|
Post by Banned snake on May 9, 2017 21:12:52 GMT -5
I have a few min at this moment... so I'll tackle it now BUT this is a side issue since none of us our at this moment "in danger of death". However, it does matter so here we go. anyone possessed of the sacramental character of priestly orders, be he apostate, heretic, or schismatic, degraded or reduced to the lay state, laboring under an irregularity, excommunication, suspension, or personal interdict, or merely one who has no jurisdiction to hear confessions, or no jurisdiction in this particular place, grants valid absolution to any penitent who is in danger of death Where in this quote does it specify "is a member of a non-catholic sect"? They do say "anyone possessed of the sacramental character of priestly orders" but then go on to list every kind of sin that separates one from the Church and/or from jurisdiction... BUT they don't directly specify "member of a non-Catholic heretical/schismatic sect". But why not? Perhaps because it is forbidden in practice? Do you have any sources, from something like a moral theology book, that deals with practice rather than law? Because this can be interpreted in more than one way obviously. The act of schism, heresy and apostasy do not require one to join a sect... and if one DOES join a sect it becomes another situation all together. So this source is NOT definitive, because it doesn't say what you say its saying... at least not in a concrete matter of fact, undeniable way. Such as "it is lawful to receive sacraments from a Greek schismatic priest in danger of death". If you find such a quote from an authoritative source... well then you've done it!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 9, 2017 21:30:40 GMT -5
Answer my question where do you receive? I was being ironical...my eye!
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 9, 2017 22:36:12 GMT -5
Answer my question where do you receive? Why do you refuse to answer my question? I've asked it several times. And there are goons everywhere. I just took a tour of other threads... I didn't realize. I was under the impression that this was mostly an Eastern Catholic site. I don't know how I got that idea. Anyway... Yes, or NO... why or why NOT?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 10, 2017 4:58:30 GMT -5
Im going to ask you one last time...you can pm me if you wish. Where do you recieve sacraments...you assert your Priest has valid orders...you assert the ukrainians are all suspect of heresy or outright heretics...but you dont produce YOUR bona fides. Im ruthenian rite by birth...currently serving in the Ukrainian rite. The Eastern rite priesthood has valid orders as they are not of the NO allthough they are unfortunatly caught under the authority of the Userper bergoglio...you understand the term userper right. So it is utterly hypocritical and disingenuous of you to keep it a secret how you recieve sacraments without putting your Priestly order and Mass up to the same scrutiny you feel qualified to put the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrystosom and those who avail themselves of its astounding Graces. So to be blunt..put up or be shut up. TC forum doesnt keep disingenuous members on...personally I get that your a good person...you could have a lot to contribute...but so far you've only be intractable...evasive...and unwilling to aknowledge points ...very good and well cited points I might add...against your position. So you can pm me if you think goons will get you...but really There can be no good reason to keep your lamp under a bushel.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 10, 2017 13:14:19 GMT -5
My responses in red: Are you referring to the teaching documents? Condemnation of Luther in particular... condemns COUNTLESS unnamed people. You seem very confused about this. Actually, I had the same thought about you, I have not denied what you are asserting so we are not making much progress. When the excommunication includes the followers of person X, then the unnamed people are also excommunicated unless they immediately flee from their named leader upon hearing of the decree.Once the excommunication of such a person as a vitandi is known, everyone is automatically capable if they are aware of this public fact. Hopefully we can get to the issue at hand. 1. The Novus Ordo is a non-Catholic sect... YES or NO 2. Vatican II promulgates heresy... YES or NO 1. There is a sect, it lacks a definitive name, but it is commonly called the Conciliar sect, the Conciliar church, or the Novus Ordo. Just realize that these names need to be used informally and cautiously, because their usage carries risks. 2. Yes. Who cares about the name? We know who they are. So, there we have it... Vatican II promulgated heresy. You agree. Now we can get somewhere. I have held this position for decades, nothing new here, it's not the nature of what we are disagreeing on. If Vatican II promulgated heresy unchecked... then those who promulgate and/or assist in the promulgation of said heresy become heretics do they not? You never did post the rest of the pages dealing with HERETICS and those ASSISTING in heresy. That might prove to be interesting. I posted the section on cooperation the same night that you requested it. It can be found HERE
