What Tradition?

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B985_Rites.html

Paul VI vs. Pius XII


TIA,

Re: Was My First Communion Valid?

 A Pope can 'clarify' what a former Pontiff has written, but to disobey a former Vicar's Apostolic Constitution seems 'suspect'.

 Pope Pius XII wrote Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947 declaring that any substantial alteration in the rite would render the sacrament invalid.

 Paul VI did not care; just like the Mass, he wasted no time and went to work on almost all the sacraments to bring them into line with Modernist thinking.

 He produced his own Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani' and basically said, this is the way we will 'ordain' in the future.

 When you lay the two written forms out before you, it 'seems' that both the matter and form have been changed in Paul VI's docuмent and that there is at least doubt as to whether the ordinand has been given the power to effect Transubstantiation.

 Doubt is cause for invalidity...

 Why has this subject not been openly discussed?

 God Bless your work,

      OAMDG,

      J.R.

______________________


 TIA responds:

 J.R.

 We maintain that a Pope can undo any decision of another Pope as long as it is not against the Faith, as in the case of liturgy and the rites of the Sacraments.

 The evidence in this regard is that St. Pius V forbade under penalty of the most rigorous anathema that anyone change the Divine Office and the Breviary in his Bull Quod a nobis. Nonetheless, St. Pius X disregarded all those threats and changed both the Breviary and the Divine Office.

 He was not anathematized nor cursed by the wrath of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, as promised in the Bull of St. Pius V.

 The conclusion seems quite clear: St. Pius X did not comply with the rules of St. Pius V because the rules that a Pope issues requires the obedience of everyone in the Catholic Church, except another Pope. So long as the Faith is not involved, a Pope is not subordinate to another Pope in matters of liturgy and rites. All Popes have the same authority. What this means is that one can undo what the other one did.

 We dealt more at length with this topic here.

 So, the question of saying that Paul VI could not change the rules Pius XII established is transferred to another topic: Was Paul VI a valid Pope or not? If he was, he had the right to change the rites; if he was not, he did not have this right.

 We believe that Paul VI - as well as the other conciliar Popes - are valid Popes, even if they had the worst spirit possible when they made those changes and defended heresies such as the heresy of universal salvation.

 Therefore, we believe Paul VI had the right to change the rites of the Sacraments and consequently, they are valid Sacraments.

      Cordially,

      TIA correspondence desk

I have a bit of a problem with this postulate.  We were among so-called "traditional Catholics" for years.  These are people who, according to H.E. accept "more or less what Our Lord instituted."  By his definition, these are true Christians.  Really?  Many of them, ourselves included and numbers of traditional priests, did not often exude much practical Christian behavior.  But because we all bought into the institutional narrative, we were truly Christian.  Whereas, those self-confessed "Christians" of other persuasions, who did not, and do not, can not be included among the institutionally 'washed.'
No, from our perspective presently, H.E. is going to have to do better than this.  I find this postulate intellectually indefensible.

I'm missing something here...

Either I'm not understanding what the Bishop wrote or I'm not understanding your critique... or maybe both.

Number DXXVII (527)	August 19, 2017
So let us look at a modernist encyclopedia’s useful ten-point summary of the new teaching of Vatican II, together with the briefest of pointers to the error in each point. The ten points are in italics, their skeletal refutation follows immediately each point:—

Bishop Williamson is listing ten points of the modernist encyclopedia (in italics), with a refutation that follows, but apparently, there isn't a refutation for some of the points, or the refutations were also mistakenly put in italics, therefore making it difficult to know which are the modernist points, and what is +W's refutation.

This is just more white noise to keep the masses occupied.
We have here the admission that this so called council teaches error harmful to the Faith.  What concrete conclusion does he draw from this?
Come to Broadstairs and listen to a literary lecture.

This is just more white noise to keep the masses occupied.
We have here the admission that this so called council teaches error harmful to the Faith.  What concrete conclusion does he draw from this?
Come to Broadstairs and listen to a literary lecture.

Better than stuff"n one's face with coffee and donuts...

I'd be there in a heartbeat if it weren't for a ocean between me and it...  :P

Have you ever even attended a conference by Dr White?