1 - Wrong. This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed. It was addressed and directed at protestants. It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction. It is that simple.
1 - Therefore, if you refuse to accept the New Mass as valid and licit, then unfortunately this canon applies to you.
2 - Also, I noticed that the docuмent Quo Primum is not in ANY edition of Denzinger (i.e. The Sources of Catholic Dogma). Why is that so? It's simply because it is not a dogmatic docuмent but merely a disciplinary one. This is because at the time of the docuмent, 1570, there were several different kinds of masses being practiced within the Church and Pope St. Pius V permitted said masses to continue if they were practiced for more than 200 years.
3 - Therefore, the above-mentioned Council of Trent canon [promulgated in 1562-- 8 years before the docuмent Quo Primum] is not referring only to the Latin Tridentine Mass but to other masses as well. So to deny that the New Mass is licit while ignorantly believing that Quo Primum is a dogmatic docuмent is to make one "anathema" unless of course you do not accept Paul VI as a valid pope.
I would like to hear Traditionalist opinions on this issue. Thank you.
1 - Wrong. This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed. It was addressed and directed at protestants. It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction. It is that simple.Sorry PG, I guess I replied too soon from reading only your first post.
2 - I have yet to find a perfect book. Denzinger is no different. As much as I like even the bible, Jesus did not give us a bible. Jesus gave us apostles.
3 - you are presuming a lot here. How about you refer to exactly what the pope's thinking was behind the canon. In all likelihood, his thinking was in agreement with the docuмent he wrote 8 years later, quo primum. And, that docuмent condemned liturgies lacking a history of greater than 200 years continuous use. And, the novus ordo does not even meet that criteria. Which, would have been your best shot at applying that docuмent to favor your liturgy(the novus ordo).
Lastly quo primum is more popular among 1945 liturgy catholics, whom the majority of are sedevacantists. So, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Thank you PG for your prompt and courteous reply. I also agree with you when you say (according to Bishop Williamson) that if you feel that you must attend a Novus Ordo Mass, then you may. Personally, I think it's a shame that Bishop Williamson received such harsh criticism for saying so during his June 28, 2015 speech in New York.The principle argument against validity has mainly been a result of doubtful intention demonstrated on the part of the cleric. And, when there occurs grave liturgical abuses by novus ordo standards, one can doubt such has a valid intention. However, when intention is faulty, matter and or form usually suffers also as a result. So, it can be easier than simply doubting intention, matter and or form usually follow along. When concerning validity, one has to use official novus ordo standards(paul vi/papal/Rome). When concerning legitimacy, one must use apostolic tradition, which is best left to a bishop of unquestionable orthodoxy(+Lefebvre). Because, dogma is the guiding principle in the church. The pope is not the guiding principle. Popes can be material heretics, as in our case.
I've thoroughly read "The Problem of the Liturgical Reform," a book published by the SSPX, and cannot find one instance inside of the entire book that states that a valid consecration does not take place during the Novus Ordo Mass. While one may argue (as do I) that the New Mass is "barely Catholic" and therefore 1,000 times worse than the Traditional Latin Mass, I am forced to admit that a valid consecration still occurs during that rite.
Thank you again for your reply. I hope others will be as kind as you in discussing these matters.
1 - Wrong. This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed. It was addressed and directed at protestants. It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction. It is that simple.I read your 1st response wrong so I'm replying again.
2 - I have yet to find a perfect book. Denzinger is no different. As much as I like even the bible, Jesus did not give us a bible. Jesus gave us apostles.
3 - you are presuming a lot here. How about you refer to exactly what the pope's thinking was behind the canon. In all likelihood, his thinking was in agreement with the docuмent he wrote 8 years later, quo primum. And, that docuмent condemned liturgies lacking a history of greater than 200 years continuous use. And, the novus ordo does not even meet that criteria. Which, would have been your best shot at applying that docuмent to favor your liturgy(the novus ordo).
Lastly quo primum is more popular among 1945 liturgy catholics, whom the majority of are sedevacantists. So, you are barking up the wrong tree.
I think the best way to look at this canon, and perhaps canons in general, is to consider that it is canon 7 of 9 canons regarding the catholic mass. It is a part of a whole. And, read within the context of the whole, it is not at all supporting an argument in any way favoring the novus ordo. In sum, it cannot be separated from the whole without doing damage to its parts.
1. First of all, the canon is specifically referring to The Catholic Church Masses and not Protestant rites or services. Had the canon just said "masses," then your point would be valid here. Unfortunately, things are not so simple.
I read your 1st response wrong so I'm replying again.Well, the council of trent was assembled to address Protestantism. In sum, it is addressing the issues of the times. It is not addressing the issues of our times. Applying it by itself towards the sspx is far too out of place. Next, in my opinion, only the pope is preserved from formal heresy. I do not believe a pope can become a formal heretic/judged by any mechanism of the church. But, the rest(bishops and laity) can be judged by "the two or more". And, that is the sspx imo. The sspx has never considered the conciliar church "the official church". +Williamson recently wrote an article about that. And, that means, that the conciliar church is not synonymous with "the catholics church". So, with canon 7, you cannot swap out "the catholic church' for "the conciliar church". The canon simply isn't applicable enough in its strict form. And, without its strict form, there is no anathema.
1. So you think that this canon is only addressed to Protestants (who were either most likely to never read or ignore it since they were no longer Catholics?
3. I also agree with you that people who favor the 1945 liturgy (i.e. those who use the St. Andrew 1945 Missal) are sedevacantists. These are the same people who always say that "Bugnini butchered Holy Week in 1955" even though Pope Pius XII had to approve of the changes.
Well, the council of trent was assembled to address Protestantism. In sum, it is addressing the issues of the times.
The Council of Trent: Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 7 (and Denzinger #954) reads: "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."Canon 7 was indeed speaking of the Mass, the True Mass - not the Novus Ordo travesty, which indeed is the Great Sacrilege. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf-44137/) They may call that thing "the mass" but that thing is NOT the Mass - and certainly it is not the Mass Trent is talking about. The new "mass" was not even invented till 400 years after this canon. That thing is not the mass anymore than the conciliar church is Catholic.
Therefore, if you refuse to accept the New Mass as valid and licit, then unfortunately this canon applies to you. However, this Council of Trent canon does not apply to you if you accept that Paul VI (the creator of the New Mass, which you believe is invalid and counterfeit) was not a legitimate pope.
