Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 10:31:56 AM

Title: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 10:31:56 AM
Asked whether Archbishop Lefebvre contradicted the Council of Trent by calling the NOM evil, JPaul responded,

 “If he did not reject the New Order service as such [per se, SJ] then yes he was.”

Well, not only did ABL reject the per se invalidity of the NOM, but actively endorsed participation of it in the early years, and like BW, even allowed exceptional attendance at it in the mid/late 1980s, per Fr. Crowdy.

Therefore, according to JPaul, ABLs position was against the faith, and he becomes Violator #2.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 04, 2018, 10:50:29 AM
 :sleep:
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 04, 2018, 10:54:03 AM
Logic is not your strength, SeanJohnson.

Just because you say that the NOM might be valid doesn't mean you consider it good and Catholic.

Just because you say that some people can attend it under certain circumstances (basing it on the moral theology regarding material participation) doesn't mean you consider it OBJECTiVELY good and Catholic.

Both +Lefebvre and +Williamson clearly consider the NOM defective/bad/non-Catholic.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 04, 2018, 10:54:38 AM
And +Lefebvre clearly changed his mind after the "early years".
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 11:20:19 AM
And +Lefebvre clearly changed his mind after the "early years".
...after which point (long after the 1981 Pledge of Fidelity), he continued to permit people in difficult circumstances to participate in the NOM, per the testimony of Fr Crowdy in the UK.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 11:22:28 AM
Logic is not your strength, SeanJohnson.

Just because you say that the NOM might be valid doesn't mean you consider it good and Catholic.

Just because you say that some people can attend it under certain circumstances (basing it on the moral theology regarding material participation) doesn't mean you consider it OBJECTiVELY good and Catholic.

Both +Lefebvre and +Williamson clearly consider the NOM defective/bad/non-Catholic.
Duh...
Pretty sure you are familiar with my published work making those same arguments (but then reading comprehension is often an impediment to partisanship, and must frequently yield to it).
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 04, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
(http://malekmusings.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/2/6/31268741/8015210_orig.gif?404)
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 11:25:27 AM
(http://malekmusings.weebly.com/uploads/3/1/2/6/31268741/8015210_orig.gif?404)
More psychological projection of your own undesirable traits to others.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 11:31:40 AM
Translation (a la Jaynek):

“Please quit responding; he’s already got two of us!”
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 04, 2018, 12:37:16 PM
Translation (a la Jaynek):

“Please quit responding; he’s already got two of us!”

I don't care what you think you have.  I'm just bored with you and choose to no longer entertain you.  If Matthew wants to ban me, he's already got plenty of grounds and ammunition.  Your trolling posts add nothing.

:sleep:
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:01:51 PM
I don't care what you think you have.  I'm just bored with you and choose to no longer entertain you.  If Matthew wants to ban me, he's already got plenty of grounds and ammunition.  Your trolling posts add nothing.

:sleep:
I thought you weren’t going to respond! :laugh2:
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 04, 2018, 01:30:56 PM
The Novus Ordo is not a work of the Catholic Church. That has been my opinion for over ten years. 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 04, 2018, 01:51:06 PM
I thought you weren’t going to respond! :laugh2:

And I thought you were going to stop posting on CI.

:laugh2:
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 04, 2018, 01:52:28 PM
Asked whether Archbishop Lefebvre contradicted the Council of Trent by calling the NOM evil, JPaul responded,

 “If he did not reject the New Order service as such [per se, SJ] then yes he was.”

Well, not only did ABL reject the per se invalidity of the NOM, but actively endorsed participation of it in the early years, and like BW, even allowed exceptional attendance at it in the mid/late 1980s, per Fr. Crowdy.

Therefore, according to JPaul, ABLs position was against the faith, and he becomes Violator #2.
Thank you Sean,  The Church says that no matter the circumstance, it is a mortal sin to approach a doubtful sacrament. You can make what you will of that.   You may also want to consider renaming your position to that of Modified Novus Ordo. MNO, instead of R&R. That more accurately reflects its true nature, and dispenses with the implied contradiction of R&R.
 The Faith of the Catholic Church is not represented by the Archbishop's theological opinions of the Novus Ordo, and to disagree with them is not a defection from the Catholic Faith, and that is what really counts in times of confusion.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM
Thank you Sean,  The Church says that no matter the circumstance, it is a mortal sin to approach a doubtful sacrament. You can make what you will of that.   You may also want to consider renaming your position to that of Modified Novus Ordo. MNO, instead of R&R. That more accurately reflects its true nature, and dispenses with the implied contradiction of R&R.
 The Faith of the Catholic Church is not represented by the Archbishop's theological opinions of the Novus Ordo, and to disagree with them is not a defection from the Catholic Faith, and that is what really counts in times of confusion.
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 04, 2018, 03:37:15 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 circumstances 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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Pax Vobis 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.  
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Pax Vobis 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.  
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 08, 2018, 01:41:36 AM
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)
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: forlorn on June 08, 2018, 09:44:20 AM
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? 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 10:23:04 AM
How on earth can it be valid if it's evil?

Firstly, you need to distinguish between the rite (which is evil), and the sacrament (which is holy).

Then, you need to distinguish between the “essential rite” (ie., the words of consecration, which as promulgated, are the same in both rites, and therefore not evil), and the “solemn rite” (ie., the prayers surrounding the essential rite, which as promulgated, are evil by defect/omission, for example, by the elimination of the offertory).

An example of “evil but valid” would be the Satanic Mass:

The “solemn rite” is evil for its positive blasphemies, but the “essential rite” is preserved intact, in order to achieve validity/transubstantiation for the purpose of desecration.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 08, 2018, 10:42:48 AM
An example of “evil but valid” would be the Satanic Mass:

No.  It is my understanding that Satanic "Masses" use hosts that were validly consecrated outside of it; they know that the consecration would never be valid in the context of their evil rite.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 10:59:14 AM
No.  It is my understanding that Satanic "Masses" use hosts that were validly consecrated outside of it; they know that the consecration would never be valid in the context of their evil rite.

Your understanding is deficient and incomplete:

There are also apostate priests who consecrate their hosts.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 08, 2018, 11:18:39 AM
Regardless of how you parse the rite, there is still the matter of the uncertainty of validity of priests.  It is still under the proscription of the Church.

Besides the New Order service is a protestant rite is spirit and in fact. Its author and the promulgating Pope, said as much. No different that a Lutheran or Anglican rite.

It is not Catholic, you can try to justify it by pointing out that its has some catholic elements, but so do the aforementioned rites which are not Catholic. The Church does not create rites which are not Catholic or might structurally be called Catholic while being born of a spirit and purpose which is entirely non-Catholic.

The New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: forlorn on June 08, 2018, 11:23:50 AM
Regardless of how you parse the rite, there is still the matter of the uncertainty of validity of priests.  It is still under the proscription of the Church.

Besides the New Order service is a protestant rite is spirit and in fact. Its author and the promulgating Pope, said as much. No different that a Lutheran or Anglican rite.

It is not Catholic, you can try to justify it by pointing out that its has some catholic elements, but so do the aforementioned rites which are not Catholic. The Church does not create rites which are not Catholic or might structurally be called Catholic while being born of a spirit and purpose which is entirely non-Catholic.

The New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church.
Well, unless you're sedevacantist, it was promulgated by the leader of the Catholic Church. Ergo, it's a Catholic rite. The Pope has the authority to create rites, contrary to popular belief Trent cannot and does not prevent future Popes from changing rites or creating new ones. So if the Catholic Church does not create rites which are not Catholic, and NO is not Catholic, then Paul VI cannot be a valid Pope.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: forlorn on June 08, 2018, 11:26:25 AM
Firstly, you need to distinguish between the rite (which is evil), and the sacrament (which is holy).

Then, you need to distinguish between the “essential rite” (ie., the words of consecration, which as promulgated, are the same in both rites, and therefore not evil), and the “solemn rite” (ie., the prayers surrounding the essential rite, which as promulgated, are evil by defect/omission, for example, by the elimination of the offertory).

An example of “evil but valid” would be the Satanic Mass:

The “solemn rite” is evil for its positive blasphemies, but the “essential rite” is preserved intact, in order to achieve validity/transubstantiation for the purpose of desecration.
So you're saying a Pope would willing issue a rite comparable to the Satantic Mass, and that somehow this Pope is not a heretic or apostate. 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 11:27:57 AM
Regardless of how you parse the rite, there is still the matter of the uncertainty of validity of priests.  It is still under the proscription of the Church.

Besides the New Order service is a protestant rite is spirit and in fact. Its author and the promulgating Pope, said as much. No different that a Lutheran or Anglican rite.

It is not Catholic, you can try to justify it by pointing out that its has some catholic elements, but so do the aforementioned rites which are not Catholic. The Church does not create rites which are not Catholic or might structurally be called Catholic while being born of a spirit and purpose which is entirely non-Catholic.

