this One Ring either doesn't exist, hasn't been found, or isn't available for men to find
...right now we each have to "pick our poison" about which unanswerable question is the least disturbing to us.
FSSP: "What Conservative Novus Ordo said, but also the New Mass is defective and dangerous at least. We will play it safe and only say the Tridentine Mass and use the Rites that were used before Vatican II. Vatican II was extremely problematic at best. We will train our priests in separate seminaries so they get a fully Traditional or pre-Vatican II formation. We're OK with the new Rites of consecration and ordination, however."Does the FSSP go that far? I didn't think they were permitted to teach that the Novus Ordo is, as you put it, "defective and dangerous", nor that Vatican II was "extremely problematic".
R&R is that ring.SSPX or Resistance?
R&R is that ring.
Sedeprivationism is that ring.
SSPX or Resistance?
After Almighty God Himself, Archbishop Lefebvre holds "the ring." Every single traditional group who deviated from his guidance or never followed it in the first place, has compromised in some way with Vatican II/modernism. Sad.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but there's nothing about the crisis in the Church that perplexes me, and no unanswerable questions - i.e., apparent contradictions between Catholic doctrine and what is taking place - that disturb me. Perhaps there are unanswerable questions that I just haven't thought of, and which would perplex me if I did?
I'm curious if most people here are struggling with such difficulties, and if so, what they are?
…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…
Seriously? There's the core question of which is worse, a 60-year vacancy of the Holy See or a Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church that has gone completely off the rails and has been leading souls to hell for 60 years. That's the chief fight between R&R and the sedevacantists. R&R think the former is a worse problem for the Church's indefectibility, while the SVs think that the latter is the worse problem. But both are absolutely a problem, and it takes a lot of arrogance to think that you're above it all.You put this well, but I don’t see it as a better or worse problem, rather an impossibility vs an enigma.
It's a grave problem, as +Lefebvre puts it (he himself was perplexed):
But I guess that you've succeeded in solving this problem where +Lefebvre failed.
Good-willed Catholics currently exist in many groups. Below are the arguments that WOULD JUSTIFY a Catholic of good will attending any of these groups. There are other arguments, and I don't have all day, but I'm giving a quick sample so you know what I mean:Good summary.
Conservative Novus Ordo: "We must stay within the authority and framework of the Catholic Church. Obedience is important. Christ promised perpetual successors to St. Peter. I do my best to do and believe everything a Catholic should. I obey my priest, bishop, and Pope unless they are clearly in error, which some of them are at times."
FSSP: "What Conservative Novus Ordo said, but also the New Mass is defective and dangerous at least. We will play it safe and only say the Tridentine Mass and use the Rites that were used before Vatican II. Vatican II was extremely problematic at best. We will train our priests in separate seminaries so they get a fully Traditional or pre-Vatican II formation. We're OK with the new Rites of consecration and ordination, however."
SSPX: "What FSSP said." <----- Note how useless the SSPX is now, but I digress!
Resistance: "Vatican II is heretical and destructive of souls, and we have 50 years of evidence to prove it. We should stay away from the Modernist contagion, lest we ourselves become infected. It is permitted to disobey a Pope when he steps outside his authority. God expects us to save our souls, and we need the Sacraments to do so. We have the right to cling to the Catholic Faith as it was always taught. We don't need the Pope or anyone else to give us permission to stay Catholic. But we can keep the Faith and pre-Vatican II religion without denying the papacy of the current Pope. Besides, the Pope has been validly elected and universally accepted by the Catholic Church. Also, the idea of a 60 year interregnum (period between popes) is ludicrous."
Sedevacantists: "What Resistance said, except the stuff about the Pope. The Catholic Church can't promulgate a Mass noxious to souls. And what's the point of Our Lord's promise to St. Peter if his successor could actually be harmful to, and dismantle, the Catholic Church? The last several Popes aren't even Catholic, therefore they can't be heads of the Catholic Church. They are heretics. We know heresy when we see it."
Home Aloners: "I stopped going to Mass after 1970 when the Catholic Church embraced Modernism and error. Yes I've heard about so-called "Traditional Catholics" here and there, but they have no authority from the Pope to operate independent churches. They have no authority to say Mass, much less hear confessions or witness marriages. These groups are like cut-off branches not connected to the main tree, which means they are dead. You can't get life (grace) from dead branches. So I stay at home with my Rosary, and live like the Japanese "hidden Christians" praying for God to end this chastisement."
I sincerely believe that the following happend --
Masons/Communists/Modernists had been infiltrating the hierarchy for decades and even centuries prior to Vatican II. In the 1958 Conclave, Cardinal Siri was elected, but the Communists/Masons forced him to step down. Then they installed their agent Roncalli in his place, the "uncanonically elected" pope described by a prophesy of St. Francis. Once the smoking gun proof for this comes to light, then we'll have our ring.
Then the Church will need to revisit the ecclesiological debates between R&R and the sedevacantists and settle those disputes as a matter of principle.
At this point I should point out, the analogy isn't perfect, ...
The Unifying factor of Tradition is the Faith. It is the True Mass. It is Orthodoxy, the Rosary and penance.
.
All these other ridiculous debates (sedevacantism vs R&R, 1 Baptism vs 3) are distractions.
The parts of the analogy I'm seeking to use: ...
I have been resisting the temptation to throw down the old omnis comparatio claudicat ... before you go too far down the road comparing +Lefebvre to Gandalf and +Williamson to Frodo. :laugh1::laugh1:
No, these are not ridiculous debates, not in the least bit (that's going too far)They are ridiculous in the sense that 100% of laypeople and 100% of priests have no theological training whatsoever. Yet most act like their opinion matters. They act like it can be figured out. Even the Trad Bishops have had no normal seminary training, nor any extra training in theology. Every Trad is self-taught in these areas. NO Trad has any vocation, nor special calling, nor ecclesiastical permission to write books or articles in any way that comes to a conclusion or a solution. So what's the point? There is none, except for a distraction.
The Unifying factor of Tradition is the Faith. It is the True Mass. It is Orthodoxy, the Rosary and penance.Oh, so the world of Tradition must be united then! Nevermind, I thought we had a unity problem in the Traditional movement.
.
If that is the source of Unity, then apparently the FSSP, SSPX, Resistance, all independent chapels, Sedevacantists, (and maybe even Fr. Pfeiffer) are all COMPLETELY united.?? The FSSP and the new-SSPX aren't Trads - they don't believe the one ring (V2, new mass, modernism) should be destroyed.
?? The FSSP and the new-SSPX aren't Trads - they don't believe the one ring (V2, new mass, modernism) should be destroyed.
Seriously? There's the core question of which is worse, a 60-year vacancy of the Holy See or ...
Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53227.msg665749#msg665749) a Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church that has gone completely off the rails and has been leading souls to hell for 60 years.
