https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.htmlThe SSPX is now no different than any indult group that does the Latin Mass*, so, if Salza left the SSPX, is he going to the Novus Ordo mass or to an indult mass center.
Breaking News: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo church
For Traditional Catholics, this should serve to discredit Salza's magnum opus against sedevacantism.Well, if Tertullien can still be a Church Father, Salza can still be a burning bush of anti-sedevacantism.
Well, R&R has a tendency to resolve itself one way or another. We've seen this process for years. It's a very tenuous place to be.
If the Conciliar hierarchy is legitimate, then the Catholic sensibility draws one toward submission to them, toward submission to the Vicar of Christ.
If one CANNOT submit to them, then the Catholic sensibility draws one toward concluding that they are illegitimate.
What has always distinguished Catholics from those outside the Church is the submission to the teaching authority of the Church. That is THE uniquely Catholic sensibility. So this recognition of their teaching authority and, at the same time, refusal to submit ... runs counter to the deepest Catholic instincts, and it tends to resolve itself one way or the other.
I agree, that R&R is the hardest position to hold.
In other news, it's 10X easier to watch a dumb TV show than read a classic work of literature.
Nevertheless, R&R is the best position in my opinion, exemplified by the saintly life and Catholic attitude of +ABL.
If one CANNOT submit to them, then the Catholic sensibility draws one toward concluding that they are illegitimate.The pioneer Catholics who kept the faith in the 60s never concluded such a thing, because prior to V2, that was not the Catholic thing to do, Catholics back then never even considered such a thing. Deciding the pope to be illegitimate was authored by a priest, Fr. (now bishop) Sanborn, and that idea did not really surface till around the mid 70s, it really only started to grow in popularity in the mid 80s.
The pioneer Catholics who kept the faith in the 60s never concluded such a thing, because prior to V2, that was not the Catholic thing to do, Catholics back then never even considered such a thing. Deciding the pope to be illegitimate was authored by a priest, Fr. (now bishop) Sanborn, and that idea did not really surface till around the mid 70s, it really only started to grow in popularity in the mid 80s.Very nicely put, Stubborn.
But prior to that, Catholic sensibility during the infancy of the revolution was to keep and stay true to the only faith they ever knew, and that the happenings within the Church contrary to that faith were to be avoided. The Catholic sensibilities said that worrying about the pope's legitimacy would have only unnecessarily been, and still is, cause for greater confusion and division among those striving to keep the faith. How very right they were - and still are.
But understand if you can that Catholic sensibility does not now, nor has it ever drawn any priest or lay person toward concluding that they are illegitimate, rather, I would say like the pioneering Catholics, that venturing into that arena is due to a lack of Catholic sensibility. It may be some other sensibility, but it's not Catholic sensibility.
I just sent Mr. Salza a communication asking whether he could confirm the report and if it was true whether he could say why.A few people have tweeted his account at "trueorfalsepope" and so far he appears to be ignoring them.
But understand if you can that Catholic sensibility does not now, nor has it ever drawn any priest or lay person toward concluding that they are illegitimate, rather, I would say like the pioneering Catholics, that venturing into that arena is due to a lack of Catholic sensibility. It may be some other sensibility, but it's not Catholic sensibility.
In standing up a concept of the Church where it's OK for Catholics to reject Catholic teaching authority, to reject the Mass used by the Church, to practically ignore everything that comes out of the Vatican, you've completely lost your sensus Catholicus and differ very little from Old Catholics and even Protestants.1) "A concept of the Church"? 2) "Catholic sensibility"? 3) "Prerogatives of the Church"? All 3 in a nutshell = growing and persevering in and handing down the faith, always comes before and over all human authority. This, you claim, "simply cannot be recognized as Catholic". Amazing.
This is one of the biggest fallouts of the Crisis, to watch R&R fall away from belief in the prerogatives of the Church and slouch away from the faith.
Apart from how someone like a Fr. Chazal has articulated the situation, the rest are losing your grip on Catholicism, especially you, Stubborn; you have articulated a position that simply cannot be recognized as Catholic.
In standing up a concept of the Church where it's OK for Catholics to reject Catholic teaching authority, to reject the Mass used by the Church, to practically ignore everything that comes out of the Vatican, you've completely lost your sensus Catholicus and differ very little from Old Catholics and even Protestants.
This is one of the biggest fallouts of the Crisis, to watch R&R fall away from belief in the prerogatives of the Church and slouch away from the faith.
Apart from how someone like a Fr. Chazal has articulated the situation, the rest are losing your grip on Catholicism, especially you, Stubborn; you have articulated a position that simply cannot be recognized as Catholic.
In standing up a concept of the Church where it's OK for Catholics to reject Catholic teaching authority, to reject the Mass used by the Church, to practically ignore everything that comes out of the Vatican, you've completely lost your sensus Catholicus and differ very little from Old Catholics and even Protestants.
This is one of the biggest fallouts of the Crisis, to watch R&R fall away from belief in the prerogatives of the Church and slouch away from the faith.
Apart from how someone like a Fr. Chazal has articulated the situation, the rest are losing your grip on Catholicism, especially you, Stubborn; you have articulated a position that simply cannot be recognized as Catholic.
Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 05:31:10 AM
The pioneer Catholics who kept the faith in the 60s never concluded such a thing, because prior to V2, that was not the Catholic thing to do, Catholics back then never even considered such a thing. Deciding the pope to be illegitimate was authored by a priest, Fr. (now bishop) Sanborn, and that idea did not really surface till around the mid 70s, it really only started to grow in popularity in the mid 80s.
But prior to that, Catholic sensibility during the infancy of the revolution was to keep and stay true to the only faith they ever knew, and that the happenings within the Church contrary to that faith were to be avoided. The Catholic sensibilities said that worrying about the pope's legitimacy would have only unnecessarily been, and still is, cause for greater confusion and division among those striving to keep the faith. How very right they were - and still are.
But understand if you can that Catholic sensibility does not now, nor has it ever drawn any priest or lay person toward concluding that they are illegitimate, rather, I would say like the pioneering Catholics, that venturing into that arena is due to a lack of Catholic sensibility. It may be some other sensibility, but it's not Catholic sensibility.
I know of multiple Trad families, all of whom have 12+ children, who were Trad-raised from the 70s, who have access to various priests (Independent, SSPX and Sede chapels)...but who have recently gone indult.
.
I don't understand the confusion among these people, but the more stories you hear, this is not an isolated incident. So many people are losing their minds (and maybe their souls).
And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:Geocentrists like myself always like to read and hear this passage! It is interesting how Mr. Salza who was truly outstanding in spreading the truth of geocentrism stood down on the subject so as to come aboard the SSPX's anti-sede platform. I personally expressed my dismay to him on this, but it was apparently to no avail.
~ 2 Thessalonians 2:10
All of you arguing about R&R vs Sedevacantism are missing the point. Just as no Catholic leaves the Church for Protestantism/atheism because of doctrine or theology (99% of the time it's because they want to escape Catholic morality), nobody leaves Traditionalism for the indult because of theology/doctrine (i.e. R&R vs Sedevacantism). The reason Trads leave the True Faith for the fake 'indult faith' is because of the 3 dangers we all must face - the world, flesh and the devil.
.
So the usual temptations that Trads face are
1) Being considered "extreme" or rigorist (i.e. peer/social/family pressures...temptations of the world)
2) Dating/morality/marriage temptations (i.e. temptations of the flesh).
3) Temptations to despair, feeling alone in your Fauth, feeling abandoned by God/Church, etc (temptations from the devil)
All of you arguing about R&R vs Sedevacantism are missing the point. Just as no Catholic leaves the Church for Protestantism/atheism because of doctrine or theology (99% of the time it's because they want to escape Catholic morality), nobody leaves Traditionalism for the indult because of theology/doctrine (i.e. R&R vs Sedevacantism). The reason Trads leave the True Faith for the fake 'indult faith' is because of the 3 dangers we all must face - the world, flesh and the devil.Excellent point.
.
So the usual temptations that Trads face are
1) Being considered "extreme" or rigorist (i.e. peer/social/family pressures...temptations of the world)
2) Dating/morality/marriage temptations (i.e. temptations of the flesh).
3) Temptations to despair, feeling alone in your Fauth, feeling abandoned by God/Church, etc (temptations from the devil)
I believe this is quite true for your average lay Traditional Catholic ... but not for a Salza and not for most priests. I myself went through the same process in seminary that many priests and seminarians did. You start off as a Traditional Catholic mostly by recognizing how contrary Conciliar Catholicism is to Tradition. You tend not to go too deep into it. Stubborn is still at this phase. But then you start studying Traditional Catholic theology, in particular ecclesiology, and it hits you in the face how contrary to Tradition R&R really is. Then you’re faced with a choice to resolve this somehow. Those who did not experience such an intellectual process were, quite frankly, either somewhat dull-witted, or just didn’t care much about “theology”, writing it off as irrelevant compared to learning how to say Mass or give sermons or hear Confessions. You’ll notice that sedevacantists tend to be the brightest seminarians and priests.Although I agree with much of this and I also agree that most *scholarly* priests are *somewhat* resistant to this, remember that *NO ONE* is immune to this.
This is at least a terribly inaccurate summary of the history of the traditional Catholic movement. Francis Shuckhardt and all the people with him were already sede in 1967....Yes, I purposely did not mention Schuckardt due to the colossal tragedy he brought to the whole situation - which btw, him and his group were wholly condemned since their inception by nearly all the faithful in those days, including by +Sanborn himself, right from the pulpit before he lost it.
I believe this is quite true for your average lay Traditional Catholic ... but not for a Salza and not for most priests. I myself went through the same process in seminary that many priests and seminarians did. You start off as a Traditional Catholic mostly by recognizing how contrary Conciliar Catholicism is to Tradition. You tend not to go too deep into it. Stubborn is still at this phase. But then you start studying Traditional Catholic theology, in particular ecclesiology, and it hits you in the face how contrary to Tradition R&R really is. Then you’re faced with a choice to resolve this somehow. Those who did not experience such an intellectual process were, quite frankly, either somewhat dull-witted, or just didn’t care much about “theology”, writing it off as irrelevant compared to learning how to say Mass or give sermons or hear Confessions. You’ll notice that sedevacantists tend to be the brightest seminarians and priests.See, this is something you, for whatever reason refuse to see. Who here does not know that it was the learned, the trained scholars, the trained and knowledgeable clergy, hierarchy and theologians who "experienced such an intellectual process" and are the ones consistently responsible for starting all errors and heresies throughout the history of the Church - reference V2 itself.
You’ll notice that sedevacantists tend to be the brightest seminarians and priests.
I have to wonder if the sedevacantists and their fellow travellers believe that they are somehow VERY special, or favored by God, in order to somehow save the Catholic Faith. Kind of like the pentacostals or charismatics, who believe that they are in direct contact with God.Is the Faith not being kept somewhere?
Shuckhardt was the first that I know of. But he wasn't the only. Both Patrick Henry Omlor and Hutton Gibson likewise were early traditionalists who possessed exceptionally brilliant minds and quickly came to the realization that true popes could not possibly promote heresy to the entire Church. A large number of people who never went along with the Novus Ordo at any point, ended up sede. And now even the Novus Ordo people are reacting to Francis not by asserting a right to reject his doctrine but by going directly to the argument that he cannot be a true pope. Salza is the poster-child for everything that can go wrong when you take the R&R position and then arrogantly assert that any other position is heretical and/or schismatic.This ^^^^^
Might not this attitude bring about a certain amount of pride?Meg, how does the SSPX or Resistance act or think any differently?
I have to wonder if the sedevacantists and their fellow travellers believe that they are somehow VERY special, or favored by God, in order to somehow save the Catholic Faith. Kind of like the pentacostals or charismatics, who believe that they are in direct contact with God.
Shuckhardt was the first that I know of. But he wasn't the only. Both Patrick Henry Omlor and Hutton Gibson likewise were early traditionalists who possessed exceptionally brilliant minds and quickly came to the realization that true popes could not possibly promote heresy to the entire Church. A large number of people who never went along with the Novus Ordo at any point, ended up sede. And now even the Novus Ordo people are reacting to Francis not by asserting a right to reject his doctrine but by going directly to the argument that he cannot be a true pope. Salza is the poster-child for everything that can go wrong when you take the R&R position and then arrogantly assert that any other position is heretical and/or schismatic.I'm not sure about Omlor, but we can look at what happened to Schuckardt and Gibson and the many sedes who've gone off the rails and lost the faith, just like we can look at many trad non-sede's who've done the same, heck, I'm sure we all know of many who have done this, often times we know from experience with our own family members who have abandon everything holy to pursue a life of sin. So this is statistic is, imo, not worth bringing into this discussion.
So this was John Salza's "answer":Ok, I am just seeing this post now, thanks for posting this 2V.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkjiyqIUYAAufXn?format=jpg&name=900x900)
According to whom are they the brightest, and in what manner, in particular? Might not this attitude bring about a certain amount of pride?
I have to wonder if the sedevacantists and their fellow travellers believe that they are somehow VERY special, or favored by God, in order to somehow save the Catholic Faith. Kind of like the pentacostals or charismatics, who believe that they are in direct contact with God.
The sede vacantist position is based on the writings of Catholic theologians prior to V2. In particular the Doctor of the Church who is especially revered for his teaching on the Church's ecclesiology, St Robert Bellarmine. In fact, St Robert is so important to this controversy that some R&R apologists felt it necessary to flip the script and claim that St Robert actually supports the R&R position. But the vast majority of people who have studied the problem, conclude that St Robert supports the sede position. So there is no reason for sedes to feel any sense of pride. If literal geniuses such as Patrick Omlor, Hutton Gibson and John Daly (160 IQ) have concluded that the Holy See is vacant that certainly does give the sede position some weight that it would otherwise not have but it does not make the position superior. Only the truth of the matter can make it superior. If it is true then it certainly is superior to all other false positions.
Pathetic.
St. Robert Bellarmine refutes the sedevacantist.
He said the Church had to be involved in the process, whereas sedes pay him lip service dishonestly (kind of like the liberals do to Cardinal Newman), in order to associate a name to their invention, then cast him aside and declare the see empty (forever) without any recourse to the Church.
Who can take these nuts seriously?
But then you start studying Traditional Catholic theology, in particular ecclesiology, and it hits you in the face how contrary to Tradition R&R really is. Then you’re faced with a choice to resolve this somehow.
THIS^
Which is why I am not surprised John Salsa has gone back to what was formerly known as the Indult after studying sedevacantism.
...by the divine, indeed even natural, precept of charity, they are bound in this to provide sufficiently for the needs of the faithful (Suarez, De poenitentiae sacramento, disput. XXVI., Sect. IV, n.7).
| (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/Images/1999_September/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_Vatican.jpg) | In Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican you will find a complete set of the docuмents exchanged between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre in the time leading up to and immediately following his episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988. Available from Angelus Press (http://www.angeluspress.org/). Price $12.95 plus shipping and handling. |
…the coming into play of epikeia is subordinate to the existence of a right. In fact, in certain cases, the law loses its power to bind – as where its application would be contrary to the common good or to natural law – and in such a case it is not in the power of the legislator to bind or to oblige.19 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#19B)..There is a place for epikeia because the will of the legislator either is not able or is not bound to impose the application of the law to the case in question.20 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#20B)The state of necessity in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre is precisely the case in which the lawmaker cannot impose the application of the law because it has become, by force of particular circuмstances, contrary to the common good and to the divine natural and positive law. On his part, under the pressure of a precept of divine natural and positive law, “…the subject [e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre – Ed.] not only may, but he is bound not to observe the law, whether he asks or does not ask for permission to do so from the superior.”21 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#21B)
that in such a case the authority of the superior cannot have any effect; indeed, even if he were to will that the subject, after having had recourse to him, should observe the law, the latter would not be able to obey him because he must obey God rather than man and hence in such a case its is out of place (“impertinens”) to ask for permission.29 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#29B)Such would be the case of the wife who, faced by the grave necessity of her children, does not need the consent of her husband to fulfil her duty to supply, and even were her husband to forbid her to do so, she would not owe him obedience, and hence it would be out of place to ask for his consent, knowing him to be hostile.
…one does not presume in the lawmaker that he has the will to bind in such case and even if he had, it would be without effect. On this point all doctors are agreed who treat of obedience and of laws.30 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#30B)There remains, however, the duty to avoid scandal of neighbor, and for that reason every opportune and humble means must be attempted with regard to the Supreme Pontiff. But if a humble insistence serves no purpose, then it is necessary to exercise a manly and courageous liberty.2 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#2B)
For the reason, when it is established for certain that the law in a particular circuмstance has become unjust or contrary to another command or virtue which is more binding, then the law ceases to oblige and on his own initiative he can disregard the law without having recourse to the superior,31 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#31B) given that the law in that case could not be observed without sin nor could the superior bind his subject to respect it without sin.32 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#32B)
Moralists have sought to fix the criteria to be laid down for the application of epikeia. In substance, these criteria come down to the three following cases: a) when in a particular situation, the prescriptions of the positive law are in opposition to a superior law which binds one to regard higher interests [i.e., epikeia in the proper sense]; b) when, for reason of exceptional circuмstances, submission to the positive law would be too burdensome, without there resulting a good proportionate to the sacrifice being demanded; c) when, without becoming evil as in the first case and without imposing an unjustified heroism as in the second case, the observance of the positive law runs into special and unforeseen difficulties which render it, as it turns out, harder than it should have been according to the intention of the legislator.35 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#35B)The grave spiritual necessity of many souls comes under the first case "a)" above, the case of positive law which by the force of extraordinary circuмstances becomes "evil" because "it is in opposition to a superior law binding one to regard higher interests" (i.e., epikeia in the proper sense - Ed.). The authors of the tract, on the contrary, like the writer of the article in the above-mentioned publication, seem to admit only the second and the third cases, "b)" and "c)" (i.e., epikeia in the improper or popular sense), which have nothing to do with the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. In the first case "a)," which is the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, epikeia coincides with equity, and, hence involves the moral impossibility of obeying and is, as we have already seen, a right [besides being a duty]. On the other hand, in the second and third cases noted in "b)" and "c)," epikeia is simply identified with clemency or moderation in the application of laws and in the exercise of authority.18 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#18B)
A place is given to epikeia whenever the law makes itself harmful or too burdensome. In the first case [i.e., harmful], the superior really could not oblige and hence epikeia is necessary [(§174) which is the case as it concerns us here - Ed.].In Regarding Principles of Moral Theology (III, n.199), Noldin says:
It is said that the purpose of the law ceases "contraire" [through contrary custom - Ed.] when its observation is harmful. If the purpose of the law in a particular case ceases "contraire," the law ceases [to oblige]. The reason is that if the purpose of the law ceases "contraire," then one has the right to use epikeia.Finally, any manual explaining the principles of Canon Law deals with the cessation "ab intrinseco" of the law, that is to say, with the law that ceases to oblige out of the simple fact that it is in such-and-such a case harmful, and not because the lawmaker decrees that it should cease, or grants a dispensation from it. Such is exactly the case of the state of necessity, which is the strongest reason excusing one from obedience and strict observance of the law.36 This is especially true when this state of necessity arises from the duty, rooted in one's state, to help many souls in grave spiritual necessity, because "the salvation of souls is, for spiritual society, the ultimate end towards which all its laws and institutions are oriented."16 This is true for the entire hierarchy of the Church, top to bottom.
In cases that happen rarely, and in which it is necessary to depart from the ordinary law...a virtue of judgment is needed based upon these higher principles, a virtue which is called gnome and which implies a particular perspicacity of judgment (ST, II-II, Q.51, A.4).This special "perspicacity of judgment," says St. Thomas, can be possessed only by virtue of holiness:
The spiritual man receives from the habit of charity the inclination to judge rightly of everything according to divine laws, arriving at his judgment by means of the gift of wisdom, even as the just man arrives at his judgment in accordance with the rules of law through the virtue of prudence (ST, II- II, Q.60, AA.l,2).In this continuing study we are leaving to the side the sanctity of Archbishop Lefebvre to confine ourselves to the general principles of theology and Canon Law, so that the truth is clear to all those admitting there is a crisis in the Church. This truth is that in the present extraordinary circuмstances, one need not believe in obedience at all costs (even if it cost the Faith or the salvation of souls). Nor need one accept the non-provable "sedevacantist" theses. There is a third way: to observe what the Church teaches concerning the "state of necessity." That is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did.
(This article ends the theological aspect of this continuing study of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations. Part 3 will appear in the November 1999 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_November/The_1988_Consecrations.htm) SISINONO insert in The Angelus taking up the canonical arguments supporting the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre's action to consecrate four bishops.)
It can be argued whether error or heresy leads to the loss of faith and immorality, which is most often (but not always) what I believe is the case, or whether it's the other way around.I judge men by their fruits, for fathers, their fruits are their children and how they turnout, for priests it is their faithful and how they turn out. I've seen expert book writers and lecturers in subjects like sedevacantes, Jews, NWO etc. that have been a disaster as fathers, spending all their time on their subject. It's like the saying, "the shoemakers children have holes in their shoes". The shoemaker spending all his time working on other peoples shoes and not on his family. Really, it is like straining gnats and swallowing camels.
If the whole world goes to pot, while I do my job raising my children to LIVE the faith, to be examples to others, the question of sedevacantes will be as nothing.
Deciding the legitimacy of popes, aside from being impossible…For the life of me, I do not understand how any practicing Catholic can ask men to blind themselves to manifest facts.
Pathetic.
St. Robert Bellarmine refutes the sedevacantist.
He said the Church had to be involved in the process, whereas sedes pay him lip service dishonestly (kind of like the liberals do to Cardinal Newman), in order to associate a name to their invention, then cast him aside and declare the see empty (forever) without any recourse to the Church.
Who can take these nuts seriously?
From St. Robert Bellarmine (source here (http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm.htm)):Not only does Bellarmine not think the Church had to be involved before the pope was actually deposed (in terms of chronological order), but even rejected it with strong language. His words "can and must be deposed by the Church" look the same as your statement that "the Church has to be involved." Do I understand your position correctly?
The fourth opinion is that of Cajetan, for whom (de auctor. papae et con., cap. 20 et 21) the manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed, but can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended. For, in the first place, etc."
Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic [such as Bergoglio] ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian [as Bergoglio has] and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church [which he still must be, "must be" in the second sense I gave above, but it's clear above that the pope ceases to be pope first, and is judged and punished afterwards, chronologically speaking. You are arguing that the two events are simultaneous, but that is not the sense given here.]. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately [!!] lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.'