You should carefully read the section and reconsider your views. It does not say that such persons are heretics, it says that they are then under the suspicion of heresy.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 10, 2017 13:29:29 GMT -5
Now that I have clarified this for you, it should be clear to you that you rashly judged the matter. If you want to avoid that in the future, you can always ask, and try to get to the bottom of things before making a conclusion. This is the last comment I'm going to make about snarky comments... its beneath you. Perhaps if you'd like to "avoid confusion" and "rash judgement" you could refrain from snide remarks before inserting ambiguous comments that most likely pertain to the individual you've been making snide remarks to... just a thought. I'll be ignoring all future snide comments. Making a joke out of it to lighten the mood seems to go nowhere. Worth a shot I guess. I'll also be ignoring any more references to this issue. I have a thick skin, and this does not trouble me. My motive in pressing this with you was to help you, this is really the root of your problem in other matters, you assume things as a fact, but you lack the evidence and (or) authoritative sources that specifically support your views. This was very obvious to me in how you reacted in this case, and I see it in your thinking on countless other matters. You are not the first person that I have dealt with that has this problem and will not be the last. With that said, seeing that you are not seeing this in yourself, and it is not drawing any good fruit, I will end this part of the discussion. I will keep working with you so long as you want on the other matters, but realize that we will keep revisiting this same problem until you are willing to reflect on yourself and work on it.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 10, 2017 13:52:23 GMT -5
I have a few min at this moment... so I'll tackle it now BUT this is a side issue since none of us our at this moment "in danger of death". However, it does matter so here we go. anyone possessed of the sacramental character of priestly orders, be he apostate, heretic, or schismatic, degraded or reduced to the lay state, laboring under an irregularity, excommunication, suspension, or personal interdict, or merely one who has no jurisdiction to hear confessions, or no jurisdiction in this particular place, grants valid absolution to any penitent who is in danger of death Where in this quote does it specify "is a member of a non-catholic sect"? They do say "anyone possessed of the sacramental character of priestly orders" but then go on to list every kind of sin that separates one from the Church and/or from jurisdiction... BUT they don't directly specify "member of a non-Catholic heretical/schismatic sect". But why not? Perhaps because it is forbidden in practice? Do you have any sources, from something like a moral theology book, that deals with practice rather than law? Because this can be interpreted in more than one way obviously. The act of schism, heresy and apostasy do not require one to join a sect... and if one DOES join a sect it becomes another situation all together. So this source is NOT definitive, because it doesn't say what you say its saying... at least not in a concrete matter of fact, undeniable way. Such as "it is lawful to receive sacraments from a Greek schismatic priest in danger of death". If you find such a quote from an authoritative source... well then you've done it! Yes, it is definitive. You are interpreting it to support your views, not just take it at it's obvious meaning. How much research have you done before assuming that your view on this matter is correct? Why assume anything that can be verified with diligence? Can you cite any books or others sources that you have relied on in your investigation prior to making your assertion? Kelly's explanation is clear, as he begins with, " anyone possessed of the sacramental character of priestly orders," and that means all priests, not just some priests. He then makes this more clear by mentioning heretics, schismatics, apostates, and excommunicates, which are the exact people found in a sect. It's meaning is obvious. I posted another source for you that is even more explicitly clear HERE. Please scroll to the paragraph beginning with, "How is the periculum mortis to be understood...".
