Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 27

Author Topic: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo  (Read 23249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3163
  • Gender: Male
Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
« Reply #255 on: October 22, 2020, 03:01:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Mr G on October 22, 2020, 02:12:56 PM
    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?

    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.

    This is the moral caliber of men we are dealing with.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #256 on: October 22, 2020, 03:07:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2020, 02:34:50 PM

    … a law is not valid/invalid. It's either legal/illegal. …

    This is not a new point, but it is one so widely ignored that it bears almost indefinite repetition.

    It would be a blessing to all if people who were not adept in the use of the technical jargon of theology and Church law simply refrained from using it. As Pax Vobis indicates, the paired terms valid/invalid and licit/illicit and their related forms have a range of applicability quite distinct from legitimate, legal, and terms closely related to them. There is no overlap! Similarly, one daily sees members who juxtapose indefectibility and infallibility as if they were virtual synonyms (yes, I mean you, Ladislaus). This mere pretentiousness masquerading as expertise is generating toxic levels of misunderstanding.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13003
    • Reputation: +8214/-2558
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #257 on: October 22, 2020, 03:07:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If he hasn't left, then this thread should be deleted.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #258 on: October 22, 2020, 03:24:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Mr G on October 22, 2020, 02:12:56 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #259 on: October 22, 2020, 03:33:57 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on October 22, 2020, 03:01:47 PM
    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.

    This is the moral caliber of men we are dealing with.
    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.  

    So, what was that about irrelevance, revenge and moral caliber?
    Logged

    Offline PAT317

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 916
    • Reputation: +787/-117
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #260 on: October 22, 2020, 03:42:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2020, 03:07:53 PM
    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.  
    Logged

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11527
    • Reputation: +6478/-1195
    • Gender: Female
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #261 on: October 22, 2020, 03:45:07 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2020, 03:07:53 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13003
    • Reputation: +8214/-2558
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #262 on: October 22, 2020, 03:48:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Or at least, the title totally changed (to something like "Yet another debate about sedevacantism") and refiled to its correct sub-forum.

    Ha ha.  There's nothing new in this thread, it can just be deleted.
    Logged

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1776
    • Reputation: +1335/-419
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #263 on: October 22, 2020, 03:53:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: 2Vermont on October 22, 2020, 03:45:07 PM

    Perhaps it should be renamed.

    How about "'Never mind' thread no. 2,487"?
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 15110
    • Reputation: +6238/-922
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #264 on: October 22, 2020, 04:12:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2020, 02:52:40 PM
    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.
    .
    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 that new missal was a revision of the Roman Missale, not a creation, - which makes the NO missal illegal:  

    "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...."
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13003
    • Reputation: +8214/-2558
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #265 on: October 22, 2020, 04:19:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    I do not think it is even allowed for anyone to create a new missal, even it it rots on a book shelf.

    Well, if QP doesn't prohibit it, then it's allowed, by default.
    .

    Quote
    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.
    .

    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.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2527
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #266 on: October 22, 2020, 04:36:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2020, 02:34:50 PM
    .
    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. 
    Logged

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1951
    • Reputation: +518/-147
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #267 on: October 22, 2020, 04:40:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: forlorn on October 22, 2020, 04:36:06 PM
    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.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2527
    • Reputation: +1041/-1106
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #268 on: October 22, 2020, 04:48:46 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ByzCat3000 on October 22, 2020, 04:40:09 PM
    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.
    First of all, if the missal were licit, even if the saying of it were not, it would then be certainly valid. Per Trent:

    Quote
    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.)

    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.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13003
    • Reputation: +8214/-2558
    • Gender: Male
    Re: John Salza leaves SSPX and returns to Novus Ordo
    « Reply #269 on: October 22, 2020, 05:28:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    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.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 27
    « previous next »