According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.
"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. [Note the distinction between 1) being expelled or excommunicated, and 2) departing by themselves. If, as you say, someone who professes heresy retains the papacy until he is expelled, then what is the meaning of this distinction? It can only mean anything if someone professes heresy and is not expelled, such as Bergoglio. Bellarmine is saying here that such a person has "absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church"] And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church.
A part of living the Faith is being subject to the Roman Pontiff - considering it is a dogma that subjection is necessary for salvation. …Truly!
Ok, I am just seeing this post now, thanks for posting this 2V.You're welcome.
Truly!
A part of the living Faith is that the [one and only] Vatican Council infallibly and irreformably holds us to obey the Pope not only in his Extraordinary pronouncements.
Ironically Jorge got it right when he asked, "Who am I to judge?"
An anti-Christ/anti-Pope has NO right to judge, so Jorge nailed it.
Pathetic.No.
St. Robert Bellarmine refutes the sedevacantist.
He said the Church had to be involved in the process, whereas sedes pay him lip service dishonestly (kind of like the liberals do to Cardinal Newman), in order to associate a name to their invention, then cast him aside and declare the see empty (forever) without any recourse to the Church.
Who can take these nuts seriously?
A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Rom. Pont., lib. II, cap. 30, 420
Luther and Calvin agree:Terrible analogy.
Every man is free to decide who is pope for him, and who is not.
And if he decides wrongly, what does that matter?
Personally, I am persuaded Ibranyi is correct: There hasn’t been a pope in 1,000 years (and there won’t ever be another one).
I really can’t see any problems with that:
940 years from now, all today’s sedes will share the same batshit crazy theory they ridicule in their brother today.
Luther and Calvin agree:Hysterical straw man.
Every man is free to decide who is pope for him, and who is not.
And if he decides wrongly, what does that matter?
Personally, I am persuaded Ibranyi is correct: There hasn’t been a pope in 1,000 years (and there won’t ever be another one).
I really can’t see any problems with that:
940 years from now, all today’s sedes will share the same batshit crazy theory they ridicule in their brother today.
Luther and Calvin agree:.
Every man is free to decide who is pope for him, and who is not.
And if he decides wrongly, what does that matter?
Personally, I am persuaded Ibranyi is correct: There hasn’t been a pope in 1,000 years (and there won’t ever be another one).
I really can’t see any problems with that:
940 years from now, all today’s sedes will share the same batshit crazy theory they ridicule in their brother today.
Terrible analogy.Precisely so!
Sean, as I said, in practice, R&R’s do the EXACT same things sedes do. For some reason you have decided to draw the line at the question of the Pope as going too far (why?).
R&Rs think it is acceptable to denounce their church’s
1) ecuмenical councils
2) universal liturgy
3) Sacraments
4) theology
5) canonizations
6) canon law
And basically anything YOU don’t like.
But when someone asks how a false religion can come from the authority of Christ, you go berserk.
You’ve made plenty of your own “private judgments”, Sean.
And basically anything YOU don’t like.Come on, take it easy, buddy. We're all friends here. :cowboy:
But when someone asks how a false religion can come from the authority of Christ, you go berserk.
You’ve made plenty of your own “private judgments”, Sean.
The sede vacantist position is based on the writings of Catholic theologians prior to V2. In particular the Doctor of the Church who is especially revered for his teaching on the Church's ecclesiology, St Robert Bellarmine. In fact, St Robert is so important to this controversy that some R&R apologists felt it necessary to flip the script and claim that St Robert actually supports the R&R position. But the vast majority of people who have studied the problem, conclude that St Robert supports the sede position. So there is no reason for sedes to feel any sense of pride. If literal geniuses such as Patrick Omlor, Hutton Gibson and John Daly (160 IQ) have concluded that the Holy See is vacant that certainly does give the sede position some weight that it would otherwise not have but it does not make the position superior. Only the truth of the matter can make it superior. If it is true then it certainly is superior to all other false positions.
Meg, how does the SSPX or Resistance act or think any differently?
The sede position is a novelty born of Vatican ll.You've got that backwards. Vatican 2 is the novelty, the sede position of today is the application of tradition and doctrine.
You've got that backwards. Vatican 2 is the novelty, the sede position of today is the application of tradition and doctrine.
The Resistance does not believe itself to be the ONLY right and proper position to take... Sedevacantists (and sedeprivationists) do believe that their position is the ONLY Catholic position to take. No other position can ever be thought of as Catholic, in their (your) view, isn't that correct?What are the other right and proper positions to take?
Nope. The sede position is most definitely a novelty born of Vatican ll, and always will be. There's no getting around that. Not now, not ever.
…Sedevacantists (and sedeprivationists) do believe that their position is the ONLY Catholic position to take.…Utter manure.
At preset, there are 9 members logged in, of whom 6 (and possibly 7) are sedes.So, only 2 of 7 members logged in use hysterical and illogical arguments to attack sedevacantism.
If I troll them a bit more, that number will increase, and they will be drawn from their covert, exposing their long-time predominance on this sede forum.
Utter manure.
I am a sedevacantist. I do NOT believe it is the "only" Catholic position to take.
As usual, you are wrong.
I am NOT sedevacantist. Or sedeprivationist. Or SedeBenedictPlenist.
Yet my experience with the aforementioned is pretty much what you say. Most sedes I know, regardless of the variety, do not take a hardline position that theirs is the only acceptable position for a traditional Catholic to take.
Not even the recently-deceased Fr Anthony Cekada, who I use to correspond with from time-to-time and who very kindly invited me into his rectory for tea, sandwiches, and cookies the first time I visited Cincinatti.
NONSENSE^^^
THIS>>> https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htmThis issue of the Angelus English-Language edition of SISINONO is the second part of a series of two studies - one theological and one canonical - regarding the "state of necessity" invoked by Archbishop Lefebvre to justify his consecration of four bishops on June 30, 1988. These remarks are for those who admit the existence of an extraordinary crisis in the Catholic Church but do not know how to justify the extraordinary action of Archbishop Lefebvre on June 30, 1988 when, lacking permission from Pope John Paul II, he transmitted the power of episcopal orders to members of the Fraternity founded by him.
THEOLOGICAL STUDY – PART II.
SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM POSED BY THE POPE’S “NO”
A. The Pope's "No"
We saw in the first installment of this article (SISINONO, "The 1988 Consecrations: Part I," The Angelus, July 1999) that a bishop who experiences a state of grave general necessity of souls and consecrates another bishop "given that he has the power of Order" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Supplement, Q.20, A.1, op.cit. in, "The 1988 Consecrations: Part 1") is not questioning the primacy of jurisdiction of the pope. We have seen that he has every right to presume support for such an act required by extraordinary circuмstances "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the salvation of souls and for the common good. The salvation of souls is in fact the supreme law of the Church and it is certain that the Church "supplies" the jurisdiction lacking whenever it is a question of providing for the "public and general necessity of the faithful" (F.M. Cappello, SJ ., Summa Juris Canonici, vol. I, p.258, n.258, §2, op. cit. in Part 1).
It makes no difference to what we have just said if recourse to the pope is made materially impossible by external circuмstances, as in the historical cases recalled by us [in Part 1].
But it is the pope himself who is favoring or promoting a course for the Church infected by neo-Modernism which threatens the goods fundamental to souls, goods indispensable for the salvation of souls, e.g., faith and morals. If the pope himself is the cause or partial-cause, and even, given his supreme authority, the ultimate cause of the grave and general spiritual necessity in which there is no hope of help from the lawful pastors, then what effect will recourse to the pope obtain in such circuмstances? He will be physically accessible, but morally inaccessible. Recourse to him will be certainly physically possible but morally impossible, and if it be attempted, it will result naturally in the pope's saying "No" to the act which the extraordinary circuмstances require "in order that adequate provision be made" (ST, op. cit. in Part 1) for the grave general necessity of souls. Any different behavior on the part of the pope presupposes, in fact, repentance and a humble admission of his own responsibility given that the act in question - i.e., the consecration of bishops -would not be required if the pope himself was not in some measure co-responsible for the state of grave and general necessity.
Therefore, it remains for us to ask if the subject in such circuмstances is bound to obey the "No" of the pope despite the harm threatening so many souls. In other words, does the "No" of the pope exonerate him from the duty under pain of mortal sin imposed by divine law upon whomever has the possibility to provide help for souls in the state of grave and general necessity where there is no hope of help from lawful pastors? This is the question that finds its answer in the Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity. This will become clear as we explain the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh principles of the Church's teaching on this point. [The first, second, and third principles were discussed in Part l-Ed.]
1. 4th Principle: In necessity the duty to help is independent of the cause of the necessity and hence is binding be it the superior himself who is placing souls in the state of necessity
In the state of necessity the duty to provide help arises independently of the cause of that necessity, because "charity does not look where the necessity comes from, but is only interested in the fact that there is necessity."1 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#1B) Thus, in the example we gave above in the sphere of natural law, the wife has the duty to supply for her husband even if it be the husband himself who is placing the family in the state of necessity (SiSiNoNo, "The 1988 consecrations: Part 1," p.20).
Likewise, the duty sub gravi [under pain of mortal sin- Ed.] of helping souls in the state of grave necessity is binding even if it is the bishop of the diocese who is spreading or favoring Modernism, or, similarly, if it is the pope promoting or favoring Modernism in the universal Church. On the contrary, as we have already seen, it is precisely this circuмstance that gives rise to the grave duty of charity because then the state of necessity of souls is without any hope of help from those who ex officio should be providing for people's ordinary and extraordinary needs.
These circuмstances, however, will have the effect of rendering the duty of help more difficult and perhaps even heroic on account of the easily foreseeable consequences. It will be denied that there is any state of necessity! The rebuke implied in the act of helping the people will draw down upon whoever does so revulsion and unjust accusations. And, since we are dealing with the person of the pope himself, the subject runs into "even graver danger" because "from the abuses of lesser prelates recourse can always be had to the pope,"2 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#2B) but against the pope the only recourse is to God (St. Catherine of Siena).
2. 5th Principle: It is the character of the state of necessity to suspend the superior's power of binding, and if, nevertheless, he attempts to bind, what he commands is not binding
Further applying the example already given regarding natural law, this principle is illustrated by the case of a husband who not only placed his children in necessity or failed to provide for them, but, who, moreover, prevented his wife from providing for them as far as was in her power. It is obvious that in such a case the husband's power to bind would be suspended, and if he attempted to bind, his command would not be binding upon his wife.
The fact that in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre the superior is the pope does not nullify this principle. The Vicar of Christ first and foremost has the duty to provide for the needs of souls, and if he does not provide for them (or, worse, if he himself is the cause or part-cause of the grave and general state of spiritual necessity), that does not entitle him to prevent others from providing as far as they can for the needs of souls. This is especially applicable if the duty to supply is rooted in their own sacerdotal or, still more, episcopal state.
The authority of the pope is indeed unlimited, but from below, not from above. >From above, papal power is limited by divine law, natural and positive. The authority of the pope is "monarchical...and absolute within the limits, however, of divine law, natural and positive" and for that reason "the Roman Pontiff himself cannot act against divine law or disregard it."3 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#3B) Now, in the state of necessity, divine natural and positive law imposes a duty of charity under pain of mortal sin upon whoever is able to provide help, and in the state of spiritual necessity it imposes this duty above all on bishops and upon priests {as well as on the pope). The pope, as like any other superior, does not have the power to oppose this duty {Suarez: " deest potestas in legislatore ad obligandum" De Legibus, L. VI, cap. VII, n.ll).
That is why it is said that "the state of necessity carries its own dispensation with it because necessity is not subject to law" {SI; I-II, Q.96, A.6). This is not to mean that in the state of necessity it is lawful to do whatever one wishes, but that "the action otherwise prohibited is rendered lawful and permitted by the state of necessity ."4 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#4B) This is in order to safeguard higher interests than obedience to the law or to the Superior. In such a case it is not within the power of any superior to demand the observance of the law in the usual way, because to no superior {and still less to the pope) is it granted to exercise authority harmful to anyone else, especially if that harm is spiritual and involves many souls and violates one's duty of state, especially that of a priest or bishop.
Not even God, the Supreme Legislator, is bound in the state of necessity ."That is why Christ Himself excuses David, who in grave danger ate the breads of proposition which the laity were forbidden to eat by Divine Law."5 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#5B) According to this principle, not only do human laws cease to oblige in a state of necessity, but even divine-positive and affirmative divine-natural law cease (e.g., "Honor thy father and mother"; "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day"). The only law binding in the state of necessity is negative divine-natural law {e.g., "Thou shalt not kill," etc.) . This is because negative divine-natural law prohibits actions that are intrinsically evil and hence forbidden because they are evil, as opposed to actions which are evil only because they are forbidden, such as the consecration of bishops without pontifical mandate.
3 .6th Principle: It is the character of necessity to place the subject in the physical or moral impossibility of obeying
It is certain that God binds nobody in a state of necessity, but the human legislator "can say 'no' without reason and in violation of natural and eternal law"6 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#6B) and therefore they can in fact forbid an action required by the state of necessity. But, since the pope's "No" is powerless to do away with the grave general necessity of souls and hence the associated duty sub gravito go to their help, the subject, especially if he is a bishop or priest, then finds himself in the moral and absolute impossibility of obeying, because he could not obey without himself sinning and harming others. Hence, it is the character of the state of necessity "to create a sort of impotency whereby it is impossible to do something commanded or not do some- thing forbidden."7 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#7B)
This is not, in fact, the case of authority not being bound to oblige because" summum ius summa iniuria," or one which issues an inopportune command lacking in prudence, but which nevertheless people could be bound to obey all the same in view of the common good. This is, on the other hand, the case of authority that cannot oblige, because its command is opposed to a precept of divine and natural law "more grave and obliging."8 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#8B) In such a case to obey the law or the legislator would be "evil and a sin" (Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.8). St. Thomas calls obedience in such a case "evil" (SI; 11-11, Q120, A.1). Cajetan refers to it as a "vice" (Cajetan in 1.2, q.96, a.6). Hence, refusal to obey becomes a duty (i.e" inoboedientia debita).9 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#9B)
The reality of such a case is not that the subject is disobeying. It is better said that he is obeying a higher and more compelling command issuing from divine authority, which "commands us to regard higher interests."10 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#10B) Human authority , in fact, "is neither the first nor the only rule of morality ."6 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#6B) Earthly authority is a" norma normata, "that is to say, a rule itself regulated by divine law, and hence when human authority, "contrary to natural and eternal law,"6 says "No," then disobeying man in order to obey God becomes a duty."11 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#11B)
4. 7th Principle: He who, constrained by the state of necessity, does not obey, is not questioning the lawful exercise of authority
For there to be disobedience, the command or prohibition must be lawful. This is the case when the Roman Pontiff or the Ordinary have the power to make the command or prohibition and, at the same time, the subjects are bound to obey the command or prohibition.12 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#12B) But, we have seen: 1) that even for the pope the principle holds that, when the application of a law "would be contrary to the common good or to natural law [and in our case even divine-positive law-Ed.]...it is not in the power of the legislator to oblige,"13 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#13B) and, 2) that the state of necessity, especially the necessity of which we are speaking, creates in the subject "a condition of impotency or impossibility [in this case morally and absolutely-Ed.] of doing a thing commanded or not doing a thing forbidden."7 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#7B)
Therefore, the command or prohibition of a superior which, by reason of extraordinary circuмstances, results in harm to souls and the common good, as well as being contrary to the state of the subject (cf. Suarez, De religione, LX, cap.IX, n.4), loses its character of lawfulness and absolves the subject from his duty to obey, "...nor are those who behave in such a way, to be accused of having failed in obedience, because if the will of leaders is repugnant to the will and the laws of God, these leaders exceed the measure of their power."14 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#14B)
We have already quoted St. Alphonsus that in the state of necessity there is imposed a "divine and natural law to which the human law of the Church cannot be opposed," and hence not even the command of the pope. The primacy of jurisdiction of the pope, therefore, is not in any way called into question by a violation of a jurisdictional law (as we have already seen), nor is it called into question by disobedience motivated by a state of necessity. In fact, the priest or bishop who, constrained by necessity, does not obey the pope is not thereby denying his own subordination to the pope outside the case of necessity, and so he is not refusing authority in its lawful exercise. Similarly, a wife is not denying the authority of her husband outside of the case of necessity, in which she has the duty to supply for him against his unreasonably opposed will.
St. Thomas says that whoever acts in a state of necessity "is not setting himself up as a judge of law" or of the legislator, nor is he even claiming that his point of view is better than that of authority, but he is merely "judging the particular case in which he sees that the words of the law [and/or the command of the legislator - Ed.] must not be observed," because their observance in this particular case would be gravely harmful. Hence, the state of necessity frees the subject from the accusation of arrogating to himself a power that does not belong to him (ST, I-II, Q.96, A.6, ad. 1,2). G. Gerson, for his part, reminds us that "contempt of the keys must be evaluated on the basis of legitimate power and the legitimate use of power."14 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#14B)
Hence, a priest who does not obey the pope forbidding him to absolve in a state of necessity, or a bishop who does not obey the pope forbidding him to consecrate bishops required by the grave spiritual necessity of many souls threatened in their faith and morals and without hope of help from their lawful pastors, cannot be accused of "contempt of the keys." This is so because the pope's action against divine law (natural and positive) is not making "lawful use" of his authority.
The primacy of the pope means blind submission "without examination of the object" exclusively "in matters of faith and morals," and when the pope expresses himself at that level on which his authority is infallible; otherwise, submission to the pope would be subject to the moral norms which regulate obedience. Hence, if the pope exceeds the "measure" of his power, the subjects who obey "God rather than man" are not to be accused of having failed in obedience (cf. Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud, available from Angelus Press. Price: $0.75).
In the case we are considering, Archbishop Lefebvre did not question the right of the Vicar of Christ to exercise control, by virtue of his primacy, over the power of the episcopal order. He simply questioned whether the papal control over episcopal consecrations was able, in the present extraordinary circuмstances, to be respected without grave harm to many souls and without grave fault on his own part. These are circuмstances in which, as Pope John Paul II himself recognized, "ideas opposed to the revealed and constantly taught truth are being scattered by handfuls," when "true and genuine heresies are being spread in the realm of dogma and morals," and when Christians "in large part...lost, confused, perplexed, while being tempted by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic humanism, by a sociological Christianity without defined dogmas and without objective morals,"11 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#11B)...are generally without hope of help from their lawful pastors.
Likewise, Archbishop Lefebvre did not question the Pope's power to command bishops in the interests of the Church and of souls, but he simply questioned whether in the present extraordinary circuмstances he could obey the Pope without grave harm to the Church and to souls, and without himself committing a grave sin, since he was under the grave duty of supplying, a duty imposed by charity and rooted in his episcopal state. And, in materially violating the disciplinary norm and the command he had received, he took care to affirm the dogmatic foundation of the primacy of the Holy Father and confine himself strictly within the limits of Catholic doctrine on the state of necessity. This was done in such a way that Cardinal Gagnon himself announced that "Archbishop Lefebvre has not in fact made the claim, 'I have the power to act in this realm.'"15 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#15B)
To maintain that by resisting the Pope's "No" Archbishop Lefebvre was denying the primacy of the Pope, one would have to claim that whoever resists a harmful command on the part of authority is denying authority itself, which is false.
These things having been said, we may now judge the position of those critics of Archbishop Lefebvre who would agree that the pope ought never to forbid an action necessary to save a man in peril of physical death, yet who simultaneously claim the pope has power to forbid an action necessary to help souls exposed to danger of eternal spiritual death. They defend his power [to prohibit an action] in order to safeguard the very primacy that is granted to the pope to save souls, not to damn them.
Gerson says that they are "weak-hearted" who think "that the pope is a god who has all power in heaven and on earth,"2 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#2B) but the critics of Archbishop Lefebvre make the pope - or so it seems to us - more than a god, because not even God issues any command harmful to souls, nor does He insist on being obeyed when souls are being harmed. In reality, these unjust critics are making the primacy of Peter into the supreme law of the Church, which it is not, because that primacy has for its purpose the saving of souls. These critics are bringing papal primacy down to the level of a tyranny and the obedience due to the pope to the level of slavery, and they are making obedience the greatest of all virtues, which it is not, at least according to Catholic doctrine, for which obedience, even to the pope, is subordinate to the exercise of the theological virtues, charity being in the first place.16 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#16B) St. Thomas, answering the objection that "sometimes to obey we must omit doing what is good," replies that "There is a good which a man is bound to do necessarily, such as loving God or other similar things. And that good may in no way be neglected out of obedience" (ST,II-II, Q.I04, A.3, ad.3) [emphasis added]. Among these "other similar things" there are in the first place the duties of one's state of life (especially if one is a Catholic bishop) and the love of neighbor, contained as a secondary object within the love of God. In fact, everything in the Church, with its hierarchical constitution, the primacy of Peter and the laws that control the power of Order, have charity as their final purpose, and if "necessity is not subject to law" (ST, cit.), it is because it is subject to the supreme law, which is charity. To the law of charity are subject even the Vicars of Christ who have, yes, the primacy of jurisdiction and hence the right to control all other jurisdiction within the Church, but:
(https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/Images/1999_September/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_Vatican.jpg) In Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican you will find a complete set of the docuмents exchanged between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre in the time leading up to and immediately following his episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988. Available from Angelus Press (http://www.angeluspress.org/). Price $12.95 plus shipping and handling.
B. A Word on Epikeia
That which is called by the Church "necessary" epikeia, or "epikeia without recourse to the superior"17 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#17B) rests upon the four principles cited above in this second part of our theological study (pp.18,19). Epikeia is being taken here in its broad and correct sense in which it is to be identified with equity, which is the highest form of justice (ST, II-II, Q.120, A.l). This true epikeia is a virtue concerning precisely “duties arising in particular cases out of the ordinary” (ST, II-II, Q.80), and which therefore comes to be identified in Canon Law with the norms of “cessation ‘in itself’ of the law in a particular case” and of “causes excusing“ observance of the law and/or obedience to the lawmaker.18 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#18B) [Epikeia (or equity) is a favorable and just interpretation not of the law itself but of the mind of the legislator, who is presumed to be unwilling to bind his subjects in extraordinary cases where the observance of the law would cause injury or impose too severe a burden. – Ed.]
