Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Gerard from FE on June 01, 2016, 02:11:32 PM
-
From Fr. Kramer's Facebook page. My responses i blue.
As expected, Gerard (of Fish Eaters) pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation. A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air; and with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckleheaded pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed." (LOL) My dear Gerard: As my high school teacher, Sr. Concetta used to say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and end all doubt."
Dear Fr. Kramer,
Be assured my pontification are all subject to the traditional rites of the Church.
While I appreciate your estimation of my load of codswallop as the work of a dolt. I also understand it has been a very long time since you engaged in theological thought and you've more than likely forgotten most of it.
And it's wonderful that you give your nun from high school credit for quotes that don't originate with her. I've come to expect no less. I long to hear your lecture on Pope St. Judas Iscariot and the circuмstances of his famous Catholic maxim, "Where's the Beef?"
Is your former high school teacher "Saint Concetta" now by any chance? Soon enough I'm sure.
Of course that's where this whole shebang began with a misquote of Annibale Bugnini, that I corrected.
The apoplectic siezures induced by simply correcting a misquote is astounding indeed. The false quote must be valuable indeed.
1) ?The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.?
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papally ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
Here it is plainly put, I'm detaching the actual authority of the Council from your mischaracterization of it. You claim that the Pope is "bound" to the specific liturgy of the Latin Church during the 15th century.
You hold Pope "Saint" Martin V as having ratified the Council and set it in stone in perpetuity.
It's not my private judgement that says in the Council of Constance approved by Pope Martin V that the Pope is "bound" to convene Ecuмenical Councils at specific intervals of time.
It's not my private judgement that says that the very same Pope. Martin V singularly overturned what that very same session in that very same Council decrees that he was "bound" to observe.
You're ad hoc conciliarism, is simply dishonest. An ambiguous and Concilarist tinges statement from what is considered a "quasi-ecuмenical" council, not on my authority but you can look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia in which theologians are cited stating that the Popes gave general approval to the Council but did not intend to bind the papacy in any way that you assert.
2) ?The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. ?
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified.
That's a dodge. As stated above, the Council says the Pope is "bound" to call councils.
If, as you say, the Pope is "bound" by that Council, then Martin V is condemned by that same Council.
The contradiction and error isn't' in the Church, it's in your analysis.
Gerard, who like Luther cute pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!)
Fr. Kramer who like Satan (see how I can do that trick too?) tried to confuse people is engaging in a really deceptive trick here.
By setting up a false opposition (like the modernists) he plays a Trojan Horse game by equating his private judgement of the Council of Constance and its decrees with the actual Magisterium of the Church. He uses the Council to hide his errors.
My bringing to the fore, the objective logical inconsistencies in his conclusions based on Church sources and undisputed historical facts is then set in opposition with a straw man argument concerning the Council and the Magisterium.
I'm analyzing Fr. Kramer's private judgment. He pretends his private judgement is infallible and Magisterial and binding on the faithful. It's not. If it were, Martin V would be a saint.
: he spesks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
If there was nothing dubious in it, Pope Eugene would not have given it approbation with due consideration for papal prerogatives. It has the same odor of the Preliminary Explanatory note of Paul VI.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia again: From the Catholic Encyclopedia: " Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. that Pope Martin V approved the declaration of the Council of Constance, and Pope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecuмenical synod over the pope), concluded that both popes, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply an approbation of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)"
However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes[,]" is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
Nope. Not at all. You are claiming that a Pope is "bound" by the Council of Constance to a particular liturgical rite.
Yet you ignore the fact that Pope Martin V eventually dismissed the "binding force" of session 39 where it states the Pope is bound to call councils at specific intervals.
3) ? And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .?
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
Context is either apt or not depending on convenience then? So, if the "intrigue" engaged in by Annibale Bugnini or Freemasons or Communists, Modernists and Progressives have bearing on the Novus Ordo, Vatican II and Collegiality, why does Constance have an exemption from intrigue and Paul VI not from his duly appointed authority to introduce a new rite of Liturgy or modify old ones as Benedict XVI did?
4) ?Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.?
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING!
You were trying to provide background information. I was clarifying it.
You wrote: ""After his election, Pope Martin V had the task of modifying and ratifying, or rejecting the acts of the Council that had taken place before his election, when there was no pope who could effectively preside, (since there were three competing claimants at the time)."
it was clarifying the deliberate (or not) vagueness/sloppiness present in your statement that allows a reasonable person to infer that the Council had been given the power to elect a Pope by itself and not under the power of the papacy of Gregory XII.
So, it is on point in that it avoids the Conciliarism you are imbibing in for the purpose of binding a Pope where he is not bound.
A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
More hypocritical showboating. What does a Florentine or your high school nun or Martin Luther on St. James have to do with the current argument?
Your just creating distractions form your fraudulent argument.
5) ?Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.?
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
So, by that standard, Annibale Bugnini's intentions, the intrigue, the Freemasons and the Modernists don't matter when it comes to the Novus Ordo.
What matters according to your standard of argumentation is that Pope Paul VI was a legitimate Pope who published a new liturgy as he is able to according to the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII and the decrees of papal supremacy in the Church of the First Vatican Council.
It's a strange mix of Conciliarism /Gallicanism and Neo-Ultramontanism in that Paul VI is bound by the "binding" decrees of Constance, but Martin V St. Pius V or John XXIII or Benedict XVI are not. Situational ethics requiring Cafeteria heresy.
6) ?Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.?
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
This is simply more context provided to avoid the impression of a well-ordered Council convened and conducted with satisfying and certain conclusions on all points. But I guess your private judgement is sufficient as to what context is allowed in a discussion and what context is to be avoided.
7) ?[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" ?
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
Yeah. That's a partial quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, not me. So, I'm not the only "dolt" that acknowledge the Conciliarist strain in the Council of Constance that lead to Popes having to proclaim again and again their supreme power in the Church.
As to doltish confusion, I notice how Fr. Kramer continues the shell game by claiming that Popes are bound by "rites" and infers that, that must mean liturgy.
There is no uniformity of rites in the Church. Any understanding of "rites" in the context of Constance must be understood as the substance of "the functions of a religious body."
Not a specific liturgy. As Pius XII stated unequivocally the liturgy and anything touching the worship of God is SUBJECT to the Apostolic See and the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT.
The utterly asinine formulation of Fr. Kramer puts the Pope in some bizarre submission to an organically developed temporal liturgy already with wide variation suddenly frozen in time, hobbling the due power of regulation that a Pope requires and given by Christ in perpetuity.
8) ?It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob who spreads "heresy"! He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.?
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history", "to support his political agenda".
Said by the guy who sits in judgement of the Popes. You are a scandal and it is an act of charity to call you to task.
Don't cower behind clerical privilege to try to get away with verbal abuse with impunity.
Here's the truth. I am not a "dolt." That is simply you spouting calumny and hyperbolic rhetoric.
You are an intellectual slob based on the utter sloppiness of your docuмented argument.
I"m not making excuses for my mistakes. I haven't made any.
You've written false statements and made the excuses that it was "inadvertent" and it's been "forty years"
Excuse making is the retreat of the intellectual slob.
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for graruitously vilifying a priest. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
Telling the truth is not a sin.
Furthermore, you have no canonical authority to declare me guilty of "gratuitous" sacrilege or anything I can back up what I state. You can't.
If you want to go down that road, tell me where you are incardinated and who your superior is.
I'll write him a letter and if he thinks your case has merit he can contact Archbishop Chaput and I'll go have a talk with him. He's lives less than a 10 minute drive away from me.
And aside from all that, you need to go to your confessor to deal with your public sins of wrath, rash judgement, pride and calumny before you receive Communion.
9) The lenghty quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
Mediator Dei is quite apt. Again, you keep bouncing between "rites" and "liturgy" as if they are the same thing.
Pius XII states clearly that rites can be modified (changed) and new rites can be introduced as the Pope sees fit.
What the Pope can't change is the substance of the rites of the sacraments. He can't change them into new rites of different substance but he can introduce new rites of the same substance.
10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments,
No. They are apt and I've demonstrated why.
To claim otherwise without support is simply more evidence of being an intellectual slob.
and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalonaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
…sniff…sniff… I would swear this smells like the set up for the "dismount" where he just can't deal with such a person anymore. He's got important things to do. hurumph…hurumph…
I think you are projecting your own view of yourself there.
You obviously treat others the way you want to be treated.
So, with the first comment of "dolt" you threw the gauntlet down and I simply returned in kind but honestly with far less proportionality than was warranted.
Had I unloaded proportionatly, I think you would have burst into tears instead of that hilariously idiotic ranting calumny of sacrilege against me.
I find it hypocritical that Fr. Kramer makes excuses for falsehoods he declares, engages in dodges, distractions and attempts to exert clerical privilege in the hopes of duping the ignorant all the while hurling insults like exactly what he is. a desperate intellectual slob caught red-handed trying to manipulate people. The unsupported and unsupportable nature of his insults betrays his need to create a false attribution fallacy in order to try and cover his tracks.
