Posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by csbyrnes84
I doubt the matter would be much different, as a Sacrament, that what used to be the norm for Protestant coverts - a conditional Sacrament. In their case, Baptism. In the former case, Holy Orders. Only on condition, only known to God, but based on some investigation. As mentioned, there most certainly is some dispute, regardless of such investigation. Some question the 'reform' sacraments, pretty much across the board, save for Baptism. If they were not previously ordained in this way, then now they would be.
The validity issues are all a big question mark for me. I don't know. I hear both sides of the argument and both make valid points.
My own preference in monarchs is Charles I (Stuart) of England who was beheaded by Cromwell and his power drunk criminal ruffians sometime around 1640 or 1650. His scaffold speech in defense of divine right monarchy exercised on behalf of the liberties of the most despised citizens as well as the least despised citizens is magnificent and might have made a monarchist out of you. His exit line directed at the revolting Roundheads was: "Never let it be laid to your charges, sirs, that I was the martyr of the people."
Of course, Charles I WAS required by law to be an Anglican and the head of that Church. Fat lot of good it did him in the presence of Cromwell's blade! The British monarchy reached its high point during his reign and that of his son Charles II. It has been downhill ever since. Charles II triumphantly returned to London after Cromwell's demise, chased Cromwell's spawn from power, had Oliver Cromwell exhumed and posthumously beheaded, hanged his head from a tripod outside the gates to the City of London, where it swung in the breeze for some years and then disappeared in a storm. Legend has it that the head was then recovered by royal agents and delivered to Charles, thoroughly cleaned up, covered with silver and turned into a drinking cup for the Stuart monarchs and that it is now in possession of Lizzie II. I hope the legend is true for, while I care little for Lizzie II (she is an awful liberal), I care a LOT less for the awful Cromwell.
Charles II also issued a proscription list of the 80 or 90 Cromwellian colonels who signed the death warrant requiring the murdering by headsman's axe of Charles I (they would say execution), promising a large sum of reward money for the head of each. If the head and its possessor were still alive so that His Majesty might have the personal pleasure of dealing with that individual murderer personally, the reward was doubled. They did not call Charles II "The Merry Monarch" for nothing. His mere memory makes me merry to this day.
Nonetheless, in the absence of Charles I or Charles II, I am overwhelmingly likely to prefer a democratic republic with a functioning bill of rights and certainly over anything imagined by Droleskey, et al. Life is less colorful in a democratic republic but it works for me and it sounds like a plan!
I also wonder about the effects of California. Maybe Barbara Boxer has spent too much time in Washington, DC, and needs time at home (like the rest of her life) to restore her mellow. Maybe Droleskey can run for the Senate on the SSPX ticket against DiFi. He can try and translate that monarchy idea into reality on a national scale. Maybe that is too much. He could run against Ahhhhnold on a platform of restoring the California Republic. No, that won't work as a monarchy. He could declare California independent and a monarchy under whom? Bishop Fellay! Give the peasants a few weeks to convert before the auto da fes begin just to show that Tom is a real sport. Potential converts can be sent through cyberspace to Tom's "university" online for their re-education camp experience. Unhappy campers will still be subject to a salutary execution as infidels.
Also: did you know that Tom has actually published in one of the fever swamp journals of schism like the Remnant or "Catholic" Family News that, though he has been a lifelong fan of the New York Mets (As a Yankee fan, I never, even momentarily, doubted this claim of Tom), Tom now believes that attending baseball games (and probably watching them on TV) is a grave hazard to one's moral health. You see it takes you away from non-stop pretentiousness or some such thing. Actually, I think he claims that baseball takes your mind off otherworldly things. Can you imagine what fun Tom must be at a barbeque or a beach party or at a wedding reception or at an inquisition or at any other normal social event?
Still, "the idea of reordination is controversial!" Well, as they say, ROFLMAO!
Wait, are you sure that Droleskey agrees? How about John Vennari? Do you really think that you guys ought to be talking about these arcane secrets of Marcellianism in public where people can smell the nut fudge?