In his Dictionary of Canon Law, Naz writes that of St. Thomas Aquinas:The state of necessity in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre is precisely the case in which the lawmaker cannot impose the application of the law because it has become, by force of particular circuмstances, contrary to the common good and to the divine natural and positive law. On his part, under the pressure of a precept of divine natural and positive law, “…the subject [e.g., Archbishop Lefebvre – Ed.] not only may, but he is bound not to observe the law, whether he asks or does not ask for permission to do so from the superior.”21 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#21B)
Regarding seeking permissions from the superior, Suarez explains (speaking precisely of the pope) that here, “it is not a question of interpreting the will of the superior, but [a question] of his power” in order to know what is not necessary to ask the superior, because it is permitted to make use of “doctrinal rules” or “principles of theology and law,”22 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#22B) given that “one knows with more certitude the power [of the superior] which is not free, rather than his will, which is free [emphasis added].”23 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#23B) For that reason the subject, having prudently examined the circuмstances and been informed by the “doctrinal rules” or by the “principles of theology and law” that is “beyond the power of legislator”24 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#24B) to bind anyone to respect the law when it causes grave harm to so many souls, and that to obey in such a case would be “evil and a sin,”25 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#25B) he may not - indeed, he must not - submit to the law or to the command“on his own authority,”26 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#26B) “by his own judgment.”27 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#27B) Hence, by his own initiative, he refuses submission “without recourse to the superior,”28 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#28B) that is to say, without any dispensation or approval on the part of the said superior. The reason, writes Suarez, is:Such would be the case of the wife who, faced by the grave necessity of her children, does not need the consent of her husband to fulfil her duty to supply, and even were her husband to forbid her to do so, she would not owe him obedience, and hence it would be out of place to ask for his consent, knowing him to be hostile.
Asking if the danger of harm to oneself or to others excuses from obeying, Suarez replies thatThere remains, however, the duty to avoid scandal of neighbor, and for that reason every opportune and humble means must be attempted with regard to the Supreme Pontiff. But if a humble insistence serves no purpose, then it is necessary to exercise a manly and courageous liberty.2 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#2B)
C. REFUTATION OF MORE FALSE OBJECTIONS
Hence, it is not true that “it is only permitted to use epikeia if the legislator is inaccessible,” as we read in the tract, Du sacre episcopal contra la volonté du Pape (p.49), published by the Fraternity of St. Peter. What it says is true for epikeia in the strict or improper sense, but not for epikeia in the broad and proper sense. In the case of its improper (or popular) sense, epikeia persumes that authority – out of its kindness – does not wish to oblige, although it has the power to do so and hence, if the lawmaker is accessible, there is the duty to ask him, given that it is a question of “his will which is free” (Suarez, cit.). On the other hand, epikeia in the broad and proper sense concerns those cases in which authority cannot oblige, even if it wishes to do so, and the subject finds himself in the moral impossibility of obeying. Hence, epikeia is “necessary” (Suarez), and therefore recourse to the legislator is per se not obligatory. Indeed, it must be left out whenever it is foreseen that the superior would try to make his command binding despite the harm to the person making the request or to anyone else. In such a case, in fact, we are dealing not with the will of the superior, but his “power, which is not free” (Suarez, cit.).
Even less true is what we read in De Rome et d’ailleurs that a “state of necessity” arises when it is impossible to contact the superior, which presupposes a certain urgency in the decision to be taken.34 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#34B) This is true for epikeia in the improper or popular sense, but even then it is true only in part because the state of necessity does not arise from the impossibility of contacting the superior, but it exists independently of that impossibility of contacting him, and it persists independently of an eventual refusal from the superior.
To settle the question, we quote Fr. Tito Centi, O.P.:The grave spiritual necessity of many souls comes under the first case "a)" above, the case of positive law which by the force of extraordinary circuмstances becomes "evil" because "it is in opposition to a superior law binding one to regard higher interests" (i.e., epikeia in the proper sense - Ed.). The authors of the tract, on the contrary, like the writer of the article in the above-mentioned publication, seem to admit only the second and the third cases, "b)" and "c)" (i.e., epikeia in the improper or popular sense), which have nothing to do with the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. In the first case "a)," which is the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, epikeia coincides with equity, and, hence involves the moral impossibility of obeying and is, as we have already seen, a right [besides being a duty]. On the other hand, in the second and third cases noted in "b)" and "c)," epikeia is simply identified with clemency or moderation in the application of laws and in the exercise of authority.18 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#18B)
We are in exceptional circuмstances and, therefore, must ascend to higher principles which are not preached every day and which, therefore, are unknown to many, but which, nevertheless, are able to be found succinctly summarized in any treatise on the general principles of law or moral theology. Thus for example, in the Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae of Fr. Clement Marc we read:In Regarding Principles of Moral Theology (III, n.199), Noldin says:Finally, any manual explaining the principles of Canon Law deals with the cessation "ab intrinseco" of the law, that is to say, with the law that ceases to oblige out of the simple fact that it is in such-and-such a case harmful, and not because the lawmaker decrees that it should cease, or grants a dispensation from it. Such is exactly the case of the state of necessity, which is the strongest reason excusing one from obedience and strict observance of the law.36 This is especially true when this state of necessity arises from the duty, rooted in one's state, to help many souls in grave spiritual necessity, because "the salvation of souls is, for spiritual society, the ultimate end towards which all its laws and institutions are oriented."16 This is true for the entire hierarchy of the Church, top to bottom.
D. CONCLUSION
The conclusion of our study is that either one denies the state of necessity - the way chosen by the Vatican - or, if one admits there is a crisis, then one must approve the action of Archbishop Lefebvre. His decision, no matter how out of the ordinary it may seem, must be judged in relation to the out-of-the-ordinary situation in which it was carried out. Therefore, "it is necessary to judge [it] on the basis of higher principles than ordinary laws" (ST, II-II, Q.54, A.4). From these principles which we have laid out over the two parts of this theological study, it follows that:
The fact that the Vatican has denied there is any state of necessity does not annul the grave necessity in which so many souls are presently to be found. Rather, its denials confirm that this state of necessity is, at least for the time being, without any hope of relief from the Holy See. For that reason, to the authors of Du sacre episcopal contre la volonté du Pape who object that "St. Eusebius [of Samosata) acted without the pope's consent but not against the pope's consent, " we reply that only a question of fact is at stake, not of principle. We concede that St. Eusebius was not faced with the "No" of a pope who promoted and favored Arianism, and demanded respect for laws which would have deprived of help souls placed in grave spiritual necessity. But, had St. Eusebius found himself in that position, he would have had to follow the moral principles recalled above and to fulfil, not "against" the pope's "No" but despite the pope's "No," the most serious duty of charity laid upon his episcopacy by the grave and general necessity of souls.
The authors of the tract criticize what they call arguments of an "illuminist" or "charismatic" kind, meaning by this those who have made with simplicity an act of confidence in the uprightness of Archbishop Lefebvre. They are theologically wrong to do so. St. Thomas writes:This special "perspicacity of judgment," says St. Thomas, can be possessed only by virtue of holiness:In this continuing study we are leaving to the side the sanctity of Archbishop Lefebvre to confine ourselves to the general principles of theology and Canon Law, so that the truth is clear to all those admitting there is a crisis in the Church. This truth is that in the present extraordinary circuмstances, one need not believe in obedience at all costs (even if it cost the Faith or the salvation of souls). Nor need one accept the non-provable "sedevacantist" theses. There is a third way: to observe what the Church teaches concerning the "state of necessity." That is exactly what Archbishop Lefebvre did.
Hirpinus (edited by Rev. Fr. Kenneth Novak)
1 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#1). Suarez, De caritate disp. IX, sectio II, n.3.
2 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#2). G. Gerson, De contemptu clavium et materia excommunicationum et inrregularitatum, considerations VII-XII, Opera, Basilea 1489, prima pars, f33, quoted in La scomunica di Girolamo Savonarola of Fr. Tito Centi, O.P., ed. Ares, Milano.
3 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#3). P. Palazzini Dictionarium moral et canonicuм under "episcopus."
4 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#4). Enciclopedia Cattolica under "stato di necessita."
5 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#5). H. Noldin SJ., Summa Theologiae moralis, vol.I, De Principiis L.III, q.8, 203.
6 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#6).Robert-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale under resistenza al potere injuisto.
7 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#7). Dictionnaire, Droit Canonique under "nécessité " col.,991
8 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#8). Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.12.
9 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#9). P. Palazzini, Dictionarium morale et canonicuм under "oboedientia."
10 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#10). Tito Centi, O.P., La Somma Teologica, ed. Salani vol.XIX, nota I, p.274.
11 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#11).Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario cit. Resistenza al potere inguisto; v. Leo XIII, Libertas
12 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#12).P. Palazzini, Dictionarium, cit. under "inoboedientia."
13 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#13). Naz, Dictionnaire Droit Canonique under “epikie.”
14 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#14).Leone XIII, Diuturnum Illud.
15 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#15). Interview in 30 Days, March, 1991.
16 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#16). P. Palazzini, Dictionarium cit. under "oboedientia."
17 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#17).F. Suarez, De Legibus, 1, VI, c.VIII, n.1
18 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#18). V. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionariao di Teologia morale, ad. Studium, under "equita." See also: "aequitas canonica" cit., and Naz, Dictionnaire Droit canonique under "equite."
19 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#19). Naz, Dict. cit. "epikie," col.366.
20 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#20). Naz, loc. cit.
21 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#21). Suarez, De Legibus, L.VI, c.VII, n.11.
22 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#22). Suarez, op. cit. n.4.
23 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#23). Suarez, op. cit. n.6.
24 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#24). Suarez, De Legibus, L. VI, c. VII, n.11.
25 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#25). Ibid. L. VI, c. VIII, n.8.
26 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#26). Ibid. L. VI, c. VIII, n.1.
27 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#27). ST, I-II, Q.80.
28 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#28). Suarez, De statu perfectionis/De voto oboedientia, L.X, c.IV, n.15.
29 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#29). Ibid.
30 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#30). Suarez, De statu perftctionis/De voto oboedientia, L.X,c.IV,n.15.
31 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#31). Suarez, De Legibus, L.VI, c.VIlI, n.1.
32 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#32). Suarez, op. cit. n.2.
33 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#33). Naz, Dictionnaire Droit Canonique under "epikie," col. 369ƒƒ.
34 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#34). De Rome et d'ailleurs, Sept.-Oct., 1991, p.17.
35 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#35). La Somma Teologica, ed. Salani, vol. XIX, nota 1, p.247.
36 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#36). Naz, Dict. Droit Canonique under "excuse," col.633.
37 (https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm#37). P. Palazzini, Dictionarium cit. under "iurisdictio suppleta."
Every time I post this, sedes never seem to respond.
I wonder why that is?
PS to Pete: You realize Fr. Cekada banned all from attending una cuм Masses, right? Which more or less means your post is baloney.
I'm not sede personally, but my guess would be the huge font, as well as lack of indentation and proper spacing between paragraphs. As one gets older it is very difficult to read. Even with progressive lenses.
Must have been later in life. He certainly was not that way when I knew him. In fact, although he himself has staunchly in the sedevacantist camp personally, he was opposed to imposing sedevacantism on others.
Nope: I always supply the link, by which the sedes can read the article in its native font.No, I'm pretty sure its a combination of the huge font and lack of easily identifiable paragraphs.
I have another idea:
A pope who is not always infallible, and who can give evil commands, is fatal to sedevacantism, therefore they prefer to wait for the article to be buried.
No, I'm pretty sure its a combination of the huge font and lack of easily identifiable paragraphs.
I can't even find the link to the original article because the wall of text is giving me a headache.
Every time I post this, sedes never seem to respond.
I wonder why that is?
Terrible analogy.
Sean, as I said, in practice, R&R’s do the EXACT same things sedes do. For some reason you have decided to draw the line at the question of the Pope as going too far (why?).
R&Rs think it is acceptable to denounce their church’s
1) ecuмenical councils
2) universal liturgy
3) Sacraments
4) theology
5) canonizations
6) canon law
And basically anything YOU don’t like.
But when someone asks how a false religion can come from the authority of Christ, you go berserk.
You’ve made plenty of your own “private judgments”, Sean.
I know of multiple Trad families, all of whom have 12+ children, who were Trad-raised from the 70s, who have access to various priests (Independent, SSPX and Sede chapels)...but who have recently gone indult.Maybe it's because of the priests? Church Militant has a section devoted to them. Or it could be that they want out of cultish/quarrelsome groups and can satisfy their Traditional inclinations within the existential Church? Or. Could they be Biden supporters?
.
I don't understand the confusion among these people, but the more stories you hear, this is not an isolated incident. So many people are losing their minds (and maybe their souls).
For the life of me, I do not understand how any practicing Catholic can ask men to blind themselves to manifest facts.The point is, while certainly true that, as you say, "God gave us eyes, ears, brains, and the graces and gifts to use them, NOT eschew them, in His service now and forever" - this is how we know the conciliar popes have all been modernist heretics, yet He did not give us those gifts to use to decide the pope's status, as the pope's subjects, we do not have that right or obligation.
There is NOTHING in Catholicism that binds us to accepting the satanic insanity that "A" and " not A" are the same.
In fact, the quintessential characteristic of modern[ist] man is to hold both "A" and "not A" as true.
God gave us eyes, ears, brains, and the graces and gifts to use them, NOT eschew them, in His service now and forever.
You're welcome.True, yet by disrediting the OP's anonymous' source he pretty much discredited the whole story is my take.
Unfortunately, we still don't know whether he's "returned to the Novus Ordo". We all know that returning to the indult/diocesan TLM is still returning to the Novus Ordo. So, the mere fact that he states that he went to a SSPX priest for confession (who was given such faculties by the Novus Ordo pope) and doesn't attend the Novus Ordo service doesn't mean he *hasn't* returned to the Novus Ordo.
Typical lawyer answer.
I'm not sede personally, but my guess would be the huge font, as well as lack of indentation and proper spacing between paragraphs. As one gets older it is very difficult to read. Even with progressive lenses.Yes, this Sean, this.
You've got that backwards. Vatican 2 is the novelty, the sede position of today is the application of tradition and doctrine.No, this is definitely not true. St. Vincent of Lerins is the author of the "Vincentian Canon" (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/434lerins-canon.asp), AD 434, this is "the threefold test of Catholicity laid down by St Vincent of Lérins, namely ‘what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all’. By this triple test of ecuмenicity, antiquity, and consent, the Church is to differentiate between true and false tradition".
Yes, it’s time to call them out for what they are ... heretics. I’ve called Stubborn out before, but Sean must be added to this list. Now, with Meg it’s harder to say since she’s never posted anything resembling a rational thought on the subject ... or any subject really. Oh, I forgot about Pax. He’s a heretic also.
Look, nobody says you have to be sedevacantists. But you must at least embrace a Catholic articulation of the Crisis such as can be found with Fr. Chazal. Since you are Resistance supporters, why don’t you get behind him and abandon your heresies?
Nobody’s even reading that crap. You spam a 25-page article into a forum thread and demand a point-by-point rebuttal. Not sure what you’re smoking. This is the same tactic that other intellectually bankrupt poster Lover of Truth tried to use. It smells of desperation coming from schismatic/heretics such as yourself, Stubborn, and Meg....says the heretical schismatic.
Your position regarding the nature of the Church is heretical. I’m not going to mince any words here. You three are, objectively speaking, heretics. Hopefully God has mercy on you due to the Crisis in the Church ... but you are well on the way to losing the faith.
Yes, this Sean, this.Nope: There's a link, Stubborn. A link.
Maybe it's because of the priests? Church Militant has a section devoted to them. Or it could be that they want out of cultish/quarrelsome groups and can satisfy their Traditional inclinations within the existential Church? Or. Could they be Biden supporters?
Not every articulation of R&R is heretical, and +Lefebvre’s was not, but many are.
Fr. Chazal has given them a lifeline, to pull them out of this, and they need to take it. If you carefully analyze +Lefebvre, you’ll see that his position lines up closely with Fr. Chazal’s.
I believe this is quite true for your average lay Traditional Catholic ... but not for a Salza and not for most priests. I myself went through the same process in seminary that many priests and seminarians did. You start off as a Traditional Catholic mostly by recognizing how contrary Conciliar Catholicism is to Tradition. You tend not to go too deep into it. Stubborn is still at this phase. But then you start studying Traditional Catholic theology, in particular ecclesiology, and it hits you in the face how contrary to Tradition R&R really is. Then you’re faced with a choice to resolve this somehow.The problem is, it's un-resolveable. And, no offense, the typical seminary training isn't designed to afford anyone the time or experience necessary to do so. The crisis in the Church is only solvable by the Church itself (i.e. Christ through the papacy). No degree of theological or doctrinal genius, (even if St Thomas, St Alphonsus and St Augustine were resurrected together) can "think" of the solution. The problem is spiritual, so the solution is spiritual.
Those who did not experience such an intellectual process were, quite frankly, either somewhat dull-witted, or just didn’t care much about “theology”, writing it off as irrelevant compared to learning how to say Mass or give sermons or hear Confessions. You’ll notice that sedevacantists tend to be the brightest seminarians and priests.
R&Rs think it is acceptable to denounce their church’s
1) ecuмenical councils
2) universal liturgy
3) Sacraments
4) theology
5) canonizations
6) canon law
And basically anything YOU don’t like.
No, the problem isn't in the specifics of how to resolve the Pope issue. Bellarmine vs. Cajetan, etc.Obviously you and Colin hit the nail on the head. For years and years the sedevacantist position was put on the defensive. Those of us who hold the position have constantly been made to defend our position and all of the objections have satisfactorily been answered over and over and over. I believe it’s way past the time for the R&R crowd to give satisfactory answers to the questions posted above.
What's at issue here is the nature of the Church and the relationship between the Magisterium and the faithful.
If one gets that part right, lands in a Catholic place, the details about how to this Crisis resolves theologically can vary.
What I have issues with are the types of issues posted by "Your Friend Colin":
I am no dogmatic sedevacantist, but I am a dogmatic indefectibilist. What some articulations of R&R propose are tantamount to a defection of the Church.
When ALL of the above, namely, the Magisterium, the Mass, the Sacraments, theology, canonizations, and Canon Law can all go corrupt and become unacceptable as a whole to the Catholic conscience, to posit that these things can have emanated from legitimate authority, well, there's nothing left of the Church. To believe that these things can go corrupt is to make oneself no different that Old Catholics, Protestants, and every manner of heretic.
You three are, objectively speaking, heretics. Hopefully God has mercy on you due to the Crisis in the Church ... but you are well on the way to losing the faith.You are calling them heretics, but most of the people who would agree with that statement think you yourself are also a heretic for being a Feeneyite who condemns NFP. Because Pope Pius XII said . . .
Obviously you and Colin hit the nail on the head. For years and years the sedevacantist position was put on the defensive. Those of us who hold the position have constantly been made to defend our position and all of the objections have satisfactorily been answered over and over and over. I believe it’s way past the time for the R&R crowd to give satisfactory answers to the questions posted above.Negative re: "all of the objections have satisfactorily been answered over and over and over." Most, like 99% of all questions asked to sedes are ignored and go unanswered. It is to the point that there is no use in asking a sede to answer a direct question because they mostly never or only rarely answer.
R&Rs think it is acceptable to denounce their church’s - R&R DENOUNCE NOTHING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES.If sedes actually were true to their belief, they would follow the pope since "he is infallibly safe to follow", "all councils are infallible" and "the pope cannot teach anything mortally harmful to souls, only small mistakes."
1) ecuмenical councils - THIS IS A BLATANTLY FALSE ACCUSATION
2) universal liturgy - UNIVERSAL LITURGY? THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
3) Sacraments - DOUBTFUL = AVOID
4) theology - NOVUS ORDO THEOLOGY IS HERETICAL
5) canonizations - NOVUS ORDO CANONIZATIONS ARE DOUBTFUL
6) canon law - NOVUS ORDO LAWS THAT HARM ARE NOT BINDING
And basically anything YOU don’t like. - YES, R&R DENOUNCE EVERYTHING NOT CATHOLIC
You are calling them heretics, but most of the people who would agree with that statement think you yourself are also a heretic for being a Feeneyite who condemns NFP. Because Pope Pius XII said . . .
I believe it’s way past the time for the R&R crowd to give satisfactory answers to the questions posted above.
Oh, I give them a lot of slack and will not accuse them of formal heresy for that reason, but it’s time to stop mincing words. Their articulation of R&R is heretical and makes them little different objectively than, say, Old Catholics, minus official Church condemnation. Not every articulation of R&R is heretical, and +Lefebvre’s was not, but many are.
Fr. Chazal has given them a lifeline, to pull them out of this, and they need to take it. If you carefully analyze +Lefebvre, you’ll see that his position lines up closely with Fr. Chazal’s.
Why do you believe that you are so special?
We're all special snowflakes, Meg. God loves everyone, even Sedes.
No, "most of them" do not. It's actually the dogmatic sedevacantists who would take this position because they exaggerate the authority of various lower-level Church docuмents, an allocution of Pius XII and a dubious letter from Pius XII to Cardinal Cushing that never appeared in any Vatican publication.Do you truly believe this? I am surprised. I ask because in my experience, and I know you have more experience in this than I do, there are two common types of sedes. Those who follow the Dimond brothers, and those who think Feeneyism is a heresy, with the latter being more common. I have not heard as much discussion on the NFP issue, but when it arises the accusations of schism sometimes come.
Do you truly believe this? I am surprised. I ask because in my experience, and I know you have more experience in this than I do, there are two common types of sedes. Those who follow the Dimond brothers, and those who think Feeneyism is a heresy, with the latter being more common. I have not heard as much discussion on the NFP issue, but when it arises the accusations of schism sometimes come.
I think +Vigano's analogy of Noah is good, but overall, his arguments are made to those in the novus ordo, by encouraging them to "stay with Tradition" and to receive communion on the tongue. I also appreciate his correct expression of "sacrilegious abuses" when speaking of liturgical evils, instead of the incorrect use of "abuse", which denotes a "mistake" or simply an "excess", which minimizes the evils of the new liturgy.Seems it was a good thing Vigano appealed to the Novus Ordo crowd as "trads" are already attending TLM, and anything that appeals to NO's and gets them to step over the line into Tradition can't be bad. Not sure why Vigano's assessment doesn't apply to the trad debate over Sede vs R&R. It may not delineate between finer arguments, but then, he just about shuts down the bleed of people into the camp of those who excessively anathematize. Vigano speaks to the average Catholic joe, unable to pile through tomes of opinion, helping them deal with Francis' manipulations without risking an unproven position or just giving up entirely. I suppose that kind of leaves things in R&R territory, but until the Holy Spirit revives the faith in the laity, how bad can that be?