Fr. Kramer won't descend into the details of the 39 session of Constance and how the Pope is "bound" to call specific Councils in the future and how it was essentially blown off by the Popes.
He's ignored the fact that I've presented from the Catholic Encyclopedia that there is no uniformity of believe on the ratification of statements "binding" the Pope from Constance.
He avoids distinguishing between the substance of a rite in terms of a function of a religions and narrower definition of rite meaning a liturgy of the Church which the Pope has every right to alter without the Church committing ѕυιcιdє.
But hey, He's not an intellectual slob if he gets upset that a misquote has been clarified, and he can canonize who he wants, "What's the big deal?"
He can avoid dealing with any argument he can't rebut with the dismissive "off point" while he presents a plethora of truly off point comments.
Look at the meltdowns he engages in with just a simple questioning and probing of what he spews out that may or may not be accurate. Because he's convinced he's ultimately right or not, just don't question anything buy the book and wait for the next one.
In reviewing this, I was going to comment that the overarching phenomena is one of a parasite feeding off of the worst fears of gullible traditional Catholics.
But on a second thought, taking into account the viciousness and clever obfuscation of Fr. Kramer's replies, it's more akin to that of a sociopath being challenged in their grip over their victims.
So self-assured in their domination, the sociopath will eventually get lazy as the dominated become more docile. So, when the challenge and the potential risk of being exposed as such comes forth, the claws come out.
-
From Fr. Kramer's Facebook page. My responses i blue.
As expected, Gerard (of Fish Eaters) pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation. A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air; and with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckleheaded pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed." (LOL) My dear Gerard: As my high school teacher, Sr. Concetta used to say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and end all doubt."
Dear Fr. Kramer,
Be assured my pontification are all subject to the traditional rites of the Church.
While I appreciate your estimation of my load of codswallop as the work of a dolt. I also understand it has been a very long time since you engaged in theological thought and you've more than likely forgotten most of it.
And it's wonderful that you give your nun from high school credit for quotes that don't originate with her. I've come to expect no less. I long to hear your lecture on Pope St. Judas Iscariot and the circuмstances of his famous Catholic maxim, "Where's the Beef?"
Is your former high school teacher "Saint Concetta" now by any chance? Soon enough I'm sure.
Of course that's where this whole shebang began with a misquote of Annibale Bugnini, that I corrected.
The apoplectic siezures induced by simply correcting a misquote is astounding indeed. The false quote must be valuable indeed.
1) ?The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.?
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papally ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
Here it is plainly put, I'm detaching the actual authority of the Council from your mischaracterization of it. You claim that the Pope is "bound" to the specific liturgy of the Latin Church during the 15th century.
You hold Pope "Saint" Martin V as having ratified the Council and set it in stone in perpetuity.
It's not my private judgement that says in the Council of Constance approved by Pope Martin V that the Pope is "bound" to convene Ecuмenical Councils at specific intervals of time.
It's not my private judgement that says that the very same Pope. Martin V singularly overturned what that very same session in that very same Council decrees that he was "bound" to observe.
You're ad hoc conciliarism, is simply dishonest. An ambiguous and Concilarist tinges statement from what is considered a "quasi-ecuмenical" council, not on my authority but you can look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia in which theologians are cited stating that the Popes gave general approval to the Council but did not intend to bind the papacy in any way that you assert.
2) ?The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. ?
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified.
That's a dodge. As stated above, the Council says the Pope is "bound" to call councils.
If, as you say, the Pope is "bound" by that Council, then Martin V is condemned by that same Council.
The contradiction and error isn't' in the Church, it's in your analysis.
Gerard, who like Luther cute pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!)
Fr. Kramer who like Satan (see how I can do that trick too?) tried to confuse people is engaging in a really deceptive trick here.
By setting up a false opposition (like the modernists) he plays a Trojan Horse game by equating his private judgement of the Council of Constance and its decrees with the actual Magisterium of the Church. He uses the Council to hide his errors.
My bringing to the fore, the objective logical inconsistencies in his conclusions based on Church sources and undisputed historical facts is then set in opposition with a straw man argument concerning the Council and the Magisterium.
I'm analyzing Fr. Kramer's private judgment. He pretends his private judgement is infallible and Magisterial and binding on the faithful. It's not. If it were, Martin V would be a saint.
: he spesks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
If there was nothing dubious in it, Pope Eugene would not have given it approbation with due consideration for papal prerogatives. It has the same odor of the Preliminary Explanatory note of Paul VI.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia again: From the Catholic Encyclopedia: " Hefele, after carefully weighing the main arguments of the Gallicans (viz. that Pope Martin V approved the declaration of the Council of Constance, and Pope Eugene IV the identical declaration of the Council of Basle, affirming the superiority of an Ecuмenical synod over the pope), concluded that both popes, in the interests of peace, approved of the councils in general terms which might imply an approbation of the point in question, but that neither Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)"
However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes[,]" is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
Nope. Not at all. You are claiming that a Pope is "bound" by the Council of Constance to a particular liturgical rite.
Yet you ignore the fact that Pope Martin V eventually dismissed the "binding force" of session 39 where it states the Pope is bound to call councils at specific intervals.
3) ? And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .?
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
Context is either apt or not depending on convenience then? So, if the "intrigue" engaged in by Annibale Bugnini or Freemasons or Communists, Modernists and Progressives have bearing on the Novus Ordo, Vatican II and Collegiality, why does Constance have an exemption from intrigue and Paul VI not from his duly appointed authority to introduce a new rite of Liturgy or modify old ones as Benedict XVI did?
4) ?Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.?
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING!
You were trying to provide background information. I was clarifying it.
You wrote: ""After his election, Pope Martin V had the task of modifying and ratifying, or rejecting the acts of the Council that had taken place before his election, when there was no pope who could effectively preside, (since there were three competing claimants at the time)."
it was clarifying the deliberate (or not) vagueness/sloppiness present in your statement that allows a reasonable person to infer that the Council had been given the power to elect a Pope by itself and not under the power of the papacy of Gregory XII.
So, it is on point in that it avoids the Conciliarism you are imbibing in for the purpose of binding a Pope where he is not bound.
A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
More hypocritical showboating. What does a Florentine or your high school nun or Martin Luther on St. James have to do with the current argument?
Your just creating distractions form your fraudulent argument.
5) ?Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.?
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
So, by that standard, Annibale Bugnini's intentions, the intrigue, the Freemasons and the Modernists don't matter when it comes to the Novus Ordo.
What matters according to your standard of argumentation is that Pope Paul VI was a legitimate Pope who published a new liturgy as he is able to according to the encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII and the decrees of papal supremacy in the Church of the First Vatican Council.
It's a strange mix of Conciliarism /Gallicanism and Neo-Ultramontanism in that Paul VI is bound by the "binding" decrees of Constance, but Martin V St. Pius V or John XXIII or Benedict XVI are not. Situational ethics requiring Cafeteria heresy.
6) ?Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.?
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
This is simply more context provided to avoid the impression of a well-ordered Council convened and conducted with satisfying and certain conclusions on all points. But I guess your private judgement is sufficient as to what context is allowed in a discussion and what context is to be avoided.
7) ?[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" ?
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
Yeah. That's a partial quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, not me. So, I'm not the only "dolt" that acknowledge the Conciliarist strain in the Council of Constance that lead to Popes having to proclaim again and again their supreme power in the Church.
As to doltish confusion, I notice how Fr. Kramer continues the shell game by claiming that Popes are bound by "rites" and infers that, that must mean liturgy.
There is no uniformity of rites in the Church. Any understanding of "rites" in the context of Constance must be understood as the substance of "the functions of a religious body."
Not a specific liturgy. As Pius XII stated unequivocally the liturgy and anything touching the worship of God is SUBJECT to the Apostolic See and the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT.
The utterly asinine formulation of Fr. Kramer puts the Pope in some bizarre submission to an organically developed temporal liturgy already with wide variation suddenly frozen in time, hobbling the due power of regulation that a Pope requires and given by Christ in perpetuity.
8) ?It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob who spreads "heresy"! He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.?
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history", "to support his political agenda".
Said by the guy who sits in judgement of the Popes. You are a scandal and it is an act of charity to call you to task.
Don't cower behind clerical privilege to try to get away with verbal abuse with impunity.
Here's the truth. I am not a "dolt." That is simply you spouting calumny and hyperbolic rhetoric.
You are an intellectual slob based on the utter sloppiness of your docuмented argument.
I"m not making excuses for my mistakes. I haven't made any.
You've written false statements and made the excuses that it was "inadvertent" and it's been "forty years"
Excuse making is the retreat of the intellectual slob.
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for graruitously vilifying a priest. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
Telling the truth is not a sin.
Furthermore, you have no canonical authority to declare me guilty of "gratuitous" sacrilege or anything I can back up what I state. You can't.
If you want to go down that road, tell me where you are incardinated and who your superior is.
I'll write him a letter and if he thinks your case has merit he can contact Archbishop Chaput and I'll go have a talk with him. He's lives less than a 10 minute drive away from me.
