Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I just want to briefly mention that the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (if that's what you mean by R&R), does not do violence to Catholic theology. How many sedes were around at the Vll Council? What did they do then to try to stop the progressives from gaining ground there? They did absolutely nothing. They only came on the scene after +ABL did all of the hard work of trying to speak out against the Council's progressive agenda, and then did what he could to keep the TLM and tradition alive.

Sedes are just hangers-on, who have done nothing on their own, except whine and complain, and attack the Resistance.

Meg, how could there have been "sedevacantists" at the false council?

The sede vacante argument didn't even come up until AFTER the false council and AFTER Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer started pointing out all of the errors. 

Not to mention the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself questioned the legitimacy of Montini...
  
2
A pope's commentary on a law is not a law.

You were citing his intentions before.  This is not a "commentary", it's an explanation of his intentions.  HE was the one who issued said law.  It's not like he was commenting on some law put in place by John XXIII.
3
Quote
Paul VI:  "The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful."

A pope's commentary on a law is not a law.
4
Quote
Here we have it in the man's own words.  So you're basically finished with this.
A pope's commentary on a law is not a law.  What does the law actually say?  It obligates no one.  Quo Primum is still in effect and has multiple obligations.  As the Constitution outweighs a state law or a state law outweighs a local ordinance, so a binding law outweighs a non-binding one.

In theory, Pope Paul VI had all the authority in the world to change or revoke Quo Primum, but he did not.  Go read his 'apostolic consitution'.  All he did was issue a new missal.  It was not imposed on anyone at all, nor did he even use his apostolic authority to issue it, but he only referenced the 'council's authority'  (so it's debatable if it's even lawful, because a council cannot issue anything, because it's not a person.)  But assuming it's lawful, it's another legal mindgame.

If there was any question as to what Paul VI did, Benedict cleared the matter once and for all in his legal document, the "motu".
5
For all his heresy, Paul VI was in this more orthodox than the proponents of R&R:

Quote
It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith!  As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith… 
6
The new mass was not binding on anyone, neither from the wording of Paul VI's law, nor was it even mentioned at V2.  Pope Benedict cleared up the legal confusion when he stated in his "motu" that Quo Primum was not changed or revoked and is still in effect.  Therefore, Quo Primum forbids the new mass and COMMANDS the old.  This is beyond question, is a legal certainty and a moral obligation - with no ifs, ands or buts.

Paul VI:  "The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful."
7
You keep posting this nonsense and it's not even remotely true, Pax.  

Your pope, Paul VI addresses the binding issue of the false council, and the binding issue of his bastard mass in an address from 1976...an address dealing with Archbishop Lefebvre.  

"Pope" Montini says Vatican II is binding...c'mon man, it doesn't get any more clear.    

The man you consider the Roman Pontiff says that his mass was promulgated to take the place of the old!!  

I suppose you'll say - "It depends on how you define 'promulgate'".  

Yes, Pax, you've claimed that the man who approved Vatican II never intended it to be binding, and that he never intended the New Mass to be binding.  Here we have it in the man's own words.  So you're basically finished with this.
8
The new mass was not binding on anyone, neither from the wording of Paul VI's law, nor was it even mentioned at V2.  Pope Benedict cleared up the legal confusion when he stated in his "motu" that Quo Primum was not changed or revoked and is still in effect.  Therefore, Quo Primum forbids the new mass and COMMANDS the old.  This is beyond question, is a legal certainty and a moral obligation - with no ifs, ands or buts.
9
It can be argued that V2 was not grave since there was no obligation.  It's errors can lead to grave heresies, but technically, they do not.  This is the diabolical disorientation and cleverness of satan!  The heretical interpretation of V2, however, is imposed as an obligation BY THE BISHOPS and therefore the matter is grave.  This is the 'emergency situation' spoken of in canon law which allows priests to provide the sacraments.

The second matter which is grave is related to the new mass, which OFFICIALLY is NOT obligatory, but again, THE BISHOPS say otherwise, in contradiction to Pope Paul, JPII and Benedict and in violation of Quo Primum.  Such an obligation FROM THE BISHOPS to attend the indult and accept the new mass is THE ISSUE, and we cannot be forced to commit sin and attend the illicit, probably invalid, and definitely immoral new mass.

If the issue is only V2, and there was no new mass, then yes, we could all work with the 'hermeneutic of continuity' experiment.  But the issue of the mass IS KEY.  The new mass is illegal and it is illegally imposed by THE BISHOPS so we must resist and we can because the law is on our side.

You keep posting this nonsense and it's not even remotely true, Pax.  

Your pope, Paul VI addresses the binding issue of the false council, and the binding issue of his bastard mass in an address from 1976...an address dealing with Archbishop Lefebvre.  


Quote
Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976

“And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
    “ It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?  For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience.  And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions.  What traditions?  It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith!  As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…
  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 for, with authorization of the Ordinary, the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo [without people].  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…
     “We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)


Credit to MHFM for the quote

"Pope" Montini says Vatican II is binding...c'mon man, it doesn't get any more clear.    

The man you consider the Roman Pontiff says that his mass was promulgated to take the place of the old!!  

I suppose you'll say - "It depends on how you define 'promulgate'".  
10
As you said a few posts ago, the R&R position does too much violence to theology.  

I just want to briefly mention that the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (if that's what you mean by R&R), does not do violence to Catholic theology. How many sedes were around at the Vll Council? What did they do then to try to stop the progressives from gaining ground there? They did absolutely nothing. They only came on the scene after +ABL did all of the hard work of trying to speak out against the Council's progressive agenda, and then did what he could to keep the TLM and tradition alive.

Sedes are just hangers-on, who have done nothing on their own, except whine and complain, and attack the Resistance. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10