Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Infirmus on August 30, 2024, 10:38:13 AM
-
Hewkonian please ease the grip you have on your axe. You say Archbishop Lefebvre said NO mass does not confer or transmit grace, and you quoted “Open Letter To Confused Catholics” chapter 3. That chapter deals with the abuses in the NO mass not with the rite of the NO mass. As per below The Archbishop accepted the validity, not the licitness. If you weren’t banned you could offer me something more substantial. As Archbishop Lefebvre said at the Consecrations of the 4 bishops the intentions are doubtful. We can agree for sure that certain abuses will invalidate. Maybe there is a Hewkonite that can provide the claim that there is no grace from the New rite as it written. Just to clarify I am not saying is or isn’t graces.
◄ 1988 ►d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
-
Since Hewkonian is banned I'll respond instead of him. I think I have a good grip on how these discussions go.
Hewkonian's response:
No, I'm the TRUE follower of Lefebvre! The following quote was made two months and 15 days after yours so it's worth more ABP points:
[Insert Lefebvre quote]
Jokes aside, you can't pick a bishop and make him your rule of faith.
-
Hewkonian's rigorist position on the New Mass is mistaken.
+ABL also told Michael Davies in 1980: "
Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass."
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
-
Hewkonian's rigorist position on the New Mass is mistaken.
+ABL also told Michael Davies in 1980: "https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
Literally who cares about his opinion? You people can't make any actual arguments besides appeals to "authorities" you chose for yourselves.
-
Literally who cares about his opinion? You people can't make any actual arguments besides appeals to "authorities" you chose for yourselves.
Yes, this epitomizes with my frustration with the level of "discourse" / debate here on CI, where people just paste in their authorities (filtered out via their own confirmation bias) that support whatever position they've already decided they want to take, and will not or cannot engage regarding the underlying principles, whether and to what extent they apply, etc. It's the same thing going on with the Universal Acceptance thread.
1) Paste in some stuff that backs (or seems to back) your opinion.
2) Someone makes a well-thought-out response to these based on the principles involved.
3) Re-paste the stuff you pasted earlier without any regard for the response.
Anyone can play the old cut and paste game. I'm not interested in that. For everything they paste in, I can paste something in, and it would become a battle of cut-and-paste. Stupid and a waste of time.
-
Michael Davies was a well-meaning individual but he got a ton of stuff wrong, including that Vatican II could be salvaged except for a single word in the Dignitatis Humanae docuмent, publice.
-
Literally who cares about his opinion? You people can't make any actual arguments besides appeals to "authorities" you chose for yourselves.
Well, you too are a layman, isn't that correct? But you want all of us to follow your opinion, which you believe to be authoritative.
At least Michael Davies was around back in the day. He saw firsthand what was happening, and he wrote about it extensively. Were you there?
-
Hewkonian please ease the grip you have on your axe. You say Archbishop Lefebvre said NO mass does not confer or transmit grace, and you quoted “Open Letter To Confused Catholics” chapter 3. That chapter deals with the abuses in the NO mass not with the rite of the NO mass. As per below The Archbishop accepted the validity, not the licitness. If you weren’t banned you could offer me something more substantial. As Archbishop Lefebvre said at the Consecrations of the 4 bishops the intentions are doubtful. We can agree for sure that certain abuses will invalidate. Maybe there is a Hewkonite that can provide the claim that there is no grace from the New rite as it written. Just to clarify I am not saying is or isn’t graces.
◄ 1988 ►d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
Yes, +ABL believed that the new mass was valid but illicit. With validity, there are a lot of issues that go along with that, and it can get complicated. For example, if the new mass is valid, it may follow that there can be graces from the new mass.
-
Michael Davies was a well-meaning individual but he got a ton of stuff wrong, including that Vatican II could be salvaged except for a single word in the Dignitatis Humanae docuмent, publice.
.
:facepalm:
-
Michael Davies was a well-meaning individual but he got a ton of stuff wrong, including that Vatican II could be salvaged except for a single word in the Dignitatis Humanae docuмent, publice.
If he was well-meaning he would have read John Daly's book refuting him. He refused.
-
If he was well-meaning he would have read John Daly's book refuting him. He refused.
Was Daly a sedevacantist when he wrote that book? Or was that later? Wasn't a forum member here at one time?
-
Was Daly a sedevacantist when he wrote that book? Or was that later? Wasn't a forum member here at one time?
Yes, John Daly was a sedevacantist when he wrote that book.
-
Yes, John Daly was a sedevacantist when he wrote that book.
Okay, thanks.
I found an old forum thread that has info about Daly's criticisms of Davies. One article says, regarding the book on Davies that Daly wrote:
"The work [on] Michael Davies - An evaluation written in a tone that the author [Daly] now regrets. He has, in fact, withdrawn the book from publication."
NOW publishes John Dalys 1989 critique of Michael Davies - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/now-publishes-john-dalys-1989-critique-of-michael-davies/msg465773/#msg465773)
-
Okay, thanks.
I found an old forum thread that has info about Daly's criticisms of Davies. One article says, regarding the book on Davies that Daly wrote:
"The work [on] Michael Davies - An evaluation written in a tone that the author [Daly] now regrets. He has, in fact, withdrawn the book from publication."
NOW publishes John Dalys 1989 critique of Michael Davies - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/now-publishes-john-dalys-1989-critique-of-michael-davies/msg465773/#msg465773)
I believe he regrets it because the book was somewhat hash in tone and because his position changed from a practical “home alone” position (Briton’s Catholic Library position) to a more moderate position.
-
Jokes aside, you can't pick a bishop and make him your rule of faith
What is your rule of Faith concerning these times?
-
Yes, this epitomizes with my frustration with the level of "discourse" / debate here on CI, where people just paste in their authorities (filtered out via their own confirmation bias) that support whatever position they've already decided they want to take, and will not or cannot engage regarding the underlying principles, whether and to what extent they apply, etc. It's the same thing going on with the Universal Acceptance thread.
1) Paste in some stuff that backs (or seems to back) your opinion.
2) Someone makes a well-thought-out response to these based on the principles involved.
3) Re-paste the stuff you pasted earlier without any regard for the response.
Anyone can play the old cut and paste game. I'm not interested in that. For everything they paste in, I can paste something in, and it would become a battle of cut-and-paste. Stupid and a waste of time.
Why are you degrading yourself by being a member on this site and wasting your self honoured intelligence with a bunch of low lifes?
-
What is your rule of Faith concerning these times?
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae:
It happens far otherwise with Christians; they receive their rule of faith from the Church, by whose authority and under whose guidance they are conscious that they have beyond question attained to truth...
To determine, however, which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances. But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect, because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; nay, were it not absolute and perfect in every particular, it might wear the name of obedience, but its essence would disappear…
“The faith of the whole Church should be one, according to the precept (1 Cor. 1:10): “Let all speak the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you”; and this cannot be observed save on condition that questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church, whose sentence must consequently be accepted without wavering. And hence to the sole authority of the supreme Pontiff does it pertain to publish a new revision of the symbol, as also to decree all other matters that concern the universal Church.”
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [First] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.
Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.
-
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae:
Elaborate please