And aside from all that, you need to go to your confessor to deal with your public sins of wrath, rash judgement, pride and calumny before you receive Communion.
9) The lenghty quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
Mediator Dei is quite apt. Again, you keep bouncing between "rites" and "liturgy" as if they are the same thing.
Pius XII states clearly that rites can be modified (changed) and new rites can be introduced as the Pope sees fit.
What the Pope can't change is the substance of the rites of the sacraments. He can't change them into new rites of different substance but he can introduce new rites of the same substance.
10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments,
No. They are apt and I've demonstrated why.
To claim otherwise without support is simply more evidence of being an intellectual slob.
and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalonaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
…sniff…sniff… I would swear this smells like the set up for the "dismount" where he just can't deal with such a person anymore. He's got important things to do. hurumph…hurumph…
I think you are projecting your own view of yourself there.
You obviously treat others the way you want to be treated.
So, with the first comment of "dolt" you threw the gauntlet down and I simply returned in kind but honestly with far less proportionality than was warranted.
Had I unloaded proportionatly, I think you would have burst into tears instead of that hilariously idiotic ranting calumny of sacrilege against me.
I find it hypocritical that Fr. Kramer makes excuses for falsehoods he declares, engages in dodges, distractions and attempts to exert clerical privilege in the hopes of duping the ignorant all the while hurling insults like exactly what he is. a desperate intellectual slob caught red-handed trying to manipulate people. The unsupported and unsupportable nature of his insults betrays his need to create a false attribution fallacy in order to try and cover his tracks.
Fr. Kramer won't descend into the details of the 39 session of Constance and how the Pope is "bound" to call specific Councils in the future and how it was essentially blown off by the Popes.
He's ignored the fact that I've presented from the Catholic Encyclopedia that there is no uniformity of believe on the ratification of statements "binding" the Pope from Constance.
He avoids distinguishing between the substance of a rite in terms of a function of a religions and narrower definition of rite meaning a liturgy of the Church which the Pope has every right to alter without the Church committing ѕυιcιdє.
But hey, He's not an intellectual slob if he gets upset that a misquote has been clarified, and he can canonize who he wants, "What's the big deal?"
He can avoid dealing with any argument he can't rebut with the dismissive "off point" while he presents a plethora of truly off point comments.
Look at the meltdowns he engages in with just a simple questioning and probing of what he spews out that may or may not be accurate. Because he's convinced he's ultimately right or not, just don't question anything buy the book and wait for the next one.
In reviewing this, I was going to comment that the overarching phenomena is one of a parasite feeding off of the worst fears of gullible traditional Catholics.
But on a second thought, taking into account the viciousness and clever obfuscation of Fr. Kramer's replies, it's more akin to that of a sociopath being challenged in their grip over their victims.
So self-assured in their domination, the sociopath will eventually get lazy as the dominated become more docile. So, when the challenge and the potential risk of being exposed as such comes forth, the claws come out.
On point number 7, I've increased the font size and put it in BOLD which you could see above, Mr.Gerard's statement and I quote: the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT. end of quote
What more proof do we need??? This guy has PUBLICLY expressed his HERESY.
This guy is a SERIOUS MENACE in our Forum. The ENEMY is in our midst! For crying out loud--Let's KICK Him OUT!
-
As Pius XII stated unequivocally the liturgy and anything touching the worship of God is SUBJECT to the Apostolic See and the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT.
Ha ha, Gerard. You still won't accept the true, Catholic position on the liturgy, which Pius XII stated in pt 50 in Mediator Dei. Your constant mis-quoting of the pope is a scandal to others and a public lie.
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men...
Your misunderstanding of this docuмent leads you to falsely accept ANY liturgical changes as ok, as long as the pope says so. This is TOTALLY false, for Christ instituted the liturgy, not St Peter, nor any of the popes. The popes have only altered/added to the liturgy, in non essential ways.
Even the horrible, modernist V2 docuмent 'Sacrosanctum concilium' says this in pt 21:
For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change.
Immutable means 'unchangeable', in case you didn't know. This means NO ONE can change parts of the liturgy, even the pope. Though this V2 docuмent, which created the new mass, "said one thing and did another", it's point here is consistent with Church teaching and thus, is true.
You should pray about this error, as it is leading you (and others) astray.
-
Servus Pius:
This guy (Gerard) is a SERIOUS MENACE in our Forum. The ENEMY is in our midst! For crying out loud--Let's KICK Him OUT!
Get a life! :laugh1:
-
Gerard,
Some of the things which you have said to Father Kramer in public are despicable.
They show a lack of decorum, discipline, and honor.
You are without a doubt, a revolutionary subversive. Please be honest and throw out the blue, and put your responses in RED.
The phone is still ringing and Red is a popular hue over at Fish Eaters.
Please answer them............................................
-
As Pius XII stated unequivocally the liturgy and anything touching the worship of God is SUBJECT to the Apostolic See and the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT.
Ha ha, Gerard. You still won't accept the true, Catholic position on the liturgy, which Pius XII stated in pt 50 in Mediator Dei. Your constant mis-quoting of the pope is a scandal to others and a public lie.
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men...
Your misunderstanding of this docuмent leads you to falsely accept ANY liturgical changes as ok, as long as the pope says so. This is TOTALLY false, for Christ instituted the liturgy, not St Peter, nor any of the popes. The popes have only altered/added to the liturgy, in non essential ways.
Even the horrible, modernist V2 docuмent 'Sacrosanctum concilium' says this in pt 21:
For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change.
Immutable means 'unchangeable', in case you didn't know. This means NO ONE can change parts of the liturgy, even the pope. Though this V2 docuмent, which created the new mass, "said one thing and did another", it's point here is consistent with Church teaching and thus, is true.
You should pray about this error, as it is leading you (and others) astray.
That's the problem with Amateur Theologians. They may have an abundance of Knowledge but Application is a totally different thing. It is like saying---I have read thousands of Medical Books, so now I can perform a Hearth Bypass operation. Fr.Kramer has the Knowledge, Experience, Formal Training and Necessary Qualifications to be a Theologian. Gerard from FE does NOT have those qualifications. Gerard hides his inadequacy by means of his Writing Skills. Gerard has very good writing skills, I'll afford him that much. However, when it comes to Theology, Gerard is a FRAUDULENT Theologian. He has very good research skills but that doesn't make him an Expert Theologian. He has very good writing skills, but that doesn't make him an Expert Theologian either.
I wouldn't be surprised why Fr.Kramer would feel EXASPERATED from this guy. What makes Gerard from FE so dangerous is the fact that he could express his ERRORS in an ELOQUENT way which gives people the impression that he is an Expert Theologian.
We have 2 choices here, either we side with Fr.Paul Kramer who is a Qualified and Trained Theologian or shall we side with GERARD who is just a Wannabe Theologian.
-
Gerard,
Some of the things which you have said to Father Kramer in public are despicable.
They show a lack of decorum, discipline, and honor.
You are without a doubt, a revolutionary subversive. Please be honest and throw out the blue, and put your responses in RED.
The phone is still ringing and Red is a popular hue over at Fish Eaters.
Please answer them............................................
Yes indeed, I think you are right J.Paul when you mention the term "Revolutionary Subversive". His words and actions betray his TRUE Intentions.
-
As Pius XII stated unequivocally the liturgy and anything touching the worship of God is SUBJECT to the Apostolic See and the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT.
Ha ha, Gerard. You still won't accept the true, Catholic position on the liturgy, which Pius XII stated in pt 50 in Mediator Dei. Your constant mis-quoting of the pope is a scandal to others and a public lie.
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men...
Your misunderstanding of this docuмent leads you to falsely accept ANY liturgical changes as ok, as long as the pope says so. This is TOTALLY false, for Christ instituted the liturgy, not St Peter, nor any of the popes. The popes have only altered/added to the liturgy, in non essential ways.
Even the horrible, modernist V2 docuмent 'Sacrosanctum concilium' says this in pt 21:
For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change.
Immutable means 'unchangeable', in case you didn't know. This means NO ONE can change parts of the liturgy, even the pope. Though this V2 docuмent, which created the new mass, "said one thing and did another", it's point here is consistent with Church teaching and thus, is true.
You should pray about this error, as it is leading you (and others) astray.
No. That's not my position. The Pope can't make ANY change if he doesn't retain the substance of the sacrament.
The Pope can't replace wheat bread and grape wine with pretzels and soda.
But for simplicity's sake everything that Paul VI put into the Novus Ordo contained the substance of what is necessary for a valid consecration and sacrificial offering.
-
Gerard,
Some of the things which you have said to Father Kramer in public are despicable.
They show a lack of decorum, discipline, and honor.
You are without a doubt, a revolutionary subversive. Please be honest and throw out the blue, and put your responses in RED.
The phone is still ringing and Red is a popular hue over at Fish Eaters.
Please answer them............................................
No. They aren't despicable at all. I point out his errors, he calls me a "dolt"
That's the mark of exactly what he is, an intellectual slob.
He makes pathetic excuses and papers over the false things he wrote.
I called him on it so naturally he's ticked off.
