But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!One priest I recently corresponded with on this issue said to me, “Anyone who says that I am a sedevacantist is a liar!”
Then in the very next breath, he continued to explain to me that:
Is that position coherent? [Note: This is a dishonest ploy: These priests are sedeprivationists, which they would superficially distinguish from sedevacantists]
Can one who claims Francis has no authority, or jurisdiction, and whose name he refuses to pray in the Mass, avoid the label of “sedevacantist?”
No.
------------
Conclusion:
There is nothing “optional” in the matter of praying Pope Francis’ name in the Canon of the Mass.
Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least. One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion. They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).
Just like during the Great Schism, there is positive doubt regarding the identity of the current pope. Anyone who takes the matter of Bergoglio being pope or not being pope as dogmatic, arrogates to himself a power that he simply doesn’t have. There is sufficient case for positive doubt. The theory of loss/non-loss of papal office of formal and manifest heretics has been debated and the Church has allowed the debate for centuries without stepping in to pronounce either way. Those who carry this to the point of dogma accusing the other side of heresy or schism could not truly call themselves Traditional Catholics. Bishop Williamson himself has admitted that it is possible that Benedict XVI is pope and admitted this in his video in Canada with then Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Gruner present. The positive doubt is present and only a fool would deny it.
Ways in which he is wrong:The main problem with dogmatic sedevacantism, and the “una cuм” lie, is not the uncharity or divisiveness (as much of a problem as that is) it is that it leads to some people in the movement staying at home from mass. And there is no greater sin, tragedy, and pain to God than when His people fail to honor Him on Sundays.
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be.
The main problem with dogmatic sedevacantism, and the “una cuм” lie, is not the uncharity or divisiveness (as much of a problem as that is) it is that it leads to some people in the movement staying at home from mass. And there is no greater sin, tragedy, and pain to God than when His people fail to honor Him on Sundays.Would you attend a non una cuм mass if it were the only mass available to you? Or would you stay home?
The claim that the Church is unanimous is false. Completely false. Countless lay Catholics, priests and bishops consider Bergoglio doubtful at best. The most recent case is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Gracida.Unless those that say it is unanimous don't consider those folks to be part of the Church.
The example of the GWS is inapplicable:There was, at a moment prior to the Western Schism, one papal claimant recognized by all as the true pope. Just because later there were three, does not change it on the grounds Sean posits.
1) Precisely because the Church was divided in assenting to the claims of three papal claimants, none of the claimants' "papacies" ever attained the status of dogmatic fact.
NB:I happen to agree as well. Having said that, I would argue that there are a number of traditionalists who, although they include the name of Francis in the canon, don't act as if they truly believe he is the pope of the Catholic Church.
It has been 16 months since this article was originally published on SP.
Reconsider this excerpt, and think about the case of Fr. Ringrose as you do:
Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least. One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion. They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).
As a friend wrote to me:
The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”
I quite agree
Just like during the Great Schism, there is positive doubt regarding the identity of the current pope. Anyone who takes the matter of Bergoglio being pope or not being pope as dogmatic, arrogates to himself a power that he simply doesn’t have. There is sufficient case for positive doubt. The theory of loss/non-loss of papal office of formal and manifest heretics has been debated and the Church has allowed the debate for centuries without stepping in to pronounce either way. Those who carry this to the point of dogma accusing the other side of heresy or schism could not truly call themselves Traditional Catholics. Bishop Williamson himself has admitted that it is possible that Benedict XVI is pope and admitted this in his video in Canada with then Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Gruner present. The positive doubt is present and only a fool would deny it.
Would you attend a non una cuм mass if it were the only mass available to you? Or would you stay home?Your question assumes we have a choice. We do not. We all must, under pain of sin, attend mass said by a valid priest, on all sundays/holydays.
The claim that the Church is unanimous is false. Completely false. Countless lay Catholics, priests and bishops consider Bergoglio doubtful at best. The most recent case is the retired bishop of Corpus Christi, Bishop Gracida.There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.
There was, at a moment prior to the Western Schism, one papal claimant recognized by all as the true pope. Just because later there were three, does not change it on the grounds Sean posits.