Also, here are two guys in a foxhole at the end. One says to the other: You know, I always knew that the rest of the human race was really nuts and totally unreliable, that they were backstabbers and not to be trusted. Now there are just thee and me left and to tell you the truth, I am not really sure about thee!
See #184. Meant to ping you.
The misnamed "Dark Ages" were actually the Age of Faith and that is resented accordingly by Enlightenment devotees and malignant seculars to this very day. Those who are Catholic and those who love God as Reformed Christians should have no difficulty agreeing on the identification as Age of Faith particularly in the face of nonbelievers who would restrain belief and practice in either group.
Your tastes are offended. No one cares.
As to Sinkspur with whom I certainly have my disagreements, he submits to the authority of Rome and to the authority of his bishop which is more than the schismatics can say. His bishop is no favorite of mine but his bishop IS, well, his bishop. WHO is YOUR bishop? The duly constituted Roman Catholic diocesan ordinary in communion with Rome, that is and not some excommunicated pretender illicitly consecrated and who dares not even PRETEND to geographical jurisdiction.
When they want to be. Same with the bishop. There was apparently almost an uprising when it was rumored a midwest bishop would be appointed who was even Adoreman conservative. The priests and bishops of 'reform' don't obey the papacy so much as a Pope who promotes 'reform', who sees it their way.
If His Holiness is wrong or right, again, is almost irrelevant when it comes to this 'communion'. It has enabled 'reform'. And that is on him. But their standard is one which is decidedly unCatholic. This 'reform' is from the top or the middle, the bishops. It began with the Rhine group as described by Amerio. If you'd care to discuss specifics of just - what Catholics believe - you might recognise your true opinion.
It was, indeed, and was not even particularly dark in certain parts. It tended to be in Britain, and so Bede stands out, etc.
It was also an age of those who confessed a Faith, in the particulars, that is identical to those you apparently and routinely mock as 'schismatics'. Yet your distaste for genuine schism does not seem to be shared by His Holiness, who seems to have done everything he can to deny that the Greek Orthodox are schismatic, even to the point of casting doubt on whether The Church, or at least 'new church', this present institutional church, still recognizes the existence of the Eastern Catholic.
Right to the core of it. By no coincidence, the Rembert Weaklands of the world worship the same way...ME ME ME.
gbcdoj's facts kinda get in the way of your childish dreams, eh?
Recognizing that you are usually well-informed on the issues and more than reasonable, I'll take that "Dark Ages" remark as a flip (and rather cute) response.
As any student of REAL history knows, they were not "dark." The slander-fix was emplaced by people who also characterize Franco as some sort of Nazi knockoff.
Same bunch who insist on the factually inaccurate portrayal of the Galileo story, and that Pius XII was a closet-ally of Hitler.
The list is endless...
How did Augustine know about the Schismatic Society of Pius X?
"Americanism" is offensive to the Church insofar as the tendency is to "vote" on immutable issues (e.g., abortion.)
Further, it is offensive to the Church insofar as the tendency is to imagine that the Church's positions on certain immutable issues should be suppressed to promote some sort of quietude among Catholics and their neighbor Prots (e.g., artificial contraception.)
Not a co-incidence that the single most significant promoter of "Americanism" was the Archbishop of the Twin Cities--a position filled today by a liar.
Ms. Hertz also believes that the only time a Catholic married couple may copulate is when the wife is fertile.
She's just a little too far up the Blue Ridge mountains--her oxygen supply is lacking.
Be careful when quoting her...
Peter the "Great"? Henry VIII?
Ummmnnnhhh--monarchy has had a few mistakes. ENLIGHTENED monarchy would seem to be that which draws the favor of Thomas Aquinas etc.
You mean, gbcdoj's presentation of weak reiterations of Catholic social teaching get in the way of my dream of clear reiterations of Catholic doctrine regarding the same?
No, of course not.
That would be the argument advanced by the Schismatic Society of Pius X.
Catholics disagree.
Why do you waste all that time at the keyboard when you could repent and go Popish?
I thought you were a Catholic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.