He's got this schtick going that he's a latter day Malachi Martin and the fact that he's not and never can be irks him and I simply reminded him of it to himself when I pointed out the errors here and there along with the often abused misquote of Bugnini.
You guys don't like it when your soap opera framing of the crisis is interrupted by a bit of discomforting truth, the narrative can't lose any sex appeal.
I'm subverting the fantasy by simply being a traditional Catholic and sticking to the truth wherever it leads.
-
Yes indeed, I think you are right J.Paul when you mention the term "Revolutionary Subversive". His words and actions betray his TRUE Intentions.
You are right about one thing, MY words and actions show my TRUE intentions. Not your words about me.
Is the Novus Ordo as evil as a Black Mass? I say, "No" therefore I'm a subversive proponent of the Novus Ordo.
Absurd.
-
That's the problem with Amateur Theologians. They may have an abundance of Knowledge but Application is a totally different thing. It is like saying---I have read thousands of Medical Books, so now I can perform a Hearth Bypass operation. Fr.Kramer has the Knowledge, Experience, Formal Training and Necessary Qualifications to be a Theologian. Gerard from FE does NOT have those qualifications. Gerard hides his inadequacy by means of his Writing Skills. Gerard has very good writing skills, I'll afford him that much. However, when it comes to Theology, Gerard is a FRAUDULENT Theologian. He has very good research skills but that doesn't make him an Expert Theologian. He has very good writing skills, but that doesn't make him an Expert Theologian either.
I wouldn't be surprised why Fr.Kramer would feel EXASPERATED from this guy. What makes Gerard from FE so dangerous is the fact that he could express his ERRORS in an ELOQUENT way which gives people the impression that he is an Expert Theologian.
We have 2 choices here, either we side with Fr.Paul Kramer who is a Qualified and Trained Theologian or shall we side with GERARD who is just a Wannabe Theologian.
Aristotle argues to the contrary. A liberally educated man who knows the first principles of something can render judgment on the veracity of a specialist's argument.
This is the same concept in which someone like You, me or Fr. Kramer may render judgement on something outside of a field of speciality like Economic theory, Evolution or Cardinal Kaspar's proposals for Communion for the Divorced and Remarried or the wrongness of the idea of Pope Benedict "extending the Petrine ministry."
-
On point number 7, I've increased the font size and put it in BOLD which you could see above, Mr.Gerard's statement and I quote: the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT. end of quote
What more proof do we need??? This guy has PUBLICLY expressed his HERESY.
This guy is a SERIOUS MENACE in our Forum. The ENEMY is in our midst! For crying out loud--Let's KICK Him OUT!
Go read Mediator Dei before you condemn what's in your ransom note.
-
Gerard:
But for simplicity's sake everything that Paul VI put into the Novus Ordo contained the substance of what is necessary for a valid consecration and sacrificial offering.
Would the Archbishop have said differently? Would Bp. Williamson say differently? For that matter, would Bp. Fellay contest the validity of a properly celebrated NO Mass, sans balloons, pancake-sized hosts and dancing girls? If so, then the past words of these clerics have given me, for one, an entirely erroneous impression. I have totally misunderstood them.
-
Gerard: But for simplicity's sake everything that Paul VI put into the Novus Ordo contained the substance of what is necessary for a valid consecration and sacrificial offering.
Would the Archbishop have said differently? Would Bp. Williamson say differently? For that matter, would Bp. Fellay contest the validity of a properly celebrated NO Mass, sans balloons, pancake-sized hosts and dancing girls? If so, then the past words of these clerics have given me, for one, an entirely erroneous impression. I have totally misunderstood them.
They are the people that have demonstrated to me that the Novus Ordo is not an issue of whether or not Paul VI had the power to do what he did, they concede he did. They don't argue about validity if done "by the books"
They argue as I do, the lack of traditional defenses of the Novus Ordo and the prudence of the post-Vatican II changes.
The people arguing against me are simply arguing against them.
-
Whatever! I don't want to discourage the don Quixotes of this forum, who go about jousting against the windmills of evil.
-
Whatever! I don't want to discourage the don Quixotes of this forum, who go about jousting against the windmills of evil.
Good analogy.
-
There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.
-
As Pius XII stated unequivocally the liturgy and anything touching the worship of God is SUBJECT to the Apostolic See and the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT.
Ha ha, Gerard. You still won't accept the true, Catholic position on the liturgy, which Pius XII stated in pt 50 in Mediator Dei. Your constant mis-quoting of the pope is a scandal to others and a public lie.
50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men...
Your misunderstanding of this docuмent leads you to falsely accept ANY liturgical changes as ok, as long as the pope says so. This is TOTALLY false, for Christ instituted the liturgy, not St Peter, nor any of the popes. The popes have only altered/added to the liturgy, in non essential ways.
Even the horrible, modernist V2 docuмent 'Sacrosanctum concilium' says this in pt 21:
For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change.
Immutable means 'unchangeable', in case you didn't know. This means NO ONE can change parts of the liturgy, even the pope. Though this V2 docuмent, which created the new mass, "said one thing and did another", it's point here is consistent with Church teaching and thus, is true.
You should pray about this error, as it is leading you (and others) astray.
I found a website that quotes Fr. Kramer on the above subject of Pope Pius Xll and the "new rites."
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/07/fr-kramer-answers-pius-xii-new-rites.html
"
Fr. Kramer: "When Pius Xll spoke of popes having the authority to introduce "new rites," he was using the term in a highly restrictive sense, according to a well established usage; in precisely the same manner that Pius V refers to the Mass liturgy in Quo Primamus, a "new rite" -- a newly restored addition of the traditional rite "handed down by the Roman Church."
The 1570 "new Rite" of Quo Primumus is practically identical to the rite in the printed Missale Romanum of 1474. Quite obviously the error was not made by Pius X, who understood perfectly the nuances of usage of ecclesiastical terms as they are traditionally employed; but having a highly specialized knowledge of the subject matter, he intended the term to be understood in precisely the same manner that it had been traditionally meant."
-
J. Paul:
There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.
But that certainly would not include you, would it, J. Paul? I mean, not only do you know a lot; you understand everything that you know. It' folks like Gerard, who may know much, but understand little of what they know. I think I've got it. :rolleyes:
-
I found a website that quotes Fr. Kramer on the above subject of Pope Pius Xll and the "new rites."
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/07/fr-kramer-answers-pius-xii-new-rites.html
"
Fr. Kramer: "When Pius Xll spoke of popes having the authority to introduce "new rites," he was using the term in a highly restrictive sense, according to a well established usage; in precisely the same manner that Pius V refers to the Mass liturgy in Quo Primamus, a "new rite" -- a newly restored addition of the traditional rite "handed down by the Roman Church."
The 1570 "new Rite" of Quo Primumus is practically identical to the rite in the printed Missale Romanum of 1474. Quite obviously the error was not made by Pius X, who understood perfectly the nuances of usage of ecclesiastical terms as they are traditionally employed; but having a highly specialized knowledge of the subject matter, he intended the term to be understood in precisely the same manner that it had been traditionally meant."
Sorry Meg, but that's just more crazy nonsense from Fr. Kramer. His position is positively Orwellian.
I would be hard pressed to believe that he's even read the docuмent Mediator Dei from start to finish or even a third of it.
Pius XII was incredibly clear and he did not hold Fr. Kramer's fringe position.
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.
52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.
Fr. Kramer's tortured position is the idea that "introducing a new rite" doesn't mean introducing a new rite, it means modifying an old rite.
But Pius XII doesn't conflate the two:
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification
You see the language there? Recognize, establish ANY practice touching the worship of God. He can INTRODUCE and APPROVE NEW RITES.
In addition to that he can also modify any rite, new or old if he so chooses.
He also points out that the Pope can introduce the vernacular into the liturgy.
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.[/b]
And appealing to Quo Primum is ridiculous. Since Quo Primum allows for other "new rites" that could have been established as late as 1370.
That means that the "traditional rites" that the Pope is bound by the Council of Constance could have been only 48 years old at the time of Constance for Pope SAINT Pius V to have considered them exempt from abrogation by Quo Primum.
So Constance claims the Popes are bound to the "traditional rites" but a liturgy younger than Fr. Kramer is now, at the time of Constance would be exempt from Pro Quimum.
-
There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.
You are certainly right J.Paul. I wish to share with you Fr.Kramer's comments on Gerard's Conceitedness. Link below and copy of his comment:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611?fref=nf
Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments. Gerard gratuitously pontificates like a self appointed authority, with a great profusion of assertions which are based on merely assumed and unstated premises; with no attempt made to systematically demonstrate his position with reasoned argumentation that directly addresses the point that has been presented to him. Thus, his arguments are without logical foundation, and are easily shown by one with a classical scholastic theological academic training to be fallacious and erroneous. Yet, he obstinately clings to his unfounded and unproven opinions even when the flawed logic of his thinking has been plainly put before him; and he continues to insist that he is right,and that the correctness of his strongly held opinions is demonstrated and underscored by the force of his adamantly repeated assertions. His lack of formal, systematic theological training is patent in every one of the multitude of errant comments he asserts with a bold self assurance that betrays himself to be utterly oblivious of his own intellectual incompetence. It is a fools chore to argue with one who flaunts in such a crass manner, an immense ignorance and bigotry, thinly disguised as erudition by means of elaborations of profuse verbosity which unravel when subjected to the scrutiny of critical examination.
