Author Topic: New Rite of Mass "Legitimately" Promulgated (Read 6680 times)

tmw89 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 15, 2013, 10:22:18 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

It would be nice if you could mention what you mean by SD and OED.

A search for .com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47166#msg47166
does not match any docuмents on the Internet.

SD means South Dakota, San Diego, or SandRidge Energy, Inc. (NYSE).

OED is Oxford English Dictionary.

Sorry there, Neil - SD stands for the name of the forum S U S C I P E D O M I N E .com (CathInfo auto-redacts the name to "s").

PatrickG · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2013, 10:28:09 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.

Neo-SSPXers defense of Fellay and co. is tantamount to the neotrads and neocats defense of VII and the new mass. They have to deny objective reality in order to hold their position. "Subsistit in doesn't mean 'subsits in!'" Liberals. Pathetic.

Bingo. I wish I could think of another example - where one word introduces a whole can of worms of objectionable statements. I was once told that 'subsistit in' meant the same thing as 'est' which even I, never the most proficient Latinist, can spot the error in. 'Legitimately promulgated' is rubbish, as if the New Mass is a) valid (which it is) and b) licit (which it ain't, as the Church can't promulgate anything sinful) then logically c) the New Mass is not sinful.

A single word destroys the whole reason there is such a thing as the SSPX - if traditionalism was just a sentimental attachment to the old Mass because it's pretty, and the New Mass was as good, then the hardest deal Rome made would be preferable to where the Resistance is now.

If the New Mass legitimately promulgated, then it's equal to the Tridentine. Then there is no crisis in the Church (ooh! ooh! Those nice Council Fathers were only misinterpreted, just as Saint Benedict XVI says!) and you and I might as well link arms and dance into the nearest NO Church and effusively praise Paul VI.

tmw89 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 15, 2013, 10:43:06 AM »

Quote from: PatrickG

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.

Neo-SSPXers defense of Fellay and co. is tantamount to the neotrads and neocats defense of VII and the new mass. They have to deny objective reality in order to hold their position. "Subsistit in doesn't mean 'subsits in!'" Liberals. Pathetic.

Bingo. I wish I could think of another example - where one word introduces a whole can of worms of objectionable statements. I was once told that 'subsistit in' meant the same thing as 'est' which even I, never the most proficient Latinist, can spot the error in. 'Legitimately promulgated' is rubbish, as if the New Mass is a) valid (which it is) and b) licit (which it ain't, as the Church can't promulgate anything sinful) then logically c) the New Mass is not sinful.

A single word destroys the whole reason there is such a thing as the SSPX - if traditionalism was just a sentimental attachment to the old Mass because it's pretty, and the New Mass was as good, then the hardest deal Rome made would be preferable to where the Resistance is now.

If the New Mass legitimately promulgated, then it's equal to the Tridentine. Then there is no crisis in the Church (ooh! ooh! Those nice Council Fathers were only misinterpreted, just as Saint Benedict XVI says!) and you and I might as well link arms and dance into the nearest NO Church and effusively praise Paul VI.

Thumbed-up.

As I mentioned in my latest post on the thread over at SD: If something is "legitimately promulgated" by the Church, it must be licit. If it isn't licit, then it wasn't legitimately promulgated. I don't think there's any way around that.

And what all of us need to keep in the front of our minds when considering the Novus Ordo sect is that they maintain their bastard rite as the "ordinary forum" of their liturgy, while giving second place to a truncated version (the '62 ed) of the True Mass.

(to say nothing at all about the issues with their other "sacraments" :shocked: )

Stubborn · « **Reply #23 on:** June 15, 2013, 12:37:19 PM »

Quote from: tmw89

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.

Neo-SSPXers defense of Fellay and co. is tantamount to the neotrads and neocats defense of VII and the new mass. They have to deny objective reality in order to hold their position. "Subsistit in doesn't mean 'subsits in!'" Liberals. Pathetic.

I want to turn everyone's attention to this very bizarre incident.

This happened over at SD and it carries on yet.

Here are half-links to the pertinent posts (you'll have to supply the rest of the URL yourselves, as the system here blocks the name):

.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47166#msg47166
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47178#msg47178
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47304#msg47304
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47313#msg47313
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47647#msg47647
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47648#msg47648
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47893#msg47893
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894 (this one is especially outrageous)
.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg48098#msg48098

It really is unbelievable that some random guy on the Internet thinks he is an higher authority on the meaning of words than the OED! But this is par for the course in a defense of +Fellay's (truly indefensible) docuмent.

Hi tmw89 and by all means - welcome!!

Next time, post the whole link - we can click "quote" on your post and the entire link will be there - just not on the published post.

tmw89 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 15, 2013, 02:05:21 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Hi tmw89 and by all means - welcome!!

Next time, post the whole link - we can click "quote" on your post and the entire link will be there - just not on the published post.

Thanks for the welcome and the pointer, Stubborn!

(edit - now the quote stuffs refuses to work for this post - am I lucky or what?)