Quote from: saintbosco13

The Church says that the Sacraments cannot be changed without invalidating them. The new rite of ordination was a drastic change, it is therefore doubtful at best. No investigation needed - if someone was ordained with the new rite, they MUST be conditionally ordained.

No, the Church does not say any such thing. Your idea of what the Church does in regards to the sacraments is completely wrong because if your idea was actually correct and the SSPX presumed as you do, first off they would not conditionally ordain, they would necessarily automatically re-ordain.

Either way, because there is doubt, without proof of invalidity the Church has always taught that it is a sacrilege to even conditionally ordain someone who is already validly ordained, let alone automatically re-ordain them. This is why validity is and must ALWAYS be initially presumed.    

Of course the Church has taught this! The quotes were recently posted and you just ignored them. Here they are again:

    "It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo nono, 1910

    "Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form be suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently the sacrament is invalid." Summa Theologica, Whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists?

    "...the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over "the substance of the Sacraments," that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs." Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947

Quote from: saintbosco13

 The SSPX stopped doing this consistently some years ago, so there are doubtful priests (and sacraments) scattered around the Society. For this reason and other reasons (such as them teaching that a General Council can teach heresy, and that a true Pope also can, and their recognize and resist position, and their accepting/granting of annulments etc), I decided long ago to completely avoid the SSPX due to multiple dangers.

No, the SSPX has never stopped doing this consistently, exactly the opposite is the truth. A general council is only as infallible as the pope makes it, and the popes involved declared that V2 was not infallible.

You decided long ago to completely avoid them for reasons that are altogether wrong.

There are posts from others in this SAME discussion that state the SSPX has not been consistent when it comes to conditional ordination. This is from people who attend the SSPX!

Your comments on General Councils is heretical. Look in ANY Catholic book before Vatican II and they all say General Councils, approved by a valid Pope, are infallible. A Council is considered a General Council when it is convoked from the whole world, as Vatican II was. So Vatican II is either a valid Council (and therefore infallible), or it is not a valid Council, and should therefore be ignored. There is no middle ground.

Quote from: Stubborn

The reason I never went to the NO, is probably for the same reason you stopped attending it after it took you how many years for you to FINALLY wake up.

At least I finally DID wake up. You are still in the Novus Ordo. The Catholic Church and the Pope cannot be separated. I would quote the Church for you but you will just culpably ignore the quotes again. If you think he's the Pope then you're either in his "church" or not.

You misunderstood - I was never in the NO, as such, I am not the one "still in the Novus Ordo" - you are, even if only by default. Think about that. Nor is it I who dwells on the false, Novus Ordo idea of what the "Church and the Pope cannot be separated" actually means.

No, you woke up to realize that what was going on was very wrong, thankfully you found out the truth of that whole tragedy and left it behind. What you have yet to rid yourself of, is the decades worth of false ideas welcomed, implanted and still embedded within you that many others who've been in your situation have rid themselves of, or still struggle to do - that's just the way it is.

The false ideas that the NO preaches and which you accepted for years, reflect in some of your posts, particularly when it comes to the idea of authority and the pope. In short, you fell into the same trap that ensnared generations into the NO and those NO ideas repeatedly show themselves almost whenever you post on the subject.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: An even Seven

Paul VI:“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.  The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo.  The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council.  In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…"L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2

Yes, statements like these and many others served only to add to the confusion of the masses who compromised 40 years ago, you're just recently discovering things like this, but for many of us, it's old news.

I realized it as soon as I started to care about religion. The difference is you deny the Authority given to a true Pope still. If Paul VI were Pope you would have no choice. I'm just bringing this up now again for a reminder that you will be held responsible for your denial of Dogma.

I am not the one who has ever denied the authority of popes, all the popes are true popes, none of them are God. When one comes to accept that reality, it's relatively easy to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first.

Quote from: Stubborn

Fr. Wathen, in The Great Sacrilege, explains it like this:

Quote

Paul VI acts as if he is using the “New Mass” in obedience to the Second Vatican Council. This is a kind of buck-passing. He owes no obedience to this Council, if its decrees go counter to the laws of the Church, of which Quo Primum is one. Besides, it is he who promulgated its decrees; he is therefore really only obeying himself.

If you've not read that book, I highly recommend it.

Read it about 12 years ago. This quote doesn't really even make sense. Why would Paul VI tell himself to change the Mass, then not obey himself. The only way to understand that situation is that Paul VI was a heretic bent upon the destruction of souls and wanted to cease the Continual Sacrifice all along.