Also, I noticed that the docuмent Quo Primum is not in ANY edition of Denzinger (i.e. The Sources of Catholic Dogma). Why is that so? It's simply because it is not a dogmatic docuмent but merely a disciplinary one. This is because at the time of the docuмent, 1570, there were several different kinds of masses being practiced within the Church and Pope St. Pius V permitted said masses to continue if they were practiced for more than 200 years."Why is that so" you ask? Very simply, it is because, as Cantarella often posted in her pre-sedeism days, the editor of Denzinger, the person who can change, add, or not add whatever he chooses, was the ultra modernist, Mr. Anonymous Christian theologian himself, Fr. Karl Rahner S.J.. Hopefully, no further explanation is necessary.
Therefore, the above-mentioned Council of Trent canon [promulgated in 1562-- 8 years before the docuмent Quo Primum] is not referring only to the Latin Tridentine Mass but to other masses as well. So to deny that the New Mass is licit while ignorantly believing that Quo Primum is a dogmatic docuмent is to make one "anathema" unless of course you do not accept Paul VI as a valid pope.
Canon 7 was indeed speaking of the Mass, the True Mass - not the Novus Ordo travesty, which indeed is the Great Sacrilege. (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf-44137/) They may call that thing "the mass" but that thing is NOT the Mass - and certainly it is not the Mass Trent is talking about. The new "mass" was not even invented till 400 years after this canon. That thing is not the mass anymore than the conciliar church is Catholic.I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Canon 7 is speaking of the various kinds of Catholic Masses that were being celebrated at that time. There was more than just the one Mass (i.e.The Mass of Quo Primum) being celebrated as Pope St. Pius V stated himself in Quo Primum. In fact, Pope St. Pius V permitted such Catholic Masses to continue to be celebrated if they were over 200 years old! So when you say Canon 7 is speaking only of the One True Mass, you are sadly mistaken.
Those who think the new mass' ceremonies and outward signs are *not* at least incentives to impiety, do not know what incentives to impiety even means and they need to do much more growing in the Catholic faith.
The popes' status has absolutely zero to do with the new "mass" and vise versa.
"Why is that so" you ask? Very simply, it is because, as Cantarella often posted in her pre-sedeism days, the editor of Denzinger, the person who can change, add, or not add whatever he chooses, was the ultra modernist, Mr. Anonymous Christian theologian himself, Fr. Karl Rahner S.J.. Hopefully, no further explanation is necessary.
The Mass of Quo Primum *is* the same Mass Trent mentions in Canon 7. All Pope St. Pius V did was canonize *that* Mass of Canon 7, that is, he fixed it, he made it a law, the law of Quo Primum, that the Mass of Canon 7 is permanently irrevocable. Pope St. Pius V did not concoct his own new mass, he solidified forever the celebration of the same Mass of Canon 7.
And again, the popes' status has absolutely zero to do with the new "mass". The True Mass' replacement, the "Novus Ordo Missae" is itself at least, per Quo Primum, illegal. Pope Paul VI was indeed bound by Quo Primum same as all popes, whether they choose to ignore this law or not has no bearing on their status as the pope.
I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Canon 7 is speaking of the various kinds of Catholic Masses that were being celebrated at that time. There was more than just the one Mass (i.e.The Mass of Quo Primum) being celebrated as Pope St. Pius V stated himself in Quo Primum. In fact, Pope St. Pius V permitted such Catholic Masses to continue to be celebrated if they were over 200 years old! So when you say Canon 7 is speaking only of the One True Mass, you are sadly mistaken.I won't address all your errors in your post, just this one for now. Forgetting about the 200 year exemption for the moment, simply, like the popes, bishops and priests, you too should - and are absolutely expected to - know better than this.
1 - Wrong. This canon applies to those at whom it was addressed or directed. It was addressed and directed at protestants. It was not addressed or directed at future traditional catholics keeping with the spirit of the canons author regarding liturgical orthodoxy in a time of papal contradiction. It is that simple.
I won't address all your errors in your post, just this one for now. Forgetting about the 200 year exemption for the moment, simply, like the popes, bishops and priests, you too should - and are absolutely expected to - know better than this.The quote above is excellent. But how do we answer the problem that the NO mass is what the Church "does"? And if Benedict was Pope, that his claim of the most unusual circuмstance that we have two liturgies (don't get me wrong, this makes me cringe) is reality. I've voiced this elsewhere, but is it possible the Church, like Christ, is stretched on the cross, attempting to bridge the gap to reach those who are most ignorant, in order to bring them into the fold? In order to feed the sheep in the desert? Ultimately, in order to bring them out of the desert? A last ditch effort by God to save souls destined for election, but otherwise unreachable outside?
You obviously do not know that the law of Quo Primum was written in the front of every single solitary Roman Catholic Altar Missal for 400 years prior to the NOM. In each Altar Missal, it says: "...Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches.......This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever."
So if you are still confused as to which Mass Trent is talking about, you have no excuse to wonder any longer.
At least the sedevacantists are honest about who they are. Don't you think that it is time that you should be too?I am honest, your problem is that you do not know what you're talking about, all you know is you are a sedewhateverist, so no matter what, everything has got to jive with that iniquitous position.
Nonsense. It doesn't say, "If any Protestant ...". Yours is a Modernist/relativistic explanation of this Canon. Modernists do this with every Church teaching, claim that it's got to be put into its historical context to be understood (as not saying what it actually does say). This is nothing other than a statement of the Church's disciplinary infallibility. It's THAT simple. You hem and haw for 4 paragraphs trying to explain away the implications of this Canon. Now +Williamson grants the Church's disciplinary infallibility, since it's taught by every Catholic theologian; he merely holds that the Church had not sufficiently promulgated the NOM to make it fall under the umbrella of disciplinary infallibility. I don't agree. This Canon in particular suggests otherwise, since it talks about a Mass that the Church "uses" (not has made mandatory to the exclusion of all others).Exactly.
This is the same tactic Modernists use to explain away previous condemnations of Religious Liberty for instance. "We must understand the historical context and realize that this only applies to the specific circuмstances of those the Pope had in mind with the condemnation." As soon as you hear people talking about the "historical context" of a doctrinal statement, that should raise alarm bells against Modernist interpretation.
So to deny that the New Mass is licit while ignorantly believing that Quo Primum is a dogmatic docuмent is to make one "anathema" unless of course you do not accept Paul VI as a valid pope.Agreed. If you are not a Sedevacantist you should recognize that the New Mass comes from the true Church of Christ.