The New Order service is not a work of the Catholic Church.
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.).
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 11:30:30 AM
So you're saying a Pope would willing issue a rite comparable to the Satantic Mass, and that somehow this Pope is not a heretic or apostate.
No:
The black mass is evil for what it contains.
The NOM is evil (in the scholastic/philosophical, not moral sense) for what it does not contain.
The black mass is morally evil (ie, evil as human act, not because of omission).
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: TKGS on June 08, 2018, 11:33:50 AM
Your understanding is deficient and incomplete:

There are also apostate priests who consecrate their hosts.
How can a priest "have the intention to do as the Church does" in consecrating hosts in a "Satanic Mass"?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 11:56:54 AM
How can a priest "have the intention to do as the Church does" in consecrating hosts in a "Satanic Mass"?
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Cantarella on June 08, 2018, 11:58:58 AM
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?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 12:12:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Cantarella on June 08, 2018, 12:25:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Cantarella on June 08, 2018, 12:37:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 12:41:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 12:43:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Cantarella on June 08, 2018, 12:49:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Cantarella on June 08, 2018, 12:51:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: forlorn on June 08, 2018, 12:52:10 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 01:08:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: forlorn on June 08, 2018, 01:24:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 08, 2018, 04:24:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 08, 2018, 04:29:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 04:49:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Centroamerica on June 08, 2018, 04:54:08 PM
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]

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Centroamerica on June 08, 2018, 04:57:00 PM
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.
Dear Sean,

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Dominicans of Avrillé are in direct opposition to your opinions expressed above.

Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.  The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics.  It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/


Obviously the exception would be the valid priests ordained before the change of the Latin Rite, I sometimes confess to one of these retired military priests in avoiding doubtfully ordained Novus Ordo priests. These priests, would have to be Catholic, however, and not modernists. There is also a retired validly ordained priest in the diocese that holds LGSTD "services". 

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 05:09:14 PM
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?

I don't know.

But here is a thought that nags at me:

Under St. Pius X, there were no successful pressure attempts by the modernists to get him to "ease up" in the battle against modernism.

Where he found them, he scotched them.

They were underground in survival mode.

But under Benedict XV, things lightened up quite a bit.

Whether this was because of some overzealous mistakes that had been made, or because he had other priorities, the modernists were able to regather under his command.

Their new tactic was to organize and pressure bishops, cardinals, and even Popes.

If you read the book "The Liturgical Movement" by Fr. Diddier Bonneterre (Angelus Press) he goes into this a bit.

In the seminary (Liturgy I class), Fr. Iscara read to us from the memoirs of Dom Lambert Beauduin (proto-modernist liturgist), who goes into considerably more detail about how the modernists sought out liberal bishops to extend to them indults to experiment way back in the 19-teens.  Then the liberal bishops would organize conferences, retreats, seminars, etc to spread their ideas, and pressure Rome for more indults.  

These methods resulted in the grotesque Dialogue Mass (all the principles of the Novus Ordo, way back in the 19-teens).

Of course they gathered steam, and the Popes -all lacking the resolve of Pius X- consistently gave in to the pressure.

I come back to your question now: Did Paul VI know the rite was evil, or was he just an idiot liberal?

I think two things:

1) I think he was weak.
2) I think he was liberal.

He was around when the Dialogue Mass came about; he lived through the Pius XII reform.

Most likely, he thought the trend in liturgical modernism was the Holy Sprit (stupid, but hey: He was a liberal.).  After all, he could look back to Pius XI celebrating the Dialogue Mass, Pius XII destroying Holy Week, and was not the Novus Ordo simply the logical conclusion to all those same pre-conciliar principles?

The Church needed 5 strong Pope St. Pius X's

Instead it got those who were susceptible to being influenced by pressure which, combined with a liberalism which robbed them of solidity in their faith, ended in Vatican II (and the post-conciliar deforms).

This, anyway, is what I think I am inclined to believe.

It could be way off.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Dear Sean,

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Dominicans of Avrillé are in direct opposition to your opinions expressed above.

Ecône, 28 oct. 1988
Very dear Mr. Wilson,
thank you very much for your kind letter. I agree with your desire to reordain conditionnaly these priests, and I have done this reordination many times.
All sacraments from the modernists bishops or priests are doubtfull now.  The changes are increasing and their intentions are no more catholics.
We are in the time of great apostasy.
We need more and more bishops and priests very catholics.  It is necessary everywhere in the world.
Thank you for the newspaper article from the Father Alvaro Antonio Perez Jesuit!
We must pray and work hardly to extend the kingdom of Jesus-Christ.
I pray for you and your lovely family.
Devotly in Jesus and Mary.
Marcel Lefebvre

http://www.dominicansavrille.us/questionable-priestly-ordinations-in-the-conciliar-church/


Obviously the exception would be the valid priests ordained before the change of the Latin Rite, I sometimes confess to one of these retired military priests in avoiding doubtfully ordained Novus Ordo priests. These priests, would have to be Catholic, however, and not modernists. There is also a retired validly ordained priest in the diocese that holds LGSTD "services".

Dear Centro-

Yes, that was a very stupid response from Avrille, wasn't it?

Please ask Avrille to explain how, in the presence of a valid minister, intent, form, and matter, the sacraments could nevertheless be doubtful.

Presumably, they were supposing that one of those 4 criteria was in doubt to make such a statement.

But that is not per se the case, as should by now be quite obvious.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 05:18:52 PM
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]

Centro-

Do you have ADHD?

I have explained ad nauseum that the NOM is intrinsically evil.

To which your incoherent response is apparently to "rebut" me by explicating my own position right back to me??
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Centroamerica on June 08, 2018, 05:24:12 PM
Centro-

Do you have ADHD?

I have explained ad nauseum that the NOM is intrinsically evil.

To which your incoherent response is apparently to "rebut" me by explicating my own position right back to me??
You really lack the common decency and respect necessary to engage in discussions like this.
And the last post of mine was a direct quote from Archbishop Lefebvre, not the Dominicans (of whom you famously would call up to bother in their monastery to argue whether or not good fruits come from the New Mass, if I'm not mistaken.)
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 05:34:37 PM
You really lack the common decency and respect necessary to engage in discussions like this.
And the last post of mine was a direct quote from Archbishop Lefebvre, not the Dominicans (of whom you famously would call up to bother in their monastery to argue whether or not good fruits come from the New Mass, if I'm not mistaken.)
Umm...yes, you are very mistaken:

I would receive calls from one priest at the Friary to argue with me about whether good fruits could come from the new Mass.

It was quite a nuisance, and he never made any convincing arguments (nor did he really have any unconvincing ones; he was just concerned a high-profile Tertiary was being made out to be defending the NOM by mischievous or unintelligent spectators).

You would have done better for your team to have kept quiet about that, eh?

As regards the Archbishop Lefebvre quote, he is certainly not arguing that the conciliar sacraments are objectively doubtful per se (i.e., even when proper minister, intent, form, and matter are present), but is instead saying that he doubts the intention of conciliar ministers generally.

The necessary conclusion, therefore, is that if the intention IS present, then the sacrament is not necessarily doubtful.

And as regards the formation of that intention, here is a thought to ponder on the subject:

“People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament… The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”

-Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Cantarella on June 08, 2018, 06:22:38 PM
Quote
The Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically evil and was never promulgated by Paul VI in any official capacity.

I do not know how this position can still be defended.

It does not make any sense that the Holy See does not really promulgate a rite; but then everyone can see that the "Holy Father" himself and the entire hierarchy has been publicly offering the Sacrifice of the Mass using such evil rite for decades now, one pope after the other.

We know infallibly that the Church cannot promulgate something intrinsically evil to the faithful; so if this indeed happened, then the only plausible conclusion is that the authority which did it was not legitimate, and because we know that in the Roman Catholic Church, it is the approval of the Pope and nothing else which settles the promulgation, then that to me, is an indication of a false pope.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Centroamerica on June 08, 2018, 06:29:47 PM
My motives for joining the Third Order were not superficial. I joined because of St. Dominic, St. Catherine and the penitents and saints of the order as well as the spiritual benefits for my soul and others’. I would never leave over any petty trifle. 

I just don’t know what to think when you conflate yourself to being so important and you weren’t even a professed member. It’s as if Sean Johnson is more important than the Dominican Third Order. It’s beneath you. 

I think you’re great guy and you’re Faith is strong. I consider you a friend so I hope you will settle down with the constant frivolous debating. 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 08, 2018, 06:36:08 PM
Dear Centro-

Yes, that was a very stupid response from Avrille, wasn't it?

Please ask Avrille to explain how, in the presence of a valid minister, intent, form, and matter, the sacraments could nevertheless be doubtful.

Presumably, they were supposing that one of those 4 criteria was in doubt to make such a statement.

But that is not per se the case, as should by now be quite obvious.
Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo.   But that is not the point or even a true fact. 
A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
 The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires.  I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 08, 2018, 06:37:49 PM
Bipolar Batman Sean to the Rescue!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think Sean that the argument goes that if a priest thinks the Mass is just a meal, which it fundamentally is not, then he is not doing what the Church does.

If a Bishop ordains, "workers in the community" or some other similar nonsense, then he is not ordaining with the right intention.

In both cases, the sacrament is so seriously put into doubt that it is safer to re-do it.


So who's for bets as to how long Sean lasts this time on Cathinfo???

Do I have takers for a week? 10/1 odds
2 weeks.... 5/1
3.... 25/1

3 months.... 30/1

For other numbers contact me....
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 06:40:47 PM
My motives for joining the Third Order were not superficial. I joined because of St. Dominic, St. Catherine and the penitents and saints of the order as well as the spiritual benefits for my soul and others’. I would never leave over any petty trifle.