-
On point number 7, I've increased the font size and put it in BOLD which you could see above, Mr.Gerard's statement and I quote: the Pope alone has the AUTHORITY to INTRODUCE NEW RITES or MODIFY OLD ONE as HE SEES FIT. end of quote
What more proof do we need??? This guy has PUBLICLY expressed his HERESY.
This guy is a SERIOUS MENACE in our Forum. The ENEMY is in our midst! For crying out loud--Let's KICK Him OUT!
Go read Mediator Dei before you condemn what's in your ransom note.
Fr.Kramer has already answered that issue about Mediator Dei. Reading is NOT the problem, it is your Understanding that is the problem.
Here is Fr.Kramer's response below:
The lenghty quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture * which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
-
Sorry Meg, but that's just more crazy nonsense from Fr. Kramer. His position is positively Orwellian.
I would be hard pressed to believe that he's even read the docuмent Mediator Dei from start to finish or even a third of it.
Pius XII was incredibly clear and he did not hold Fr. Kramer's fringe position.
49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow - keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact - to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.
52. Thus, for example, as Catholic doctrine on the Incarnate Word of God, the eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice, and Mary the Virgin Mother of God came to be determined with greater certitude and clarity, new ritual forms were introduced through which the acts of the liturgy proceeded to reproduce this brighter light issuing from the decrees of the teaching authority of the Church, and to reflect it, in a sense so that it might reach the minds and hearts of Christ's people more readily.
Fr. Kramer's tortured position is the idea that "introducing a new rite" doesn't mean introducing a new rite, it means modifying an old rite.
But Pius XII doesn't conflate the two:
58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification
You see the language there? Recognize, establish ANY practice touching the worship of God. He can INTRODUCE and APPROVE NEW RITES.
In addition to that he can also modify any rite, new or old if he so chooses.
He also points out that the Pope can introduce the vernacular into the liturgy.
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.[/b]
And appealing to Quo Primum is ridiculous. Since Quo Primum allows for other "new rites" that could have been established as late as 1370.
That means that the "traditional rites" that the Pope is bound by the Council of Constance could have been only 48 years old at the time of Constance for Pope SAINT Pius V to have considered them exempt from abrogation by Quo Primum.
So Constance claims the Popes are bound to the "traditional rites" but a liturgy younger than Fr. Kramer is now, at the time of Constance would be exempt from Pro Quimum.
When, in the history of the Church have "new rites" been introduced by popes, other than modifying old rites?
-
Gerard,
Some of the things which you have said to Father Kramer in public are despicable.
They show a lack of decorum, discipline, and honor.
You are without a doubt, a revolutionary subversive. Please be honest and throw out the blue, and put your responses in RED.
The phone is still ringing and Red is a popular hue over at Fish Eaters.
Please answer them............................................
No. They aren't despicable at all. I point out his errors, he calls me a "dolt"
That's the mark of exactly what he is, an intellectual slob.
He makes pathetic excuses and papers over the false things he wrote.
I called him on it so naturally he's ticked off.
He's got this schtick going that he's a latter day Malachi Martin and the fact that he's not and never can be irks him and I simply reminded him of it to himself when I pointed out the errors here and there along with the often abused misquote of Bugnini.
You guys don't like it when your soap opera framing of the crisis is interrupted by a bit of discomforting truth, the narrative can't lose any sex appeal.
I'm subverting the fantasy by simply being a traditional Catholic and sticking to the truth wherever it leads.
Your manner of "correction" is disrespectful, dishonorable and vulgar.
He miscast you as a dolt, you are more appropriately termed a subversive disruptor.
It is very odd that you seem to exhibit glee at being in opposition to almost all who engage with you.
The wisdom of Fish Eaters giving you the boot is rapidly becoming clear.
-
[
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.[/b]
The above says that use of the mother tongue can be used in connection with several of the rites, but that the Apostolic see alone can grant this permission. But that's not what happened with the new Mass, in which Latin was chucked, and the mother tongue was made universal. That's not what the pope was trying to allow. Surely the Pope was aware of the Council of Trent's anathema on the Mass being celebrated in the vulgar tongue only.
Canon lX:
"...If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or that the water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."
I know, of course, that you will find a way to dismiss the above, as you always do Gerard, but I just want others to be reminded of what Trent says about use of the vulgar tongue.
-
Gerard,
Some of the things which you have said to Father Kramer in public are despicable.
They show a lack of decorum, discipline, and honor.
You are without a doubt, a revolutionary subversive. Please be honest and throw out the blue, and put your responses in RED.
The phone is still ringing and Red is a popular hue over at Fish Eaters.
Please answer them............................................
No. They aren't despicable at all. I point out his errors, he calls me a "dolt"
That's the mark of exactly what he is, an intellectual slob.
He makes pathetic excuses and papers over the false things he wrote.
I called him on it so naturally he's ticked off.
He's got this schtick going that he's a latter day Malachi Martin and the fact that he's not and never can be irks him and I simply reminded him of it to himself when I pointed out the errors here and there along with the often abused misquote of Bugnini.
You guys don't like it when your soap opera framing of the crisis is interrupted by a bit of discomforting truth, the narrative can't lose any sex appeal.
I'm subverting the fantasy by simply being a traditional Catholic and sticking to the truth wherever it leads.
Your manner of "correction" is disrespectful, dishonorable and vulgar.
He miscast you as a dolt, you are more appropriately termed a subversive disruptor.
It is very odd that you seem to exhibit glee at being in opposition to almost all who engage with you.
The wisdom of Fish Eaters giving you the boot is rapidly becoming clear.
Well said. I suppose that Gerard is on a mission to correct the ignorant traddies and prove them (us) wrong, and that his "truth" is the what needs to be imposed. I think that a lot of people out there are against the position taken by the Resistance in general, which is essentially against Tradition. It's odd, though, that he would gain a sense of glee in trying to do so. I don't understand that. It's not very mature.
If this subject were being discussed on the CAF forum, then all of us would have been banned by now, except Gerard, of course, and maybe Holli.
-
[
60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.[/b]
The above says that use of the mother tongue can be used in connection with several of the rites, but that the Apostolic see alone can grant this permission. But that's not what happened with the new Mass, in which Latin was chucked, and the mother tongue was made universal. That's not what the pope was trying to allow. Surely the Pope was aware of the Council of Trent's anathema on the Mass being celebrated in the vulgar tongue only.
Canon lX:
"...If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone is to be condemned; or, that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or that the water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema."
I know, of course, that you will find a way to dismiss the above, as you always do Gerard, but I just want others to be reminded of what Trent says about use of the vulgar tongue.
That's bad faith on your part. It's not that I will "find a way" to dismiss the above. It's understanding what "the above" actually means.
The robber synod of Pistoia's greatest crime was not some of the individual liturgical changes they advocated. It was the taking the authority to do anything like that for themselves and not under the guidance of the Holy See.
Vernacular liturgies cannot be intrinsically evil because the sacred languages were the vernacular.
Charles Coulombe pointed out in one of his lectures that when the vernacular is used in worship, the vernacular tends to die as a language and only remains in the rituals.
As far as the Novus Ordo goes, it was published in Latin and a complete translation to the vernacular is a tolerated abuse.
-
Your manner of "correction" is disrespectful, dishonorable and vulgar.
No it isn't.
He miscast you as a dolt, you are more appropriately termed a subversive disruptor.
He didn't do anything but attack since he's so paranoid about being wrong.
He more than likely got ticked off by getting caught calling a mediocre Pope at best, "Saint."
It is very odd that you seem to exhibit glee at being in opposition to almost all who engage with you.
It's because the clownish of the attacks makes me laugh.
You guys keep coming back for more and you are so far off the rails from when you began your attacks it's actually funny.
I can't take you seriously, I did at one time and your arrogance demonstrates how unreachable you are.
Plain English on the pages cited from Magisterial sources doesn't even engender an attempt at rebuttal, just a blind ignorance and a return to your original errors.
The wisdom of Fish Eaters giving you the boot is rapidly becoming clear.
Hilarious! You have no clue as what or why FE is referenced in my handle.
-
There certainly are a lot of people who know a great deal, and understand little.
You are certainly right J.Paul. I wish to share with you Fr.Kramer's comments on Gerard's Conceitedness. Link below and copy of his comment:
https://www.facebook.com/paul.kramer.1023611?fref=nf
Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments. Gerard gratuitously pontificates like a self appointed authority, with a great profusion of assertions which are based on merely assumed and unstated premises; with no attempt made to systematically demonstrate his position with reasoned argumentation that directly addresses the point that has been presented to him. Thus, his arguments are without logical foundation, and are easily shown by one with a classical scholastic theological academic training to be fallacious and erroneous. Yet, he obstinately clings to his unfounded and unproven opinions even when the flawed logic of his thinking has been plainly put before him; and he continues to insist that he is right,and that the correctness of his strongly held opinions is demonstrated and underscored by the force of his adamantly repeated assertions. His lack of formal, systematic theological training is patent in every one of the multitude of errant comments he asserts with a bold self assurance that betrays himself to be utterly oblivious of his own intellectual incompetence. It is a fools chore to argue with one who flaunts in such a crass manner, an immense ignorance and bigotry, thinly disguised as erudition by means of elaborations of profuse verbosity which unravel when subjected to the scrutiny of critical examination.