Yes, that is how I understand it. Not sure there is any other way to logically understand it.

Quote from: Stubborn

you maintain the NO idea you wholly accepted and have yet to rid from yourself, that idea being that you equate the pope to the Church - that *is* NO.

I have been listening to your “snappy” comebacks for a while now. You are so confident that you are right you must be basing your opinion on the immutable truth of Dogma.
Can you explain what it is you actually mean above and what Dogma you base it off of?

This is not based off any particular defined dogma.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: An even Seven

You deny that heretics are not in the Church. This is infallible. You also deny that you don't have to be obedient to the Pope. This is infallible.

Here again, this has been explained repeatedly to you - and more especially, it was thoroughly and beautifully explained by Drew.

Can you demonstrate from anywhere besides from those associated to the SSPX and Fr. Wathen, that a) heretics are in the Church and b) that you don’t have to be obedient to a valid Pope in all things that he commands pertaining to the welfare of the Church?

We've already beat this horse to death. For a), Drew already explained it - all I could do is say the same thing he did, except my reply would probably be 5 times longer and not be anywhere near as clear as his.

For b) We've beat this one to death as well. It is a fundamental Catholic principle of our faith that our duty to obey all of our superiors, including the pope's wishes and commands, is wholly dependent upon our superiors', including the popes' duty to command us to do only those things which are not displeasing to God.

Your conundrum comes from imagining that a pope is incapable of wanting the faithful to do anything which is displeasing to God, that God would never permit a pope to suggest or teach anything that might lead souls to hell, nor would He permit a pope to make any effort to destroy His Church. And that's where you stop. You go no further. You cannot see past this. There is something within you that blinds you from seeing anything further, that makes you insist those in disagreement with you are wrong - meanwhile the actual truth of the matter is, your thinking which is shared with others, actually is blatant insanity in light of what actually happened, in light of the reality of the Church post V2.

Quote from: Stubborn

To repeat Drew - all you are doing is making the pope the rule of faith.

Can you show me exactly how I am making the “pope the rule of faith” and what Church teachings I am disregarding?

To show you how you are making the pope your rule of faith, all you need to do is answer this simple question I already asked: "To quote Fr. Wathen - "The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible."

Can you accept this?"

If you answer no, the reason is because you make the pope your rule of faith.

Quote from: Pope Leo XIII

Denz.1976: “But the true church is one, One in unity of doctrine as in unity of government and this Catholic, such is the Church; and since God has established that its center and foundation be in the Chair of Peter, it is rightly called Roman; for "where Peter is, there is the Church." * Therefore, whoever wishes to be called by the name of Catholic, ought truly to heed the words of Jerome to Pope Damasus: "I who follow no one as first except Christ, associate myself in communion with your Beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter; upon that Rock, I know the Church is built [Matt. 16:18]; . . . whoever gathereth not with thee scattereth" * [Matt. 12:30].”

From this quote above please answer the following.
Can you tell me how you have a unity of doctrine and government with the man occupying the Chair of Peter, whom you call a heretic?
If Francis is Peter, is he where the Church is?
Is Francis the center and foundation of the Catholic Church?
Do you gather with Francis as St. Jerome says he does and are you in communion with Francis as St. Jerome says he is with the Chair of Peter and how?

If your answer is "no" to any of these questions, please provide a Magisterial source to back up your claims. If you can't, you must admit that you are a follower of man and not GOD.

This exchange is really quite phenomenal. Why do you consistently selectively quote?  - in this case it's Pope Leo XIII? Do you not see that you take what he said completely out of context? That by the pope being your rule of faith you have left out the Church? - literally?

Here, read the whole quote.....

"But the true church is one, as by unity of doctrine, so by unity of government, and she is catholic also. Since God has placed the center and foundation of unity in the chair of Blessed Peter, she is rightly called the Roman Church, for "where Peter is, there is the church." Wherefore, if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say from his heart the selfsame words which Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus: "I, acknowledging no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with Your Holiness; that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosoever gathereth not with you, scattereth."

Your entire focus is entirely biased unto sedevacantism because reading it as a Catholic, this entire quote condemns sedevacantism.  "if anybody wishes to be considered a real Catholic, he ought to be able to say from his heart the selfsame words which Jerome addressed to Pope Damasus....." sedevacantists certainly do not say what St. Jerome said - so what does that make them?