Quote from: J.Paul

 what's the use?....it's like trying to get a fish to dance..................

It is as I have said all along, the Catholic Church teaches Christ's doctrine, the conciliar church on the other hand, error and heresy.

I am glad that we see that the same.

But the Catholic Church in your formulation was teaching error and heresy in the persecution of Fr. Feeney.  

The fact is, the Catholic Church has always had Churchmen who taught heresy and error.  Both pre and post Vatican II.  

The Catholic Church still teaches Christ's doctrine in the Churchmen that do just that whether they are in the SSPX the Resistance or in a diocese or a regular religious order.  

That's the truth.  

I said no such thing, it was the modernists who condemned Father Feeney, and primarily at the behest of Jews. Those who condemned him were already believers in what was to be Vatican II's heretical idea of the Church and salvation.  They would go on to push these ideas through at the council. And as you said it was Churchmen, not the Church. Father Feeney's order was infested with them.

Vatican II is claimed to be part of the Magisterium by those churchmen, it teaches error and heresy. It therefore cannot be the Magisterium, if one believes in the Catholic Church's true doctrine.

I know that you have a program of all thing being equal, but they are not. The pre-conciliar Church despite its problems was still by and large Catholic, the post conciliar church is far less Catholic and not at all, in certain areas.

I am walking back nothing. You will criticize if one is two strong or more moderate, always to distract from the point in question.

There certainly are degrees of Catholicity and there is in that measure, a threshold which must be met to be considered fully Catholic. A lower level of Catholic in name only is appropriate for the Novus Ordo and the counciliar religion.  The appearance of being Catholic without the reality and substaance of it.

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church and it teaches and preserves that which has been handed down and declared. It does not allow "teaching" which is directly contradictory to itself and Tradition.

Vatican II had no authenticity in that it never intended to "do what the Church does", in that council, and obviously not in its docuмents. The council was a vehicle for a revolution purposed with overturning that very Magisterium from which it claimed to have "authenticity".

Quote from: J.Paul

I am walking back nothing. You will criticize if one is two strong or more moderate, always to distract from the point in question.

There certainly are degrees of Catholicity and there is in that measure, a threshold which must be met to be considered fully Catholic. A lower level of Catholic in name only is appropriate for the Novus Ordo and the counciliar religion.  The appearance of being Catholic without the reality and substaance of it.

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church and it teaches and preserves that which has been handed down and declared. It does not allow "teaching" which is directly contradictory to itself and Tradition.

Vatican II had no authenticity in that it never intended to "do what the Church does", in that council, and obviously not in its docuмents. The council was a vehicle for a revolution purposed with overturning that very Magisterium from which it claimed to have "authenticity".

What specifically is that threshold you are referring to in your degrees of Catholicity?  Who is the judge of which criteria must be met?  

The Magisterium of the Church "allowed" the Arian heresy to fester for 300 years.  How long does it take before you determine what is or is not the Church by inaction?  

Do you just make up rules about what a Council is supposed to do?  

Vatican II is no different than Lateran V in terms of authenticity and it was a failure of a council as well.  Do you reject Lateran V?  

The Council of Constance was a vehicle for the Conciliarists.  Vatican I was a vehicle for the Neo-Ultramontanists.  

The Church in Her solemn teaching and Sacred Tradition are the arbiters of what belongs to Her and what does not. What She does and has always done are the guideposts to orthodoxy. What is outside of Her way is not for us.

We submit to Her because She is the voice of Christ, and we must flee when we hear another voice and another Gospel.  

Quote from: J.Paul

The Church in Her solemn teaching and Sacred Tradition are the arbiters of what belongs to Her and what does not. What She does and has always done are the guideposts to orthodoxy. What is outside of Her way is not for us.

We submit to Her because She is the voice of Christ, and we must flee when we hear another voice and another Gospel.  

But Solemn teaching doesn't rule on everything or clarify everything so below that level we have competing teachings such as St. Thomas and the Molinists and the Church cannot or will not rule on their dispute.  One of them is in error, but the Church allows either position to be held.

And what she has done before and reversed, she can reverse again. If Holy Mother Church at one time allowed for the development of individual local variants in the Roman Rite as well as the development of all of the Eastern rites, she could once again allow that.  

Communion under both species or only one species.  

Most of everything unfortunately going on in the Novus Ordo had already either been acceptable to the Church at some point or is a matter of neglect and lack of discretion.  

Gerard,
For things below the solemn level we have the consistent teaching of the popes and the Magisterium, and we have TRADITION. Sacred Tradition is the sure guide to what is right and proper. Tradition which developed slowly and organically within the Church.  Theological debates within the Church have been allowed yes, when theological opinion deliberately asserts itself in opposition to the Church's authority, the Church settles the matter.

Because you find particular instances where the Church has returned or allowed a former practice, does not mean that the Church is a feckless entity which will do one thing today and another tomorrow in an inconsistent and inconstant manner.  The Catholic Church is also not known for being neglectful or indiscreet, unlike its antithesis, the conciliar entity.

What you describe is the conciliar entity which operates by means of secular social trends and expedience. It is non-organic, and non-linear. A creation built upon shifting sands.
That is not Christ's Church which is founded upon Him who is all Truth and does not change and whose progress is based upon and in submission to that immutable Truth.

As to the Novus Ordo, anything which was acceptable to the Church at another time was acceptable in another context and circuмstance.  Introducing the spirit of heretics and false religions has never been acceptable to the the Church, and neither has introducing any rite or custom whose purpose was to
displace the Catholic Mass or alter the theology which surrounds it, thus changing the faith of the believers.