Ho hum.
"Tu Quoue" is the fallacy at work here in Fr. Kramer's scatterbrained attempt to vent his spleen.
What we've got is simply a series gratuitous assertions on Fr. Kramer's part.
He doesn't prove any of them. He can't for that matter.
What is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.
A full rebuttal can be provided by two words to Fr. Kramer, "SEZ YOU."
This is all just a garrulous attempt at distracting from the fact that I've shown his
arguments to be as I described, intellectually sloppy and he's trying to disguise the fact that all he can rebut with is, "You too!!!"
I've got more to add but I'm off to a social event.
-
Fr. Kramer:
Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments.
I have nothing against Fr. Kramer, but would have to disagree with him on this matter. Gerard, I'm afraid, is extremely mentally capable of engaging in theological discussion. If he were not, then Fr. Kramer would not bother discussing matters with him. Fr. Kramer's continued rejoinders to Gerard convince me that Father takes him very seriously. Father would not attempt to discredit Gerard over and over again, if he did not take the latter seriously.
-
Fr. Kramer: Gerard is mentally incapable of engaging in disciplined, systematic theological discussion. He replies to properly formulated arguments with mere dogmatic assertions which do not directly address the point demonstrated in the argument presented to him; and with mere ad hominem statements which underscore his incapacity to engage in rational discussion by means of systematically reasoned arguments.
I have nothing against Fr. Kramer, but would have to disagree with him on this matter. Gerard, I'm afraid, is extremely mentally capable of engaging in theological discussion. If he were not, then Fr. Kramer would not bother discussing matters with him. Fr. Kramer's continued rejoinders to Gerard convince me that Father takes him very seriously. Father would not attempt to discredit Gerard over and over again, if he did not take the latter seriously.
Your assumption is wrong holly. Fr.Kramer is very busy nowadays because he is writing a new book. It is I who pleaded to Fr.Kramer to make those rebuttals for the sake of True Traditionalists in this Forum. I've realized the danger that Gerard pose in this Forum.
-
And it's wonderful that you give your nun from high school credit for quotes that don't originate with her. I've come to expect no less. I long to hear your lecture on Pope St. Judas Iscariot and the circuмstances of his famous Catholic maxim, "Where's the Beef?"
:roll-laugh1:
Whatever side you may take in this dispute, that's hilarious.
-
Your assumption is wrong holly. Fr.Kramer is very busy nowadays because he is writing a new book. It is I who pleaded to Fr.Kramer to make those rebuttals for the sake of True Traditionalists in this Forum. I've realized the danger that Gerard pose in this Forum.
OH!
-
No. They aren't despicable at all. I point out his errors, he calls me a "dolt"
That's the mark of exactly what he is, an intellectual slob.
He makes pathetic excuses and papers over the false things he wrote.
I called him on it so naturally he's ticked off.
While I disagree with you on a lot, I do agree about this assessment of his character. I had the exact same experience that you describe when arguing about the issues of EENS and Catholic ecclesiology.
-
No. They aren't despicable at all. I point out his errors, he calls me a "dolt"
That's the mark of exactly what he is, an intellectual slob.
He makes pathetic excuses and papers over the false things he wrote.
I called him on it so naturally he's ticked off.
While I disagree with you on a lot, I do agree about this assessment of his character. I had the exact same experience that you describe when arguing about the issues of EENS and Catholic ecclesiology.
The difference being that you were arguing for the doctrine and orthodoxy of the Catholic Church as opposed to another who is arguing against it.
That man's failings do not change the substance at issue here, conciliar or Catholic?
-
No. They aren't despicable at all. I point out his errors, he calls me a "dolt"
That's the mark of exactly what he is, an intellectual slob.
He makes pathetic excuses and papers over the false things he wrote.
I called him on it so naturally he's ticked off.
While I disagree with you on a lot, I do agree about this assessment of his character. I had the exact same experience that you describe when arguing about the issues of EENS and Catholic ecclesiology.
The difference being that you were arguing for the doctrine and orthodoxy of the Catholic Church as opposed to another who is arguing against it.
That man's failings do not change the substance at issue here, conciliar or Catholic?
The interesting point of that is, if one is pro-Fr. Feeney (as I am) it is in the conciliar Church where the Feeney position is accepted. While loose ideas like BOD and BOB are tolerated, the doctrine of EENS in it purest form is accepted.
That is unfortunately not true in many traditionalist venues. That makes for an interesting question about who is actually preserving the entire Catholic faith, undefiled. The conciliar Church with all of the faith in addition to a load of foul ideas being bandied about with impunity or the trad venues where some essential doctrines are being undermined and even condemned.
That could explain why God is allowing some trad venues to whither or succuмb to the post-conciliar madness.
-
When, in the history of the Church have "new rites" been introduced by popes, other than modifying old rites?
Whole liturgies have been received and approved into the Catholic Church. The Syro Malankara developed outside the Church and was received and approved by the Pope in or around the 1930s,
Confession and Penance used to be a public act. You had to stand up and confess all of your sins to the priest publicly. The penances were brutal and harsh.
The confessional, was introduced, the rite of absolution has had numerous forms with the essential words "I absolve you" in each of them and the tradition of prayer oriented penances was an addition replacing the standing in the doorway of the Church for a year, the sitting in sack cloth and ashes and other fun things.
Baptism of adults was done in the form of immersion in the nude.
-
But for simplicity's sake everything that Paul VI put into the Novus Ordo contained the substance of what is necessary for a valid consecration and sacrificial offering.
Your opinion. Cardinal Ottaviani, and the other theologians would disagree.
-
See? Now Gerard's got it going all over the place - again.
-
See? Now Gerard's got it going all over the place - again.
That's what a forum is. Somebody asked me a question. I answered it. Someone else made a comment.
What's you problem?
-
Gerard:
Baptism of adults was done in the form of immersion in the nude.
I don't think this true.
-
But for simplicity's sake everything that Paul VI put into the Novus Ordo contained the substance of what is necessary for a valid consecration and sacrificial offering.
Your opinion. Cardinal Ottaviani, and the other theologians would disagree.
No. Ottaviani talked about "suppression" not elimination of the sacrificial aspect and never made a positive decision regarding anything in the Novus Ordo being invalid.
Furthermore, Ottaviani despite being blind never disowned the "Ottaviani Retraction" in which he proclaimed that all of his fears were put to rest.
He also gave an interview in which he stated that he was an old soldier who would do everything to stop the laws from changing, but if they change, he will defend the new laws as much as the old.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_096_Ottaviani_Betray.html
Once again, like the comment by Dietrich von Hildebrand on the "devils" from C.S. Lewis Screwtape Letters, some trads are only willing to take the information that reinforces their emotional security and not take the totality of one particular Catholic luminaries output which distorts the truth of the argument.
-
See? Now Gerard's got it going all over the place - again.
That's what a forum is. Somebody asked me a question. I answered it. Someone else made a comment.
What's your problem?
-
Ottaviani said the NO has doubtful validity, which is as dangerous as invalidity.
What he said later in life is irrelevant because he never refuted his theological assessment. He simply said (allegedly) that he's going along with Rome. That's not a refutation, that's a give in to pressure. Besides he wasn't the only one who theologically critiqued the NO. The others didn't cave to pressure. The theological problems they pointed out still exist and may be worse now because his critique was based on a "perfect" NO mass. An oxymoron.
-
Gerard: Baptism of adults was done in the form of immersion in the nude.
I don't think this true.
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/05/the-true-history-of-women-deacons
"Christian docuмents of the third and fourth centuries provide more detail, and they seem to depict an increasingly elaborate and formally honored role for women deacons. These docuмents refer specifically to deaconesses (“diakonissai”), and at least one mentions a bishop’s laying his hands on these women in a kind of ordination ceremony that recognized their special office. Other early docuмents, mostly from the Eastern Church but also occasionally in the West, name some women as “deaconesses.” These women were almost invariably either widows or celibates who had chosen some form of the monastic life. Their duties largely consisted of charitable works and participating in the baptisms of adult women, in the days when immersion baptism was universal and it would have appeared scandalous for a male priest to immerse a naked woman. These deaconesses sometimes assisted priests at the liturgy—a not uncommon practice among nuns whose only male contact was their priest."
http://modernmedievalism.blogspot.com/2016/05/deaconesses-a-reasoned-approach.html
The Eastern Church's Didascalia Apostolorum, originating in the middle of the 3rd century, gives the first concrete description of a deaconess's duties. While a deacon's responsibilities are vast, a deaconess is commissioned to minister specifically to women. Chief among them is the anointing of a female catechumen's body at baptism; which, in the early centuries, was still common among adult converts, and was necessarily by immersion in the nude. No culture would have thought it appropriate for a priest or deacon to anoint a woman's naked body, so having a woman perform the anointing was a practical necessity.