I just don’t know what to think when you conflate yourself to being so important and you weren’t even a professed member. It’s as if Sean Johnson is more important than the Dominican Third Order. It’s beneath you.

I think you’re great guy and you’re Faith is strong. I consider you a friend so I hope you will settle down with the constant frivolous debating.

Once again, you are off target.

I quit to help Avrille:

If I am disassociated from them, then nobody can beat them with whatever I happen to be saying at the moment (e.g., regarding +BW in Mahopac; against the NUC priests; etc.).

Now, if you compare that explanation against the perception you described above, perhaps it will take you off your soap box.

I only mention this because we are good friends, but your slide towards sedevacantism is affecting your judgment generally.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 08, 2018, 06:41:27 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSaDPc1Cs5U
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 08, 2018, 06:44:33 PM
you do provide good entertainment Sean.... Even if you do have mild depression
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 06:56:35 PM
Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo.   But that is not the point or even a true fact.
A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
 The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires.  I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.
JPaul-

No amount of distortion, obfuscation, or manufactured re-presentation of my arguments will be able to change the following:

Valid minister (always discernible by the laity simply by inquiring into the priest's ordination, as is almost standard practice by travelling sedes) + intention, form, and matter = valid sacrament, regardless of context.

Moreover, unless there is evidence in the external forum of a priest forming a contrary intention, the intention is prersumed valid, as a principle of sacramental theology, thereby yielding moral certitude (which is all the Church requires, and which definitely removes and pre-empts any specious argument regarding in favor of doubt).

So, the uncertainty you wish to create is not always and necessarily present, which is your contention.

Your position is preeminently Jansenistic (who rejoiced when people stayed home from Mass for all the bad receptions of Holy Communion it prevented), and therefore definitely not the safer course.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 06:58:49 PM
I think Sean that the argument goes that if a priest thinks the Mass is just a meal, which it fundamentally is not, then he is not doing what the Church does.

Hi Flats-

That's why you are a heretic:

“People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament… The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”

-Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 08, 2018, 07:21:56 PM

Quote
Moreover, unless there is evidence in the external forum of a priest forming a contrary intention, the intention is prersumed valid, as a principle of sacramental theology, thereby yielding moral certitude (which is all the Church requires, and which definitely removes and pre-empts any specious argument regarding in favor of doubt).
This only applies to the sacraments of the Old rite, which were worded with precise language so that the Church’s intentions were fulfilled when the priest used such words.  

As Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci et all explained in the “Ottaviani intervention”, the new mass and sacraments have new language and such wording does NOT provide the proper intention.  So the intention for the new rite must be provided by the priest, which is a “crap shoot” because that all depends on 1) if they are a valid priest and 2) if they were trained properly in the seminaries.  

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 07:28:23 PM
This only applies to the sacraments of the Old rite, which were worded with precise language so that the Church’s intentions were fulfilled when the priest used such words.  

As Cardinal Ottaviani, Bacci et all explained in the “Ottaviani intervention”, the new mass and sacraments have new language and such wording does NOT provide the proper intention.  So the intention for the new rite must be provided by the priest, which is a “crap shoot” because that all depends on 1) if they are a valid priest and 2) if they were trained properly in the seminaries.  

Hi PV-

The “essential rites” of the old and new consecratory prayers of Mass are identical, and consequently the intention to consecrate is equally expressed in either.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 08, 2018, 08:11:43 PM
Sean, your position is based upon many assumptions and opinions and more often than not we would seem to have a perfect storm roiling about the false mass so as to lean towards its possible validity, which is itself is unimportant because it is not Catholic in the first place. 

As Father Hesse says, "it is not a work of the Catholic Church", and as Father Wathen states, "it is always a great sacrilege."
Good and true statements of two principled Catholic men.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 06:07:18 AM
Sean, your position is based upon many assumptions and opinions and more often than not we would seem to have a perfect storm roiling about the false mass so as to lean towards its possible validity, which is itself is unimportant because it is not Catholic in the first place.

As Father Hesse says, "it is not a work of the Catholic Church", and as Father Wathen states, "it is always a great sacrilege."
Good and true statements of two principled Catholic men.
My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.

You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.

You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.

With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).

Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: forlorn on June 09, 2018, 07:52:35 AM
My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.

You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.

You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.

With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).

Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.
"Feeneyism" is Church dogma. EENS. 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 07:56:07 AM
"Feeneyism" is Church dogma. EENS.
I'm not going there.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 08:30:25 AM
Hi PV-

The “essential rites” of the old and new consecratory prayers of Mass are identical, and consequently the intention to consecrate is equally expressed in either.

Except that Leo XIII taught that rights can be invalidated by the context even if the essential form remains intact.  Then you forget the change in the essential form made by most vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo (which the English has changed back a couple years ago).
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 08:30:49 AM
I'm not going there.

You're the one who went there in the first place.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 08:32:08 AM
"Feeneyism" is Church dogma. EENS.

This is essentially correct. "Feeneyism" is always mischaracterized as equating with Father's opinion regarding Baptism of Desire.  But Baptism of Desire is a side issue.  Father was battling against the heretical EENS-deniers without mention of BoD in the early years.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 09, 2018, 09:04:05 AM
My “opinion” is based on the doctrine of the Church which, however distasteful to you, must still be applied, yes, even to the NOM.

You seem emotionally and intellectually unable to digest that, as though doing so would be tantamount to saying there's nothing wrong with the NOM or attending it.

You are an extremest because your mind thinks only in absolutes: Everything is either 100% "this" with no exceptions, or it is 100% "that" with no exceptions.

With that kind of approach you will err frequently in theology (for example, it has led you to sedevacantism).

Feeneyism would also be a likely destination for you at some point.
The above mentioned clerics opinions are indeed based upon the doctrine of the Church, and if I might say, they knew and understood that doctrine much better and more succinctly than you.
 It is the doctrine of the Church which leads me to reject the new order because in where it applies to such an deliberate effort to destroy the Mass of the Church it is absolute. You on the other hand set aside the fundamental issues to use smaller  diversionary point of doctrine to argue it validity.
You and the Bishop never bring up the problematic validity of Novus Ordo priests or the danger it presents.(conveniently)
Your theological approach to theology seems to be that everything is negotiable, if you prove that a point over here can be true, then point A or B must give way to your theory about the subject. You are very selective as to what you argue and propose, so it always seems to come out in your favor.
I am not a sedevacantist but I am faithful to the Dogmas of the Church in the matter of exclusive salvation as found only in the Catholic Church. It may pain you to know that there are doctrines and principles which are 100% absolute and not open to interpretation or change, but there are.

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 09:09:14 AM
Hi Flats-

 At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”

-Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers

This is not about faith. It is about doing something the contrary of what the thing is intended to do.

In any case, even if you are right, it still does not justify presuming the sacraments are valid, which is what you are insinuating. It is more prudent to re-do them. And that is all I am saying. The Church will judge the rest in good time.

There is of course precedence for what you are saying in regard to baptism. Even a Jew can baptise validly.

Is there any definitive pronouncements in a similar vein in relation to the other sacraments?


Are you on any medication for your bipolar?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 09:10:55 AM
This is not about faith. It is about doing something the contrary of what the thing is intended to do.

In any case, even if you are right, it still does not justify presuming the sacraments are valid, which is what you are insinuating. It is more prudent to re-do them. And that is all I am saying. The Church will judge the rest in good time.

There is of course precedence for what you are saying in regard to baptism. Even a Jew can baptise validly.

Is there any definitive pronouncements in a similar vein in relation to the other sacraments?
Flats-

Wrong again: The presumption is always in favor of validity, not invalidity.

Your opinion is entirely based on negative doubt, which never suffices to reproduce a sacrament.

Positive doubt is what the Church requires in order to conditionally repeat a sacrament.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 09:13:12 AM
Flats-

Wrong again: The presumption is always in favor of validity, not invalidity.


Ok well that has not been the opinion of a huge number of priests tradition and Archbishop Lefrebvre. Do you have citations to show you know better?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 09:18:40 AM
The point I think that would be made is that considering the Mass only a meal and not a sacrifice, constitutes a postive doubt. It is deliberately going against what the Church does.

If one had no opinion either way, then you might be right.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 09:24:29 AM

Ok well that has not been the opinion of a huge number of priests tradition and Archbishop Lefrebvre. Do you have citations to show you know better?

Flats-

You are mixing and mashing ideas:

What has always been the opinion of Tradition is that conciliar converts ought to be conditionally ordained.

But the reason for that is not because the sacraments are all per se doubtful (i.e., objectively and in themselves invalid).

The reason is because either:

1) There is positive doubt regarding one off the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament;

0r

2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.

See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:

http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
The point I think that would be made is that considering the Mass only a meal and not a sacrifice, constitutes a postive doubt. It is deliberately going against what the Church does.

If one had no opinion either way, then you might be right.

No, it most certainly does NOT, and the Fortesque quote I supplied a few posts earlier clearly states that to hold such an opinion is heretical.

The faith of the minister (or lack thereof) is completely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 09:28:46 AM
Flats-

You are mixing and mashing ideas:

What has always been the opinion of Tradition is that conciliar converts ought to be conditionally ordained.

