Author Topic: SSPX and the Fr. Kung Deception (Read 7690 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #90 on:** July 29, 2010, 10:09:59 AM »

Quote

The analogy directly touches upon the essence of the dilemma you put before us. By your standard of judgment, a judgment based upon phenomenology, such a scenario would "implicate" the indefectibility of the Church. According to your logic, one could infer Church approval from such state of affairs. The material object, e.g. a bad liturgy, bad behavior or bad opinion, is an indifferent matter. The point is that your thesis infers the legality of just about anything that can be found in the Church. You essentially say, if it is in the Church it is of the Church. This notion is patently false.

You are sticking your head in the sand. Or, a better analogy, you've just seen something ugly and you're kicking sand on it to cover it up, the "sand" being legal arguments that don't explain the reality, but evade it with an answer that is extremely wanting - to say the least.

The SV and I at least deal with the reality and try to explain it or understand it. A pope instituted the NO and made it the dominant rite in the Latin Church for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Catholic altars. This pope's successors and the bishops in union with them have followed suit. This is the reality the SV and I deal with, and which you evade.

Again, we are talking about the Holy Mass, not some mere disciplinary decision or opinion on a theological question for which even popes can be in error.

The sacramental system of the Church is unique, and plays a direct and vital role in the salvation of Christ's people. You keep throwing grapes, oranges and raisons into this basket of apples, and you won't be able to focus on the apples if you keep doing so.

Ecuмenism is "in the Church" today. The views on "ecuмenism" of a pontiff or even a majority of bishops with him doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. An erroneous disciplinary order, such as the excommunication of Athanasius, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. The majority of the bishops holding to the Arian heresy didn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. Yet one could say the Arian heresy was "in the Church." JPII kissing the Koran, Benedict XVI entering a ѕуηαgσgυє to pray with Jєωs, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church.

However, if a rite in which the Holy Mass is celebrated, and through which the means of salvation are offered to Christ's sheep by the visible hierarchy of the One, True Church, is "obectively sinful" and "sinful in itself," then the Church's Indefectibility is damaged to its very core. The Church cannot violate the First Commandment and commit sacrilege in offering the very means of salvation without Indefectibility being violated.

Your failure to get that is astounding to me.

A gross example of your evasion is one of your prior comments on my position:

Quote

Quote
Quote:
The Church cannot produce and provide a sacramental system that fails to fulfill Her divine commission to sanctify and save. If she has adopted a liturgy that is sacrilegious and sinful “in itself,” she has failed.

As I already stated, none of this is from the "Church" properly speaking.

Not the Church "properly speaking." What does that mean? Are you saying that the popes who have instituted the NO and made it the ordinary rite of the Latin Church are not the Church "properly speaking"? No, you can't say that because you'd then deny the Church's Visibility. So you come up with this "properly speaking" hedge that is blown down by a whisper: "Psst. The visible Church in union with the duly elected pontiff, the Church celebrating the Holy Mass in the NO on its altars in Rome and all over, is the Church."

Quote

How do you get yourself out of this pickle:

The Church would have defected if it produced an evil liturgy.

But the N.O.M. is an evil liturgy.

Ergo, the Church has defected.

So much for immutable principles.

I never said the NO was "evil." Father Scott said that. And I believe you're saying that. It's your pickle. I'm not in your pickle.

DR

MyrnaM · « **Reply #91 on:** July 29, 2010, 10:25:30 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: Caminus
How do you get yourself out of this pickle:

The Church would have defected if it produced an evil liturgy.

But the N.O.M. is an evil liturgy.

Ergo, the Church has defected.

So much for immutable principles.

Some would say it is not a pickle:

The Church would have defected if it produced an evil liturgy.

But the N.O.M. is an evil liturgy.

Ergo, The NOM is not from the Church.

Immutable principles intact.

