DecemRationis
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
|
Caminus,
| Quote: | | DR, before I respond at length, I'd just like to say THANK YOU for trying to articulate your opinions by using logic and attempting to stick to principles without emotional pleas and other fallacies. What a refreshing change. You act as if you do not argue from fear and attachment, but from an interest in truth. That is a virtuous thing indeed. |
Thank you. Same here.
I will try to avoid rhetorical flourishes and keep the argument purely truth seeking. I promise you, if truth leads me to being SV (I'll tell you, I can't imagine that, but . . . ), if it leads me to siding with the SSPX (can't imagine that right now because of this inconsistency on the NO - IMHO), or remaining where I am, a disgruntled Catholic who attends the NO and weathers the storm, that's where I will go or stay.
I will listen to you, and trust you will do the same to me.
DR
|
.........................
"This medal emphasizes the union of the Two Hearts, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary "of and in" Holy Mass." Apocalypse of the Mass, by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.
http://kenosis.yuku.com/directory
|
| Posted Jul 22, 2010, 10:59 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
DecemRationis
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
|
| Quote: | Quote:
The Council of Trent defined dogmatically: "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema" (Session 22, Chapter IX, Canon VII).
It's no accident that novus ordo apologists use this canon to defend the rectitude of the reform. |
I don't know that "rectitude" is the right word. To defend it, as prescribed and authorized by the Church, as free from sacrilege or impiety would be more accurate as far as I'm concerned.
| Quote: | | Needless to say, both the SV and the N.O. apologist misunderstand this canon and especially as applied in the concrete case before us. |
Well, I'll listen to your argument.
| Quote: | | I say it's no accident because of the false dilemma both the SV and the N.O. apologist put forth as our only alternatives. |
I think the indisputable facts I've referenced and logical application of the truth of the Church's Indefectibility to those facts requires either accepting the NO or rejecting the "Church" that produces it. The dilemma is real and ineluctable.
Of course, by "accepting" I don't mean you can't avoid it and attend the TLM or an Eastern Rite. That's the best course.
DR
|
.........................
"This medal emphasizes the union of the Two Hearts, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary "of and in" Holy Mass." Apocalypse of the Mass, by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.
http://kenosis.yuku.com/directory
|
| Posted Jul 22, 2010, 11:09 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
SpiritusSanctus
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 531
Joined: May 21, 2010
|
| DecemRationis said: | Caminus,
| Quote: | | DR, before I respond at length, I'd just like to say THANK YOU for trying to articulate your opinions by using logic and attempting to stick to principles without emotional pleas and other fallacies. What a refreshing change. You act as if you do not argue from fear and attachment, but from an interest in truth. That is a virtuous thing indeed. |
Thank you. Same here.
I will try to avoid rhetorical flourishes and keep the argument purely truth seeking. I promise you, if truth leads me to being SV (I'll tell you, I can't imagine that, but . . . ), if it leads me to siding with the SSPX (can't imagine that right now because of this inconsistency on the NO - IMHO), or remaining where I am, a disgruntled Catholic who attends the NO and weathers the storm, that's where I will go or stay.
I will listen to you, and trust you will do the same to me.
DR |
Just out of curiosity, why do you attend the NO?
|
|
| Posted Jul 22, 2010, 11:12 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
Caminus
Level 4
Group: Members
Posts: 2,507
Joined: Mar 2, 2009
|
D.R.,
I'd like to use an analogy from civil law. Suppose a police officer pulls over a vehicle with no probable cause. If you are unaware, being pulled over by the police amounts to a "seizure" under the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Upon investigation, the police officer discovers the driver to be intoxicated. He eventually effects an arrest for driving under the influence.
The defendant later sues for a civil rights violation because the police officer failed to establish probable cause (good faith reason) for stopping the vehicle in the first place.
What should the court decide? Should the court rule in favor of the government because post facto the driver was found under the influence? Or should the court decide in favor of the defendant because the arrest was fruit of the poisonous tree (a term to describe otherwise legitimate actions of police that were predicated upon something illegal)?
