Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul  (Read 4203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cantarella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6836
  • Reputation: +4203/-549
  • Gender: Female
Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2018, 11:58:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • The NOM is evil (in the scholastic/philosophical, not moral sense) for what it does not contain.


    If the Church promulgated an evil rite for the use of the faithful; that can only mean that the Church has essentially defected in one of her most importants missions because She has failed in her duty to safeguard divine worship.

    If the "pope" himself has been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in an evil liturgy, along with millions and millions of Catholics around the world, then that can only mean the gates of hell HAVE prevailed over the Church, because She is no longer sanctifying the faithful; but on the contrary, leading souls to Hell.

    The Holy Eucharist offered in every single rite, western and eastern, approved by a Pope are both a sign and cause of unity as the Church teaches and the Vicar of Christ is the center of that unity, as the Church also teaches. The question is then how can one reject a Rite of Mass as evil, sacrilegious, invalid, etc....which the Roman Pontiff himself not only approves, but also offers daily?
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #31 on: June 08, 2018, 12:12:10 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • If the Church promulgated an evil rite for the use of the faithful; that can only mean that the Church has essentially defected in one of her most importants missions because She has failed in her duty to safeguard divine worship.

    If the "pope" himself has been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in an evil liturgy, along with millions and millions of Catholics around the world, then that can only mean the gates of hell HAVE prevailed over the Church, because She is no longer sanctifying the faithful; but on the contrary, leading souls to Hell.

    The Holy Eucharist offered in every single rite, western and eastern, approved by a Pope are both a sign and cause of unity as the Church teaches and the Vicar of Christ is the center of that unity, as the Church also teaches. The question is then how can one reject a Rite of Mass as evil, sacrilegious, invalid, etc....which the Roman Pontiff himself not only approves, but also offers daily?

    There are several responses one could make to this objection:

    For example, some people argue that the NOM was never legally promulgated, and consequently is not a secondary object of infallibility.  

    People espousing this view (which is not mine, by the way) claim to find support in Summorum Pontificum’s admission that the TLM was never abrogated (and consequently, the NOM -evil or not- was never compulsory).

    Others like Archbishop Lefebvre argue that not in each and every case are the universal disciplinary laws of the Church secondary objects of infallibility.  

    I believe Samuel has a translated Ecône spiritual conference on his blog in which ABL lays out this argument.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6836
    • Reputation: +4203/-549
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #32 on: June 08, 2018, 12:25:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Because “what the Church does” is confects a sacrament, which is precisely what such a priest would intend, in order to carry out his desecration.

    Well.. it is the Church Herself which has all power as regards the dispensation of all the Sacraments, including that of the Eucharist, as long as the substance remains untouched.

    So it is the Church Herself which gets to decide upon the validity of liturgical rites; and not Sean Johnson.

    If Paul VI is a legitimate pope of the Catholic Church, then the NOM is equally pleasing to God, despite all the horrific abuses done in particular parishes. I have a reason to suspect that Paul VI was not a legitimate pope though, but a true impostor and therefore, the NOM would be an invalid rite simply for not having the approbation of a legitimate pope, instead of other superficial reasons.

    The Council of Trent:
    Quote
    "It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,- or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places…. Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has,- from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom having been already very widely changed,- she, induced by weighty and just reasons,- has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself."

    I realize that to say that the R&R position is heretical is no longer permitted in this forum; but I do not know the new rules concerning sedevacantism discussions in this board.

    The last thread I participated on the sedevacantism subject with had more than 45 K views, all my hundreds of posts simply got deleted all of a sudden, with no explanation whatsoever. There were great sources on that thread which now are forever gone.

    I would appreciate if Matthew let me know why my posts are simply being deleted with no warning. I am able to follow the rules of a particular forum once they are explained to me.

    (I hope this post don't get deleted) I never know anymore.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6836
    • Reputation: +4203/-549
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #33 on: June 08, 2018, 12:37:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are several responses one could make to this objection:

    For example, some people argue that the NOM was never legally promulgated, and consequently is not a secondary object of infallibility.  

    People espousing this view (which is not mine, by the way) claim to find support in Summorum Pontificum’s admission that the TLM was never abrogated (and consequently, the NOM -evil or not- was never compulsory).

    Others like Archbishop Lefebvre argue that not in each and every case are the universal disciplinary laws of the Church secondary objects of infallibility.  

    I believe Samuel has a translated Ecône spiritual conference on his blog in which ABL lays out this argument.

    Yes, I know.

    I used to have a very anti-sedevacantist position, and for a long time, I shared your same views.