Good one! :applause:

Caminus · « **Reply #92 on:** July 29, 2010, 12:03:55 PM »

Quote

You are sticking your head in the sand. Or, a better analogy, you've just seen something ugly and you're kicking sand on it to cover it up, the "sand" being legal arguments that don't explain the reality, but evade it with an answer that is extremely wanting - to say the least.

This complaint amounts to questioning my agreement with you regarding the magnitude of distortion. I agree with you that the liturgy has been distorted. But you move from the consideration of magnitude and universality of the crisis to make the false inference that it must of necessity be "of the Church."

My entire point, for the seventh time, is that in order for this claim to hold, the legality and thus its binding nature must be clearly demonstrated. If the reforms were legislated according to the norms of justice, there would be no question. What I'm telling you is that there was a defect in form. The entire reform lacks legitimizing authority. The two necessary conditions that would ensure the thing is "of the Church" are entirely lacking. Without these conditions being met, anything is theoretically possible. Error and corruption can find its way into the Church and even touch upon the liturgy.

You have consistently evaded this point and have demurred in offering a demonstration.

Quote

The SV and I at least deal with the reality and try to explain it or understand it. A pope instituted the NO and made it the dominant rite in the Latin Church for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Catholic altars. This pope's successors and the bishops in union with them have followed suit. This is the reality the SV and I deal with, and which you evade.

You continue to use terms that beg the question. What does "made it dominant" mean? The SV doesn't understand the concept of disciplinary infallibility, nor do you. You claim to argue from the indefectibility of the Church, but end up denying it in the premise. If you claim that the N.O.M. is deficient, yet was authoritatively promulgated, abrogating the old law, then you are left with the unsavory proposition that the Church, properly speaking, defected in attempting to authoritatively impose something harmful to the faith. As an N.O.M. apologist, you must consider the N.O.M. good in every way on the same grounds. You both misunderstand the abstract doctrine as well as its application to the concrete order.

Quote

Again, we are talking about the Holy Mass, not some mere disciplinary decision or opinion on a theological question for which even popes can be in error.

The liturgy of the Mass is a discipline. And I see that you minimize the concession in order to cling to your imaginary point. If a Pope can theologically err regarding the higher order of speculative doctrine, then a fortiori, he can err with regard to legislation of the prudential order. Even more, a Pope who errs with regard to a theological question has the potential of misleading the entire Church on very grave questions. Such a case would have the effect of injuring the faith. You concede this, but do not concede an error in judgment with regard to a newly created liturgy? The inconsistency is glaring.

Quote

The sacramental system of the Church is unique, and plays a direct and vital role in the salvation of Christ's people. You keep throwing grapes, oranges and raisons into this basket of apples, and you won't be able to focus on the apples if you keep doing so.

Rather you are the one arguing from what your senses perceive instead of principle. You are positing assumptions that need to be demonstrated, such as the notion that the liturgy can never be corrupted, that it could never reach this level of decay while the hierarchy is blinded. Such notions are gratuitous and have no foundation in Catholic theology.

Quote

Ecuмenism is "in the Church" today. The views on "ecuмenism" of a pontiff or even a majority of bishops with him doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. An erroneous disciplinary order, such as the excommunication of Athanasius, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. The majority of the bishops holding to the Arian heresy didn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church. Yet one could say the Arian heresy was "in the Church." JPII kissing the Koran, Benedict XVI entering a ѕуηαgσgυє to pray with Jєωs, doesn't affect the Indefectibility of the Church.

All of these things tend towards the corruption of the theological virtue of faith, they touch directly upon the speculative order, an order higher than the prudential order of discipline. They have been accepted and fostered by the hierarchy. Yet you expect us to believe that the liturgy is simply off limits from such corruption? Purely gratuitous. Another glaring inconsistency.

Until you demonstrate the legally binding nature of the reform, you don't have a leg to stand on. You are simply begging us to believe that the suggestions, novelties and experiments of the hierarchy are morally obliging. You'll never be able to convince informed Catholics of this.