I say that according to your logic, the court must decide in favor of the government since you are not arguing from the principle of law that would order the actions of the police officer, but rather assuming it was legal or moot because evidence of a crime was found after the fact. You opinion amounts to stating that legislation can occur de facto. Such a proposition amounts to anarchy.
The same holds in this case. Simply because the majority of members of the Church are doing something illicit or sacrilegious doesn't thereby create law or even custom, for evil custom can never attain force of law.
Something that is "of the Church" is very different than something that is "of men." The threshold involved in stating that something is "of the Church" is both high and precise.
If you concede that many prelates can err, I fail to see how draw the line between many and most. What your argument amounts to is drawing an arbirary line between what you think "implicates indefectibility" and what doesn't. It amounts to a subjective opinion that says "this is just too much."
A shorter analogy, suppose 98% of Catholic priests are sodomites. Can one infer from this that "the Church" accepts this behavior?
And what do you make of Pius V's actions regarding the abolishment of rites younger than two hundred years old? What kind of inferences can we draw from this fact? I think one legitimate inference is that it is an implicit admission that bad rites can and have existed "within the Church" but have not been from her.
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 1:29 am |
|
Ignored by: 7
|
|
|
DecemRationis
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
|
Caminus,
| Quote: | I say that according to your logic, the court must decide in favor of the government since you are not arguing from the principle of law that would order the actions of the police officer, but rather assuming it was legal or moot because evidence of a crime was found after the fact. You opinion amounts to stating that legislation can occur de facto. Such a proposition amounts to anarchy.
|
That is not according to my logic. Let me apply my logic to your situation. First, here's my logic in action as to the NO:
| Quote: | 1) The Church can not produce a "sinful" or "sacrilegious" Mass
2) The New Mass was produced by the Church
3) The New Mass is not "sinful" or "sacrilegious"
|
I'll apply my logic to your hypothetical:
1) A stop of a vehicle without probable cause is an illegal seizure under the Constitution
2) Vehicle A was stopped without probably cause
3) Vehicle A was stopped illegally under the Constitution
I start from a principle in both cases and apply it to the facts. Using an analogy to your hypothetical, my facts merely establish that Vehicle A was stopped without probable cause. The principle must be applied to determine constitutionality. In other words, the "facts" of Pope VI's promulgation and authorization of the NO, and the subsequent use of it by his successors, the use of the NO to celebrate the Mass by almost all the bishops in union with those popes, these all show the "fact" that the NO is a Mass of the Church, and produced by it -that's all.
The a priori principle, the Church cannot produce a sacrilegious liturgy, the major of the syllogism, applied to these facts, validates the conclusion.
Additionally, the reason why your hypothetical does not apply here is because the very principle at issue invests the agent (the Church) with indefectibility at all times and under all circumstances with regard to the action at issue, the production of a rite of the Mass. It's a universal, infallible principle: the Church cannot produce a sacrilegious or "in itself sinful Mass." The constitutional principle at issue in your hypothetical does not involve the agent in its definition: the definition of a constitutional search does not include the police as an element of the definition. The principle at issue is simply a search without probable cause is unconstitutional, no matter what agency of the government does it.
So the hypothetical doesn't really apply because the agents (the Church on one hand and the police on the other) and the actions are also very different in that the principle indicates that the Church cannot produce a sacrilegious liturgy while the principle in your hypothetical is not, "the police cannot stop a vehicle unconstitutionally."
The only way your hypothetical would apply to this case is if the principle was that the police cannot stop a vehicle unconstitutionally. We could then look at the facts and would only have to see if the police stopped the vehicle.
This is exactly what I am doing. As I said above, my facts simply establish that the Church produced the NO. The principle of the Church's Indefectibility indicates that the Church cannot produce a sacrilegious liturgy. I then look at the facts with the principle in hand to see if the Church "produced" the NO, and it has. Therefore . . . you know, and cannot escape I believe, the conclusion.
