Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Anna1959 on October 26, 2011, 04:46:44 PM
-
Home-aloneism is a dangerous state to be in..many have fallen away from the Faith entirely from being in it, and the Devil knows how to use it to encourage that.
My problem is, there are NO acceptable TLMs anywhere near me. The closest is over an hour by car, and I don't know how to drive or know anyone currently who can help me get there. So, I watch the TLM at http://www.sgg,org every Sunday morning. But I know NO Traditional Catholics near me (sede).
Its one thing to choose to be a home aloner, another to be one because there is no other alternative.
The only TLM anywhere near me is at a novus ordo church...its basically novus ordoites who go to "see what its like".
What should I do? I pray my Rosary every day, and I feel so much closer to God that way than even when I did have a valid TLM to assist at, years ago. I feel the Blessed Mother is there for me, more so than I ever did before.
I just CAN'T BELIEVE that living in a MAJOR city, with a large Catholic population, has NO valid TLM!! :really-mad2:
-
If you aren't against "una cuм", find an Eastern rite church.
Is there no public transportation that you could use? City bus, etc?
-
Home-aloneism is a dangerous state to be in..many have fallen away from the Faith entirely from being in it, and the Devil knows how to use it to encourage that.
My problem is, there are NO acceptable TLMs anywhere near me. The closest is over an hour by car, and I don't know how to drive or know anyone currently who can help me get there. So, I watch the TLM at http://www.sgg,org every Sunday morning. But I know NO Traditional Catholics near me (sede).
Its one thing to choose to be a home aloner, another to be one because there is no other alternative.
The only TLM anywhere near me is at a novus ordo church...its basically novus ordoites who go to "see what its like".
What should I do? I pray my Rosary every day, and I feel so much closer to God that way than even when I did have a valid TLM to assist at, years ago. I feel the Blessed Mother is there for me, more so than I ever did before.
I just CAN'T BELIEVE that living in a MAJOR city, with a large Catholic population, has NO valid TLM!! :really-mad2:
What do you mean by "no valid TLM"?
-
Good question -- I hope you're not rejecting an SSPX Mass.
Plenty of sedevacantists have no problem with attending their Masses. How could they? They are valid Masses, after all.
-
Good question -- I hope you're not rejecting an SSPX Mass.
The only TLM anywhere near me is at a novus ordo church...its basically novus ordoites who go to "see what its like".
-
That doesn't involve a question of validity. And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest? Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.
-
That doesn't involve a question of validity. And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest? Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.
I am just clarifying that, since she is a sedevacantist, she most likely does not believe that the man officiating at the venue in question is actually a priest and that we are not discussing the SSPX.
-
You have my prayers..
-
That doesn't involve a question of validity. And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest? Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.
I am just clarifying that, since she is a sedevacantist, she most likely does not believe that the man officiating at the venue in question is actually a priest and that we are not discussing the SSPX.
Well she should stop using her imagination to guide her spiritual life (I do not mean that in a derogatory manner) and start studying the theology of the sacraments if this is keeping her away from the Mass. Traditional theologians have demonstrated that the new rites are intrinsically or per se valid.
-
Invalid Papal claimant, possibly invalid bishop who ordains Novus presiders (in a changed, invalid rite of ordination) to perform services, not sacrifices, changed words of consecration, and you want us to believe that the Bugnini Masonic service is a TLM? The differences couldn't be clearer between the immemorial Mass of the Church and the so-called mass of John XXIII and later.
Get serious... the Novus Ordo hirelings in the average diocese wouldn't know Tradition if it bit them.
St. John Vianney, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
That doesn't involve a question of validity. And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest? Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.
I am just clarifying that, since she is a sedevacantist, she most likely does not believe that the man officiating at the venue in question is actually a priest and that we are not discussing the SSPX.
Well she should stop using her imagination to guide her spiritual life (I do not mean that in a derogatory manner) and start studying the theology of the sacraments if this is keeping her away from the Mass. Traditional theologians have demonstrated that the new rites are intrinsically or per se valid.
Sir, they proved that under certain circuмstances, IE: If done as promulgated, they could be valid, but illicit to attend(for the mass). For the Priestly Ordinations, they doubt the validity of most of them which is why they are conditionally reordained if they convert to the true faith and join the SSPX. That is the position of the SSPX.
-
Illicit to attend a diocesan TLM when none other is available? I think what would qualify as a state of necessity where more evil would result if neglected and more good attained if attended. Please cite your source. I concede caution is taken viz. novus ordo priests coming to tradition, but that is a far cry from asserting carte blanche that they are all mere laymen. They are taken on a case by case basis. A review of the ordination rite as properly prescribed as such should be enough to demonstrate validity since the intention is contained in the external administration of the rite, thus it is a question that is reduced to the form. As you admitted, the new rites are per se valid. One may have to do some work in this matter in order to quiet the conscience, but to deprive oneself of the TLM, simply speaking, based on false premises is an injury to oneself.
-
Invalid Papal claimant, possibly invalid bishop who ordains Novus presiders (in a changed, invalid rite of ordination) to perform services, not sacrifices, changed words of consecration, and you want us to believe that the Bugnini Masonic service is a TLM? The differences couldn't be clearer between the immemorial Mass of the Church and the so-called mass of John XXIII and later.
Oh, be quiet.
-
That doesn't involve a question of validity. And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest? Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.
I am just clarifying that, since she is a sedevacantist, she most likely does not believe that the man officiating at the venue in question is actually a priest and that we are not discussing the SSPX.
Well she should stop using her imagination to guide her spiritual life (I do not mean that in a derogatory manner) and start studying the theology of the sacraments if this is keeping her away from the Mass.
I cannot be sure without her confirmation, but I assume that it is precisely her study of the sacraments that leads her to believe that the 1968 episcopal consecration ceremony results in an invalid sacrament.
Traditional theologians have demonstrated that the new rites are intrinsically or per se valid.
I do not believe this to be the case and won't simply take your word for it. If you have the texts or links to the texts of these theologians that "demonstrate" (as you say) the per se validity of all of the new rites, especially the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration, I would like to read them.
I do not want to derail this thread, so if you do have the links or files, please start a new thread or else send them to me in a private message.
-
Illicit to attend a diocesan TLM when none other is available? I think what would qualify as a state of necessity where more evil would result if neglected and more good attained if attended. Please cite your source. I concede caution is taken viz. novus ordo priests coming to tradition, but that is a far cry from asserting carte blanche that they are all mere laymen. They are taken on a case by case basis. A review of the ordination rite as properly prescribed as such should be enough to demonstrate validity since the intention is contained in the external administration of the rite, thus it is a question that is reduced to the form. As you admitted, the new rites are per se valid. One may have to do some work in this matter in order to quiet the conscience, but to deprive oneself of the TLM, simply speaking, based on false premises is an injury to oneself.
