Author Topic: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?  (Read 3122 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1532
  • Reputation: +616/-928
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
« Reply #75 on: September 02, 2019, 12:14:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The new mass can be valid, it also cannot be.  Depends on the priest, and depends on the canon prayers used.  But validity does equal legal.
    .
    Rome has never said the new mass is legal to attend/say.  It has only said it legally exists.  You might say this is a technicality, but the pharisees ruled the world through technicalities when Christ was alive.  And the devil rules the world now through technicalities through his many satanic lawyers.

    Any mass Rome promulgates is legal to attend by virtue of that very fact. And the priests were ordered to say it, see the quote at the end of this post.

    It has also said that QP is still in force, which disallows any other missal to be used.  Paul VI's law only created a missal; it does not give anyone permission to use it.  Ergo, QP supercedes Paul VI's law because QP is specific in its rules, while Paul VI's law is general and non-specific.  The law with more clarity always takes precedent.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Benedict XVI only said John XXIII's missal was never abrogated, and more specifically never abrogated as an extraordinary form. If he said more specifically that Quo Primum wasn't abrogated, please link me the quote, I honestly haven't seen it. Anyway, the reason I think that distinction is important is because saying "it was never abrogated, as an extraordinary form" just means that the rite, in its new and updated state, still exists and is within use in the Church. But that does not necessarily confirm that all the details of Quo Primum remained in place, or that the rite is still the ordinary form.

    No, but it prohibits the use of any new rites, it prohibits any changes to the QP rite, and any pressure/command to use a new rite or an altered QP rite.

    Such commands were directed at the clergy, I don't think one pope can limit the authority of future popes. For example, QP was altered many times by popes - even if they were only minor changes it still proves that QP's strict order to not alter the rite does not apply to them.

    Agree.  And those rites which were 200 years old at the time of 1500s were very, VERY similar to the Tridentine rite (i.e. Benedictine and Dominican rites are 99% the same, save for the addition of St Benedict and St Dominic in certain prayers and other non-essential rubrics).

    There were also for example the Byzantine and Mozarabic rites, which are quite different(although not as much as the NO, to be fair).

    Yes, he created a new missal, since QP did not forbid this (technically).  No, you cannot use it, because it violates QP.  Nowhere in Paul VI's law does he:
    1.  Order anyone to use/attend the new mass
    2.  Place a penalty for ignoring the new mass
    3.  Specifically allow anyone to use this missal.
    .
    All Paul VI's constitution says is: "Here is my new missal, which I am creating by this new law.  Here are the changes in the new missal.  I wish this law go into effect on the 1st Sunday of Advent."  All his law does is create a new missal.  The use of it violates QP.

    Er, he kind of did. He ordered that it be used and he ordered it go into effect on the first Sunday of Advent that year.

    Quote from: Missale Romanum, 1969
    In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal, Our predecessor, St. Pius V, presented it as an instrument of liturgical unity and as a witness to the purity of the worship the Church. While leaving room in the new Missal, according to the order of the Second Vatican Council, "for legitimate variations and adaptations,"(15) we hope nevertheless that the Missal will be received by the faithful as an instrument which bears witness to and which affirms the common unity of all. Thus, in the great diversity of languages, one unique prayer will rise as an acceptable offering to our Father in heaven, through our High-Priest Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

    We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.

    There's no specific penalty specified that I can see, but ignoring the missal would still be disobedience for priests, so the penalty is sort of built-in in that respect.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1532
    • Reputation: +616/-928
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #76 on: September 02, 2019, 12:25:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The entire hierarchy hasn’t apostatized (you’re over exaggerating) but they have been infected (in various degrees) with modernism and the V2 heresies.  +ABL didn’t apostatize did he?  St Athanasius didn’t apostatize, did he?  We’re in a similar situation as Arianism.  Confusion and error abounds but Church doctrine remains pure because none of the confusion/error is imposed on any catholic.
    St. Athanasius' day still had a pope and plenty of bishops, even if they were outnumbered massively by the Arians. +ABL did not, sure, but he's not enough to say there's still a faithful hierarchy in the same way some sedevacantist Thuc-line bishop isn't enough. You need the pope. SVism presents you with no hierarchy, spare a few scattered bishops and priests. R&Rism presents you with a hierarchy that has abandoned their mission and been corrupted, again spare a few scattered bishops and priests. I don't think either position can explain the situation we're in without violating indefectibility. I think there is an explanation for it all somewhere out there, that maybe God will reveal to us when time comes, but for now I haven't found one that explains it all without issue or contraction.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9598
    • Reputation: +3795/-886
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #77 on: September 02, 2019, 12:32:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the entire hierarchy can apostasise and lead the faithful to Hell without it being considered a defection, then the principle of indefectibility would be entirely meaningless. You won't find any theologian or authority suggesting such rot as the true hierarchy could ever lead souls to Hell.
    So the entire hierarchy defects, so what, they are not the Church.


