Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Ecclesia Militans on May 07, 2013, 07:26:45 PM
-
May 1988 Protocol signed by Archbishop Lefebvre:
“We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.”
April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration of Bishop Fellay:
“We declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments legitimately promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.”
“Legitimately” is the one word that differentiates the clause in the Protocol formulated by Rome in 1988 in regards to the New Rite of Mass (i.e., Novus Ordo Missae) from the respective clause of the Doctrinal Declaration formulated by Bishop Fellay in 2012. At first glance, it may not seem like a big deal, but further analysis will show that the addition of this one word actually presents a world of difference.
Archbishop Lefebvre admitted that the New Rite of Mass, when celebrated by a priest with the intention to do what the Church does while adhering strictly to its rubrics, was valid. In other words, the host and wine truly became the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord at the Words of Consecration. On the other hand, however, Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the idea that the Novus Ordo Missae was legitimate. After the Archbishop’s death in 1991, his acceptance of the validity and rejection of the legitimacy of the New Rite of Mass lived on within his Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). It was one of the things that clearly distinguished the SSPX from pseudo-traditional communities like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.
Before we go on, however, it is important to understand what is meant by the term “legitimate”. We are not so much interested here in the term “legitimate” as meaning that the New Rite of Mass was promulgated according to all the necessary canonical procedures and formulas. This is a very legalistic meaning of the term and is not the meaning that has been at the very essence of the disagreement between the SSPX and Rome over the New Rite of Mass. Furthermore, it is safe to assume that canonists unanimously agree that the New Rite of Mass was at least permitted by Pope Paul VI in his Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum”, which was promulgated in 1969. Instead, the use of the term “legitimate” in this article is to be understand as meaning “morally lawful”. During a sermon on August 29, 1976 Archbishop Lefebvre called the New Rite of Mass a “bastard” rite, thus indicating that it is not a morally lawful rite of Holy Mother Church. It is in this sense that the SSPX and Rome have essentially disagreed in regards to the New Rite of Mass. Rome understood this well when in April 2011 the Instruction called “Universae Ecclesiae” on the application of Pope Benedict XVI`s “Summorum Pontificuм” stated in Article 19 that:
“The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”
This was clearly an affront towards the faithful who assisted at Masses of the priests of the SSPX. The New Rite had to be accepted as both valid and legitimate.
In the second half of 2011 and the first half of 2012, Rome and the SSPX’s leadership were trying to iron out a doctrinal preamble or declaration on which both parties could agree. Inevitably, the position of the SSPX on the legitimacy of the New Rite of Mass could not be overlooked as this was a key point in almost two years of doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX. So how then was Bishop Fellay, who eagerly wanted a canonical regularization for the SSPX, going to address this point? The answer is given in his Doctrinal Declaration of April 15, 2012, which is quoted above. By adding the word “legitimately” in front of the word “promulgated”, Bishop Fellay seems to have found a way to satisfy Rome and at the same time give himself wiggle room with his priests and faithful. For Rome, the impression would be given that the SSPX accepts the New Rite of Mass as legitimate (i.e., morally lawful); for the priests and faithful, he could defend himself by proclaiming that he never explicitly said that the New Rite of Mass is legitimate (again, morally lawful). One would need to read “more into it” in order to accuse him of accepting the New Rite of Mass as legitimate. Let us then indeed read “more into it” in order to see that Bishop Fellay’s formulation is actually quite dangerous.
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches us in his Summa Theologica (First Part of the Second Part, Question 90) that a law is:
“An ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”
There are four essential elements in this definition:
1) An ordinance of reason
2) for the common good
3) made by him who has care of the community
4) promulgated.