.
All in all, I enjoy +Vigano's comments but they don't apply to the Trad debate over Sede vs R&R.
Not sure why Vigano's assessment doesn't apply to the trad debate over Sede vs R&R.
What are the other right and proper positions to take?Did Meg ever respond to this?
True, yet by discrediting the OP's anonymous' source he pretty much discredited the whole story is my take.Yes, I see what you mean. Having said that, I would argue that his being in the SSPX these days isn't all that different than being in the Novus Ordo Church. So, the fakenews wasn't even necessary.
Did Meg ever respond to this?Of course not.
Correct:Incorrect.
It is a tactic borrowed from the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs…
From whence does Fr. Novak derive his jurisdiction and/or charism of infallibility?
https://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1999_September/The_1988_Consecrations.htm
Every time I post this, sedes never seem to respond.I didn't see a question in that post.
I wonder why that is?
…yet He did not give us those gifts to use to decide the pope's status, as the pope's subjects, we do not have that right or obligation."The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration," etc.
Top 4 R&R views:Thoughtful… and amusing.
1. Ostrich R&R (i.e. Indult types) - Put your head in the sand; ignore the novus ordo insanity. Stay "with the Church", pray for +Benedict and God will fix everything.
.
2. Ostrich-lite R&R (i.e. new-sspx) - Same as above, except they wait for God to bring them back to "full communion".
.
3. +ABL R&R - Recognize new-rome only to the extent necessary to debate issues. Other than that, you ignore them because you're theologically and doctrinally unsure of if they are legit.
.
4. Fr Chazal R&R - After 50 years of post-V2 information, and with the election of "Francis", we can say that new-rome is heretical and their spiritual authority is impounded, even while their material authority remains.
.
#4 above is the same as sede-privationism. It's the middle ground (not in the same sense of the "middle" of moral theology, but the moderate view in our scenario where:
.
1) all the facts aren't known or are disputed (i.e. how a heretical pope is handled exactly, since our circuмstances have never happened before in history) and
2) when we have no authority to make a sure decision. Basically, this is the common sense, prudent view of the papal problem).
.
It moderates the doctrinal extremes of R&R and Sedevacantism. It's the bridge that should connect the various Trad communities but it won't. Too bad.
Yes, I see what you mean. Having said that, I would argue that his being in the SSPX these days isn't all that different than being in the Novus Ordo Church. So, the fakenews wasn't even necessary.There's no difference between SSPX and the NO?
There's no difference between SSPX and the NO?I said there wasn't much difference not no difference.
That seems like a stretch.
I said there wasn't much difference not no difference.How is that only a small difference tho?
How is that only a small difference tho?I see very little difference between the SSPX today and the indults (which are NO church). How are they very different to you?
I see very little difference between the SSPX today and the indults (which are NO church). How are they very different to you?I still see a pretty big difference between the NO and the Indult, but that aside, the SSPX would on principle say we shouldn't attend the NO mass and that the Latin Mass is the only licit Roman Mass, and would say there is errors in V2. That seems like a big difference to me.
I still see a pretty big difference between the NO and the Indult, but that aside, the SSPX would on principle say we shouldn't attend the NO mass and that the Latin Mass is the only licit Roman Mass, and would say there is errors in V2. That seems like a big difference to me.
Do they really still say that publicly?I can only speak for things I've seen in my own local SSPX parish.
Would they say publicly that one ought not attend the Pope’s Mass?
Do they still specify and denounce the errors of Vatican 2 from the pulpit?
I can count on (less than) one hand the number of times I have heard any such sermon since the summer of 2013.
Yes, I see what you mean. Having said that, I would argue that his being in the SSPX these days isn't all that different than being in the Novus Ordo Church. So, the fakenews wasn't even necessary.I still use the SSPX for the Mass and sacraments and have yet to see anything NO or indult like at my chapel. Either way, the OP was false.
I can only speak for things I've seen in my own local SSPX parish.I'm still not seeing this big difference between the indult and SSPX. Having a formal position on something and not actually doing anything about it are two different things. The indults are also against Vatican II, but don't speak about it. Wasn't that the original agreement between them and JPII when allowed to form within the Novus Ordo structure?
When I was still in catechesis (at the Ukrainian Rite Byzantine Catholic Church) I visited the SSPX once and I asked the priest at my local SSPX whether it was sinful to attend the NO and his answer was "if you know what's wrong with it." He did say he wouldn't say not to attend a Motu mass though he kinda seemed to somewhat caution against it somewhat though, so maybe you'd see that as a sign of modernization. No, I've never specifically heard a sermon against the NO, though I've only been attending there regularly since May of this year, though I'd visited a couple times prior. I have heard at least some parishoners speaking against attendance at the NO, when the subject came up during conversations. I don't believe I've seen Vatican II specifically addressed either.
Still, having a formal position in opposition to V2 even if one isn't specifically bringing it up seems different than being for it.
Furthermore, I think there's still a difference between the indult and the NO. Yes I get that FSSPers would technically say the NO is "acceptable" but the reality is they still arent offering a mass created by a freemason as a compromise with Protestantism. I think this stuff does matter. And I think I can say it matters without saying their position is ideal.
Who cares if you accuse someone of heresy (formal or otherwise). Your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's opinion.
Why do you believe that you are so special? I'd really like to know.
"The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration," etc.The popes' status is by law, established upon him accepting his election, once he does that, the law states that: "the man
We certainly have the right and obligation to judge manifest outrages against the Faith.
We have no right or obligation to depose a Pope, but that is irrelevant because a heretic deposes himself.
I'm still not seeing this big difference between the indult and SSPX. Having a formal position on something and not actually doing anything about it are two different things. The indults are also against Vatican II, but don't speak about it. Wasn't that the original agreement between them and JPII when allowed to form within the Novus Ordo structure?The difference, for the time being at least, is if the conciliar authorities decreed that they will shut down all of the indults tomorrow, then as of tomorrow there would be no indults within the conciliar church. If they wanted to shut down the SSPX, the SSPX, at least in my neck of the woods, would continue on business as usual. Not sure how long this will stay true tho.
As an organization, has the SSPX recently spoken out against Bergoglio, Vatican II and the connections between the two? I have not seen anything. Feel free to post it if they have and I have missed it.
I judge men by their fruits, for fathers, their fruits are their children and how they turnout, for priests it is their faithful and how they turn out. I've seen expert book writers and lecturers in subjects like sedevacantes, Jews, NWO etc. that have been a disaster as fathers, spending all their time on their subject. It's like the saying, "the shoemakers children have holes in their shoes". The shoemaker spending all his time working on other peoples shoes and not on his family. Really, it is like straining gnats and swallowing camels.I cannot disagree, yet is it not also a sin in and of itself to lose the faith, which once lost, feeds the inclination toward more sins, i.e. heresy, blindness of faith, apostasy. It seems to me the faith is a type of shield, without the faith, without the shield, we are basically defenseless against these other sins - then these sins become our shield against the faith we lost - which is a reason why conversions can be so difficult.
To me, the details how a Vatican II pope can be or can't be a heretic and is or isn't a true a pope, is not something that anyone will ever conclude with absolute certainty, for it is an unprecedented situation. If the whole world goes to pot, while I do my job raising my children to LIVE the faith, to be examples to others, the question of sedevacantes will be as nothing.
P.S. - I'm of the thinking that that love of sin leads to loss of the faith (heresy, blindness of faith, apostacy.)
The difference, for the time being at least, is if the conciliar authorities decreed that they will shut down all of the indults tomorrow, then as of tomorrow there would be no indults within the conciliar church. If they wanted to shut down the SSPX, the SSPX, at least in my neck of the woods, would continue on business as usual. Not sure how long this will stay true tho.To be fair, perhaps some indult priests would at that point go to the SSPX. But I still think you are right.
Another Captain Obvious. What, because my opinion isn’t worth more than anyone else’s I’m not allowed to post it? What exactly is your point? I’m convinced that I’m right and am advocating on behalf of my position.
You do the same thing. So you’re allowed to advocate for your position, but when I do so it’s because I think I’m special. Get lost, Meg.
You’ll notice that I’m actually indifferent to the specifics of resolving the Pope issue.
I actually believe and have stated that Fr. Chazal’s position is as legitimate as the sedeprivationist one because it is not inconsistent with any Church teaching.
So you’ll notice that I am not even against R&R per se, but merely against some articulations if the position. I have zero problem with +Lefebvre or Chazal.
You do nothing but whine and make personal attacks and snide comments. You add nothing of value to any of these debates. Return to the kitchen where you belong.
I'm still not seeing this big difference between the indult and SSPX. Having a formal position on something and not actually doing anything about it are two different things. The indults are also against Vatican II, but don't speak about it. Wasn't that the original agreement between them and JPII when allowed to form within the Novus Ordo structure?I mean, there's a difference between just not regularly getting up there and publically bashing something, and not having a position against it. I once asked the SSPX priest here if its sinful to attend an NO. He said it was sinful if you knew what was wrong with it. Now you might like a stronger position, but I doubt an indult priest would answer that way if asked. If they did that would only be because they are out of line with their official organization (by contrast the SSPX priest would be standing with his.)
As an organization, has the SSPX recently spoken out against Bergoglio, Vatican II and the connections between the two? I have not seen anything. Feel free to post it if they have and I have missed it.
The difference is fairly simpleAre you sure about that? It's my understanding that the SSPX has accepted NO bishops and priests into their ranks...WITHOUT conditional consecrations or ordinations.
SSPX has certainly valid holy orders. They use the old Roman ordination and episcopal consecration rites.
Indult/FSSP doesn't have certainly valid holy orders. They trust Paul VI's new rites.
The difference, for the time being at least, is if the conciliar authorities decreed that they will shut down all of the indults tomorrow, then as of tomorrow there would be no indults within the conciliar church. If they wanted to shut down the SSPX, the SSPX, at least in my neck of the woods, would continue on business as usual. Not sure how long this will stay true tho.Unless that happens, this does not prove a major difference...now.
The Resistance does not believe itself to be the ONLY right and proper position to take.What are the other "right and proper positions," Poche?
1.) Are you sure about that? It's my understanding that the SSPX has accepted NO bishops and priests into their ranks...WITHOUT conditional consecrations or ordinations.1. Yes, you are correct. The SSPX now accepts all N.O without conditional consecrations or ordinations, even if the priests asked to be conditionally ordained.
2.) Again, difference? Yes, but not by much. And before long the gap will get smaller and smaller. And I see nothing that shows me that the SSPX is looking to widen that gap.
3.) And I'll ask it again....has the SSPX as an organization (ie. not individual priests/chapels) condemned Bergoglio's words/actions in the recent past? Because if it has, I missed it.
What are the other "right and proper positions," Poche?Mark, Meg has been asked this question already a couple of times now....and appears to be ignoring it. I think we all know why that is.
1. Yes, you are correct. The SSPX now accepts all N.O without conditional consecrations or ordinations, even if the priests asked to be conditionally ordained.Do you have a source for #1? When I asked about this I was told they investigate them to make sure they were valid (this just last year). That said I realize Sedes think the New Rite is *inherently* invalid so of course that would be a whole nother deal. Which I know Lefebvre didn't always do conditional ordinations either.
2. I noticed that too.
3. No they have not, as an organization, the policy is not to condemn or criticize Bergoglio or any of his heretical and communist actions. (At most, they might allow a public statement expressing their disappointment).
…the law states that: "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world".
Mark, Meg has been asked this question already a couple of times now....and appears to be ignoring it. I think we all know why that is.
Probably for the same reason sedes wet their pants every time I post the article they continuously ignore:You may have noticed Sean that I'm not interested in interacting with you and the other rabid anti-sedes here these days. But nice try. :fryingpan:
They have no response.
Probably for the same reason sedes wet their pants every time I post the article they continuously ignore:I did respond. I asked if you had any specific questions about that article that you wanted answered? Also, I wrote a long response to your claim about St. Robert Bellarmine's position several pages back that I didn't see any answer to.
They have no response.
I bet Salza's not only a crypto Mason but part of the the baby eating cult also(http://judaism.is/images/veritatissplendor.jpg?crc=4005324179)
Nothing in that language precludes the heretic being elected and "automatically" and "immediatley" falling "without need for any further action" because the heretic deposes himself.You said; "The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration, etc." which simply cannot be true once he accepts his election because that is an idea which contradicts the law that popes themselves have made.
Think long and hard about Jorge having "absolute jurisdiction over the whole world."
Can you live with that?
Before I was banned, QVD (if I remember correctly) showed that Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19451208_vacantis-apostolicae-sedis.html) §34 abrogated cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio but only for an "election." So again, the instant after election, the heretic falls "automatically" and "immediately" "without further action."
Besides, who thinks that Canon Law can legitimately trump Divine Law? Only Pharisees and neo-Pharisees (http://judaism.is/neo-pharisees.html).
It is so complicated that only one with competence and jurisdiction can have a dispositive opinion.
You said; "The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration, etc." which simply cannot be true once he accepts his election because that is an idea which contradicts the law that popes themselves have made.cuм Ex...
The truth of the matter is that according the law, once declared that he accepts his election, he "automatically, immediately, without need for any further declaration" is instantly the true pope. In all of Church history and tradition, the only way for a pope to be dethroned, *is* indeed to self dethrone - by either dying or retiring.
Should the pope be an apostate heretic like the conciliar popes have been, then per cuм Ex, we are not to listen to him - "he may nonetheless be contradicted" is what cuм Ex says - which, even if cuм Ex never would have said this, doing this agrees with Scripture, tradition and what the Church has taught always and everywhere as regards how to deal with heretics of whatever stripe. IOW, because that is what the Church has always taught, that is what we Catholics are expected to actually do about heretic popes.
Deciding his status is a new idea and as such, per the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/john-salza-leaves-sspx-and-returns-to-novus-ordo/msg718342/#msg718342), being an idea that has *not* been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.
Because this law is the tradition of the Church, neither can we say this law contradicts Divine Law. The popes made the law specifically so that the whole world knows with absolute certainty, exactly who the pope is and at the precise moment in time he came to be pope.
You may have noticed Sean that I'm not interested in interacting with you and the other rabid anti-sedes here these days. But nice try. :fryingpan:
cuм Ex...
"(vii) if perchance they shall have been Judges, their judgments shall have no force, nor shall any cases be brought to their hearing.;"
cuм Ex presumes a hearing of the one accused of heresy. Can a pope even be brought to a hearing?
And to answer your question. No, a pope cannot be judged under any circuмstances. But if he is a manifest heretic, then he is not the pope and therefore he may be judged, the traditional penalty for heresy being death.
Right, a Pope (can't remember who) famously said that in the case of heresy, the Pope is judged, or rather shown to have already been judged, i.e. judged by man to have been judged by God (with "judged" being used in two different senses, as actually explained by S&S).my main issue here is still that until the Church in some way *tells us* that Francis is a manifest and formal heretic and thus has fallen from the pontificate, its just a theory, at best.
my main issue here is still that until the Church in some way *tells us* that Francis is a manifest and formal heretic and thus has fallen from the pontificate, its just a theory, at best.
I can look at the things he says and conclude that many of them fall out of accord with what the Church has taught in the past. But I have no idea how I could know whether the heresy is formal or just material. And a "come on it seems obvious its formal" isn't theologically airtight
Indefectibility only applies when such Conciliar evils are obligated by the Conciliar authorities. Syllogism:
Indefectibility only applies when such Conciliar evils are obligated by the Conciliar authorities. Syllogism:
.
Indefectibility protects the Church from error when She binds the faithful to believe/act in a way that is obligatory, under pain of sin.
.
All things V2 and of the Conciliar Church are not obligatory nor are they binding under pain of sin.
.
The Conciliar evils are promoted as binding (ie the evil hierarchy lies to the faithful), but legally (ie the fine print) such things are not obligatory but optional.
.
Therefore, because all things Conciliar are optional, then indefectibility does not protect the Conciliar Church from error.
.
There is nothing inherent in the idea of indefectibility that says the hierarchy (in a non-binding, non-authoritative way) cannot lie, propose, condone and support evil. Indefectibility only protects definitive teachings.
That is absolutely and utterly false. You're saying that the Church can defect in pretty much every way except in terms of the core dogmatic definitions. It can have a harmful Protestant Mass that displeases God, corrupt Canon Law, totally corrupt Magisterium (minus those few core dogmas). That's a monstrous notion of the Church, that it could be 99% putrid, all except those solemnly defined dogmas.The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but I think the problem or confusion comes in determining what degree are baptized Catholic have willing give their full consent of the will, with sufficient reflection to accept the Conciliar (non- Catholic) teachings? To what extent can one be IN the Conciliar church but not OF the Conciliar church?
IS THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR IS IT NOT? that's the simple question that confronts all Catholics.
You're saying that the Church can defect in pretty much every way except in terms of the core dogmatic definitions. It can have a harmful Protestant Mass that displeases God, corrupt Canon Law, totally corrupt Magisterium (minus those few core dogmas). That's a monstrous notion of the Church, that it could be 99% putrid, all except those solemnly defined dogmas.No one is obliged to attend the new mass, so the fact that it exists and is corrupted is a spiritual mystery, just like God allowed the High Priests of the Old Law to corrupt the Jєωιѕн Faith in the time of Christ.
IS THE CONCILIAR CHURCH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OR IS IT NOT? that's the simple question that confronts all Catholics..
The Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, but I think the problem or confusion comes in determining what degree are baptized Catholic have willing give their full consent of the will, with sufficient reflection to accept the Conciliar (non- Catholic) teachings? To what extent can one be IN the Conciliar church but not OF the Conciliar church?You are right, the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church. If V2 would have taken place a century or more ago, they would not have kept the name Catholic, instead would have coined the new name for themselves, perhaps "Conciliar," perhaps something else.
You're right. Under normal circuмstances, it's not our competence or our business to decide whether a given pope is a pertinacious heretic.
Right, a Pope (can't remember who) famously said that in the case of heresy, the Pope is judged, or rather shown to have already been judged, i.e. judged by man to have been judged by God (with "judged" being used in two different senses, as actually explained by S&S).Pope Innocent III?
You said; "The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration, etc." which simply cannot be true once he accepts his election because that is an idea which contradicts the law that popes themselves have made.
The truth of the matter is that according the law, once declared that he accepts his election, he "automatically, immediately, without need for any further declaration" is instantly the true pope. In all of Church history and tradition, the only way for a pope to be dethroned, *is* indeed to self dethrone - by either dying or retiring.
Should the pope be an apostate heretic like the conciliar popes have been, then per cuм Ex, we are not to listen to him - "he may nonetheless be contradicted" is what cuм Ex says - which, even if cuм Ex never would have said this, doing this agrees with Scripture, tradition and what the Church has taught always and everywhere as regards how to deal with heretics of whatever stripe. IOW, because that is what the Church has always taught, that is what we Catholics are expected to actually do about heretic popes.
Deciding his status is a new idea and as such, per the Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/john-salza-leaves-sspx-and-returns-to-novus-ordo/msg718342/#msg718342), being an idea that has *not* been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.
Because this law is the tradition of the Church, neither can we say this law contradicts Divine Law. The popes made the law specifically so that the whole world knows with absolute certainty, exactly who the pope is and at the precise moment in time he came to be pope.
To a point it is just a theory. So, for instance, Archbishop Lefebvre speculated too about other possible explanations. Was Paul VI replaced by a double? Was he insane? He dismissed those. I don't think he broached the subject of whether Paul VI was blackmailed on account of sodomy (a real possibility). In that case, his acts weren't free.
That's why I don't really care how one lands on the Pope issue. What I care about is this ...
Catholics cannot say that the Catholic Church has done all this evil. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. Either these things that have been done were not evil (conservative Novus Ordites) or else it was not the Catholic Church doing them (sedevacantists) ... for whatever reason, or with whatever explanation, the explanation being theoretical, as you put it, and just an opinion.
Here's my take. I do not recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church because it lacks all the marks of the Church: it's got corrupt doctrine, corrupt Sacraments, a corrupt Mass, corrupt Canon Law, corrupt moral discipline, etc. etc.
This is where there IS in fact a role for private judgment, identifying the Church as the one founded by Our Lord. Vatican I taught this in the lesser know teachings of the Council (overshadowed by papal infallibility), that the reason plays a role in assessing the "motives of credibility" that lead one to subjecting oneself to the authority of this Church. I see these "motives of credibility" to be completely absent with the Conciliar Church, so I cannot recognize it as the Church. As one of the sheep, I do not recognize its voice as being that of the Shepherd.
Beyond that, if someone wants to say papa haereticus ipso facto depositus or papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus (as Fr. Chazal does where he stipulates that they lack authority), I really don't care, as Catholics can licitly hold either opinion. Heck, I'm OK if someone wants to say that Paul VI was replaced by a double, or was blackmailed for sodomy (not sure about the other V2 papal claimants). The only thing I'm NOT OK with is to say that these evils were perpetrated on the faithful by the authority of the Catholic Church. That is absolutely impossible. And, to be honest, I'm actually fine, in principle, with the conservative Novus Ordite assertion that these things were NOT evils at all, but just need some interpretation with the hermeneutic. Now, I don't buy it, but I can't say that it's an intrinisically un-Catholic position to take ... as many articulations of R&R are. I'm MORE AGAINST THESE BAD ARTICULATIONS OF R&R than I am against those conservative NO Catholics who try applying the hermeneutic of continuity to V2, etc.
That's why I have said that I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist. I am a dogmatic indefectibilist.
It's not heretical at all. The Church is only free from error when She solemnly defines, binds or obligates a teaching. Indefectibility and Infallibility are intertwined together.No.
.
You attempt to apply indefectibility to non-infallible areas. This is the whole reason why V2 even had a chance to happen - an exaggeration of the authority/obedience due to the pope. An exaggeration of indefectibility leads us to follow the hierarchy into non-obligatory error - wolves leading the sheep off a cliff.
.
The pope has limits to his infallibility and this is similar to the Church's limits on indefectibility. Because indefectibility is a Church attribute which only applies to the papacy, because only the Pope can teach infallibly.
"…simply cannot be true…"—Because you say so?No, not because I say so, because as I said, it is in contradiction with the law because as the pope, there is no provision in the law for self deposition, which means he either has to retire or die to get out of it.
