Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: forlorn on April 27, 2018, 03:49:11 PM
-
I keep hearing Resistance Catholics here state that the Novus Ordo mass is invalid and not "received and approved" despite having been promulgated by (in their eyes) a valid Pope. Could someone please shed some light on this perspective?
-
Its validity is doubtful due to many serious concerns. Read the Ottaviani intervention where he lists the theological problems of it. A catholic is not allowed to attend a mass/sacraments where validity is doubtful.
It is licit in that it exists, but not licit for a priest to use the missal (and consequently not licit for a layman to attend) because it violates Quo Priumum's strict requirements for exclusivity in the latin rite.
It is obviously immoral due to its circuмstances (sacrilegious communion in the hand, irreverent atmosphere, liturgical anomolies).
-
Its validity is doubtful due to many serious concerns. Read the Ottaviani intervention where he lists the theological problems of it. A catholic is not allowed to attend a mass/sacraments where validity is doubtful.
It is licit in that it exists, but not licit for a priest to use the missal (and consequently not licit for a layman to attend) because it violates Quo Priumum's strict requirements for exclusivity in the latin rite.
It is obviously immoral due to its circuмstances (sacrilegious communion in the hand, irreverent atmosphere, liturgical anomolies).
Quo Primum is law not Scripture. It cannot prevent further Popes from overriding it.
And whether it is immoral or not is not up for the laymen to decide, as according to Trent we are not allowed to say masses celebrated by the Catholic Church lead to impiety.
-
I keep hearing Resistance Catholics here state that the Novus Ordo mass is invalid and not "received and approved" despite having been promulgated by (in their eyes) a valid Pope. Could someone please shed some light on this perspective?
Many here are not resistance catholics. Many here entertain and spread on the forum a mish mosh of odd opinions, and that is probably who you are hearing this from. The resistance considers the new mass on an official(the pope is the pope) level valid. Practically speaking, in many cases it appears to be invalid. Due to this and other reasons, it is on an unofficial level illicit. I may be wrong about the that last part concerning its level of licit-ness, but I don't think so. We have a positive doubt that the new mass is not licit. But, I don't that positive doubt raise something to the level of official. That is more of a jurisdictional discussion. And, the resistance bishops do not claim such authority.
The reason I think why people regard it as not "received an approved"(not my emphasis) is because the old mass was never "officially" forbidden. That is my guess as to why they entertain such illegality about the new masses promulgation details.
-
Many of the Resistance seem to have completely dropped the sound judgement of Fr. Hesse, however, he has the answer to this question.
The Novus Ordo was never officially promulgated by Paul VI in any official capacity whatsoever. There is no docuмent or Bula that says this. What there is is a signature Bugnini acquired which basically says I like this book in reference to the Missal of the Novus Ordo Missae.
That said, the Resistance considers the New Mass illicit and doubtful. Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1988 that all the Novus Ordo sacraments were now doubtful due to non-Catholic intentions. Doubtful sacraments must be avoided as if they were invalid. As far as the participation of the laity is concerned, doubtful is the same as invalid. See what the Dominicans of Avrillé posted about this here... http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/
-
The other point regarding the new mass and its legality is this: as PG pointed out, the difference between the IDEAL novus ordo mass and the actual, practical liturgy that is said everywhere is as wide as the Grand Canyon. This is why conservative novus ordo-ites were asking Pope Benedict for a “reform of the reform”, because they recognized that the “abuses” (ie sacrileges) in the novus ordo were rampant and varied. These sacrileges and rubric-craziness were not part of the IDEAL novus ordo, while on the other hand, it’s lack of structure invites experimentation.
Cardinal Ottaviani and his fellow theologians examined an IDEAL new mass and still had problems with its philosophy and lack of theological precision. What they said still applies today.