Now, again, you are attacking my reasoning by saying the Church did not produce the NO. You cannot dispute the major, the a priori principle: the Church cannot produce a sacrilegious liturgy or one "sinful in itself" (Father Scott). Your saying the Church didn't produce it fails utterly if you focus on the "produced," as the "facts" I've brought forward illustrate.
You are thus left (it seems to me) to define Church in a way that excludes Pius VI, JPII, Benedict XVI and all the bishops in union with them who "produced" the NO, and continue to produce it, on Catholic altars all over the world. This is your dilemma: you either deny the Church's visibility or its Indefectibility.
I have no fondness for the NO, Caminus, or for the post-conciliar regime, but whatever God has in mind for us it is in accord with truth, and the SSPX's "the NO is sinful in itself" doesn't accord with it. I therefore begrudgingly can't accord with the SSPX.
In no small way, however, I hope you do in fact come up with an argument to prove me wrong.
DR
|
.........................
"This medal emphasizes the union of the Two Hearts, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary "of and in" Holy Mass." Apocalypse of the Mass, by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.
http://kenosis.yuku.com/directory
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 2:45 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Caminus
Level 4
Group: Members
Posts: 2,507
Joined: Mar 2, 2009
|
The point of comparison was not with the agent producing the law, but as it regarded your reasoning that amounted to legislating law after the fact. You argue from fact to law. I'm saying that a fact does not and cannot amount to law. The law is an explicit, intentional order of reason that binds under pain of sin. In the case before us, such an intention is utterly lacking. It does not and cannot attain the force of law through mere popularity. It is of the very essence of law that it has a coercive, binding character. The N.O.M. in no way possesses this character. I challenge you to demonstrate that it does, that the old law was abrogated and replaced with a new law.
You are scandalized because something is obscured. I concur, something is obscured. But that which obscures cannot by definition be legal and binding.
You did not touch the question: would it be licit to infer from the moral universality of sodomy that the Church approves of such a vice?
Finally, it is not accurate to say that the N.O.M. is intrinsically evil. If Fr. Scott used those words, they were excessive. One has to consider the original N.O.M. and its relation to the traditional liturgy. Thus it is evil through privation and insofar as it is related and founded upon certain false principles (ecumenism, inculturation, theology of the Mass, etc). It is evil secundum quid, under a certain relative aspect. But even good laws can become evil under certain circumstances, not intrinsically, but in relation to a circumstance.
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 3:14 am |
|
Ignored by: 7
|
|
|
DecemRationis
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
|
| Quote: | | You argue from fact to law. |
Totally false, as I demonstrated.
The irony is that you argue from fact to law, thus: the NO is harmful or sinful, therefore the Church didn't produce it, since the Church can't produce a liturgy that's harmful or sinful. Think about that. Who is beginning in fact and drawing a legal conclusion from fact - you are. I, to the contrary, am starting from an immutable and infallible principle that transcends fact - the Church cannot produce a sinful or sacrilegious liturgy - and apply it to the facts before me.
| Quote: | | I challenge you to demonstrate that it does, that the old law was abrogated and replaced with a new law. |
As we've discussed, I have no need to do that. The NO is a liturgy of the Church and Peter's successors whether the old law was abrogated or not: the "Church" indisputably provides the highest sacrament of salvation to Christ's people via the NO. This is a fact that must be accounted for in light of the also indisputable principle of Indefectibility. You fail to account for it with your legalistic arguments. And Pope Benedict XVI has settled the issue anyway: the old law wasn't abrogated, and the NO is also law; they are both part of the one Latin rite.
| Quote: | | You did not touch the question: would it be licit to infer from the moral universality of sodomy that the Church approves of such a vice? |
We don't need to go to another inapplicable hypothetical of yours when we have a real question before us: can the Church approve of an evil liturgy and her Indefectibility remain intact? You've not really touched that question, but presented a lot of technical arguments that are evasive and deflective of the issue. The Church has approved of the NO by decree and action. In this latest hypothetical you're talking about an "approval" based upon the Church's silence in the face of the world's practice. And your hypothetical also avoids the issue that the practice we're dealing with is in the Holy Mass itself, not some "universal" behavior of people, but a sacrament of salvation. As with your other hypothetical, it's not applicable.
