So, heretic Paul VI took over the Church and taught major error in matters of faith and morals replacing nearly all Masses with fake ones, but the Church and Pope are still infallible?
I know my olive tree analogy was pretty lame, but I thought it was clear that my contention is that the liturgy that Paul VI approved was NOT the liturgy that was put into place by 95% of the freemasonic bishops. So, no, Paul VI did not "replace nearly all masses with fake ones". The freemasonic bishops did and since the bishops don't have authority to do so, they aren't protected by the Holy Ghost from error.
Secondly, I've never said that the NO was fake. I said it was extremely doubtful. In many cases, it is a fake, but we don't know when, where or by whom, because it is dependent upon the priest's personal intention...which no one (except God and him) know.
There is no way to know, by external measures, if a NO is valid. Therefore, you must act as if it's doubtful, because the doubt is too great.If Paul VI was an heretic and destroyed the Mass as you say, was he infallible when he did this?
The question doesn't even make any sense. A pope's heretical status is dependent upon his PERSONAL beliefs, while his actions of authority are EXTERNAL acts. They don't have to be connected. A heretical pope could proclaim somone as canonized, even if he didn't believe it, because his authority as pope, if he uses such authority, is protected from error by the Holy Ghost (in certain circuŠ¼stances).
Further, one could make the argument that Paul VI's constitution which created the NO was not an infallible act, because he did not bind any of the faithful to accept, use or attend his new mass. If something is optional, then how can it be infallible? Infallible means "without error"; how can something optional be "without error"? Makes no sense.
Topic: Buenas Aires Eucharistic Miracle? (Read 8391 times)