I'll grab my sources from SSPX.org which is where these ones are, later when I'm not busy. But is it not true that it is forbidden to attend a mass by a Priest who's sacraments are doubtful? That is the reasoning that SSPXers do not attend the Thuc Line. If you know a TLM is said by a good valid Priest who is not modernist you can attend but it is better to stay home and keep the day holy then to attend a Mass that could put your soul or faith in danger. Who knows what they are preaching, most would not be preaching tradition.
P.S. The case by case basis thing was what I was trying to say, the rite for Priests was ruled to be valid if said as per the way it was promulgated, but they know of many Priests ordinations that are invalid, one that was stated in the article on the validity of the rite involved people invoking Luther. So they investigate to see whether they are valid Priests or not.
Naturally one cannot just use a 'what if' scenario, because that is negative doubt but I think we can agree that the Crisis and it's nature provides a positive doubt as to the Diocesan TLM's.
-
That doesn't involve a question of validity. And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest? Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.
I am just clarifying that, since she is a sedevacantist, she most likely does not believe that the man officiating at the venue in question is actually a priest and that we are not discussing the SSPX.
Well she should stop using her imagination to guide her spiritual life (I do not mean that in a derogatory manner) and start studying the theology of the sacraments if this is keeping her away from the Mass.
I cannot be sure without her confirmation, but I assume that it is precisely her study of the sacraments that leads her to believe that the 1968 episcopal consecration ceremony results in an invalid sacrament.
Traditional theologians have demonstrated that the new rites are intrinsically or per se valid.
I do not believe this to be the case and won't simply take your word for it. If you have the texts or links to the texts of these theologians that "demonstrate" (as you say) the per se validity of all of the new rites, especially the 1968 rite of episcopal consecration, I would like to read them.
I do not want to derail this thread, so if you do have the links or files, please start a new thread or else send them to me in a private message.
I have posted them somewhere on some thread but they're probably buried, I'll find them if Caminus dosn't get to it.
-
Caminus said:
That doesn't involve a question of validity. And what should she care about the subjective intentions of either the laity or the priest? Get to a TLM on Sunday, if that's all that is available, then go.
With the New Rite of Consecration it's likely the priest is a fake. If the sacraments are doubtful she shouldn't go.
A "diocesan" TLM is not the same as an SSPX una cuм Mass. As objectionable as the latter is to me, I would probably go if there were no other options available. But ixnay on the Vatican II TLM Mass.
I am very against home-aloneism which is a scourge. But if there is NO other option God will keep you in His graces, I expect. My theory about people who are home-aloners and fall from the faith is that it is pride that makes them home-aoners, and thus pride that makes them fall from the faith. That's not the same as someone who really has nowhere to go.
Though the Code of Canon Law 1917 says you can avail yourself of an Orthodox priest when necessary... Not sure if that means you should go to an Orthodox mass if nothing else is available, or just that you can call an Orthodox priest if you're dying and need to confess and receive extreme unction.
-
Then again, the SSPX is apparently letting priests in now who were ordained by bishops who were consecrated in the New Rite, and not redoing their ordinations.
I would ask any SSPX priest some questions about his background. I am pretty sure I heard that Father Hawker with the SSPX in Arcadia / San Pedro is one of these priests who were taken in directly from the Novus Ordo, but my memory is foggy about the details. But I'd definitely investigate if I were going to him. He will surely tell you himself.
The problem is the SSPX, and this is another huge black mark for the SSPX and perfectly fits the plan of the usurpers, says that the New Rite of Consecration is valid. If the SSPX begins letting in priests who are ordained by fake bishops, even their Masses will start to become doubtful. I'm sure some of them already are; hence if you're going to SSPX you need to talk to the priest and make sure his ordination is legit.
-
The definition of a home-aloner is someone who refuses to attend a TLM because they don't agree with the views of the priests who are offering the Mass. It is indeed a dangerous position to hold.
I'd be skeptical about attending diocesean TLMs, primarily because most of them aren't TLMs, they're hybrids. In other words, basically they're Novus Ordo Masses with some Latin and a few parts of the TLM thrown in. If I had a diocesean chapel that offered a REAL TLM (one with no Bogus Ordo parts thrown in) I might attend given that I can't go anywhere else. But the odds of that hapenning in my liberal diocese are slim.
I also watch Mass on the internet, a TLM offered by the FSSP. I also suggest making a Spiritual Communion, and yes, praying the Rosary.
-
Though the Code of Canon Law 1917 says you can avail yourself of an Orthodox priest when necessary... Not sure if that means you should go to an Orthodox mass if nothing else is available, or just that you can call an Orthodox priest if you're dying and need to confess and receive extreme unction.
The Bolded part is true, the Church gives Jurisdiction to even Schismatics and Heretics so long as they are Priests when someone is in danger of death and needs to confess and for extreme unction.
-
Then again, the SSPX is apparently letting priests in now who were ordained by bishops who were consecrated in the New Rite, and not redoing their ordinations.
I would ask any SSPX priest some questions about his background. I am pretty sure I heard that Father Hawker with the SSPX in Arcadia / San Pedro is one of these priests who were taken in directly from the Novus Ordo, but my memory is foggy about the details. But I'd definitely investigate if I were going to him. He will surely tell you himself.
The problem is the SSPX, and this is another huge black mark for the SSPX and perfectly fits the plan of the usurpers, says that the New Rite of Consecration is valid. If the SSPX begins letting in priests who are ordained by fake bishops, even their Masses will start to become doubtful. I'm sure some of them already are; hence if you're going to SSPX you need to talk to the priest and make sure his ordination is legit.
The SSPX studies all ordinations to see if they are valid. If they determined it was valid why do you not believe them? The SSPX are well educated in such matters and sometimes even employ the Benedictines and Domincans who are allied with us(and are independant of the Concillar church) to study such matters.
For instance Father Albert O.P. did the study on whether the Law cuм Ex was abbrogated or not.
We seek the truth, and we have no gain in saying they are valid if they are not. You say they are not because you wish to justify your positions. Isn't that Pride aswell?