-
Father Hess, theologian, was tasked by Pope Benedict, XVI to determine if the Novus Ordo Mass was valid or not. He determined it was not as the words of consecration had changed the meaning. That is when Pope Benedict changed the words of consecration back. Father Hess also declared it has serious problems, such as communion in the hand (crumbs fall all over and are trampled), etc.
https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/ (https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/)
-
Father Hess, theologian, was tasked by Pope Benedict, XVI to determine if the Novus Ordo Mass was valid or not. He determined it was not as the words of consecration had changed the meaning. That is when Pope Benedict changed the words of consecration back. Father Hess also declared it has serious problems, such as communion in the hand (crumbs fall all over and are trampled), etc.
https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/ (https://spideroak.com/browse/share/Hesse/MP3-Remastered/Fr.%20Gregory%20Hesse%20Audio%20Files%20(Remastered)/)
Are you trying to pull a fast one? Why would ratzinger task fr. hesse to find out if the new rite is valid or not? I have listened to him, and I do not recall that one. And, fr. hesse was referring to the vernacular english translation in the united states, not the latin or even all translations in general. The US bishops had translated it as for you and all instead of you and many. And, fr. hesse considered that an invalidating factor. But, the american bishops conference are to blame for that, not strictly paul VI, which is what we are concerned with when we discuss validity with a capital V. Yes there are serious problems with the new mass, but those rather concern whether it is licit or not. Communion in the hand is not officially required, and neither is the removal of the paten, or the mandating of crumbly hosts for that matter(priests have commented how different hosts can be concerning crumbs).
-
Both Bishop Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer have said that it is ok to go to the Novus Ordo.
-
If you had listened to Father Hess, you would understand.
It's the words of consecration that make a Mass valid or invalid. If the words of consecration are changed, then there is no changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Other changes may just make the Mass less efficacious or worse, offensive to God.
-
Both Bishop Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer have said that it is ok to go to the Novus Ordo.
Fr Pfeiffer claims the New Mass doesn’t give grace. It would be highly unlikely that he would give a pass to go to the NO.
-
If you had listened to Father Hess, you would understand.
It's the words of consecration that make a Mass valid or invalid. If the words of consecration are changed, then there is no changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Other changes may just make the Mass less efficacious or worse, offensive to God.
That's clearly false based on the teaching of Leo XIII regarding the Anglican Orders, namely, that even if the essential form is strictly valid, the rite could be invalidated ex adiunctis.
-
Both Bishop Williamson and Fr. Pfeiffer have said that it is ok to go to the Novus Ordo.
That's a gross oversimplification of what they actually said, bordering on calumny.
-
Fr Pfeiffer claims the New Mass doesn’t give grace. It would be highly unlikely that he would give a pass to go to the NO.
I think he was referring to situations where there were no options in regard to being able to go to the TLM. According to him the Novus Ordo is preferred to a high protestant service and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
-
Its validity is doubtful due to many serious concerns. Read the Ottaviani intervention where he lists the theological problems of it. A catholic is not allowed to attend a mass/sacraments where validity is doubtful.
It is licit in that it exists, but not licit for a priest to use the missal (and consequently not licit for a layman to attend) because it violates Quo Priumum's strict requirements for exclusivity in the latin rite.
It is obviously immoral due to its circuмstances (sacrilegious communion in the hand, irreverent atmosphere, liturgical anomolies).
It. It. It. No regard to context. Go see the sung Novus Ordo at the London Oratory and I’ll give you a tenner for every one of “communion in the hand, irreverent atmosphere, liturgical anomolies” you witness.
How can a Catholic, seeing liturgical excellence that would have put most pre-60s parishes to shame, and knowing the orthodox beliefs of the celebrants (often more orthodox than Athanasian Creed denying SSPX priests), have any justifiable doubt as to the validity of such a mass? Is there something in the words of the Last Supper that is not found in the consecration of the Eucharistic Prayer? No, he can’t. That would not just be unreasonable but would amount to a lack of faith, hope and charity: faith in God to provide, hope in the reception of grace, and charity to not presume outwardly orthodox priests, who profess belief in the transubstantiation and sacrificial nature of the mass, are secret apostates!
-
That's clearly false based on the teaching of Leo XIII regarding the Anglican Orders, namely, that even if the essential form is strictly valid, the rite could be invalidated ex adiunctis.