It's a grave problem, as +Lefebvre puts it (he himself was perplexed):
ABL: “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…
But I guess that you've succeeded in solving this problem where +Lefebvre failed.
Archbishop Lefebvre: "It is a request of the litanies of the Saints, right? We ask to keep the Pope in the true religion… We ask that in the Litanies of the Saints! This proves that sometimes it can happen that unfortunately, well, maybe sometimes it happens that... well there have been hesitations, there are false steps, there are errors that are possible. We have too easily believed since Vatican I, that every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope is infallible. That was never said in Vatican I! The Council never said such a thing. Very specific conditions are required for the infallibility; very, very strict conditions. The best proof is that throughout the Council, Pope Paul VI himself said ‘There is nothing in this Council which is under the sign of infallibility’. So, it is clear, he says it himself! He said it explicitly. Then we must not keep this idea which is false, and which a number of Catholics, poorly instructed, poorly taught, believe!" (Retreat at St. Michel en Brenne, April 1, 1989).
Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53227.msg665749#msg665749) “That's the chief fight between R&R and the sedevacantists. R&R think the former is a worse problem for the Church's indefectibility, while the SVs think that the latter is the worse problem.
Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53227.msg665749#msg665749) But both are absolutely a problem, and it takes a lot of arrogance to think that you're above it all.
You answered your own question, Matthew. It’s the Fisherman’s ring. The pope is the principle of Catholic unity. Where Peter is, there is the Church. We must always be united to the pope and when there is a sede vacante we must be united to the remaining Catholic hierarchy. That’s why it is so important to correctly identify who is a member of the Catholic hierarchy.And since there is no true pope, there is no unity
But there hasn’t been a 60 year vacancy of the Holy See. Each time a pope died another was elected right away, and he was accepted as Pope by the entire episcopate. If the last 6 pope had been false popes, the entire episcopate would have been united to a false head, formal apostolic succession would have ended years ago, and the visible Church would have defected. If that were the case, the gates of hell would have prevailed. So that scenario is definitely false.Where to begin...
Nothing that has taken place in the Church over the past 60 years is contrary to disciplinary infallibility, and it is excessive to say the Magisterium has been leading souls to hell for 60 years. There’s no doubt that Freemasons, Communists (and worse), began infiltrating the Church hundreds of years ago, and that some had risen to the highest levels of the Church by the end of the 19th century (e.g., Rampolla). But even today, my local ordinary, in spite of whatever errors or heresies he personally holds, has never taught anything heretical that I’m aware, which would have led the souls in my diocese to hell. To be clear, I’m not denying that the Church is in a crisis, but what I am saying is it’s excessive to say “the Magisterium has been leading souls to hell for 60 years.”
If, by “the assistance of the Holy Ghost,” ALB is referring to papal infallibility (which is likely), the answer is that this assistance is only guaranteed to prevent a Pope from erring when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra. Paul VI never defined an error; therefore the assistance understood in this sense was not contradicted during his papacy. If ALB was referring to an ordinary assistance, the answer is that the Holy Ghost promises the same to every member of the episcopate, but this ordinary assistance, which is an actual grace, “assists” without preventing the possibility of error, or overriding the free will of the one being assisted. So, the ordinary assistance would not have prevented Paul VI from overseeing a far-reaching destruction of the Church.
One of the primary reasons Catholics are unable to reconcile the crisis in the Church with Catholic doctrine, is because they have embraced an excessive idea of infallibility - the same excessive notion of infallibility that Cardinal Manning, Dr. Ward, Louis Veuillot, and numerous Jesuits defended in the years before Vatican I. It was this erroneous idea of papal infallibility, which any Catholic with a knowledge of history would have rejected (and did object), that lead to the opposite reaction by Dollinger and the other future Old Catholics.
The public debate over infallibility in the years prior to Vatican I was between two opposing groups: those who defended an excessive notion of infallibility, and those who rejected it. If you believed in papal infallibility you were considered to be with the former group; if you rejected the false notion of infallibility that they promoted, you fell in with the latter group. In other words, the public debate presented two false choices, and with human nature as it is, each side became hardened in their position. Those who believed in papal infallibility as it would be defined a few years later, were a silent and hesitant minority, who were being tossed back and forth between the two extreme positions.
When Vatican I defined papal infallibility, it did so within narrow conditions that would have likely satisfied both groups before the public debate began. When the Council finally defined the dogma, however, it was too late. By then, each side was already for or against papal infallibility, and the narrowly defined conditions did not satisfy those that had been arguing so vehemently against it for years.
The defenders of (the false notion of) infallibility were considered to have triumphed at Vatican I (even though they really didn’t), and most of the other group left the Church. This resulted in the founding of the heretical Old Catholics Church, whose apologists continued to use the same arguments to refute the papal infallibility as they did to refute the “defenders” of the dogma before it was defined. In other words, the heretics were attacking a straw man, since Vatican I did not define papal infallibility as the “defenders” of the doctrine presented it prior to Vatican I.
But the problems didn’t end there. The pre-Vatican I “defenders” of papal infallibility didn’t completely abandon the excessive idea of infallibility that they defended before the council. While they didn’t dare reject what Vatican I defined, their tendency was to stretch the infallibility of the pope beyond what was defined. Just as the liberals reduced the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” to a “meaningless formula” so as to conform the dogma to what they believed, so too did the pre-Vatican I “defenders” of infallibility reduce the dogma of papal infallibility to a “meaningless formula” by treating every authoritative teaching of the Pope as infallible.
And since the pre-Vatican I “defenders” of papal infallibility were seen as the victors in the debate over infallibility, and since they held some of the highest positions in the Church, the excessive idea of papal infallibility that they continued to promote, was gradually embraced by most Catholics. Overtime, most Catholics began to believe every word of the Pope was infallible.
The earlier quote you provided from ABL shows that he, too, had embraced the excessive view of Papal Infallibility, but later quotes show he abandoned that error. For example, here is what he said in 1989:
That’s because the sedevacantists have an entirely false notion of infallibility. They are the Old Catholics 2.0. They adhere to a false notion of papal infallibility that cannot be reconciled with the crisis in the Church. The Old Catholics false understanding of papal infallibility caused them to reject the dogma, and the sedevacantists false understanding of papal infallibility causes them to reject the recent popes. The result is that the Old Catholics say the Church defected at Vatican I, and the sedevacantists say it defected at Vatican II. Same heresy, different date.
I don’t arrogantly think “I’m above it all,” but what I do say is that nothing about the crisis causes me any difficulties at all. And there are certainly no “unanswerable questions” that disturb me. That is not arrogance, it is the truth.