    Quote
     I can't comment on what graces I've been given, only God knows. If the Trad position is correct, then yes NOers must be ignoring some of God's graces, as if one corresponds to all of God's graces He would never leave them wallow in error. But whether they are rejecting graces or not, it does not change the fact that the hierarchy is guiding them to Hell. Trads ignore the hierarchy for exactly this reason. The fact that man must listen to the hierarchy doesn't lessen the significance of what they are doing. It's like if a father teaches his child to sin, the child has free will to reject his father's errors, but that doesn't absolve the father of his guilt.

    Yes, the hierarchy is leading them to where they want to go. They choose to follow because they rejected the very same graces you did not reject, the same graces you corresponded to and are corresponding with, they want nothing to do with, they're content to sin - they choose to reject grace and follow the hierarchy, each and every one of them. You are not unique here, we all, every last one of us at some point(s) in life has to make the same choice. So while you place all the blame on the pope and hierarchy, you ignore the reality that the people being led into the pit, chose to be led into the pit and ultimately in eternity, will not be able to blame anyone except themselves.

    Quote
    Why is it that you even need a pope when you ignore him and everything he does anyway?

    It's honestly baffling to me that you can agree that the hierarchy are leading souls to Hell and yet you don't think that poses any issue whatsoever with indefectibility. From the Catholic Encyclopedia once more:
    I don't need a pope like that, no one does. Our duty before God is to pray every day for the pope, that is what Catholics must do. Whether a holy pope or a conciliar pope, if he never teaches anything at all during his entire reign, or if he teaches heresies every time he teaches, it is the same difference - but until or unless he defends or teaches something we need to know, no one needs a pope to get to heaven.



    Quote
    Sedevacantism would be a defection by loss of Apostolic hierarchy. R&R have a hierarchy, but one that is corrupted in faith and morals and has ceased to be a school of holiness as it teaches heresy and sin instead of true dogma, as well as having an invalid and blasphemous mass replace the true mass in 99% of parishes. Even their pope was ordained in a false rite.

    So it's clear that sedevacantism cannot explain the Crisis, but neither can R&R as that position still violates the principle of indefectibility.
    But you just said what is - namely, that the hierarchy is corrupt, including the popes. There isn't anything to explain about that - they are not the Church. We can say as you just said about the hierarchy, we can say by all accounts, they have defected from the faith, defected from the Church and are bunch of scandalous bastards, but we cannot say the Church has defected because that is an impossibility.

    If in fact the Church has defected or ever does defect, then by what means do we have to get to heaven? None. Which is to say if the Church defects, salvation is absolutely unattainable. 
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1532
    • Reputation: +616/-928
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #78 on: September 02, 2019, 12:44:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So the entire hierarchy defects, so what, they are not the Church.

    But you just said what is - namely, that the hierarchy is corrupt, including the popes. There isn't anything to explain about that - they are not the Church. We can say as you just said about the hierarchy, we can say by all accounts, they have defected from the faith, defected from the Church and are bunch of scandalous bastards, but we cannot say the Church has defected because that is an impossibility. 
    If they have defected from the Church, then they are not the hierarchy. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church must be within the Church, by definition. If the hierarchy were to defect in their mission and leads their flock to Hell, then according to the Catholic Encyclopedia and every other writer on the subject of indefectibility, then that would mean the Church defects - but the Church cannot defect, so in such a scenario the "hierarchy" would in fact be a false hierarchy and not the true hierarchy of the Church. 

