Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine  (Read 4565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 48042
  • Reputation: +28378/-5309
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
« Reply #45 on: October 26, 2019, 07:03:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Even if the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil, receiving Holy Communion could represent a material, rather than formal, participation in the evil.  Material participation in evil can be permitted based on various circuмstances.  So, in a grave situation, such as danger of death, I do not see how it would be illicit to receive a doubtfully-valid Holy Communion that resulted from a Novus Ordo consecration.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #46 on: October 26, 2019, 07:39:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My contention is that the NOM is intrinsically evil only in the scholastic/philosophical sense of lacking something normal to its nature (eg., an offertory, or a man with one arm, etc.), but not in the moral sense.

    It is in this sense that the SSPX and allied groups have taught the intrinsic evil of the new Mass.

    Were this not true, then one would be at a loss to explain how Lefebvre said grace could pass to one who, allegedly, would be committing an intrinsically evil moral act (which by definition would mean the recipient would not be well-disposed, having erected the obex gratiae of insincerity to block the transmission of grace).

    One would also be at a loss to explain how Lefebvre could say in 1980/1981 tgat the faithful could fulfill their Sunday obligation at the NOM, if in doing so, they were committing an intrinsically evil moral act (which by definition is exactly contradictory to the precept of sanctifying the Lord’s day).

    Finally, we would be forced to acknowledge the very grave sins and unreliable leadership of an Archbishop Lefebvre who taught and permitted these allegedly intrinsically evil moral acts.

    In other words, it is nonsense to claim as the Hewkonian/Pfeifferian’s do, that attending the NOM is an intrinsically evil moral act.

    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13165
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #47 on: October 26, 2019, 10:50:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, we're discussing Holy Communion from a liturgically sacrilegious service, not Confession.  If you want to discuss the analogous confession scenario it is this:
    .
    You ask a priest to hear your confession tomorrow and he says “Yes, I’ll hear your confession.  Meet me at the health club at noon tomorrow and we can sit by the pool drinking beers while I forgive you your sins.”  Would you go to confession in this scenario?
    .
    This gravely immoral, blasphemously scandalous situation is a mockery of the sacrament, yet it doesn’t come close to the abomination of the new mass, and thus all Holy Communions from this utter blasphemy are tainted.  
    .
    Such “grace” received at such services is not sanctifying grace but only actual grace, coming from the “well disposed” individual’s piety and Faith.  The sacrament itself is doubtful, while the mass is certainly immoral.  No sanctifying grace can come from an immoral mass, nor from a confession gotten poolside while drinking beers.  To say otherwise is ridiculous.  

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #48 on: October 26, 2019, 10:55:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, we're discussing Holy Communion from a liturgically sacrilegious service, not Confession.  If you want to discuss the analogous confession scenario it is this:
    .
    You ask a priest to hear your confession tomorrow and he says “Yes, I’ll hear your confession.  Meet me at the health club at noon tomorrow and we can sit by the pool drinking beers while I forgive you your sins.”  Would you go to confession in this scenario?
    .
    This gravely immoral, blasphemously scandalous situation is a mockery of the sacrament, yet it doesn’t come close to the abomination of the new mass, and thus all Holy Communions from this utter blasphemy are tainted.  
    .
    Such “grace” received at such services is not sanctifying grace but only actual grace, coming from the “well disposed” individual’s piety and Faith.  The sacrament itself is doubtful, while the mass is certainly immoral.  No sanctifying grace can come from an immoral mass, nor from a confession gotten poolside while drinking beers.  To say otherwise is ridiculous.  
    Please reread (or read for the first time) my post just before yours above.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13165
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #49 on: October 26, 2019, 11:00:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    So, in a grave situation, such as danger of death, I do not see how it would be illicit to receive a doubtfully-valid Holy Communion that resulted from a Novus Ordo consecration.
    Holy Viaticuм is different from participating in the new mass and receiving Holy Communion from such an evil service.  I still don’t agree with the new-rite, Holy Viaticuм but that’s your scenario, not Sean’s. 
    .
    Sean is not simply arguing that it’s ok in danger of death, he then applies the allowance to “ignorant” folks, then also to those in “necessity”.  See how the slippery slope devolves?  It’s much the same slippery slope logic which abuses EENS.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #50 on: October 26, 2019, 11:06:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Holy Viaticuм is different from participating in the new mass and receiving Holy Communion from such an evil service.  I still don’t agree with the new-rite, Holy Viaticuм but that’s your scenario, not Sean’s.
    .
    Sean is not simply arguing that it’s ok in danger of death, he then applies the allowance to “ignorant” folks, then also to those in “necessity”.  See how the slippery slope devolves?  It’s much the same slippery slope logic which abuses EENS.

    I think you like to make stuff up as you go.

    But did you realize there is no theology in your response?  Only emotional sliganing.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13165
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #51 on: October 26, 2019, 11:10:34 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Sean, as the sede topic proves, +ABL was anything but consistent on many topics.  I don’t agree with +ABL on the new mass and I never have (and many other Trads didn’t either).  The new mass must be judged on all 3 levels equally - validity, legality and morality.  +ABL falsely elevated validity as being the main question to resolve, even while the new mass failed the other two questions (legality, morality) with flying colors.  
    .
    A satanic mass can be valid but obviously immoral and illegal.  If one can attend a valid new mass, then one can attend a black mass. A black mass is obviously worse in degree of sin, but they are both immoral of the same kind - they are not catholic.  Validity is of far less importance in determining morality than the service’s purpose and goal.  (Which was +Ottaviani and Bacci’s conclusion as well).  This is why +ABL’s theology is wrong.  