Jeremiah 7:4-15[4] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=4-#x) Trust not in lying words, saying: The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, it is the temple of the Lord. [5] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=5-#x) For if you will order well your ways, and your doings: if you will execute judgement between a man and his neighbour, [6] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=6-#x) If you oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, and walk not after strange gods to your own hurt, [7] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=7-#x) I will dwell with you in this place: in the land, which I gave to your fathers from the beginning and for evermore. [8] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=8-#x) Behold you put your trust in lying words, which shall not profit you: [9] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=9-#x) To steal, to murder, to commit adultery, to swear falsely, to offer to Baalim, and to go after strange gods, which you know not. [10] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=10-#x) And you have come, and stood before me in this house, in which my name is called upon, and have said: We are delivered, because we have done all these abominations. [11] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=11-#x) Is this house then, in which my name hath been called upon, in your eyes become a den of robbers? I, I am he: I have seen it, saith the Lord. [12] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=12-#x) Go ye to my place in Silo, where my name dwelt from the beginning: and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel: [13] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=13-#x) And now, because you have done all these works, saith the Lord: and I have spoken to you rising up early, and speaking, and you have not heard: and I have called you, and you have not answered: [14] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=14-#x) I will do to this house, in which my name is called upon, and in which you trust, and to the places which I have given you and your fathers, as I did to Silo. [15] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=28&ch=7&l=15-#x) And I will cast you away from before my face, as I have cast away all your brethren, the whole seed of Ephraim.
Ver. 4. Lord. The triple repetition shews the vain confidence of the people, who blindly imagined that the temple would screen them, (C.) and that external sacrifices would suffice. But they were rejected with the temple. W.
The quote above is excellent. But how do we answer the problem that the NO mass is what the Church "does"? And if Benedict was Pope, that his claim of the most unusual circuмstance that we have two liturgies (don't get me wrong, this makes me cringe) is reality. I've voiced this elsewhere, but is it possible the Church, like Christ, is stretched on the cross, attempting to bridge the gap to reach those who are most ignorant, in order to bring them into the fold? In order to feed the sheep in the desert? Ultimately, in order to bring them out of the desert? A last ditch effort by God to save souls destined for election, but otherwise unreachable outside?We answer that the Church has enemies, those enemies, having infiltrated the Church, perpetrated the blasphemous NOM on a lethargic Catholic population, many of whom lost the faith altogether by wrongly believing they were bound in obedience to Church authorities to abandon the True Mass and all things holy and traditionally Catholic, and embrace the New "mass" and all things intrinsically diabolical that go along with it.
The Council of Trent: Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 7 (and Denzinger #954) reads: "If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."
Yes, Stubborn, canon 7 canonized all Masses up to and including the Latin Mass and that canon, believe it or not, is still in effect. Therefore, all of the faithful are still bound to this canon. This canon does not become irrelevant simply because it is included in a Council that ended hundreds of years ago. So when Pope Paul VI (the man you admittedly recognize as a "true pope") created the New Mass in 1969, all of the faithful were and are still bound to accept it under this canon. Whether you like the New Mass or whether you despise it doesn't matter.No, we are not bound to the new "mass". Quo Primum bound us to the True Mass forever. Your misunderstanding of Trent is something you will need to get over.
You are stuck on your "pope problem", as diagnosed by Fr. Cekada.Sorry, Stubborn, but I do not have a "pope problem." It is members of the SSPX and SSPX Resistance, in particular, who have a "pope problem." I recognize Pope Francis as the pope of the Roman Catholic Church. I take it you're a sedevacantist?? If so, I give you credit for being honest about who you really are even though I respectfully disagree with you.
Sorry, Stubborn, but I do not have a "pope problem." It is members of the SSPX and SSPX Resistance, in particular, who have a "pope problem." I recognize Pope Francis as the pope of the Roman Catholic Church. I take it you're a sedevacantist?? If so, I give you credit for being honest about who you really are even though I respectfully disagree with you.Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy, forever. If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.
The only way to go around that canon is to say that the Church does NOT use the Novus Ordo Mass; or that this rite is NOT an incentive to impiety....or that the authority (pope) who promulgated it was not legitimate. Basically, to hold the sedevacantist position and be right about it.
Consider the very purpose of Quo Primum. Quo Primum is the law of the Church, established by Pope St. Pius V for the very purpose of protecting Her Liturgy, forever. If we say that the law of Quo Primum is not binding even to popes, then we must admit that the Church has no way of protecting Her own Liturgy.Please do not put words into my mouth. I never said that the Church doesn't have a way of protecting her own liturgy now. I do not know how you draw that conclusion from what I have written before.
Are you trying to say the Church has no way of protecting her own liturgy now?
The only way to go around that canon is to say that the Church does NOT use the Novus Ordo Mass; or that this rite is NOT an incentive to impiety....or that the authority (pope) who promulgated it was not legitimate. Basically, to hold the sedevacantist position and be right about it.
So Stubborn, are you a sedevacantist?
We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure."For 400 years they all knew they were bound to it, even Pope Paul VI knew this - that is why he never abrogated it. He knew that he could no more abrogate it then he could abrogate any other doctrine.
If the popes believed that Quo Primum was "forever binding," then there would've been no changes whatsoever over the centuries. That's because the slightest change would violate the specific orders in paragraph #5.
So Stubborn, are you a sedevacantist?No, I pray for them.
Are you kidding? Stubborn foams at the mouth in rage at the very mention of the word sedevacantist.Thanks for the tip, Ladislaus. This is my first day here. I really don't know anybody yet but I am a Traditional Catholic who loves the Latin Mass 1,000 times more than the New Mass. I accept Pope Francis as the pope and I honestly cannot find any proof that a valid consecration does not take place during the New Mass. Therefore, I consider the New Mass valid but "barely Catholic."
However, I see the "recognize but resist" camp to be merely crypto-Sedevacantists.
How is that? MOST R&R (like the SSPX variety) affirm that they consider the V2 popes to be legitimate.Sure, what do you call people who recognize the V2 popes as the legitimate "Vicars of Christ" yet always trash-talk them and even make a living out of trash-talking them (see The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader literature)? I call them hypocrites and dishonest.
Thanks for the tip, Ladislaus. This is my first day here. I really don't know anybody yet but I am a Traditional Catholic who loves the Latin Mass 1,000 times more than the New Mass. I accept Pope Francis as the pope and I honestly cannot find any proof that a valid consecration does not take place during the New Mass. Therefore, I consider the New Mass valid but "barely Catholic."You don't regard Archbishop Lefebvre with the regard of a "cult figure" but you consider Bishop Fellay to be a "Judas Goat" for seeking reconciliation with a true, reigning pontiff of the Catholic Church?