The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome:
http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/12-pretendue_tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/1934-burton_scott_easton-tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/Burton_Scott_Easton_-
_The_Apostolic_Tradition_of_Hippolytus_(1934).pdf21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When
they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring
or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be
baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there
are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or
someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women,
after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any
foreign object with themselves down into the water.
-
Gerard,
The interesting point of that is, if one is pro-Fr. Feeney (as I am) it is in the conciliar Church where the Feeney position is accepted. While loose ideas like BOD and BOB are tolerated, the doctrine of EENS in it purest form is accepted.
:surprised: :surprised: :surprised:
See, I told you
-
You can easily see how much this thread is all about Gerard from FE by putting him on "Hide" and then paging through the thread again.
The reality is manifest. And who cares about Gerard from FE??
-
Here -- I cleaned up the OP (quoted by another member) and now it actually makes some sense this way:
From Fr. Kramer's Facebook page...
As expected, Gerard (of Fish Eaters) pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation. A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air; and with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckleheaded pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed." (LOL) My dear Gerard: As my high school teacher, Sr. Concetta used to say, "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and end all doubt."
1) ?The deceitful sophistry is pretending one of the most dangerous councils in the history of the Church which is known as the "Concilliarists" council in which the attempt to hobble the papacy was manifested actually does bind the papacy.?
The deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment which, in a desperate attempt to undermine its authority, rails against a duly papally ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world.
2) ?The cute trick is misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes. ?
Gerard, in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified.
Gerard, who like Luther [deleted] pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious (!)
he speaks of "Council of Constance and it's dubious assertions."
However, his assertion that I engage in "misleading people into thinking that Martin V ratified the heresy of Conciliarism which put Councils above Popes," is an outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar.
NEITHER MARTIN V NOR EUGENE IV RATIFIED ANYTHING THAT PUTS COUNCILS ABOVE POPES, AND I HAVE SAID NOTHING THAT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGESTS SUCH A THING. GERARD IS A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS.
3) ? And the convenience by which all of that conciliar intrigue is glossed over . . .?
Scurrilous off point objection: Conciliar intrigue has no bearing whatsoever on the doctrinal authority of the ratified acts of a council.
This, as we shall see, is the fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments: "scurrilitas quae ad rem non pertinent" (Eph. 5:4).
4) ?Actually Gregory XII was accepted as the legitimate Pope. The Council was reconvened under his authority as condition of his resignation. It's the authority of Gregory XII that allows for the legitimate election of Martin V.?
OFF POINT! What has this to do with the authority of the papal approbation of the ratified decrees of the Council? NOTHING!
A Florentine's reply to such stupidity would be: "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?" (Literally translated, "What has my arse to do with the Forty Hours Devotion?")
5) ?Ecuмenical Councils require papal authority for convocation, direction and confirmation. The authority to elect Pope Martin didn't come retroactively from Pope Martin. It was given by Pope Gregory and affirmed by Martin.?
OFF POINT. The authority to elect Martin V, or how, or by whom the Council was convoked, are utterly irrelevant to the matter under discussion. What matters only is that Martin V and Eugene IV were legitimate popes who ratified most of the acts of the Council, and that those acts have been generally accepted throughout the Church ever since.
6) ?Anti-Pope John XXIII who originally called the council had fled and was deposed and Benedict XII never submitted to being deposed.?
Again, Sig. Gerardo -- "Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
7) ?[N]either Martin nor Eugene ever intended to acknowledge the superiority of a council over the pope. (See Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 50-54)" ?
There is no end to this dolt's scurrilous outbursts. Gerard doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity. The DOCTRINE that the traditional rites are binding on all popes has been repeatedly taught throughout Church history, as I have amply demonstrated in my book, The ѕυιcιdє of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy.
8) ?It should be that much more embarrassing that this "dolt" is telling the truth and Fr. Kramer the "genius" is simply an intellectual slob who spreads "heresy"! He makes up history where he sees fit and spreads heresy to support his political agenda.?
After all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity Gerard has presented in his off point rants, he then has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history", "to support his political agenda".
Gerard is guilty of public sacrilege for graruitously vilifying a priest. He is therefore to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
9) The lenghty quotation of Mediator Dei is totally off point. No Catholic denies the pope's authority to regulate the liturgy, but no Catholic may deny the dogma founded on scripture* which teaches that the Catholic conscience is bound, and the pope in particular is BOUND to the traditional rites; and it is HERESY to say that any pope may abolish the traditional rites, and change them into new rites.
Mediator Dei is quite apt. Again, you keep bouncing between "rites" and "liturgy" as if they are the same thing.
Pius XII states clearly that rites can be modified (changed) and new rites can be introduced as the Pope sees fit.
10) The remainder of Gerard's observations consist of nothing but off point comments,
and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalomaniacal wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed".
Much less annoying to read this way, don't you think?
Now, what manner of writing would evoke such words as these from any priest:
pontificates a load of codswallop which betrays a woeful lack of formal theological formation
A dolt indeed -- who spouts effusions of logically flawed empty hot air
with the maximum stupidity thinks that his knuckle-headed pontifications will effect the result that, "Fr, Kramer will have his argument destroyed."
deceitful sophistry consists in Gerard's private judgment
rails against a duly papally ratified ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church that has been generally accepted by the Church throughout the Catholic world
in the manner of heretics, gives more weight to his own private judgments against the Council of Constance than the universal acceptance by the Church of those acts of that Council which were duly ratified
like Luther pronouncing the Epistle of St. James to be an "epistle of straw", rails against the judgment of the Church which accepts the authority of that Council's ratified decrees, privately judging its doctrines to be dubious
outright, gratuitous falsehood which reveals him to be a malicious and sacrilegious bold faced liar
A SACRILEGIOUS SLANDERER OF PRIESTS
fatal logical defect of nearly all of Gerard's arguments
"Cosa c'entra il culo colle quarant'ore?"
this dolt's scurrilous outbursts
doltishly confuses authority which a council can never exercise over a reigning pontiff, with the doctrinal authority which a duly ratified council can bind popes and the whole Church in perpetuity
all the scurrilous sophistry and stupidity ___ has presented in his off point rants
has the sacrilegious effrontery to call a Roman educated priest with multiple ecclesiastical degrees "an intellectual slob", "who makes up history", "to support his political agenda"
guilty of public sacrilege for gratuitously vilifying a priest
to be considered a public sinner to be deprived of receiving Holy Communion, as is set forth in can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law
off point comments and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalomaniacal wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose -- so that "Fr. Kramer, will have his argument destroyed"
.
-
Ottaviani said the NO has doubtful validity, which is as dangerous as invalidity.
What he said later in life is irrelevant because he never refuted his theological assessment. He simply said (allegedly) that he's going along with Rome. That's not a refutation, that's a give in to pressure. Besides he wasn't the only one who theologically critiqued the NO. The others didn't cave to pressure. The theological problems they pointed out still exist and may be worse now because his critique was based on a "perfect" NO mass. An oxymoron.
I know exactly what you are saying, I used to think the same way.
In fact, I found an old discussion on this very topic I was involved in on Catholic Answers 9 years ago. I was still a little green in some areas but I think I would still hold to virtually everything I held back then. Today, I would tell the younger me to tighten up the arguments a little more and dig a little deeper, but I have 9 years more study under me now than I did then. But I stayed on point in describing the problems of the Novus Ordo as it is on the parish level. That was the big denial on the part of the Catholic Answers crowd.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=204733
At the time, I was simply speculating on my doubts as to the validity of the retraction based on a Michael Davies speculation. There was an old saw going around at the time about his signature being forged etc. But ultimately there is no proof of it.
But a little more study has shown me that Ottaviani tended to go where he thought he would have the most influence and pushed his own agendas. Malachi Martin stated in "The Pilgrim" that he was known to push is own agenda items and say, "This is the will of the Holy Father" when it was fully known it was not.
This was why 30 years later he also stated when asked by Bernard Janzen about Ottaviani, "He simply faded away." And then he described the weakness and politicking of elder Roman clergy who had traditional sympathies. Cardinal Oddi, Cardinal Ciappi, etc. He said they have no power and they want to die in the Vatican. The only exception he made was Cardinal Stickler.
What he (Ottaviani) stated later is relevant. That's why it's called the "Ottaviani RETRACTION."
He stated in a letter that all doubt had been removed by the discourses of Paul VI.
"I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26,[5] after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your "Doctrinal Note" [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success." Letter to Gerard LaFond: published in La Docuмentation catholique 67 (1970), pp. 215–216 and 343.
He also stated that he regretted that his name was being misused as part of the Intervention.
"I regret only that my name has been misused in a way I did not wish, by publishing a letter that I wrote to the Holy Father without authorizing anyone to publish it."