| Quote: | Finally, it is not accurate to say that the N.O.M. is intrinsically evil. If Fr. Scott used those words, they were excessive. One has to consider the original N.O.M. and its relation to the traditional liturgy. Thus it is evil through privation and insofar as it is related and founded upon certain false principles (ecumenism, inculturation, theology of the Mass, etc). It is evil secundum quid, under a certain relative aspect. But even good laws can become evil under certain circumstances, not intrinsically, but in relation to a circumstance.
|
Finally, after about a dozen or so exchanges you address a critical point head on. But you're still saying the NO is "evil," if by way of privation, etc. etc. So you still have the problem of a rite of the Church for Holy Mass being evil. There's a glimmer of an argument here, but you have to develop it. For example, could the NO as approved by Paul VI - which, as Michael Davies noted, was protected from being "evil" by the Church's Indefectibility - become "evil" under circumstances where it has morphed into something different from what Paul VI approved? But then you have the issue of whether any practice or subsequent development approved by Rome with regard to the Holy Mass could be "evil."
DR
|
.........................
"This medal emphasizes the union of the Two Hearts, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary "of and in" Holy Mass." Apocalypse of the Mass, by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.
http://kenosis.yuku.com/directory
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 5:22 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Caminus
Level 4
Group: Members
Posts: 2,507
Joined: Mar 2, 2009
|
| Quote: | | The irony is that you argue from fact to law, thus: the NO is harmful or sinful, therefore the Church didn't produce it, since the Church can't produce a liturgy that's harmful or sinful. Think about that. Who is beginning in fact and drawing a legal conclusion from fact - you are. I, to the contrary, am starting from an immutable and infallible principle that transcends fact - the Church cannot produce a sinful or sacrilegious liturgy - and apply it to the facts before me. |
On the contrary, the legal defect was apparent from the beginning. It was an experiment by committee. They wouldn't have dared to attempt to make it legally binding.
You may be attempting to start from an immutable principle but the application to the concrete situation is flawed. You have only two options: either the reforms were executed in virtue of the exercise of supreme authority or they were congruous with tradition. In the case of the N.O.M., a liturgical novelty, you have neither condition present. Therefore it must be a thing superadded to the Church without any foundation in authority or tradition.
| Quote: | | As we've discussed, I have no need to do that. The NO is a liturgy of the Church and Peter's successors whether the old law was abrogated or not: the "Church" indisputably provides the highest sacrament of salvation to Christ's people via the NO. This is a fact that must be accounted for in light of the also indisputable principle of Indefectibility. You fail to account for it with your legalistic arguments. And Pope Benedict XVI has settled the issue anyway: the old law wasn't abrogated, and the NO is also law; they are both part of the one Latin rite. |
You most certainly need to demonstrate it because we both can't be right. Either it was properly legislated or it was not. Appealing to Benedict's novel statement regarding two forms of the one rite is patently absurd. The two exist in opposition to one another, it is manifestly not the same rite with minor variations. Benedict also thought that a rite devoid of a consecration formula could be considered legitimate. The Papacy doesn't supply for his serious intellectual defects.
Why the disdain for observing necessary legal requirements? It's as if you almost desire it to be legal in order for you to prove a point. Frankly, I'm surprised that you haven't fallen into sedevacantism.
| Quote: | | We don't need to go to another inapplicable hypothetical of yours when we have a real question before us: can the Church approve of an evil liturgy and her Indefectibility remain intact? |
The analogy directly touches upon the essence of the dilemma you put before us. By your standard of judgment, a judgment based upon phenomenology, such a scenario would "implicate" the indefectibility of the Church. According to your logic, one could infer Church approval from such state of affairs. The material object, e.g. a bad liturgy, bad behavior or bad opinion, is an indifferent matter. The point is that your thesis infers the legality of just about anything that can be found in the Church. You essentially say, if it is in the Church it is of the Church. This notion is patently false.
