CathInfo.com

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: Nonno

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

and no it's not sinful to cut down the NO.

I disagree, only because the Church disagrees with you SS. It is sinful to fault anything the Church has officially approved of in Her liturgy or laws. To avoid sin and still be able to condemn the Novus Ordo Missae, one must reject the validity of the alleged popes since Vatican II.

You need a lesson on Catholic beliefs sir. There are no Catch 22's in Catholicism despite what the Neo-Cath's and some Sede's tell you.

If your Father tells you to kill your neighbour you do not sin by disobeying him, because he has told you to do something contrary to the faith and therefore lost his previously rightful authority.

Likewise if a Priest tells you to do something sinful or heretical he loses his authority over the Father, and likewise to the Bishop over the Priest and the Pope over the Bishop.

This has always and everywhere been believed.

A Catch-22 is an unsolvable dilemma. I created no such thing. The Church herself ruled at Trent:

"If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema."

If Paul VI & Co. were true popes, one would be anathema to say the Novus Ordo Mass is anything but good and holy. It's not an unsolvable dilemma because the Church has approved of the beliefs that there can be anti-popes, that there can be false popes, and even that popes can automatically cease to be popes through heresy. I believe they are false popes, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is NOT from the Church.

Your understanding of what that quote means is laughable. Your understanding of what constitutes the church(Magisterium) is even more ludicrous. It is not the CHURCH who promulgated the New Mass but MAN who promulgated it.

It is a fact that St. Pius V never promulgated a new mass, he codified it.

The Council of Trent was making a declaration on the Mass of All-Time, the Same Mass that had been said(With various minor changes) always and everywhere.

Whether they are False Popes or not is irrelavent, it is a fact that once elevated to the Chair of Peter no man can be his Judge on whether or not he has fallen into heresy. The ONLY way he can be judged is by the Bishops making a stand against him and putting to him a dogmatically defined truth and him denying it.(This happend before but the Pope recanted his falsehood when it is was put to him)  Or a Future Pope condemns him for his beliefs or a Future Pope calls a Council and condemns the past Popes for their heretical beliefs.(This also happened at the Third Council of Constantinople *To the Heretic Honorius Anethama we say, to all heretics anethama* )

I have no problem with you believing that they could be anti-popes but the fact you said that someone who believes they might be real Popes should be oblidged to follow the Novus Ordo when you yourself have stated that you believe it is heresy is MORTAL SIN. You can NEVER tell someone to do that which is evil, nor can you cause the sin of scandal by suggesting that it would ever be licit that which you know is not.

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

No, the Church did not approve the Novus Ordo. It was approved by the Vatican II anti-church and by a man (Paul VI) who was a Freemason and an anti-pope. And I say he was an anti-pope not based on my own opinion, but on Church teachings. Anyone who joins Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is automatically excommunicated from the Church, so when I say he's an anti-pope I'm saying so according to what the Church teaches.

I agree the Church did not approve of the Novus Ordo, because you have to have a true pope that makes that approval.

Really, the Freemason thing is a moot point since a pope is above canon law, and that excommunication is not divine law. Neither would his being a Freemason invalidate the election because Pius XII legislated to suspended all excommunications for the sake of the election. What makes Paul VI a false pope is divine law - that it is impossible the Holy Ghost would have allowed a true pope to have promulgated the things he did.

Canon Law is dogmatic, any law that has an anethama attached to it is infallible, if it was once infallible it is always infallible, in order for an anethama to have been imposed it must be from the Chair(Ex Cathedra).

Dogmatic laws are Divine laws they are always and everywhere believed, if not always defined.

A Pope is not above Canon law, it has never been believed that he could be above a law with an anethama attached nor can a law that has an anethama attached be reprieved or abrogated. There are diciplanary laws that a Pope is above, but Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is not one of those. Freemasons are outside of the Church, they are heretics and enemies of the Church one cannot be inside the church and be her enemy, thus if one is a Freemason one is anathema.

Now Whether or Not Paul VI was a Freemason I do not know. But if he was he would be outside the Church.

Either way, my belief in whether or not these last 4 or 5 Popes were Popes or not has no bearing on my salvation, so long as i keep to the Infallible Magisterium of the Church I will find my way.