The application of the GWS was to show that there were canonized saints who attended Masses where the wrong pope or no pope was mentioned in the canon. If one were to side with St. Robert Bellarmine in believing that a manifest, formal heretic loses office, they would still be Catholic. They might even be right. But a dogmatic sedeplenist would rather follow a Buddhist pope than admit that an opposing view could be right.
The official position of the SSPX had always been that a formal heretic loses office of the papacy. Indeed, even Bishop Fellay has admitted that it may be possible to say one day that Bergoglio never was pope.
If one were to compile a list of all the people who have doubted the post-conciliar popes on up to Bergoglio, it would be nearly every single Traditionalist priest and bishop (Fr. Gruner, Fr. Kramer, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Fellay, Canonist Fr. Hesse et. al.) on one side and Sean Johnson, Fr. Pfeiffer and the Fraternity of St. Peter on the other.
Your question assumes we have a choice. We do not. We all must, under pain of sin, attend mass said by a valid priest, on all sundays/holydays.You avoided answering my question. Would you attend a non una cuм mass if there was no other option? Would you attend an Orthodox liturgy (since they do have valid priests) if there was no other option? Or how about a Novus Ordo mass assuming the priest was valid?
You avoided answering my question. Would you attend a non una cuм mass if there was no other option? Would you attend an Orthodox liturgy (since they do have valid priests) if there was no other option?I didn't avoid the question, I answered generally. Non-una cuм/ una-cuм...I don't care. If the priest is valid and he says a valid TLM, I would attend. I don't think we can attend the Orthodox...don't know much about it.
I didn't avoid the question, I answered generally. Non-una cuм/ una-cuм...I don't care. If the priest is valid and he says a valid TLM, I would attend. I don't think we can attend the Orthodox...don't know much about it.OK, fair enough...at least you are consistent.
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%.
I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).
That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.
That comes to 0.0000307%
Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.
That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.
No, there is pretty much unanimity.
I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2:
I will pray for you.
Please pray for me.
Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%.
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.
I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).
That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.
That comes to 0.0000307%
Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.
That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.
No, there is pretty much unanimity.
Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2:
Those same numbers accept the teachings of Vatican II.
I see the point you are making, but it is slightly out of place:
The issue in question is whether a unanimous recognition of Francis as Pope exists, which would trigger Billot's conclusion.
I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.
I will pray for you.
Please pray for me.
I see the point you are making, but it is slightly out of place:And how many of the 99.9999693% are actually Catholic? Not many, now are there?
The issue in question is whether a unanimous recognition of Francis as Pope exists (i.e., an argument of fact), which would trigger Billot's conclusion.
It clearly does, since 99.9999693% recognize his papacy.
That 0.0000307% of those calling themselves Catholic dispute this in no way suffices to disqualify a conclusion of unanimity, since the unanimity being spoken of is moral unanimity, not mathematical unanimity.
Sean, by the Novus Ordo's OWN POLLING DATA, 95%+ of these 1+ billion have lost the faith ... rejecting one Catholic dogma or another. So how is acceptance by such a mass of apostasy a sign of the Church's infallible discernment regarding the matter of legitimacy?Yeah, so much for "moral" unanimity. ::)
Polls starting in the 1990s indicated that 70%+ of Novus Ordo "Catholics" don't believe in the real presence. Of those 30% who remain Catholic on this point, probably another 75% don't believe in papal infallibility or don't believe that birth control is wrong or reject one or another Church dogma.
Yeah, so much for "moral" unanimity. ::)
Slightly tedious article especially considering that Mr. Johnson is a self appointed theologian of the resistance.
The ways in which is is right are the following:
-Sedevacantists usually aren't long in trying to convert others to their point of view, and it is hard for them to stay "non-dogmatic".
- They often tend to be slippery in the way they do this and can cause trouble.
- Mr Johnson deserves praise for having finally had the courage to publish his articles here in his own name, rather than get someone else to do it.
Ways in which he is wrong:
- They are not as much as a threat as he makes them out to be. Sometimes there can be sedes who just don't cause trouble. I suspect that he is causing such a scene about this to disguise his own liberalism.
