Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 30

Author Topic: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?  (Read 30044 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
« Reply #50 on: September 02, 2019, 08:57:30 AM »
Quote
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.
.

Quote
QP does not forbid the pope to revise the missal, popes have done it many time before
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.
.

Quote
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".
.
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).
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2019, 09:11:31 AM »
Quote from: forlorn on September 02, 2019, 08:19:43 AM
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.

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.
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?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2019, 09:34:07 AM »
Quote from: Stubborn on September 02, 2019, 09:11:31 AM
The Church's indefectibility has never been compromised nor will it ever.

It most certainly has in your view of things.
Logged

Offline Praeter

Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
« Reply #53 on: September 02, 2019, 09:36:09 AM »
Quote from: MadonnaDolorosa on September 01, 2019, 11:42:39 PM
The indefectibility and spotless/blemish-free nature of the Church and Her teaching is nothing novel.

The Church Triumphant is without spot or wrinkle, not the Church Militant, as St. Augustine explained to the Donatist heretics.   Regarding the teachings of the Church Militant, they are indeed “without spot or wrinkle” when they have been proposed definitively, not merely taught authoritatively.  


Quote
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).”


That applies to definitive teachings of the Pope, not everything a pope teaches authoritatively.


Quote
CT refers to the Cassiciacuм Thesis, also known as sedeprivationism.


Oh, the heresy of Guerard des Lauriers, which is being perpetuated by Bishop Sanborn.  The heresy that says the pope and bishops legally hold office, but lack the authority of the office they legally hold because – are you ready for this one – they had the intention to harm the faith when they were elected/appointed.  Try finding a precedent for that one before Vatican II.


Quote
Your point about Apostolicity is moot--none of the actual traditional/valid (Old Rite) Bishops have Ordinary Jurisdiction.


All that means is they are not legitimacy successors of the apostles, but that doesn’t change the fact that a hierarchy of legitimate successors of the apostles will always exist in the true Church.

Quote
“But, we could even say Ordinary Jurisdiction still exists; because the Eastern Rite Bishops are valid.”

Being validly ordained does not equate to having ordinary jurisdiction. Bishops receive their jurisdiction from a Pope; and even conceding that an antipope can validly appoint/confer jurisdiction, due to common error (which is an argument the members of your religion use in an attempt to escape the heretical conclusion that follows from their erroneous premises), the Eastern bishops would have immediately lost their jurisdiction if they adhered a false Church, i.e., “the Vatican II sect”.  Why?  Because a cleric who joins or publicly adheres to a non-Catholic sect is considered to have tacitly resigned (c. 2314.3) and loses his office, ipso facto, without a declaration (c. 188.4).    So, either you believe the “unholy Church that can contradict itself in so many ways, obliterate the traditional Faith and enforce a religion of modernism,” is the true Church, or you believe it's a false Church.  If it’s the true Church, you can’t be saved without belonging to it; if it’s a false Church, none of the Easter Bishop who have publicly adhered to it - and that's all of them - can possess jurisdiction.


Quote
I believe in a false Church? I don't believe in a Catholic Church that can teach substantial error from an Ecuмenical Council.

Then that proves you believed in a false Church. The Ecuмenical Council of Florence taught that the matter for ordination is the conferral of the chalice and paten. That was a common belief at the time, but is certainly false.  Pius XII rightly taught that the mater for Holy Orders is the laying on of hands, which the Council of Florence didn’t even mention (the only thing the Council of Florence said was the matter was the conferring of the chalice and paten).

Now, since you admit that you don’t believe in “a Catholic Church” that can teach error in an Ecuмenical Council, you have once again proven that the Material Church you believe in is a false Church, since the true Catholic Church can, and indeed has taught an error in an Ecuмenical Council.  

The Church you believe in does not exist in material reality and it never has.  It's a Church that is more perfect, and less able to err, than the Church founded by Jesus Christ.


Quote
You cannot say that Vatican II CAN come from the authority of the Church AND contain substantial error.


Sounds like you’ve been reading the writings of the heretic Bishops Sanborn, who equates authority with infallibility.  Try reconciling that with the Council of Florence’s error regarding the matter of Holy Orders.


Quote
It's then either Extraordinary Magisterium or Universal Ordinary Magisterium, both of which have to be infallible.


Neither the ordinary nor the extraordinary Magisterium are, per se, infallible.  They are only infallible when they teach definitively.  Vatican II and the Council of Florence were both exercises of the Church’s extraordinary magisterium.  Both erred, but neither did so when teaching definitively.


Quote
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?

I realize that will come as a surprise to an Old Catholic, or a sedevacantist, but the Church has never taught such a thing.  The true Church (as opposed to the Material Church you believe in) teaches that the Pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, not when he writes something in a docuмent addressed to the universal Church.  

The Church you believe in exists only in your imagination.  What you refer to as a “Material Church” is actually a phantasm that does not and has never existed in material reality.   It is a "Church" in which infallibility extends well beyond that of the true Church founded by Christ.  Unfortunately, you're never going to find a Church in material reality that corresponds to the Church that exists as a phantasm in your imagination.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Is there a One Ring in Tradition, to rule them all?
« Reply #54 on: September 02, 2019, 09:44:43 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 02, 2019, 09:34:07 AM
It most certainly has in your view of things.
No, it most certainly hasn't.

My view is easily understood because I fully understand that God would not establish a Church (or anything else for that matter) that could defeat God. Not possible, not really even worth discussing. The only Catholics who worry about such a thing, are those with little faith in God - and/or those who see the crisis but think the pope is the Church or God - which is basically  the same problem, but that's not me. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 30
« previous next »