But the reason for that is not because the sacraments are all per se doubtful (i.e., objectively and in themselves invalid).

The reason is because either:

1) There is positive doubt regarding one off the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament;

0r

2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.

See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:

http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained


What are you saying?

That's exactly what I was talking about.

You are so puffed up with pride that you presume I am a sede coming here to argue their position. Or more likely off your bipolar meds, if you were even put on them.

So it's not me who's mashed up at all.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 09:33:35 AM
From the link you just gave me....


"If it cannot be said, as with Anglican orders, that the Novus Ordo rite was changed with the manifest intention of rejecting a sacrificing priesthood, nevertheless the deliberate exclusion of the notion of propitiation, in order to please Protestants, could easily be considered as casting a doubt on the intention of doing what the Church does, namely of offering a true and propitiatory sacrifice"

Do you agree with this Sean?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 09:35:31 AM
Except that Leo XIII taught that rights can be invalidated by the context even if the essential form remains intact.  Then you forget the change in the essential form made by most vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo (which the English has changed back a couple years ago).

Context can only invalidate a rite if it is such as to be tantamount to forming a contrary intention (as was the case with the Anglicans).

The NOM, as promulgated (i.e., using the traditional Roman Canon, clearly indicating the intent to offer a sacrifice) would not suffice.

As regards a typical NOM (i.e., which generally omit the Roman Canon in favor of some meal formula), I am inclined to agree.

That the NOM as promulgated is said practically nowhere on the planet is besides the point:

We are making an argument of principle: That there is a presumption of validity when valid minister, form, matter, and intent are present.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 09:37:06 AM
And more from that link....

"These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid."

May I presume you disagree with this Sean also?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 09:41:18 AM
If you disagree with this, then you are calling Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic, and I don't think the Admin Matthew would be too happy with that....


So choose your next words carefully....
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 10:35:10 AM
From the link you just gave me....


"If it cannot be said, as with Anglican orders, that the Novus Ordo rite was changed with the manifest intention of rejecting a sacrificing priesthood, nevertheless the deliberate exclusion of the notion of propitiation, in order to please Protestants, could easily be considered as casting a doubt on the intention of doing what the Church does, namely of offering a true and propitiatory sacrifice"

Do you agree with this Sean?

No, because the intention of the minister is not supplied by the form of the sacrament, but by the subjective and internal intention of the minister:

                     LUDOVIC CARDINAL BILLOT, S.J.
                    ON THE SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH:
          A COMMENTARY ON THE THIRD PART OF ST. THOMAS, VOL. 1.

                       THESIS XVIII (q. 64, a. 8 )

   It is Catholic dogma that for the validity of a sacrament, there must
be in the minister the intention of doing what the Church does. Moreover,
it is commonly and truly held that an external intention, as they call it,
does not suffice
, but that an internal intention is required.

   The intention of doing what the Church does, whatever that may be in
the opinion of him who administers the sacrament, is said to be required.
Thus St. Thomas: "Although he who does not believe that baptism is a
sacrament, or does not believe that it has any spiritual power, does not
intend when he baptizes to confer a sacrament, nevertheless he intends to
do what the Church does, even if he counts that as nothing; and because the
Church intends to do something, therefore, as a consequence of this, he
intends implicitly to do something, though not explicitly."[1] But it is
not necessary that the minister think as the Church does, or that he not
err concerning her teaching; for it is enough if his intention is towards
something which is identically that which the Church intends, or, something
which amounts to the same thing, for example, if he intends to do that
which Christ instituted, or which is commanded in the Gospel, or which
Christians are accustomed to do according to the prescription of their
religion. (Thus it is apparent how even a Jew or a pagan can have an
intention sufficient for baptizing. Consider for example a catechumen
placed in a moment of necessity, who asks a pagan saying, "Do for me, I
entreat you, this mercy, that you pour water on me, pronouncing the words,
'I baptize you,' etc., with the intention of doing what I myself intend to
receive according to the prescription of the law of Christians.)

   Although, however, all Catholics agree in asserting the necessity of
the aforesaid intention, in the sixteenth century a certain new opinion was
introduced by Catharinus, asserting that a merely external intention
suffices. Furthermore it is called external, not because considered in
itself it is not internal, but because the whole intention is directed
towards external appearance
; for according to Catharinus, it consists in
the will by which someone wishes to conduct himself externally as a serious
minister of the sacrament, although within himself he intends to ridicule
or to imitate. Nevertheless, most of the few theologians who agree with
Catharinus say that the aforesaid external intention does not suffice
unless the minister in question confects the sacrament in the place and
sacred vestments according to the customary rite of the Church, for, they
say, through these circumstances an exterior rite in itself indifferent is
determined to be sacramental.

   Furthermore, the opinion of Catharinus is not held in honor by the
anathema of Trent. "I deem," says Pallavicini,[1] "that the opinion
proscribed by Trent[3] is the same which Leo X condemned in Luther by his
Constitution: viz., that the sacrament was instituted by Christ in such a
manner, that even if the minister carries it out in manifest derision and
mockery, the effect follows... But in truth the Catholic theologians whom
we have enumerated, agree in demanding for the efficacy of a sacrament the
will, not only of following the external action, considered physically,
which the Church prescribes, (which will is likewise present in the man who
administers the sacrament in jest), but of exercising his action through
the exterior ceremony of a man acting seriously, and through the appearance
of a man directing that ceremony where the Church directs it." -- No less
to the contrary is the most common teaching of theologians, to which one
must completely hold fast. It teaches that an internal intention is
required, one which in other words is not directly wholly to the exterior
appearance, but is an intention by which the minister not only wishes to
refrain from all show of simulation as regards the action which appears
outwardly, but also truly resolves within himself, "I wish to do that which
the Church does."


[1]. S. Thom., in IV, D.6, q.1, a.3, q.2, ad 1um.
[2]. Pallavicini, Hist. of the Conc. of Trent. l.9, c.6.
[3]. Trent, Sess. VII, can. 11 on the Sacraments.


Conclusion:  Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I
wonder if the priest has the proper intention?  After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.).  According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the
point.

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 10:41:09 AM
The problem with johnson, he lives in his own head wanting the rest of the world to buy tickets to proffer his brand.  He tries to apply the beginning of the NOM from 1968 starting with real priests of the time as still existing in intention with the evolved ecumenical NOM 60 years later in 2018.  Reason, he's an indulter with an indulter mind.  Always morphing trying to find a way to live with a local mass and school for himself whatever it is.  He tries to justify this saying he is a part of some 'internal resistance' to placate his existence in any entity.  Result, he is a conflating gnat.

If the dominicans and their sisinono letters tried to help him see the error of his ways and didn't help him, what is left a frying pan?  Only everyone else is a heretic but him and his indult world.






Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 09, 2018, 12:28:14 PM

Quote
We are making an argument of principle: That there is a presumption of validity when valid minister, form, matter, and intent are present.
The NOM cannot be presumed to be valid; quite the opposite.  There is doubt in regards to the priest’s ordination, as well as the form/intent, due to the imprecision of the words that have been changed in the canon AS WELL AS the offertory and communion.  

If one reduces the mass to the consecration only, they are mistakenly forgetting the other 2 essential parts of the mass. 

The validity of the consecration is separate from the validity of the mass as a whole.  There can be a valid consecration but an invalid mass, just like a satanic mass can have a valid consecration but is obviously blasphemous.  
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: JPaul on June 09, 2018, 12:28:56 PM
The problem with johnson, he lives in his own head wanting the rest of the world to buy tickets to proffer his brand.  He tries to apply the beginning of the NOM from 1968 starting with real priests of the time as still existing in intention with the evolved ecumenical NOM 60 years later in 2018.  Reason, he's an indulter with an indulter mind.  Always morphing trying to find a way to live with a local mass and school for himself whatever it is.  He tries to justify this saying he is a part of some 'internal resistance' to placate his existence in any entity.  Result, he is a conflating gnat.

If the dominicans and their sisinono letters tried to help him see the error of his ways and didn't help him, what is left a frying pan?  Only everyone else is a heretic but him and his indult world.
:laugh1: :laugh2: :laugh1:  I could not have put it better.  
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 12:30:49 PM
Context can only invalidate a rite if it is such as to be tantamount to forming a contrary intention (as was the case with the Anglicans).

And you can argue that, or else point to things in the Novus Ordo which seem to embrace a Protestant view of the Liturgy.  In any case, this is cause at least for positive doubt regarding its validity.  Consequently, I would not, except in danger of death, receive in Communion a Host that was consecrated in the New Rite (to say nothing of the positive doubt regarding NO ordinations and episcopal consecrations).  I do not say that it's certainly invalid, just that there's positive doubt due to the nature of the changes.  If you read the Ottaviani intervention, those theologians/prelates argue that the Catholic intention regarding the Mass has been completely corrupted and replaced with a Protestant understanding in the NOM.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 12:34:02 PM
a satanic mass can have a valid consecration

Highly debatable, and even the Satanists know this, so Satanic Masses use stolen consecrated Hosts.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 12:35:48 PM
No, because the intention of the minister is not supplied by the form of the sacrament, but by the subjective and internal intention of the minister:

I disagree, and so does St. Thomas.  It's based on the objective and externally-manifested (albeit internal) intention of the minister.  So if the priest performs the Catholic Rite as prescribed, he has the intention to do WHAT the Church DOES ... even if he doesn't believe in or intend to perform transubstantiation for instance.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 12:40:46 PM
And you can argue that, or else point to things in the Novus Ordo which seem to embrace a Protestant view of the Liturgy.  In any case, this is cause at least for positive doubt regarding its validity.  Consequently, I would not, except in danger of death, receive in Communion a Host that was consecrated in the New Rite (to say nothing of the positive doubt regarding NO ordinations and episcopal consecrations).  I do not say that it's certainly invalid, just that there's positive doubt due to the nature of the changes.  If you read the Ottaviani intervention, those theologians/prelates argue that the Catholic intention regarding the Mass has been completely corrupted and replaced with a Protestant understanding in the NOM.
My variant on your comments is:

1) On a case by case basis, there may or may not be positive doubt as regards the validity of the NOM: But as a matter of principle, one cannot conclude they are all per se doubtful, because:

2) If form, matter, intent, and valid ordination can all be verified, there are no grounds whatsoever for any doubt at all.