Caminus · « **Reply #93 on:** July 29, 2010, 12:06:21 PM »

Beyond this, you are going to have to extricate yourself from a baneful, profane and sacrilegous worship of God that cuts off the pure sacrifice for sins. If you wish to gain the graces of God, find true Catholic worship.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #94 on:** July 29, 2010, 01:47:20 PM »

1.- The Novus Ordo didn't morph into something different than what Paul VI approved. Paul VI was a bad Pope, possibly an anti-pope, though that we probably won't know for sure until we get to Heaven. Back to the point, a bad Pope or anti-pope can approve a liturgy that is evil and force the Church to accept this Mass. What happened instead is that the members of the true Church either left or stayed (mostly left, thought some such as Archbishop LeFebvre remained) while freemasons and modernists came along and formed a counter-fit Church. So we have the true Church, which has been reduced to a remnant and only celebrates the Traditional Latin Mass, and then we have the counter-fit Church, which is just crawling with modernists, freemasons, etc. Hopefully that will clear up this whole "two Churches" issue that you don't seem to understand, DR.

2.- Cardinal Bugnini once said "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants". This was said at the time of Vatican II. Does that not sound evil to you? The Novus Ordo was created in an attempt to draw us away from the Catholic faith and closer to the Protestants, and even to other religions. It's all part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. They want us to have a one world religion. It's utterly disgusting. Therefore, the NO can't be Catholic and is a heretical Mass which is not in communion with the true Church.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #95 on:** July 29, 2010, 01:50:37 PM »

Quote

You claim to argue from the indefectibility of the Church, but end up denying it in the premise. If you claim that the N.O.M. is deficient, yet was authoritatively promulgated, abrogating the old law, then you are left with the unsavory proposition that the Church, properly speaking, defected in attempting to authoritatively impose something harmful to the faith. As an N.O.M. apologist, you must consider the N.O.M. good in every way on the same grounds. You both misunderstand the abstract doctrine as well as its application to the concrete order.

No, Caminus. One does not need to think the "N.O.M good in every way", or be an "N.O.M. apologist," to see what the doctrine of Indefectibility means in relation to the NO, which is precisely this:

Quote

Michael Davies, I Am With You Always, p. 29:

“Indefectibility does not guarantee that the new law will be the most perfect possible, or even opportune or appropriate, but only that it will be free from all error implicit or explicit in matters of faith or morals, and consequently cannot harm the spiritual life of the faithful by their observing what the law prescribes. The canonists Werz-Widal explain: ‘The Pontiffs are infallible in the elaboration of universal laws concerning the ecclesiastical discipline, such that these can never establish anything that might be contrary to faith and morals even if they do not attain the supreme degree of prudence.’”

Was Davies an "NO apologist"? No, just a rational guy who knew how to think things through.

You ask me what "dominant" means? It means that the last four popes have made it their liturgy and that it is, again, the Mass on probably 95% or more of the Catholic altars in the Latin Rite. It is the "dominant" liturgy as a matter of fact in terms of its usage. Again, I am not arguing that such usage justifies the NO; I am arguing that this "fact" is something that must be accounted for and explained in light of the doctrine of Indefectibility. I do not see how the NO can be sacrilege and "sinful in itself" in light of these facts and the Church's Indefectibility remain intact. All attempts you've made so far fall far short of convincing me, or even approaching it.

Quote

My entire point, for the seventh time, is that in order for this claim to hold, the legality and thus its binding nature must be clearly demonstrated. If the reforms were legislated according to the norms of justice, there would be no question. What I'm telling you is that there was a defect in form. The entire reform lacks legitimizing authority. The two necessary conditions that would ensure the thing is "of the Church" are entirely lacking. Without these conditions being met, anything is theoretically possible. Error and corruption can find its way into the Church and even touch upon the liturgy.