-
For Caminus on request:
THE CASE OF ATTENDING THE TRADITIONAL MASS SAID UNDER THE "INDULT"
Despite all the efforts of the official hierarchy since 1969, a few bishops, many priests, and a great number of the faithful have remained attached to the two-thousand-year old traditional rite of Mass. Time passed but the problem remained. In order to resolve it, Pope John Paul II gave to the diocesan bishops the faculty of making use of an indult so as to allow priests to say and faithful to attend the Mass contained in the Roman Missal edited in 1962; the missal moreover used by the Society of St. Pius X. That was the indult promulgated by the Congregation for the Divine Worship on October 3, 1984,15 an indult we shall see hereafter, made unacceptable through the intention of its legislators and by the conditions of its application. The consecrations of June 30, 1988, occurring, Pope John Paul II made use of this with regards to the traditionalists.
Now, what about attending a Tridentine Mass celebrated under the indult?
First of all, it constitutes a danger for the faith of the faithful, a danger which comes from the priests themselves who are celebrating it. Because to obtain this indult from the official hierarchy, these priests must fulfill the following conditions: "That it should be very clear that these priests have nothing to do with those who place in doubt... the doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, in 1970 and that their position should be without any ambiguity and publicly known." 15 Thus is it necessary that these priests prove publicly by their behavior, their words and writings, shorn of ambiguities, that they admit "the doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass. No question in any way whatsoever of criticizing the Protestant and definitely non-Catholic look of Pope Paul VI's New Mass.
Cardinal Mayer, former president of Ecclesia Dei placed in charge of re-integrating the Traditionalists in the Conciliar Church, added the following condition: these same priests "can obtain" this indult "on the condition that they be in normal juridical standing with their bishops or religious superiors." 16 One remembers that dozens of priests have been unjustly put out of their churches or their religious houses for the simple fact of continuing to say without change the Tridentine Mass, except for a good number of those who were favored by certain circuмstances (age, distance etc.). May we ask these indult favored priests at what cost or compromise with the integral Catholic Faith have they kept or obtained "normal legal relations" with the hierarchy? Compromise which, for example, could appear in the fact of giving hosts doubtfully consecrated during a previous conciliar Mass or even through the manner of celebrating the traditional Mass full of hesitations and mistakes, sometimes even cause of scandal.
There is a danger too for the Faith, that comes from the proximity of the faithful who attend exclusively these indult Masses, because they also have to fulfill the conditions of not placing in doubt the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass.15 Characteristically, these type of faithful, unfortunately too often, are concerned with reconciling in thought and in action the truth with heresy, Tradition with the conciliar spirit.
Secondly from the very nature of the indult: an indult is "a concession from the authority which dispenses its subjects from the obligation of keeping a law." 17 "The indult is an exception. It can always be withdrawn. It confirms the general rule" 18 which is the New Mass, the conciliar liturgy. Because, to use a special permission, is this not to recognize and legitimize ipso facto the general law, that is to say the legal suppression of the two thousand year-old traditional rite?
Indeed, to obtain the indult of 1984, one must fulfill the following conditions: "that it should be quite clear that those priests and those faithful have nothing to do with those who place in question the legitimacy of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970." 15 Furthermore "this concession... should be utilized without prejudice to the observance of the liturgical reform (of Pope Paul VI) in the life of ecclesiastical communities" 15 of the Conciliar Church.
Therefore no question of them advertising for the universal usage of the Traditional Mass. They must be made to recognize that this Tridentine Mass was validly, legally and legitimately abrogated or forbidden. No question either or calling the worth, always actual, of the words of the Pope St. Pius V: "by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity, that for the singing or the reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal (that is to say, the Tridentine Mass), may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used." 19 [cf. this article for more on this topic: THE LEGITMACY OF QUO PRIMUM TODAY]
The third point to tackle is this: to attend the "indult" Mass is at least to approve implicitly and to encourage the work of the destruction of Catholic Tradition undertaken by the official hierarchy. To prove this assertion, let us look first of all at the intentions of some of those responsible, to see some precise facts.
In the first place the intention of Pope John Paul II himself, using this indult to favor the winning over of "traditional Catholics" to conciliar Rome: "The Holy See has granted... the faculty of using the liturgical books in use in 1962... It is very evident that, far from seeking to put a brake on the application of the reform (of the New Mass) undertaken after the Council (by Pope Paul VI), this concession is destined to facilitate the ecclesial communion (that is to say their reinstatement in the Conciliar Church) of people who feel themselves attached to these liturgical forms." 20
What now of the intentions and hopes of Cardinal Mayer, former president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission? "There are grounds," he said, "to hope that, with the concerted efforts on the part of all concerned a substantial number of priests and seminarians will find the strength to renounce a 'state of mind' which until now was full of prejudices, of accusations and of disinformation... We have good reason to believe that the charity with which the priests coming from Archbishop Lefebvre and returning into the Church will be received, will contribute greatly to the fulfillment of this hope that, following them, numerous faithful whom they had served up till then, would also return into the ecclesial communion (with the Conciliar Church) through their mediation. Sometimes a temporary solution may be necessary, such as allowing them the possibility of celebrating the Holy Mass" 21 of Pope St. Pius V.
In the hands of the official hierarchy, the Tridentine Mass serves therefore as a temporary means and bait to attract the traditional priests and people and to destroy at the same time the work of Catholic restoration, started by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and their priests. Means and bait to attract the traditional Catholics now considered as schismatics because they are no longer considered as "being in communion" with the present-day Rome, of liberal and modernist tendency. It is to be further noted that the Commission Ecclesia Dei could be generous for a time in the concessions granted to priests —a question of making them bite at the bait. But if through their "mediation" more or less conscious, their faithful do not return into the conciliar fold, it is to be anticipated that they will be judged as useless instruments and will find themselves either in the obligation to fulfill other conditions to keep that permission, or even to simply see the aforesaid permission withdrawn.
Let us now move on to some illustrating facts: having received the permission to celebrate the Tridentine Rite, the Fraternity of St. Peter now see themselves threatened to accept giving communion in the hand 22 and saying the Mass of 1965 22 having already accepted by one of their superiors, "all the docuмents of the Vatican II Council." 23 Hundreds of priests, seminarians and faithful have been lured with the Tridentine Rite and now are made to forcibly return to the ranks and the spirit of the Council. This work of destruction continues by the approval of Indult Masses close to our important Mass centers... A good method to empty these last ones or at least to prevent them from developing. "That is why, what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate from us the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors." 18 To attempt to restore the traditional Mass without considering the historical context of the crisis of the Faith is to become a blind instrument in the hands of the conciliar hierarchy.
WHAT FINAL CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM ALL THIS?