We should note that an equally big threat in the resistance, if not bigger,is those laity, and certain clerics, who seek to impose artificial structures on the resistance. They then act in the most arrogant manner pretending that those outside these structures are inferior in some way. Mark my words, my dear friends, these people are snakes in the grass. Canon law is already very demanding without having to insist that we HAVE to have everyone in such structures. This is a form of liberalism, with a tinge of communism IMHO.
Sean, by the Novus Ordo's OWN POLLING DATA, 95%+ of these 1+ billion have lost the faith ... rejecting one Catholic dogma or another. So how is acceptance by such a mass of apostasy a sign of the Church's infallible discernment regarding the matter of legitimacy?
Polls starting in the 1990s indicated that 70%+ of Novus Ordo "Catholics" don't believe int he real presence. Of those 30% who remain Catholic on this point, probably another 75% don't believe in papal infallibility or don't believe that birth control is wrong or reject one or another Church dogma.
Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2:Anything but error! :jumping2:
Yeah, they would rather believe that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church have defected and become gravely corrupted than entertain the possibility that the V2 papal claimants are illegitimate. Defend the honor of Bergoglio while dishonoring the Church.
Keep in mind that the words which follow are Billot's, not mine:
The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself
And how many of the 99.9999693% are actually Catholic? Not many, now are there?
Yeah, they would rather think that the Church could morph into a pope-less Church than to think that the pope can err.No, you prefer to believe that the indefectible Catholic Church has had popes that teach error to the Universal church for over 50 years. Big difference.
Ladislaus-
You want to defend sedevacantism, and there is nothing that I can say that is going to penetrate.
I know this in advance.
This tells me I am wasting my time addressing you, so I will make but one more response before tuning out (which is really more for the rest of the forum, than for yourself), and watching this thread run to another 100+ pages:
Keep in mind that the words which follow are Billot's, not mine:
The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself
Now, I understand that is fatal to sedevcantism, and you are compelled to find some means of explaining it away, or abandon sedevacantism.
But for the few objective readers who may be following, I leave this there for them as an anchor to hang on to, noting in closing that this opinion of Billot is not unique to him, but is in fact the most common opinion of the theologians who have addressed the issue, for the simple reason that if the Church unanimously adhered to a false Pope, the Church would have defected, and that in turn (by directly contradicting a defined dogma) would prove the Catholic religion utterly false.
I leave you to your ruminations.
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
All of them are members of the Catholic Church, while the "few" (Traditional) consider the "many" (Conciliar) bad Catholics and vice versa.So you believe that those who do not hold the Catholic Faith whole and entire are members of the Catholic Church?
Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".
No, you won't try to directly refute me because you CAN'T. I have already explained how Billot's principle does not apply to the present crisis because 95% of these Conciliarists ARE NOT EVEN CATHOLIC. That would be like the 90%+ Arians accepting an Arian pope.Exactly.
Not to mention, as I have also pointed out, ALL of the SSPX bishops have at one point or another questioned the legitimacy of the V2 Popes. That's like publicly questioning the Holy Trinity (since papal legitimacy is classified as a DOGMATIC FACT). No different than actually denying it.
You want to defend sedevacantism, and there is nothing that I can say that is going to penetrate.
All of them are members of the Catholic Church, while the "few" (Traditional) consider the "many" (Conciliar) bad Catholics and vice versa.
Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".
Sean, don't waste your time on Ladislaus. Others have tried it and failed. See Provers 29:9.
Sean, the truly objective readers (not the dogmatic sedeplenists, anti-sedevacantists like yourself) will see that "Universal Church" does not include the large percentage of Novus Ordites who do not hold nor profess the Catholic Faith. Therefore, your so-called moral unanimity defense for claiming that the heretic currently in the Chair of Peter has to be legitimate doesn't hold any water.
This is just absolute nonsense.Wait, we're talking about Paul VI now? I actually believe his election was probably valid. I also believe he lost the papacy when he promulgated and taught the false religion of Vatican II to the Universal Church.
