In a way, the Pope speaks from the Chair of St. Peter every time he says the NO, or permits the NO to be said by his bishops and priests.
No he doesn't. That's absurd.
The NO certainly has recent Popes' approbation.
The NO that is said in 95% of the dioceses was NOT approved by the popes, using their APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY. If they approve it by other means (i.e. saying it, attending it, promoting it, etc) this is not an OFFICIAL CHURCH ACT. It is their actions as PRIVATE THEOLOGIANS or as the "Bishop of Rome"...but not as the pope, specfically. The pope's actions have different levels of authority and these levels require different levels of obedience. I'm not making distinctions to confuse; these distinctions are VERY necessary and they exist for a reason - so people will know what they have to believe and why.
The V2 era has promoted the false idea that 'whatever the pope says, goes'. This is EXTREMELY false and is not the constant Church teaching on papal authority. The V2 era has an exaggerated view of papal authority which is wrong.
Are you suggesting the Mass isn't a matter of faith? The Mass is unquestionably a matter of faith, not just discipline. Popes are protected in matters of Faith and Morals--infallibly. Since the Mass is a matter of Faith, does it not follow they Popes were protected from making the Mass defunct? Either Popes have erred in this matter of Faith by providing a Mass that isn't a Mass, and the NO does not confect the Sacrament.
No. It's way more complicated than that. I'm sorry, but it is.
Paul VI, arguably was ok to create his Liturgy A. But this is not what is said in 95% of dioceses...liturgy B is said. You want to argue that just because Paul VI says, promotes, and stays quiet while liturgy B is used everywhere that he is "approving" of it. No!
Paul VI issued a papal docuмent approving liturgy A. Until he issues a docuмent approving liturgy B, then it's not "from the Church" no matter how many speeches, or masses he attends personally.
An official, papal docuмent outweights personal actions, talks or interviews of the pope. In the former action, he is using his OFFICIAL capacity as POPE. In the latter actions, he is not acting as the pope, but merely a bishop/theologian. See Vatican 1 and how they defined infallibility, for more details...
Or, the NO is valid, teaches the bare minimum basics of faith and actually does confect the Sacrament, because the Church protected the sheep as far as was possible, and Christ lovingly feeds them His Flesh as promised.
The NO MIGHT BE valid. It also could not be.
Christ never promised that the mass would be available everywhere, in every diocese, at 9am, for all time in history. He never promised that we'd have access to the sacraments or that they'd be available at regular times. He never promised that the NO mass wouldn't cause confusion, just like the arian masses caused confusion.
All He promised was that the Church would last til the end of time. Which it is still is in existence, at all traditional chapels.
Those that choose not to go with tradition will have to answer to God for this. He will give them graces to see the NO's corruption, if they are open to seeing it. Most are not, so they continue in the NO because it's "easy", it's "diverse" and "not boring", it's "where my friends go", it's "shorter", it's "what i grew up with", it's "not a crazy chapel" or "it's not filled with weirdos." ..the excuses are endless.
No one here on CI doubts that the NO is not what the TLM is, but in order to protect the veracity of the Church, should we doubt what the Church did under the authority of Popes? Should we depart from the Church's authority because they permitted the NO? Or should we submit as Christ did (in all things but sin), fight the modernism within, stay with the TLM, yet refuse to give up what belongs to us--millions of fellow Catholics! It seems to me Trads are far too willing to count as lost the NOs by saying NOs are not Catholic. (Ok, many are not...but not all).
True Catholics, throughout history, stand for Truth even when it's hard. They stand on principles, even when the result is martyrdom. They love Christ, AS HE WANTS TO BE LOVED, by practicing the PERFECT liturgy, even when people call them "weird" of their family deserts them.
True Catholics do not change their faith through blind obedience to men (even bishops or popes)...especially when THEY AREN'T REQUIRED to change their faith (and the NO is not required).
True Catholics do not attend DOUBTFUL masses/sacraments because they know this dispeases God, who doesn't want them to miss graces. God wants us to be holy and get to heaven - something we can't do when we continually "roll the dice" and go to a doubtful mass.
True Catholics go to mass in basements, bunkers, catecombs, caves, hotel rooms, or houses - anywhere to attend the PERFECT "mass of all times". They do not attend an irreverent, sacrilgious, loud, dance-like atmosphere, where prayer is gone and a impious "celebration of man" is taking place, instead of the quiet, peaceful, reverent, and holy adoration of God.
Those who insist NOs are not Catholic sounds to me like people who are setting up their own Church separate from the authorities to which they know they are bound. I keep getting faced with these two options: either the Popes erred promoting a false Mass and lost 95% of Catholics back in 1970, or authorities (in spite of themselves) were protected from going too far so that loyal stragglers, weak minded and the uninformed might still be fed by Christ until they wake up. The latter makes more sense to me.
I've never said that NO Catholics weren't catholic. You again put words in my mouth. All i've said is that the NO mass is not catholic and sinful in it's atmosphere, nor in its theology, it's illegally sinful and it's doubtfully (and thus, sinfully) maybe-valid. The conclusions from these 3 facts are hard to swallow, which is why you agree with me one minute but then protest another.
You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It will never work. You will never have peace until you quit trying to apologize for the NO.
Topic: Buenas Aires Eucharistic Miracle? (Read 8366 times)