That the precept of attending Sunday Mass is obligatory for all Catholics who have reached the age of reason (seven years old) but that some may be excused particularly those who are only near Masses "of Pope Paul VI" or to traditional Masses said under the "Indult." Why? Firstly, because of the danger for the faith coming either from the priests who celebrate or from the faithful who attend them; secondly, legitimization is given to the new liturgy and finally an approval more or less implicit of the work of destruction of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition.
http://www.sspx.org/motu_proprio/attendance_at_the_indult_vanes.htm
-
Studies of the Consecrations:
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/conditional_ordination.pdf
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf
-
Here is my situation exactly: I am in the far northeastern part of my (very big) city.
The closest sede TLM is over the river in NJ. Can't get there by buses, and have no one to drive me.
Next to that, the closest sede Mass is in upstate PA...I'm told its 3 hours by car, but again, I have no car and can't drive anyway.
After that is the SSPX Mass which I would go to, except its about 2-3 hrs away by train and buses, and through some dangerous areas.
That leaves two diocesan TLMs, at least one of which is known to distribute hosts "consecrated" at that morning's previous NO's. That TLM is 20 mins away by bus.
The last one is 1.5 hrs away by train and bus, and is diocesan. Not sure if they use hosts from the NO of that morning or not, but still, its part of newchurch.
Now there are several Eastern schismatic churches within walking distance, but I can only use them if I'm dying and need the Last Rites.
Even the closest Byzantine Catholic parish is far away! The only option I have (I think) that might be workable is a Ukrainian Catholic parish downtown (1 hr away), its all in Ukrainian but at least the consecration is without question (but aren't they also part of the newchurch?)
-
How far away is this one?
NORTH CALDWELL
[Paterson area]
St. Anthony of Padua Chapel
973-228-1230
203-431-0201 [Ridgefield, CT priory]
103 Gould Avenue (corner of Mountain and Gould)
Sunday: 7:30am & 10:00am (High Mass 2nd & 4th Sundays of month)
First Fridays: 6:00pm
Saturdays: 9:00am
Holy Days: 10:00am & 7:30pm
-
@LordPhan:
If I am guessing the correct 'big city' of her origin, West Caldwell is two hours from her. It's an hour from ME, and I live in NJ. Even though I have a car, it's a strain to get there because I only work a few hours a week and cannot afford gas when it's over $3 a gallon here and my car only gets 17 MPG.
@Caminus:
You can't prove that I'm wrong, so you just say, 'Oh, be quiet'? How childish. It has been proven that the Novus Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, is questionable because the Words of Consecration have been changed. 'For ALL' does NOT mean the same thing as 'FOR MANY', which were the Words Our Lord used.
As to the validity of the ordinations of Novus presiders, just saying 'be quiet' is not enough. The Rite of Ordination has been changed and no longer reflects a power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, ergo, it is not the Ordination of a valid Roman Catholic priest, but rather a minister of a 'service'.
Ratzinger is a heretic. YOU 'be quiet'.
St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
I would ask any SSPX priest some questions about his background. I am pretty sure I heard that Father Hawker with the SSPX in Arcadia / San Pedro is one of these priests who were taken in directly from the Novus Ordo, but my memory is foggy about the details. But I'd definitely investigate if I were going to him. He will surely tell you himself.
Fr Hawker's quite old. Its been a while since I'd spoken to him about this, but I remember that he is indeed valid. But I haven't been there for a while, so I would encourage anyone to ask him. You're right, he is open about it.
-
The SSPX studies all ordinations to see if they are valid. If they determined it was valid why do you not believe them? The SSPX are well educated in such matters and sometimes even employ the Benedictines and Domincans who are allied with us(and are independant of the Concillar church) to study such matters.
I agree Raoul takes his bias against the SSPX too far; but, I mean, look where he's come from (his road to tradition). I think the thing that is fearful, for me, is if there is a question about about the new Rite- would it be so bad to do the conditional ordination for safety's sake?
-
Lordphan,
That essay doesn't say it's intrinsically illicit, but due to certain extrinsic factors one may find oneself in danger at an "indult" TLM. There is a certain subjective note in that if one's faith is not put in danger, then it would be fine to attend, provided no other options are available. See St. Thomas' question on public disputations for an example of this principle in practice. At any rate, most of the essay is devoted to the problem of the priests viz. the "indult" and not the attending laity. I agree in principle, but per accidens one may attend all else being equal if there is a state of necessity present. The author puts for the theoretical objection which is correct, but in the concrete practical order, certain things may be avoided, at least on the part of a lay person attending. Does that make sense?
-
@LordPhan:
If I am guessing the correct 'big city' of her origin, West Caldwell is two hours from her. It's an hour from ME, and I live in NJ. Even though I have a car, it's a strain to get there because I only work a few hours a week and cannot afford gas when it's over $3 a gallon here and my car only gets 17 MPG.
@Caminus:
You can't prove that I'm wrong, so you just say, 'Oh, be quiet'? How childish. It has been proven that the Novus Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, is questionable because the Words of Consecration have been changed. 'For ALL' does NOT mean the same thing as 'FOR MANY', which were the Words Our Lord used.
As to the validity of the ordinations of Novus presiders, just saying 'be quiet' is not enough. The Rite of Ordination has been changed and no longer reflects a power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, ergo, it is not the Ordination of a valid Roman Catholic priest, but rather a minister of a 'service'.
Ratzinger is a heretic. YOU 'be quiet'.
St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
That's all I can say to one who approaches these matters in an irrational, emotinal manner. You've told yourself this enough times, therefore it has become a certainty for you in your own mind, thus the bold declarations as if we are dealing with indisputable fact. You just don't know what you're talking about so it would be wise for you to be quiet.
-
Yep, Paterson is like going to NYC for me (about 2 hours away). If I knew how to drive and could afford a car, I would go anywhere, more or less, to hear Mass. But not being able to drive really complicates things.
When I was a teenager I used to travel on 3 buses for a couple of hours to hear Mass down by the airport, at the Ramada Inn there (this was in the 1970s when Masses were held in motel banquet rooms.)
Part of the problem too for me now is I'm much older and have health issues that make public transit hard too due to my bad knees.
I just CAN'T understand WHY in a major city with a lot of Catholics still in it, that it is like this. Its not like I live in Timbuktu!
Back in the 1970s, there was an independent sede TLM held in the storefront of a man named Ed Heffernan....he renamed his store "The Ven. Anna Catherina Emmerich Shrine, and he would collect and store statues, altar rails, etc that churches were throwing out due to the changes of V2. He had an elderly priest live there who said Mass. But once the priest passed away, it all fell apart. But if that was still functioning, the place where it was is only 20 mins from my home, in Feasterville, PA.