Like Mormon baptisms. Ok. Unlike Anglicans, the Vatican II church still apparently teaches, and officially, the doctrines of transubstantiation and true sacrifice. So, unless it’s obvious, why would I just presume a reason to doubt ...
-
That's clearly false based on the teaching of Leo XIII regarding the Anglican Orders, namely, that even if the essential form is strictly valid, the rite could be invalidated ex adiunctis.
That's a different matter. The Angelicans can say the rite correctly, but it is still invalid because they do not have the anointing passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. That is what the Pope was referring to.
-
The new mass is at least illegal because it breaks the law of Quo Primum, being illegal it is therefore illicit, therefore immoral, therefore a sin. Quo Primum is every trad's refuge.
-
The new mass is at least illegal because it breaks the law of Quo Primum, being illegal it is therefore illicit, therefore immoral, therefore a sin. Quo Primum is every trad's refuge.
Popes do not have the authority to declare laws that can never be changed or obsoleted by later Popes.
-
Popes do not have the authority to declare laws that can never be changed or obsoleted by later Popes.
Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy forever.
If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.- Fr. Wathen
-
Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy forever.
If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.- Fr. Wathen
Protect it from innovations by parishes and dioceses, to keep the whole Church using approved rites rather than local corrupted forms.
Pope St. Pius V was not first among Popes. He did not have the authority to declare that no Pope may ever change his laws, just as he changed rites instituted by older Popes.
-
That's a different matter. The Angelicans can say the rite correctly, but it is still invalid because they do not have the anointing passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. That is what the Pope was referring to.
I believe even an illicitly ordained Anglican would not generally effect a valid Eucharistic Sacrament within the Anglican “church” with the “correct” rite.
This is because there’s more to validity of form than the material aspect of the words pronounced; words are more than vocal sounds, which don’t objectively signify anything, but their essence is in their meaning, and that meaning can depend heavily on the context in which they are pronounced. Anglicans can talk about the real presence, the body and blood, and even about a sacrifice, but it’s clear from what that sect officially teaches and generally believes that they do not mean by the what we Catholics (and Orthodox) do.
In such a situation there would surely have to exist in the celebrant more than mere “minimal” intention to do what the (Catholic) Church does. No?
And there’s what I glean to be the most legitimate worry about the Novus Ordo itself (apart from the valid priesthood): minimal intention. You’d have to go really far out of your way to fudge that one in the traditional rites.
-
Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy forever.
If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.- Fr. Wathen
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.
One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.
-
Protect it from innovations by parishes and dioceses, to keep the whole Church using approved rites rather than local corrupted forms.
Pope St. Pius V was not first among Popes. He did not have the authority to declare that no Pope may ever change his laws, just as he changed rites instituted by older Popes.
Amazing.
-
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.
One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.
In your world, if a pope did what the popes have done, they are no longer popes, bishops are no longer bishops, priests are no longer priests and the Church is destroyed. Same old sede logic.
Amazing.
-
In your world, if a pope did what the popes have done, they are no longer popes, bishops are no longer bishops, priests are no longer priests and the Church is destroyed. Same old sede logic.
Amazing.
Where did I claim to be a Sedevacantist?
More to the point, where have I claimed that a pope can become a heretic and thereby lose office? That’s impossible, because it is dogma, Session 4 of Vatican I, that the successor of Peter has gift of unfailing faith.
Incidentally, that little fact flies in the face of your R&R position in which you deny that man you recognise as Pope has the Faith. That’s absurd. But your entire position is absurd, which is why your only response to my pointing this out was to ignore what I said and respond by attacking an imaginary belief which I do not hold.
So I’ll just say it again:
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.
One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.
-
Where did I claim to be a Sedevacantist?
More to the point, where have I claimed that a pope can become a heretic and thereby lose office? That’s impossible, because it is dogma, Session 4 of Vatican I, that the successor of Peter has gift of unfailing faith.