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 5:48 am |
|
Ignored by: 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DecemRationis
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
|
| Quote: | | The analogy directly touches upon the essence of the dilemma you put before us. By your standard of judgment, a judgment based upon phenomenology, such a scenario would "implicate" the indefectibility of the Church. According to your logic, one could infer Church approval from such state of affairs. The material object, e.g. a bad liturgy, bad behavior or bad opinion, is an indifferent matter. The point is that your thesis infers the legality of just about anything that can be found in the Church. You essentially say, if it is in the Church it is of the Church. This notion is patently false. |
You are sticking your head in the sand. Or, a better analogy, you've just seen something ugly and you're kicking sand on it to cover it up, the "sand" being legal arguments that don't explain the reality, but evade it with an answer that is extremely wanting - to say the least.
The SV and I at least deal with the reality and try to explain it or understand it. A pope instituted the NO and made it the dominant rite in the Latin Church for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Catholic altars. This pope's successors and the bishops in union with them have followed suit. This is the reality the SV and I deal with, and which you evade.
Again, we are talking about the Holy Mass, not some mere disciplinary decision or opinion on a theological question for which even popes can be in error.
The sacramental system of the Church is unique, and plays a direct and vital role in the salvation of Christ's people. You keep throwing grapes, oranges and raisons into this basket of apples, and you won't be able to focus on the apples if you keep doing so.
Ecumenism is "in the Church" today. The views on "ecumenism" of a pontiff or even a majority of bishops with him doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. An erroneous disciplinary order, such as the excommunication of Athanasius, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. The majority of the bishops holding to the Arian heresy didn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. Yet one could say the Arian heresy was "in the Church." JPII kissing the Koran, Benedict XVI entering a synagogue to pray with Jews, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church.
However, if a rite in which the Holy Mass is celebrated, and through which the means of salvation are offered to Christ's sheep by the visible hierarchy of the One, True Church, is "obectively sinful" and "sinful in itself," then the Church's Indefectibility is damaged to its very core. The Church cannot violate the First Commandment and commit sacrilege in offering the very means of salvation without Indefectibility being violated.
Your failure to get that is astounding to me.
A gross example of your evasion is one of your prior comments on my position:
| Quote: | | Quote: | Quote:
The Church cannot produce and provide a sacramental system that fails to fulfill Her divine commission to sanctify and save. If she has adopted a liturgy that is sacrilegious and sinful “in itself,” she has failed. |
As I already stated, none of this is from the "Church" properly speaking. |
Not the Church "properly speaking." What does that mean? Are you saying that the popes who have instituted the NO and made it the ordinary rite of the Latin Church are not the Church "properly speaking"? No, you can't say that because you'd then deny the Church's Visibility. So you come up with this "properly speaking" hedge that is blown down by a whisper: "Psst. The visible Church in union with the duly elected pontiff, the Church celebrating the Holy Mass in the NO on its altars in Rome and all over, is the Church."
| Quote: | How do you get yourself out of this pickle:
The Church would have defected if it produced an evil liturgy.
But the N.O.M. is an evil liturgy.
Ergo, the Church has defected.
So much for immutable principles. |
I never said the NO was "evil." Father Scott said that. And I believe you're saying that. It's your pickle. I'm not in your pickle.
DR
|
.........................
"This medal emphasizes the union of the Two Hearts, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary "of and in" Holy Mass." Apocalypse of the Mass, by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.
http://kenosis.yuku.com/directory
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 4:09 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
MyrnaM
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 1,163
Joined: May 10, 2010
|
| Roman Catholic said: | | Caminus said: | How do you get yourself out of this pickle:
The Church would have defected if it produced an evil liturgy.
But the N.O.M. is an evil liturgy.
Ergo, the Church has defected.