-
@LordPhan:
If I am guessing the correct 'big city' of her origin, West Caldwell is two hours from her. It's an hour from ME, and I live in NJ. Even though I have a car, it's a strain to get there because I only work a few hours a week and cannot afford gas when it's over $3 a gallon here and my car only gets 17 MPG.
@Caminus:
You can't prove that I'm wrong, so you just say, 'Oh, be quiet'? How childish. It has been proven that the Novus Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, is questionable because the Words of Consecration have been changed. 'For ALL' does NOT mean the same thing as 'FOR MANY', which were the Words Our Lord used.
As to the validity of the ordinations of Novus presiders, just saying 'be quiet' is not enough. The Rite of Ordination has been changed and no longer reflects a power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, ergo, it is not the Ordination of a valid Roman Catholic priest, but rather a minister of a 'service'.
Ratzinger is a heretic. YOU 'be quiet'.
St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
That's all I can say to one who approaches these matters in an irrational, emotinal manner. You've told yourself this enough times, therefore it has become a certainty for you in your own mind, thus the bold declarations as if we are dealing with indisputable fact. You just don't know what you're talking about so it would be wise for you to be quiet.
From what I've seen of Steven Francis' posts he is seeking the truth, it might be more fruitful to explain your position and not degrade this conversation into the manner that our conversations devolve into with the obstinates like Raoul and Tele.
-
Sorry, I see the same gratuitous, emotional rhetoric coming from him as well, though I am open to a different approach so long as he is good-willed about it.
-
@Caminus:
You can't prove that I'm wrong, so you just say, 'Oh, be quiet'? How childish. It has been proven that the Novus Mass, whether in Latin or the vernacular, is questionable because the Words of Consecration have been changed. 'For ALL' does NOT mean the same thing as 'FOR MANY', which were the Words Our Lord used.
As to the validity of the ordinations of Novus presiders, just saying 'be quiet' is not enough. The Rite of Ordination has been changed and no longer reflects a power to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass, ergo, it is not the Ordination of a valid Roman Catholic priest, but rather a minister of a 'service'.
Ratzinger is a heretic. YOU 'be quiet'.
St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Actually in the Latin it says For Many and not For All. It is a fair assumption to say that almost all the Novus Ordo masses are invalid based on how they are done anyhow. But if they are done as Promulgated which I have never seen. They may be valid but Illicit. Either way one may not attend them so we are not really in an argument.
I posted two PDF files that explain why me and Caminus say that the new rite of Ordination can be valid if performed as it was promulgated. However it is on a case by case basis since they do other things at the Novus Ordo Ordinations that can invalidate it.
-
The SSPX studies all ordinations to see if they are valid. If they determined it was valid why do you not believe them? The SSPX are well educated in such matters and sometimes even employ the Benedictines and Domincans who are allied with us(and are independant of the Concillar church) to study such matters.
I agree Raoul takes his bias against the SSPX too far; but, I mean, look where he's come from (his road to tradition). I think the thing that is fearful, for me, is if there is a question about about the new Rite- would it be so bad to do the conditional ordination for safety's sake?
I have yet to see evidence that we have any Priests from the Novus Ordo that havn't been conditionally ordained. I do know their Ordinations are all investigated for the reason you cited, and the SSPX is willing to Conditionally Ordain them.
-
Lordphan,
That essay doesn't say it's intrinsically illicit, but due to certain extrinsic factors one may find oneself in danger at an "indult" TLM. There is a certain subjective note in that if one's faith is not put in danger, then it would be fine to attend, provided no other options are available. See St. Thomas' question on public disputations for an example of this principle in practice. At any rate, most of the essay is devoted to the problem of the priests viz. the "indult" and not the attending laity. I agree in principle, but per accidens one may attend all else being equal if there is a state of necessity present. The author puts for the theoretical objection which is correct, but in the concrete practical order, certain things may be avoided, at least on the part of a lay person attending. Does that make sense?
I'm not sure how Indults are elsewhere, but in Toronto they attack the SSPX and it is harmful to the faith to attend one.
As you are probably aware, the Divine Law states to keep the day Holy, the Church law says to keep it Holy by attending Mass. If one is even 1 hr away from a safe valid mass then they are not obliged to attend.
There is a good holy family at my Chapel that comes 2.5 hrs for mass. I don't think they can make it every weekend but they try to and that is a sign of how strong their faith is and a setting of a great example to others.
-
Actually in the Latin it says For Many and not For All. It is a fair assumption to say that almost all the Novus Ordo masses are invalid based on how they are done anyhow. But if they are done as Promulgated which I have never seen. They may be valid but Illicit. Either way one may not attend them so we are not really in an argument.
I posted two PDF files that explain why me and Caminus say that the new rite of Ordination can be valid if performed as it was promulgated. However it is on a case by case basis since they do other things at the Novus Ordo Ordinations that can invalidate it.
Which is why, with all due respect, my friend, I don't bother with the Novus Ordo at all. There didn't NEED to be any changes, and in many cases the changes run counter to dogmatic decrees. There simply is no reason to deviate from what was done in 1950, 1850 or even 1150.
Yes, I am always seeking to know more of the sublime truths that the Catholic Church teaches, but I am certainly not going to haggle over minutiae when it is clear, as you mentioned, that there are so many things (and people) in the Novus Ordo working diligently to invalidate even the few things they still have that are valid.
No, it's safer for me and for everyone to simply avoid the 'open windows' of Vat II like the plague that they let in.
The Holy Scriptures say to 'test every spirit', and I just don't trust the 'spirit of the Council'.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
LordPhan said:
I posted two PDF files that explain why me and Caminus say that the new rite of Ordination can be valid if performed as it was promulgated. However it is on a case by case basis since they do other things at the Novus Ordo Ordinations that can invalidate it.
I'm talking about the New Rite of Consecration, which is severely defective in its form. If the bishops are all fake, they can't ordain priests, even if the New Rite of Ordination is good. Pretty clever eh?
By the way, would these two PDF files be from the SSPX? :wink:
-
Of course they are from the SSPX. That is why the links say sspx.org.
I havn't read these in awhile but I think the consecrations are covered. Read it and let me know.
-
LordPhan said:
The SSPX studies all ordinations to see if they are valid. If they determined it was valid why do you not believe them? The SSPX are well educated in such matters and sometimes even employ the Benedictines and Domincans who are allied with us(and are independant of the Concillar church) to study such matters.