Two of these elements are of most interest for the purposes of this article. The first is that a law is directed to the common good. The Society of St. Pius X published a formal study called “The Problem of the Liturgical Reform” in 2001 that included a letter from Bishop Fellay to Pope John Paul II as an introduction to the study. In the chapter entitled “The Canonical Status of the Tridentine Mass”, Point #5 states that “Paul VI’s Missal does not have the character of a true law” and then goes on to state the following:
“Even if the canonical forms abrogating or obrogating the missal revised by St. Pius V had been perfectly respected; even if it were possible to abrogate an immemorial liturgical custom, protected as well by a specific, perpetual indult, the obligatory character of Pope Paul VI’s missal would still not be established. ‘For an ordinance promulgated by a legislator to be a true law, obligatory for the community concerned, it is necessary by the nature of things that it be in itself and in relation to its object, right and just, possible to observe and truly useful to the commonweal. These qualities constitute the intrinsic reason for the existence of laws.’ And yet, Paul VI’s Missal, by reason of it serious theological defects, contributes directly to the lessening of faith, of piety, and of religious practice, as experience shows daily. For this reason, it is neither right, nor just, nor helpful to the common good. Thus it does not have the character of a true law, and cannot be obligatory.”
We see here that the SSPX claims that grave defects in the New Rite of Mass render it against the common good, thereby making it illegitimate (morally unlawful). Therefore, it cannot compose the substance of a true law.
The second element of the definition of most interest is that a law needs to be promulgated, that is, publicized or announced so that the subjects of the law are aware of its existence and can consequently observe it. This promulgation is the final step necessary in the establishment of a law. St. Thomas Aquinas, in the same Question 90 mentioned above, states that “promulgation is necessary for the law to obtain its force”.
Applying what was said above to the case of the New Rite of Mass, we had Pope Paul VI promulgating the New Rite via his Apostolic Constitution “Missale Romanum” in 1969. At the very least, this Apostolic Constitution permitted priests to use the New Rite. Several years later, Archbishop Lefebvre condemned this New Rite as a “bastard” rite, thereby declaring it illegitimate (i.e., morally unlawful). In 1988, the Archbishop signed a protocol that simply said that the New Rite was promulgated (i.e., published or announced). In 2001, in the footsteps of the Archbishop, the SSPX composed a formal study in which the New Rite was declared illegitimate by reason of it not being directed towards the common good. In 2012, Bishop Fellay revives the statement of the 1988 Protocol regarding the New Rite, but adds the word “legitimately” in front of the word “promulgated”. So the question must be asked, “How can the New Rite of Mass, which was earlier condemned as illegitimate, be later declared legitimately promulgated (i.e., via the Apostolic Constitution ‘Missale Romanum’)?” Since promulgation is the last step necessary for a law to obtain its force and if that law was indeed legitimately promulgated, it would mean that the substance of the law is also legitimate. In other words, the law is truly an ordinance of reason for the common good made by the lawful authority. Consequently, its promulgation is legitimate. To make the point more clear, one cannot say that a child born out of an adulterous union was “legitimately” conceived. In an analogous manner, one cannot say that a rite of Mass born out of the union of churchmen and the modern world was “legitimately” promulgated. I hope the reader follows the line of reasoning.
In conclusion, what we have deduced from Bishop Fellay’s statement concerning the New Rite of Mass in his April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration is that it is legitimate. Whether Bishop Fellay truly believes it is legitimate, however, is open to question. Nonetheless, his even toying with the idea is unacceptable and a scandal to Traditional Catholics. Therefore, I would most welcome a public repudiation by His Excellency of this infamous statement. And if His Excellency believes that I have in any way misunderstood him, I would most welcome any clarifications.
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/05/07/new-rite-of-mass-legitimately-promulgated/
-
Legitimate ?
(http://f1259.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f5%5f44917%5f2%5f123023%5fADrjimIAAKY1UWzxIQTClVszuos&pid=2.2&fid=%2540S%2540Search&inline=1&appid=YahooMailClassic)
-
Archbishop Lefebvre said it was a "bastard rite."
-
A legal bastard ? :thinking:
The New York Times photo of the pope shows him making the Freemasonic sign of the brotherhood.