However, I see the "recognize but resist" camp to be merely crypto-Sedevacantists. I don't mean to insult anyone. I attend an SSPX Chapel from time to time and regard Archbishop Lefebvre as a very good man but not a "cult figure" as many in the SSPX and Resistance, IMO, make him out to be.
It will be interesting to see who will be elected SSPX Superior General in July. Hopefully, + Fellay will not be chosen again. He may have fooled many SSPX faithful by signing Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis last year so that they think he's still fighting against Modernist Rome. If they're stupid, they'll elect him again and he'll reign till 2030 (36 years!) and that'll give that snake-oil salesman plenty of time to reconcile---oops---I mean surrender the SSPX to Modernist Rome.
IMO, + Fellay is the "Judas Goat" of the SSPX. Just because he got his excommunication lifted in 2009, He is now cooperating with Rome (the same group of people who "excommunicated" Archbishop Lefebvre ---the man who consecrated him a Bishop--- and who still refuse to lift his excommunication). Talk about stabbing your mentor in the back!
If it wasn't for the Archbishop, Fellay would be nothing. The FSSP might've betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre by disapproving of his 1988 episcopal consecrations, but THAT'S NOTHING compared to what the Judas Goat Fellay is doing to the memory of the wonderful Archbishop. Does anyone in the SSPX really believe that Archbishop Lefebvre would even think about joining Rome in 2018?? If the SSPX is smart, they will elect a new Superior General who will refuse any reconciliation with Rome, as was the Archbishop's wishes from 1988 until his death.
Sure, what do you call people who recognize the V2 popes as the legitimate "Vicars of Christ" yet always trash-talk them and even make a living out of trash-talking them (see The Remnant, Catholic Family News, The Fatima Crusader literature)? I call them hypocrites and dishonest.Again, I see your position of "trash-talking" Bishop Fellay to be of similar kind under the circuмstances.
The Roman Catholic Church uses the Mass of Pope St. Pius V - that is the law, that is Quo Primum.
The conciliar church uses the NOM, not the Catholic Church, the conciliar church will also self destruct at some point, the Catholic Church will stand until the end of Time, of that we are infallibly certain.
The new "mass" has proven to be an incentive to impiety almost from the first time it was ever said, and it's only gotten progressively more impious and has been the cause of the loss of faith of untold billions since then - to even suggest that Trent included or was talking about the NOM is at the very least, a gross misinterpretation of that Canon with nefarious intentions - regardless of the status of the popes.
You don't regard Archbishop Lefebvre with the regard of a "cult figure" but you consider Bishop Fellay to be a "Judas Goat" for seeking reconciliation with a true, reigning pontiff of the Catholic Church?First of all, both the SSPX leadership and faithful are actually sedevacantists (see my reasons in my previous posts) but do not have the courage to admit it so, thus, they do not consider Pope Francis a true pope. Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist himself and instructed the SSPX not to reconcile with Rome until Rome returns to the Traditional faith.
Anyway, to consider someone a "snake-oil salesman" for seeking reconciliation with a true pope seems a bit much. Seems like you're approaching the same contradiction and inconsistency you accuse some of the SSPX of there.
Is he a true pope (Francis) or not? If so, what is wrong with seeking to be in full communion with a true pope? Wouldn't it depend on the conditions attached? Bishop Fellay has not agreed to any conditions, so it seems you're condemning him for the effort, which, again, is simply reconciliation and full communion with someone with whom rejection of communion would be schism.
Am I missing something as to your position? Because it seems inconsistent itself.
Again, I see your position of "trash-talking" Bishop Fellay to be of similar kind under the circuмstances.Wrong. Bishop Fellay is not the "Vicar of Christ" and therefore does not even come close to garnering such respect and reverence. At best he is a smarmy, shifty, Superior General to whom the SSPX owes no obedience. The SSPX is united under the "faith" and not under any "superior general." The Superior General is there for the SSPX faithful, not vice versa. It's a shame most SSPX people don't know this even yet.
First of all, both the SSPX leadership and faithful are actually sedevacantists (see my reasons in my previous posts) but do not have the courage to admit it so, thus, they do not consider Pope Francis a true pope. Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist himself and instructed the SSPX not to reconcile with Rome until Rome returns to the Traditional faith.The ground you asserted as a basis for your hypocrisy charge was rejection of the NO as invalid while conceding that the V2 popes who "used" it were true popes. Has Bishop Fellay claimed the NO invalid? If not, your "basis" doesn't apply to him. The basis of the allegation gone, why do you claim he is an "actually sedevacantist" hypocrite?
Wait a minute. Those who say that the NO is "invalid" but say that the V2 popes who "use" the NO Mass are true popes are indeed intellectually inconsistent - we agree on that. But you also noted before that Bishop Williamson doesn't consider the NO invalid, so apparently he, for one, is not inconsistent in that regard.
If +Fellay has not agreed to any conditions, then why has he been negotiating with Rome for most of his 2nd term as Superior General against the explicit wishes of his mentor?Seriously? Negotiating means one has already agreed to conditions? This is nonsense.
Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Today at 06:03:43 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/is-the-sspxsspx-resistance-crypto-sedevacantist/msg600778/#msg600778)So you can only "trash talk" a Vicar of Christ? Seriously?QuoteAgain, I see your position of "trash-talking" Bishop Fellay to be of similar kind under the circuмstances.
Wrong. Bishop Fellay is not the "Vicar of Christ" and therefore does not even come close to garnering such respect and reverence. At best he is a smarmy, shifty, Superior General to whom the SSPX owes no obedience. The SSPX is united under the "faith" and not under any "superior general." The Superior General is there for the SSPX faithful, not vice versa. It's a shame most SSPX people don't know this even yet.
In that pathetic SSPX Conference from April 2013 (Resistance to What?), some poor soul actually asked the SSPX clergy if he was allowed to ask about something pertaining to his own society! A grown man asking permission like a little boy to a group of people whom he helps support! It's sad really. Hopefully, if the SSPX has any conviction or guts left in it, it will get rid of + Fellay and elect a new Superior General who will tell Rome to "go to hell" and start to do things their own way once again. :applause:
So you can only "trash talk" a Vicar of Christ? Seriously?No, you give your respect and reverence to the Vicar of Christ. Bishop Fellay is nothing compared to a Pope....nothing.
http://www.therecusant.com/menz-letter-to-3-bishops (Here, the other 3 SSPX Bishops question the motives of Judas Goat Fellay
Tell us, what are the conditions Bishop Fellay has agreed to? And prove it.