No, Caminus, it can't "touch upon the liturgy" authorized or approved of by a legitimate successor to Peter. If it ever could, then Indefectibility means nothing. I agree with Mr. Davies again:

Quote

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 95: “The doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility… requires us to accept the validity of any sacramental rite promulgated by a pope.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 227: “The decisive factor where the validity of any sacramental rite is concerned is the approval given to it by the Pope… no Pope could authorize any sacramental rite that was either invalid or intrinsically harmful to the faith.”

The same argument as to the rite of ordination applies to the NO:

Quote

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 238: “The doctrine of indefectibility… renders untenable any argument alleging the invalidity of the New Rite of Ordination as it was approved specifically by Pope Paul VI, and promulgated with his authority.”

Michael Davies, The Order of Melchisedech, p. 239: “…the fact that the doctrine of indefectibility rules out any possibility of the new ordination rite being invalid…”

I know you quibble with whether it was "promulgated," and I reject that argument. In any event, Paul VI and his successors clearly approved of the NO and "authorized" it as the de facto "dominant" rite of the Western Church.

We've gone back and forth on this, and I think we're at the end of the road, unfortunately.

Quote

Beyond this, you are going to have to extricate yourself from a baneful, profane and sacrilegous worship of God that cuts off the pure sacrifice for sins. If you wish to gain the graces of God, find true Catholic worship.

Perhaps. I am genuinely seeking, and I will find. I have the Lord's assurance on that.

DR

Caminus · « **Reply #96 on:** July 29, 2010, 02:55:39 PM »

No one states seriously that the original N.O. is intrinsically harmful to the faith, i.e. it contains no heresy, nor does anyone claim that it is invalid. So Davies' observations are somewhat irrelevant on that point as well as regarding the point that such a 'bastard rite' can have no claim to the perogatives of the traditional liturgy anyway. In fact, he thought that the N.O. as celebrated in the concrete was indeed harmful to the faith. It is also noteworthy to point out that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal introduced an heretical definition of the Mass only to be later revised. This fact at very least indicates the disposition of those who 'fabricated' the N.O. But if the Pope refuses to concede this and allows it to be introduced into the Church, there is nothing we can do but avoid it.

Now DR, you have conceded that Popes and Bishops can err, short of the exercise of supreme authority. The entirety of your posts consists in struggling with the fact that the majority of Catholics attend a harmful, sacrilegious rite. You are shocked at the universality of the corruption of the Roman rites and therefore feel the need to invoke some principle in order to justify evil. But the essence of the Church is not found in numbers. Therefore, the dwindling of true Catholics practicing traditional Catholicism doesn't affect the nature of the Church, nor its inability to 'defect'.

If the hierarchy chooses spiritual and doctrinal blindess as a means to secure new orientations then they are free to do so to their own detriment. Nothing of their evil implicates the Church, for if one can greviously err without implicating the Church, so too can many greviously err without implicating the Church. And your application of principles essentially destroys the Church as does the sedevacantist "solution." It is your unwillingness to face realitiy as it is not as you desire it.

It is obvious that you are selectively responding to my posts in the attempt to avoid addressing what is inconvenient. Until such a time that you attempt to seriously address my points, I see no real reason to continue.

Caminus · « **Reply #97 on:** July 29, 2010, 02:58:41 PM »

Quote

No, Caminus, it can't "touch upon the liturgy" authorized or approved of by a legitimate successor to Peter.

If a Pope can "approve" of theological error, then he can, a fortiori, "approve" of liturgical abberrations. By what means to you make such an arbitrary distinction?

This reminds me of those who accept the doctrine of baptism of blood but reject the doctrine of baptism of desire. They don't realize that in accepting baptism of blood they undermine the foundation of any objection to baptism of desire.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #98 on:** July 29, 2010, 03:00:15 PM »

Quote

No one states seriously that the original N.O. is intrinsically harmful to the faith

Really?

Can you find a quote from an SSPX authority to that effect?