Like you, I would not receive NOM Communion except in extreme necessity (nor would I receive Communion at any indult), and haven't done either in 20 years, regardless of what a couple mentally ill crackpots say on this thread elsewhere.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 12:43:42 PM
The NOM cannot be presumed to be valid; quite the opposite.  There is doubt in regards to the priest’s ordination, as well as the form/intent, due to the imprecision of the words that have been changed in the canon AS WELL AS the offertory and communion.  

If one reduces the mass to the consecration only, they are mistakenly forgetting the other 2 essential parts of the mass.

The validity of the consecration is separate from the validity of the mass as a whole.  There can be a valid consecration but an invalid mass, just like a satanic mass can have a valid consecration but is obviously blasphemous.  

Please red more carefully: I said there is a presumption of validity WHEN valid minister, form, matter, and intent are present.

That should be indisputable, unless you want to explain how, despite the presence of all 4, the confection of a sacrament might still be questionable (heretical).
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 12:46:35 PM
Highly debatable, and even the Satanists know this, so Satanic Masses use stolen consecrated Hosts.

Already rebutted this, so I take your repetition to mean you simply don't want to be contradicted.

For the rest of the forum, here are a few examples to the contrary of priests celebrating black Masses (as opposed to Satanists simply having to steal hosts) amidst a whole slew of similar examples readily available by Google search:

"Catherine Monvoisin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Monvoisin) and the priest Étienne Guibourg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Guibourg) performed "Black Masses" for Madame de Montespan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_de_Montespan), the mistress of King Louis XIV of France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mass

More about the same:

"The leading organizer of such events was Catherine Deshayes, known as “La Voisin,” who was supposedly a witch that read fortunes and sold love philters. She was able to acquire priests [note the plural -SJ], probably also protesting the Church, to say these blasphemous masses, including the infamous Abbé Guiborg, who wore gold-trimmed and lace-lined vestments and scarlet shoes...He [a priest -SJ] consecrated the host..."
https://www.themystica.com/black-mass/

Here is another:

"A priest in Orleans, Gentien le Clerc, tried in 614-1615, confessed to performing the “Devil’s mass” "
https://www.themystica.com/black-mass/

Note: These links describe horrible filth; be careful.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 01:23:53 PM
I disagree, and so does St. Thomas.  It's based on the objective and externally-manifested (albeit internal) intention of the minister.  So if the priest performs the Catholic Rite as prescribed, he has the intention to do WHAT the Church DOES ...
A priest who forms a contrary internal intention does not confect the sacrament, despite the performance of the external rite.

Generally speaking, we are morally certain that a priest who performs a sacramental rite (e.g., TLM or NOM) possesses sufficient intention, because there can only be positive doubt regarding a contrary intention if it is manifested somehow in the external forum.

But this is not the case in Fr. Scott's argument:

He is not concerned about what is being externally manifested, but in what is NOT being externally manifested.

By definition, this can only produce a negative doubt, since, there being no external manifestation of a contrary intention, the consideration pertains to the internal forum (which is unknowable without such external manifestation).

In short, the requisite intention, which is nearly automatic (and not on the basis of the form of the rite, but on the basis of a sane priest performing a sacramental rite obviously aware of doing what the Church does) is so difficult to lose, that doubting its presence without any manifestation of having formed a contrary intention, is practically inadmissible.

Here, once again, is Fortesque:

“People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament… The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”

-Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 01:42:43 PM
A priest who forms a contrary internal intention does not confect the sacrament, despite the performance of the external rite.

Generally speaking, we are morally certain that a priest who performs a sacramental rite (e.g., TLM or NOM) possesses sufficient intention, because there can only be positive doubt regarding a contrary intention if it is manifested somehow in the external forum.

But this is not the case in Fr. Scott's argument:

He is not concerned about what is being externally manifested, but in what is NOT being externally manifested.

By definition, this can only produce a negative doubt, since, there being no external manifestation of a contrary intention, the consideration pertains to the internal forum (which is unknowable without such external manifestation).

In short, the requisite intention, which is nearly automatic (and not on the basis of the form of the rite, but on the basis of a sane priest performing a sacramental rite obviously aware of doing what the Church does) is so difficult to lose, that doubting its presence without any manifestation of having formed a contrary intention, is practically inadmissible.

Here, once again, is Fortesque:

“People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament… The ‘implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted’ means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it — unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is. (This was the error of St Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I [254–257] protested.) A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”

-Adrian Fortescue: The Greek Fathers

Is that last (bolded) line sinking in?

It directly contradicts Fr. Scott (who worries that the new priests, not knowing whether they are celebrating a sacrifice or a meal, may not have the right intention).

Fortescue says that is completely irrelevant: "A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.”
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 09, 2018, 02:21:56 PM

Quote
Highly debatable, and even the Satanists know this, so Satanic Masses use stolen consecrated Hosts.
Your point is valid if we’re talking about a satanic priest who was never a real priest.  In the case of a former valid priest-turned-satanist, then the consecration would be valid, and there are historical cases of this.  
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 09, 2018, 02:26:04 PM

Quote
Generally speaking, we are morally certain that a priest who performs a sacramental rite (e.g., TLM or NOM) possesses sufficient intention, because there can only be positive doubt regarding a contrary intention if it is manifested somehow in the external forum.
The point is that when comparing the external intentions of the TLM vs the NOM, one is comparing apples-oranges.  Cardinal Ottaviani, and his fellow theologians (of which you are not one) said that the external intention of the NOM is corrupted and cannot be trusted as a visible display of the sacramental intention, due to the changes in the prayers, which affect the mass’ overall purpose and also the priest's intention.  
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 02:48:50 PM
The point is that when comparing the external intentions of the TLM vs the NOM, one is comparing apples-oranges.  Cardinal Ottaviani, and his fellow theologians (of which you are not one) said that the external intention of the NOM is corrupted and cannot be trusted as a visible display of the sacramental intention, due to the changes in the prayers, which affect the mass’ overall purpose and also the priest's intention.  

External intention?

Please quote the passage.

Internal intention is what is requisite for a valid intention.

The only bearing an external intention can have in the matter, is if it is a contrary external intention.

PS: I like how you are trying to make it seem as though Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the "Brief Critical Study."  

PPS: The Ottaviani Intervention wasa written before the NOM was officially promulgated.  Once that happened, here is what Ottaviani had to say:

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343) 

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 03:15:11 PM
External intention?

Please quote the passage.

Internal intention is what is requisite for a valid intention.

The only bearing an external intention can have in the matter, is if it is a contrary external intention.

PS: I like how you are trying to make it seem as though Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the "Brief Critical Study."  

PPS: The Ottaviani Intervention wasa written before the NOM was officially promulgated.  Once that happened, here is what Ottaviani had to say:

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)

Jean Madiran of Itineraires speculated that Cardinal Ottaviani (who was poor of eyesight) had been tricked by his secretary into signing the letter.

Plausible, but no more.

The problem with that theory is that Cardinal Ottaviani lived another 9 years without, to my knowledge, ever confirming Madiran's theory, or conversely, renouncing the letter he had signed.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: TxTrad on June 09, 2018, 03:19:05 PM

1) On a case by case basis, there may or may not be positive doubt as regards the validity of the NOM: But as a matter of principle, one cannot conclude they are all per se doubtful, because:
The good Archbishop Lefebvre, God rest his soul, would disagree with you:
- "And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith.This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)

-“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." (Conference April 11, 1990) 

-“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 passesThis new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

-“It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)

-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)

-“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 [new] 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.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)

-“… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (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." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)

-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

-“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)

-“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, August 1972, priestly retreat)

-“We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass!Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

-“…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)

“The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)

“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (Conference at Econe, June 24, 1981)
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 03:20:29 PM
Your point is valid if we’re talking about a satanic priest who was never a real priest.  In the case of a former valid priest-turned-satanist, then the consecration would be valid, and there are historical cases of this.  

You can't prove that it was valid.  Now, if said priest offered a Catholic Mass, then proceeded to take the Host for Satanic purposes, that would be one thing.  But if a consecration were made in the context of a Satanic ritual, that would not be valid.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 03:22:03 PM
The good Archbishop Lefebvre, God rest his soul, would disagree with you:
- "And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith.This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)

-“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." (Conference April 11, 1990)

-“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.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)

-“It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)

-“This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)

-“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 [new] 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.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)

-“… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here: "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,” and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (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." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)

-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

-“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)

-“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, August 1972, priestly retreat)

-“We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass!Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)

-“…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)

“… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)

“The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)

“…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (Conference at Econe, June 24, 1981)

Tx:

You like to quote mine?