I suggest you withdraw your "trash talking" about Bishop Fellay. It's slanderous and without any foundation; at least you've shown none.
http://www.therecusant.com/menz-letter-to-3-bishops (Here, the other 3 SSPX Bishops question the motives of Judas Goat FellayOk. Now you are actually referring to something. Thank you.
http://www.therecusant.com/doctrinalpreamble-15apr2012 (Here's the first concession he was dying to make with Rome)
These docuмents had caused so much of a stir among the SSPX faithful that in April 2013, the SSPX had to have that pathetic "Resistance to What" conference where one man pathetically asked if he was allowed to ask them a question.
Ok. Now you are actually referring to something. Thank you.Because the Archbishop correctly realized that it would be an absolutely wrong move on the part of the Society to reconcile with Rome in 1988. That's why he took back his initials on the May 5, 1988 Protocol and went ahead with the consecrations on June 30, 1988 - not even waiting until the date given to him by Rome: August 15, 1988. From then on, the Archbishop vowed never again communicate with Rome unless they first returned to Tradition. This has been verified countless times over the years by people who had been very close the Archbishop during these final years of his life.
So what's your problem with Bishop Fellay's preamble? And did you compare it with the Archbishop's protocol of agreement? Just click the box up in the righthand corner.
How is Bishop Fellay a "Judas Goat" and the Archbishop with his protocol not?
With that being said, why would + Fellay even think about reconciling with this Rome?Because, according to you, me and Bishop Fellay, he's the true pope?
Hank,Firstly, I do not believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is an incentive to impiety. I recognize it as both valid and licit. The SSPX, however, recognizes the New Mass as valid but illicit. So I am not in a situation of what you would call "anathema sit" but I would say that the SSPX is in such a situation. Even this letter explains the typical double-talk of Judas Goat Fellay:
Because, according to you, me and Bishop Fellay, he's the true pope?
Think about it. You say the charge that the NO is an incentive to impiety contradicts Catholic dogma if the V2 popes who use it are popes, and to say both (the NO is an incentive to impiety and the popes who use it are true popes) leaves one in a contradiction and in a situation of "anathema sit." Do you not see that saying that being in full communion with a true pope makes one a Judas Goat is an error of the same order?
We are simply talking about "full communion," not agreeing to any "errors," material "heresies," etc.
You are essentially saying that being in "full communion" with a true pope is evil, impious, etc. That is a violation of Catholic faith and belief of the same order (i.e., a contradiction) as saying a Mass used by legitimate popes is an "incentive to impiety" or "intrinsically evil."
You hold to a true intellectual analysis as to the NO Mass under true popes, and then lose your reason to emotion when it comes to Bishop Fellay seeking "full communion" with a true pope.
If there are indeed two separate churches, the Conciliar Church on one hand; and the Catholic Church on the other; and we all agree that Francis is the current Pope of the Conciliar Church; then who is the current Pope of the Catholic Church?
(This is a question for R&R)
In your opinion, is the conciliar church a non-Catholic church?
First of all cannons are not infallible, otherwise all kneeling on Sunday, and the Pope (acting outside of his patriarchal jurisdiction) would be in violation of Nicea and Ephesus..
While one may argue (as do I) that the New Mass is "barely Catholic" and therefore 1,000 times worse than the Traditional Latin Mass, I am forced to admit that a valid consecration still occurs during that rite.
Strange wording! Parapraxis? In the context of your usage here "worse than" means that the Traditional Latin Mass is bad, but that it is not as bad as the New Mass. Conversely, if you were to have said the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 better than the New Mass it would mean that the New Mass is good.You are 100% correct! I meant to say that the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 times better than the New Mass. Thank you very much for correcting my grammatical error.
You are 100% correct! I meant to say that the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 times better than the New Mass. Thank you very much for correcting my grammatical error.Apparently, you didn't understand my full message. Please read this part again: " Conversely, if you were to have said the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 better than the New Mass it would mean that the New Mass is good. The New Mass, however, is clearly evil (i.e., it is horribly deformed and lacking in the essential good that should be present).
Apparently, you didn't understand my full message. Please read this part again: " Conversely, if you were to have said the Traditional Latin Mass is 1,000 better than the New Mass it would mean that the New Mass is good. The New Mass, however, is clearly evil (i.e., it is horribly deformed and lacking in the essential good that should be present).Sorry, I do not believe that the New Mass is clearly evil because a valid consecration (i.e. transubstantiation) occurs during the Mass. I cannot find any evidence to the contrary, even in the SSPX's well-researched and argued book "The Problem of the Liturgical Reform."
Firstly, I do not believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is an incentive to impiety. I recognize it as both valid and licit. The SSPX, however, recognizes the New Mass as valid but illicit.You really need to stop abusing that canon. The conciliar church is not the "official church". Therefore it is not synonymous with "the catholic church" expressed in the canon. You are erroneously applying the canon to your detriment. The position of +wiliamson/resistance is the best. It is illicit with exceptions. Because, exceptions do not need to be defined case by case. It is called epikeia.
Sorry, I do not believe that the New Mass is clearly evil because a valid consecration (i.e. transubstantiation) occurs during the Mass. I cannot find any evidence to the contrary, even in the SSPX's well-researched and argued book "The Problem of the Liturgical Reform."Canon hesse argued that the usa translation "for you and for all" was an invalidating factor. That casts a doubt on nearly 40 years of usa liturgies. So, there is plenty of evidence. And, it cannot be said that a valid consecration occurs at every mass. It may not even be licit to grant the benefit of the doubt linguistically. It should be said, the new mass "can" be valid; not the new mass "is" valid. Ends do not justify the means. And, likewise, the ends(the works/fruits) of the novus ordo mass have not justified the means(papal promulgation and theoretical legitimacy) of the new mass. So, don't form your judgement solely from papal approval/the letter of the law.
Canon hesse argued that the usa translation "for you and for all" was an invalidating factor.
THE ANAPHORA OF ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST:
"This is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to ALL that believe in him forever and ever.”
THE ANAPHORA OF ST. MARK THE EVANGELIST:
“This is my blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life.”
Sorry, I do not believe that the New Mass is clearly evil because a valid consecration (i.e. transubstantiation) occurs during the Mass. I cannot find any evidence to the contrary, even in the SSPX's well-researched and argued book "The Problem of the Liturgical Reform."And I am sorry that you "do not believe that the New Mass is clearly evil because a valid consecration (i.e. transubstantiation) occurs during the Mass." Human conception may take place in a whore house as the result of mortal sin committed by two individuals. That very real human conception does not make the mutual fornication or the whore house where it takes place good. They remain evil. Can you not see that?