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #52 on: October 27, 2019, 06:09:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, as the sede topic proves, +ABL was anything but consistent on many topics.  I don’t agree with +ABL on the new mass and I never have (and many other Trads didn’t either).  The new mass must be judged on all 3 levels equally - validity, legality and morality.  +ABL falsely elevated validity as being the main question to resolve, even while the new mass failed the other two questions (legality, morality) with flying colors.  
    .
    A satanic mass can be valid but obviously immoral and illegal.  If one can attend a valid new mass, then one can attend a black mass. A black mass is obviously worse in degree of sin, but they are both immoral of the same kind - they are not catholic.  Validity is of far less importance in determining morality than the service’s purpose and goal.  (Which was +Ottaviani and Bacci’s conclusion as well).  This is why +ABL’s theology is wrong.  

    Wrong:

    ABL’s position regarding Mass attendance changed, but not his theology (grace passes/does not pass).

    None of your evasions will hide the fact that if the NOM confects a valid sacrament, then Trent applies, and it is infallibly certain that a well-disposed communicant receives an increase of sanctifying grace.

    One attending a black Mass would not be well-disposed.

    I can go on refuting your confused, homemade errors till the cows come home, but it apparently is only making you a more pertinacious heretic.

    “Let he who hateth correction...”
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13165
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #53 on: October 27, 2019, 06:56:49 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So is one “well disposed” who receives communion at a Latin mass, without fasting 1 hour?  Because we know that this mass is valid, but such an act is illegal.  Doesn’t the illegality make this Holy Communion sinful?

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13165
    • Reputation: +8288/-2565
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #54 on: October 27, 2019, 07:00:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • P.s.  You dodged my question concerning going to a poolside confession while drinking beer.  This concerns whether circuмstances can make a valid sacrament immoral.  Hint: They certainly can. 

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2354
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #55 on: October 27, 2019, 08:36:23 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why do I even bother being kind to you, and trying to make allowance for your subjective culpability? Your'e a heretic and schismatic who denies dogmas, like the impossibility of a 61 year sedevacante, doctrines, like the necessity of there being Popes to appoint Bishops to office, and dogmatic facts, like the fact that a Pope universally accepted by the world's Bishops, is most certainly validly elected Pope.

    You won't answer this question because you know it refutes you, so you dodge, evade, and do a bunch of other silly things: "If you want to contest the fact that Pope Benedict XVI had universal acceptance in 2005, show at least 500 Bishops who didn't recognize him as the validly elected Pope and name him as the Pope during Mass at the time. Can you do that? I don't think so."
    Xavier Sem,

    So say the theologians . . . blah, blah, blah.

    I happened to read Paul IV’s cuм Ex again this morning. It’s amazing how God in His providence gave us, through His Holy Pontiff Paul IV, such clear guidance to steer us through the maze of the “theologians.”

    How’s this for a theologian, elevated by the Holy Ghost to the See of Peter, successor to blessed St. Peter himself with primacy over the Church of Christ and a charism that none of your theologians were granted - Pope Paul IV, cuм Ex Apostalatus Officio:

    Quote
    6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-]

    that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office
    , of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way
    ;
    (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
    (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power
    .

    7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:-
    that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
    (i) the clergy, secular and religious;
    (ii) the laity;
    (iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
    (iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;
    shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).

    http://sedevacantist.com/encyclicals/Paul04/cuмex.html

    That our Lord should make it perfectly clear that this should be a guidance to us in these troubled times, he directed Pope Paul IV so say:


    Quote
    By virtue of the Apostolic office which, despite our unworthiness, has been entrusted to Us by God, We are responsible for the general care of the flock of the Lord. Because of this, in order that the flock may be faithfully guarded and beneficially directed, We are bound to be diligently watchful after the manner of a vigilant Shepherd and to ensure most carefully that certain people who consider the study of the truth beneath them should be driven out of the sheepfold of Christ and no longer continue to disseminate error from positions of authority. We refer in particular to those who in this age, impelled by their sinfulness and supported by their cunning, are attacking with unusual learning and malice the discipline of the orthodox Faith, and who, moreover, by perverting the import of Holy Scripture, are striving to rend the unity of the Catholic Church and the seamless tunic of the Lord.

    1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.

    Sure, now go ahead, cite your theologians, and argue about whether this is still “binding” and of legal effect.

    As far as I’m concerned, I - or any Catholic seeking to hold to the Catholic faith - find clear guidance in these words of a successor of Peter about our current situation, and the finer questions of the theologians as to dogmatic facts, continuity of the apostolic succession, etc. can await unraveling in the time of the beatific vision.

    I think blessed Paul IV settled your (and anyone else’s) “universal acceptance” question quite clearly, thank you.

    DR
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.


    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #56 on: October 27, 2019, 08:43:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48042
    • Reputation: +28378/-5309
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #57 on: October 27, 2019, 10:20:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.

    Yeah, I know it's a law, but ...   as often is the case with laws, it's merely a concrete expression of some theological principle.

    Here we have a "law" that overrules Universal Acceptance?  Popes cannot be deposed by force of law.  To me this is more a statement of principle, that a heretic cannot be a pope.

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2529
    • Reputation: +1041/-1108
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #58 on: October 27, 2019, 10:55:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • P.s.  You dodged my question concerning going to a poolside confession while drinking beer.  This concerns whether circuмstances can make a valid sacrament immoral.  Hint: They certainly can.
    So if I'm understanding you correctly, the Communion is fine, but the bastardised and improper rite of Mass surrounding it makes it evil? Or am I misunderstanding?
    Also, what are your thoughts on the validity and liceity of Anointing of the Sick?

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2354
    • Reputation: +882/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Dr. Lamont vs Siscoe/Salza on St. Bellarmine
    « Reply #59 on: October 27, 2019, 10:59:04 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • cuм ex was partly abrogated with the promulgation of the 1917 CIC.

    Yes sir, just as anticipated. 
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.