At the risk of repeating myself—He can be elected (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis §34) and then fall "automatically "immediately" "without need for any further declaration" (cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio).
"Deciding his status is a new idea…"—There is nothing new about recognizing manifest heresy and manifest heretics.
Ok, for the sake of argument I agree, he can fall "automatically and immediately."The pope can only fall automatically/immediately into excommunication not deposition. An excommunication is a spiritual penalty, which does not affect his material/govt office. It is up to the Cardinals to investigate/determine heresy, by way of St Paul’s 2 rebuke process, which then proves his manifest obstinate error and so he deposes himself from his chair. But he cannot be deposed without the Cardinals’ investigative/rebuke process.
What does he think now after Pope celebrates gαy history month with release of new film.He could do anything and people will insist he is the Vicar of Christ. Although, that doesn’t mean anything, because they’re going to ignore about everything he tells them to do and thereby reduce the Papacy to a mere formality.
He could do anything and people will insist he is the Vicar of Christ. Although, that doesn’t mean anything, because they’re going to ignore about everything he tells them to do and thereby reduce the Papacy to a mere formality.Bingo.
He could do anything and people will insist he is the Vicar of Christ. Although, that doesn’t mean anything, because they’re going to ignore about everything he tells them to do and thereby reduce the Papacy to a mere formality.Well, certainly they would change their mind if he came out in favor of civil unions.............
Well, certainly they would change their mind if he came out in favor of civil unions.............That’ll do it! ;)
He could do anything and people will insist he is the Vicar of Christ.
...because unlike you, we do not believe we have the authority or right to declare a pope a nope.
We will wait for the hierarchy to declare his heresy and deposition, and until and unless that happens, we will simply ignore and oppose him.
...because unlike you, we do not believe we have the authority or right to declare a pope a nope.Yeah, but you have the authority and right to declare their Councils, Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, universal disciplinary laws, Canonizations and Encyclicals null and void. But when I question his legitimacy to the Chair of Peter BECAUSE of all the aforementioned, that’s too much. Got it.
We will wait for the hierarchy to declare his heresy and deposition, and until and unless that happens, we will simply ignore and oppose him.
The pope can only fall automatically/immediately into excommunication not deposition. An excommunication is a spiritual penalty, which does not affect his material/govt office. It is up to the Cardinals to investigate/determine heresy, by way of St Paul’s 2 rebuke process, which then proves his manifest obstinate error and so he deposes himself from his chair. But he cannot be deposed without the Cardinals’ investigative/rebuke process.Just as the heretic puts himself outside the Church, the heretics deposes himself.
We will wait for the hierarchy to declare his heresy and deposition, and until and unless that happens, we will simply ignore and oppose him.The infallible pronouncements of Vatican 1 suggest that you damn yourself.
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.SUBMIT TO YOUR POPE, SEAN!
Chapter III of Pastor Aeternus, "On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff."
It's already been declared. You missed the bus.
Yeah, but you have the authority and right to declare their Councils, Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, universal disciplinary laws, Canonizations and Encyclicals null and void. But when I question his legitimacy to the Chair of Peter BECAUSE of all the aforementioned, that’s too much. Got it.
Be sure not to hold your breath while waiting for the likes of Cupich, Dolan, Wilton, Wuerl and the gang to depose Chaos Frank. Hah!
And with all the time you’ll save ignoring and opposing the man you believe holds the place of God on Earth, the Roman Pontiff, that should give you plenty of spare time to think about the DOGMA that requires submission to the Roman Pontiff as an absolute necessity for salvation.
Just as the heretic puts himself outside the Church, the heretics deposes himself.
You confuse the deposition with the formal declaration.
The clear verbiage of cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
cuм ex Apostolatus Officio
“In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any… Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church… or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless…those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559, §6 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
The infallible pronouncements of Vatican 1 suggest that you damn yourself.
SUBMIT TO YOUR POPE, SEAN!
Yeah, but you have the authority and right to declare their Councils, Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, universal disciplinary laws, Canonizations and Encyclicals null and void. But when I question his legitimacy to the Chair of Peter BECAUSE of all the aforementioned, that’s too much. Got it.I think this is a bit of a strawman of a lot of "R and R".
Be sure not to hold your breath while waiting for the likes of Cupich, Dolan, Wilton, Wuerl and the gang to depose Chaos Frank. Hah!
And with all the time you’ll save ignoring and opposing the man you believe holds the place of God on Earth, the Roman Pontiff, that should give you plenty of spare time to think about the DOGMA that requires submission to the Roman Pontiff as an absolute necessity for salvation.
Hmmm....so Billot was a heretic for violating cuм Ex? Funny the Church missed that one!Did 1917 CJC also "abrogate" Vatican 1?
PS: After Billot, the 1917 CJC abrogated a good chunk of cuм Ex.
I'll leave you to ponder those two tidbits.
To a point it is just a theory. So, for instance, Archbishop Lefebvre speculated too about other possible explanations. Was Paul VI replaced by a double? Was he insane? He dismissed those. I don't think he broached the subject of whether Paul VI was blackmailed on account of sodomy (a real possibility). In that case, his acts weren't free.OK Now I'm really confused. Your main issue with "R and R" seems to be that they say "The Church did this." But then I see people like Pax saying, actually the Church didn't do this, the Pope just promulgated it in a non binding way. And you're accusing him of heresy. I'm unclear on why.
That's why I don't really care how one lands on the Pope issue. What I care about is this ...
Catholics cannot say that the Catholic Church has done all this evil. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church. Either these things that have been done were not evil (conservative Novus Ordites) or else it was not the Catholic Church doing them (sedevacantists) ... for whatever reason, or with whatever explanation, the explanation being theoretical, as you put it, and just an opinion.
Here's my take. I do not recognize the Conciliar Church as the Catholic Church because it lacks all the marks of the Church: it's got corrupt doctrine, corrupt Sacraments, a corrupt Mass, corrupt Canon Law, corrupt moral discipline, etc. etc.
This is where there IS in fact a role for private judgment, identifying the Church as the one founded by Our Lord. Vatican I taught this in the lesser know teachings of the Council (overshadowed by papal infallibility), that the reason plays a role in assessing the "motives of credibility" that lead one to subjecting oneself to the authority of this Church. I see these "motives of credibility" to be completely absent with the Conciliar Church, so I cannot recognize it as the Church. As one of the sheep, I do not recognize its voice as being that of the Shepherd.
Beyond that, if someone wants to say papa haereticus ipso facto depositus or papa haereticus ab Ecclesia deponendus (as Fr. Chazal does where he stipulates that they lack authority), I really don't care, as Catholics can licitly hold either opinion. Heck, I'm OK if someone wants to say that Paul VI was replaced by a double, or was blackmailed for sodomy (not sure about the other V2 papal claimants). The only thing I'm NOT OK with is to say that these evils were perpetrated on the faithful by the authority of the Catholic Church. That is absolutely impossible. And, to be honest, I'm actually fine, in principle, with the conservative Novus Ordite assertion that these things were NOT evils at all, but just need some interpretation with the hermeneutic. Now, I don't buy it, but I can't say that it's an intrinisically un-Catholic position to take ... as many articulations of R&R are. I'm MORE AGAINST THESE BAD ARTICULATIONS OF R&R than I am against those conservative NO Catholics who try applying the hermeneutic of continuity to V2, etc.
That's why I have said that I am not a dogmatic sedevacantist. I am a dogmatic indefectibilist.
Just as the heretic puts himself outside the Church, the heretics deposes himself.Can you name any bishops who have fallen into heresy and deposed themselves during the past millennium?
Did 1917 CJC also "abrogate" Vatican 1?As though Vatican I had anything to do with cuм Ex (and its subsequent abrogation in 1917)?
Learn some theology, Sean.
Submit to your "Pope."
Can you name any bishops who have fallen into heresy and deposed themselves during the past millennium?
OK Now I'm really confused. Your main issue with "R and R" seems to be that they say "The Church did this." But then I see people like Pax saying, actually the Church didn't do this, the Pope just promulgated it in a non binding way. And you're accusing him of heresy. I'm unclear on why.Like the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, Ladislaus would be quite happy with that position, because it had the "virtue" of toleration of the schismatic sedevacantist position.
Related, what if my reaction is just something like "I can't quite figure this out, but I'm gonna go to the SSPX (or SSPX Resistance I guess, would it matter?) because I know the pre conciliar teaching is true and I'm gonna pray for the pope but besides that just not gonna worry about his status? What heresy would that be?
Why are you limiting it to the past millennium? You don't want to discuss Nestorius?Because the only example I have seen given is Nestorius, from 1600 years ago. So rather than asking for an example, being told Nestorius, and then having to prove that Nestorius did not lose office until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesus (which is easy to prove), I asked for an example from the past 1000 years. So, let's see if you can give a single example, other than Nestorius, of a bishop who you believe fell into heresy and deposed himself.
Because the only example I have seen given is Nestorius, from 1600 years ago. So rather than asking for an example, being told Nestorius, and then having to prove that Nestorius did not lose office until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesus (which is easy to prove), I asked for an example from the past 1000 years. So, let's see if you can give a single example, other than Nestorius, of a bishop who you believe fell into heresy and deposed himself.
Mental note: 6 of 11 posters currently logged in are sedes.It is now 7 of 12.
Yet, when asked about their affiliation/position in polls, their numbers are half that.
Could it be that the ytry to hide their predominance on Cathinfo (the de facto headquarters of sedevacantism), but when issues pop up impacting their schism, they simply cant resist?
Yes, that seems to be it.
Because the only example I have seen given is Nestorius, from 1600 years ago. So rather than asking for an example, being told Nestorius, and then having to prove that Nestorius did not lose office until he was deposed by the Council of Ephesus (which is easy to prove), I asked for an example from the past 1000 years. So, let's see if you can give a single example, other than Nestorius, of a bishop who you believe fell into heresy and deposed himself.
As though Vatican I had anything to do with cuм Ex (and its subsequent abrogation in 1917)?Careless or deceptive?
Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation.
Pastor Aeternus Chap 3.
Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559, §6 (Roman Bullarium Vol. IV. Sec. I, pp. 354-357)
Like the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, Ladislaus would be quite happy with that position, because it had the "virtue" of toleration of the schismatic sedevacantist position.I mean, I'm nowhere near a sede, but IDK... some of the sede hatred seems irrational to me. Is Sedevacantism seriously worse than modernism? The Pope literally just brazenly violated natural law and said ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ civil unions should be allowed. Is everyone who questions whether he could be a pope of bad will?
Lisping: "Just towerate uth!"
But never lose track of this:
A popeless church for 602 years and counting (forevermore), and no way ever to re-establish an hierarchy.
That's the dope the sedes are smoking.
They are not merely pope killers: They are church killers.
Mental note: 6 of 11 posters currently logged in are sedes.They can't resist 'cause that's an R and R thing ;)
Yet, when asked about their affiliation/position in polls, their numbers are half that.
Could it be that the ytry to hide their predominance on Cathinfo (the de facto headquarters of sedevacantism), but when issues pop up impacting their schism, they simply cant resist?
Yes, that seems to be it.
Yeah, but you have the authority and right to declare their Councils, Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, universal disciplinary laws, Canonizations and Encyclicals null and void.We're not declaring the V2 council, new mass, sacraments, canon law or encyclicals to be null/void, but we declare them to: 1) be legally valid, in the sense that they happened in a historical way and were legally docuмented.
Ladislaus, Your main issue with "R and R" seems to be that they say "The Church did this." But then I see people like Pax saying, actually the Church didn't do this, the Pope just promulgated it in a non binding way. And you're accusing him of heresy. I'm unclear on why.
3) all of the above were not ordered as binding, nor are they obligatory, nor is there any pain of sin attached to ignoring them.Except your Pope, “Saint” Paul VI declared the following at the close of Vatican Council II:
“…we order and command that all that the Council has decided in synod be sacredly and religiously held by all of Christ’s faithful, unto the glory of God… These things we edict and prescribe, decreeing that this present letter must ever be and remain firm, valid and efficacious and obtain and retain its full and integral effects…Given at Rome, under the fisherman’s ring…”
“…we order and command that all that the Council has decided in synod be sacredly and religiously held by all of Christ’s faithful, unto the glory of God
These things we edict and prescribe, decreeing that this present letter must ever be and remain firm, valid and efficacious and obtain and retain its full and integral effects
Byzcat, I too would like to understand Lad's position better, but he never goes deeper than what he wrote earlier. I think the topic gets him riled up, so he tries to avoid it.PM sent.
.
It's hard to have a honest discussion of these matters; too many are entrenched in their opinions already. I'd love a honest critique/discussion of my views, by someone who is searching for the truth, not for the "kill shot" against the "other side". PM me if you're interested.
Careless or deceptive?
Vatican 1 demands that you submit to your Pope.
So, submit to your Pope, Sean.
If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law."And a little further on, he says:
But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God."Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mark, in your earlier post, you admitted that cuм Ex was abrogated by Pope St Pius X (and again by Pius XII), who both allowed the excommunicated Cardinals to vote/win a papal conclave. ?? You're going around in circles here. If cuм Ex doesn't apply anymore (at least to a pope), then quit quoting it.No circles.
Is God really going to send someone to hell for getting a procedural question wrong?On that question I return to pre-V2 grammar school catechism.
We're not declaring the V2 council, new mass, sacraments, canon law or encyclicals to be null/void, but we declare them to: 1) be legally valid, in the sense that they happened in a historical way and were legally docuмented.What about those new environmental sins against Gaia?
2) but they are illegal to follow/practice, because they violate the requirements/commands of Quo Primum.
3) all of the above were not ordered as binding, nor are they obligatory, nor is there any pain of sin attached to ignoring them.
4) None of these things are part of the "universal discipline" which term presupposes that they are a) binding on the whole church, b) under pain of sin. They are neither, so the correct term is a "non-universal option".
.
So, there is no sin, nor crisis of conscience in sticking with Tradition/Quo Primum, and ignoring all of V2's nonsense. In fact, if one DOES NOT stick with Tradition/Quo Primum, they commit many grave sins and violate church law.
.
The "pope question" is a wholly separate matter than the above, which is a matter of Church law.
And here is what Pope Leo XIII said <snip>
https://sspx.org/en/can-obedience-oblige-us-disobey
4. I do not have the competence or jurisdiction to have a dispositive opinion on these matters AND NEITHER DO YOU.Exactly!
I'll admit there's a certain R and R theory I don't like or think is orthodox, namely the ones that don't set *criteria* for when a teaching is or isn't binding, instead *just* saying its not binding because its false or whatnot. A true pope couldn't follow all the rules for an ex cathedra ruling in error.Pope Pius IX gave us the criteria for when a teaching is binding in Tuas Libenter (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/tuas-libenter/): "Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith".
I don't know if any of that made sense or not, but I'll start there.
You will be waiting for a long, long time for an answer.This.
Instead, you will be told by the sedes why your question is........anything but deserving of an answer.
On that question I return to pre-V2 grammar school catechism.I agree with you TBH. I think most prudent is to see this as a "we have a terrible Pope". I disagree with Sedes on procedure. I don't therefore think they're all anathema. It seems almost dishonest to say the case of Pope Francis isn't confusing.
What are the 3 things necessary to commit mortal sin?
1. The sin must be serious (mortal).
2. The sinner must know it is serious (mortal).
3. The sinner must fully consent to the serious (mortal) sin.
A man who does his best to answer these questions, even if he is wrong, is clearly NOT fully consenting to something he KNOWS is mortally sinful.
THAT is why we can discount the anathemata of the dogmatic popolators and the dogmatic sedes.
Again I invoke the need for love of Truth (2 Thess 2:10-11).
Byzcat, I too would like to understand Lad's position better, but he never goes deeper than what he wrote earlier. I think the topic gets him riled up, so he tries to avoid it.
.
It's hard to have a honest discussion of these matters; too many are entrenched in their opinions already. I'd love a honest critique/discussion of my views, by someone who is searching for the truth, not for the "kill shot" against the "other side". PM me if you're interested.
Is it possible for the Catholic Church to have a blasphemous Mass, corrupt doctrine, corrupt Canon Law, and corrupt discipline?No.
The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth — all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?
Gregory XVI, Quo Graviora
There isn't any deeper to go, Pax. You've said that the New Mass is blasphemous. Everyone knows that the V2 and post-V2 Magisterium is better to be ignored. V2 have corrupted doctrine, public worship, canon law, general discipline. It's about focusing on the big picture.Can't get any more succinct and clearer than that.
Is it possible for the Catholic Church to have a blasphemous Mass, corrupt doctrine, corrupt Canon Law, and corrupt discipline?
Many heretics in the past have been condemned for saying that exact thing, and the universal dogmatic theological consensus has always been that this is impossible due to the notes of the Church, the Holiness of the Church in particular.
This Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. Most Traditional Catholics know this, and this is why no one has any qualms about separating from this entity.
So it's back to the question of how a Catholic Church and a non-Catholic Conciliar Church can co-exist as the same entity. You made a metaphor with a parasite. But a parasite is not one with the body but an external invader. To say otherwise would be analogous to the abortionist claim that the unborn child is simply a part of the mother's body.
Catholic Church and Conciliar Church cannot co-exist as the same substantial entity. As I demonstrated from Aristotelean-Thomistic philosophy, the only way this is possible would be by applying a material-formal distinction ... such as the sedeprivationists do and what Fr. Chazal does at least implicitly.
You're arguing from the limits of strict infallibility but then falsely extrapolating that to what is tantamount to a defection of the Church. We're not talking about a sentence or two or a paragraph in some papal encyclical that might be problematic. We're talking about a NEW RELIGION ... with its new public worship, its new saints, its new doctrine, and its new law and discipline. This goes FAR BEYOND the discussion regarding whether a particular statement meets the notes of infallibility.
In other words, your argument from fallibility simply doesn't scale to the point of a defection of the Church.
Is it possible for the Catholic Church to have a blasphemous Mass, corrupt doctrine, corrupt Canon Law, and corrupt discipline?Do you believe the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous? If so, define blasphemous and show how it meets the definition.
Do you believe the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous? If so, define blasphemous and show how it meets the definition.For a start, the тαℓмυdic offertory.
Is it possible for the Catholic Church to have a blasphemous Mass, corrupt doctrine, corrupt Canon Law, and corrupt discipline?Yes, it's possible, because all of these things have happened in history, the difference is 1) they are all happening now, at the same time, so it appears overwhelming. 2) such corruption is not part of the Church officially, but is a corruption of leadership. In other words, i'll say it for the 1,000th time, these novelties are optional, so they are not officially a change of the Catholic Faith. They are part of the optional, Conciliar church, but the True Church still remains holy and pure.
Many heretics in the past have been condemned for saying that exact thing, and the universal dogmatic theological consensus has always been that this is impossible due to the notes of the Church, the Holiness of the Church in particular.One cannot be saved unless he hold fully and completely all Truths of the Faith. The conciliar church had added/subtracted all manner of things but such changes are not binding, so they do not affect the Faith, officially.
So it's back to the question of how a Catholic Church and a non-Catholic Conciliar Church can co-exist as the same entity. You made a metaphor with a parasite. But a parasite is not one with the body but an external invader.
You're arguing from the limits of strict infallibility but then falsely extrapolating that to what is tantamount to a defection of the Church. We're not talking about a sentence or two or a paragraph in some papal encyclical that might be problematic. We're talking about a NEW RELIGION ... with its new public worship, its new saints, its new doctrine, and its new law and discipline. This goes FAR BEYOND the discussion regarding whether a particular statement meets the notes of infallibility.
In other words, your argument from fallibility simply doesn't scale to the point of a defection of the Church.
For a start, the тαℓмυdic offertory.The Torah are the first five books of the bible. Do you mean the тαℓмυd? If the words of the offertory are contained in the тαℓмυd, and the тαℓмυd blasphemes Christ, it doesn't mean the words used in the offertory are blasphemous. The тαℓмυd also contains words of the Bible. Are the words from the Bible blasphemous simply because they are in the тαℓмυd?
The Novus Ordo’s Offertory was lifted from the same “Torah” that blasphemes the Holy Family:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/roman-mass4.htm
If the words of the offertory are contained in the тαℓмυd, and the тαℓмυd blasphemes Christ, it doesn't mean the words used in the offertory are blasphemous.For example, here is what the article you linked to gives as an example of a blasphemy:
Do you believe the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous? If so, define blasphemous and show how it meets the definition.If you have not read The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/), you should. It's really is very good.
If you have not read The Great Sacrilege (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-great-sacrilege-pdf/), you should. It's really is very good.Yes, I've read it several times. Very good indeed. I'm not defending the new Mass per se, I'm just just questioning if it is truly blasphemous. I agree that it is a watered down liturgy, but that's different than a blasphemous liturgy.
For a start, the тαℓмυdic offertory.