So much for immutable principles. |
Some would say it is not a pickle:
The Church would have defected if it produced an evil liturgy.
But the N.O.M. is an evil liturgy.
Ergo, The NOM is not from the Church.
Immutable principles intact. |
Good one! 
|
.........................
2 Paralipomenon Chapter 7 Verse 14 And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins and heal their land.
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 4:25 pm |
|
Ignored by: 4
|
|
|
Caminus
Level 4
Group: Members
Posts: 2,507
Joined: Mar 2, 2009
|
| Quote: | | You are sticking your head in the sand. Or, a better analogy, you've just seen something ugly and you're kicking sand on it to cover it up, the "sand" being legal arguments that don't explain the reality, but evade it with an answer that is extremely wanting - to say the least. |
This complaint amounts to questioning my agreement with you regarding the magnitude of distortion. I agree with you that the liturgy has been distorted. But you move from the consideration of magnitude and universality of the crisis to make the false inference that it must of necessity be "of the Church."
My entire point, for the seventh time, is that in order for this claim to hold, the legality and thus its binding nature must be clearly demonstrated. If the reforms were legislated according to the norms of justice, there would be no question. What I'm telling you is that there was a defect in form. The entire reform lacks legitimizing authority. The two necessary conditions that would ensure the thing is "of the Church" are entirely lacking. Without these conditions being met, anything is theoretically possible. Error and corruption can find its way into the Church and even touch upon the liturgy.
You have consistently evaded this point and have demurred in offering a demonstration.
| Quote: | | The SV and I at least deal with the reality and try to explain it or understand it. A pope instituted the NO and made it the dominant rite in the Latin Church for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Catholic altars. This pope's successors and the bishops in union with them have followed suit. This is the reality the SV and I deal with, and which you evade. |
You continue to use terms that beg the question. What does "made it dominant" mean? The SV doesn't understand the concept of disciplinary infallibility, nor do you. You claim to argue from the indefectibility of the Church, but end up denying it in the premise. If you claim that the N.O.M. is deficient, yet was authoritatively promulgated, abrogating the old law, then you are left with the unsavory proposition that the Church, properly speaking, defected in attempting to authoritatively impose something harmful to the faith. As an N.O.M. apologist, you must consider the N.O.M. good in every way on the same grounds. You both misunderstand the abstract doctrine as well as its application to the concrete order.
| Quote: | | Again, we are talking about the Holy Mass, not some mere disciplinary decision or opinion on a theological question for which even popes can be in error. |
The liturgy of the Mass is a discipline. And I see that you minimize the concession in order to cling to your imaginary point. If a Pope can theologically err regarding the higher order of speculative doctrine, then a fortiori, he can err with regard to legislation of the prudential order. Even more, a Pope who errs with regard to a theological question has the potential of misleading the entire Church on very grave questions. Such a case would have the effect of injuring the faith. You concede this, but do not concede an error in judgment with regard to a newly created liturgy? The inconsistency is glaring.
| Quote: | | The sacramental system of the Church is unique, and plays a direct and vital role in the salvation of Christ's people. You keep throwing grapes, oranges and raisons into this basket of apples, and you won't be able to focus on the apples if you keep doing so. |
Rather you are the one arguing from what your senses perceive instead of principle. You are positing assumptions that need to be demonstrated, such as the notion that the liturgy can never be corrupted, that it could never reach this level of decay while the hierarchy is blinded. Such notions are gratuitous and have no foundation in Catholic theology.
| Quote: | | Ecumenism is "in the Church" today. The views on "ecumenism" of a pontiff or even a majority of bishops with him doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. An erroneous disciplinary order, such as the excommunication of Athanasius, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. The majority of the bishops holding to the Arian heresy didn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. Yet one could say the Arian heresy was "in the Church." JPII kissing the Koran, Benedict XVI entering a synagogue to pray with Jews, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. |
All of these things tend towards the corruption of the theological virtue of faith, they touch directly upon the speculative order, an order higher than the prudential order of discipline. They have been accepted and fostered by the hierarchy. Yet you expect us to believe that the liturgy is simply off limits from such corruption? Purely gratuitous. Another glaring inconsistency.