(http://www.ephesians5-11.org/image/fcsign.gif)
SIGN OF A FELLOW CRAFT
Secret Masonic handshakes, passwords, grips and signs of Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft Fellow Craft and Mason Degrees of Blue Lodge Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ
The sign of the Fellow Craft alludes to the penalty of the Fellow Craft obligation. The sign is made by cupping the right hand over the left breast, drawing it quickly across the body, then dropping the hand to the side. The penalty that the sign alludes to is "having my left breast torn open, my heart plucked out, and given to the wild beasts of the field and the fowls of the air."
Explanation of the Fellow Craft sign: The action of cupping one hand over the left breast and drawing it quickly across
-
That's a nice read, E-M.
It seems to me that applying the message explained by Fr. Pfeiffer in his
Streaky Bay conference (1hr. 56min.) sheds more light on this topic.
...
In conclusion, what we have deduced from Bishop Fellay’s statement concerning the New Rite of Mass in his April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration is, that it is legitimate.
Whether Bishop Fellay truly believes it is legitimate, however, is open to question.
Nonetheless, his even toying with the idea is unacceptable and a scandal to Traditional Catholics. Therefore, I would most welcome a public repudiation by His Excellency of this infamous statement. And if His Excellency believes that I have in any way misunderstood him, I would most welcome any clarifications.
It is reasonable to ask for a clarification, but I can assure you, you're not
going to get one. That's not how B.F. works. He ignores the opposition,
and he has a LONG track record of ignoring the opposition. That's why we
say he's a "tyrant."
It is reasonable to suppose that perhaps B.F. truly believes the "bastard rite"
is legitimate, however, one must not be so simplistic as to think that is all there
is to it. For we have here a creature who has accepted the duplicity of B16
and the Modernists in Rome, such that he has truck with their denial of the
principle of non-contradiction. (BTW in sound philosophy that means insane.)
So, as Fr. Pfeiffer so aptly explains in Streaky Bay recently, he holds in his
mind two mutually exclusive principles, and he pronounces the one while
thinking the other and he pronounces the other while thinking the one. But
you won't find him pronouncing both at the same time, because then his
duplicity would become obvious for all to see, and it would make him look
stupid, or, crazy. Take your pick.
So he says that the Newmass is legitimately promulgated while he thinks that
saying so is a scandal to Traditional Catholics, but he's saying this in the light
of tradition, and then he says that the Society is opposed to the Newmass
while he thinks this is okay to say in the light of the teachings of Vat.II, which
is that subjective reality allows you to SAY you're opposed to the Newmass
even though you act otherwise as though you're in favor of it.
In saner days this is fraud, lying, cheating, embezzling, perjury and/or duplicity.
This is the same thing, you see, that was going on when the Oath Against
Modernism failed to keep Modernism out of the Church, even before it was
abandoned in 1967. For those who took the Oath often times had a
'mental reservation', whereby they believed the meaning of the words they
spoke when they took the Oath were different from the meaning one might
expect them to have, such as the meaning you get by using a dictionary, for
example.
This is why DEFINITION and the CONDEMNATION OF ERROR are so important.
NewChurch has abandoned the condemnation of error, and the practice of
being definitive has been set aside. The Keys of Peter are hanging on a
belt-hook in the hall closet, and they've been there ever since J23's M.R.S.
of October 11th, 1962. This will be the 51st anniversary coming up, during
the "Year of Faith" -- (B16's telling us you need a lot of faith to keep the faith
while he abdicates).
-
According to the Catholic stigmatist amd mystic, Marie-Julie Jahenny (1850 ~ 1941) Msgr. Fellay's overtures to newRome are a made a big mistake.