And I am sorry that you "do not believe that the New Mass is clearly evil because a valid consecration (i.e. transubstantiation) occurs during the Mass." Human conception may take place in a whore house as the result of mortal sin committed by two individuals....sacrilege is evil and its explanation of how the Novus Ordo Mass (i.e., the New Mass) is sacrilegious and therefore evil. If you do not believe that the New Mass is sacrilegious please present a counter argument to what is stated in the article.Of course if something is sacrilegious it is evil. However, if you, along with the SSPX (& other R&R groups) believe that the Mass celebrated by each and every one of your popes since 1969 is sacrilegious and evil, then how can you call such people "Vicars of Christ?"
If the NOM is indeed invalid, it would be on account of having being promulgated by a false Pope
You really need to stop abusing that canon. The conciliar church is not the "official church".PG's comment is also either a result of deliberate dishonesty or massive ignorance. A Catholic cannot abuse a canon. Either one obeys it or one doesn't. Also, there is only one Church....not an "official church" and an "unofficial church" or a church that is half and half or two-thirds either way. Such thinking is akin to schismatic thinking.
Pope Francis is the head of both churches - conciliar and Catholic
http://www.dominicansavrille.us/is-there-a-conciliar-church/
Also, there is only one Church....not an "official church" and an "unofficial church" or a church that is half and half or two-thirds either way. Such thinking is akin to schismatic thinking.
I'm trying to picture Siamese twins with two bodies and yet one head.
Welcome to sedeprivationism. Only way this could be the case is if you make some kind of formal distinction.
Francis is materially head of the Catholic Church while formally the head of the Conciliar.
I also wonder: if Pope Benedict XVI declared the New Mass and the Old mass were two forms of the same rite in his motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм, unless someone else is Pope, or there is no Pope, why shouldn't those who believe Benedict was a true Pope submit to BXVI? Or admit--that they are sedevacantist.Happenby, your above comment is both honest and consistent with logical thinking. Unfortunately, honesty and or consistency is something that the SSPX (and other like-minded groups) are deliberately avoiding.
Happenby, your above comment is both honest and consistent with logical thinking. Unfortunately, honesty and or consistency is something that the SSPX (and other like-minded groups) are deliberately avoiding.
So....if we don't obey everything that the conciliar popes have taught - it means that we are sedevacantists - and we should admit therefore to it? That's what the Sedes believe, too. So you're in good company there.Meg, I am not saying that the SSPX and other R&R groups are wrong for "not obeying everything that the conciliar popes have taught," I am saying that the SSPX and other R&R groups are wrong for "not accepting the New Mass as licit."
Of course if something is sacrilegious it is evil. However, if you, along with the SSPX (& other R&R groups) believe that the Mass celebrated by each and every one of your popes since 1969 is sacrilegious and evil, then how can you call such people "Vicars of Christ?"I recommend instead of starting tired politicized threads laces with sufficient insult to raise suspicion turning R&R members off to discussion, you instead read all of the past discussions generally pertaining to your questions/interests. Also, you will avoid attracting the many crypto vacantists and feeneyites who are members, who can quickly spot an amateur and an easy meal. Militant ecclesia dei types(you) may be on the shortest fuse with matthew(the moderator) here, so I recommend you be polite if you have any questions, and occupy yourself with the forum archives.
So....if we don't obey everything that the conciliar popes have taught - it means that we are sedevacantists - and we should admit therefore to it? That's what the Sedes believe, too. So you're in good company there.There's a big difference in accepting what recent popes have taught regarding the NO, and leaving Tradition. We don't have to exit Tradition in order to attend the NO, nor leave Tradition because we recognize the NO is somehow Catholic. However, its a mighty big leap to insist the NO is not a true Mass when Popes teach otherwise. No, we don't have to believe everything a Pope says. But we do have to believe what Popes teach and what the Church practices. Not even ++Lefevbre said the NO was invalid. At the very least, Pope BXVI says its legit. What do we do with that? My take is this: Shrug, pray and do sacrifice until the spirit of the false Church held within the hearts of many is driven from Christendom. Prayer and sacrifice are not very glamorous, but remain the only answers to our woes. If Catholics would pipe down and purpose to excel in these powerful weapons, we'd be sure to conquer the lies and heresies too tightly woven to untangle otherwise.
Both the progressives and the sedes believe in blind loyalty to popes.
Did you by any chance wander in here from the OnePeterFive blog?
Meg, I am not saying that the SSPX and other R&R groups are wrong for "not obeying everything that the conciliar popes have taught," I am saying that the SSPX and other R&R groups are wrong for "not accepting the New Mass as licit."
We are not talking about disobeying something petty, we are talking about disobeying a dogmatic canon of the Catholic Church concerning the MASS, the most important religious activity in Catholicism.
Do you revere and respect any conciliar popes whom you claim to be the "Vicars of Christ on Earth?" Is there anything that you obey which the conciliar popes have taught that has not already been taught by pre-conciliar popes? If not, then how can you, in good faith and conscience, consider these men to be the Vicars of Christ on Earth?
its a mighty big leap to insist the NO is not a true Mass when Popes teach otherwise. No, we don't have to believe everything a Pope says. But we do have to believe what Popes teach and what the Church practices.Exactly.
The new mass is valid but illicit. That's what +ABL taught, and it makes sense to me....There is not much of an opportunity to obey good rules that the conciliar Popes have instituted, and I can't really think of what those might be.... ...Just because we distance ourselves from a mentality ill father, this doesn't mean that he isn't still our father.1. So you follow Archbishop Lefebvre, who wrote "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics," and yet was (albeit a very good man) a very confused Catholic himself. He is not an oracle, a saint, and he never possessed more authority than the popes. However, I heard many SSPX people refer to him as a "Saint." Now the SSPX Resistance claims to be carrying on in the true tradition and spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre...both organizations therefore appear to be rising the Archbishop up to a "cult figure."
I recommend instead of starting tired politicized threads laces with sufficient insult to raise suspicion turning R&R members off to discussion, you instead read all of the past discussions generally pertaining to your questions/interests. Also, you will avoid attracting the many crypto vacantists and feeneyites who are members, who can quickly spot an amateur and an easy meal. Militant ecclesia dei types(you) may be on the shortest fuse with matthew(the moderator) here, so I recommend you be polite if you have any questions, and occupy yourself with the forum archives.PG, I am not being impolite to anyone. My comments have not been "laced with insults" and, if you took offense to anything that I have said, then I sincerely apologize.