The Novus Ordo’s Offertory was lifted from the same “Torah” that blasphemes the Holy Family:
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/roman-mass4.htm
тαℓмυd - Mas. Berachoth 33aMISHNAH. THE MIRACLE OF THE RAINFALL9 IS MENTIONED IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE RESURRECTION, AND THE PETITION10 FOR RAIN IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE YEARS, AND HABDALAH11 IN ‘THAT GRACIOUSLY GRANTEST KNOWLEDGE’.12 R. AKIBA SAYS: HE SAYS IT AS A FOURTH BLESSING13 BY ITSELF; R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT IS SAID IN THE THANKSGIVING BENEDICTION.14GEMARA. THE MIRACLE OF THE RAINFALL etc. What is the reason? —R. Joseph said: Because it is put on a level with the resurrection of the dead, therefore it was inserted in the benediction of the resurrection.THE PETITION FOR RAIN IN THE BENEDICTION OF THE YEARS. What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: Because [the petition] refers to sustenance, therefore it was inserted in the benediction of sustenance.HABDALAH IN THAT GRACIOUSLY GRANTEST KNOWLEDGE’. What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: Because it is a kind of wisdom,15 it was inserted in the benediction of wisdom. The Rabbis, however, say: Because the reference is to a weekday, therefore it was inserted in the weekday blessing. R. Ammi said: Great is knowledge, since it was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings. R. Ammi also said: Great is knowledge since it was placed between two names,16 as it says, For a God of knowledge is the Lord.17 And if one has not knowledge, it is forbidden to have mercy on him, as it says, For it is a people of no understanding, therefore He that made them will have no compassion upon them.18 R. Eleazar said: Great is the Sanctuary, since it has been placed between two names, as it says, Thou hast made, O Lord, the sanctuary, O Lord.19 R. Eleazar also said: Whenever there is in a man knowledge, it is as if the Sanctuary had been built in his days; for knowledge is set between two names, and the Sanctuary is set between two names.R. Aha Karhina'ah demurred to this. According to this, he said, great is vengeance since it has been set between two names, as it says, God of vengeance, O Lord;20 He replied: That is so; that is to say, it is great in its proper sphere; and this accords with what ‘Ulla said: Why two vengeances here?21 One for good and one for ill. For good, as it is written, He shined forth from Mount Paran;22 for ill, as it is written, God of vengeance, O Lord, God of vengeance, shine forth.20 R. AKIBA SAYS: HE SAYS IT AS A FOURTH BLESSING, etc. R. Shaman b. Abba said to R. Johanan: Let us see: It was the Men of the Great ѕуηαgσgυє23 who instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and habdalahs.24 Let us see where they inserted them! — He replied: At first they inserted it [the habdalah] in the Tefillah: when they [Israel] became richer, they instituted that it should be said over the cup [of wine]; when they became poor again they again inserted it in the Tefillah; and they said that one who has said habdalah in the Tefillah must say it [again] over the cup [of wine]. It has also been stated: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: The Men of the Great ѕуηαgσgυє instituted for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and habdalahs. At first they inserted the habdalah in the Tefillah. When they [Israel] became richer, they instituted that it should be said over the cup [of wine]. When they became poor again, they inserted it in the Tefillah; and they said that one who says habdalah in the Tefillah must [also] say it over the cup [of wine]. It has also been stated: Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: One who has said habdalah in the Tefillah must [also] say it over the cup [of wine]. Said Raba: We can bring an objection against this ruling [from the following]: If a man forgot and did not mention the miracle of the rain in the resurrection blessing, or petition for rain in the blessing of the years, he is made to repeat the Tefillah. If, however, he forgot habdalah in ‘that graciously grantest knowledge’, he is not made to repeat, because he can say it over the cup [of wine]!25 Do not read, because he can say it over the cup [of wine], but read, because he says it over the cup [of wine].It has also been stated: R. Benjamin b. Jephet said: R. Jose asked R. Johanan in Sidon — some report, R. Simeon b. Jacob from Tyre asked R. Johanan: But I have heard that one who has said habdalah in the Tefillah says it over the cup [of wine]; or is it not so? He replied to him: He must say it over the cup [of wine].The question was raised: If one has said habdalah over the cup [of wine], need he say it [again] in the Tefillah? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: We learn the answer a fortiori from the case of Tefillah. The essential place of the habdalah is in the Tefillah, and yet it was laid down that one who has said it in the Tefillah must say it also over the cup [of wine]. Does it not then stand to reason that if he has said it over the cup [of wine], which is not its essential place, he must say it [again] in the Tefillah? R. Aha Arika26 recited in the presence of R. Hinena: He who says habdalah in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup [of wine], and if he says it in both, may blessings rest on his head! This statement contains a contradiction. It says that he who says habdalah in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup [of wine], which would show that to say it in Tefillah alone is sufficient, and again it teaches, ‘and if he says it in both, may blessings rest on his head’, but since he has said it in one he is quit, the second is a blessing which is not necessary, and Raba, or as some say Resh Lakish, or again as some say, both Resh Lakish and R. Johanan, have said: Whoever says a blessing which is not necessary transgresses the command of ‘thou shalt not take [God's name in vain]’!27 Rather read thus: If he has said habdalah in one and not in the other, blessings shall rest upon his head.R. Hisda inquired of R. Shesheth: If he forgot in both,28 what is he to do? — He replied: If one forgot in both, he says the whole again.29
Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm
Yes, I've read it several times. Very good indeed. I'm not defending the new Mass per se, I'm just just questioning if it is truly blasphemous. I agree that it is a watered down liturgy, but that's different than a blasphemous liturgy.Without getting into detail, suffice to say that had they try to perpetrate the new "mass" a hundred years after Quo Primum, it would have been wholly condemned as at least protestant, which is to say, blasphemous. The profanation of any holy thing is always a sacrilege.
Yes, I've read it several times. Very good indeed. I'm not defending the new Mass per se, I'm just just questioning if it is truly blasphemous. I agree that it is a watered down liturgy, but that's different than a blasphemous liturgy.
No wonder I misunderstood you. You were writing as a Jew, and I was understanding as a Catholic.And yet you, not I, tried to exculpate the "blessings" (curses!) of the "Torah," even conflating "from the time of Ezra" with the inspired Word of God.
Without getting into detail, suffice to say that had they try to perpetrate the new "mass" a hundred years after Quo Primum, it would have been wholly condemned as at least protestant, which is to say, blasphemous. The profanation of any holy thing is always a sacrilege.
And yet you, not I, tried to exculpate the "blessings" (curses!) of the "Torah," even conflating "from the time of Ezra" with the inspired Word of God.
…What specifically in the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous? And to be clear, I don't attend the new Mass.Asked and answered.
Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm
If a Blessing was used by the true religion during the time of the Old Testament, why would you concluded based on that fact alone that it is cursed and blasphemous to use today?I didn't "conclude on that fact alone."
And yet you, not I, tried to exculpate the "blessings" (curses!) of the "Torah," even conflating "from the time of Ezra" with the inspired Word of God.Where do you attend Mass? Sedevacantist chapel?
Where do you attend Mass? Sedevacantist chapel?Where do you attend shabbat? Chabad?
Where do you attend Mass? Sedevacantist chapel?
Where do you attend shabbat? Chabad?You tell me where you attend Mass, and I'll tell you where I do.
You tell me where you attend Mass, and I'll tell you where I do.Your offering of Berakhot as evidence for "true religion" was a stunning reveal. Whether you are a marrano, an imposter, or just a convert whose conversion is incomplete, nothing about you is trustworthy. You have already displayed a penchant for тαℓмυdic pilpul, rabbinical deceptions, and apologia for the ѕуηαgσgυє, so I neither seek nor trust your analysis.
Your offering of Berakhot as evidence for "true religion" was a stunning reveal.
Whether you are a marrano, an imposter, or just a convert whose conversion is incomplete, nothing about you is trustworthy. You have already displayed a penchant for тαℓмυdic pilpul, rabbinical deceptions, and apologia for the ѕуηαgσgυє, so I neither seek nor trust your analysis.Where do you attend Mass? I bet I can prove it is blasphemous.
I offered the Berakhot because the article you quoted listed it as the source.You offered Berakhot as evidence of "true religion." You offered your "from the time of Ezra" ploy.
Where do you attend Mass? I bet I can prove it is blasphemous.
I
It was, of course, Father Scott . . . The view he expressed—in brief, that the new mass is valid in se but not licit to participate in—is still the Society's position.
a) If the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI, in its original Latin, had been promulgated a century after Quo Primum, it would have been condemned as at least Protestant. (unproven assertion)Please take a minute or two and read the interview in this post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/sedeprivationism-anathematized-by-vatican-i/msg662164/?topicseen#msg662164), it's not very long at all, it'll only take a few minutes and it answers your above points.
a) Protestant = Blasphemous
c) Therefore the Mass promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous.
Sorry, but this doesn't prove the new Mass is Blasphemous. What specifically in the new Mass as promulgated by Paul VI is blasphemous? And to be clear, I don't attend the new Mass.
You offered Berakhot as evidence of "true religion."I quoted Berakhot so you could see what it says in context, since the article you quoted referenced it as the source. I didn't quote it as evident of true religion.
but the position that true "popes" of Christ's Church and the "mass" they offer(ed) to God with fellow Catholics is "not licit to participate in" is so absurd as to practically invalidate the whole Trad movement by any association with it.It's not absurd at all. As Fr Hesse said, the novus ordo (i.e. conciliar church) is a schismatic sect (i.e. might be valid but certainly illicit). Same thing with the Church's views on the Orthodox...they could have valid sacraments, but they are definitely illicit.
Question: But the people say that the people make the contention that pope Paul VI had the right so therefore we must accept it.
Fr.That of course is a central question. We deny that he had such a right. That exactly is the point. We have every reason to question whether the pope had the authority to introduce a brand new mass, introduce a new Rite of the liturgy of the Western Church. We believe that when one reads Quo Primum of St. Pius V, he can see clearly that it is altogether forbidden for his successors, any of his successors to go contrary to this law.
Here is a key question, whether a successor can override pope Pius V with regard to the establishment of the Rite of the Mass. It’s a key question.
It was never considered that the pope could go contrary to this ruling because Quo Primum was issued to protect the Mass. It was as strong of legislation as the pope could possibly impose. If we say that his successor is not bound by this legislation, we have to say that the Church has no way of protecting it’s own liturgy. There is no doctrine that says that a pope cannot make a mistake, there’s no such doctrine.
Stubborn, if Fr Hesse were alive today, i'd ask him this question:But Trent anathematises anyone who asserts the rites of the Church may be sinful or blasphemous. So if the NO is either of those things, the law promulgating it must be invalid or else Trent would have been wrong.
.
Fr, I agree with you that Quo Primum prohibits a pope from overriding the True Mass, which Pope St Pius V codified. I also agree with you that Quo Primum forbids a pope (or any cleric) from USING a new/changed liturgy. But in reading Quo Primum, it does not ever prohibit the "legal creation" of a new liturgy, even though it would prohibit the use of such an illicit abomination.
.
So isn't it possible that satan and his minions found a loophole in the law, and used it to create confusion, by creating a "competing liturgy" which they could offer to catholics, as an option? This seems to be what happened and I don't see that Quo Primum prohibits it. Is it against the spirit of the law? Of course. But is it against the letter of the law? No.
But Trent anathematises anyone who asserts the rites of the Church may be sinful or blasphemous. So if the NO is either of those things, the law promulgating it must be invalid or else Trent would have been wrong..
The mass of five "popes" now counting, and of the millions of Catholics in communion with them?
I could see one being "R & R" and foregoing the New Mass as a personal decision in conscience, and I could see someone being Sede and rejecting the Conciliar popes and Mass as invalid and of or from imposters, but the position that true "popes" of Christ's Church and the "mass" they offer(ed) to God with fellow Catholics is "not licit to participate in" is so absurd as to practically invalidate the whole Trad movement by any association with it.
Stubborn, if Fr Hesse were alive today, i'd ask him this question:Not possible, Pope Pius V left no loopholes:"...Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world..."
.
Fr, I agree with you that Quo Primum prohibits a pope from overriding the True Mass, which Pope St Pius V codified. I also agree with you that Quo Primum forbids a pope (or any cleric) from USING a new/changed liturgy. But in reading Quo Primum, it does not ever prohibit the "legal creation" of a new liturgy, even though it would prohibit the use of such an illicit abomination.
.
So isn't it possible that satan and his minions found a loophole in the law, and used it to create confusion, by creating a "competing liturgy" which they could offer to catholics, as an option? This seems to be what happened and I don't see that Quo Primum prohibits it. Is it against the spirit of the law? Of course. But is it against the letter of the law? No.
So does anyone have any updates to confirm if John Salza actually left the SSPX and went back to the the Novus Ordo or Indult Mass?I think somewhere earlier in this thread (which seems to me it ought to be in the sedevacantism sub-forum) there was a post by John Salza saying "no."
Not possible, Pope Pius V left no loopholes:"...Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world..."
So does anyone have any updates to confirm if John Salza actually left the SSPX and went back to the the Novus Ordo or Indult Mass?
… a law is not valid/invalid. It's either legal/illegal. …
So does anyone have any updates to confirm if John Salza actually left the SSPX and went back to the the Novus Ordo or Indult Mass?Did you read through the whole thread? I posted an update.
Yes, the fact that Salza still attends the SSPX (contrary to a sede fake news site, which appropriately specializes in fake Lucy “news”) seems to be irrelevant to the sedes who want revenge for his having destroyed the sedevacantist lie forever.Actually Sean the original tweet was not Sister Lucy Truth. And I updated the thread with Salza's response and recognized that it was probably fake news. Most of the posts in this thread has had nothing to do with Salza and the OP and at least half of the posts were written by sedes.
This is the moral caliber of men we are dealing with.
If he hasn't left, then this thread should be deleted.Or at least, the title totally changed (to something like "Yet another debate about sedevacantism") and refiled to its correct sub-forum.
If he hasn't left, then this thread should be deleted.I disagree, but only because most of the thread has nothing to do with the OP. Perhaps it should be renamed.
Or at least, the title totally changed (to something like "Yet another debate about sedevacantism") and refiled to its correct sub-forum.
Perhaps it should be renamed.
But there is a loophole. Read the above again. Masses cannot be "sung or read" using any other missal. Ok, that's clear. No one can use the new mass missal.I do not think it is even allowed for anyone to create a new missal, even it it rots on a book shelf.
.
But nowhere in Quo Primum does it prohibit the CREATION of a new missal. I've read it a 100x. It's not there. So the loophole is that Paul 6 CREATED a new missal, which is legal, ....but no one can use it, as that's illegal.
.
The devil's in the details...and like the ultimate crafty lawyer, he uses the fine print against us. As Scripture tells us, be wise as serpents...
I do not think it is even allowed for anyone to create a new missal, even it it rots on a book shelf.
But either way, the NO missal is not entirely new in the sense you are talking about because some parts of the NO missal retained certain parts of the Roman Missal, which means the Roman Missal was revised or altered into the NO missal - which makes the NO missal illegal:I agree that the NO is not 100% new, but that's beside the point. Paul 6 issued a new missal, regardless of if the contents of the missal are 100% new. Legally, Paul 6's missal is not a revision, but an entirely new missal. Yes, whether it's a revision or new, it's still illegal (to use) regardless.
"We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified....Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church...."
.It's nonsense to call the NO both illicit and legal. Illict literally means illegal. If the law promulgating a rite was lawfully passed, i.e it did not contradict a higher authority/law, then the rite is licit and cannot be blasphemous or heretical, per Trent. If the NO Mass is illicit, then so too must be the law that promulgated its missal.
The NO is illicit, therefore it's not a "rite of the Church". Trent applies only to those rites which are valid, legal and moral. The NO is illicit, probably invalid, and definitely immoral (both due to it's illicitness and it's lack of rubrical structure and edits to prayers).
.
Secondly, a law is not valid/invalid. It's either legal/illegal. The law creating the NO is (arguably) legal. All Paul 6 did was to legally say "a new missal is created". His law does not put a stamp of approval on its validity or morality.
.
The Church's legal structure is part of the human aspect of the Church. It was created by man, for man, run by men. Therefore, it is not protected by infallibility and even a not-yet-deposed heretical pope/bishop could still (in theory) have governmental/legal power.
It's nonsense to call the NO both illicit and legal. Illict literally means illegal. If the law promulgating a rite was lawfully passed, i.e it did not contradict a higher authority/law, then the rite is licit and cannot be blasphemous or heretical, per Trent. If the NO Mass is illicit, then so too must be the law that promulgated its missal.I believe the argument Pax is making is that its licit and legal to create the NO (on paper) but that it is illicit and illegal for any priest to actually use that mass. I don't know if the relevant docuмentation backs this argument up or not but I don't see how its internally inconsistent.
I believe the argument Pax is making is that its licit and legal to create the NO (on paper) but that it is illicit and illegal for any priest to actually use that mass. I don't know if the relevant docuмentation backs this argument up or not but I don't see how its internally inconsistent.Two things.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.(Note: This canon, and the other canons of the Mass, refer to any Mass of the Church, not merely those of the Tridentine Rite, since otherwise it would still be permitted to say Masses in other rites preserved by Trent were invalid, heretical etc.)
I believe the argument Pax is making is that its licit and legal to create the NO (on paper) but that it is illicit and illegal for any priest to actually use that mass.Yes, I'm not making the argument, but laying out the facts.
Two things.I tend to think the NO is valid but just illicit, but I don't think Trent would prove even this. Remember that the Council was repudating Protestants who didn't think *any* mass was truly offering sacrifice to God, etc. Now certainly I agree that the fathers at Trent *would have* defended the validity of non Tridentine Rites (such as the Eastern Rite of Mass) but I doubt they were even considering the idea of someone saying *only some* rites are valid. Rather they were condemning protestants who were invalidating all rites of mass.
First of all, if the missal were licit, even if the saying of it were not, it would then be certainly valid. Per Trent:
(Note: This canon, and the other canons of the Mass, refer to any Mass of the Church, not merely those of the Tridentine Rite, since otherwise it would still be permitted to say Masses in other rites preserved by Trent were invalid, heretical etc.)
Secondly, Trent does not forbid the saying of non-Tridentine Masses, so I don't see why it would be unlawful for priests to say a licitly promulgated Mass.
I tend to think the NO is valid but just illicit, but I don't think Trent would prove even this. Remember that the Council was repudating Protestants who didn't think *any* mass was truly offering sacrifice to God, etc. Now certainly I agree that the fathers at Trent *would have* defended the validity of non Tridentine Rites (such as the Eastern Rite of Mass) but I doubt they were even considering the idea of someone saying *only some* rites are valid. Rather they were condemning protestants who were invalidating all rites of mass.ie. this is condemning those who are *doctrinally* wrong on the mass, it doesn't seem immediately concerned with whether a Pope could invent an invalid form of mass at a future date.
Two things.
First of all, if the missal were licit, even if the saying of it were not, it would then be certainly valid. Per Trent:
(Note: This canon, and the other canons of the Mass, refer to any Mass of the Church, not merely those of the Tridentine Rite, since otherwise it would still be permitted to say Masses in other rites preserved by Trent were invalid, heretical etc.)No, this canon refers specifically to the Tridentine rite, as the whole purpose of the Council of Trent was to combat the heresies of Protestantism. There existed, at the time of the late 1500s, only 1 rite of the mass, so Trent was explaining the importance and purpose of the Tridentine Mass, as opposed to Protestant heretics.
Secondly, Trent does not forbid the saying of non-Tridentine Masses, so I don't see why it would be unlawful for priests to say a licitly promulgated Mass.
No, this canon refers specifically to the Tridentine rite, as the whole purpose of the Council of Trent was to combat the heresies of Protestantism. There existed, at the time of the late 1500s, only 1 rite of the mass, so Trent was explaining the importance and purpose of the Tridentine Mass, as opposed to Protestant heretics.I don't know how you define "Tridentine" but there were certainly at the least Eastern liturgies like the Divine liturgy of St Chrysostom being said by uniates that predated Trent. And of course the Orthodox schismatics have valid just illicit masses. I agree with you that Trent isn't even addressing whether a pope could invent an invalid missal tho.
No, a missal is not the same thing as a Mass. A missal is an inanimate OBJECT; a collection of rubrics. A mass is a sacrificial ACT, performed by a PRIEST. The former is a thing; the latter is an action.A collection of rubrics... on the saying of a Mass. Saying that the Church can licitly issue missals and order them to be used, while also saying that the actual Mass itself is somehow illicit and not a Mass of the Church, is тαℓмυdist nonsense.
No, this canon refers specifically to the Tridentine rite, as the whole purpose of the Council of Trent was to combat the heresies of Protestantism. There existed, at the time of the late 1500s, only 1 rite of the mass, so Trent was explaining the importance and purpose of the Tridentine Mass, as opposed to Protestant heretics.It did not and no there was not only one rite of Mass. Trent explicitly went out of its way to say it was preserving rites in use for more than 200 years at that time.
Correct, Trent does not forbid the saying of non-Tridentine masses. But Quo Primum, which is an extension of Trent, specifically does....under penalty of a grave sin of disobedience.It does not.
Now certainly I agree that the fathers at Trent *would have* defended the validity of non Tridentine Rites (such as the Eastern Rite of Mass) but I doubt they were even considering the idea of someone saying *only some* rites are valid. Rather they were condemning protestants who were invalidating all rites of mass.
A collection of rubrics... on the saying of a Mass. Saying that the Church can licitly issue missals and order them to be used, while also saying that the actual Mass itself is somehow illicit and not a Mass of the Church, is тαℓмυdist nonsense.
I don't know how you define "Tridentine" but there were certainly at the least Eastern liturgies like the Divine liturgy of St Chrysostom being said by uniates that predated Trent.
It did not and no there was not only one rite of Mass. Trent explicitly went out of its way to say it was preserving rites in use for more than 200 years at that time.
It does not.
The underlined is your logical mistake. There is no "order" than any catholic has to say/attend/accept/use/agree with/etc the new mass. It is a completely optional liturgy. There is no pain of sin and no loss of heaven for a catholic to ignore the new mass. No church official has ever said otherwise.You're right, but my assertion is that if the missal is a missal of the Church(i.e it was validly promulgated) then the Mass that's said using it is a Mass of the Church, and is therefore valid and not blasphemous. I'm not saying it's automatically licit to use the missal or mandatory to hear Masses said using it, but if the missal is of the Church then so too is the Mass.
Speaking of the Latin rite, yes, Quo Primum forbids all liturgies which aren't Tridentine. The only exceptions are for rites 200+ yrs old at the time of 1571.This was following on from my point that there were other Masses at the time of Trent. The canons of the Mass must refer to all Masses of the Church or else it wouldn't have applied to all those other rites, allowing people to condemn them as invalid, blasphemous, etc.
You're right, but my assertion is that if the missal is a missal of the Church(i.e it was validly promulgated) then the Mass that's said using it is a Mass of the Church, and is therefore valid and not blasphemous.There's no such thing as "validly promulgated" because promulgate is a legal term, so a missal can only be LEGALLY promulgated. The legality of an act is distinct from it's validity or morality.
I'm not saying it's automatically licit to use the missal or mandatory to hear Masses said using it, but if the missal is of the Church then so too is the Mass.
There's no such thing as "validly promulgated" because promulgate is a legal term, so a missal can only be LEGALLY promulgated. The legality of an act is distinct from it's validity or morality.
.
In this case, we are only dealing with legality. Putting aside all Eastern/ancient rites, Quo Primum prevents the use of any non-Tridentine missal. But (playing devil's advocate) QP does not prevent the CREATION of a new missal, only its use.
Well, to use a missal is to say a Mass. You can't make a distinction between the 2.I believe it was you making a distinction between the two, not me, when you suggested the missal could have been lawfully promulgated but not the Mass.
From a legal standpoint, Quo Primum does not allow ANY missal to be used, except for it's own. Just because a pope creates a new missal does not mean that it's ok to use. Did St Peter create the Catholic Church? Of course he didn't - Christ did. Just because a pope creates a missal, doesn't mean it's part of the Faith. He's not an oracle; he can't do whatever he wants. That's ridiculous.