Here are the General Audiences of Paul VI that "alleviated" Ottaviani's fears.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM
http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/14/01/12/16-58-03_0.pdf
The truth of the matter is, it's all got some political propaganda mixed in with the truth. Ottaviani and the theologians who prepared the Intervention, juiced up their worries in the Intervention and I'm sure Ottaviani was less than "rejoicing profoundly" at the discourses of Paul VI.
-
Gerard,
The interesting point of that is, if one is pro-Fr. Feeney (as I am) it is in the conciliar Church where the Feeney position is accepted. While loose ideas like BOD and BOB are tolerated, the doctrine of EENS in it purest form is accepted.
:surprised: :surprised: :surprised:
See, I told you
What did you tell us? I'm a Feeney supporting fan of Vatican II?
It's a simple fact. Feeney was never outside of orthodoxy in his beliefs and formulations. I believe he was right on the money. The Church has never officially condemned him. He was reconciled without recanting his position. His position is known and accepted by the hierarchy as it concerns the communities that follow his lead and defend the dogma.
The critical failure of groups like the SSPX and Fr. Pfeiffer's faction of the Resistance is probably at least partially due to the assertion of magisterial power in condemning a perfectly orthodox position.
-
You can easily see how much this thread is all about Gerard from FE by putting him on "Hide" and then paging through the thread again.
The reality is manifest. And who cares about Gerard from FE??
I do. Our Lord and our Lady care. My Guardian Angel does.
Anything beyond that is gravy. :laugh1:
-
Now, what manner of writing would evoke such words as these from any priest:
Such words are indicative of a temper tantrum and an unhinged and threatened personality.
The word that would evoke that kind of tantrum obviously are words that threaten a priest who is ultra defensive about something he doesn't want explained or explored.
It's not exactly a modern day example of "the cool" exhibited by St.. Thomas Aquinas who posits the question, takes a series of objections, provide contrary example, gives his own explanation and deals with each objection.
You read a rant like Fr. Kramer and laugh at the irony of his snobbery and hypocritical criticism.
Bonaventure is known as the "Seraphic" doctor of the Church.
Aquinas is knows as the "Angelic" doctor of the Church.
I'm going to petition the Church to make Fr. Kramer the "Paroxysmal" doctor of the Church.
Everyone who wants to rant like a lunatic will read the "Summa Hissy Fit"
-
Gerard,
The interesting point of that is, if one is pro-Fr. Feeney (as I am) it is in the conciliar Church where the Feeney position is accepted. While loose ideas like BOD and BOB are tolerated, the doctrine of EENS in it purest form is accepted.
:surprised: :surprised: :surprised:
See, I told you
What did you tell us? I'm a Feeney supporting fan of Vatican II?
It's a simple fact. Feeney was never outside of orthodoxy in his beliefs and formulations. I believe he was right on the money. The Church has never officially condemned him. He was reconciled without recanting his position. His position is known and accepted by the hierarchy as it concerns the communities that follow his lead and defend the dogma.
The critical failure of groups like the SSPX and Fr. Pfeiffer's faction of the Resistance is probably at least partially due to the assertion of magisterial power in condemning a perfectly orthodox position.
This is true.
...and abusive personal insults which reveal his state of mind as that of a Narcissistic megalonaniac wretch who is possessed of the pathological obsession to win an argument -- even to the point of heretically denying a dogma of faith in pursuit of his ignoble purpose
Have you heard of a condition known as "projection" ever - present in pathological Narcissism, Fr. Kramer? I have always wondered about your excessive need to brag about your pontifical degrees and theological credentials at the slightest opportunity. If you indeed are what you say you are, then why do you feel the constant need to remind us of the fact? It is pedantic and makes you lose credibility.
-
This guy is a SERIOUS MENACE in our Forum. The ENEMY is in our midst! For crying out loud--Let's KICK Him OUT!
This is a discussion forum. Y'all are discussing. Gerard's fine.
-
No wonder Fr. Chazel has brought Fr. Kramer to the "Bamboo Seminary" as their writing style is unfortunately very similar.
I wonder if there is enough room there for both of them ?
-
Gerard,
The interesting point of that is, if one is pro-Fr. Feeney (as I am) it is in the conciliar Church where the Feeney position is accepted. While loose ideas like BOD and BOB are tolerated, the doctrine of EENS in it purest form is accepted.
:surprised: :surprised: :surprised:
See, I told you
What did you tell us? I'm a Feeney supporting fan of Vatican II?
It's a simple fact. Feeney was never outside of orthodoxy in his beliefs and formulations. I believe he was right on the money. The Church has never officially condemned him. He was reconciled without recanting his position. His position is known and accepted by the hierarchy as it concerns the communities that follow his lead and defend the dogma.
The critical failure of groups like the SSPX and Fr. Pfeiffer's faction of the Resistance is probably at least partially due to the assertion of magisterial power in condemning a perfectly orthodox position.
The conciliar church believes and teaches the same error of the SSPX, that there can be salvation outside of the church and in false religions, and by ignorance.
The Church of the New Advent is a church of universal salvation, where Hell is only a state of mind.
Father Feeney was condemned by the conciliar precursors, and in some cases its participants.
-
The conciliar church believes and teaches the same error of the SSPX, that there can be salvation outside of the church and in false religions, and by ignorance.
The Church of the New Advent is a church of universal salvation, where Hell is only a state of mind.
No. You mean Churchmen, not the Church.
The "conciliar" Church throws around a lot of nonsense but no one is bound to believe it.
Even the Novus Ordo Catechism states that the Catholic Church knows no other way to salvation other than Baptism.
As I stated earlier, the complete Catholic faith is still in the conciliar Church buried under the rubble of a lot of nonsensical, heretical non-binding junk.
When traditional groups take it upon themselves to condemn Catholic doctrine which they call "Feeneyism" it's no wonder that they are ultimately doomed.
It's one thing to hold an error that hasn't been condemned like the Baptism of Blood and Desire, a person can be in genuine error because they haven't connected all of the dots.
But it's another to condemn those that don't deny any dogma and have connected the dots in making a cohesive apologetic for the faith in all of its integrity.
Father Feeney was condemned by the conciliar precursors, and in some cases its participants.
You mean Fr. Feeney was condemned by the pre-Vatican II Church. The Golden Church of Perfection.
Hmmm….seems like something was seriously wrong in the Catholic Church years before John XXIII called for a Council.
That's what I've been stating all of this time. Glad to see you agree with me.
-
:facepalm: 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.
-
:facepalm: 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 don't know Fr. Kramer. It is my understanding that he is a converted conciliarist priest. Was he ordained via the Montini rite? If so, has he been conditionally ordained? If so, by which bishop? And from what institution, and in what approximate time period, did he earn these theological degrees of which he boasts?
-
:facepalm: 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 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.
Now you are walking your statements back. "more or less Catholic" and "far less Catholic" OR "not at all.' That's a far cry from your initial positions.
The attack of anti-Catholic Jews would have had no effect if it weren't for Catholics who were traitors and the confused and corrupted. Those Catholics were in the ranks and files and hierarchy of the Church.
Vaticana II claims to be part of the Magisterium in that it is an act of the hierarchy. "Magisterium" does not mean "impeccable" or "infallible" in and of itself.
It is the "authentic" aspect of the Magisterium that Vatican II claims.
It bound no one to no new "teachings" which are often only assessments and policy statements, of which the Church has issued numerous times over the centuries with a wide variety of nonsense and have often been simply ignored by the faithful.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
J. Paul:
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.
-
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.
-
Gerard:
No. Again, the "Catholic Church" has (had) 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.
I think that is true. I mean, "real scoundrels" is not the word for it. I just re-read Life and Times of Girolamo Savanarola by Prof. Pasquale Villari, 1888. I don't think there has been a post-conciliar pope who can hold a candle to Alexander VI and others of the Renaissance popes. The Borgia Alexander is described by Villari as not even a Christian, much less a legitimate pope. Most of the clergy were entirely given over to neo-paganism. They preached Horace, Plato and Virgil, not Christ. They practiced astrology, and preached devotion to that occult discipline from the pulpit.
Eventually, the Arrabiatti (trans. "maddened") in the Republic of Florence managed to lay hold of the holy priest Savanarola and two of his friar companions. After days of torture and abuse, the three were duly hanged in the public square and roasted over an open fire. Alexander applauded gleefully. That's just one example of similar papal behavior in those days.
-
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!
-
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.
-
J. Paul: 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. :facepalm:
-
J. Paul: 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. :facepalm:
:facepalm: at the inconsistencies and mental somersaults from EVERY angle of this theologian-wannabe lightweight wrestling match.
-
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?
-
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?
This thought made me realize that Fellay and Pfeiffer share something in common.
They're both little dictators who make-up their Catholic theology, on-the-fly, as needed to suit their political agendas.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7HP9zP02R2Y/UIVaIN2S3LI/AAAAAAAAAEw/Y2uepk7N_s8/s1600/Bishop+Fellay.JPG)
(https://catholicbattlefield.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/6655a-the2bworld2bhas2bno2bwine.jpg)