The new mass is valid but illicit. That's what +ABL taught, and it makes sense to me. It's a schismatic mass. That doesn't mean that the masses aren't valid.
Exactly.
1. So you follow Archbishop Lefebvre, who wrote "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics," and yet was (albeit a very good man) a very confused Catholic himself. He is not an oracle, a saint, and he never possessed more authority than the popes. However, I heard many SSPX people refer to him as a "Saint." Now the SSPX Resistance claims to be carrying on in the true tradition and spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre...both organizations therefore appear to be rising the Archbishop up to a "cult figure."
2. I have yet to find one SSPX (or R&R) adherent who can state one. I expected such a response.
3. You consider not only this pope but all post-conciliar popes who celebrate the New Mass as "mentally ill fathers"....very interesting. So, the pope is mentally ill. Are all of the cardinals in Rome also mentally ill? Is the entire Novus Ordo church hierarchy mentally ill?
Is the entire Novus Ordo church hierarchy mentally ill?
Why are you so focused on the new mass? Are you are priest in the conciliar church?Firstly, I am neither a priest in the conciliar church nor in the traditional church (to use your terminology).
Firstly, I am neither a priest in the conciliar church nor in the traditional church (to use your terminology).
Secondly, my concerns are related to any issues concerning the Mass period (whether it be the Latin Mass or Novus Ordo Mass) because, as we all know, the Mass is the most important religious activity in Catholicism. In my opinion, we as Catholics should be focused on any and all aspects of what is considered a "mass."
Thirdly, can you please explain to me how the current Vicar of Christ on Earth is "mentally ill" along with all of the Novus Ordo cardinals in Rome and the rest of the Novus Ordo Church hierarchy?
Have you ever heard of the term, "modernism?" Do you know what it is?Yes, I am absolutely familiar with the term. I own and recommend the book "The Popes Against Modern Errors" (published by TAN Books) which contains 16 papal docuмents condemning Modernism (such as the famous ones by Pope St. Pius X, etc.). I have also purchased other papal encyclicals from Angelus Press concerning Modernism that were not included in the aforementioned book.
The new mass is valid but illicit. That's what +ABL taught, and it makes sense to me. It's a schismatic mass. That doesn't mean that the masses aren't valid. The Eastern Orthodox masses are valid too. But illicit.You say the mass is valid but illicit because that's what +ABL taught and it makes sense to you. Ok. I was taught the same thing. But where does liceity come from? Answer: The hierarchy/Pope/Church. So, upon reexamination two things stand out: Saying the mass is illicit means
I don't condemn people for attending the New Mass, even though that's what Resistance-type trads often do. However, the new mass has severe flaws. It was not actually promulgated according to the accepted rules of the Church (the conciliar church is another matter). The new mass is a sad made-up thing, meant to appease protestants and lukewarm Catholics by watering down the liturgy and making it all in the vernacular, so that everything that is said at the altar is understood by the faithful, and also so that they can "participate."
Masses in the Catholic Church are not supposed to be invented by a committee, as the new mass was. That's not how our religion has ever worked. It is, however, how the conciliar church works. The conciliar church has its new institutions: new code of canon law, new liturgy, new formula for canonizing supposed saints. You get the drift.
We do not have to adhere to the New Church as far as it has left the timeless traditions and teachings of the Popes before the Council. There is not much of an opportunity to obey good rules that the conciliar Popes have instituted, and I can't really think of what those might be. We are obliged to maintain our Catholic faith and we can reject novelties such as the new mass. That doesn't mean that we have to reject those who attend the new mass, or that we reject the pope. Just because we distance ourselves from a mentality ill father, this doesn't mean that he isn't still our father.
Yes, I am absolutely familiar with the term. I own and recommend the book "The Popes Against Modern Errors" (published by TAN Books) which contains 16 papal docuмents condemning Modernism (such as the famous ones by Pope St. Pius X, etc.). I have also purchased other papal encyclicals from Angelus Press concerning Modernism that were not included in the aforementioned book.I never said that the popes of the last 50 years have been mentally ill. If you want to have a reasonable debate, then you need to be honest.
However, despite the indisputable fact that Modernism has greatly swept into the post-Vatican II Church and especially into the Mass (as well docuмented in the SSPX book "The Problem of Liturgical Reform", another book which I own and recommend), the New Mass itself has not been proven to contain an "invalid consecration" from taking place. Luke 22:19 states what is required for a "valid consecration" [i.e. transubstantiation] and such a valid consecration remains present in the New Mass.
Now to say that the Latin Mass is 1,000,000 times better than the New Mass is one thing (a position which I personally hold) but to go so far as to say that all of the popes for the last 50 + years are "mentally ill" because they celebrate the New Mass, IMO, is a false and extreme statement that will lead many Traditional Catholics down the road to sedevacantism.
When you look at the complete history of the SSPX, you see that most of the Traditional clergy who have departed from the SSPX over the years (whether through expulsion or otherwise) have also become sedevacantists. Even Archbishop Lefebvre himself had said many things that can be attributed to the sedevacantist position. All I am saying is that such constant and extreme disdain for the popes, as well for the NO hierarchy, will most likely lead SSPX adherents to sedevacantism (a position which personally have never held and will never hold). I believe this will happen as soon as SSPX reconciles with Rome.
Unfortunately, it's sad situation. We will have to wait and see what happens.
You say the mass is valid but illicit because that's what +ABL taught and it makes sense to you. Ok. I was taught the same thing. But where does liceity come from? Answer: The hierarchy/Pope/Church. So, upon reexamination two things stand out: Saying the mass is illicit means
1. We place trust in +ABL and not the Pope (at least 2 Popes, up to 6 or 7).
2. That the Popes made the mistake pretending liceity, vs. +ABL's assessment.
3. That, at least in practice, the Church has also made a mistake.
The Pope was given the greater authority and +ABL not. Our consciences then say, "its about the Faith" so we believe +ABL. Yea, but we don't have to deny that +ABL saved the Latin Mass if we say his position on liceity was off, because we cannot be absolutely sure his position on liceity is correct. The good Archbishop is not infallible. However, saying +ABL's position on liceity is true, we automatically deny the Popes. Not good. I think we can wonder about liceity, even validity, but we can't know. Taking this position does not deny that moderns made their way in and jacked things up--they did. But we also don't have to discard Popes, or their God-given authority in order to know how to eliminate sin, do penance and pray, trust Christ's Mercy etc, things that will gain us heaven. This position continues to recognize that the most recent Popes were infected with modernism. But, that's on them and those that run with it. Ultimately, there is a safeguard that teaches the Pope/Church are infallible. Why does that suddenly no longer apply? Because we know better? The Church also teaches, what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. In order for these protections to remain true, it appears to me at least, that the Church was stretched to Her limits, not beyond. Evil prelates simply capitalized on it better than Catholics resisted because Catholics ran away, despaired, divided, separated but did not come together in prayer. <----That's the problem.