Gerard,
For things below the solemn level we have the consistent teaching of the popes and the Magisterium, and we have TRADITION. Sacred Tradition is the sure guide to what is right and proper. Tradition which developed slowly and organically within the Church.

Yes and traditions that are old, that were abandoned can be reinstituted.

St. Pius V's reform was not a 'slow organic development" but a sudden, jarring for some regularization.  

It was a restoration of the liturgy by a committee which stripped away numerous accretions which may not have been appropriate according to the Pope or the committee involved, but that doesn't mean the lay faithful would have been particularly happy about it or the clergy who's tradition it had been handed down to them.  

Theological debates within the Church have been allowed yes, when theological opinion deliberately asserts itself in opposition to the Church's authority, the Church settles the matter.

And as I pointed out, sometimes it takes centuries for the Church to do this.  

Because you find particular instances where the Church has returned or allowed a former practice, does not mean that the Church is a feckless entity which will do one thing today and another tomorrow in an inconsistent and inconstant manner.

Wait a minute.  If you look at history we have one part of the Church burning a saint as a witch.  The fact is, communications were so slow, the Church was far more decentralized and the principle of subsidiarity was in effect to a far greater degree than it was in the last few centuries.  

The Catholic Church is also not known for being neglectful or indiscreet, unlike its antithesis, the conciliar entity.

No. Again, the "Catholic Church" has has some real scoundrels as its "Churchmen" who have done things equal to or worse than the current hierarchy and many times it is decades upon decades before the issue is resolved.  It just doesn't seem that way when we are a few centuries beyond it and all of the resolutions of bad situations are in the next paragraph.  

What you describe is the conciliar entity which operates by means of secular social trends and expedience. It is non-organic, and non-linear. A creation built upon shifting sands.

Be more specific, if you are claiming that Popes and bishops prior to Vatican II did not pre-occupy themselves with secular issues and politics and even corrupt the faith by using it to manipulate the faithful to push their own agendas foreword, that is also wrong.  

That is not Christ's Church which is founded upon Him who is all Truth and does not change and whose progress is based upon and in submission to that immutable Truth.

It's Christ's Church alright, but He gives the bad Churchmen far more leeway than you seem to want to admit.  

As to the Novus Ordo, anything which was acceptable to the Church at another time was acceptable in another context and circuмstance.

Who is the authority that declares it acceptable?  And…..when that authority is wrong, and the fruits are bad, the same authority makes further adjustments to compensate, trash the idea or it eventually catches on.

 Introducing the spirit of heretics and false religions has never been acceptable to the the Church, and neither has introducing any rite or custom whose purpose was to displace the Catholic Mass or alter the theology which surrounds it, thus changing the faith of the believers.

No. That's doesn't hold either. The Council of Jerusalem pretty much set the stage that the Church was going to adapt itself and not force the Jєωιѕн traditions on the Gentiles.  It would instead Christianize the pagan traditions.  


There are many types of theology in the Church. The Latin Church was once dominated by Platonism through Augustine.  The Franciscans were overtly anti-intellectual for a good bit of time and the Franciscans and the Augustinians were up in arms over the modernity, paganism and liberalism of St. Thomas Aquinas.  

So, the Church has changed theology over the centuries and not all of the Church, the East has never had St. Thomas.  

St. Thomas doesn't answer everything so, philosophy and theology continue to develop organically.  We are just in a period where the Church is going to have to settle matters in the not too distant future if they don't settle themselves.  

If the Church can preach any theology and still be the Church, the faithful at any one time must be fortunate enough to incur her pleasure and that of her creator. Woe betide those that do not; they were born at the wrong time! Apologists for conciliarism could rightfully castigate those clinging to a backward theology for daring to question the Church's authority to introduce new theology. I think I am getting at the root of R & R; it is a regime for willing captives!    

J. Paul:

Quote

I know that you have a program of all thing being equal, but they are not. The pre-conciliar Church despite its problems was still by and large Catholic, the post conciliar church is far less Catholic and not at all, in certain areas.

Simplistic and ignorant summary of the "pre-conciliar Church."  The fact is J. Paul has no idea how to firmly and authoritatively determine what was "by and large Catholic," or what was "far less Catholic and not at all."  J. Paul, you're just blowing smoke.  Quit while you're ahead.  Gerard has won the contest.  His arguments are far sounder than yours.  Gerard, I wouldn't waste my time with these guys.

Hey, Holly, We had the Traditional Mass handed down from the Apostles, We had Pius X, IX, XI, and XII,   Now we have the Novus Ordo, Communicatio in Sacris, women in the sactuary, fαɢɢօt masses, John Paul the great, and Pope Francis, and a heretic Emeritus, and soon Saint Martin Luther.

That is quite authoritative enough for a fencepost to get the message.
Please Gerard don't waste your time with us.    

Quote from: Wessex

If the Church can preach any theology and still be the Church, the faithful at any one time must be fortunate enough to incur her pleasure and that of her creator. Woe betide those that do not; they were born at the wrong time! Apologists for conciliarism could rightfully castigate those clinging to a backward theology for daring to question the Church's authority to introduce new theology. I think I am getting at the root of R & R; it is a regime for willing captives!    

Indeed, willing captives who now identify with their captors.

With Roman conversion now a dead duck, the question reverts to deciding how 'backward compatible' is Vatican 2. Those badly written docuмents have been salvaged, cleaned, reassessed and sorted with regard to what is optional and what is not. This could be the route Menzingen is now using ......  and one which in time may appeal to some of our friends here! Am I ahead of the game?