Nothing that has taken place in the Church over the past 60 years is contrary to disciplinary infallibility, and it is excessive to say the Magisterium has been leading souls to hell for 60 years. There’s no doubt that Freemasons, Communists (and worse), began infiltrating the Church hundreds of years ago, and that some had risen to the highest levels of the Church by the end of the 19th century (e.g., Rampolla). But even today, my local ordinary, in spite of whatever errors or heresies he personally holds, has never taught anything heretical that I’m aware, which would have led the souls in my diocese to hell. To be clear, I’m not denying that the Church is in a crisis, but what I am saying is it’s excessive to say “the Magisterium has been leading souls to hell for 60 years.”Ah yes, only in the R&R could 99% of masses being invalid and "blasphemous", along with the clergy and pope teaching universal salvation and communion for divorceés among many other heresies, not constitute leading souls to hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrJJ6ncp1fc&t=103
One of the primary reasons Catholics are unable to reconcile the crisis in the Church with Catholic doctrine, is because they have embraced an excessive idea of infallibilityAgree totally.
That’s because the sedevacantists have an entirely false notion of infallibility. They are the Old Catholics 2.0. They adhere to a false notion of papal infallibility that cannot be reconciled with the crisis in the Church. The Old Catholics false understanding of papal infallibility caused them to reject the dogma, and the sedevacantists false understanding of papal infallibility causes them to reject the recent popes. The result is that the Old Catholics say the Church defected at Vatican I, and the sedevacantists say it defected at Vatican II. Same heresy, different date.I don’t know much about Old Catholics, but I do agree that an excessive understanding of papal infallibility leads many (but not all) sedes into their excessive conclusions. Their logic makes sense, but they start from a faulty premise.
Praetor, what’s the time limit for the sede vacante period? Can you cite a Catholic source for it?
Praetor, what’s the time limit for the sede vacante period? Can you cite a Catholic source for it?
Well, my personal opinion is that it cannot go on for more than 14 years 6 months 35 days 2 hours 15 minutes and 23.5 seconds. But some theologians hold that it's 15 minutes and 47.8 seconds.:laugh2:
Where to begin...
First of all, an extended Sede Vacante is not *exactly* a failure of the Church's mission--error being taught to the Universal Church is.
And the Church still exists, materially, as per CT. The Church you describe has failed *formally* which means the gates of hell have prevailed.
And it is excessive to say the Magisterium has been leading souls to hell for 60 years? If someone holds to the errors of Vatican II; he cannot be pleasing to God. Traditionalists agree on that point.
The next comment (referring to ++ABL) is against the very idea of the Papacy as Vatican I defined.
Even Ordinary Magisterium cannot cause someone to embrace a false doctrine, nor should they ever refuse submission (oh, I don't know... if by submitting to the Magisterium I could come away with adultery being a venial sin, the Magisterium and Church would have defected).
You might believe in a Church that would fail in its mission if it taught error to the universal Church, but if so, you definitely don’t believe in the Roman Catholic Church, since it has never taught such a thing.Does the material Church you believe in (not sure what CT refers to) have a hierarchy consisting of validly ordained bishops who received their jurisdiction from a true successor of St. Peter? If not, this is another confirmation that your “Material Church” is not the true Church founded by Christ, since the Church Christ founded will continue to exist as He constituted and founded it, and He constituted and founded it with a legitimate hierarchy of bishop with authority.The true Church also has four marks, one of which (apostolicity) also requires legitimate hierarchy consisting of bishops with jurisdiction – that is, validly ordained bishops with the authority to carry out the mission that Christ entrusted to His Church. So, if your Material Church doesn’t have a hierarchy of bishops with authority to carry out the mission Christ entrusted to his Church (and they can only receive the authority to carry out that mission from a Pope), then your Church lacks a mark that the true Church will always possess. This is yet another confirmation that the Material Church you believe in a false Church.What’s worse, holding to an error of Vatican II, or rejecting the true Church founded by Christ and believing in a false Church (one without four marks)? Blessed are those today who believe in the true Church AND reject the errors of Vatican II.You’ll have to explain what your “Material Church” thinks Vatican I defined concerning the Papacy, which contradicts what I wrote, or what ABL wrote (not sure which you're referring to).There’s a lot to unpack there, but suffice it to say that the Church founded by Christ has never taught that the Pope is unable to err in a magisterial teaching that is addressed to the universal Church. Perhaps the problem is that you’ve been reading the writings of the Old Catholic heretics, or their post-Conciliar counterparts - the sedevacantist – who say this is what the true Church teaches? If so, don’t let them fool you. Heretics always distort the meaning of Catholics dogmas by presenting them in an extreme sense. They then present their straw man “dogma” before inexperienced Catholics, as if it's the teaching of the Church, and easily refute it, thereby giving the appearance of having refuted what their Church teaches. This is a tried and true method of heretics. There's always a certain number of Catholics who fall for this trick and end by leaving the Church. Cardinal Franzelin discussed this tactic used by heretics in his celebrated book, On Divine Tradition:“As the Fathers often explain, whenever Catholic truth stands midway between two opposite errors, heretics always preserve the Catholic dogma only to distort it by presenting it in an extreme sense in one direction or the other. Then, what the Catholic Church does not in the least teach, is placed in this [distorted] way before the inexperienced, as though it were Catholic dogma, which can then be easily attacked.” (Franzelin, De Divina Traditione)Why did Franzelin mention this common tactic of heretics? Because the heretics he was discussing in the book used the same tactic. And who were those heretics? It was none other than the old Catholic heretics 1.0 – the Neo-Protestants of the 19th century. Franzelin explains that the way these heretics attacked the dogma of papal infallibility, was through the use of sophisms and specious arguments that had the effect of eliminating the distinction between infallible ex cathedra papal teachings, and non-infallible teachings of the Pope’s ordinary Magisterium, in the hope of convincing Catholics that everything the Pope teaches must now be considered infallible, according to Vatican I. He writes:“… no Catholic has ever denied, or can deny the necessity of distinguishing between ex cathedra definitions and other declarations, even doctrinal ones, whether of the Popes themselves or of Pontifical Congregations. Enemies of the Holy See and those impugning infallibility alone try to eliminate this necessary distinction, which itself is contained in the decree of the Vatican definition, and especially today the Neo-Protestants [i.e., Old Catholics] do the same. (…) the teacher of Neo-Protestantism, Freidrich Schulte, in order to defend heresy and attack the dogma of papal infallibility, chiefly exerted all his strength and constructed sophisms to bring it to pass that the distinction between a definition ex cathedra, and other public docuмents and declarations of the Popes, is hollow, even to the point that all the declarations which the Pope promulgated or promulgates by the force of his pastoral office, in whatever way he does so, must be held as infallible definitions by Catholics after the Vatican Council.” (Franzelin, De Divina Traditione)It’s surprising how successful this tactic was. Even though anyone could have read the dogma of papal infallibility for himself and seen right through the lies of these heretics, nevertheless, as usual, there was a certain caliber of ignorant Catholics who fell for it – just as there’s a certain caliber of ignorant Catholic today who has fallen for the identical tactic of the sedevacantist heretics - not to prove the dogma of papal infallibility false, but in an attempt to prove that the subject of the dogma - the Popes - are false.. One difference is that the Old Catholics 2.0 (today’s Sedevacantists) go further than their heretical 19th century counterparts, by claiming Vatican I also ruled out the possibility that a pope can fall into heresy. Not surprisingly, the same dupes fall for that one as well.I’ll respond to the rest of your reply later.
