|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 3, 2017 22:11:22 GMT -5
Michael DL stands for Divine Liturgy...ever been to one? I figured that out while I was laying in bed lastnight lol. No. We call it the Divine Office in the Latin rite. Based on my position in this crisis... I cannot do so, since I have not found an Eastern Rite church that is not somehow in union with the Novus Ordo sect. So I have not had the pleasure. Here's hoping it will be possible in the future. M. Then how in heaven do you get off Judging the DL as defective! We do not pronounce bergoglio in communion in the DL we pray FOR "Francis...Pope of Rome" and then plead the Lord to Have Mercy. Which is a legitimate thing for the Priest to do since Bergoglio has not been officially declared a heretic. ONLY IN THE MASS it doesnt effect the laity because all its parts and words are completely Catholic and orthodox...the only mistake is one made in fact of the name of the Pope. Heretics do not make others heretics just because you say his name...francis isnt voldemort.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 3, 2017 22:24:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 22:45:20 GMT -5
I figured that out while I was laying in bed lastnight lol. No. We call it the Divine Office in the Latin rite. Based on my position in this crisis... I cannot do so, since I have not found an Eastern Rite church that is not somehow in union with the Novus Ordo sect. So I have not had the pleasure. Here's hoping it will be possible in the future. M. Then how in heaven do you get off Judging the DL as defective! We do not pronounce bergoglio in communion in the DL we pray FOR "Francis...Pope of Rome" and then plead the Lord to Have Mercy. Which is a legitimate thing for the Priest to do since Bergoglio has not been officially declared a heretic. ONLY IN THE MASS it doesnt effect the laity because all its parts and words are completely Catholic and orthodox...the only mistake is one made in fact of the name of the Pope. Heretics do not make others heretics just because you say his name...francis isnt voldemort. Vox... you continuously fail to see my position outside of the cookie cutter position you would like me to hold. Your lengthy quote above (that I have not re-quoted) does not apply to me as it is NOT the position I hold. Why do you keep straw manning my position with the "una cum"? Its not the same argument. You are beating up on something that I don't profess. Its a waste of time and typing. Now back to your DL "how dare you judge the DL as defective"... etc. I never judged any such thing. You are not paying attention to my arguments at all. The DL is not defective in the Eastern Rite. Nor is the DL defective in the "Orthodox" Rites by the way. The rite is in tact, BUT it is forbidden for Catholics to worship in common with schismatics and heretics. This is the problem and you ignore it blissfully calling it "una cum" which it is not my position, but you keep saying it is. "Bergoglio not condemned by name" I've addressed this absurdity. "does not effect the laity" oh but it does. The laity are forbidden from worshipping with heretics and also from receiving sacraments from heretics. This is not rocket science. "it doesnt effect the laity because all its parts and words are completely Catholic and orthodox" See argument above, you can apply these same words to the DL of an "Orthodox" church. It does effect the laity because it is FORBIDDEN. M.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 3, 2017 22:51:02 GMT -5
Michael wrote:
I think you should take a long reflective look in the mirror, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I am not a canon lawyer, nor do I pretend to be, I asked you, and I will ask again, to give a source for your interpretation of Pope Martin V's law, and of the 1917 Code on the same matter. What that means, just so we are clear is an approved canonist or theologian stating that the law means what you are alleging it means. It should be an easy task, if what you are saying is true.
When you have been asked for sources by Vox and myself, you have dodged. I am also still waiting to see your claimed existance of a sentence of excommunication against Bergoglio by a Pope, that Vox has more than once asked you to present. I won't hold my breath.
I am out of time, more tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 23:05:34 GMT -5
Vox... Another problem with your "no one has declared Francis a heretic" idea... which I've already addressed as absurd, unnecessary and impossible, not to mention... with ZERO historical support. But it gets even more ridiculous when you think about how could this ever happen?
Who will declare Franko a heretic? Perhaps all the other heretics who have accepted the same Vatican II heresies that he and the last 6 impostor "popes" have accepted, taught and enforced for 50 years? Because one heretic calling another heretic a "heretic" is about as worthless as a three dollar bill.
Part of the problem here Vox, I suspect, is that coming from an Eastern Church that has had a long history of autonomy from Rome, the idea that you don't have to worry about the pope... if he's a heretic, or whatever... has not been something that many of the Eastern Churches have cared about for 1000 years. When outside of communion with Rome especially, but even when back in communion (I think the Byzantines came back under the council of Florence) the autonomy was still more or less there.
The problem with not caring about the pope's level of orthodoxy is that this is schismatic theology. It does matter and it does effect every single member of the Universal Church.
This has infrastructural repercussions as well. For example... who appointed the Patriarch of your Church? Bishops? Archbishops? Did they study in post Vat2 theology schools? Do they recognize the Vatican II as a legitimate council? Do they enforce any of the changes from Vatican II? Have they signed anything involving a profession of the V2 heresies? The answer is yes to all of these questions, or they could not have been appointed by high ranking Novus Ordo sect.
Even if the answer was no to any of the above... the appointment by a heretic is worthless. The Novus Ordo sect is not the Catholic Church and cannot do anything authoritative in the Church, whether that means an appointment of a "cardinal", "patriarch", "bishop" etc, or a change to the Liturgy. Null, Void. Nada.
You have even admitted yourself that the Byzantines are modernists. Why is this concept of "do not worship in common with heretics" so difficult for you?
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 3, 2017 23:17:49 GMT -5
I think you should take a long reflective look in the mirror, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. I am not a canon lawyer, nor do I pretend to be, I asked you, and I will ask again, to give a source for your interpretation of Pope Martin V's law, and of the 1917 Code on the same matter. What that means, just so we are clear is an approved canonist or theologian stating that the law means what you are alleging it means. It should be an easy task, if what you are saying is true. When you have been asked for sources by Vox and myself, you have dodged. I am also still waiting to see your claimed existance of a sentence of excommunication against Bergoglio by a Pope, that Vox has more than once asked you to present. I won't hold my breath. Hold your breath, it has been provided TWICE now. What else must I do? Read them to you? By name is absurd and I've addressed this. It is not required and your claim that it is is nonsense. "Take a long look in the mirror" You are using rubber glue tactics and its dishonest. Dodging things quite cleverly yourself by the way. You state that there is "no distinction between 'excommunication' & 'heretic'. THEN have the audacity to demand a source from me that refutes this absurd claim. I countered with "canon law" and asked you to name 5 ways a man can be excommunicated. You refuse to answer why? Because if you name at least 4 ways you can be excommunicated then your whole absurd idea falls apart. An "easy task" indeed! If you would be so kind as to answer the question, your source is provided. You have access to canon law.. you've already stated so above. Lets hear how many ways a man can be excommunicated. If you are going to re-invent the meaning of a bull out of thin air then by all means ignore this question again. If you don't have access to canon law and are just picking quotes off the net... then I understand your hesitation... I can supply the answer to my own question for you. But I've done this in many posts before and I am usually ignored. Perhaps if you just answer the simple question that directly relates to your non-traditional view of this bull we can all see how absurd it is without asking an official to make a declaration on this particular point. Yo kettle... its pot... feeling black?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 4, 2017 8:45:13 GMT -5
Pacelli is an admin Sir...cool your jets. I can vouch for Pacellis bonafidis...his clarity...his attention to detail...his education and history in the Trad world. You...you come new to forum...make blanket accusations and sloppy arguments. Now I am not against spirited passionate debate...I want it as a matter fact as a forum owner. But respect is earned. Im locking this thread to start containing the discussion.
|
|