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3496
    • Reputation: +1286/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #79 on: September 02, 2019, 12:54:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Could it be possible that the 5th Column Jews have reign.  What they have always wanted since Christ's death?  Sure!  It is of the Syngoge of Satan!  Can a pope, whoever, a Jew be a pope?  No!  Proof?  The New Order Mess! That is their creation.  Their Manifest/outward fruits.  You will know them(enemy) by their fruits.  


    Offline Praeter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +67/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #80 on: September 02, 2019, 01:09:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I just laid this out, idiot.  You rely on the fact that not everything the Pope teaches or institutes is infallible ... and stretch this to the limits of credibility ... and beyond.

    Vatican I defined that the pope speaks infallibly when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra. That's it.  It never said a pope is unable to err when he does not meet the precise conditions contained in the dogmatic definition.  If you accepted the dogma as it is defined, you wouldn't have nearly as much trouble finding a "solution" to the problem in the Church.
     
    But according to Pope Ladislaus, the Church's definition unduly restricts the infallibility of the pope "to the limits of credibility and beyond," so you came up with your own version of the doctrine.  What harm could possibly come from that?

    Certainly, no one can force you to accept the Church's dogma of papal infallibility, but don't be surprised if persistent adherence to your more "credible" version prevents you from finding a solution to the problem in the Church.  
    "Schismatics are in another Church even if they agree with the true Church of Christ in faith and doctrine." (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante cap v)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18315
    • Reputation: +10166/-4820
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #81 on: September 02, 2019, 02:14:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • R&Rism presents you with a hierarchy that has abandoned their mission and been corrupted, again spare a few scattered bishops and priests. I don't think either position can explain the situation we're in without violating indefectibility. I think there is an explanation for it all somewhere out there, that maybe God will reveal to us when time comes, but for now I haven't found one that explains it all without issue or contraction.

    THIS ^^^

    Offline Admin

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 38
    • Reputation: +30/-0
      • CathInfo
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #82 on: September 02, 2019, 03:23:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1. I see the debaters in this thread (about specifics of the Crisis) aren't ready to concede to the other side.

    2. Further, each of these sides has thousands of other Catholics backing up every word that was posted in these arguments.

    3. There are only 3 possible conclusions:
    A) There is no One Ring in play yet, i.e., a compelling argument which forces all Catholics of good will to join a single side, united under a single banner (an individual with authority, or the one wielding the One Ring)
    B) The One Ring has been wielded in this thread, but all the thousands of Catholics faced with it have chosen rather to kill themselves (go into mortal sin, become bad-willed, willfully rejecting the truth) than to obey its command.
    C) The One Ring has been wielded in this thread, but all the thousands of Catholics faced with it have an IQ of 70 or less, literally retarded, and so they can't mentally grasp the logic and arguments. Therefore they aren't compelled by the Ring, neither are they forced into mortal sin or a state of bad will (willful rejection of the truth).

    Again, the arguing in this thread is evidence that no one has a compelling argument that answers ALL objections. The One Ring is still hidden and waiting to be given to us or found, with God's help.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=103&v=TrJJ6ncp1fc


    Offline JezusDeKoning

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2765
    • Reputation: +987/-1410
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #83 on: September 02, 2019, 03:51:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • THIS ^^^
    This is the answer, or closest thing to an answer in regards to the Crisis that I've found. 
    Tío Samuel, ven pa 'aca

    Offline Praeter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +67/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #84 on: September 02, 2019, 07:26:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 1. I see the debaters in this thread (about specifics of the Crisis) aren't ready to concede to the other side.

    2. Further, each of these sides has thousands of other Catholics backing up every word that was posted in these arguments.

    3. There are only 3 possible conclusions:
    A) There is no One Ring in play yet, i.e., a compelling argument which forces all Catholics of good will to join a single side, united under a single banner (an individual with authority, or the one wielding the One Ring)
    B) The One Ring has been wielded in this thread, but all the thousands of Catholics faced with it have chosen rather to kill themselves (go into mortal sin, become bad-willed, willfully rejecting the truth) than to obey its command.
    C) The One Ring has been wielded in this thread, but all the thousands of Catholics faced with it have an IQ of 70 or less, literally retarded, and so they can't mentally grasp the logic and arguments. Therefore they aren't compelled by the Ring, neither are they forced into mortal sin or a state of bad will (willful rejection of the truth).

