When are people going to understand that the pope is NOT infallible in everything says, writes, or does.  Vatican I clearly defined the conditions required for infallibility.  If the pope was always infallible, then why would these conditions be presented?

Sure, yeah, a legitimate pope can promulgate a bastard rite of Mass that's harmful to faith and cannot be attended in good conscience by Catholics.

I'm not sure what kind of Church and what kind of Papacy you guys believe in.

People who think like you are definitely flirting with heresy.  Which is the grave damage that SSPX has done to the Faith.

Not every obiter dictum in an allocution to the French guild of mimes--or even in an encyclical to the Universal Church for that matter--constitutes an infallible declaration or definition that must be believed by all Catholics.

But the Mass and an Ecuмenical Council CLEARLY cross a line whereby the indefectibility, holiness, and infallibility of the Church as a whole would be completely undermined and rendered meaningless.

The clue in this matter is found in the fact that certain revolutionaries managed somehow to completely scrap the work of the Fathers at Vatican II and rewrite the entire thing.  This is evidence that the legitmacy of the work is prima facie suspicious.  It clues one into the fact that we are not dealing with a "normal" Council, thus to apply the same standards is mistaken.  What Council could ever claim to ramble on in a string of unfounded opinions?  The VII Council was something else entirely.  It had the appearance of a legal Council, it had the appearance of authority, but upon closer examination, the matter is quite different.  

And the work of the liturgical reform belongs to a group of "experts" not to the magisterium.  If a Pope can neglect his office, then we cannot a priori assume that he could not neglect to protect the Church from such a bastard rite, false orientations, etc.      

The issue is extra ecclesiam nulla salus.



In Christ

Lionel

Let me make this even simpler:

1. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is the "ordinary rite of the Catholic Church"

2. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is "poisonous" and "strangles grace".

Conclusion: The SSPX believes that an official rite of the HOLY Catholic Church can be anything less than "good".

That conclusion is part & parcel of the SSPX stand. It is inseparable. It is also a blasphemy and heretical. The Church is "holy" and it is well established that no law, discipline or liturgy can be useless or harmful.

This fact alone proves solidly the SSPX position is false.

The SSPX used to say that it was "not from the magisterium", but went over to saying it is the ordinary rite. But even if you claim it is not from the magisterium, it is a contradiction, because IF there be a true pope approving, it necessarily follows it is "from the Church".

I have yet to see the conscience of an SSPXer calmly maturely face this at any length of consideration. What I hear are things like, "that is too simple". Truth is simple, in that it cannot bear any internal inconsistency. All truth must be consistent.

Really - if you are going to try to use syllogisms to defend your views, please take a course in logic because it is obvious you never have.

Your malformed syllogism contains four terms - that means it is invalid.

Furthermore, the middle term enters the conclusion which also means it is invalid.

The only valid conclusion your two premises can give is:

therefore, the ordinary rite of the Catholic Church is poisonous and strangles grace.

This gives us a valid syllogistic form but does not prove anything because the matter of the syllogism is imperfect - the SSPX can believe something and it be either true OR false.

Your reasoning is a mess and you need to come up with something better to calumniate against the society.  I would first suggest keeping quiet and spending a year studying scholastic logic (like all the SSPX priests have).

Quote from: Jamie

Quote from: Patman

Let me make this even simpler:

1. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is the "ordinary rite of the Catholic Church"

2. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is "poisonous" and "strangles grace".

Conclusion: The SSPX believes that an official rite of the HOLY Catholic Church can be anything less than "good".

That conclusion is part & parcel of the SSPX stand. It is inseparable. It is also a blasphemy and heretical. The Church is "holy" and it is well established that no law, discipline or liturgy can be useless or harmful.

This fact alone proves solidly the SSPX position is false.

The SSPX used to say that it was "not from the magisterium", but went over to saying it is the ordinary rite. But even if you claim it is not from the magisterium, it is a contradiction, because IF there be a true pope approving, it necessarily follows it is "from the Church".

I have yet to see the conscience of an SSPXer calmly maturely face this at any length of consideration. What I hear are things like, "that is too simple". Truth is simple, in that it cannot bear any internal inconsistency. All truth must be consistent.

Really - if you are going to try to use syllogisms to defend your views, please take a course in logic because it is obvious you never have.

Your malformed syllogism contains four terms - that means it is invalid.

Furthermore, the middle term enters the conclusion which also means it is invalid.

The only valid conclusion your two premises can give is:

therefore, the ordinary rite of the Catholic Church is poisonous and strangles grace.

This gives us a valid syllogistic form but does not prove anything because the matter of the syllogism is imperfect - the SSPX can believe something and it be either true OR false.

Your reasoning is a mess and you need to come up with something better to calumniate against the society.  I would first suggest keeping quiet and spending a year studying scholastic logic (like all the SSPX priests have).

Should I counter with - maybe you need to study reading comprehension? Did I say it was a syllogism? No, I did not. It is definitely associated with solid reasoning by direct logical substitution. Two facts that have another fact intrinsically associated.