Do you really like to pretend that the vast majority of Catholics in the 50's and 60's did not "profess the Catholic Faith"? And that therefore cardinal Billot's argument did not apply?
Where were you back then? And where were the other 0.0000000001% of "good Catholics" when pope Paul VI was elected and accepted by all those "non professing" Catholics?
I actually believe his election was probably valid.
Do you really like to pretend that the vast majority of Catholics in the 50's and 60's did not "profess the Catholic Faith"? And that therefore cardinal Billot's argument did not apply?
I don't. I think that Siri still held claim to the Holy See.I guess that's always a possibility. Just not enough evidence for me.
I guess that's always a possibility. Just not enough evidence for me.
Oh noes! The down thumbs ! :laugh2:
Are you going to spread your stupid comments all over this thread too now?Oh poor Samuel.
Matthew, as long as fools like Ladislaus are allowed to spread their trash all over your forum I see no reason for me to remain. It makes discussions tiresome and profitless, and it causes your forum to become like all the other sedevacantist forums.
Are you going to spread your stupid comments all over this thread too now?
Matthew, as long as fools like Ladislaus are allowed to spread their trash all over your forum I see no reason for me to remain. It makes discussions tiresome and profitless, and it causes your forum to become like all the other sedevacantist forums.
Billot's argument was based on "Catholics", not on "good Catholics".I thought "Catholics" were the people who hold the Catholic faith. I thought "good Catholics" were only those Catholics who hold that Catholic Faith who are in a state of grace while "bad Catholics" were those who hold the Catholic Faith but fell into mortal sin.
Really? John Paul I even? The fact that he was killed off suggests he was not a villain...Killed? I actually think that his brother's explanation that he ran out of his medications (he was always a sickly individual since childhood) and didn't go through the hassle of getting them renewed in all the excitement as to why he died so soon is likely the truth.
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.But there isn't unanimity. Just because you come up with some number like 3.07×10−5 doesn't mean a hill of beans. The majority doesn't make the truth. It is the truth that should make the majority.
I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).
That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.
That comes to 0.0000307%
Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.
That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.
No, there is pretty much unanimity.
I see you are sinking into sedevacantism.
I will pray for you.
Please pray for me.
I don't. I think that Siri still held claim to the Holy See.I could see both hypotheses as probable. The Siri argument has more weight to it than at first glimpse. But it seems rational that Paul IV was validly elected pope. Not sure. He's not pope now. That's all I know.
Those same numbers, with only a fractional uptick, accept the teachings of Vatican II.Right, so basically what he’s saying is that there is unanimity among Novus Ordo High-High-Anglicans that Frank is their pope and that they would rather have a fake pope than be Catholic. They would rather be in communion with heretics than admit that sedes were right.
All bow to the Grand Poobah Sean!
I leave you to your ruminations.
Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson
Killed? I actually think that his brother's explanation that he ran out of his medications (he was always a sickly individual since childhood) and didn't go through the hassle of getting them renewed in all the excitement as to why he died so soon is likely the truth..
Really? John Paul I even? The fact that he was killed off suggests he was not a villain...
I could see both hypotheses as probable. The Siri argument has more weight to it than at first glimpse. But it seems rational that Paul IV was validly elected pope. Not sure. He's not pope now. That's all I know.
Right, so basically what he’s saying is that there is unanimity among Novus Ordo High-High-Anglicans that Frank is their pope and that they would rather have a fake pope than be Catholic. They would rather be in communion with heretics than admit that sedes were right.A slight change to your post:
https://imgflip.com/i/28v4nv:jester:
(https://i.imgflip.com/28v4nv.jpg) (https://imgflip.com/i/28v4nv)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.Most of those Catholics aren't even Catholic by Vatican 2 standards. If you look at national surveys and compare the percentage who are "Catholic" to the percentage who "believe in a deity", generally the latter is far smaller than the former in Catholic countries. What this means is that a very large percentage of "Catholics" just call themselves that because they were baptised and see it as part of their identity, but they don't even believe in God.
I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).
That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.
That comes to 0.0000307%
Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.
That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.
No, there is pretty much unanimity.