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 10, 2017 23:18:35 GMT -5
Im going to ask you one last time...you can pm me if you wish. Where do you recieve sacraments...you assert your Priest has valid orders...you assert the ukrainians are all suspect of heresy or outright heretics...but you dont produce YOUR bona fides. Im ruthenian rite by birth...currently serving in the Ukrainian rite. The Eastern rite priesthood has valid orders as they are not of the NO allthough they are unfortunatly caught under the authority of the Userper bergoglio...you understand the term userper right. So it is utterly hypocritical and disingenuous of you to keep it a secret how you recieve sacraments without putting your Priestly order and Mass up to the same scrutiny you feel qualified to put the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrystosom and those who avail themselves of its astounding Graces. So to be blunt..put up or be shut up. TC forum doesnt keep disingenuous members on...personally I get that your a good person...you could have a lot to contribute...but so far you've only be intractable...evasive...and unwilling to aknowledge points ...very good and well cited points I might add...against your position. So you can pm me if you think goons will get you...but really There can be no good reason to keep your lamp under a bushel. You continuously misrepresent my position and your emotionalism is... well... EMOTIONAL. Speaking to you is proving to be an exercise in futility. I've answered your question so control yourself. If you want to come visit then you better hurry. We won't be around for long. Otherwise, quit your wining about how your church is somehow a victim in its union with the heretical Novus Ordo sect. The clergy can WAKE UP and break away from the heretics ANY DAY THEY GROW A PAIR. But no... they hold hands with apostates and heretics and involve you and your people in this terrible sin. WAKE UP! Put some pressure on these PRIESTS & CLERGY and GET THEM TO WAKE UP! The future of the Church is dwindling fast and these fence sitting cowards who are SUPPOSE TO BE SHEPHERDS just sit on the fence holding hands with the Novus Ordo... this makes them part of the problem until they WAKE UP. "keeping me" won't be an issue much longer. This is proving to be a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 10, 2017 23:22:57 GMT -5
This is the last comment I'm going to make about snarky comments... its beneath you. Perhaps if you'd like to "avoid confusion" and "rash judgement" you could refrain from snide remarks before inserting ambiguous comments that most likely pertain to the individual you've been making snide remarks to... just a thought. I'll be ignoring all future snide comments. Making a joke out of it to lighten the mood seems to go nowhere. Worth a shot I guess. I'll also be ignoring any more references to this issue. I have a thick skin, and this does not trouble me. My motive in pressing this with you was to help you, this is really the root of your problem in other matters, you assume things as a fact, but you lack the evidence and (or) authoritative sources that specifically support your views. This was very obvious to me in how you reacted in this case, and I see it in your thinking on countless other matters. You are not the first person that I have dealt with that has this problem and will not be the last. With that said, seeing that you are not seeing this in yourself, and it is not drawing any good fruit, I will end this part of the discussion. I will keep working with you so long as you want on the other matters, but realize that we will keep revisiting this same problem until you are willing to reflect on yourself and work on it. Oh man... I couldn't resist responding to self generated fiction, created in story time, by yourself... IN REAL TIME no less... throwing snarky comments out there to set the stage for pushing this issue as if I've somehow misrepresented you, and then pushing this issue onto all my "thought". Well played sir... your "disingenuous" debate style is clever... evil, but clever. Cut the crap and stick to the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 10, 2017 23:41:24 GMT -5
I posted another source for you that is even more explicitly clear HERE. Please scroll to the paragraph beginning with, "How is the periculum mortis to be understood...". Circular link that goes nowhere. Also... you have apparently failed (until you fix that link perhaps). It is WELL ESTABLISHED that you can be a heretic, apostate and/or schismatic without being in a sect. And you've even provided a nice source here: The Crime of heresy or schism, alone, however, does not necessarily make one a member of a heretical or schismatical sect. A sect may be described as a group of Christians who, banded together, refuse to accept the supreme authority or teaching of the Catholic Church. They constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership, or a sect. Hence, the term sect connotes a group of individual heretics or schismatics morally united by a common bond of belief or purpose. And it is only when one becomes affiliated with such,and not merely by the crime of heresy and schism, that he is considered as a member of a heretical or schismatical sect. (Kearney, Richard, Sponsors at Baptism According to the Code of Canon Law, Washington D.C., 1925, pp. 83-84, emphasis added) You can't find a quote that says its lawful to receive sacraments from a Greek schismatic because its probably not. It can be interpreted both ways. Your personal interpretation is apparently the authority around here though eh?