Let's analyze the two facts first, Jamie. Are the two numbered not facts?

The issue is that the two "facts" (whether or not they are remains to be seen) do not lead to the conclusion you gave.  And whether you like it or not, you were trying to form a syllogism - two propositions and a conclusion.  It was invalid for two reasons (as I said).

You mention direct logical substitution - as far as I can tell that is something in symbolic logic which (as anyone who has studied Catholic philosophy knows) is fatally flawed at even a most basic level.

Now, that aside I will try to show you the error of your thinking in terms you might more easily understand:

1. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is the "ordinary rite of the Catholic Church"

2. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is "poisonous" and "strangles grace".

Conclusion: The SSPX believes that an official rite of the HOLY Catholic Church can be anything less than "good".

In proposition 1 you say the SSPX believes the Novus Ordo is the ordinary rite of the Catholic Church.  In proposition 2 you say the SSPX believes the novus ordo is poisonous etc.

In your conclusion, you use NEITHER of those terms or their equivalent - you replace both with two new terms: "official rite" and "anything less than good".

Your conclusion does not follow because  the only term it includes from the propositions is the middle term (which is invalid when it enters the consequent) and two brand new terms that weren't even in the propositions at all.  This is flawed and I even showed you how to produce a proper conclusion from your two premises.  This, of course, you rejected because you don't really care about the antecedents - you only care about your (invalid) conclusion.

Surely you can see how bad this is - your conclusion has no relation to the propositions yet you demand that it proves your opinion.  Mind boggling.

Quote

I'm not sure what kind of Church and what kind of Papacy you guys believe in.

That's why this is so scandalous, the Popes have utterly failed the Church.  The bishops have betrayed us.  We believe in the same Papacy as you do, but we also recognize that negligence can occur, though the enormity of it all is difficult to swallow.  

No, why the SSPX proposition is so scandalous is because it would have the Church and the magisterium utterly failing.

This goes WAY beyond negligence, and I'm gravely skeptical about whether you "believe in the same Papcy as I do."  For you to characterize (and minimize) this as negligence shows that you are not being intellectually honest about the issue.  Negligence = passively allowing error.  These putative Popes have ACTIVELY taught error to the Universal Church and have promulgated a rite of Mass that's offensive to God and undermining the Faith.

A is the Novus Ordo
"B" and "C" are each predicated of A
If A is B and A is C, then B is C.
If a syllogism relies on something implied, but doesn't state it, it remains syllogistic reasoning though it is called an enthymeme.

1. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is the "ordinary rite of the Catholic Church"
That is, A is B

Necessarily implied:
If something  is an "ordinary rite" it is the "official rite".
If it is the "Catholic Church", it is "holy".

2. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is "poisonous" and "strangles grace".
That is, A is C

Necessarily implied:
If something is poisonous, it is less than good.

Conclusion: The SSPX believes that an official rite of the HOLY Catholic Church can be anything less than "good".

That is, B is C - more strictly syllogistic: "an ordinary rite of the Catholic Church" can be "poisonous"

Yes, we can most certainly conclude that. It is valid reasoning based on predication and substitution of what is already implied. The Church does not require something to be a strict syllogism to be validly reasoned or concluded, nor does She require one to study Logic in order to be able to reason.

It is the same solid reasoning as this:
1. his father is a man
2. his father is bad
IF these two are true, we conclude that, "a man can be bad".

If the conclusion is not true, Jamie, then, are you claiming the SSPX does NOT believe "an ordinary rite of the Catholic Church can be harmful"? So, the SSPX only believes an ordinary rite can be nothing less than good and useful?

My original position still stands - you are merely trying to explain your way out by saying that your antecedents have some kind of inherent implications.  Rewrite your syllogism with honesty and you will see I am right.  To get to your final conclusion you need another series of syllogisms to prove your implications. You need to properly define "ordinary", "strangles grace" and the many other terms you use which can have multiple meanings.

Even with your new attempt to resolve it - the whole thing is a mess and not good logical form.

And remember, your conclusion can not include any terms that don't appear EXACTLY the same as they do in the antecedents - otherwise you have an invalid syllogism.

So once you are able to iron out those problems, you can then approach (via syllogism) the idea of proving some of your other arguments.  For example - is it always and everywhere true that an ordinary rite of the Catholic church can not be poisonous?  This is an important part of your argument.  But (and here is where we see why you are failing at logic by not using clear terms) - would it not be fair to say that a priest who defects from the Church and joins a satanic cult who uses an "ordinary" rite of the Church in order to abuse the consequences of the sacrament is doing something poisonous?  Or is that fully good (as you imply by saying "nothing less than good")?

I think you can you see that your conclusions are all drawn from bad logic and unclear terms.  You would be best to sort those out before claiming your logic proves anything.

A counter-question, can a pernicious rite exist in the Church for a short amount of time?