2Vermont,The only mass available to me is una cuм...the Novus Ordo and I don't attend. In fact, I'm pretty sure all traditionalists (none sede and sede alike) wouldn't/don't go in that same set of circuмstances. How do any traditionalists who do not go to the Novus Ordo get a dispensation from the 3rd Commandment?
If the only mass available was an una cuм, would you go? If not, how do you give yourself a dispensation from the 3rd Commandment?
They would rather be in communion with heretics than admit that sedes were right.
At the end of the day, I could hardly care less about being right or about being wrong. I just want to be Catholic and to defend the honor of Holy Mother Church. Whether Bergoglio, speaking personally, is Pope or is not Pope or is a Reptilian Space Alien or a Holographic Projection, I could hardly care LESS. So long as the honor of the Church is upheld and defended.
And my crusade is against people who claim that the HOLY Catholic Church can become corrupt in her Magisterium and Universal Discipline. If those two become corrupt, then the Church as a whole is corrupt and the Church is meaningless and the Church is worthless. That makes the Church an OBSTACLE to salvation, something from which we must REMOVE ourselves in order to be saved rather than the other way around. Absit. I find this absolutely repugnant and I find it horrifying that Catholics could keep saying such things. I would rather attend Clown Masses and hold hands while singing Kumbaya than to think this of the Holy Catholic Church.
The only mass available to me is una cuм...the Novus Ordo and I don't attend.Correct the sentence structure. What exactly are you saying here?
2Vermont says:The Novus Ordo isn't a Catholic Mass. Catholics are obligated to assist only the Catholic Mass, and if it's not available to them, the dispensation is granted, ipso facto, due to their circuмstance.
How do any traditionalists who do not go to the Novus Ordo get a dispensation from the 3rd Commandment?
Correct the sentence structure. What exactly are you saying here?The only mass available to me (on a weekly basis) is the Novus Ordo. I don't attend it.
Una cuм doesn't nullify the Catholicity of Tridentine Mass and the Sacrament at (neo) SSPX chapels. An una cuм Tridentine Catholic Mass is still Catholic, therefore, if it's within your proximity, and it's the only Mass available to you, you're obligated to assist in fulfillment of the 3rd Commandment.
The Novus Ordo isn't a Catholic Mass. Catholics are obligated to assist only the Catholic Mass, and if it's not available to them, the dispensation is granted, ipso facto, due to their circuмstance.
The only mass available to me is una cuмSo you attend the una cuм or not? I'm sorry, but it's not clear to me.
Correct the sentence structure. What exactly are you saying here?
Una cuм doesn't nullify the Catholicity of Tridentine Mass and the Sacrament at (neo) SSPX chapels. An una cuм Tridentine Catholic Mass is still Catholic, therefore, if it's within your proximity, and it's the only Mass available to you, you're obligated to assist in fulfillment of the 3rd Commandment.
So you attend the una cuм or not? I'm sorry, but it's not clear to me.Maybe because you're not really asking me what you want to ask me..which I suspect is: would I attend una cuм? I don't attend una cuм and I prefer non una cuм. Having said that I have no other una cuм options other than the Novus Ordo.
As for dispensations, none of us have dispensations from not attending the Novus OrdoThe Novus Ordo is not required to be attended under pain of sin. Quo Primum requires attendance at the TLM under pain of sin. It's pretty easy.
The Novus Ordo is not required to be attended under pain of sin. Quo Primum requires attendance at the TLM under pain of sin. It's pretty easy.Does it? Could you quote that passage? I thought it merely stated that no priest could be compelled to say another rite.
As for dispensations, none of us have dispensations from not attending the Novus Ordo ... ESPECIALLY if one believes Francis and his predecessors are true Catholic popes. If we are all honest here, we all have made private judgments and have acted accordingly.
The Novus Ordo is not required to be attended under pain of sin. Quo Primum requires attendance at the TLM under pain of sin. It's pretty easy.For many years, most Priests were barred from celebrating the Latin Mass and there are still restrictions in place regarding it. Why would a true Pope deny his flock the true Mass they must attend under pain of mortal sin? Why would he deceive them into thinking they did not need to attend the Latin Mass?