I'm sorry but I don't have confidence in their leadership.
The SSPX has proved their incompetence in matters of theology many times over. Visit any sedevacantist site to see their errors enumerated, such as that they have the right to sift the Pope's teaching on faith and morals, if he is a true Pope. You see, this would make them higher than the Pope, which is implicitly democratic and Old Catholic, favoring a democratic form of Church hierarchy. But the Church is a monarchy. You can't question the Pope; IF he is teaching to the universal Church on faith and morals, and IF he is a true Pope. Yet SSPX does just that.
They also have set up their own marriage tribunal in the shadow of Vatican II. That is something only the Church can do. So either this is the true Chuch or isn't; the SSPX says it is, and acts like it isn't. They are like sedes without the courage of their convictions. Another example would be how they break with the authority of the local ordinary.
Catholic Encyclopedia, article entitled "Ordinary" --
"The jurisdiction of local ordinaries arises from Divine law or ecclesiastical law..."
They are only a Third Order, what gives them the right to set themselves up as the Church if Vatican II is the real Church? To protect the Mass, they say... But how can the true Church ask them to abolish the same Mass that was established in perpetuity at Trent?
You should try to get some other sources besides only those of the "society."
-
I have already told you in before that you are in error and not they, I suggest you study the faith more and not listen to your Thuc Line Priests that have no theological training. No Pope in the last 60 years has stated anything with the conditions of infallibility yet you believe as the Neo-Caths do in regards to your view that anything the Pope says goes no matter what. This of course is against all teaching for the last 2000 years including the Summa.
I suggest you go to page 2 or 3 of the general forum and read the my post of the Summa on Obedience. You will see that your view is false obedience, in your view noone could of questions Honorius, Liberius or John XXII who all commited heresy at one time or another 2 of which repented all 3 of which were valid Pontiffs.
And Lastly but most importantly, you lack a basic understanding of what is a Third Order. The SSPX is a first order, I have told you this before yet you seem to have ignored it, this of course will not protect you at judgement from your calumny.
You lack a Catholic Mindset almost as much as Tele.
I should also point out your divisiveness is by definition as per the Summa, Schismatic, of which many Heresies stem to justify the position.
-
Anyone who uses terms like "Novus Ordo cookie" and "fake priests" and "invalid ordinations" indiscriminately, as if it were a matter of fact, is simply proof that they lack seriousness of mind, argue from emotion and have not duly studied the matter which is quite complicated. That's why I immediately discount S. Francis, et. al. It's a form of speaking that just fuels their emotion. Raoul and many other sedes speak in this manner and it betrays ignorance, blindly taking Fr. Cekada as their authority, imitating the mantra until it becomes true as existence itself. A dispassionate study of the matter should be enough to convince an honest student that the Novus Ordo sacramental forms are all per se valid.
And with regard to the notion that one ought to abstain from a diocesan TLM, all else being equal, because they may use Consecrated Hosts from a Novus Ordo Mass is but unduly scrupulous. For if the Lord can grant the graces of Communion received spiritually, certainly he would give the same graces to one who innocently received a piece of bread thinking in good faith that it was the Body of Christ. Also, the thing about Spiritual Communions is that their efficacy relies on the fervor and piety of the one making the act. Therefore to simply say, stay at home and make a spiritual communion is like saying stay at home and make a perfect act of contrition, not always necessarily effiacious by any means. Additionally, the Mass isn't soley about receiving holy Communion, but assisting at the Sacrifice of the Mass to attain the four ends of worship. One must be physically present to complete such an act.
-
You may recall that a poster named Pat introduced herself last month and discussed a similar predicament of being unable to get to a Traditional Latin Mass. You can read her introduction here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=2683&min=830&num=10
I asked posters if anyone knew of a link where someone could “assist” at Mass by watching and praying along with a Mass online. A poster PMd me and here’s my post with the link that he sent to me: (You can also read this same post on page 85 of the thread that I linked above along with other posters' responses.)
Pat,
In response to my question above in this thread, if anyone knew of a Latin Mass that was broadcast over the internet I received the following link from a member here named "Exilenomore" by PM:
http://www.tikilive.com/show/saintjudes
Password is: jude75
Exilenomore also said the following:
"I think you may post it in public because I saw it posted on another forum as well. It is not the Mass that I attend, since it is in Texas, America and I live in Belgium, Europe.
The priest is Father Louis J. Campbell, who was ordained in 1961, so he is certainly a valid priest. I believe he has been saying the tridentine Mass for a long time and do not think he has any problems with Latin, but he seems to have some problems with his voice now. In any case, he is not 'indult' and does not say the novus ordo. :)
The Mass is temporarily not being said in the St. Jude's Shrine itself, because the latter has been damaged by a hurricane. But they are aiming to have the church back in use in December."
So, this priest is celebrating his 50th anniversary this year, or perhaps has already celebrated it! Isn't that wonderful? Congratulations to Fr. Campbell! Let's all say a prayer for this Catholic priest.[/b]
When you go to the link, don't forget that you must type in the password jude75. Wait just a minute or so and the priest will come on. He'll take another minute or 2 to finish setting up the altar, giving you a short time for you to recollect yourself to assist spiritually at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Be sure to turn up your speakers so that you can hear the choir singing Traditional hymns. So many people who have been in the NO for years are brought to tears upon hearing our beautiful Catholic hymns, treasures of our Faith!
I know that I've seen another webcam used online for the Holy Mass. Maybe other posters will post the links. Anyone?
-
Exile was a hardcore home-aloner who sought to justify his position by convincing himself that he can attend Mass via the internet. Unfortunately, this idea is not sound at all. Even Confession via telephone is considered invalid.
-
The SSPX studies all ordinations to see if they are valid. If they determined it was valid why do you not believe them?
Because their determination of validity is based on a provably erroneous position in regards to the episcopal consecrations' validity which itself is nothing more than the byproduct of their entire approach to the crisis. If he disagrees with their fundamental approach, why would he agree with positions directly stemming from it ?
We seek the truth, and we have no gain in saying they are valid if they are not.
Actually, the entire SSPX position unravels if they are not valid, so there is a lot to gain.
You say they are not because you wish to justify your positions.
No, the SSPX (and therefore you, who blindly follows everything they say) are doing that.
-
I agree with all the sedes in this matter.
Go find sources that prove your claims, LordPhan, other than SSPX. If thats all you have, you have put down a very weak argument and one that doesn't win souls for Christ but actually panders to your own pride and twisted mind.
