[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / ausneets / india / monarchy / pdfs / sw / vg / vichan ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: ed021a78fde703b⋯.jpg (407.66 KB, 1146x1417, 1146:1417, Paolovi.jpg)

e42700 No.650243

*ruins your liturgy*

*gets canonised anyway*

8a80ca No.650325

File: 1d659fae6bf4f65⋯.jpg (14.59 KB, 180x243, 20:27, Gregory_Palamas.jpg)

>considered schismatic heretic for numerous reason

>is canonized saint anyway

o im laffin


8b82ca No.650350

If only priests actually do what Missal of Paul VI tells them to (not to mention liturgical documents of VII), there would be approximately 90% less hate on NO.


3cf32d No.650370


0aff0e No.650376

File: b92dd55ed4e0e72⋯.jpg (1.16 MB, 1181x1424, 1181:1424, Tertullian.jpg)

>>650243

>tfw you are credited for the Doctrine of the Trinity but you get labeled a heretic anyway

>feelsbadman.jpg


c681c6 No.650389

>>650376

Are you historically illiterate or something? I bet you haven't even read Tertullian's works. I bet you heard somewhere that he was the first person to use the word trinity and because of this you assume that he invented it. And I bet you believe that 'fact' too. Your such a predictable idiot! Get off this site before you embarrass yourself even more.


024ec5 No.650517

File: 5c5002d703f84f4⋯.jpg (165.3 KB, 737x618, 737:618, qgi9eh74rvky.jpg)

As much as I accept canonisation as infallible, I can easily see that in a few decades (maybe less) this will be largely forgotten about and swept under the carpet.

I think Pope Paul VI's canonisation will be viewed in the same way that people now view the canonisation of St Simon of Trent; as something of an odd but authentic canonisation, but one which will seldom if ever be legitimately referenced or invoked.

>>650350

This.

I honestly can't get my head around how massive the gulf is between the rubrics and what we see in church. It makes it worse to consider the difference between your average Sunday mass and what is demanded by Sacrosanctum Concilium.


de4073 No.650626

Reminder that it's infalible truth that the word "ut" is essencial for the ordination to be valid


541248 No.650642

>>650626

Elaborate, anon.


1fed40 No.650657

>>650325

>BTFOs Thomism eternally

>Catlicks cuck out and canonize him

Absolutely based


c7f8c6 No.650703

You better hope for the sake of your own weak and wicked souls that these men are in heaven.


073779 No.650746

>>650657

Orthodox are always right.


ec53da No.650776

>>650642

I Googled it and I found sedevacantist articles about how the Novus Ordo rite of Ordination is invalid. According to _Sacramentum Ordinis_

(Pius XII), the preface : “Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hunc famulum tuum Presbyterii dignitatem; innova in visceribus eius spiritum sanctitatis, ut acceptum a Te, Deus, secundi meriti munus obtineat censuramque morum exemplo suae conversationis insinuet.”

[“Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty Father, invest this Thy servant with the dignity of the Priesthood; do Thou renew in his heart the spirit of holiness, so that he may persevere in this office, which is next to ours in dignity, since he has received it from Thee, O God. May the example of his life lead others to moral uprightness.”] is essential, so this group (Most Holy Family Monastery) claims that the changes in the Novus Ordo ordination rite make it invalid. They compare it to the Anglican ordination rites, which were invalid (Anglicans now sometimes involve Old Catholics in their ordinations in order to receive valid ordination)


f487ba No.650861

>>650325

you don't know what canonisation is, besides anyone can venerate whomever they deem worthy although that isn't 'canonisation'.

>>650657

Barlaam was Eastern Orthodox when he was debating Palamas and wrote against the Filioque I doubt he was even a Thomist.


8b82ca No.650933

>>650626

Reminder that bible headship was given to Apostles on Ascension and will be with bishop perpetually.

Reminder that Cedeka was btfo by John Salza countless time on ordination.


8b82ca No.650935

*Cekada. Damn, I am still asleep


01e26e No.650944

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>650243

>ruins your liturgy

Nice try


094527 No.650991

>>650861

His feast day is Nov. 14.

>>650657

He wasn't a Thomist


3860e0 No.651030

>>650703

If these men are in heaven I don't even have to try.


badf92 No.651033

>>650642

“But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form consists of the words of the preface of which the following are essential and so required for validity:

“Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood (presbyterii dignitatem); renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living." (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis)

Theres no way around it. Pope Pius XII revealed as infallible truth that all those words are, in fact, required for validity. If you say that a word among those is meaningless, then you are saying that an Ex Cathedra statement is wrong.

>every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established

Pius XII was talking about the traditio instrumentorum only, wich was established by the Church. Revealed truth, as in an Ex Cathedra statement, was not estabilished by the Church, since it's truth in itself.

"Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself"

"The matter and form make up the external rite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition" (Catholic enciclopedia)

"…diabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.” (Pope Clement XIII)

"Hence, the devil has always endeavored to deprive die world of the Mass by means of the heretics, constituting them the precursors of antichrist, whose first efforts will be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar; and, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts will, according to the prophet Daniel, be successful. "And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins" (Dan. viii. 12)" (St. Alphonsus Liguori)


759334 No.651045

>>651030

By that logic, how are eastern orthodox orders valid?


759334 No.651046


8b82ca No.651137

>>651033

Nice cutting out important stuff.

Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense.

Theres no way around it. Pope Pius XII revealed as infallible truth that all forms used by Church that univocally signify the sacramental effects are, in fact, validit. If you say that a words used and accepted by the Church as form of this sacrment, which signify what they do are not valid, then you are saying that an Ex Cathedra statement is wrong.

If those specific words was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.

Read this and stop sinning http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/15-anglicanisme-histoire_et_conspiration/1979-michael_davies-the_order_of_Melchisedech_%28revu_en_1993%29/The_Order_of_Mechisedech.pdf


13e55e No.651313

>>651033

>by our supreme apostolic authority

I don't recognize authority as valid though. It all falls apart after that.

also what's with popes/monarchs trying to sound like God with all this "we" stuff?


73de2c No.651427

>>651137

>Pope Pius XII revealed as infallible truth that all forms used by Church that univocally signify the sacramental effects are valid

This, however, doesn't make the other infallible statement simply disappear: "the following are essential and so required for validity". Thus we must infer that, by ''accepted and used by the Church in that sense", Pius XII meant any form that contain at least those following words that he specified, since the Church would never accept a form that lacks what is essential for it to be valid.

>read this

>in the first edition of this book I stated that the matter and form of this Sacrament, as designated by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis, remained unchanged in the new rite. This was a mistake as one small change of no theological significance was made in the form of the 1968 Ordinal, and has been retained in the 1989 edition

If the word "ut" is of no theological significance, then why Pius XII said it was essential? In other words, why would the Pope declare essential what is of no importance? Michael Davies is disagreeing with Pius XII.

>How did the ut come into the form? The answer is almost certainly through a copying error by a scribe, which was in its turn copied by other scribes and eventually became codified with the advent of the printed Pontifical

This claim is quite a big one. Sacramentum Ordinis was an error? And the Pope left it that way? What else is there to corroborate this claim?

>Those who claim that the removal of ut renders the rite invalid do so on the principle that no change can ever be made to the form of a Sacrament

Wrong. The principle is that no change can be made on what is essential to the form.

>in these Sacraments the Pope has the authority to make changes in the matter and form or even to change them completely. Had the Pope so wished, the entire form from the pre-1968 rite could have been abolished and a completely new one composed

This doesnt make sense. Can a Pope go against what a previous Pope declares as truth? As in "Pius XII said ex cathedra that ut is essential, but we say ex cathedra that it's insignificant"?


7851ec No.654978

>>650350

>NO

What is this?

Also, what do Priests do wrong in your opinion? I'm new to Catholicism (just got baptised last month). Thanks.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / arepa / ausneets / india / monarchy / pdfs / sw / vg / vichan ]