Divide and conquer. For what ever reason God is allowing Satan to even destroy the faithful Catholics now. The Church is disappearing.
No dispensation is needed for avoiding the Novus Ordo because it's not Catholic. It doesn't matter if there are trads who believe Frank is the pope. They still don't need a dispensation to avoid a non-Catholic service that is the Novus Ordo Missae.Says who? According to the "pope" of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo IS CATHOLIC. The point I am trying to make is that none of us have any declaration from the Church stating that the Novus Ordo mass is not Catholic and therefore we can skip it.
You've been told this a number of times, now.
The point I am trying to make is that none of us have any declaration from the Church stating that the Novus Ordo mass is not Catholic and therefore we can skip it.We have a declaration in Quo Primum that it is illegal and sinful. Don’t need a declaration that it’s not Catholic.
We have a declaration in Quo Primum that it is illegal and sinful. Don’t need a declaration that it’s not Catholic.Specifically where does it state that a mass promulgated by the Catholic Church and a supposed Catholic pope is illegal and sinful?
Ask and ye shall receive...Interestingly enough, this does not mention popes.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, (In other words, the whole church)
and We order them in virtue of holy obedience (sin of disobedience is in play here)
to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us (Pope orders the Church to use ONLY his missal)
and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
(the novus ordo introduced new ceremonies and new prayers, and also deleted ones from the 1962 missal. All of this is not allowed, is illegal and sinful).
Interestingly enough, this does not mention popes.Wilful ignorance.
Wilful ignorance.And yet he still doesn't mention the most important person in rank: pope. He mentions "cardinals" but not "popes". It is much more likely that he wasn't including future popes for the very reason that popes are supreme legislators for ecclesiastical law and they have the power to change laws made by their predecessors.
...or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be...or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence
Wilful ignorance.Except Pope St. Pius V and his direct successor both altered the mass.
...or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be...or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence
A law is a law. Unless a pope changes the law, the law remains in force. Paul VI never changed Quo Primum, so it's requirements/penalties are still in effect.Says Pax Vobis. Not Pope Paul VI and all his successors.
Quo Primum has been revised multiple times since 1570, but all revisions were minor and not substantial. The new mass was a substantial change AND not a revision of the 1962 missal, hence it is illegal and sinful.
A law is a law. Unless a pope changes the law, the law remains in force. Paul VI never changed Quo Primum, so it's requirements/penalties are still in effect.The Pope may change a law with a new law replacing or contradicting it. Quo Primum was not a change of the previous laws regarding Mass, in case you didn't notice, but a new one itself just as Paul's was.
Quo Primum has been revised multiple times since 1570, but all revisions were minor and not substantial. The new mass was a substantial change AND not a revision of the 1962 missal, hence it is illegal and sinful.
Ask and ye shall receive...Interestingly, none of this requires attendance under pain of mortal sin.
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, (In other words, the whole church)
and We order them in virtue of holy obedience (sin of disobedience is in play here)
to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us (Pope orders the Church to use ONLY his missal)
and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.
(the novus ordo introduced new ceremonies and new prayers, and also deleted ones from the 1962 missal. All of this is not allowed, is illegal and sinful).
Not Pope Paul VI and all his successors.Pope Benedict said that Quo Primum was never revoked and always in effect.
The Pope may change a law with a new law replacing or contradicting it.Yes, it's possible, but Pope Benedict said that's not what happened. Secondly, Paul VI's new law is not required under pain of sin, so his law has no binding authority. Quo Primum is binding, under pain of sin, so it's authority outweighs Paul VI's non-authority.
Quo Primum was not a change of the previous laws regarding Mass, in case you didn't notice, but a new one itself just as Paul's was.Quo Primum did not make a "brand new" missal, but simply took all the various rites (which were essentially the same) which had existed since Apostolic times and made the mass uniform. Anything which Pope St Pius V discarded was non-essential.
Pope Benedict said that Quo Primum was never revoked and always in effect.The same man that never declared the Paul VI mass sinful and illegal.