    However, I had an "aha" moment when reading the Cassiciacum Thesis of Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers, and then all of a sudden, everything made sense.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #34 on: June 08, 2018, 12:41:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • Well.. it is the Church Herself which has all power as regards the dispensation of all the Sacraments, including that of the Eucharist, as long as the substance remains untouched.

    So it is the Church Herself which gets to decide upon the validity of liturgical rites; and not Sean Johnson.

    If Paul VI is a legitimate pope of the Catholic Church, then the NOM is equally pleasing to God, despite all the horrific abuses done in particular parishes. I have a reason to suspect that Paul VI was not a legitimate pope though, but a true impostor and therefore, the NOM would be an invalid rite simply for not having the approbation of a legitimate pope, instead of other superficial reasons.

    The Council of Trent:
    I realize that to say that the R&R position is heretical is no longer permitted in this forum; but I do not know the new rules concerning sedevacantism discussions in this board.

    The last thread I participated on the sedevacantism subject with had more than 45 K views, all my hundreds of posts simply got deleted all of a sudden, with no explanation whatsoever. There were great sources on that thread which now are forever gone.

    I would appreciate if Matthew let me know why my posts are simply being deleted with no warning. I am able to follow the rules of a particular forum once they are explained to me.

    (I hope this post don't get deleted) I never know anymore.
    Cantatella-

    Yes, the Church defined how a valid sacrament is confected (“ex opere operato”) at Trent, and it is I who am the one faithful to that teaching by applying it to the NOM (or black Mass), and not you (who would accept/apply that theology in some cases, and not in others).

    When you can show a defect in the validity of the minister, a contrary intention to confect a sacrament, a mutation in the sacramental form, or the presence of invalidating matter, we can talk.

    But if all those are present, the sacrament is valid (regardless of context).

    Period.

    Any other contention is an heretical violation of Trent.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #35 on: June 08, 2018, 12:43:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yes, I know.

    I used to have a very anti-sedevacantist position, and for a long time, I shared your same views.

    However, I had an "aha" moment when reading the Cassiciacum Thesis of Mons. Guerard Des Lauriers, and then all of a sudden, everything made sense.

    You should read Don Curzio Nitoglia’s article describing his conversion away from sedeprivationism after having been ensnared by it for 20 years.

    He had the opposite epiphany.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6836
    • Reputation: +4203/-549
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #36 on: June 08, 2018, 12:49:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Cantatella-

    Yes, the Church defined how a valid sacrament is confected (“ex opere operato”) at Trent, and it is I who am the one faithful to that teaching by applying it to the NOM (or black Mass), and not you (who would accept/apply that theology in some cases, and not in others).

    When you can show a defect in the validity of the minister, a contrary intention to confect a sacrament, a mutation in the sacramental form, or the presence of invalidating matter, we can talk.

    But if all those are present, the sacrament is valid (regardless of context).

    Period.

    Any other contention is an heretical violation of Trent.

    I don't have any problem with what you said here.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6836
    • Reputation: +4203/-549
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #37 on: June 08, 2018, 12:51:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You should read Don Curzio Nitoglia’s article describing his conversion away from sedeprivationism after having been ensnared by it for 20 years.

    He had the opposite epiphany.

    Thank you for recommendation. Will do!.

    I am always interested in reading different opinions as to make my own more solid.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 503
    • Reputation: +223/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #38 on: June 08, 2018, 12:52:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There are several responses one could make to this objection:

    For example, some people argue that the NOM was never legally promulgated, and consequently is not a secondary object of infallibility.  

    People espousing this view (which is not mine, by the way) claim to find support in Summorum Pontificum’s admission that the TLM was never abrogated (and consequently, the NOM -evil or not- was never compulsory).

    Others like Archbishop Lefebvre argue that not in each and every case are the universal disciplinary laws of the Church secondary objects of infallibility.  

    I believe Samuel has a translated Ecône spiritual conference on his blog in which ABL lays out this argument.
    Would you care to share your own view? If it's the same as +ABL's, then please explain to me how exactly the indefectibility of the Church doesn't affect its Mass. 

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #39 on: June 08, 2018, 01:08:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Would you care to share your own view? If it's the same as +ABL's, then please explain to me how exactly the indefectibility of the Church doesn't affect its Mass.
    I agree with +Lefebvre:

    If the suggestion that a Pope could promulgate an evil rite of Mass (legitimately or illegitimately) represents an affront to indefectibility, then the suggestion that the Mass can altogether vanish and cease to be offered is an even greater affront.