From this position, the NO very well could have been permitted by God for reasons we don't understand. Was it a good thing? I'm tempted to say no, but have to ask: Is it bringing people into the Church? I'd say yes, which is definitely a good thing because God can reach those inside the Church by their reception of the Holy Eucharist, and ultimately correct them, yes, even root out the modernism they imbibe! As dangerous as modernism is, it is not more powerful than Jesus Christ. Isn't God doing the same for traditionals? We can be sure God does not do the same for those outside the Church. This position doesn't have to automatically accept even one iota of modernism, it merely submits, specifically, to what it does not have the authority to deny. This position brings hope too, because while our Church is in mortal battle, it is edifying to realize that many more souls who reside within the confines of our Church, the hope for salvation, if they permit Jesus to guide them in spite of the lies and heresies that surround them, and if we pray for them, loving them as our own body.
Yes, the new mass could have been permitted by God, by His permissive will. Just as the horrible council was allowed, and the bad conciliar popes. That's one reason why I could never be a sede. God has allowed these things to happen for a reason. We still have to keep our faith, and if possible, our charity.Thumbs up is mine, Meg.
Thumbs up is mine, Meg.
I never said that the popes of the last 50 years have been mentally ill. If you want to have a reasonable debate, then you need to be honest.I apologize and I agree with you that the Resistance will unfortunately drift toward sedevacantism sooner or later.
I said if our father is mentally ill, then we can distance ourselves from him.
I apologize and I agree with you that the Resistance will unfortunately drift toward sedevacantism sooner or later.
When klasG4e says: " Human conception may take place in a whore house as the result of mortal sin committed by two individuals" in order to compare the new Mass with the old, he is not only comparing apples and oranges, but assuming a seat greater than the Pope's to express a most disturbing analogy. Christ in the Eucharist is the center of our Faith, of the Church, of our human existence, so if He is Present at the NO Masses, His Presence is not only not evil, but a supreme good. There is no such thing as a bastard Christ, as the comparison so rudely suggests.
I apologize and I agree with you that the Resistance will unfortunately drift toward sedevacantism sooner or later.You couldn't be more wrong. +Faure is staunchly against sedevacantism, removing himself from a prior resistance organization due to the fact that it was sympathetic to vacantism. +Aquinas is a exemplary benedictine with a very sound mind who has zero sympathies towards vacantism, very much a rock in the resistance. +Williamson has in word expressed his desire to work with them, however himself being very sedeplenist to a degree that has frightened off many a vacantist. That may make him the best of the bunch for us plenists, +Williamson wears the smiley face when the vacantists are around, trying to lure them in. Vacantists probably dislike +williamson the most. And, +Zendejas is very much in the same boat. The resistance is not at all going vacantist. The resistance will simply reap all the harvest that the sspx is to stupid and fat on krah $ to reap. The sspx has been and is giving up the whole lot for the resistance to come in and take the pickings.
Happenby, I can understand how you could be scandalized by what I said. I think there was a time when I would have been as well. However, I am afraid you are placing an erroneous and gross interpretation on what I said. Your reference to "apples and oranges" is a rhetorical distraction, whether intended or not. Nor am I "assuming a seat greater than the Pope's to express a most disturbing analogy," although granted -- the analogy is quite disturbing as I most definitely wanted it to be.
Please recall that the Mass is a ritual. It is not, nor will it ever be synonymous with the Blessed Sacrament, the Eucharist (100% holy). Being 100% holy Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) is obviously deserving of being treated in a most holy and reverential way, hence down through the ages Holy Mother Church has preserved for us the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass via the traditional Latin Ritual.
Of course, there is no such thing as a bastard Christ. For you to say that my comparison of a bastard child conceived by fornication "rudely suggests" such is beyond the pale. That a child is given the status of bastard due to the circuмstances of its conception in no way infringes or changes in any way the inherent sacredness of the human life and of the human being conceived. The condemnation of the evil of fornication in bringing about the life of the child does not attach to the inherent nature of the child. If the infant receives a valid Christian Baptism it is a pure soul, perhaps far too beautiful for ordinary human contemplation. Nevertheless the infant is still legitimately referred to as illegitimate and hence a bastard. The Baptism in and of itself changes nothing in that regard.
If transubstantiation takes places in a Novus Ordo Mass the bread and wine become the infinitely holy Body, Bread, Soul and Divinity of Christ. That is not at issue here. What is at issue is the bastardized rite of the Novus Ordo Mass. That Christ may possibly become present in the bastardized Novus Ordo Mass does not change the bastardized nature of the Novus Ordo Mass. It remains a sacrilegious (and hence evil) rite. At the same time the Holy Ghost has preserved the holy integrity of the Church's doctrine by never allowing the Church's Magisterium to strictly mandate under penalty of sin the attendance of the faithful at this sacrilegious rite.
If you can bear it listen to some of the wise and courageous words of the great and saintly Abp. Marcel Lefebvre:
"It is precisely because this union desired by the liberals, between the Church and the Revolution and subversion, is an adulterous union, only of this adulterous union can come only bastards! And who are these bastards These are our rites, the laugh of the new Mass is a bastard ritual! The sacraments are bastard sacraments: we do not know whether these sacraments give grace or do not give it. " See: Sermon of August 29, 1976 in Lille, in Ecône, pulpit of truth (Iris, 2015), pp. 997-998.
"Let us immediately destroy this absurd idea: if the new Mass is valid, we can participate in it. The Church has always forbidden to attend the masses of schismatics and heretics, even if they are valid. It is evident that we can not participate in sacrilegious masses, nor in masses that place our faith in danger. " See the Mass of the Almighty, Clovis, 2006, p. 391.
"Your perplexity then perhaps takes the following form: can I attend a Sacrilegious Mass, but which is valid, if there is no other, and to satisfy the Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses can not be the object of an obligation; We must also apply to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or assistance in a perilous action for the faith or possibly sacrilege. The new mass, even if it is said with piety and respect for liturgical norms, falls under the same reservations since it is imbued with a Protestant spirit. " Open letter to perplexed Catholics, Albin Michel, 1985, pp. 42-43.