More on Marie-Julie Jahenny (http://lefleurdelystoo.blogspot.com/2009/06/prophecies-of-marie-julie-jehanny.html)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pGt_0kw96IA/T2ZKTIcSE5I/AAAAAAAAAPQ/GHqX4J79kb0/s1600/marie+julie+jahenny.jpg)
Marie-Julie Jahenny Prophecies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GS_Dcvlfug)
-
Notice how Bishop Fellay's language is exactly the opposite of Archbishop Lefebvre's! "Bastard" vs. "legitimate"!
-
Incredulous,
Will you please point to the exact reference?
-
Vat. II is pastoral, not doctrinal. No Catholic is obliged to believe or accept it in any manner. If it is "officially" declared as a requirement to receive the Sacraments or hear Mass at SSPX chapels, or if the "reforms" of Vat. II objectively show themselves in the SSPX chapel where I attend, I will have to leave. If that means no Mass, no Sacraments, so be it. To whose account will the sin be charged? I will not have left the Church; She wil once again have left me. The Faith stands above the Mass and the Sacraments.
-
Notice how Bishop Fellay's language is exactly the opposite of Archbishop Lefebvre's! "Bastard" vs. "legitimate"!
Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No, and anything else is of the devil.
How about when your Yes is No and your No is Yes?
Guess who is of the devil?
-
According to the Catholic stigmatist amd mystic, Marie-Julie Jahenny (1850 ~ 1941) Msgr. Fellay's overtures to newRome are a made a big mistake.
Correction, please:
"...Msgr. Fellay's overtures... are a made a big mistake" is nonsense.
-
Incredulous,
Will you please point to the exact reference?
EM,
Holy Jahenny's writings are 80 years prior to Vatican II, but she describes the outcome accurately.
After reading this, I'm becoming very leery of the Motu chapels as Msgr. Fellay has always warned us.
Here's just an extract:
Marie-Julie Jahenny (June 1881).
"In their [priests] aberration, they will break their oaths. The Book of Life contains a list of names that ‘rends the heart.’
"Because of the little respect it has for the apostles of God, the flock grows careless and ceases to observe the laws. The priest himself is responsible for the lack of respect because he does not respect enough his holy ministry, and the place which he occupies in his sacred functions. The flock follows in the footsteps of its pastors; this is a great tragedy.
"The clergy will be severely punished on account of their inconceivable fickleness and great cowardice which is incompatible with their functions.
"A terrible chastisement has been provided for those who ascend every morning the steps of the Holy Sacrifice. I have not come on your altars to be tortured. I suffer a hundredfold more from such hearts than any of the others. I absolve you from your great sins, My children, but I cannot grant any pardon to these priests."
She [Marie-Julie Jahenny] says that "those who govern the Flock", will be responsible for the coming crisis. Apparently, Communism would not have triumphed if the Church had remained faithful. She mentions the growing freedom enjoyed by priests and bishops and how badly they will use it.
She mentions a pope who, at the last moment, will reverse his policies and make a solemn appeal to the Clergy.
But he will not be obeyed; on the contrary, an Assembly of bishops will demand even greater freedom, declaring that they will no longer obey the Pope.
Marie-Julie then goes on to say that the Red Revolution will then break out. She speaks of a "horrible religion" which is to replace the Catholic Faith, and she sees "many, many bishops" embracing this "sacrilegious, infamous religion."
Marie-Julies's prophecies concerning the new liturgy: On November 27, 1902 (Ed. note: The seventy-second anniversary of the Miraculous Medal Apparition [November 27, 1830]) and on May 10, 1904, Our Lord warned of the new liturgy which would one day be instituted: "I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period."
"The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it."
On May 10, 1904, Our Lady describes the new clergy and its liturgy: "They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children."
She announces the "dispersion of the pastors" by the Church herself; true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: "...new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities."
July 7 1880 Jesus tell Mary - Julie: «the church will be deprived of his supreme chief that now the guidance (...) The Chief of the Church will be offended outrageously».