Incidentally, that little fact flies in the face of your R&R position in which you deny that man you recognise as Pope has the Faith. That’s absurd. But your entire position is absurd, which is why your only response to my pointing this out was to ignore what I said and respond by attacking an imaginary belief which I do not hold.
So I’ll just say it again:
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.
One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.
If you don't think you're a sede, wake up - you are.
Lets examine V1's session 4 for a second shall we? There are two truths you need to accept absolutely before there is any hope for you:
1) You misunderstand the above teaching and at the same time, you demonstrate very clearly that have no faith at all in what you think it means.
2) If it indeed means what you think it means, then it is you who are wrong, not the popes, and you greatly displease God for your lack of faith and complete unbelief in His words.
And again, you have no idea what you are even talking about, but allow me to attempt to set you straight about my world - in my world, the Church needs to protect her liturgy from whoever seeks to destroy it. In my world, popes are not the Church.
-
Where did I claim to be a Sedevacantist?
More to the point, where have I claimed that a pope can become a heretic and thereby lose office? That’s impossible, because it is dogma, Session 4 of Vatican I, that the successor of Peter has gift of unfailing faith.
Incidentally, that little fact flies in the face of your R&R position in which you deny that man you recognise as Pope has the Faith. That’s absurd. But your entire position is absurd, which is why your only response to my pointing this out was to ignore what I said and respond by attacking an imaginary belief which I do not hold.
So I’ll just say it again:
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.
One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.
THIS^^^
-
That's a different matter. The Angelicans can say the rite correctly, but it is still invalid because they do not have the anointing passed down from Jesus through the Apostles. That is what the Pope was referring to.
You've obviously never read Apostolicae Curae. You have no idea what you're talking about. Pope LEO XIII clearly lays down the PRINCIPLE that rites can be invalidated by the surrounding material and even by their context, even if the essential form itself is not defective, exposing yet another bogus Hessian pseudo-theological opinion.
-
If you don't think you're a sede, wake up - you are.
Let's clear this up, shall we:
I do not claim that the See of Peter is vacant. I do not claim that Jorge Bergoglio is not Francis I and Pope.
Therefore I am not, by definition, a Sedevacantist.
Neither am I in material schism with my fellow Catholics. I attend the Tridentine mass in London every Sunday as it has been celebrated by priests in communion with Rome without interruption through Vatican II, and I attend the Novus Ordo at the Oratory or St. James Spanish Place, which are centres of liturgical excellence regardless of the rite, on certain occasions or when the former is not available to me during the week.
Kindly retract your calumnous accusation.
Lets examine V1's session 4 for a second shall we? There are two truths you need to accept absolutely before there is any hope for you:
I'm waiting for this examination yours ... still waiting ... still waiting ...
1) You misunderstand the above teaching and at the same time, you demonstrate very clearly that have no faith at all in what you think it means.
This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See
means, as do all dogmatic teachings of the Church, EXACTLY WHAT IT LITERALLY SAYS: the Pope has been given, by Christ, NEVER-FAILING FAITH. I am not interested in anyone's "interpretation" of this, least of all that parroted from an "ex" Freemason and a lay SSPX theologian (God bless them) who apply this same sort of "interpretive" sophistry to deny doctrines like Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
To quote further,
so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine
so that even if you reject the literal meaning of never-failing faith, you still deny, whatever you mean by the former term, that this refers to a something which enables the Pope to discharge his office for the salvation of all , keeping them away from error and nourishing them with divine doctrine, which NEVER FAILS.
To the contrary, R&R hold that the Pope is causing the damnation of the flock, nourishing them on error and keeping from them divine doctrine! It's a total inversion of Catholic teaching! But of course you lot ad hoc deny that the Pope is "discharging his office" whenever it is convenient to you to do so, in a bit of circular reasoning, limiting the reality of the Petrine office to such a degree that it s very existence has supposedly been totally irrelevant - at best - for the last half-centtury.
2) If it indeed means what you think it means, then it is you who are wrong, not the popes, and you greatly displease God for your lack of faith and complete unbelief in His words.
Question-begging time is back.