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 10, 2017 23:43:11 GMT -5
I posted the section on cooperation the same night that you requested it. It can be found HERE
You should carefully read the section and reconsider your views. It does not say that such persons are heretics, it says that they are then under the suspicion of heresy. Yes... this works for the clergy and the laity. But keep right on posting the next several pages and we get to the GUILT MORE SPECIFIC OF THE CLERGY in "teaching condemned doctrines". I "suspect" they are not JUST suspected of heresy! I bet the next few pages will be even more interesting yet! But even if they are not... (more interesting that is) Is it your stance that a person in our times can be in a perpetual state of "suspected of heresy" and can NEVER become a heretic because there's no proper authority to warn them? (drum roll to absurdity) The CLERGY are the SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM HERE NOT THE LAITY. Which is the CRUX of the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 11, 2017 0:10:49 GMT -5
Answer my question where do you receive? Why do you refuse to answer my question? I've asked it several times. And there are goons everywhere. I just took a tour of other threads... I didn't realize. I was under the impression that this was mostly an Eastern Catholic site. I don't know how I got that idea. Anyway... Yes, or NO... why or why NOT? Why is it that YOU refuse to answer MY question about going to the schismatics for sacraments? Is there an elephant in the room I am unaware of? Pacelli has dodged similar relevant questions i.e. how can I start a heretical sect today???
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2017 5:51:30 GMT -5
I have a thick skin, and this does not trouble me. My motive in pressing this with you was to help you, this is really the root of your problem in other matters, you assume things as a fact, but you lack the evidence and (or) authoritative sources that specifically support your views. This was very obvious to me in how you reacted in this case, and I see it in your thinking on countless other matters. You are not the first person that I have dealt with that has this problem and will not be the last. With that said, seeing that you are not seeing this in yourself, and it is not drawing any good fruit, I will end this part of the discussion. I will keep working with you so long as you want on the other matters, but realize that we will keep revisiting this same problem until you are willing to reflect on yourself and work on it. Oh man... I couldn't resist responding to self generated fiction, created in story time, by yourself... IN REAL TIME no less... throwing snarky comments out there to set the stage for pushing this issue as if I've somehow misrepresented you, and then pushing this issue onto all my "thought". Well played sir... your "disingenuous" debate style is clever... evil, but clever. Cut the crap and stick to the facts. I am not accusing you of misrepresenting me, but I am certain that you do not understand me, for the reason illustrated above and also, I think you are over your head here. Your posts show that you are not well acquainted with the material we are discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2017 5:59:38 GMT -5
I posted another source for you that is even more explicitly clear HERE. Please scroll to the paragraph beginning with, "How is the periculum mortis to be understood...". Circular link that goes nowhere. Also... you have apparently failed (until you fix that link perhaps). It is WELL ESTABLISHED that you can be a heretic, apostate and/or schismatic without being in a sect. And you've even provided a nice source here: The Crime of heresy or schism, alone, however, does not necessarily make one a member of a heretical or schismatical sect. A sect may be described as a group of Christians who, banded together, refuse to accept the supreme authority or teaching of the Catholic Church. They constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership, or a sect. Hence, the term sect connotes a group of individual heretics or schismatics morally united by a common bond of belief or purpose. And it is only when one becomes affiliated with such,and not merely by the crime of heresy and schism, that he is considered as a member of a heretical or schismatical sect. (Kearney, Richard, Sponsors at Baptism According to the Code of Canon Law, Washington D.C., 1925, pp. 83-84, emphasis added) You can't find a quote that says its lawful to receive sacraments from a Greek schismatic because its probably not. It can be interpreted both ways. Your personal interpretation is apparently the authority around here though eh? It shouldn't have taken you more than a minute to find the page, the library isn't that hard to use. Here's is the link: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/672/canon-confession-danger-death-augustineNo, I am not an authority nor am I the one relying on myself. I look to the authorites to teach me, not make it up as I go along.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2017 6:04:13 GMT -5
Why do you refuse to answer my question? I've asked it several times. And there are goons everywhere. I just took a tour of other threads... I didn't realize. I was under the impression that this was mostly an Eastern Catholic site. I don't know how I got that idea. Anyway... Yes, or NO... why or why NOT? Why is it that YOU refuse to answer MY question about going to the schismatics for sacraments? Is there an elephant in the room I am unaware of? Pacelli has dodged similar relevant questions i.e. how can I start a heretical sect today??? I keep answering you, so this accusation is ridiculous. Time doesn't change perennial principles. A sect can start today, in the same manner as it could have started at any time in history. With the exception of the danger of death, Catholics cannot approach schismatics for any sacrament, and even this must be understood correctly.
|
|