Until you demonstrate the legally binding nature of the reform, you don't have a leg to stand on. You are simply begging us to believe that the suggestions, novelties and experiments of the hierarchy are morally obliging. You'll never be able to convince informed Catholics of this.
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 6:03 pm |
|
Ignored by: 7
|
|
|
|
|
SpiritusSanctus
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 531
Joined: May 21, 2010
|
1.- The Novus Ordo didn't morph into something different than what Paul VI approved. Paul VI was a bad Pope, possibly an anti-pope, though that we probably won't know for sure until we get to Heaven. Back to the point, a bad Pope or anti-pope can approve a liturgy that is evil and force the Church to accept this Mass. What happened instead is that the members of the true Church either left or stayed (mostly left, thought some such as Archbishop LeFebvre remained) while freemasons and modernists came along and formed a counter-fit Church. So we have the true Church, which has been reduced to a remnant and only celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass, and then we have the counter-fit Church, which is just crawling with modernists, freemasons, etc. Hopefully that will clear up this whole "two Churches" issue that you don't seem to understand, DR.
2.- Cardinal Bugnini once said "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants". This was said at the time of Vatican II. Does that not sound evil to you? The Novus Ordo was created in an attempt to draw us away from the Catholic faith and closer to the Protestants, and even to other religions. It's all part of the New World Order. They want us to have a one world religion. It's utterly disgusting. Therefore, the NO can't be Catholic and is a heretical Mass which is not in communion with the true Church.
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 7:47 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
DecemRationis
Level 1
Group: Members
Posts: 63
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
|
| Quote: | | You claim to argue from the indefectibility of the Church, but end up denying it in the premise. If you claim that the N.O.M. is deficient, yet was authoritatively promulgated, abrogating the old law, then you are left with the unsavory proposition that the Church, properly speaking, defected in attempting to authoritatively impose something harmful to the faith. As an N.O.M. apologist, you must consider the N.O.M. good in every way on the same grounds. You both misunderstand the abstract doctrine as well as its application to the concrete order. |
No, Caminus. One does not need to think the "N.O.M good in every way", or be an "N.O.M. apologist," to see what the doctrine of Indefectibility means in relation to the NO, which is precisely this:
| Quote: | Michael Davies, I Am With You Always, p. 29:
“Indefectibility does not guarantee that the new law will be the most perfect possible, or even opportune or appropriate, but only that it will be free from all error implicit or explicit in matters of faith or morals, and consequently cannot harm the spiritual life of the faithful by their observing what the law prescribes. The canonists Werz-Widal explain: ‘The Pontiffs are infallible in the elaboration of universal laws concerning the ecclesiastical discipline, such that these can never establish anything that might be contrary to faith and morals even if they do not attain the supreme degree of prudence.’” |
Was Davies an "NO apologist"? No, just a rational guy who knew how to think things through.
You ask me what "dominant" means? It means that the last four popes have made it their liturgy and that it is, again, the Mass on probably 95% or more of the Catholic altars in the Latin Rite. It is the "dominant" liturgy as a matter of fact in terms of its usage. Again, I am not arguing that such usage justifies the NO; I am arguing that this "fact" is something that must be accounted for and explained in light of the doctrine of Indefectibility. I do not see how the NO can be sacrilege and "sinful in itself" in light of these facts and the Church's Indefectibility remain intact. All attempts you've made so far fall far short of convincing me, or even approaching it.
