Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul (Read 21154 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #15 on:** June 04, 2018, 03:37:15 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM

Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
The minister may or may not be, depending.
Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.

That they are questionable is enough to set them as off limits. Sean, that is the very point, if one cannot be sure of the validity of any given priest, then the validity of the sacrament must be held a doubtful, because the Church always requires us to take the safer course in these matters.

Telling someone that they can attend an un-Catholic service with a possibly or likely doubtful priest is bad advice and goes against the doctrine and long held practice of the Church.

What can I say? It is an the truth. It is irrelevant what the subjective circuмstances are, only that the objective danger is definitely present. That is what the Church is concerned about.

The laity is neither theologically nor experientially skilled enough to make such determinations on their own, and should certainly not place their souls in peril based upon the opinions of clerics,but rather upon the sound framework of the Magisterium.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #16 on:** June 04, 2018, 10:57:52 PM »

So, Sean you’re trying to get Ladislaus and JPaul to leave this forum? 2 of the most intelligent and balanced members there are? Very short sighted.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #17 on:** June 04, 2018, 11:00:54 PM »

Quote

Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.

Absolutely false. Card Ottaviani and his fellow theologians said the new mass is doubtful.

ignatius · « **Reply #18 on:** June 08, 2018, 01:41:36 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM

Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
The minister may or may not be, depending.
Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.

Johnson, don't drag ABL into your indult line of thinking. This is what ABL said about the NOM.

“The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, page 9)

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these novus ordo Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope, Nov. 8, 1979)

“I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference, April 11, 1990)

"This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The new rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily at Lille France, August 29, 1976)

“The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Priest retreat, August 1972)

forlorn · « **Reply #19 on:** June 08, 2018, 09:44:20 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM

Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
The minister may or may not be, depending.
Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.

How on earth can it be valid if it's evil?

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul (Read 21154 times)

JPaul

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul

Pax Vobis

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul

Pax Vobis

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul

ignatius

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul

forlorn

Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul