I am going back to occasional lurking soon (I realized some time ago that forums are not good for me) and there is something I want to say to Ladislaus before I go.

You have been making quite a few valid points  which I suspect are being lost because you are not communicating effectively.  There is a body of teaching within Catholic Moral Theology concerning voting for unworthy candidates which many people are misunderstanding as simply "choosing the lesser evil".  You are correct to object to this over-simplification.

That teaching is based on the principle of double effect.  It is difficult to understand the teaching on voting without understanding double effect, but double effect is hard to understand.  You have the education that makes you a person who does understand this principle and you probably also have the ability to explain it properly.  You have mentioned it in the context of arguing about election choices where it is over-shadowed by personal attacks and condemnations.  I expect that people could benefit from you calmly and patiently explaining double effect in a less heated context.  Please consider and pray about this suggestion.

More lying from the wicked Trump supporters.

That was a legitimate edit.

So it's OK, then, to vote for a Prot who's pro abortion and pro sodomite, correct?  And the principle, such as it is, only applies if you "pretend to be Catholic" and are pro abortion pro sodomite.

Give me a break.  Your continued wicked promotion of Trump continues to shine a light on your bad will.

Clearly the sense of the quotation is that one cannot vote for such a candidate EVEN IF he pretends to be Catholic, not that it's perfectly fine to vote for a Prot who's pro sodomite because, well, at least he's not pretending to be Catholic.  Ridiculous.  When you promote such stupidity is when you most reveal your bad will.

I edited the "pretends to be Catholic" part in an attempt to distill the principle, such as it was ... even though poorly articulated, and I linked to the article directly.

Nevertheless, while I cited the article, it's completely inadequate ... lacking any explanation of the actual principle and where one draws the line in terms of how much pro abortion and how much pro sodomite position is "too much".

On that point, Bishop Sanborn stated recently that Trump is in fact a Pro Abortion candidate and that he's not Pro Life.

You're just coming up with one excuse and rationalization after another to justify your grave sin of having voted for a Pro Abortion and Pro Genocide and Pro Sodomy candidate.

And, some of you have gone so far as to be celebrating the electoin of Trump, shedding further light upon your moral degeneracy.

Even in voting "lesser evil", the result is still evil, and is merely tolerated, not to be celebrated.

This last election has delegitimized the vast majority of the Traditional movement.

So, first we had the dotrinal relativism of JP2 Wojtyla, with his promotion of religious indifferentism.  Wojtyla, however, held the line on moral absolutes.

Then came Bergoglio, who relativized moral theology (since Wojtyla had already wrecked dogmatic theology).

So, we have (the vast majority of) Trads denouncing Wojtyla while at the same time holding to and promoting the same religious indifferentism that was taught by Wojtyla, rejecting EENS dogma by claiming that non-Catholics, and even infidels can be saved.  So most Trads are proponents of the same ecclesiology that's taught by V2 and that they out of the other sides of their mouths condemn as heretical.  You're just one small logical step removed from the V2 and Wojtylan religious indifferentism.

Now we have Trads promoting the utilitarian relativism of lesser evil, putting them one step shy of Bergoglio's moral relativism.  Strangely, Jorge too said that the US election was a question of "lesser evil" but then wouldn't chime in on which of the two major candidates was the lesser evil.

While you rend your garements over Bergoglio's Amoris Laetitia, he came to that conclusion precisely by taking the next small logical step from the principles or moral relativism that you've been promoting here.

See, Bergoglio claimed that such sinful relationships are not pure evil, that they can have good in them ... generosity, sacrifice, desire for the good of the other, and a certain "commitment".  Consequently, since these relationships are not ALL EVIL, a relativistic view of them might justify it as licit.  You are doing the exact same thing here, where, hey, Trump is at least against 6% of all abortions, and he's not all evil ... so because of that voting for Trump is licit.

Not to mention that we have the SSPX now promoting open modernist heresy in the heretical work of Fr. Paul Robinson, the same heresy that gave rise to Modernism in the first place ... and at least some Trads even thinking there's nothing wrong with that, or that, well, it's just that he's being somewhat "liberal", or we shouldn't be "not nice" to our fellow Trad, since being "mean" is bad.  No, with this pseudo-charity, you're actually serving as an enabler and a condoner of his heresy.

Effectively, the position that most Trads took on the Trump election is nothing short of heresy in the moral order, which in a way is even worse than committing a grave sin in the moral order ... since when promoting heretical principles of moral theology, you're attacking principles that affect all moral choices, and not just making a single bad choice.

Because the Trads have sold out, God's chastisement draws near.  You have time still to repent of your vote for Trump, and also, some of you, for promoting religious indifferentism.

Silly Jayne.

Yes, I suppose so.  But I had to try.  

Still, what a great way to end off my visit before going back to lurking.  

Quote from: Jaynek 2024-11-09, 11:11:11 AM
Yes, I suppose so.  But I had to try. 

Still, what a great way to end off my visit before going back to lurking. 

Whether or not your response was meant to cause disruption, I don’t consider it silly at all.

Lad, do you belong to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, or the visible Church with four marks? If so, where is your hierarchy consisting of a body of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, which is part of the mark of apostolicity?  If don't belong to a Church that has a hierarchy of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, yet in spit of that think you can save your soul, you have just denied EENS.  I will anxiously await your answer, even though I already know you will dodge the question. 

Where is your hierarchy of "Bishops"? Since the new rite of Episcopal Consecration is at the very best doubtful if not totally impotent, we are all left with emergency  supplied jurisdiction and fulfill what can be with valid Traditional Bishops consecrated in valid rites with valid lineage who can rightfully ordain and confirm. 
Are you sure your "Bishops" can?  I wouldn't trust it. 
Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre who ensured the continuity of the Faith with valid Bishops.

Fr Cekada explains it better than I ever could -
( by the way you sound extremely arrogant - maybe you should tone it down some)


https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

The new rite of Episcopal Consecration (which is not new) is more evidently valid than the Traditional Rite, in the sense that the form more clearly determines the matter, than does the for in the old rite. But why don't you challenge me on that and let's see how easily I can refute any argument you bring forward against the validity of the new rite. And I will do so without falling back on the argument that the Church cannot promulgate rites that are per se invalid, which any Catholic should already know.


Sorry, but that's not enough.  The Church must have a body of bishops with ordinary jurisdiction, which is jurisdiction that is attached to a legitimately established episcopal see.  Bishops receive such jurisdiciton, not by virtue of episcopal consecration, but when they are appointed to the office by he pope.  A scattered group of bishops claiming "supplied jurisdiction" doesn't suffice for the mark of Apostolicity.

Now, explain why you believe the new rite of episcopal conscraction is "doubtful if not totally impotent."  I only hope that you know enough to present the argument, so I don't have to explain it to you before refuting it.

In my experience, most people who doubt the validity of the new rite can't explain why they believe it's doubtful.

Your position on the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration is far from secure when examined in light of traditional Catholic theology and the clear concerns expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre.

1. Doubts and Intentions in the New Rites:
Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly highlighted the significant doubts regarding the intention and form of sacraments in the post-Vatican II rites. In a letter dated October 28, 1988, he stressed that the intentions behind modern sacramental rites are often not Catholic, making them dubious. The traditional understanding of sacramental validity relies heavily on proper intention, form, and matter. With modernists openly embracing a new ecuмenical theology, which Archbishop Lefebvre described as aligning with Protestant beliefs, the sacramental intention in the new rites is, at best, questionable.

2. Form and Matter in Traditional Theology:
Contrary to your assertion that the new rite’s form is “more clearly determined,” Archbishop Lefebvre argued that the new rites exhibit “serious deviations” in form, as outlined in his conferences and letters. Traditional Catholic theology holds that valid form must convey the sacramental reality explicitly. When we examine examples such as the rite of ordination and episcopal consecration, the ambiguous language often lacks the clarity traditionally required to ensure sacramental grace. Bishop Tissier de Mallerais also criticized the new ordination rite, stating it was “not Catholic” and thus doubtful in conveying valid sacramental grace.

3. The Need for Conditional Ordinations and Reordination:
Archbishop Lefebvre and many traditional bishops, in light of these concerns, have repeatedly conditionally re-ordained priests and bishops coming from the Novus Ordo. The reason for this is to safeguard the faith by ensuring valid sacraments. As Lefebvre said, “We must do a study,” and for cases of doubt, the practice of conditional ordination has been essential to preserve Apostolic Succession and ensure a valid priesthood.

4. Apostolic Succession and Supplied Jurisdiction:
The argument that a hierarchy lacking “ordinary jurisdiction” is invalid contradicts traditional Catholic principles, especially in times of crisis. The Church teaches that “supplied jurisdiction” applies in cases of necessity to ensure the continuation of valid sacraments and Apostolic Succession. In his ordinations and consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre relied on this principle to provide bishops and priests for the faithful in the face of an unprecedented crisis within the Church.

The conciliar changes to the rites of ordination, especially with ambiguous intentions and forms, align with Protestant theology rather than Catholic tradition. It is not we who lack Apostolicity but the modernists who have adopted a new theology incompatible with the Deposit of Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre’s steadfast position was that true fidelity to the Church requires us to reject doubtful sacraments, uphold traditional forms, and defend the integrity of the priesthood. This stance aligns with traditional Catholic teaching and cannot be dismissed as “Old Catholicism 2.0” without ignoring the core principles of sacramental theology and Apostolic Succession.

Fr Cekada explains it better than I ever could -
( by the way you sound extremely arrogant - maybe you should tone it down some)


https://traditionalmass.org/images/articles/NewEpConsArtPDF2.pdf

It's not arrogance; it is condidence.  Fr. Cekada's argument is very easy to refute, but before I do so, I want to see if you can present it   Let's see if you can do so.  If you understand it, it shouldn't take more than a few sentences.  In fact, you could reduce it down to one sentence.

But 99.9999999% of the latity that doubt the new rite based on Cekada's article don't understand Fr. Cekada's argument and/or don't have enough knowledge to refute; and if they don't understand it and/or don't have enough knowledge to refute, they will naturally end by doubting the validity of the new rite.  My guess is that's the category that you fall into.  To prove me wrong, briefly summarize his argument and then I will refute it.

If you can't do it, let's see if there is anyone else here, who doubts the validity of the new rite based on Cekada's article, who can actually present it.