    Again, the arguing in this thread is evidence that no one has a compelling argument that answers ALL objections. The One Ring is still hidden and waiting to be given to us or found, with God's help.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=103&v=TrJJ6ncp1fc
    Another factor to consider is that each Catholic is viewing the crisis through their own lens, and seeking to understand it in light of the doctrinal beliefs they hold, and the personal opinions/conclusions they have drawn.  
     
    If someone believes conciliar infallibility guarantees that a council cannot teach error, or that everything a pope promulgates authoritatively will necessarily be infallible, these doctrinal errors will have a profound effect on which of the differing explanations they accept, or at least which ones they will rule out.  So too will their opinion about the validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration, and dozens of other issues.
     
    Their judgment about the severity of the crisis is another factor.  Is Vatican II "full of heresies", and does it teach an entirely different religion, or does it merely contain theological errors, ambiguities, and time bombs, which have been exploited by the Modernists and used by them to spread their false religious system within the walls of Holy Mother Church?  The former is objectively far worse than the latter.  Is the New Mass, as published by Paul VI, an invalid, blasphemous, sacrilege, or is it a valid Mass with a watered-down liturgy and ambiguous prayers, which has been made far worse by the indults, innovations, and abuses that have accompanied it?  Has the entire hierarchy apostatized (Forlorn), or are the bishops more or less infected by the modern errors (Pax Vobis); has the Church completely abandoned the mission entrusted to it by Christ (Forlorn), or are most of the bishops just failing in their duty to carry it out (Praeter)? 
     
     
    Since all these individual judgments, personal opinions, and doctrinal beliefs, have an effect on which "solution" people will embrace, it’s not reasonable to expect that One Ring will convince everyone.  
    "Schismatics are in another Church even if they agree with the true Church of Christ in faith and doctrine." (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante cap v)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18315
    • Reputation: +10166/-4820
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #85 on: September 02, 2019, 08:04:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since all these individual judgments, personal opinions, and doctrinal beliefs, have an effect on which "solution" people will embrace, it’s not reasonable to expect that One Ring will convince everyone.  

    Correct.  There are dozens of data points that feed into one's position on the crisis ... all of which end up being interpreted, the end of the day, by fallible human beings using their private judgement.  Only when God restores the Church to intervene authoritatively will the One Ring be known and accepted by all.