    Yet that is precisely how some reknowned exegetes interpret Daniel, and the very assertion made by a Doctor of the Church (eg., St Alphonsus) and several saints, and nobody ever suggested their positions were at odds with indefectibility.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 503
    • Reputation: +223/-258
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #40 on: June 08, 2018, 01:24:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with +Lefebvre:

    If the suggestion that a Pope could promulgate an evil rite of Mass (legitimately or illegitimately) represents an affront to indefectibility, then the suggestion that the Mass can altogether vanish and cease to be offered is an even greater affront.

    Yet that is precisely how some reknowned exegetes interpret Daniel, and the very assertion made by a Doctor of the Church (eg., St Alphonsus) and several saints, and nobody ever suggested their positions were at odds with indefectibility.
    Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3833
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #41 on: June 08, 2018, 04:24:28 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your mind lacks nuance:
    I have never in my life “justified” the new Mass, only put the brakes on Pfeifferian or sede exaggerations (eg, It can never be valid; it can never give grace; nobody can ever attend it for any reason whatever; etc.).
    It does not matter! It was introduced for un-Catholic purposes intentionally. As a matter of principle because of its obvious defects no one should attend it.  Again, its sacraments are always doubtful, therefore the Church forbids it under the pain of mortal sin. This has nothing to do with Pfeiffer. If one hold to the principles and doctrine of the Church, they will reject the new mass as such, for what it is, a non-Catholic fake rite of mass.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3833
    • Reputation: +3712/-282
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #42 on: June 08, 2018, 04:29:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Good points. Just out of interest, why in your opinion did Paul VI promulgate the new mass? Did he know it'd be an evil rite or was he just a useful idiot liberal?
    There were defects in its promulgation, and Paul VI did not bind the Church to it. It was imposed by deception and the illegalities of suppressing the True Mass of the Church.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3573/-1040
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #43 on: June 08, 2018, 04:49:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • It does not matter! It was introduced for un-Catholic purposes intentionally. As a matter of principle because of its obvious defects no one should attend it.  Again, its sacraments are always doubtful, therefore the Church forbids it under the pain of mortal sin. This has nothing to do with Pfeiffer. If one hold to the principles and doctrine of the Church, they will reject the new mass as such, for what it is, a non-Catholic fake rite of mass.

    When you say "it's sacraments are always doubtful," you must be speaking of the conciliar Church?

    That is obviously nonsense:

    1) There are plenty of priests in the conciliar Church about whose valid ordination there is no doubt whatsoever (either because they were ordained before 1968, or because they left the SSPX to join a diocese, or were ordained in the FSSP back when Cardinal Stickler did ordinations, etc.).

    2) If one of those priests said a NOM, using proper form, matter, and intention, then clearly it is false (and proximate to heresy) to say all "its sacraments are always doubtful."
    You would be rejecting some very basic dogmas of the faith with a position like that.

    PS: Have you ever heard the axiom, "A negative doubt is to be despised?"  A negative doubt is asking yourself the question "what if?"  In sacramental theology, when it comes to judging the validity of a sacrament,  this is never permitted.  What is required to force an abstention is positive (not negative) doubt: A defect in ordination; a contrary intention to doing what the Church does; a substantial mutation in the essential sacramental rite; invalid matter.

    If those 4 things are in place, forming a positive doubt is theologically impossible, and validity is (morally) certain.

    You are broadcasting some very bad advice to the world: You are letting your (rightful) opposition to the conciliar Church adversely affect your doctrine.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline Centroamerica

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2559
    • Reputation: +1542/-425
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #44 on: June 08, 2018, 04:54:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I side with Fr. Hesse on the NOM and Fr. James Peek SSPX. The Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil and was never promulgated by Paul VI in any official capacity. As far as I know, it even remains today the official position of the SSPX that the New Mass is intrinsically evil and cannot be attended whatsoever. When Sean Johnson denies this, he actual appears (if not is) dangling on the slippery slope towards Modernism and in accusing (if he does at all) the SSPX of becoming Liberal he would be hypocritical to say the least. 

    Again...

    Regarding the New Mass: "...it is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil...I am denying what Mr Davies says you can't: that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church"; that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church. (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, July 3, 1996 and Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

    "For Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX the new mass is intrinsically evil and therefore to be totally rejected." (Fr. Jean Violette, Faith of Our Fathers Newsletter of the SSPX No. 56, Sep.-Dec. 1996.), and

    "...when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil...what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil." (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, October 1996), and


    "Personally, I don't believe in discussions which would not deal with the heart of the matter: with Vatican II, with the new Mass, intrinsically evil as we always said in Tradition, with the new code of Canon Law, which introduces the new Vatican II ecclesiology in the legislation of the Church." [Abbe Benoit de Jorna, Superior of the St. Pius X Seminary in Econe, Interview with Giovanni Pelli, May 15, 2001]

    We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16