[Meg]

I mean that I don't consider your positions Catholic. You have a very different notion of what it means to be Catholic. More on that below.
You have no idea what we want. This is pure emotion coming from your end. I personally would love to have a Pope in authority over me right now. Since there isn't, the decrees and teachings of the past Popes will have to suffice right now. Unlike you, I heed what they have said. Your beliefs have been condemned by the Popes.
This shows you don't know the position, at least mine, that these men were never elected. You say we throw him from the chair (not true) yet you will not obey anything he has to say so long as it doesn't meet your idea of what infallible means. You may think there's a Pope, but you live as if there is none.

Of course you don't consider my position Catholic. I assume, too, that you do not consider that of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Resistance to be Catholic either. So, why do you post on a forum that supports Archbishop Lefebvre and the Resistance, which you consider not to be Catholic?

[Clemens Maria]

Yes, I would think that you are against the Resistance position. And yet you post on a forum that supports the Resistance.

Doesn't this forum support globe-earth theory?

[Pax Vobis]

Montini's abrogation of Quo Primum is clear as day, you just refuse to see it.  

Haha.  He didn't even use the word 'abrogate' yet he did it anyway?  Makes a lot of sense.  

Answer me these 2 questions, all of you.  New Rome wants the sspx and all of tradition to be under their control, right?  They know that if they get the sspx to "make a deal" then traditionalism will be supremely damaged and the # of trads will be so few, and unorganized, as to be meaningless.  Do we all agree?

If this is the case, then why didn't Benedict say that Quo Primum was abrogated?  Why didn't he say it was revised/replaced with the new mass?  He could have easily said so, and how could any of us argue?  Then he could say the old mass is illicit and that would really push a lot of trade to come to Rome.  ...Yet, they haven't said so.  Why?

Further, same argument with Vatican 2.  New Rome could easily say that it's infallible and must be accepted or else.  How many trads would fold under this pressure and join Rome?  A lot.  Why hasn't Rome said this?  

The answer is that they can't say these things because they aren't true.  

[2Vermont]

Rabid anti-sede Meg:

[2Vermont]

Of course!  Benedict didn't say it was abrogated; therefore, it wasn't.  

Seriously?  

[Pax Vobis]

Ok, so abrogate doesn't need to be used, but it still takes effect.  Where do you practice law?  Hope the answer is 'nowhere'.

Secondly, this has nothing to do with Pope Benedict's heresies and is not a spiritual question; it has to do with following the law and the procedures that accompany it and are REQUIRED, which many of you say don't have to be followed because they don't fit your preconceived viewpoint.  So sad.

[Pax Vobis]

Of course!  Benedict didn't say it was abrogated; therefore, it wasn't.  

What sense does it make for Pope Benedict, whom we all agree to be a modernist, to say that the latin mass was not abrogated?  His legal ruling limits the growth of the new mass, it upholds traditionalism and it curbs the influence of V2.  It. makes. no. sense.  

You are smart enough to interpret canon law yourself and depose the pope, but you have no answer for this simple, legal question.  How ironic. 

[2Vermont]

What sense does it make for Pope Benedict, whom we all agree to be a modernist, to say that the latin mass was not abrogated?  His legal ruling limits the growth of the new mass, it upholds traditionalism and it curbs the influence of V2.  It. makes. no. sense.  

You are smart enough to interpret canon law yourself and depose the pope, but you have no answer for this simple, legal question.  How ironic.

Uh....to fool those unsuspecting "conservative" "traditional-leaning" Catholics to stay in/defend the Novus Ordo?
It appears he did a good job of fooling those like yourself as well.
You bore me.

[Ladislaus]

Legal semantics.  Technically not "abrogated" but certainly superseded and replaced ... as made clear by the "all previous ... not withstanding" language.

[Ladislaus]

What you are actually saying is that all or most of these men were instigators or complicit in usurping the Holy Roman Church.
In October 1958 all 51 men were considered the highest members of the Roman Clergy. Two Cardinals were not present at the conclave as they were under house arrest or under political asylum.

Yup.  So, what, because these clowns (Catholic cardinals excepted) managed to get fancy titles, we're supposed to bow in awe of them?  Look into each one on this list and get back to me.  Many of them were open modernists, and some suspected to be Masons and/or Communist agents.

[Ladislaus]

He might want to start with Achille Lienart...

... or Tisserant, who allegedly engineered the "election" of Roncalli.

[Cantarella]

Legal semantics.  Technically not "abrogated" but certainly superseded and replaced ... as made clear by the "all previous ... not withstanding" language.

Paul VI posing with six Protestant theologians who were part of the commission encharged with writing the New Mass. These Protestants were invited by Paul VI in order to make sure that nothing in the New Mass would shock their heresy.  It is not surprising that the resulting Novus Ordo Mass has the flavor of Protestantism, which means the taste of heresy.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A090rcPaulVIand%20Protsestants.htm



What is there is left to say about the intention of these men? The evidence is overwhelming. That is precisely the habitual intention of dong harm, instead of good to the Church, that Des Lauries speaks of in his Cassisiacuм Thesis.

Actions speak more than words.

[Meg]

Paul VI posing with six Protestant theologians who were part of the commission encharged with writing the New Mass. These Protestants were invited by Paul VI in order to make sure that nothing in the New Mass would shock their heresy.  It is not surprising that the resulting Novus Ordo Mass has the flavor of Protestantism, which means the taste of heresy.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A090rcPaulVIand%20Protsestants.htm



What is there is left to say about the intention of these men? The evidence is overwhelming. That is precisely the habitual intention of dong harm, instead of good to the Church, that Des Lauries speaks of in his Cassisiacuм Thesis.

Actions speak more than words.

And yet God has allowed it, presumably through His permissive will. How do you account for that, Cantarella? I've asked you that question before, but you gave a non-answer.

[Cantarella]

And yet God has allowed it, presumably through His permissive will. How do you account for that, Cantarella? I've asked you that question before, but you gave a non-answer.

How am I supposed to know this? "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?" (Romans 11:33-34).

What we do know is that if God permits evil, is always for a greater good. Perhaps the crisis is a test from Heaven to separate the cockle from the wheat, distinguish the reprobate from the elect. St Paul tells us that "all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to purpose".

[Ladislaus]

No, because the Roman Church can't defect.
I'd like to see some hard evidence.

And yet you fail to demonstrate how an illegitimate papal election (of which there have been a few in history) would be tantamount to defection.  So you have no argument.  You simply assert gratuitously than an infiltration of the hierarchy would be tantamount to defection.