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4773
    • Reputation: +2829/-1298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #86 on: September 03, 2019, 12:00:14 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Any mass Rome promulgates is legal to attend by virtue of that very fact. And the priests were ordered to say it, see the quote at the end of this post.
    Under normal circumstances, with no wolves in the Vatican, you'd be correct in that assumption.  But the law says what the law says and since Trads are aware of the infiltration, we can't just judge all promulgations as being equal.  We have to look at what the law says.  The conspirators often use our assumptions and naivety against us.  The fact is that the law promulgates/legalizes the creation of a missal, but does not legalize the use of it, nor does the law require use of it.
    .
    Quote
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Benedict XVI only said John XXIII's missal was never abrogated, and more specifically never abrogated as an extraordinary form. If he said more specifically that Quo Primum wasn't abrogated, please link me the quote, I honestly haven't seen it.
    A law cannot be separated from the purpose of the law.  Quo Primum's purpose was to create a uniform/universal latin missal.  The 1962 missal is the missal of QP.  If the 1962 missal isn't abrogated, then QP isn't either.  They go hand in hand, because the 1962 missal is just a REVISION of the ORIGINAL St Pius V missal of QP.  Benedict did not directly say that QP wasn't abrogated because he, as a conspirator, doesn't want to draw attention to QP.  But he also doesn't have to, because it's understood in a legal sense.
    .
    For example:  If you signed a lease to an apartment, this gives you the right to piece of real estate.  If the lease ends, you can't use the apartment anymore.  If you are paying rent, then the lease still exists.  You can't use an apartment without a lease and (normally) you don't pay rent unless you can use the apartment.  ...You can't have the 1962 missal without QP.  If QP is abrogated, then so is the 1962 missal.
    .
    The "ordinary/extraordinary" form in the motu, was Benedict's spin to explain how the 1962 missal should co-exist with the new mass.  There is no legal basis for these terms, because they are neither mentioned in QP or in Paul VI's law.  They are more novelties.
    .
    Quote
    Anyway, the reason I think that distinction is important is because saying "it was never abrogated, as an extraordinary form" just means that the rite, in its new and updated state, still exists and is within use in the Church. But that does not necessarily confirm that all the details of Quo Primum remained in place, or that the rite is still the ordinary form.
    "it was never abrogated, as an extraordinary form" - This phrase was never used, nor hinted at. 
    .
    Quote
    (QP's) commands were directed at the clergy, I don't think one pope can limit the authority of future popes. For example, QP was altered many times by popes - even if they were only minor changes it still proves that QP's strict order to not alter the rite does not apply to them.
    Paul VI had all the power in the world to abrogate QP, but he didn't.  He could've revised the 1962 missal and morphed that into the new mass, so that the 1962 missal would cease to exist.  But he didn't.  He left the 1962 missal and QP as is, and created a new liturgy, which is separate from QP.  He did not revise, edit or add to QP, thus, this law is still 100% in force, in all its details.
    .
    Those popes who revised the missal after the creation of QP only revised non-essential elements of the law (i.e. minor changes to the missal).  They did not revise or overturn QP's commands, prohibitions and allowances.  And every time there was a new missal, the new law mentions that they are non-essentially revising QP's missal.  QP is the parent law, and all these revisions are related to it.
    .
    To continue the apartment lease analogy, if you signed a lease which ends on Dec 31 but you agree with the landlord to live there another 6 months, he could ask you to sign an addendum (i.e. a revision) which says you promise to lease for another 6 months.  You wouldn't need to sign a brand-new lease; you would sign a 1 page document which refers back to the original lease.  ...In the same way, when all these revised missals were created, they all referenced QP.  There is a legal chain-link from 1962 all the way back to the 1570s.
    .
    Paul VI's missal was a brand new law, a brand new missal.  It has no connection with QP, and Benedict makes this clear.  Benedict only argues that the new mass is a different "usage of the same rite".  I don't even know if canon law has a definition for "usage" when it comes to rites.  This sounds made up (the Modernists love to make up new words).  QP does not allow the use/attendance of any other missals or "usages", under pain of sin.
    .
    (
    Quote
    Paul VI) ordered that it be used and he ordered it go into effect on the first Sunday of Advent that year.
    In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal. In promulgating the official edition of the Roman Missal,
    ...We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect November 30th of this year, the first Sunday of Advent.
    No, Paul VI did not order anyone to use his missal.  He said "we give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new missal"...what did he set forth?  He created a new missal, he explained the changes in it and that's it.  He did not say who was to use it, who HAD to use it, nor if there were penalties for NOT using it. 
    .
    "We order that the prescriptions (commands) of this Constitution go into effect Nov 30..."  What are the commands of this law?  Only that a new missal be created.  Nothing more.
    .
    Modernists knew they could not legally force people to attend a new mass while QP was in force.  They knew that they could not revise QP with the new mass, because such changes were essential changes and God would not allow the Church to pass a law which forces sin.  They knew that they could not abrogate QP and replace it with a theologically anti-Catholic liturgy.  So what did they do?  They created a new missal and let everyone assume that they had to attend, even if the law said otherwise.  They knew the pope could not force people to attend, but the bishops/priests could, because rogue/evil bishops are not protected by infallibility.  The bishops/priests are the ones who forced the new mass on the people, not rome/pope.  The V2 popes have certainly supported and said the new mass, but they did so in a non-official, non-legal manner.  They sinned in their personal capacity.  They did not force the new mass on anyone by law or by penalty of sin.
    .
    Quote
    There's no specific penalty specified that I can see, but ignoring the missal would still be disobedience for priests, so the penalty is sort of built-in in that respect.
    QP specifically says that no clergy (and by extension the laity) can be forced to say any other missal, other than QP's (1962).  Even if the order comes from bishops, cardinals or any other official.  QP clearly gives all priests the permission (and in another section, it is a command) to say the latin mass "in perpetuity".  Benedict's XVI's motu confirms this permission and reiterates that all priests have the right to the latin mass, because it was never abrogated and consequently "always permitted".
    .
    Ergo, this confirms that all the evil Bishops/priests/superiors of the 70s, 80s, 90s were legally wrong and that those who "disobeyed" to stick with Tradition did correctly.  They obeyed the pope (St Pius V) and the law when their superiors commanded sin.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5679
    • Reputation: +3098/-145
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #87 on: September 03, 2019, 12:06:14 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pax Vobis. Your post makes sense to me. It is a sticky web we have weaved.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline Praeter