«In the ecstasy of November 4, 1880 Mary - Julie describes us the martyrdom of the pope: «The voice of the Church, under a veiled sigh, comes to make doors broken of my soul the echo of his dying voice sound. The supreme Pontiff launches an agonizing speech toward his people, toward children of which he is the Father. It is a sword for my soul... I see of white birds to carry away in their beak his blood and of shreds of his flesh. I see the hand of Peter breakthrough by the nail as the one of GOD. I see his clothes of ceremony pulled in shreds, clothes of which he dresses his dignity to make take down GOD on the altar. I see all it in my sun. Oh ! that I suffer ! »
-
According to the Catholic stigmatist amd mystic, Marie-Julie Jahenny (1850 ~ 1941) Msgr. Fellay's overtures to newRome are a made a big mistake.
Correction, please:
"...Msgr. Fellay's overtures... are a made a big mistake" is nonsense.
Oh no... what did I say wrong now?
I'm just a misunderstood fat baby. :facepalm:
My meaning was that after you read Marie-Julie Jahenny tracts on the new liturgy, a religious leader of the One True Faith, would not dare dialogue with the Consiliar church.
Therefore, Msgr. Fellay's premise, that he was obligated to dialogue with newRome is a big mistake.
-
According to the Catholic stigmatist amd mystic, Marie-Julie Jahenny (1850 ~ 1941) Msgr. Fellay's overtures to newRome are a made a big mistake.
...after [he reads] Marie-Julie Jahenny tracts on the new liturgy, a religious leader of the One True Faith would not dare dialogue with the Consiliar church.
Therefore, Msgr. Fellay's premise, that he was obligated to dialogue with newRome is a big mistake.
Could it be ---------- maybe +Fellay is......
Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss.
Unfortunately, amongst them are those who will accept it.
For if he is amongst the priests who will accept the book sealed with the words of
the abyss, then he's making the biggest mistake anyone could ever make.
-
Bishop Fellay Endorsed “Fraud, Schism, and Heresy” according to Fr. Paul Kramer:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/06/14/bishop-fellay-endorsed-fraud-schism-and-heresy-according-to-fr-paul-kramer/
-
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.
:facepalm:
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.
-
Bishop Fellay Endorsed “Fraud, Schism, and Heresy” according to Fr. Paul Kramer:
http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013/06/14/bishop-fellay-endorsed-fraud-schism-and-heresy-according-to-fr-paul-kramer/
Content:
Bishop Fellay Endorsed “Fraud, Schism, and Heresy” according to Fr. Paul Kramer
Jun 14, 2013
At the conference in London, England held on June 1 and 2, 2013 and sponsored by The Recusant Newsletter, Fr. Paul Kramer gave a conference on the Sunday. In this conference, he spoke about the legitimacy of the promulgation of the New Rite of Mass under Pope Paul VI. Without naming Bishop Fellay, Fr. Paul Kramer stated that to say that the New Rite of Mass was “legitimately promulgated” is an act, objectively speaking, of “fraud, schism, and heresy”. The reference was directly made to the Doctrinal Declaration (or Preamble as some people call it) of Bishop Fellay dated April 15, 2012 and submitted to Rome. Here is a link to the relevant extract of that conference:
Extract of Conference of Fr. Paul Kramer (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Extract_Conference_6.mp3)
To get the full context of the conference, you may listen to it at the link below:
Full Conference of Fr. Paul Kramer (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/Conference_6.mp3)
In this talk, Fr. Kramer covers the same material that he was quoted
saying in the April CFN article that I used in THIS THREAD (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/The-Newmass-was-never-promulgated-legitimately-or-otherwise) two weeks
ago, to which only three members have responded: Donkath, Napoli
and Stubborn.
He showed how the Newmass was never promulgated. There was a
docuмent titled "Promulgation" but it contains no promulgation, and it
ends with a so-called promulgation by another bishop, which would be
superfluous if Pope Paul VI had already promulgated it, which proves
that Paul VI did not promulgate the Newmass, NOR could he have done
so. The Newmass did not come from Tradition, is not part of the
received and approved liturgical rites of the Church, and was drawn up
entirely by a team of heretics and non-Catholics.