The indefectibility and spotless/blemish-free nature of the Church and Her teaching is nothing novel.Indefectibility means the Church, as an organization, will last til the end of time. It has nothing to do with the purity of the Church's teachings, which is related to infallibility. You can't mix and match these two characters.
the Magisterium is what a Catholic is supposed to follow. If I can't follow the Magisterium without believing in a false faith, the Church has defected.We are supposed to follow the UNIVERSAL magisterium (i.e. what has always been taught), not simply the current magisterium (which is fallible). That's why it's called "Tradition" because it follows the maxim: ubique, semper, et ab omnibus (as St Vincent below explains).
Indefectibility means the Church, as an organization, will last til the end of time. It has nothing to do with the purity of the Church's teachings, which is related to infallibility. You can't mix and match these two characters.
.
We are supposed to follow the UNIVERSAL magisterium (i.e. what has always been taught), not simply the current magisterium (which is fallible). That's why it's called "Tradition" because it follows the maxim: ubique, semper, et ab omnibus (as St Vincent below explains).
.
St. Vincent of Lerins - “Moreover, in the Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”
.
If the current magisterium deviates from Tradition, they are anathema. V2 is not imposed on any catholic under pain of sin; it is part of the ordinary/fallible magisterium. This in no way impairs indefectibility because the continuance of the Church is not dependent upon the sanctity or orthodoxy of its Cardinals (including the hierarchy) but it depends on the organizational structure surviving which includes the lower clergy and laity. As St Athanasius said during the Arian heresy, when 95% of the catholic world was heretical (including most of the hierarchy):
.
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
.
Currently, we are in the same predicament (and worse) than during the Arian crisis. 99% of the hierarchy/laity are heretics. Those catholics who hold the pure, unblemished Faith are very few. The Church still exists in these few, as Christ promised.
Ah yes, only in the R&R could 99% of masses being invalid and "blasphemous", along with the clergy and pope teaching universal salvation and communion for divorceés among many other heresies, not constitute leading souls to hell.People will *not* be lead at all to where they do not want to go, at least not for very long. To put it another way, people will only be led to where they want to go - that is simply the nature of our free will, that's how free will works - we do whatever it is we want to do.
By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change, which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the Sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men."
People will *not* be lead at all to where they do not want to go, at least not for very long. To put it another way, people will only be led to where they want to go - that is simply the nature of our free will, that's how free will works - we do whatever it is we want to do.
Argument 1
1. If a teaching/promulgation is not binding either a) under pain of sin, or b) with certainty of faith,
then the Church's doctrine hasn't changed and this "teaching"/promulgation has nothing to do with infallibility/indefectibility.
2. V2 & the new mass do not have to be accepted 1) under pain of sin, or 2) with certainty of faith.
a. V2 = theological speculation/quasi-heresy.
b. New Mass = quasi-heretical liturgy.
3. Ergo, V2 and the new mass have nothing to do with infallibility/indefectibility, because the Church does not force anyone to accept/attend them.
Argument 2
4. Scripture, Tradition and Doctrine are binding on all Catholics, 1) under pain of sin and with 2) certainty of faith.
5. Scripture, Tradition and Doctrine, as explained/taught by the Church, are 100% required for salvation.
6. V2 and the new mass are optional and not required for salvation.
7. V2 and the new mass are not part of the Church's official theology or Her official liturgy.
8. Ergo, these novelties have nothing to do with infallibility/indefectibility, because the Church does not force anyone to accept/attend them.
Argument 3a
9. Quo Primum's law is still in force, as confirmed by Pope Benedict in 2007.
10. QP commands all of the latin rite to use its missal (1962). QP does not allow anyone to revise its missal. Both of these commands under pain of grave sin.
11. The new mass is illegal to attend because it violates QP.
12. The new mass is not approved by the Church, no matter how many V2 popes use the new missal or promote it publicly.
13. A pope can violate Quo Primum, just like any Catholic. A pope is not above the law, and he must abide by it, if he fails to change it.
14. Since no pope has changed QP, all popes who say, attend or promote the new mass are promoting an illegal and sinful act.
15. The new mass' existence is not a violation of indefectibilty because it is, and always has been, illegal and therefore sinful.
The vast majority of Catholics are told must attend the NO under pain of mortal sin(no NO clergyman will tell you that you can stay at home as long as there's no Latin mass nearby). So yes, the attendance of the new mass is binding under pain of sin.Novus ordo catholics are told this by their bishops/priests, not rome. None of the V2 popes, nor any Vatican official has ever declared this. In fact, as I said previously, Benedict XVI said in his "motu" that Quo Primum is still in force and that all priests have a legal right to say the True Mass. This is confirmation, directly from the pope/rome, that anyone can attend the latin mass and they do not have to attend the novus ordo.
QP does not forbid the pope to revise the missal, popes have done it many time beforeAgree but no pope since John XXIII in 1962 has revised, or attempted to revise, QP. John Paul II's commission to study the matter, which led to the indult mass in the early 80s, shows that Paul VI's novus ordo liturgy/law was not a revision but a new liturgy/law.
Popes can of course violate canon law, but not when they're making laws. New laws override old laws.New laws can override old laws, they also cannot. It depends what they say. We know for a FACT that Paul VI's new liturgy/law in 1969 did not override or revise QP because of Benedict's "motu". He confirmed this in 2007 when he said that QP was "not abrogated" and that the True Mass "was always allowed".
The Church's mission is the salvation of souls. If the Church is leading people away from salvation by ordering them(under pain of mortal sin) to attend blasphemous and invalid masses, all while it teaches them heresies, then it has completely defected in its mission.To say that the Church is leading people away from salvation is to say that Christ is leading people away from salvation. You cannot separate Christ from the Church, that's exactly what Protestants do.
I'm not here right now to argue for sedevacantism - the 60 year vacancy is just as problematic for the Church's indefectibility. But from what I've seen, every position has its own problems and apparent impossibilities, and that's what makes the Crisis a mystery and why I agree with Matthew that there's no "one ring" discovered at present. This idea that 99% of masses said in Catholic Churches being invalid and every level of clergyman teaching blatant heresies doesn't pose any issues for the Church's indefectibility whatsoever is just ridiculous. Praeter would go even further and have you believe there's nothing wrong or unusual about now at all - it's perfectly fine to have a heretical pope who you ignore on 100% of what he says, who celebrates an invalid and blasphemous rite of mass that 99% of Catholics attend.