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 56
    • Reputation: +67/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #88 on: September 04, 2019, 06:54:11 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Modernists knew they could not legally force people to attend a new mass while QP was in force.  They knew that they could not revise QP with the new mass, because such changes were essential changes and God would not allow the Church to pass a law which forces sin.  They knew that they could not abrogate QP and replace it with a theologically anti-Catholic liturgy.  So what did they do?  They created a new missal and let everyone assume that they had to attend, even if the law said otherwise.  They knew the pope could not force people to attend, but the bishops/priests could, because rogue/evil bishops are not protected by infallibility.  The bishops/priests are the ones who forced the new mass on the people, not rome/pope.  The V2 popes have certainly supported and said the new mass, but they did so in a non-official, non-legal manner.

    Great post Pax.  That is exactly how the Modernists operated.  Pius X said their goal was to reform the Church based on the errors he condemned in Pascendi, and that is what they are doing, but they can only do so by operating below the level of infallibility.  So they use trickery, deceit, ambiguity and whatever else Christ permits, in their efforts to destroy the Church, but they will never succeed in doing so.  Everything that is taking place is part of the Divine Plan, and in the Divine Plan none of Christ's promises will be broken.  

    "Schismatics are in another Church even if they agree with the true Church of Christ in faith and doctrine." (Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante cap v)

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 663
    • Reputation: +126/-42
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
    « Reply #89 on: September 06, 2019, 04:12:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Look, this thread was not intended to blow up into a full R&R vs. SV debate.  Just stop already.

    I lean sedeprivationist, but I readily admit that ALL the sides have issues.  SPism is the side I find to be the least problematic.  This is precisely the point of Matthew's post.

    R&R rely on the fact that not everything the Pope teaches is infallible ... but then stretch it to the limits of credibility.  It's one thing for an isolated statement in an Encyclical to be wrong, but quite another for the entire Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go corrupt with Modernism, and to be actively leading souls to hell.  If people can lose their souls by adhering to the Magisterium, then the Church's mission has failed.

    SVs rely on the fact that vacancies of the Holy See exist and that the Magisterium does not thereby go defunct.  Again, on their side, 60 years does stretch the limits of credibility.

    SPs actual hold an in-between position, that the organs of the Magisterium continue to endure but they have gone dormant (in so many words).

    But all sides are stretching the limits of credibility, because, to be perfectly frank, this entire crisis stretches the limits of Catholic credibility.
    I have read the entire thread, up till this comment.  I haven't read the rest.

    But I find the last sentence the most interesting.

    The OP deals with a variety of options a Catholic of good will could take to deal with this crisis.

    But it seems like a *person* of good will could just as much conclude any of the following.

    "Maybe this crisis with the magisterium shows that magisteriums are defectible, and that Eastern Orthodoxy (a Church that is much less reliant on magisterium as a source of authority) is really the Church that Christ founded.

    "Maybe neither side was right in 1054, and Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy are actually branches of the true Church."

    "Maybe all this stuff really points to the idea that Sola Scriptura has to be true, because all other authorities have failed."

    I'm wondering, and I'm especially curious for the OP's imput here, but also anyone else's, will a person of good will even necessarily be lead to one of the Catholic positions, and if so, why?

    (To be clear, I obviously think Catholicism is correct or I wouldn't be here, but I have a hard time believing that everyone of good will ends up there, doubly so in the current situation.)

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16