Excellent!

Please find me one of the Archbishop saying something along the lines of, "Even in the face of a certainly validly ordained minister, with proper intention, valid form and matter, the conciliar sacraments are nonetheless all doubtful."

You won't be able to.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 03:22:40 PM
I agree with Archbishop Lefebvre, SeanJohnson (from one of the quotes above).

Quote
-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 03:23:50 PM
Tx:

You like to quote mine?

Excellent!

Please find me one of the Archbishop saying something along the lines of, "Even in the face of a certainly validly ordained minister, with proper intention, valid form and matter, the conciliar sacraments are nonetheless all doubtful."

You won't be able to.

See my previous post.  He's basing the doubt not on intention but on modifications to the rite.

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 03:24:05 PM
You can't prove that it was valid.  Now, if said priest offered a Catholic Mass, then proceeded to take the Host for Satanic purposes, that would be one thing.  But if a consecration were made in the context of a Satanic ritual, that would not be valid.

You should give up on this one.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: TxTrad on June 09, 2018, 03:36:21 PM
Tx:

You like to quote mine?

Excellent!

Please find me one of the Archbishop saying something along the lines of, "Even in the face of a certainly validly ordained minister, with proper intention, valid form and matter, the conciliar sacraments are nonetheless all doubtful."

You won't be able to.
Matter, form and intent don't matter if the NO mass is not Catholic. 
.
"And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith."
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 03:37:50 PM
Quote
Quote
-“The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)

Ladislaus-

From Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol II, CH 40):

"I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:

Quote
Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfill their Sunday obligation."
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

Question: How can Archbishop Lefebvre be acknowledging that people fulfill their Sunday obligation at the NOM, if, as you say, he considers those masses all of doubtful validity??
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: trad123 on June 09, 2018, 03:41:35 PM
You can't prove that it was valid.  Now, if said priest offered a Catholic Mass, then proceeded to take the Host for Satanic purposes, that would be one thing.  But if a consecration were made in the context of a Satanic ritual, that would not be valid.

That makes sense, otherwise one could argue a priest would confer the sacrament by merely performing, "This is My Body", without the rest of the rite.

Take out everything else, would it still be a valid confection of the sacrament?

Matter, bread. Form, the words of consecration, intention, within the confines of a Catholic rite.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
Matter, form and intent don't matter if the NO mass is not Catholic.
.
"And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith."

That's a reference to conciliarism, not a per se invalidity of the NOM.

And of course, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of many non-Catholic sacraments, so long as they preserve proper form, matter, and intent (e.g., the baptisms of schismatics and heretical sects).
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 03:45:23 PM
There johnson goes again.  ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.

Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church. 

Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 03:48:09 PM
There johnson goes again.  ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.

Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church.  

Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.

Ignoramus-

This is just for you:  It is Archbishop Lefebvre himself explaining he often uses hyperbole to make a point.  Only dunces like you try to make him literal:

Archbishop Lefebvre Explains Himself
by
Sean Johnson
9/6/17
http://sodalitium-pianum.com/archbishop-lefebvre-explains-himself/ (http://sodalitium-pianum.com/archbishop-lefebvre-explains-himself/)

It would seem that the Jonestown Sect has for its only purpose to attack Bishop Williamson (and those aligned with him).  The Sect has nothing else to really offer; it exudes only bitter zeal; it reveals nothing of any interior life; there is no evidence of holiness and sanctity from any of its adherents; it shows no good fruits.  It exists only as the beneficiary of a parasitic and symbiotic relationship to Bishop Williamson, in much the same way the Ecclesia Dei communities survive on the spiritual legacy of the Archbishop and Society they opposed: Without Bishop Williamson, Jonestown fades into immediate irrelevancy.  And so, it travels the world attacking the Bishop who ironically gives them life, and whom they must continue to attack if they are to sustain their diminishing flock of zealots.
The latest attempt to grab some attention comes from Tony La Rosa, in an article he has titled, "The Conciliarization of Bishop Williamson's Thinking Regarding the Catholic Church (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2017/09/05/the-conciliarization-of-bishop-williamsons-thinking-regarding-the-catholic-church/)."
The stated thesis of Mr. La Rosa's article is to demonstrate that Bishhop Williamson no longer adheres to Archbishop Lefebvre's distinction between the "conciliar church" and the "Catholic Church," and he begins his argument with this Archbishop Lefebvre blurb (formatting his), quoted in Avrille's journal Sel de la Terre, #36, p. 10):
“How could it be more clear?! From now on it is the conciliar church one must obey and be faithful to , and not to the Catholic Church. This is precisely our problem. We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church, of which we do not want to be a part. This conciliar church is a schismatic church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church of all time. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new liturgy, already condemned by the Church in many official and definitive documents. This is why the founders of the conciliar church insist on obedience to the church of today, making abstraction of the Church of yesterday, as if it didn’t exist anymore. […] The church which affirms such errors is at one and the same time heretical and schismatic. This conciliar church is therefore not Catholic. In the measure in which the Pope, the bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church. The church of today is the true Church only in the measure in which it continues and is one with the Church of yesterday and of always. The norm for the Catholic faith is Tradition.”
Those were the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976.
Sound like an open and shut case?
Well, read that 1976 quote in conjunction with this later one from 1980, in which the Archbishop explained to priests on retreat at Econe how they ought to understand him when he speaks strongly, referring to the church, council, or conciliarists as "schismatic":
"I am not saying that in words one cannot use one phrase and then oppose it with another one, pull it out of context and, thus, make me say things that are not in my mind. I have sometimes dared to use strong phrases, for example, that the Council was more or less schismatic. In a certain sense it is true because there is a certain break with Tradition. So in the sense that the Council is in breach with Tradition, it can be said, to some extent, that it is schismatic. But when I said that, it was not to say that the Council is really, profoundly schismatic, definitively. You have to understand everything I say. The Council is schismatic insofar as it breaks with the past, that is true. But that does not mean that it is schismatic in the precise, theological sense of the word.
So when you take terms like that, you can say, “You see ! If the Council is schismatic, the pope who signed the Council is schismatic, and all the bishops who signed the Council are schismatics, so that we no longer have the right to be with them.” This is false reasoning. It’s madness, it does not make sense!"  http://tradidi.com/articles/abl-schismatic-council/ (http://tradidi.com/articles/abl-schismatic-council/)
But this is not the position Mr. La Rosa attributes to Archbishop Lefebvre.
In fact, Mr. La Rosa makes the Archbishop say exactly the opposite, and comes to the conclusion that:
"It is clear from these words that the Archbishop understood the Catholic Church and the conciliar “church” to be two formally separate entities even though they share material elements (e.g., members of the hierarchy)."
In fact, it is exactly the opposite which is clear.
And from this point, Mr. La Rosa moves on to an easy, but erroneous, conclusion regarding Bishop Williamson:
"It is sad, however, that Bishop Richard Williamson has deviated from the Archbishop’s position on this significant matter.  It is the purpose of this post to show the conciliarization of Bishop Williamson’s thinking regarding the Catholic Church."
But the deviation is not Bishop Williamson's, but rather, Mr. La Rosa's, who has very obviously erred in the matter because he based the entire substance of his article on a singular Archbishop Lefebvre quote, apparently never thinking to check this quote against other pronouncements of the Archbishop on the same subject.
Scholarly research requires more than mere quote mining.
Our contention is that the 1976 quote is clearly to be read within the context of the Archbishop's later 1980 explanation, and that explanation is clearly this:
When the Archbishop refers to the council, new Mass, conciliarists, or conciliar church as "schismatic," he -by his own words- does not meant to be taken literally, but rather, as making a metaphorical comparison as a means by which to distinguish Tradition from conciliar innovation and modernism.
Some (like the learned Fr. Gleize), have gone in the other direction, saying that when Archbishop Lefebvre has referred to a "conciliar church" (and therefore to the council, conciliarists, etc), he was only speaking of a certain "spirit of the council."
This seems to us to understate the matter considerably, since such an understanding would rob the term "conciliar church" of any practical usefulness in distinguishing Tradition from modernism.
On the other hand, others (like Mr. La Rosa, et al.) have given this tendency of the Archbishop to speak of "conciliarists," or a "conciliar church," or the Council as "schismatic" an excessively rigorous interpretation, which would have the Archbishop formally and theologically declaring them to be schismatic properly speaking (a claim the Archbishop expressly denies in the 1980 quote above).
Quite clearly, there cannot be "one pope for two churches," as other learned clergy have opined, since the papacy does not allow for "dual citizenship:" One who is a member of another religion/church cannot also be the pope of the Catholic Church, any more than the Dalai Llama could be pope, and for this simple reason: The Catholic religion is exclusive.  Consequently, the natural and inevitable result of believing in "one pope for two churches" is sedevacantism and ecclesiavacantism, once this realization sinks in to the minds of those who profess this theory (even if, in order to resist that inevitable conclusion, they forcibly pre-empt their minds from continuing in that direction).
If one properly understands the distinction between the merely "authentic magisterium" (i.e., The teaching of lawful authorities which nevertheless, having no basis in Tradition, can never be binding, and therefore exist only at the level of personal opinion, even if taught universally by these ecclesiastical authorities) versus the "ordinary magisterium" (whose teachings are all backed by Tradition, and which is infallible for precisely that reason), then it is not necessary to seek another dangerous model to distinguish between Catholic tradition and conciliar novelty, such as the "conciliar church" explanation (and all the confusion and haggling which ensues from any discussion of that concept, as the three positions, and the present debate, clearly illustrate).
And so we return to a common theme amidst this crisis (in both the Church and the SSPX): Maintaining balance, falling neither into excess nor defect.
It is not that Bishop Williamson has "conciliarized his thinking," but rather, that Mr. La Rosa not properly understood Archbishop Lefebvre's mind on this important point.
Fortunately, we have the Archbishop's own explanation regarding his statements in this regard, and owe Samuel at the Tradidi blog a debt of gratitude for finding and translating that important explanation.
But there will be more attempts to sink Bishop Williamson.
There HAS to be more attempts.....if the Sect is to survive.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 03:48:28 PM
Duplicate.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: TxTrad on June 09, 2018, 03:57:26 PM
There johnson goes again.  ABL said it is a DIFFERENT faith.