Says who? According to the "pope" of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo IS CATHOLIC. The point I am trying to make is that none of us have any declaration from the Church stating that the Novus Ordo mass is not Catholic and therefore we can skip it.
As trads, we make private judgments ALL.THE.TIME. That's why it's silly for one group to wag their fingers at another group for making a different private judgment that they think is wrong.
To be clear, I totally agree with you about the NO not being Catholic, so I'm not sure why you're saying "you've been told this a number of times now".
Interestingly, none of this requires attendance under pain of mortal sin.A law regarding the liturgy is for the clerics directly and the laity is assumed, because they have the obligation to attend mass each Sunday, not use the liturgical missal. It is not the laity's job to say mass, but hear mass only.
The same man that never declared the Paul VI mass sinful and illegal.When Benedict XVI declared that Quo Primum was never revoked and still in force, he confirmed the above, even though you are too dense (and stubborn) to admit the logical consequences of this reality.
When Benedict XVI declared that Quo Primum was never revoked and still in force, he confirmed the above, even though you are too dense (and stubborn) to admit the logical consequences of this reality.And yet Benedict continued to say that Novus Ordo mass, so I think you're misrepresenting his words. Had he taken his own statement to mean as you take it to mean, he would not have said the new mass.
And yet Benedict continued to say that Novus Ordo mass, so I think you're misrepresenting his words. Had he taken his own statement to mean as you take it to mean, he would not have said the new mass.We all believe in the 10 commandments, yet we continue to violate them. One's actions are separate from the Truth.
Pope Benedict said that Quo Primum was never revoked and always in effect.
So what? Nice of him to share his opinion on the matter. After all, that's all that Popes do when they're not teaching infallibly.But his opinion in this matter works for those who wish to believe that Paul VI, an undoubtedly true pope of the Catholic Church according to them, promulgated a sinful and illegal liturgy in the name of the Catholic Church.
And yet Benedict continued to say that Novus Ordo mass, so I think you're misrepresenting his words. Had he taken his own statement to mean as you take it to mean, he would not have said the new mass.Not only that but he also stated quite clearly that the Ordinary (Novus Ordo) and "Extraordinary" (TLM) forms are one and the same rite. So much for "Truth".
Infallibility doesn’t apply to legal matters, only faith and morals. Law is law and stays in force until changed.
Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior. What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone? Garbage. It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.Where exactly do you come up with this stuff? "Disciplinary infallibility". :facepalm:
Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior. What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone? Garbage. It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.I had to look this ladism up - just as I thought, not only is such a thing *not* "held by all theologians" at all, it was never even discussed by any of them. This means Disciplinary infallibility is a new term and like all things NO, has multiple, novel meanings. It did not even exist prior to 19th/20th century. "Disciplinary infallibility" is another NO innovation, a product of the unanimous vote of NO authors that poor Lad is promoting again as if it is something traditionally Catholic.
From the CE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm):
"What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility?
It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent [NO] treatises on the Church.
The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favor of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility blah blah blah..."
"Slightly tedious comment", especially considering that yet another new member jumps straight in with fostering enmities and divisions within the Resistance.
1. Every single Traditional Catholic is a self appointed theologian, and must be so in order to remain Traditional. If some people put more effort in this than others, is that something we should be deriding them for?
2. Mr Johnson has already explained his reason for the time he did not post here under his own name, and that reason had nothing to do with a lack of courage, on the contrary. By the way, where's your courage in anonymously attacking those who unlike you have the courage and integrity to speak in their own name?
3. The history of the SSPX is full of troubles caused by two seemingly opposite sides, based on the same underlying error: those who left to join the Conciliar Church, and those who left to become sedevacantists. Your comments about sedes not being "as much a threat" is just plain ignorant. You should learn to think before you speak.
4. Your accusations about Mr Johnson's "disguising his own liberalism" is a gratuitous accusation and further proof of your malice.
You should take a lesson from Mr Johnson and learn to research the issues you like to comment on, to think before you speak, and to speak like a Catholic. You are the type of person that sows divisions, spreads falsehoods, repulses honest and serious Catholics and is able to ruin a forum.