vatican II “Popes,” have taught with words and actions that the correct and only way to understand Vatican II according to the “Holy See” is to that it taught heretical and erroneous teaching and was a rupture from the 2,000 year teaching of the Church that preceded it. Vatican II masked its heresy and and error in ambiguous language, which has only been made more clear over time, as the now weak and pathetic Catholic reaction against heresy and error are no longer seen to be deterrents to slow the agenda of the sectarians. They are no longer using ambiguous language, as they think they have won, their masks are off, their language is now clearer than ever on what they are teaching. I realize that Vinny isn’t coming back, but in case he comes back to read, I will be starting a new thread to shed more light on specific contradictory teaching between the Catholic Church and the Vatican II sect.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 27, 2018 18:26:26 GMT -5
I just noted he deleted his account. For the record, I did not ban him. He deleted his own account... What a ridiculous response.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2018 20:41:14 GMT -5
I just noted he deleted his account. For the record, I did not ban him. Hedeleted his own account... What a ridiculous response. Hmm. Well, hopefully he learned something about the Church while he was here!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 11, 2018 6:55:56 GMT -5
Fess...Did you talk with Father Jenkins?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Mar 11, 2018 7:02:53 GMT -5
|
|