Yet johnson goes on to say it is has 'proper intention' of the catholic church.  

Can't get any more cognitive dissonance than that.
one can only lead a horse to water...
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 04:04:37 PM
one can only lead a horse to water...
ya, then the horse changes the water into koolaid.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 04:08:53 PM
johnson, how much of what ABL said the new church is not catholic for you to understand it is not catholic?

No catholic = no intention of the Catholic church.

Is that simple enough?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 04:14:19 PM
It is Archbishop Lefebvre himself explaining he often uses hyperbole to make a point.  Only dunces like you try to make him literal:

If he did, then it's incredibly irresponsible of him to be so imprecise when people's souls are on the line.

or, rather,

SJ = BS.

+Lefebvre's position and his rhetoric changed over the years, depending on whether or not he FELT closer to Rome or more alienated by Rome.  So, in this sense, the Archbishop was not consistent and this was a failure on his part.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 04:15:05 PM
That makes sense, otherwise one could argue a priest would confer the sacrament by merely performing, "This is My Body", without the rest of the rite.
...as was often done in the gulags behind the iron curtain (though the wine was also consecrated).
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 04:16:01 PM
If he did, then it's incredibly irresponsible of him to be so imprecise when people's souls are on the line.

or, rather,

SJ = BS.

"IF" he did?

I put the quote right in front of your face, but I suppose you can't be bothered by quotes which disrupt your narrative.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 04:17:10 PM
...as was often done in the gulags behind the iron curtain (though the wine was also consecrated).

It's one thing to say the Rite minimalistically, as in the gulag scenario, but quite another when you put alongside it stuff that in the external forum puts it into a non-Catholic context.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: trad123 on June 09, 2018, 04:17:16 PM
No catholic = no intention of the Catholic church.

Emphasis needs to be placed that the rite itself is not Catholic.

Article 9. Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article9

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 04:18:20 PM
"IF" he did?

I put the quote right in front of your face, but I suppose you can't be bothered by quotes which disrupt your narrative.

Quotes without any context, as per usual, in particular, WHEN he said them.  +Lefebvre is known for having vacillated.  I put quotes from him in front of you, and you just fled the discussion like a baby and started a new thread.  There were many times that +Lefebvre says it's entirely likely that the See has been vacant, but you stick your fingers in your ears and start chanting "la la la".

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 04:19:03 PM
Emphasis needs to be placed that the rite itself is not Catholic.

Article 9. Whether faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4064.htm#article9

You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Ladislaus on June 09, 2018, 04:19:54 PM
You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?

SOME are recognized as valid.  It has to do with the context and understanding of what the Prots claim to be doing with the Rite.  Yet the Church routinely administers conditional Baptism on Prot converts, since they're not quite as sure as you are about it.  I certainly wouldn't stake my eternal salvation on a Lutheran Baptism, nor a Novus Ordo one for that matter.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 04:23:35 PM
From Sean....

Quote
2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.

See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:

http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained


and he continues two pages later...........

Quote
Is that last (bolded) line sinking in?

It directly contradicts Fr. Scott (who worries that the new priests, not knowing whether they are celebrating a sacrifice or a meal, may not have the right intention)......

Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I wonder if the priest has the proper intention?  After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.).  According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the point.


And to recall the Archbishop:

Quote
These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid."

So which is it Sean? Do you agree with Fr. Scott or not? Do you disagree with the Archbishop? You are entitled to disagree with them, but I would prefer that you be honest about it if you do.

Here is what Fr. Scott says on  a negative doubt

 "A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any reason"

But what you're missing here Sean is that THERE IS A REASON to doubt the INTENTION TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: trad123 on June 09, 2018, 04:23:39 PM
It seems erroneous to label such rites as Protestant, rather than to say Protestant's using a Catholic rite.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: hismajesty on June 09, 2018, 04:32:30 PM
Just some more on what doubt is... From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"Doubt is either positive or negative. In the former case, the evidence for and against is so equally balanced as to render decision impossible; in the latter, the doubt arises from the absence of sufficient evidence on either side."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm

In our case it is the doubt that the priest intends to do what the Church intends. NOT his faith.

It is not a negative doubt, because there is good reason, as explained by the Archbishop to doubt that they are doing what the Church does.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 06:02:02 PM
You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?
You mean like all of the protestant (non-catholic) 'rites'...which the Church places as INVALID which is why the Church does conditional EVERYTHING!
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 06:18:09 PM
Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo.   But that is not the point or even a true fact.
A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
 The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires.  I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.
:applause:
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Unbrandable on June 09, 2018, 07:12:34 PM
Quote
Ladislaus-

From Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol II, CH 40):

"I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:
http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

Question: How can Archbishop Lefebvre be acknowledging that people fulfill their Sunday obligation at the NOM, if, as you say, he considers those masses all of doubtful validity??

Archbishop Lefebvre - January 13, 1983
 
The Mass, what do you think of the Mass? ... I have repeated it a hundred times. - Invalid, not valid? … I think that if it is said with all the conditions required for validity, the intention, it is likely valid. In the translations, I did not say it was invalid. Someone said to me today: - It seems that you said that all the translations made the Mass invalid! I never said a thing like that, never. I said that it gave a doubt to the validity, a doubt, it is true. But listen, I am not a superpope, so I cannot decide things that will maybe be decided by a Pope in four centuries! Why in four centuries? Well the Anglican ordinations, it was Pope Leo XIII who decided that they were not valid. And for how long have there been Anglicans ordained in four centuries? And the Pope waited four centuries to say publicly that these ordinations are invalid. So do not ask me to decide all at once: - That is invalid, it is surely invalid. I cannot decide everything! I think it is, because of the assertion of St. Thomas who says that if one changes the formula of the Precious Blood, if the words which are maybe not necessary for the validity but change the sense of the phrase Hic is calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, if one changes the sense of the Blood, the conception that one has of the redemptive Blood, then that makes the Mass invalid. Does changing the term for all instead of for many even change the meaning of the redemptive Blood of Our Lord? It is possible, because the application of this Blood is not for all, it is for many. It is only the application; it is not the essential, if you will, of the Redemption. So I cannot decide absolutely, these are things that are too delicate to change. I think that it is really necessary for a pope to decide, who has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to say: - All those Masses were invalid. It is possible maybe that in 50 or 100 years, a solemn declaration will say: - Those Masses were invalid. I do not know, but do not make me say that all those Masses are invalid. There are many that are invalid, more and more are invalid, it is true because the intention of the young priests now is more and more wrong, is more and more false. They no longer want to do what the Church does. So obviously the Masses become more and more invalid. Then the matter also, they change the matter ...”
 