The Church's indefectibility has never been compromised nor will it ever.
The indefectibility and spotless/blemish-free nature of the Church and Her teaching is nothing novel.
Pope St. Gelasius I, Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Ephesians 5:27).”
CT refers to the Cassiciacuм Thesis, also known as sedeprivationism.
Your point about Apostolicity is moot--none of the actual traditional/valid (Old Rite) Bishops have Ordinary Jurisdiction.
“But, we could even say Ordinary Jurisdiction still exists; because the Eastern Rite Bishops are valid.”
I believe in a false Church? I don't believe in a Catholic Church that can teach substantial error from an Ecuмenical Council.
You cannot say that Vatican II CAN come from the authority of the Church AND contain substantial error.
It's then either Extraordinary Magisterium or Universal Ordinary Magisterium, both of which have to be infallible.
the Church founded by Christ has never taught that the Pope is unable to err in a magisterial teaching addressed to the universal Church? Are you serious?
It most certainly has in your view of things.No, it most certainly hasn't.
To say that the Church is leading people away from salvation is to say that Christ is leading people away from salvation. You cannot separate Christ from the Church, that's exactly what Protestants do.
The Church's indefectibility has never been compromised nor will it ever. The pope and hierarchy is not indefectible because the they are not the Church, Christ is the Church - Christ and the Church are one and the same.
You do not like answering questions but I will ask you once again:
Why is it that *you* don't believe the errors and heresies taught by the clergy and conciliar popes, but (figuratively speaking) everyone else does?
Novus ordo catholics are told this by their bishops/priests, not rome. None of the V2 popes, nor any Vatican official has ever declared this. In fact, as I said previously, Benedict XVI said in his "motu" that Quo Primum is still in force and that all priests have a legal right to say the True Mass. This is confirmation, directly from the pope/rome, that anyone can attend the latin mass and they do not have to attend the novus ordo.Rome asserts that the new mass is a valid and licit mass. Therefore if a Catholic lived too far to go to a Latin mass, he is required to attend the new mass to fulfil his mass obligation. That requirement is under the pain of mortal sin.
Agree but no pope since John XXIII in 1962 has revised, or attempted to revise, QP. John Paul II's commission to study the matter, which led to the indult mass in the early 80s, shows that Paul VI's novus ordo liturgy/law was not a revision but a new liturgy/law.Did Quo Primum prohibit the promulgation of new rites? Honest question, I actually can't recall.
New laws can override old laws, they also cannot. It depends what they say. We know for a FACT that Paul VI's new liturgy/law in 1969 did not override or revise QP because of Benedict's "motu". He confirmed this in 2007 when he said that QP was "not abrogated" and that the True Mass "was always allowed".
Further, QP orders that ALL latin rite catholics ONLY say/attend the True Mass and they aren't allowed to use/attend any other missal. Paul VI's liturgy/law could've revised this part, in order to allow a new/2nd missal. This was within Paul VI's authority to do so...but he did not. Therefore QP's command is still in force and even though the new mass legally exists, those who say/use it commit a grave sin by using an illicit missal. The missal is legal, but to use it is illegal. Ah, what a diabolically clever situation the devil hath created! But the legalities are clear as day since the "motu". We can thank Benedict for that (and not much else).QP orders they all attend authorised missals. It did away with every missal that was under 200 years old, but it allowed Catholics to continue to attend the ancient rites. Paul VI clearly authorised the new mass, so it's authorised in the same way the ancient ones are.
:facepalm: That's the whole point. If the Church is leading people away from salvation, then it has defected. But the Church cannot defect. Ergo the Church cannot lead people away from salvation. Ergo an organisation that leads people away from salvation CANNOT be the Church.That's right, the conciliar church is not "The Church". So you should stop saying it is. The pope is not the Church either, neither is the hierarchy.
I used my own judgement to determine that their teachings were contrary to Church dogma and therefore heresy, and yes, like I know you'll bring up now, any Catholic can do that. But the fact that an educated and well-informed Catholic can determine that the hierarchy is teaching heresy, doesn't mean the hierarchy teaching heresy is not a problem. It doesn't change the fact that the Conciliar Church is actively leading souls to heresy and encouraging them to sin......Are you saying that you figured that we're in this mess via the use of your own wits? Do you not admit that you must have felt something was wrong and corresponded to graces that were offered to you? Do you think that God does not offer those same graces to every human creature? Certainly you agree that most people reject those graces - *those* are the ones who are content to go to hell while foolishly relying on the the popes authority to excuse them from their own sins.
So don't try telling me that R&R doesn't have the same issue with indefectibility as sedevacantism has. In sedevacantism, we're without a pope for 60 years and soon to be without any hierarchy at all. In R&R we have a pope and hierarchy actively leading souls away from salvation, and a Church without the Mass(i.e one of the essential elements the CE says the Church cannot lose) - and also, if you're one of the R&R who say the new rite of ordination is doubtful(and I think most of them do), then we'd soon be without a hierarchy anyway.So you're without a pope for 60 years now - how much longer till you agree that you really have never needed a pope at all? 10 more years? 60 more years? 100 more years?
From that I assert that neither position can fully explain the Crisis and that both positions have serious problems. You can argue that the sedevacantist position has more serious problems, but the assertion that the R&R position is without problems and can explain everything is just ridiculous and easily falsifiable.
Rome asserts that the new mass is a valid and licit mass.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.
Did Quo Primum prohibit the promulgation of new rites?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.
QP orders they all attend authorised missals. It did away with every missal that was under 200 years old, but it allowed Catholics to continue to attend the ancient rites.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).
Paul VI clearly authorised the new mass, so it's authorised in the same way the ancient ones are.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:
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.Spot on. This revolution is probably the only revolution in the history of the world where the enemy took over the fort without so much as a drop of blood ever having been shed. Initially, the people had "the Church", they had the faith, they had everything far as that goes - and most (not all) abandoned it all of their own free will using authority as an excuse to do so - this much I was an eye witness to - they then handed that loss of faith down to the following generations so that today, this is what is.
Spot on.
"The Ring" is simply truth, Divine Truth found only within and taught by the Catholic Church.
Both sides would benefit from a bit of humility.Dear Mr. Humble,
Is the fact that the Pope who is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit did more damage to the Church than any heresiarch a problem? +Lefebvre, the hero of all R&R, admitted that it was.
Is the fact that a vacancy would go on for 60 years a problem? Of course it's a problem.
If both sides admitted that no solution is perfect, then a lot more progress can be made in the spread of Tradition.
Dear Mr. Humble,
The pope in fact IS guided by the Holy Ghost when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. Try to always remember that amongst your "universal discipline" and your "magisterium that went off the rails".