Doubt as to the correct answers in the absence of definitive teaching or evidence in a time of confusion and crisis is not a sin. Presuming to make a definitive decision that amounts to formal schism IF CORRECT just might be.
And again, you have no idea what you are even talking about, but allow me to attempt to set you straight about my world - in my world, the Church needs to protect her liturgy from whoever seeks to destroy it. In my world, popes are not the Church.
I your world you are your own proximate rule of faith and highest Earthly authority, while the popes are effectively mere figureheads to be obeyed or believed as you deem it right. What you acknoledge with your lips is not what you acknowledge by your actions. That's a fact. You never answer it but just sidetrack the argument (as usual).
The existence of the Pope is only a box to tick for you because a blank there would present a problem for a bit of armchair theology, but his existence seems to have few practical implications for your life outside of that, and certainly not in most of the key areas which are the reason for his existence. A pope you don't like, you ignore or even slander, a pope who teaches something you decide is false, you disbelieve and maybe deem a heretic, but you have your "una cuм" mass - what a lie that is!
-
Let's clear this up, shall we:
I do not claim that the See of Peter is vacant. I do not claim that Jorge Bergoglio is not Francis I and Pope.
Therefore I am not, by definition, a Sedevacantist.
Neither am I in material schism with my fellow Catholics. I attend the Tridentine mass in London every Sunday as it has been celebrated by priests in communion with Rome without interruption through Vatican II, and I attend the Novus Ordo at the Oratory or St. James Spanish Place, which are centres of liturgical excellence regardless of the rite, on certain occasions or when the former is not available to me during the week.
Kindly retract your calumnous accusation.
I retract calling you a sede, I cannot recall any sede whoever went to the NO - and there is your first problem - you attend the novus ordo. I won't go into all the reasons to never attend that evil thing, suffice to say, it offends God greatly.
As for the rest of your post, what I said still stands, you misunderstand V1's clear teaching. Try swearing off the NO for good, perhaps that will be a good start for you and open up a few doors to get you to start thinking clear.
-
As for the rest of your post, what I said still stands, you misunderstand V1's clear teaching.
:laugh1:
-
I do not consider +Lefebvre to have been a sedeplenist but a sededoubtist ... much like myself.
:laugh2:
Honestly, I don't know where you come up with these gut busters but stop, just stop.
-
I think he was referring to situations where there were no options in regard to being able to go to the TLM. According to him the Novus Ordo is preferred to a high protestant service and an Orthodox Divine Liturgy.
Bp. Williamson told one woman at a conference that if it nourishes her faith, then she can attend a weekday Novus Ordo. She actually attended a TLM on Sundays. He was speaking to one woman's situation. I don't think he regrets saying it, but he certainly has received a lot of flack for it. He has explained that he was trying to get traditionalists to be more charitable to the Novus Ordo folks (or words to that effect), which I agree with. +W has also said that it would be a mistake to think that there is no faith left in the Novus Ordo.
That being said, as most trads here know, the Novus Ordo is a human construct. It was designed by a committee put together by Annibale Bugnini at the request of Paul Vl. Bugnini wanted even a more drastic change in the Mass, but Paul Vl wouldn't have it. There were Protestants present on the committee, but I can't remember how much influence they had. This is just not how the Catholic Church works. The Mass, before that, whether the Roman Rite or the other approved rites (of which there are many, mainly in the eastern churches) was never put together by a committee. The Mass had always evolved organically from the beginning of the early Church.
What the committee mainly wanted was for the Mass to be completely understood by the laity in the pews. EVERY word was to made so that the laity could hear it in their language. This has had certain effects, the main one being that much of the mystery is taken away. The altar at Mass is said to be the meeting place between Heaven and earth. But the mystery of this is lost when everything about the Novus Ordo is meant to be understood on an earthly level. There are also few quiet moments for contemplation and meditation. We are supposed to lift out hearts and minds toward God during Mass, with devotion, reverence, sorrow for sin, and thanksgiving, but that's not easy to do when the in the Novus Ordo someone is always talking at the altar (or the choir is singing).