As Canon Gregorius Hesse (RIP) said so well some 15 years ago, what
Pope Paul VI "of infelicitous memory" said (which is misconstrued as his
"promulgation of the Newmass" because of the title at the top of the page)
was, basically, "I like this book." The book was the Novus Ordo missal.
So, it was never promulgated, and to say it was is a lie. Therefore, to
say that it was "legitimately promulgated," as B. Fellay says in his AFD,
is a DOUBLE lie, or, as Fr. Kramer says, "fraud, schism and heresy."
-
A legal bastard ?
Well, a valid bastard anyway. :wink:
-
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.
:facepalm:
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.
-
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.
:facepalm:
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.
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.
-
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").
-
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.
:facepalm:
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.
-
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.
:facepalm:
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: )
-
Over on another forum, the argument was given that legitimately promulgated doesn't mean licit.
:facepalm:
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.
-
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?)
-
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?)
Yes, this forum has that particular quirk - quite random to boot.
But I should have demonstrated:
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894
If you go to quote this post, you should see the whole link - just copy and paste. :cheers:
-
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?)
Yes, this forum has that particular quirk - quite random to boot.
But I should have demonstrated:
http://www.s.com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894
If you go to quote this post, you should see the whole link - just copy and paste. :cheers:
Oops, I guess Matthew fixed that - I stand corrected - quoting does not work either any longer.
-
«In the ecstasy of November 4, 1880 Mary - Julie describes us the martyrdom of the pope: «The voice of the Church, under a veiled sigh, comes to make doors broken of my soul the echo of his dying voice sound. The supreme Pontiff launches an agonizing speech toward his people, toward children of which he is the Father. It is a sword for my soul... I see of white birds to carry away in their beak his blood and of shreds of his flesh. I see the hand of Peter breakthrough by the nail as the one of GOD. I see his clothes of ceremony pulled in shreds, clothes of which he dresses his dignity to make take down GOD on the altar. I see all it in my sun. Oh ! that I suffer ! »[/i]
I wonder if this is metaphorical. We see the office of the Pope being torn down as we speak.
-
.
Your post would have looked like this if you had checked the box - see below:
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?)
Welcome to CI, tmw89!
Your posts are already very helpful.
In case you'd like to fix that "quote stuffs" problem, here is a pointer:
When you use the Preview button (which is ALWAYS a good idea!) and
your post comes up all codes and/or missing quote boxes and/or
looking terrible and upsetting to you, it is generally because there is
one or more characters out of place or improper in the quote codes of
the post you submitted to preview.
You can fix the codes by making sure every [ quote ] (without the spaces)
is followed by exactly one [/ quote ] (no spaces), among other things, but
the one item that you'll overlook in all likelihood is that you also have to
check the box to the left of "Format MbCode?" -because when your
Preview yields a dysfunctional screen that box gets unchecked by the
system.
There is more to this but let me know if you need it.
-
.
Okay, now I'm getting somewhere.................
Source = http://www.su scipe do mi ne. com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894 [w/o spaces]
(http://i43.tinypic.com/ofolsk.jpg)
Offline tmw89
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2253
Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: SSPX: Branded!
« Reply #113 on: June 12, 2013, 07:00:06 AM »
Quote from: trentcath on June 12, 2013, 06:39:10 AM
b) a person could speak of a parliament legitimately promulgating a law, as in the right procedures were taken to promulgate it, but still say the law was illicit, for example contrary to international obligations or to God's law. That's one illustration of the reality that legitimately promulgating and licit do not mean the same thing.
The only problem is - based on the definitions - it looks like you think you're an higher authority to define words than the OED.
Because if that wasn't the case, you'd see that the two words (at least in English) are equivalent.
Can you cite any source to support your understanding of the distinction between the terms, to show your position is more than private opinion?
Logged
Quote from: Bishop Williamson
The "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.
---
COMING SOON: A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!