…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…
Dear Mr. Humble,
The pope in fact IS guided by the Holy Ghost when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. Try to always remember that amongst your "universal discipline" and your "magisterium that went off the rails".
Of course, objectively, the Divine Truth is the Ring. Question is not whether the ring exists, but who's in possession of it. You have many Catholics on the Novus Ordo side who claims that the teaching of Vatican II is not inconsistent with said Divine Truth. In your philosophy, you, Stubborn, have the authority to sift through what is taught by the Magisterium and decide what is and what is not in conformity with said truth (your ridiculous redefinition of Magsiterium notwithstanding).The Church is always in possession of it, we access that truth through the Church, these days through one or more of the Church's faithful priests who are concerned only with the truth, not whether they guess right or not.
If both sides admitted that no solution is perfect, then a lot more progress can be made in the spread of Tradition.I'm not offering a solution between R&R and Sedevacantism. I'm simply pointing out what Church law says on V2 and the new mass. My point is that the V2 popes could be anti-popes because of their heresies (which only a future Church hierarchy can decide), but not because of disciplinary, infallibility or indefectibility violations.
While slightly off color, this meme could hardly be more appropriate than in response to this post ...Not off color for you, not in the least. I did not expect you to agree - heaven forbid!
You know, the biggest problem with the Traditional movement comes from the dogmatic idiots on both sides. Much has been made of dogmatic sedevacantism, but dogmatic R&R, as preached by Praeter and Stubborn, is every bit as pernicious.Only when you give the pope an authority and infallibility he does not possess. Funny how for as smart as you think you are, you cannot fathom the reason so many went the way of the NO, is because they all actually believed he had the same infallibility as you say he has. Except of course, they proved it by going along with him - which is to say if you actually believed half the crap you talk, you would have never left the NO.
That's right, the conciliar church is not "The Church". So you should stop saying it is. The pope is not the Church either, neither is the hierarchy.
Are you saying that you figured that we're in this mess via the use of your own wits? Do you not admit that you must have felt something was wrong and corresponded to graces that were offered to you? Do you think that God does not offer those same graces to every human creature? Certainly you agree that most people reject those graces - *those* are the ones who are content to go to hell while foolishly relying on the the popes authority to excuse them from their own sins.
So you're without a pope for 60 years now - how much longer till you agree that you really have never needed a pope at all? 10 more years? 60 more years? 100 more years?
Why is it that you even need a pope?
By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is it that you even need a pope when you ignore him and everything he does anyway?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.
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:
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.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.
So it's clear that sedevacantism cannot explain the Crisis, but neither can R&R as that position still violates the principle of indefectibility.
So the entire hierarchy defects, so what, they are not the Church.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.
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.
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.
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 ^^^This is the answer, or closest thing to an answer in regards to the Crisis that I've found.
1. I see the debaters in this thread (about specifics of the Crisis) aren't ready to concede to the other side.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.
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
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.
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 circuмstances, 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.
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.
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.
(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.
Paul VI) ordered that it be used and he ordered it go into effect on the first Sunday of Advent that year.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.
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.
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".
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.
Look, this thread was not intended to blow up into a full R&R vs. SV debate. Just stop already.I have read the entire thread, up till this comment. I haven't read the rest.
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.Yeah idk, the Crisis has left us in a real mess. It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous. I also have to try and explain why the Church post-V2 is contradicting itself and its pre-V2 tradition, and how that doesn't contradict indefectibility when I'm not even certain on the answer to that myself.
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.)
Yeah idk, the Crisis has left us in a real mess. It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous. I also have to try and explain why the Church post-V2 is contradicting itself and its pre-V2 tradition, and how that doesn't contradict indefectibility when I'm not even certain on the answer to that myself.I more or less agree with your explanation, I go back and forth on the crisis to some degree, but even if hermeneutic of continuity is the correct answer, that's gonna be more like Cardinal Burke than Pope Francis (And yes, I'm aware I'm one of the least "consistently" traditional person on this forum, I've humorously said only Poche is more liberal than me, lol), but I have a hard time believing all the Orthodox (especially the Orthodox, less so with Protestants but there's truth there as well) are just of bad will and just stubborn, *especially* when this is the situation we have to deal with. That probably plays into, though its not my only reason for, disagreeing with Feeney.
Someone could quite fairly call me a hypocrite - saying that I can't even explain my own position fully. And I can't. But for me it's really a case of, even during the confusion and absurdity of the Crisis, I still think Catholicism has less problems in its positions than Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion for that matter. Protestants can't even explain how they know the Bible is infallible - it was the Church that decided which books were gospel, which books were apocryphal, etc. Protestants can't tell you why the Gospel of Thomas isn't in their Bible but the Gospel of John is. Orthodoxy can't tell you how they know a council is ecuмenical or not. They quite literally can't even explain their rules of faith. At least we can still explain how we know what is gospel and what isn't, and what is dogma and what isn't.
Of course, attacking logical problems with other denominations while being unable to explain all the problems with my own is not conducive to successful conversion. In my own mind I chalk the problems with the Crisis to - "We're on the eve of either the Great Chastisement or the End Times, it's meant to be a time of confusion and apostasy where nothing goes as normal" and hope that I live long enough to see the problems resolved and explained, but that's a lame and unconvincing explanation to give to a non-Catholic in a debate.
Look, this thread was not intended to blow up into a full R&R vs. SV debate. Just stop already.It would explain why people are looking for explanations other than those presented above.
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.
God gave us Reason, with which we exercise the virtue of Prudence. If we love the truth, acknowledge and attack error, always call a spade a spade, and "give the devil his due", there shouldn't be any huge surprises in store for us. Nor any worries that we'll go full Old Catholic when the Church is restored.Haven't we gone full Old Catholic already?
Haven't we gone full Old Catholic already?Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position? The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic. And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him. But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.
It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous.Forlorn, I agree that it’s almost impossible to convert novus ordo Catholics today. However our chapel has had 20+ converts in the last few years alone (with 5 taking classes). They are Protestants and atheists. We’ve lost about 30 people in the last 5 years to the indult (all 30 people grew up Trad). It’s a real shame. But the way that these new people found out about Catholicism and our chapel is truly miraculous. God took the graces from those Trads who rejected it and gave it to others who would appreciate it. Deo Gratias!
Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position? The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic. And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him. But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.Actually, "r&r" is the Catholic position. We accept that the pope has the primacy per Pope Pius X, who said that upon his election, "he is instantly the true pope and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."
Actually, "r&r" is the Catholic position.
And yet many Catholics completely disagree ... as per the point Matthew's making.Catholics (R&R) are doing nothing more than simply applying: "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man." Without this most fundamental of Catholic principles, all Catholics have a supreme problem. But with this principle, aside from praying for the pope, Catholics actually don't do anything in regards to the conciliar popes..
Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position? The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic. And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him. But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.
It is usually conceded that R&R's disobey the Pope, but when do they actually do so? Before this is conceded, I think we need some examples that demonstrate it.According to canon law, if a church law ceases to be working for the good of the church, that law ceases to be valid. The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.
And let's not forget that most sedevacantists disobey/reject the revise Holy Week liturgies that were promulgated by Pius XII, the last pope they accept. How is that not recognizing and resisting Pius XII? And every sedevacantist bishop is guilty of rejecting the teaching of Pius XII, who forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate. It was already forbidden in the 1917 code. Pius XII just attached the more sever penalty of excommunication to those broke the law. If everything contained in an encyclical "demands assent," as the sedes always say (quoting Pius XII in Humani Generis), why did every single sede bishop, without exception, refuse to give his assent to Pius XII teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis, which forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate?
According to canon law, if a church law ceases to be working for the good of the church, that law ceases to be valid. The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.
As to bishops being consecrated without a mandate, that goes back to the same canon law. According to SVs, the church lives on through them as the NO is a new/separate church. If they did not have the ability to consecrate bishops, the church would definitely end so that law is definitely doing harm, not good so it's invalid.
The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.The Holy Week changes are not evil and they aren't good. They just are. The intent behind them is irrelevant, if the changes themselves aren't anti-catholic. Example: Susan holds a grudge against her sister-in-law, Judy. She makes a cherry pie for Judy's party, knowing that Judy is allergic to cherries and she wants to make Judy mad. Susan's INTENTION is sinful but the cherry pie itself is not. It's just a pie. In the same way, the Holy Week changes were INTENDED to be a stepping stone towards modernism, so the intention is a sin. But I don't think the changes crossed the line into anti-catholic theology or a protestant liturgy. So the sin of intention is far greater than the actual changes. As such, the arguments against them are over-blown. Same goes for the 1962 missal.
Okay, just to make sure I understand what you saying. You believe Catholics are permitted to "sift" the laws of the Church to determine for themselves which are good and which are not, and are only required to obey those that they believe are beneficial for the Church?Whoops, it's not canon law. My mistake there. I'm referring to the principle of Epikeia. The third aspect of it states:
And can you cite the canon from the 1917 or 1983 Code that you are referring to?
Forlorn, I agree that it’s almost impossible to convert novus ordo Catholics today. However our chapel has had 20+ converts in the last few years alone (with 5 taking classes). They are Protestants and atheists. We’ve lost about 30 people in the last 5 years to the indult (all 30 people grew up Trad). It’s a real shame. But the way that these new people found out about Catholicism and our chapel is truly miraculous. God took the graces from those Trads who rejected it and gave it to others who would appreciate it. Deo Gratias!Good to hear, I'm surprised you're getting so many. Shame about the indults though. Are they FSSP or NO?
At Vatican II, the Freemasons successfully conspired to throw the One Ring into the Tiber, after which it has been lost to this day.The Freemasons not only did that. But, they also got rid of the St. Michael's Prayer. The short form version is only prayed at some churches. But, the freemasons don't want you to know about the Long Form St. Michael's Prayer. It sure is an eye-opener.
God will have to produce it (or forge another) in His own good time.
Good-willed Catholics currently exist in many groups. Below are the arguments that WOULD JUSTIFY a Catholic of good will attending any of these groups. There are other arguments, and I don't have all day, but I'm giving a quick sample so you know what I mean:I don’t believe the “official line” of the fssp is that the new mass is defective and dangerous. I’m sure there’s some overlap among priests, but I suspect that’s a key difference between the groups. Sspx thinks it’s “defective and dangerous”. Fssp thinks it’s just not ideal.
Conservative Novus Ordo: "We must stay within the authority and framework of the Catholic Church. Obedience is important. Christ promised perpetual successors to St. Peter. I do my best to do and believe everything a Catholic should. I obey my priest, bishop, and Pope unless they are clearly in error, which some of them are at times."
FSSP: "What Conservative Novus Ordo said, but also the New Mass is defective and dangerous at least. We will play it safe and only say the Tridentine Mass and use the Rites that were used before Vatican II. Vatican II was extremely problematic at best. We will train our priests in separate seminaries so they get a fully Traditional or pre-Vatican II formation. We're OK with the new Rites of consecration and ordination, however."
SSPX: "What FSSP said." <----- Note how useless the SSPX is now, but I digress!
Resistance: "Vatican II is heretical and destructive of souls, and we have 50 years of evidence to prove it. We should stay away from the Modernist contagion, lest we ourselves become infected. It is permitted to disobey a Pope when he steps outside his authority. God expects us to save our souls, and we need the Sacraments to do so. We have the right to cling to the Catholic Faith as it was always taught. We don't need the Pope or anyone else to give us permission to stay Catholic. But we can keep the Faith and pre-Vatican II religion without denying the papacy of the current Pope. Besides, the Pope has been validly elected and universally accepted by the Catholic Church. Also, the idea of a 60 year interregnum (period between popes) is ludicrous."
Sedevacantists: "What Resistance said, except the stuff about the Pope. The Catholic Church can't promulgate a Mass noxious to souls. And what's the point of Our Lord's promise to St. Peter if his successor could actually be harmful to, and dismantle, the Catholic Church? The last several Popes aren't even Catholic, therefore they can't be heads of the Catholic Church. They are heretics. We know heresy when we see it."
Home Aloners: "I stopped going to Mass after 1970 when the Catholic Church embraced Modernism and error. Yes I've heard about so-called "Traditional Catholics" here and there, but they have no authority from the Pope to operate independent churches. They have no authority to say Mass, much less hear confessions or witness marriages. These groups are like cut-off branches not connected to the main tree, which means they are dead. You can't get life (grace) from dead branches. So I stay at home with my Rosary, and live like the Japanese "hidden Christians" praying for God to end this chastisement."
I’m sure there’s some overlap among priests, but I suspect that’s a key difference between the groups. Sspx thinks it’s “defective and dangerous”. Fssp thinks it’s just not ideal.See, that is a problem right there. If the New Mass is simply "not ideal" then you attend sometimes when you're on-the-go and don't have other options. Kind of like eating at McDonald's. You know you shouldn't, you know it's bad for you, but hey the kids just got out of practice and we're starving. "I know, I'm a bad mom!"
Quick reply:
3. The “ring” is the Tridentine Mass, codified by St. Pope Pius V to insure our Catholic unity for the highest form of Worship taught by the Our Lord, Jesus Christ
Even the Tridentine Mass itself is the source of some of the DEEPEST divisions among Traditional Catholics. Should the Mass be offered una cuм the current Pontiff? Which Missale should be used? 1962, 1955, or earlier? and if we're in Holy Week, which version of Holy Week should be used? How many hours should we fast before Communion? Which version of the Good Friday prayers should be used? There are several. And heaven help us -- should the Faithful give any responses during the Mass (a la the Dialogue Mass)Exactly. The "One Ring" simply isn't known right now (if it even exists at this time).