Holy Eucharist is also not treated with enough reverence at the Novus Ordo by the laity. That's the main problem that I've seen. Though there are devout souls who do attend the NO.
-
:laugh2:
Honestly, I don't know where you come up with these gut busters but stop, just stop.
It's not my problem that you're too stupid to understand these things. I've explained it several times already, and I simply can't dumb it down any more without making it unintelligible.
-
It's not my problem that you're too stupid to understand these things. I've explained it several times already, and I simply can't dumb it down any more without making it unintelligible.
And to think, all I did was quote pope Pius IX.
Does the power of doubt mean that you doubt he was a pope too?
Poor lad said: "+Lefebvre to have been a sedeplenist but a sededoubtist ... much like myself." LOL
-
...Unless I am grounded in faith, how can I make others firm in faith? It is certain that faith belongs especially to my office. The Lord publicly proclaimed it: ‘I’, he said, ‘have prayed for you Peter that your faith may not fail, and you, once being converted, must confirm your brothers’... For this reason the Faith of the Apostolic See has never failed even during turbulent times, but has remained whole and unharmed, so that the privilege of Peter continues to be unshaken ...
That is Pope Innocent III's teaching on the doctrine in question, citing the very Gospel text that is cited by Vatican I on the unfailing faith of the Pope. He speaks of "I". He uses the first person: "Unless I am grounded in faith". And he quotes in regard to this, his personal faith, the words of the Lord, in relation to the unfailing "Faith of the Apostolic See".
I don't care what umpteen theologians think about what Vatican I meant. I especially don't care what two lay theologians who only appeal to fallible authority to make their "arguments" think (that's called a logical fallacy where I come from). It wouldn't even matter if Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, Domingo Soto, John of St. Thomas, Cajetan etc., weren't of the opinion that it's impossible for a Pope to become a heretic (they were, despite what some want you think they thought), because the teaching of Pope Innocent III trumps all of these at the ontological level.
-
...Unless I am grounded in faith, how can I make others firm in faith? It is certain that faith belongs especially to my office. The Lord publicly proclaimed it: ‘I’, he said, ‘have prayed for you Peter that your faith may not fail, and you, once being converted, must confirm your brothers’... For this reason the Faith of the Apostolic See has never failed even during turbulent times, but has remained whole and unharmed, so that the privilege of Peter continues to be unshaken ...
That is Pope Innocent III's teaching on the doctrine in question, citing the very Gospel text that is cited by Vatican I on the unfailing faith of the Pope. He speaks of "I". He uses the first person: "Unless I am grounded in faith". And he quotes in regard to this, his personal faith, the words of the Lord, in relation to the unfailing "Faith of the Apostolic See".
I don't care what umpteen theologians think about what Vatican I meant. I especially don't care what two lay theologians who only appeal to fallible authority to make their "arguments" think (that's called a logical fallacy where I come from). It wouldn't even matter if Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, Domingo Soto, John of St. Thomas, Cajetan etc., weren't of the opinion that it's impossible for a Pope to become a heretic (they were, despite what some want you think they thought), because the teaching of Pope Innocent III trumps all of these at the ontological level.
Is this why you go to the novus ordo service?
-
And to think, all I did was quote pope Pius IX.
Does the power of doubt mean that you doubt he was a pope too?
Poor lad said: "+Lefebvre to have been a sedeplenist but a sededoubtist ... much like myself." LOL
I notice that Ladislaus is avoiding answering your question about whether or not he doubts that Pius lX was pope.
-
In your world the Church, the idefectible Church, needs to protect her liturgy from herself: not from rogue priests and rebellious ordinaries, but from the no less than successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him.
One is left scratching ones head over how absurd that is.
Wrong analysis, fruity. It's called protecting the liturgy from infiltrators posing as "Catholic" who sought/seek to attain the highest levels of the Church. Pope St. Pius X expounded on this imminent threat during his papacy. Alas, Vatican II and the new order "mass" is the result of the infiltration that eclipsed the true Church and Mass.