| Quote: | | My entire point, for the seventh time, is that in order for this claim to hold, the legality and thus its binding nature must be clearly demonstrated. If the reforms were legislated according to the norms of justice, there would be no question. What I'm telling you is that there was a defect in form. The entire reform lacks legitimizing authority. The two necessary conditions that would ensure the thing is "of the Church" are entirely lacking. Without these conditions being met, anything is theoretically possible. Error and corruption can find its way into the Church and even touch upon the liturgy. |
No, Caminus, it can't "touch upon the liturgy" authorized or approved of by a legitimate successor to Peter. If it ever could, then Indefectibility means nothing. I agree with Mr. Davies again:
| Quote: | Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 95: “The doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility… requires us to accept the validity of any sacramental rite promulgated by a pope.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 227: “The decisive factor where the validity of any sacramental rite is concerned is the approval given to it by the Pope… no Pope could authorize any sacramental rite that was either invalid or intrinsically harmful to the faith.” |
The same argument as to the rite of ordination applies to the NO:
| Quote: | Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 238: “The doctrine of indefectibility… renders untenable any argument alleging the invalidity of the New Rite of Ordination as it was approved specifically by Pope Paul VI, and promulgated with his authority.”
Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 239: “…the fact that the doctrine of indefectibility rules out any possibility of the new ordination rite being invalid…” |
I know you quibble with whether it was "promulgated," and I reject that argument. In any event, Paul VI and his successors clearly approved of the NO and "authorized" it as the de facto "dominant" rite of the Western Church.
We've gone back and forth on this, and I think we're at the end of the road, unfortunately.
| Quote: | | Beyond this, you are going to have to extricate yourself from a baneful, profane and sacrilegous worship of God that cuts off the pure sacrifice for sins. If you wish to gain the graces of God, find true Catholic worship. |
Perhaps. I am genuinely seeking, and I will find. I have the Lord's assurance on that.
DR
|
.........................
"This medal emphasizes the union of the Two Hearts, the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary "of and in" Holy Mass." Apocalypse of the Mass, by Fr. Paul Trinchard, S.T.L.
http://kenosis.yuku.com/directory
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 7:50 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Caminus
Level 4
Group: Members
Posts: 2,507
Joined: Mar 2, 2009
|
No one states seriously that the original N.O. is intrinsically harmful to the faith, i.e. it contains no heresy, nor does anyone claim that it is invalid. So Davies' observations are somewhat irrelevant on that point as well as regarding the point that such a 'bastard rite' can have no claim to the perogatives of the traditional liturgy anyway. In fact, he thought that the N.O. as celebrated in the concrete was indeed harmful to the faith. It is also noteworthy to point out that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal introduced an heretical definition of the Mass only to be later revised. This fact at very least indicates the disposition of those who 'fabricated' the N.O. But if the Pope refuses to concede this and allows it to be introduced into the Church, there is nothing we can do but avoid it.
Now DR, you have conceded that Popes and Bishops can err, short of the exercise of supreme authority. The entirety of your posts consists in struggling with the fact that the majority of Catholics attend a harmful, sacrilegious rite. You are shocked at the universality of the corruption of the Roman rites and therefore feel the need to invoke some principle in order to justify evil. But the essence of the Church is not found in numbers. Therefore, the dwindling of true Catholics practicing traditional Catholicism doesn't affect the nature of the Church, nor its inability to 'defect'.
If the hierarchy chooses spiritual and doctrinal blindess as a means to secure new orientations then they are free to do so to their own detriment. Nothing of their evil implicates the Church, for if one can greviously err without implicating the Church, so too can many greviously err without implicating the Church. And your application of principles essentially destroys the Church as does the sedevacantist "solution." It is your unwillingness to face realitiy as it is not as you desire it.
It is obvious that you are selectively responding to my posts in the attempt to avoid addressing what is inconvenient. Until such a time that you attempt to seriously address my points, I see no real reason to continue.
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 8:55 pm |
|
Ignored by: 7
|
|
|
|
|
Telesphorus
Level 3
Group: Members
Posts: 1,044
Joined: Mar 1, 2009
|
| Quote: | | No one states seriously that the original N.O. is intrinsically harmful to the faith |
Really?
Can you find a quote from an SSPX authority to that effect?
|
|
| Posted Jul 29, 2010, 9:00 pm |
|
Ignored by: 1
|
|
|