These are divisions specifically among Traditional Catholics -- 100% of whom claim allegiance and devotion to the Tridentine Mass.
So no, the Tridentine Mass is most certainly not the Ring of my analogy. Or there would be zero division among Traditional Catholics today! Is that truly what you observe?
Exactly. The "One Ring" simply isn't known right now (if it even exists at this time).
The “divisions” in the codified Holy Sacrifice were introduced and propagated by the enemies of the Church. They are extraneous distractions.How does that unify Traditional Catholics?
Transubstantiation of the Holy Sacrifice has abrogated judaism.
It is our unifying ring.
If you don’t believe in it, you’re clearly outside looking in.
Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation."One can counter the dangers for the Faith through solid catechism:
Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10]
"It is true that prudence might suggest to this or that priest “not to refuse the new Ordo for fear of scandalizing the faithful” by their witnessing his apparent disobedience to the bishop.[40] Such a priest should, however, “keep the Roman Canon which is still permitted, and say the words of consecration in a low voice according to the old form, which is still allowed.”[41] When Archbishop Lefebvre was absent on a Sunday, the seminarians would go and assist at Mass together at the Bernadine convent of La Maigrauge where an old monk celebrated the New Mass in Latin.
At the time, Archbishop Lefebvre’s position was not quite as categorical. He considered that the New Mass was not heretical,
as Cardinal Ottaviani had said, it represents serious dangers
However, “it is an exaggeration to say that most of these Masses are invalid.”
“if one does not have the choice and if the priest celebrating Mass according to the Novus Ordo is faithful and worthy, one should not abstain from going to Mass.”
These statements are incompatible with the view that the NOM never obtains any graces, or Communion there distributes no graces.
1) He was speaking of the time of 1980ish, when many of the novus ordo priests WERE UNQUESTIONABLY PRIESTS, having been ordained in the old rite..
Worthy priest = one is unquestionably valid, having been ordained in the pre-V2 rite, by a pre-V2 bishop.
I have no idea what +Williamson’s views are. Being that he’s a little slippery on the new mass, he may also be slippery on the new ordinations. In my view, the resistance is so scared of being labeled sedevacant, that their knee-jerk reaction is to disagree with many of the sede theological lines-in-the-sand (even those which have nothing to do with the papacy). I hope I’m wrong but I don’t know.I know we've talked about this before, but I think this is more related than you think.
Even if he’s not a bishop, he could be a valid pope-elect (theoretically). Any unmarried, catholic male over a certain age, can be validly elected pope. You don’t have to be a cleric at all.
.No:
Quick question. Does the Resistance have an official position -- either explicitly stated or at least existing de facto -- on the new rites of ordination and consecration? Do they require that any priest who works for them be ordained in the old rite, and come from an unbroken line of bishops ordained and consecrate in the old rite?
.
And do they tell the faithful to only receive the sacraments from such priests?
No:
Because there is no institutionally monolithic Resistance, there is no official Resistance position on anything.
As far as I can tell "The Resistance" is more of an idea than any kind of concrete organization.
No:Thanks. I figured you would be the most likely person to know.
Because there is no institutionally monolithic Resistance, there is no official Resistance position on anything.
.
Quick question. Does the Resistance have an official position -- either explicitly stated or at least existing de facto -- on the new rites of ordination and consecration? Do they require that any priest who works for them be ordained in the old rite, and come from an unbroken line of bishops ordained and consecrate in the old rite?
.
And do they tell the faithful to only receive the sacraments from such priests?
Ok, since my fellow ex-seminarians utterly failed to answer this question for you, I will:.
DE FACTO the Resistance does have a position on this. Priests from the Novus Ordo are to be conditionally re-ordained. And the Resistance only makes use of known good or "certainly valid" bishops -- such as +Lefebvre-line.
All priests working in the Resistance are either conditionally ordained by a +Lefebvre line bishop, or they were already ordained by one in the SSPX.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Classic SSPX position, once again.
Ok, since my fellow ex-seminarians utterly failed to answer this question for you, I will:Is that really the Classic SSPX position? We know of NO priests that were not conditionally ordained even during +Lefebvre timeline. Also, I personally know of an NO priest, who was conditionally ordained by +Williamson, even though there was no positive doubt and it was done because people complained.
DE FACTO the Resistance does have a position on this. Priests from the Novus Ordo are to be conditionally re-ordained. And the Resistance only makes use of known good or "certainly valid" bishops -- such as +Lefebvre-line.
All priests working in the Resistance are either conditionally ordained by a +Lefebvre line bishop, or they were already ordained by one in the SSPX.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Classic SSPX position, once again.
Side note concerning conditional sacraments: I have been finding that more protestant converts to NO church never had their protestant baptism investigated. And as they move to tradition, the neo-SSPX does not investigate it either.I find it interesting that they perform conditional confirmations on demand to all who ask, but don't perform conditional baptisms or ordinations.
Ok, since my fellow ex-seminarians utterly failed to answer this question for you, I will:Didn't Lefebvre himself sometimes abstain from conditional ordinations? I admittedly don't remember the details on this so maybe I'm wrong. I'll see if I can find proof tomorrow or the next day.
DE FACTO the Resistance does have a position on this. Priests from the Novus Ordo are to be conditionally re-ordained. And the Resistance only makes use of known good or "certainly valid" bishops -- such as +Lefebvre-line.
All priests working in the Resistance are either conditionally ordained by a +Lefebvre line bishop, or they were already ordained by one in the SSPX.
Seems pretty straightforward to me. Classic SSPX position, once again.
Didn't Lefebvre himself sometimes abstain from conditional ordinations? I admittedly don't remember the details on this so maybe I'm wrong. I'll see if I can find proof tomorrow or the next day.I asked the same question earlier, with no response.. Why would it take an ex seminarians to answer it?
I asked the same question earlier, with no response.. Why would it take an ex seminarians to answer it?And this is why I sometimes wonder if the difference between SSPV and resistance isn't as large as some may think. Not that that's the worst thing in the world. Lefebvre wasnt perfect and it's certainly better to be SSPV than liberal
Didn't Lefebvre himself sometimes abstain from conditional ordinations? I admittedly don't remember the details on this so maybe I'm wrong. I'll see if I can find proof tomorrow or the next day.
Didn't Lefebvre himself sometimes abstain from conditional ordinations?Yes, because in the 70s and 80s, there were still priests alive who were ordained in the old rite. There were still Bishops alive who were valid Bishops.
Yes, because in the 70s and 80s, there were still priests alive who were ordained in the old rite. There were still Bishops alive who were valid Bishops.