This was following on from my point that there were other Masses at the time of Trent. The canons of the Mass must refer to all Masses of the Church or else it wouldn't have applied to all those other rites, allowing people to condemn them as invalid, blasphemous, etc.I don't know what you're saying here. Different rites have different canons, but they essentially mean the same thing, because they are all from Apostolic origin.
Also, on a separate note, that ban wouldn't pose an issue for Missale Romanum as they're legally on the same level.
I don't know what you're saying here. Different rites have different canons, but they essentially mean the same thing, because they are all from Apostolic origin.
Agreed. I was just saying QP wouldn't prohibit him from promulgating a new missal, not that Missale Romanum necessarily abrogated the sections preventing the use of other missals.
Quo Primum's ban wouldn't apply to Paul 6's law? You are correct and incorrect.
.
1) As explained already, Paul 6's law does nothing more than create a new missal. It does not say who has to use this missal, nor when, nor how, nor why, nor if there is a penalty for ignoring it. So, according to law, all Paul 6 does is create a new missal.
.
2) Paul 6 does not say that his new missal replaces Quo Primum; neither does he say that it is legally similar; nor does he say that it can be used, in spite of Quo Primum's restrictions. In fact, Paul 6 does not address QP at all, except to reference it at the beginning when he is introducing his "new" rite.
.
So, yes, each rite is legally on the same level...as far as "existence" is concerned. As far as "using" the rite, no, the novus ordo is probably invalid, definitely illegal and definitely immoral.
What I'm asserting is that if the missal is of the Church, then so too is the Mass. And a Mass of the Church cannot be heretical or blasphemous.
I believe it was you making a distinction between the two, not me, when you suggested the missal could have been lawfully promulgated but not the Mass.No, I said the missal could lawfully exist, but it could not lawfully be used (i.e. the mass could not lawfully be said).
I'm not arguing that it could not be illicit for the NO Mass to be said even if Missale Romanum was licit, but rather that the NO Mass must be valid and not inherently heretical or blasphemous in that case.No, doesn't follow. A legal act is not necessarily moral.
It's like how the Conciliar Church (falsely) claimed it was illicit to say the Tridentine Mass for many years. They didn't say the Mass was invalid or inherently blasphemous, because it would be ridiculous and a heretical contradiction of Trent to claim that, even if (in their belief) permission was revoked to say it.Yes, multiple bishops claimed the True Mass was illegal, but +Benedict (after 40 years) cleared up the issue. The original claim by the evil bishops was wrong.
Likewise, I'm saying that even if it is unlawful for clergy to say NO Mass, that it cannot be invalid, inherently heretical, or blasphemous so long as Missale Romanum was lawfully promulgated.
I'm referring to the canons of the Mass in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm (http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm)(http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm)
Agreed. I was just saying QP wouldn't prohibit him from promulgating a new missal, not that Missale Romanum necessarily abrogated the sections preventing the use of other missals.
Pax Vobis, you are being ridiculous. As ridiculous as a troll. And I don't even have to explain why. Even more ridiculous than Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificuм. Stop it.
You've never left me in doubt that rational explanation is wasted on you. Thanks for the reminder that sniggering is your default response to virtually everything.
It's like everything else NO Pax, they call the missal "New" when what they actually did was revise the Roman Missal, then passed that missal off as being "New", it's the same trick they use for most (not all) things NO - just like they call their religion "Catholic" when it is certainly not, and so on.Quote"We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified....Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for nonobservance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church...."
I believe this passage is why the Modernists chose to call Paul 6's missal the "new order". They did not want it to be confused with a revision of the True Mass. In my opinion, God would not allow this level of confusion/deceit, so the Modernists had to be content with the legal definition of "new". They knew they could not abrogate/delete the True Mass; the only way to get rid of it is to create a false liturgy that people would "prefer" and so get rid of the True Mass indirectly.
Honestly I can relate to Mr. Salza.Meanwhile you have the sede position which emphatically insists that the Church teaches popes cannot teach major error to the whole Church so are always infallibly safe to follow.
The R&R position is like agnostocism in a way. It is a cop out and a weak response. It fails to commit someone to a solid position. Moreover it has serious issues in that in its more extreme forms, it makes the Roman Catholic Church into a Roman Protestant Cult.
Just look at the SSPX & the Resistance. They operate as if there were no Pope. In fact they operate exactly like the Eastern Orthodox. The previous Popes and councils serving for them what the Councils & Fathers do for the EO.
Either submit to Bergoglio like a real Catholic would do if he were the Pope or come out and say he isn't Pope.
Did you read through the whole thread? I posted an update.I must of missed it when I posted my question. But then I found your update, however it was blank, I tried another computer and it was blank also. All I see is a large empty space.
I must of missed it when I posted my question. But then I found your update, however it was blank, I tried another computer and it was blank also. All I see is a large empty space.It still shows for me. Not sure why you can't see it.
I must of missed it when I posted my question. But then I found your update, however it was blank, I tried another computer and it was blank also. All I see is a large empty space.That is odd. I just checked the entire topic and all of her posts appear. You might want to check the settings on your computer and see if it is set to "Democratic Mode" where it filters out all truth.
That is odd. I just checked the entire topic and all of her posts appear. You might want to check the settings on your computer and see if it is set to "Democratic Mode" where it filters out all truth.:jester:
That is odd. I just checked the entire topic and all of her posts appear. You might want to check the settings on your computer and see if it is set to "Democratic Mode" where it filters out all truth.All I see is what she wrote: "So this was John Salza's "answer": "
A legal act does not mean it's valid or moral. Legality is of the human sphere of the Church; validity and morality of the Divine.Yes it does. Trent guarantees that: that no Mass of the Church can be blasphemous, heretical or invalid.
.
No, I said the missal could lawfully exist, but it could not lawfully be used (i.e. the mass could not lawfully be said).
.
No, doesn't follow. A legal act is not necessarily moral.
.
Yes, multiple bishops claimed the True Mass was illegal, but +Benedict (after 40 years) cleared up the issue. The original claim by the evil bishops was wrong.
.
A legal, human act of the Church does not make it automatically valid/heretical. Are you insane?! So if a pope changes canon law to say that: mass can be legally celebrated after 9pm (which is currently illicit), that means that ALL masses celebrated after 9pm are automatically valid and moral? That makes no sense.
.
Just because a mass is legal (i.e. circuмstances...after 9pm), does not mean they are automatically valid or moral.
I believe this passage is why the Modernists chose to call Paul 6's missal the "new order". They did not want it to be confused with a revision of the True Mass. In my opinion, God would not allow this level of confusion/deceit, so the Modernists had to be content with the legal definition of "new". They knew they could not abrogate/delete the True Mass; the only way to get rid of it is to create a false liturgy that people would "prefer" and so get rid of the True Mass indirectly.Missale Romanum was legally on the same level as Quo Primum, so no Quo Primum could not have prohibited Missale Romanum from doing anything. Where laws of equal standing contradict, the newer overrides the older.
It's like everything else NO Pax, they call the missal "New" when what they actually did was revise the Roman Missal, then passed that missal off as being "New", it's the same trick they use for most (not all) things NO - just like they call their religion "Catholic" when it is certainly not, and so on.
No, the law prohibits everything they did, which means that what they did was illegal right from the very first word they removed from the Roman Missal for the purpose of eliminating the True Mass.
All I see is what she wrote: "So this was John Salza's "answer": ".
.Thank you!!!
In it, he says:
"Well, I recently went to the SSPX for confession and haven't attended the Novus Ordo Mass in about 20 years."
All I see is what she wrote: "So this was John Salza's "answer": "This is a link to a tweet communication between a few different folks/organizations (it includes the JS response in my earlier post). Although radtradthomist's original "source" allegation appears to be false, whether he returned to the NO church could still be an open question because he has not actually said he does not go to an indult or diocesan TLM...just that he does not attend the NO service.
Yes it does. Trent guarantees that: that no Mass of the Church can be blasphemous, heretical or invalid.Right, this applies to the True Mass. It doesn't apply to the novus ordo, because it's NOT FROM THE CHURCH. You could only argue it's from the Church if everyone in the Latin Rite was OBLIGATED to attend it, use it, accept it. But that's not the case.
We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal,
This is a link to a tweet communication between a few different folks/organizations (it includes the JS response in my earlier post). Although radtradthomist's original "source" allegation appears to be false, whether he returned to the NO church could still be an open question because he has not actually said he does not go to an indult or diocesan TLM...just that he does not attend the NO service.Oh brother. So "Sister Lucy Truth" is considering him to be back in the Novus Ordo because he still goes to SSPX such as he has for a long, long time? Does not leaving the SSPX now constitute "returning to the Novus Ordo"? Is "Sister Lucy Truth" Dr. Peter Chojnowski? If not, would "Sister Lucy Truth" consider Dr. C to be in the Novus Ordo Church? Doesn't Dr. Chojnowski still go to the SSPX in Post Falls and teach at their boys' school?
https://twitter.com/SisterLucyTruth/status/1317553333096181760
This is a link to a tweet communication between a few different folks/organizations (it includes the JS response in my earlier post). Although radtradthomist's original "source" allegation appears to be false, whether he returned to the NO church could still be an open question because he has not actually said he does not go to an indult or diocesan TLM...just that he does not attend the NO service.I know someone who lives near John Salza. He told me Salza has attended Mass at the Institute of Christ the King during the week and the SSPX on Sundays for as long as he's known him.
https://twitter.com/SisterLucyTruth/status/1317553333096181760
Oh brother. So "Sister Lucy Truth" is considering him to be back in the Novus Ordo because he still goes to SSPX such as he has for a long, long time? Does not leaving the SSPX now constitute "returning to the Novus Ordo"? Is "Sister Lucy Truth" Dr. Peter Chojnowski? If not, would "Sister Lucy Truth" consider Dr. C to be in the Novus Ordo Church? Doesn't Dr. Chojnowski still go to the SSPX in Post Falls and teach at their boys' school?No, that is not what this sounds like to me. It sounds to me like they are considering "returning to NO church" when one goes to an indult or diocesan TLM. Salza never clarifies that he does not do this. In addition, as I have posted at least a couple of times now....Sister Lucy Truth did not initiate the story.
I know someone who lives near John Salza. He told me Salza has attended Mass at the Institute of Christ the King during the week and the SSPX on Sundays for as long as he's known him.So he's got one foot in the NO church and the other in the SSPX.
Meanwhile you have the sede position which emphatically insists that the Church teaches popes cannot teach major error to the whole Church so are always infallibly safe to follow.The Catholic Church cannot, by the protection of God the Holy Spirit, impose a blasphemous "Mass," invalid Holy Orders, a false faith, corrupt tradition, heretical Freemasons as Popes, Protestant Cardinals/Bishops/Priests, destroy sacredness, teach unbelief, and an endless list of things that even Martin Luther & John Calvin would be disgusted with.
Either submit to the pope or come out as R&R like a real Catholic.
Breaking News: John Salza has left the SSPX and has returned to the Novus Ordo church. Our source, who has worked with him on True and False Pope, says that he came to this decision "after studying sedevacantism.".
Well, I recently went to the SSPX for confession and haven't attended the Novus Ordo Mass in about 20 years. And there is no "source that worked with me on True and False Pope" that is alleged, other than Robert Siscoe..
No, that is not what this sounds like to me. It sounds to me like they are considering "returning to NO church" when one goes to an indult or diocesan TLM. Salza never clarifies that he does not do this. In addition, as I have posted at least a couple of times now....Sister Lucy Truth did not initiate the story.Okay, several problems:
does he also accuse radtradthomist/Dr. Chojnowski of "returning to the NO church" because he's gone to SSPX Masses for years?Does Dr. Chojnowski still attend Mass at the SSPX?
Okay, several problems:But you see, John Salza really doesn't clarify this even though he is the one who could. Instead he employs a typical lawyer, vague response.
.
- If it is true that Salza has been going to Mass at the Institute of Christ the King during the week for years, and he still goes to the SSPX, then there is no change, which the word "returning to" implies.
.
- If "@SisterLucyTruth" is saying that going to the SSPX all along (because in that tweet he does not specify going to Indult or diocesan TLM; he is referring to SSPX because he mentions their "jurisdiction to hear confessions"), then does he also accuse radtradthomist/Dr. Chojnowski of "returning to the NO church" because he's gone to SSPX Masses for years?
As for your other questions, I thought I read a tweet by SisterLucyTruth saying that he, Peter C, does not know who radtradthomist is (therefore, how is the latter DrC?). As a result, I don't think your SLT questions make sense. I'm confused who the players are here.
Missale Romanum was legally on the same level as Quo Primum, so no Quo Primum could not have prohibited Missale Romanum from doing anything. Where laws of equal standing contradict, the newer overrides the older.Quo Primum is the law governing the Roman Liturgy, which is the Roman Missal, the Novus Ordo Missae, being a revision of the Roman Missal is, according to Quo Primum, illegal.
If the NO Mass was a revision of the Tridentine Mass as you claim, then it was perfectly lawful to do so.
If Dr C is not radtradthomist, it's news to me. Maybe he recently sold the domain name?Perhaps there is a difference between @radtradthomist and the blog? This is the tweet I am referring to:
Quote from Louie Verrechio July 14, 2017:
"After taking a hiatus from the blogosphere, Dr. Chojnowski has decided to resume blogging at his website, RadTrad Thomist."
Perhaps there is a difference between @radtradthomist and the blog? This is the tweet I am referring to:Thanks. I just noticed the discrepancy.
https://twitter.com/SisterLucyTruth/status/1317623636216352769
Right, this applies to the True Mass. It doesn't apply to the novus ordo, because it's NOT FROM THE CHURCH. You could only argue it's from the Church if everyone in the Latin Rite was OBLIGATED to attend it, use it, accept it. But that's not the case.
Can the Church issue an optional dogma? We declare, say and define, using our Apostolic Authority, that the Holy Spirit is God. You can believe this if you want to, or not.Depends what you mean by optional. There are plenty of minor rites and even rites specific to certain religious orders. These are "optional" in the sense no one's forcing you to go attend them rather than a "regular" church. They even have conditions that they're only licit to say in certain circuмstances. The fact that the NO may be illicit to say under the provisions of QP doesn't make it invalid. If its missal was legally promulgated, and is a missal of the Church, then the Mass said using it must be valid per Trent. A Mass can easily be illicit but valid.
.
Of course an optional dogma would not be part of Church teaching; so an optional liturgy isn't part of the Church.
Missale Romanum was legally on the same level as Quo Primum, so no Quo Primum could not have prohibited Missale Romanum from doing anything. Where laws of equal standing contradict, the newer overrides the older.The newer law only overrides the older law if it expressly says it is doing so. You have no idea what you're talking about, legally.
If the NO Mass was a revision of the Tridentine Mass as you claim, then it was perfectly lawful to do so.
The Catholic Church cannot, by the protection of God the Holy Spirit, impose a blasphemous "Mass," invalid Holy Orders, a false faith, corrupt tradition, heretical Freemasons as Popes, Protestant Cardinals/Bishops/Priests, destroy sacredness, teach unbelief, and an endless list of things that even Martin Luther & John Calvin would be disgusted with.No argument from me here.
Either these things are not evil and should be followed or they are evil and this is not the true Roman Catholic Church. No other option if one is to remain Catholic.
The newer law only overrides the older law if it expressly says it is doing so. You have no idea what you're talking about, legally.Pax, it is a mute point. The new "mass" which, although that's what they decided to call it, is not a Mass at all but a mockery of it. Their religion is not Catholic although that is what they decided to call it. The new missal is not the Missale but that's what they decided to call it. So if you work it backwards, the new missal is immoral, if it is immoral then it is sinful, if it is sinful then it is illicit, if it is illicit then it is illegal and by law cannot be used.
.
Stubborn is wrong. The NO is not a revision; it's called the "new order missal" for a reason. The fact that the NO is similar to the True Mass does not have anything to do with a revision, which is a legal term, meaning a continuation. The NO was never intended to be a revision, and it was clearly named as a new missal. This is a legal fact.
The newer law only overrides the older law if it expressly says it is doing so. You have no idea what you're talking about, legally.No, otherwise some forgotten law from 400 AD could somehow block a new law without anyone knowing. Utter nonsense. If a newer law contradicts an older law on the same level of authority, it overrides the parts of the older law it contradicts, whether that's explicitly stated or not.
Quo Primum is the law governing the Roman Liturgy, which is the Roman Missal, the Novus Ordo Missae, being a revision of the Roman Missal is, according to Quo Primum, illegal.No law can render itself irreformable*. The intent of QP was to stop lesser authorities altering the missal in their regions. QP can not and did not try to stop future popes from altering it in papal bulls. Missale Romanum was also not the first bull to amend QP or alter the Mass, not by a long shot.
No law can render itself irreformable*. The intent of QP was to stop lesser authorities altering the missal in their regions. QP can not and did not try to stop future popes from altering it in papal bulls. Missale Romanum was also not the first bull to amend QP or alter the Mass, not by a long shot.According to the the law of Quo Primum, the law itself remains in effect "in perpetuity."
*With the exception of Divine Law of course, if you want to get technical, but that's more so God choosing not to reform it because He does not change.
If they decided to mas produce the new missal, glued all the pages together and used them as weights to hold down hot air balloons then no, the new missal would not be illegal.Exactly my point. The new missal's existence is legal. To USE it is illegal.
No, otherwise some forgotten law from 400 AD could somehow block a new law without anyone knowing. Utter nonsense.How is a law "forgotten"? When laws are being written, all kinds of research is done to see how they affect other laws which already exist. ...Do you have any legal experience whatsoever, or are you talking out of your arse?
If a newer law contradicts an older law on the same level of authority, it overrides the parts of the older law it contradicts, whether that's explicitly stated or not.
According to the the law of Quo Primum, the law itself remains in effect "in perpetuity."
If you say it can be changed, then pope St. Pius V had no authority to make the law remain in effect forever. If he did not have that authority, then obviously no one told him he couldn't do that. smh
How is a law "forgotten"? When laws are being written, all kinds of research is done to see how they affect other laws which already exist. ...Do you have any legal experience whatsoever, or are you talking out of your arse?
The 2 laws don't even contradict one another...this is my whole point. St Pius V revised all previous missals and ordered everyone to use the new version and disallowed the use of any other version. Paul 6's law did not replace Quo Primum because Paul 6 never allowed, ordered, or required anyone to use his missal. All he did was create a missal. The only similarities of the laws are that they relate to a missal.Seeing as we're going bold here.
According to the the law of Quo Primum, the law itself remains in effect "in perpetuity."No one told him he couldn't do that because he wasn't trying to do that. No one has the unilateral authority to limit the powers of their own successors; that's insane. A pope can't revoke powers from future popes. And anyway, as Veritatis pointed out, even St. Pius V himself altered QP. Was he really stupid enough to break his own law? Or perhaps are you just misunderstanding his intent?
If you say it can be changed, then pope St. Pius V had no authority to make the law remain in effect forever. If he did not have that authority, then obviously no one told him he couldn't do that. smh
Thanks. I just noticed the discrepancy.And, for the record, John Salza still hasn't been upfront with where his loyalties lie: SSPX or indult or a combination of both?
For the record, the false information in the OP (http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2020/10/breaking-news-john-salza-leaves-sspx.html) of this thread came from the blog, which is Dr. C's.
I have no idea why you think legal authorities are able to infallibly compile and scour every single statute ever produced for thousands of years. It's a well established legal precedent that newer laws override older laws for the reason that they cannot do that.
If you say "in perpetuity" means no Pope could make changes to the missal (that's what Pius V promulgated in perpetuity), then Pius V himself violated the law he enacted, since he changed the missal a few years after promulgating Quo Primum by adding the Feast of the Holy Rosary to the missal. And Pius XII made huge revisions to the Missal when he revised Holy Week."In perpetuity", means "forever." In perpetuity is how long the law itself remains in effect. The law states that the Roman Missal ("this missal") "is hereafter to be followed absolutely." Anything that lasts forever is unchangeable, the law is unchangeable.
So, either "in perpetuity" doesn't mean what you think it means, or Pius V and Pius XII (as well as other Popes) have done what the law forbids and have incurred the wrath of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
So, explain why you believe in perpetuity, in the context of a law established by a Pope, means what you think it means. If your answer is that you are simply applying the word based on your understanding of what it mean, that's not good enough. You need to show that when the Church uses the phrase in the context of a liturgical law it means no future Pope can change or abrogate it.
We're not talking about local ordinances, city statues, etc, which are in the millions. Papal laws regarding liturgical norms are only passed a few times in a handful of CENTURIES. It's akin to a Constitutional amendment. Those aren't hard to research, nor to see if a new amendment overrides and old one.I'm not arguing that he didn't make a new missal, but Stubborn insisted that he didn't, and I was saying that Missale Romanum would've still been lawful even if it was a just revision.
.
Paul 6's law of 1969 did not amend/override/revise in any way John XXIII's law of 1962. They were passed a mere 7 years apart. It doesn't take a legal scholar to pull up the 1962 law and make sure it was revised, if that's what Paul 6 intended. But he didn't intend to revise/overrule the law; he intended to make a NEW LAW, a new missal...which is why it's called the "novus ordo".
"In perpetuity", means "forever." In perpetuity is how long the law itself remains in effect. The law states that the Roman Missal ("this missal") "is hereafter to be followed absolutely." Anything that lasts forever is unchangeable, the law is unchangeable.Once again, that's referring to lesser authorities. QP also says that the missal may not be altered at all, and yet it was altered a number of times down the years.
So to use any other missal since then till forever is against the law of Quo Primum.
No one told him he couldn't do that because he wasn't trying to do that. No one has the unilateral authority to limit the powers of their own successors; that's insane. A pope can't revoke powers from future popes. And anyway, as Veritatis pointed out, even St. Pius V himself altered QP. Was he really stupid enough to break his own law? Or perhaps are you just misunderstanding his intent?Along with all things Catholic, popes are bound to protect and defend whatever unchangeable laws there are that were put in place and remain in force forever for the purpose of protecting the Liturgy forever - that's why the law is there. That's the pope's job, that's what he does, there is no one else who does that. Who else is going to defend and protect it?
Along with all things Catholic, popes are bound to protect and defend whatever unchangeable laws there are that were put in place and remain in force forever for the purpose of protecting the Liturgy forever - that's why the law is there. That's the pope's job, that's what he does, there is no one else who does that. Who else is going to defend and protect it?Changing the law is not breaking the law. Missals are not "unchangeable laws" and the several other times Quo Primum was altered should tell you that.