-
Because their determination of validity is based on a provably erroneous position in regards to the episcopal consecrations' validity which itself is nothing more than the byproduct of their entire approach to the crisis.
What is this "provably erroneous position" with respect to episcopal consecrations? And what does this have to do with an "approach to the crisis"? One does not necessarily imply the other, no matter how one looks at it, but it does confirm what I have long suspected among sedes, that their determination viz. the papacy and by extension the entire hierarchy serves as the emotional a posteriori motivating factor with respect to judging the validity of the sacramental forms. Their pretended arguments are merely efforts to solidify their canonical judgment regarding membership in the Church. There is no question of defectibility as these forms are the product of non-Catholics simply speaking. Thus an entire sect of non-Catholics came into existence almost overnight.
-
Because their determination of validity is based on a provably erroneous position in regards to the episcopal consecrations' validity which itself is nothing more than the byproduct of their entire approach to the crisis.
What is this "provably erroneous position" with respect to episcopal consecrations? And what does this have to do with an "approach to the crisis"? One does not necessarily imply the other, no matter how one looks at it.
Their approach to the crisis is one of 'recognise but resist,' forbidding serious consideration of the proposition that the conciliar pontiffs could not actually be Popes because of manifest heresy. Since they seem so bent on following the theological opinion of a tiny minority before the council, they likewise cannot grant that the Holy See would promulgate a per se invalid sacrament (the 1968 episcopal consecration formula), since it would result in them being forced to admit that (i) such was not promulgated by the Catholic Church, since Paul VI could not have been a true Pope, or (ii) that the Church defected, which is impossible.
P.S. My circuмstances make it such that I do not have regular access to the internet and therefore will not be able to participate in a lively debate on this subject.
-
But that should have nothing to do with sacramental theology.
-
But that should have nothing to do with sacramental theology.
It doesn't seem that reality and the dynamics of the Truth in relation to events in time are quite as easy to categorise and systematise as the theological faculties and manuals would prefer.
-
Don't fall victim to using your imagination to theologize, just as many in the Novus Ordo have lost the ability to comprehend the essence of things as such. What you seem to be saying is that there are no principles by which we can make certain judgments, or the old principles of sacramental theology cannot be applied in this crisis, while at the same time asserting that you are certain of invalidity. Admitting that the Novus Ordo sacramental forms are valid serves in no way to support the liturgical reform or the doctrinal novelties and errors that have invaded the Church; just as it cannot be construed that one approves of an heretical sect simply because the validity of baptism administered in the sect is conceded.
-
Caminus, what is your opinion of the LICITNESS of the Novus Ordo rites, assuming they are indeed valid? Archbishop Lefebvre said that even assuming their validity does not make the NO rites safe to attend or take part in. Would you agree?
By the way, while I am sure that you are clear on my position re: the Novus Ordo, please be assured that I neither intended nor was pleased with the rancorous tone of some of our earlier exchanges. I do, indeed, wish to become even more informed of the nuances of these issues than I have previously been, and I regret that I have not previously made that wish clear by my choice of communication.
Now, again, please: Could the licitness of the NO rites be questionable to enough of a degree that, even granting their validity, they, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NOVUS ORDO as it currently exists, could be rightly considered harmful to piety, and thus to souls?
What I mean to say is that there is so much doctrinal confusion among adherents to the NO and so much error being promoted by various NO presiders and prelates that those conditions must certainly add to, if they do not actually themselves create, a serious question of licitness. After all, how can the average layperson be assured of the spiritual safety of attending the NO service if they are already being fed a diet of indifferentism and ecuмenism?
It is the opinion of many that the very goal of the NO is exactly that... to introduce ecuмenical worship and to permit, if not to openly encourage, harmful habits of popular piety so that the people are fooled into thinking that whatever is going on in front of them MUST be TRUE, if it's PERMISSIBLE.
'Recognize but resist' thinking is dangerous; it is nearly impossible to be able to separate one's opinion of a person's status from a person's acts. I, personally, have known people in authority who have abused said authority. It was impossible for me to accord them anything beyond the barest civil respect out of manners, because I knew that their MORAL, and in one case, ALMOST SURELY their LEGAL, authority had been compromised.
In the case of the papal claimants in question, many believe that there are far more concrete reasons to doubt, if not reject, the authority of these men based on their actions which have belied their claims to orthodoxy.
I am interested to hear the opinions of Caminus and others.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
My opinion is that the Novus Ordo is evil, not intrinsically, but secundum quid (under a certain aspect). Even though it is a valid sacramental rite, it doesn't take much to confect a valid sacrament, it is illicit for extrinsic reasons, i.e. its deficiencies and privations, its spirit and form, the principles and ideas upon which it is based. It presents a danger to the faith and therefore the faithful are obliged, under the decrees of Divine positive law, to abstain from such rites, just as we are obliged to avoid any occasion that presents a danger to faith. Additionally, in the concrete, it is a profane service and therefore very displeasing to God. Many Catholics do not understand this. They think that the Sacrifice of the Mass is always pleasing to God because they confound the essential distinction between that which Christ offers and that which the Church offers, or rather particular Churches and particular rites. If Pope St. Pius X concluded that even improper music during the liturgy profanes the Mass and renders the liturgy unfit for divine service, how much more the typical Novus Ordo, even done in a quasi-reverent manner?
There is nothing positively evil or heretical in the Novus Ordo liturgy as prescribed by the Church. Take it line by line and one will find no heresy at all. Rather, in its totality, in its principle and its privation, it has been rendered a defective harmful liturgy. You object citing the Council of Trent. I reply that the Canon in question refuted the Protestant notion that said Catholic rites and sacramentals are intrinsically harmful and incite sacrilege, which is of course absurd, being anti-liturgical. Therefore this Canon does not apply to the Novus Ordo liturgy, whether of the Mass or any other. This started as an experiment and has continued to be such, binding upon no faithful; an ambiguous, ever-changing "law" that fails in every respect according to authority and antiquity.
If there has been a deception, a grand lie, a great fascade it is this: that the Conciliar and post-conciliar developments possess the characteristics to be binding on any Catholic. But the Church, properly speaking binds in its law, therefore this is not from the Church properly speaking, but rather from the imagination of a committee that adopted false ideas.
-
I think it's a heresy to change the words of the Consecration.
-
Caminus,
I posted the link to the Mass for those on this site who have lamented that they are unable to get to a Traditional Latin Mass due to distance, not for home-aloners and I don't even know if you are correct about Exile being a Home-aloner because he said this:
It is not the Mass that I attend, since it is in Texas, America and I live in Belgium, Europe.
