John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on May 17, 2023 14:51:26 GMT -5
Pacelli , I have emailed you a copy of the article sent to me by Fr Pierre Marie as well as his contact details (separate email). I translated it using DeepL Translate at the advice of sdwright and unfortunately it isn't the retraction we were hoping for. Great work John Lewis! Would you mind copy and pasting the translation from Deep L. Translate, that you did, as I don't have the time to retype it all right now in the program. It's unfortunate that this is not what Michael Wilson was referring to. It was a good lead, but as you say, it's not a retraction. This is the article in PDF, which is in French and untranslated linked: HERESorry Pacelli, DeepL PDF translations don’t allow copy-paste editing, at least the free ones don’t. Can you link the PDF I sent you on your cloud storage?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 17, 2023 21:04:37 GMT -5
Great work John Lewis ! Would you mind copy and pasting the translation from Deep L. Translate, that you did, as I don't have the time to retype it all right now in the program. It's unfortunate that this is not what Michael Wilson was referring to. It was a good lead, but as you say, it's not a retraction. This is the article in PDF, which is in French and untranslated linked: HERESorry Pacelli, DeepL PDF translations don’t allow copy-paste editing, at least the free ones don’t. Can you link the PDF I sent you on your cloud storage? Hi John, the link to the PDF is above in my last post. I will post it here again: LINK
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on May 18, 2023 1:07:12 GMT -5
Sorry Pacelli, DeepL PDF translations don’t allow copy-paste editing, at least the free ones don’t. Can you link the PDF I sent you on your cloud storage? Hi John, the link to the PDF is above in my last post. I will post it here again: LINKHi Pacelli, I also emailed you the DeepL translation into English. Did you receive that email? Sorry about all of the individual emails. I didn't know about DeepL until sdwright told me about it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 18, 2023 6:19:09 GMT -5
Hi John, the link to the PDF is above in my last post. I will post it here again: LINKHi Pacelli, I also emailed you the DeepL translation into English. Did you receive that email? Sorry about all of the individual emails. I didn't know about DeepL until sdwright told me about it. Hi John, I missed that one. I converted it to PDF and the English translation is here: HERE.
I have a few comments on this article which I will post either today or soon.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on May 18, 2023 9:34:32 GMT -5
It will be interesting to read about this, but at first glance I see a fallacy in the argument, since as has been commented before, what was the need to destroy an ancient Roman rite for a supposed Eastern rite?
Bringing to the fore this fallacious argument of the supposed "Freemasonry" of Bishop Lienart to justify the validity of the new rites makes no sense and it is not followed either because if it is true, the fact that he has been a Mason has nothing to do with whether he uses a rite approved by the Church and this argument that many sectarian sedevacantists also use to abandon the sacraments with the priests of the Lefebvre line is ultra refuted.
And I think that the most important thing of all is that we know from the infallible teaching of the Church that Holy Mother Church can never give stones to her children instead of Bread, why would she give something that is confusing, scandalous for many of her children? her? that has never happened and will never happen, because it is unfailing.
In short, I do not understand how this argument could have so much weight in the sedeplenistas.
maybe I am missing some more important argument, but at first glance I only see gaps in this argument
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 18, 2023 20:06:35 GMT -5
Fr. Pierre Marie wrote:
With respect to Fr. Pierre Marie, he is either living isolated from the challenges made on this subject and is not aware of the many serious questions that have arisen about his work, or he is not taking seriously the challenges that have been made to his paper. One cannot just dismiss very serious arguments against one's paper as just not being serious! Objections must be answered, not dismissed.
Absolutely no one is questioning the validity of any eastern rite that has been recognized by the Church! If Paul VI simply took an eastern rite and made a law that it be used for the Roman rite, many may not have liked it, but no one would be questioning the validity of the rite.
This is a simple question of fact, either we who challenge that the 1968 rite is not the text of the Maronite or Coptic Catholic rites are either correct or we are wrong. This is not at this juncture a theological question, and can be answered just by looking at all three, the Coptic, Maronite and 1968 Paul VI rite, and comparing them. If we are right, and they are not identical, then Fr. Pierre Marie is then wrong in his assertion that "one cannot question the validity of this new rite without questioning the validity of several eastern rites..." If the Paul VI rite is identical to either the Coptic or the Maronite rite, then we are wrong, and Fr. Pierre Marie's statement about us is true.
I will be posting on this forum, the rites for comparison, and then this question will be answered.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 19, 2023 11:01:38 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: If you read this chart by Fr. Pierre Marie, it looks like a slam dunk in favor of validity: sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrationsMany Catholics do not have the competence or the time to question this chart in any serious way, and therefore accept it based on trust that the researcher presented everything correctly. The chart has been publicly challenged, and Fr. Pierre Marie wrote in response that the challenges are not serious, without even explaining why those challenging his work are not serious. I have collected many resources on this subject and will be posting them, first focusing on the eastern rites, then dealing with the Rite of Hippolytus. There are many facts that Fr. Pierre Marie did not mention in his paper that are relevant to all of this.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 373
|
Post by John Lewis on May 19, 2023 19:11:56 GMT -5
It's interesting, although my French-speaking intellectual acquaintance accepts most of the what the SSPX says on trust, they emailed me a French translation of Fr Cekada's article on this topic without being asked and do not believe the Paul VI Latin Rites of Ordination and Episcopal Consecration are valid.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on May 19, 2023 20:53:26 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: If you read this chart by Fr. Pierre Marie, it looks like a slam dunk in favor of validity: sspx.org/en/table-3-validity-new-episcopal-consecrationsMany Catholics do not have the competence or the time to question this chart in any serious way, and therefore accept it based on trust that the researcher presented everything correctly. The chart has been publicly challenged, and Fr. Pierre Marie wrote in response that the challenges are not serious, without even explaining why those challenging his work are not serious. I have collected many resources on this subject and will be posting them, first focusing on the eastern rites, then dealing with the Rite of Hippolytus. There are many facts that Fr. Pierre Marie did not mention in his paper that are relevant to all of this. I am interested in studying this further, I will wait for your post, Pacelli
|
|