What you are saying is it is ok for popes to break this law because they can, they can break it in order to do whatever they want to the Liturgy, even if they want to destroy or replace it - for no reason other than future popes are not bound by their predecessors.
"In perpetuity", means "forever." In perpetuity is how long the law itself remains in effect.But equal cannot bind equal, and "every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established." (Sacramentum ORdinis, Pius XII). Therefore, Pius V and Pius XII did not exceed their authority when they changed the missal that Pius V promulgated in perpetuity.
If a Blessing was used by the true religion during the time of the Old Testament, why would you concluded based on that fact alone that it is cursed and blasphemous to use today?…Even if it was, it is indeed cursed and anathematized.
“§ 712 It [the Holy Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to Divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the Sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circuмcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors….
“§714 The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil, and his angels,’ (Matthew 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Changing the law is not breaking the law. Missals are not "unchangeable laws" and the several other times Quo Primum was altered should tell you that.Substantially changing the Missal into a new missal is breaking the law.
Substantially changing the Missal into a new missal is breaking the law.QP makes no mention of "substantial changes". You're just inventing your own rules now.
But equal cannot bind equal, and "every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established." (Sacramentum ORdinis, Pius XII). Therefore, Pius V and Pius XII did not exceed their authority when they changed the missal that Pius V promulgated in perpetuity.You are on the total wrong track because the question of 'equals able or unable to bind each other' is not even the issue.
QP makes no mention of "substantial changes". You're just inventing your own rules now.In your zeal to go by the letter of the law, you are missing the spirit of the law - consider the fact that popes have in fact made incidental changes.
In your zeal to go by the letter of the law, you are missing the spirit of the law - consider the fact that popes have in fact made incidental changes.Exactly, which means that popes are allowed to change the missal. Your idea that it only prohibits "substantial" changes is one you invented to reconcile the fact that many popes have altered it with the fact that QP prohibits any alteration. But it doesn't say that in the text. It says no changes at all. So either all those other popes who altered it broke the law, or popes are able to alter QP with bulls of their own.
Even if it was, it is indeed cursed and anathematized.I've read it many times, and it doesn't forbid prayers and blessings simply because they are found in the Old Testament. What it forbids is practicing the Old Testament rites, ceremonies, sacraments and sacrifices. If all prayers and blessings from the Old Testament are now cursed, the Traditional Mass would be cursed since it includes countless prayers and blessings from the Psalms.
Have you never read Cantate Domino?
Cantate Domino from the infallible ecuмenical Council of Florence under His Holiness Pope Eugene IV defining the Solemn Doctrine: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (“Outside the Church, there is no salvation.”), promulgated by papal bull, February 4, 1444 [Florentine calendar] in Denziger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, § 712-714
I've read it many times, and it doesn't forbid prayers and blessings simply because they are found in the Old Testament. What it forbids is practicing the Old Testament rites, ceremonies, sacraments and sacrifices. If all prayers and blessings from the Old Testament are now cursed, the Traditional Mass would be cursed since it includes countless prayers and blessings from the Psalms.
BTW, circuмcision is an Old Testament ceremony. It prefigures baptism. Since the Council of Florence teaches that "the ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments," of the Old Law " cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation," do you believe all who are circuмcised are lost? What about Catholic parents who have their children circuмcised and never repent of it? Are they lost?. If you answer no to either question, explain why in light of Florence's teaching.The above paragraph is the kind of ignorance that suggests you are either not Catholic (an infiltrator or false convert), a poorly-catechized Catholic, or convert with an incomplete conversion (quite common among "Hebrew-Catholics").
.
You are outside of the Catholic Church and therefore cannot be saved.
Firstly, the "blessings" you touted are тαℓмυdic, not Old Testament, so are already—without need of Cantate Domino—damned by Jesus as the "traditions of [the Pharisees]" (Mark 7:9)
You tried to trick us with your "at the time of Erza" ploy, but nobody bought your lie.
Secondly, even if those "blessings" were Old Testament, they are damned by Cantate Domino precisely because they are "rites, ceremonies, sacraments and sacrifices." Those "blessings" (actually curses) are part of the Jews' anti-Christ liturgy.
Thirdly, nothing in Cantate Domino forbade the inclusion of Scripture in our liturgy.
Bottom line: You are a lying Judaizer who has TWICE tried to pass off man-made тαℓмυdic manure as though it is the Word of God.
The Church has long distinguished medical circuмcision (allowed and sinless) from religious circuмcision (forbidden and damning). In a similar vein (pun intended), a medical salpingectomy (e.g., to treat a tubal pregnancy) is allowed and sinless, but a contraceptive salpingectomy is forbidden and mortally sinful. Intent matters.
Exactly, which means that popes are allowed to change the missal. Your idea that it only prohibits "substantial" changes is one you invented to reconcile the fact that many popes have altered it with the fact that QP prohibits any alteration. But it doesn't say that in the text. It says no changes at all. So either all those other popes who altered it broke the law, or popes are able to alter QP with bulls of their own.The pre-V2 changes to the Roman Missal did not change the Liturgy, did not change the way we worship. That popes could and did make changes to the Roman Missal (Liturgy) without corrupting or damaging the Liturgy demonstrates that the popes understood both the letter and the spirit of the law.
The answer is, of course, the latter.
The pre-V2 changes to the Roman Missal did not change the Liturgy, did not change the way we worship. That popes could and did make changes to the Roman Missal (Liturgy) without corrupting or damaging the Liturgy demonstrates that the popes understood both the letter and the spirit of the law.Again, another fake distinction you've made. Quo Primum says nothing about changing the liturgy.
Whether the new missal is a revised version or a new version, I can agree with Pax that it is new, not revised, because of all the obvious reasons. Either way, because by law the new missal is not permitted to be used in the Roman Catholic Church, it is a sin, "The Great Sacrilege" to do so.
We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified
I'm not touting any blessings.
I'm not touting any blessings.
What I'm saying is they wouldn't be cursed today simply because they were used during the Old Testament.
If you are now calling them a "tradition" of the Pharisees from the time of Christ, you are saying they were used during during the Old Testament. Not a post-OT tradition of the тαℓмυd, as you said before. Make up your mind.
Show me what commandment of God the blessing in question made void.
There was no trick. The article you posted said the blessing was not from the time of Ezra, and gave a evidence that they are not listed in the books of Ezra. But that is a logical fallacy. Just because the books of Ezra don't mention them does not mean they are not from the time of Ezra.
More fallacious reasoning. Contante Domino does not condemn blessings used during the Old Testament. If it did, most of the Psalms would be forbidden.
The ceremonies of the Old Law are in Scripture stupid.
I never tried to pass of the тαℓмυd as scripture.
So, you wouldn't object to a Catholic attending a Passover Seder as long as he did so for health reasons?
Again, another fake distinction you've made. Quo Primum says nothing about changing the liturgy.The popes prior to V2 who made changes to the Liturgy put words in Pope St. Pius V's mouth?
Stop trying to put words in Pope St. Pius V's mouth.
Quo Primum clearly says that the MISSAL may not be modified. And yet a number of popes modified it prior to Vatican 2. What does that tell you?
The popes prior to V2 who made changes to the Liturgy put words in Pope St. Pius V's mouth?Again, Quo Primum forbids making alterations to the missal. It doesn't say "altering the missal is fine but not the liturgy"; that's something you just made up.
Again, Quo Primum forbids making alterations to the missal. It doesn't say "altering the missal is fine but not the liturgy"; that's something you just made up.The Missal *is* the Liturgy, Quo Primum is the law that protects the Liturgy. Seems you often times confuse this. It is plain the popes understood the spirit of the law, it is equally plain you guys do not.
The Missal *is* the Liturgy, Quo Primum is the law that protects the Liturgy. Seems you often times confuse this. It is plain the popes understood the spirit of the law, it is equally plain you guys do not.And several popes before Vatican 2 altered the missal and Quo Primum. Were they breaking the law?
blah…blah…blah…(http://judaism.is/images/every%20word%20is%20a%20lie.jpg?crc=4208516052)
And several popes before Vatican 2 altered the missal and Quo Primum. Were they breaking the law?You are the first one ever to claim Quo Primum was altered, where did you get that from?
You are the first one ever to claim Quo Primum was altered, where did you get that from?"making changes to the missal doesn't count as making changes to the missal".
And no, according to the spirit of the law they did not break the law of QP by the changes they made to the missal.
I am returning to the stated topic of this thread. I do not know if the report is true, ....
So, this whole thread (or at least, the title and opening post) is based on false information..
Apparently on Dr. Peter Chojnowski's site, radtradthomist, there was a post which said:
QuoteQuoteBreaking News: John Salza has left the SSPX and has returned to the Novus Ordo church. Our source, who has worked with him on True and False Pope, says that he came to this decision "after studying sedevacantism."
.
On page 3 of this thread, 2Vermont posted Salza's reply:
.
QuoteQuoteWell, I recently went to the SSPX for confession and haven't attended the Novus Ordo Mass in about 20 years. And there is no "source that worked with me on True and False Pope" that is alleged, other than Robert Siscoe.
.
So the original story is false on several counts.
I am returning to the stated topic of this thread. I do not know if the report is true, but if it is true, then the person in question -- or anyone walking a similar path -- was poorly catechized to begin with.It's a vague term, so people should be more careful when using it. For many Novus Ordo means the 1969 missal, for others it includes the traditional masses said with permission of the diocese, for others, as you correctly state, it's the belief system.
The Novus Ordo has become, correctly, an umbrella term. Used without the third word, "Mass," (appropriately in quotation marks, some would say). "The Novus Ordo" is not just a worship "form." It is a belief system, harmonious with that same "liturgy." It is by definition a false belief system, because there is no authentic Catholic Church that is 58 years old. There's no such thing as "a modern Catholic Church." It remains ancient in its origins, or it is a different church.
And several popes before Vatican 2 altered the missal and Quo Primum. Were they breaking the law?
The question thus becomes whether Pope Saint Pius V had the authority to declare the Roman liturgical rite, the rite that was given primacy for the Western Church at Trent, irreformable for all time.
Most arguments about Quo Primum largely sidestep what lies at the heart of the matter: the power of the Keys. If a pope cannot change the nondogmatic laws and proclamations of one of his predecessors—whether for good or for ill—then that pope is less fully pope than his predecessors were.He clearly didn't even intend to, seeing as he changed it himself later. The commands were directed at lower-ranking clergy, i.e it was banning any patriarchs, bishops etc. altering the rite in their own regions.
The question thus becomes whether Pope Saint Pius V had the authority to declare the Roman liturgical rite, the rite that was given primacy for the Western Church at Trent, irreformable for all time. Some here clearly think that he did. I sincerely wish that I could think so, too, but I don't.
He clearly didn't even intend to, seeing as he changed it himself later. The commands were directed at lower-ranking clergy, i.e it was banning any patriarchs, bishops etc. altering the rite in their own regions.
It's a vague term, so people should be more careful when using it. For many Novus Ordo means the 1969 missal, for others it includes the traditional masses said with permission of the diocese, for others, as you correctly state, it's the belief system.Agreed. It would be better to refer to the Conciliar sect.
The substance of the Mass is not to be changed by altering the rites. That's not the same as unsubstantial changes. The new order rites and service (erroneously called "mass") are substantial changes.Quo Primum makes no distinction. It doesn't imply or state it permits "unsubstantial changes".
Quo Primum makes no distinction.Yes it does but you refuse to see and accept it.
It doesn't imply or state it permits "unsubstantial changes".Going by your "logic", you must not believe in the Holy Trinity because the bible doesn't specifically state the Name, nor do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or the Coronation, because they aren't specifically stated in the bible. Forget holy tradition, we have to take a literalist word-for-word view of written precepts whether it's canon or papal decrees.
Again, putting words in Pope St. Pius V's mouths to justify a nonsensical and legally impossible interpretation of the bull.
Going by your "logic", you must not believe in the Holy Trinity because the bible doesn't specifically state the Name, nor do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or the Coronation, because they aren't specifically stated in the bible. Forget holy tradition, we have to take a literalist word-for-word view of written precepts whether it's canon or papal decrees.
Yes it does but you refuse to see and accept it.It does not.
Going by your "logic", you must not believe in the Holy Trinity because the bible doesn't specifically state the Name, nor do you believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or the Coronation, because they aren't specifically stated in the bible. Forget holy tradition, we have to take a literalist word-for-word view of written precepts whether it's canon or papal decrees."If you don't accept me blatantly lying about the contents of a law, you reject the Faith!"
As someone who buys into Father Scott's argument that it is not licit to avail oneself of the Mass promulgated for the Church by someone who is at the same time recognized as a true pope, your lack of doubt in that regard doesn't surprise me. Your adoption of Father Scott's "not licit" argument is as manifest a condemnation of your "judgment" as the wearing of scarlet letter formerly was of moralturbitudeturpitude.
It does not.
"If you don't accept me blatantly lying about the contents of a law, you reject the Faith!"
Are you actually mentally unwell?
Quo Primum does not refer to "substantial change", nor is there any dogma or tradition(I don't think you even know what this means, the way you use it) that it does. It bars any change to the Missal at all. Yet Pope St. Pius V himself and other popes later changed it. How could this be? Oh yes, because papal bulls cannot restrict the power of the pope itself, and that was never the intention of Quo Primum. New bulls can override, modify, abrogate old ones at the pope's leisure.
As per Quo Primum"nor anything whatsoever be changed"
"[...] whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
"[...] Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
We only need to look at the counter church, today and for the 51 years, to see this very wrath upon her.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm
not "nor anything whatsoever substantial be changed".
So you don't believe in the Holy Trinity? The Name Holy Trinity is mentioned nowhere in the bible.I can show you it defined dogmatically, if you'd like. Can you show me where it says Quo Primum only prohibits substantial changes, besides your imagination?
I can show you it defined dogmatically, if you'd like. Can you show me where it says Quo Primum only prohibits substantial changes, besides your imagination?I already did.
I already did.And you still have not.
As per Quo Primum
"[...] whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
"[...] Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
We only need to look at the counter church, today and for the 51 years, to see this very wrath upon her.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm (http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/syku/sbvlovzrotfxfvlxn/swxy/p2/Pius05/p5quopri.htm)
Holy tradition carries as much weight as written precepts, while at the same time, holy tradition stems from written precepts (as well as by word). The Tridentine Mass was substantially unchanged for approximately 500 years due to Quo Primum because the Church knew the papal bull's meaning and intention. The Lord God gave humans inference reasoning and logic to employ so we don't have the tedious and potentially limitless task of covering every interaction word-for-word in order to make something lawful.And Trent was unprecedented too. A sudden series of reforms doesn't mean you get to rewrite Quo Primum to mean what you want it to mean. What Quo Primum forbids is any alteration whatsoever. The fact that a number of popes(including the pope who wrote it) altered it thereafter leaves you with only two possibilities: Either Quo Primum's provisions were not intended to be irreformable by popes, or all those other popes broke the law too.
Pull your head out of your ass.
And Trent was unprecedented too.That's because the Church never issued an apostolic constitution preventing changes to the missal before Quo Primum, and the Tridentine Mass remained 100% Catholic which means there was no substantial change or novelty to the Mass. The "mass" of Paul VI is a novelty and not Catholic, and it, thereby, violates Quo Primum and is unlawful. Even if QP was never decreed, the new "mass" would still be illicit and not Catholic. So you can play mental gymnastics with Quo Primum and rationalize that it doesn't prohibit substantial changes to the Mass, but that doesn't excuse the new order "mass" as being licit and Catholic.
A sudden series of reforms doesn't mean you get to rewrite Quo Primum to mean what you want it to mean.That's what you're doing.
What Quo Primum forbids is any alteration whatsoever. The fact that a number of popes(including the pope who wrote it) altered it thereafter leaves you with only two possibilities: Either Quo Primum's provisions were not intended to be irreformable by popes, or all those other popes broke the law too. The answer is of course the former. Papal bulls can be overriden freely by proceeding papal bulls.
Your attempt to put words in a saint's mouth and lie that Quo Primum only referred to substantial changes has no basis whatsoever.
That's because the Church never issued an apostolic constitution preventing changes to the missal before Quo Primum, and the Tridentine Mass remained 100% Catholic which means there was no substantial change or novelty to the Mass. The "mass" of Paul VI is a novelty and not Catholic, and it, thereby, violates Quo Primum and is unlawful. Even if QP was never decreed, the new "mass" would still be illicit and not Catholic. So you can play mental gymnastics with Quo Primum and rationalize that it doesn't prohibit substantial changes to the Mass, but that doesn't excuse the new order "mass" as being licit and Catholic.:facepalm:
That's what you're doing.
Wrong. See my previous comment again which you obviously can't comprehend or you stiff-neckedly reject due to pride.
As per Quo Primum
"[...] whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.
"[...] Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/p5quopri.htm (http://hidedoor.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sayzprrxx/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/syku/sbvlovzrotfxfvlxn/swxy/p2/Pius05/p5quopri.htm)
We only need to look at the counter church, today and for the 51 years, to see this very wrath upon her.
Holy tradition carries as much weight as written precepts, while at the same time, holy tradition stems from written precepts (as well as by word). The Tridentine Mass was substantially unchanged for approximately 500 years due to Quo Primum because the Church knew the papal bull's meaning and intention. The Lord God gave humans inference reasoning and logic to employ so we don't have the tedious and potentially limitless task of covering every interaction word-for-word in order to make something lawful.
:facepalm:
Say it with me.
"nor anything whatsoever be changed."
Do even you know what whatsoever means? Here, let me help:
whatsoever
/wɒtsəʊˈɛvə/
(adverb)
at all (used for emphasis)
Did those other popes change anything at all? Yes. Then by your moronic interpretation of Quo Primum, they broke the law. But, of course, Papal Bulls do not bind future Papal Bulls. Where a newer bull contradicts an older one, it overrides it. See how it says "Our displeasure"? That doesn't mean the ghost of St. Pius V. That means the pope's displeasure. If you break the pope's law, you displease the pope. The pope's law can't break the pope's law. It's like saying a constitutional amendment can be illegal. The only way a law can be illegal is if a higher law forbids/contradicts it, but a Papal Bull is no higher than another Papal Bull. Pope St. Pius V understood that, and the meaning of that clause was never to say that other popes couldn't alter it, only that the lesser clergy couldn't. The point was to maintain liturgical uniformity, to avoid it being altered by patriarchs and bishops in their own regions.
If, somehow, Quo Primum was binding on the laws of all future popes, then all those popes who altered the Missal minorly would also have broken the law. Because NO WHERE in Quo Primum, or any other legal docuмent of the Church, does it say the change has to be substantial. How hard can this possibly be to grasp?
Anything of Catholic substance must not be replaced or changed into something non-Catholic. That's always been the understanding of the original intent of Quo Primum. That's why the Church never changed the substance in 500 years until modernist heretics did it in the 1960s.No it is not. Minor changes that were not non-Catholic at all were also have been absolutely prohibited under Quo Primum. Whatsoever means whatsoever; get that through your head.
No it is not. Minor changes that were not non-Catholic at all were also have been absolutely prohibited under Quo Primum. Whatsoever means whatsoever; get that through your head.Holy tradition proves you wrong. Get that through your head.
Holy tradition proves you wrong. Get that through your head.Holy Tradition refers to doctrines of the Church not explicitly found in Scripture. It does not mean Tourmalet gets to change the meaning of a papal bull. The fact you keep referring to your bizarre interpretation of the legal ramifications of the bull as "Tradition", when Tradition has NOTHING to do with law, shows that you have absolutely no idea what the word even means.
Holy Tradition refers to doctrines of the Church not explicitly found in Scripture. It does not mean Tourmalet gets to change the meaning of a papal bull. The fact you keep referring to your bizarre interpretation of the legal ramifications of the bull as "Tradition", when Tradition has NOTHING to do with law, shows that you have absolutely no idea what the word even means.Holy tradition can stem from scripture, too. The bible even refers to traditions by precept and mouth. You're displaying your ignorance, again.
Again, find me ANYWHERE in any pronouncement of the Church that says Quo Primum was referring to substantial changes. Because Quo Primum does not say that. It says any change whatsoever. Do you know what the means?
Holy tradition can stem from scripture, too. The bible even refers to traditions by precept and mouth. You're displaying your ignorance, again.I'm quoting it verbatim. Once again again, what do you think "whatsoever" means?
Forlorn doesn't get to change the original intent of QP and ignore the fact that the Church adhered to this original intent for 500 years. You don't get to tacitly approve of a sacrilege by rejecting its prohibition by the Church just because you like to play mental gymnastics with the apostolic constituion and holy tradition.
I'm quoting it verbatim. Once again again, what do you think "whatsoever" means?Catholic substance, whatsoever
Beneath all this pompous blather, one detects the following: "Cool people understand that the SSPX position, expressed by Father Peter Scott, is self-evidently wrong, and your accepting it demonstrates that you are a jerk, claudel." Unfortunately, you probably would have misspelled jerk, too.Touche regarding the misspelling of "turpitude."
For once in your life, do something useful and appropriate: namely, explain the basis on which you declare the position of the SSPX and Father Scott wrong and show precisely how the rationale that underlies the "valid but not licit" position offends Faith, reason, or both.
"Turbitude"? Really?
Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary grace through which with inexhaustible fecundity,[130] she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.
… This is the argument I call "absurd."
I know of multiple Trad families, all of whom have 12+ children, who were Trad-raised from the 70s, who have access to various priests (Independent, SSPX and Sede chapels)...but who have recently gone indult.Anyone who gravitates towards the Vatican II counter-church during the reign of Francis probably isn't a conservative.
.
I don't understand the confusion among these people, but the more stories you hear, this is not an isolated incident. So many people are losing their minds (and maybe their souls).
Well, R&R has a tendency to resolve itself one way or another.Yes, and no. I wouldn't call it a tendency. There are a plethora of Catholics who hold to R&R for the duration of their lives. Sede's are not immune from changing their positions either. We all remember Hobbledehoy, who was well esteemed here, did so. I don't think we'd say he resolved his sedevecantism. There are many other examples, the CMRI nuns, and many more who have changed their positions on the crisis we're in. I know there's specifics as to the why of each person who choses to change their position, but that's not the point. The point is that the issue isn't a R&R issue, alone. Many change their view, and not everyone fits into the same bubble. One person's approach to R&R and /or SV can be unique. That's the sad reality of the crisis.