As for Home-aloners, I pray for them and hope that they will come back to the Mass and the Sacraments.
For those who can't get to the true Mass due to distance or other hardships, the best thing that you can do is to read your Mass prayers at home and I hope that the link that I posted to the Mass online will be of comfort to you as you hope and pray to soon be able to attend Mass for real.
Stephen Francis, Anna1959, Pat and anyone else here who is unable to get to Mass, I will remember you tomorrow morning at the Mass that I assist at and I will pray that Our Lord and His Blessed Mother will very soon grant you all the grace to be able to assist at the True Mass and receive Our Divine Lord in the Blessed Eucharist.
-
I am NOT an apologist for the Conciliar Church, nor novus ordo, nor Vatican II; and I'm grateful to have received God's grace to start going to a true Catholic Mass (SSPX) about 3 months ago. I NEVER want to attend a novus ordo mass again; and by the grace of God, I'll always be able to assist at a true TLM (no Motu Propio).
But I believe the 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid. I read the Rite along with the Rite of Consecration for the Coptics and Maronites, which is ancient, in the Catholic Church. The 1968 Rite is very similar in some parts and identical in other parts of the respective Rites.
Now, there have been a few Saints from the Coptic and Maronite tradition that were canonized by the Catholic Church BEFORE Vatican II. If the 1968 Rite of Consecration is invalid, then the Coptic and Maronite Rites have been invalid, effectively making the few "Saints" in their tradition not real Catholics, therefore, their canonizations would be invalid. The same canonizations done by PRE-Vatican II Popes, whom are supposed to be infallible in the area of Church law and morals.
I don't believe the PRE-VII Popes could error in canonizing these Saints from the Coptic and Maronite tradition, nor could they error in allowing a non-valid Rite of Episcopal Consecration in their traditions. This is the main reason I believe the 1968 Rite is valid.
-
Mr. Francis, this first post is only on that last part of your comments. I am still trying to organize how I want to respond to the first part of your comments. Thank you.
I would not call it "recongnize but resist", rather I would say recognize but protect. Are we resisting God? Who is resisting the Truth? The whole last paragraph of your statements deal with us both, I would hope you are like me and are not resisting, but instead protecting your soul and the Deposit of Faith there in out of necessity.
St. Athanasius did the same thing as SSPX in principle. He protected the docrine of the Incarnation and the second person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, from being diluted and distorted. He suffered a (so-called) excommunication and many exiles from five different Holy Roman Emperors. In the end he was exalted and what St. Athanasius protected became Infallible Doctrine of Faith. In that situation as is now there were sides, in certain moments in church history it took some time before the good side could gain power and infallibly condemn the errors.
-
I think it's a heresy to change the words of the Consecration.
Since when is it heresy to assert that Christ died for all men?
-
It's a heresy to change His Words, Caminus. Christ said "for many". "For all" implies universal salvation.
-
It is not heresy to say that Christ died 'for all' in the sense of His Words in the holy Gospel of St. John, chapter 3, where Our Lord says,
"For God sent not His Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him."[/color]
In other words, in the sense that Christ's death is SUFFICIENT to save every person who ever lived, then it is most fitting to say that He died 'for all'.
In the Words of the Consecration, however, Our Lord specifically said, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.[/color]
In this case, Our Lord intended to express the EFFICACY of His Sacrifice, that is, the merit that would actually be applied to souls. He was stating that there were ALREADY souls in existence for whom His Sacrifice would ACTUALLY be salvific, and not just potentially so.
This issue is actually one of the main conflicts within Protestantism as well; there are those who insist, wrongly, that Christ died for all, so all are saved, no matter what they may or may not do in terms of faith. This, of course, is heresy.
Then there are those who say that Christ died ONLY for His elect, a definite, foreordained number, and that all those (and ONLY those) elect will somehow, eventually, come to public, professed faith in Christ. Those elect will then NEVER be able to fall away from the faith, a notion which Scripture denies clearly. MOST of these, usually called 'Calvinists', confess that Christ's death was SUFFICIENT to save ALL, but EFFICACIOUS ONLY in the salvation of the elect. This is heretical because it is clear from Scripture that many can and do fall away from the faith, and the Calvinistic heresy teaches that there is need to confess and repent of sin, yet there is no way that any of said sin can possibly be symptomatic of one's rejection of the faith. There are those among the Calvinists who even believe that a man, who PUBLICLY REPUDIATES his faith in Christ and lapses into the gravest sins, MAY still be saved because he MAY be one of the 'elect', and that God will certainly still somehow save that man. What nonsense, and all because they have rejected the ONLY avenues through which God restores sanctifying grace to a soul, namely, His Sacraments.
There are also Protestants who believe that it is man's duty to cooperate with God's offer of salvation through Christ's Cross, but that once a person has made a 'profession of faith', usually via a 'sinner's prayer' of some sort, they are irrevocably and eternally saved, even if they fall into pertinacious and grave, scandalous sin. Obviously, this is heresy of the basest sort, not only because it allows for imprudent lifestyles, but because it engenders smug self-satisfaction (I prayed the prayer, so I know I'm saved, even if I go kill ten people right now and then shoot myself). [NOTE: Yes, I have actually heard Prot 'preachers' and congregants say that very thing, or things just like it.]
Finally, there are those among the Protestants who believe that Christ died a death, again, SUFFICIENT for all but EFFICIENT for many who would make a profession of faith. This profession of faith is an effort engendered by and motivated by God alone, yet in no sense violating man's free will. They believe that while a man can be saved through the graces which God gives through His Church, some also believe that men CAN (and often do) fall away from the faith. They believe that confession (after a sort) and penance (in terms of a determination to reform one's life) are necessary to be restored to right relationship with God. These Protestants also believe that it is possible for someone to fall away entirely and die in their sin, thus being sent to Hell.
Oddly, that last group, although their theology most closely mirrors that of Holy Church, is considered the most bizarre and legalistic of the larger Protestant groups. Several major denominations believe what was expressed in the previous paragraph, and yet, those who claim to be the heirs of the 'Reformation' are insistent that the above statements are heretical and most often not even worth of consideration.
Again, it is certainly true that Christ died for all in the sense that all are WELCOME to come to Him, and all MAY be saved by the merits of His Cross and Resurrection, but only those who ACTUALLY DO SO, whose true disposition of faith is known to God alone, will actually BE saved, provided they persevere in faith and die in God's friendship.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.