“La messe, qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la messe ?… Je l’ai répété cent fois. – Invalide, pas invalide ?… Je pense que si elle est dite avec toutes les conditions requises pour la validité, l’intention, elle est vraisemblablement valide. Dans les traductions, je n’ai pas dit qu’elle était invalide. Quelqu’un m’a dit aujourd’hui : - Il paraît que vous avez dit que toutes les traductions rendaient la messe invalide ! Je n’ai jamais dit une chose comme cela, jamais. J’ai dit que ça donnait un doute sur la validité, un doute, c’est vrai. Mais écoutez, je ne suis pas justement un super-pape, alors moi je ne peux pas trancher des choses qui seront peut-être tranchées par le pape dans quatre siècles ! Pourquoi dans quatre siècles ? Et bien, les ordinations anglicanes, c’est le Pape Léon XIII qui a tranché qu’elles n’étaient pas valides. Et depuis combien de temps il y a eu des anglicans ordonnés en quatre siècles ? Et le pape a attendu quatre siècles pour dire publiquement que ces ordinations sont invalides. Alors ne me demandez pas à moi de décider tout à coup : - Ça c’est invalide, c’est sûrement invalide. Je ne peux pas tout décider ! Je pense qu’il y a, à cause de l’assertion de Saint Thomas qui dit que si on change la formule du Précieux Sang, si les mots qui ne sont peut-être pas nécessaires pour la validité mais changent le sens de l’expression Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, si on change le sens du Sang, la conception qu’on a du Sang rédempteur, alors ça rend invalide la messe. Est-ce que de changer le terme pour tous au lieu de pour beaucoup, est-ce que ça change la signification même du Sang rédempteur de Notre-Seigneur ? C’est possible, parce que l’application de ce Sang n’est pas pour tous, elle est pour beaucoup. Ce n’est que l’application, ce n’est pas l’essentiel, si on veut, de la Rédemption. Alors moi, je ne peux pas trancher absolument, ce sont des choses qui sont trop délicates à changer. Je pense qu’il faut vraiment pour cela un pape qui tranche, qui ait lui l’inspiration du Saint-Esprit pour dire : - Toutes ces messes-là étaient invalides. C’est possible peut-être que dans 50 ans, 100 ans, une déclaration solennelle dise : - Ces messes-là étaient invalides. Je n’en sais rien, mais ne me faites pas dire à moi que toutes ces messes-là sont invalides. Il y en a beaucoup d’invalides, de plus en plus d’invalides, c’est vrai parce que l’intention des jeunes prêtres maintenant est de plus en plus mauvaise, est de plus en plus fausse. Ils ne veulent plus faire ce que fait l’Eglise. Alors évidemment les messes deviennent de plus en plus invalides. Ensuite la matière aussi, on change la matière…”
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 08:44:41 PM
Archbishop Lefebvre - January 13, 1983
 
The Mass, what do you think of the Mass? ... I have repeated it a hundred times. - Invalid, not valid? … I think that if it is said with all the conditions required for validity, the intention, it is likely valid. In the translations, I did not say it was invalid. Someone said to me today: - It seems that you said that all the translations made the Mass invalid! I never said a thing like that, never. I said that it gave a doubt to the validity, a doubt, it is true. But listen, I am not a superpope, so I cannot decide things that will maybe be decided by a Pope in four centuries! Why in four centuries? Well the Anglican ordinations, it was Pope Leo XIII who decided that they were not valid. And for how long have there been Anglicans ordained in four centuries? And the Pope waited four centuries to say publicly that these ordinations are invalid. So do not ask me to decide all at once: - That is invalid, it is surely invalid. I cannot decide everything! I think it is, because of the assertion of St. Thomas who says that if one changes the formula of the Precious Blood, if the words which are maybe not necessary for the validity but change the sense of the phrase Hic is calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, if one changes the sense of the Blood, the conception that one has of the redemptive Blood, then that makes the Mass invalid. Does changing the term for all instead of for many even change the meaning of the redemptive Blood of Our Lord? It is possible, because the application of this Blood is not for all, it is for many. It is only the application; it is not the essential, if you will, of the Redemption. So I cannot decide absolutely, these are things that are too delicate to change. I think that it is really necessary for a pope to decide, who has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to say: - All those Masses were invalid. It is possible maybe that in 50 or 100 years, a solemn declaration will say: - Those Masses were invalid. I do not know, but do not make me say that all those Masses are invalid. There are many that are invalid, more and more are invalid, it is true because the intention of the young priests now is more and more wrong, is more and more false. They no longer want to do what the Church does. So obviously the Masses become more and more invalid. Then the matter also, they change the matter ...”
 

“La messe, qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la messe ?… Je l’ai répété cent fois. – Invalide, pas invalide ?… Je pense que si elle est dite avec toutes les conditions requises pour la validité, l’intention, elle est vraisemblablement valide. Dans les traductions, je n’ai pas dit qu’elle était invalide. Quelqu’un m’a dit aujourd’hui : - Il paraît que vous avez dit que toutes les traductions rendaient la messe invalide ! Je n’ai jamais dit une chose comme cela, jamais. J’ai dit que ça donnait un doute sur la validité, un doute, c’est vrai. Mais écoutez, je ne suis pas justement un super-pape, alors moi je ne peux pas trancher des choses qui seront peut-être tranchées par le pape dans quatre siècles ! Pourquoi dans quatre siècles ? Et bien, les ordinations anglicanes, c’est le Pape Léon XIII qui a tranché qu’elles n’étaient pas valides. Et depuis combien de temps il y a eu des anglicans ordonnés en quatre siècles ? Et le pape a attendu quatre siècles pour dire publiquement que ces ordinations sont invalides. Alors ne me demandez pas à moi de décider tout à coup : - Ça c’est invalide, c’est sûrement invalide. Je ne peux pas tout décider ! Je pense qu’il y a, à cause de l’assertion de Saint Thomas qui dit que si on change la formule du Précieux Sang, si les mots qui ne sont peut-être pas nécessaires pour la validité mais changent le sens de l’expression Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, si on change le sens du Sang, la conception qu’on a du Sang rédempteur, alors ça rend invalide la messe. Est-ce que de changer le terme pour tous au lieu de pour beaucoup, est-ce que ça change la signification même du Sang rédempteur de Notre-Seigneur ? C’est possible, parce que l’application de ce Sang n’est pas pour tous, elle est pour beaucoup. Ce n’est que l’application, ce n’est pas l’essentiel, si on veut, de la Rédemption. Alors moi, je ne peux pas trancher absolument, ce sont des choses qui sont trop délicates à changer. Je pense qu’il faut vraiment pour cela un pape qui tranche, qui ait lui l’inspiration du Saint-Esprit pour dire : - Toutes ces messes-là étaient invalides. C’est possible peut-être que dans 50 ans, 100 ans, une déclaration solennelle dise : - Ces messes-là étaient invalides. Je n’en sais rien, mais ne me faites pas dire à moi que toutes ces messes-là sont invalides. Il y en a beaucoup d’invalides, de plus en plus d’invalides, c’est vrai parce que l’intention des jeunes prêtres maintenant est de plus en plus mauvaise, est de plus en plus fausse. Ils ne veulent plus faire ce que fait l’Eglise. Alors évidemment les messes deviennent de plus en plus invalides. Ensuite la matière aussi, on change la matière…”
 
 
 
 

The part you underlined towards the top about Archbishop Lefebvre expressing a doubt about the validity of the NOM is prefaced by the words, “In the translations...”

In other words, he is not speaking of doubt in the NOM as promulgated.

Tune in to a new thread for a new prediction...
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 09:09:25 PM
Starting a new thread again to run away from this umpteenth one you started and are slammed down again for obtuse views?  Everything you start you run away from.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 09, 2018, 09:13:38 PM
Starting a new thread again to run away from this umpteenth one you started and are slammed down again for obtuse views?  Everything you start you run away from.

Ignoramus and Flats:

You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: ignatius on June 09, 2018, 09:28:54 PM
Ignoramus and Flats:

You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.
Thanks for your flattery.  Your juvenile intellectual capacity is well deserved serving with the rats in the sewer tunnels.  You may want an award for the bully who always runs away.

Can we progress now with some real conversation without your diminutive qualities?
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 10, 2018, 11:16:03 AM
As much as I respect +ABL, he was not a theologian, and nowhere close to the level of +Ottaviani and the others who studied the ‘perfect’ new mass and still found so many deficiencies that they characterized it as a protestantized departure from the catholic understanding of the mass, as taught by Trent.  

The countless ‘conservative’ novus ordo-ites who factlessly defend the novus ordo and its “abuses” (ie sacrileges) do so under the naive idea that the “true, pure” novus ordo is pleasing to God.  “If only the REAL novus ordo was used, like Paul VI wanted, then the Church’s problems would be fixed”, they say. And they wait for this nirvana-like utopia to one day happen, because they haven’t faced reality - that is, the novus ordo is not pure, will never be perfect and is inherently flawed.  

+Ottaviani and company studied the “pure, utopian” new mass and came away disgusted by its anti-catholic errors.  They studied the NOM in its “perfect” form, without any abuses/sacrileges, without its full Masonic/humanistic liturgy in place, before the widespread blasphemy of communion in the hand and all the other liturgical mayhem which was added into the Martin Luther-inspired mockery of Christ’s sacrifice of the cross.

It matters not if +Ottaviani changed his mind 100% about his critical study, all that matters are facts.  What he and his fellow theologians wrote about the evils of this new liturgy is still true, it’s problems still exist (and are now worse), it’s theology is still defunct, deficient and communistically deplorable.  

Nothing in +Ottaviani’s ‘change of heart’ letter challenges his previous theological assertions, nor does it change the reality that the NOM is a striking departure from Trent and 2,000 years of consistent catholic teaching on the purpose, goal and beauty of the Mass - which many V2 theologians readily, proudly and openly admit.

Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: arnold on June 11, 2018, 07:15:08 AM
External intention?

Please quote the passage.

Internal intention is what is requisite for a valid intention.

The only bearing an external intention can have in the matter, is if it is a contrary external intention.

PS: I like how you are trying to make it seem as though Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the "Brief Critical Study."  

PPS: The Ottaviani Intervention wasa written before the NOM was officially promulgated.  Once that happened, here is what Ottaviani had to say:

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)
From the Ottaviani Intervention (emphasis mine):
..... All this, in short, changes the modus significandi of the words of Consecration--how they show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgment "This is My Body." [29 (http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm#29)
29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. 
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Unbrandable on June 11, 2018, 07:55:47 AM
The part you underlined towards the top about Archbishop Lefebvre expressing a doubt about the validity of the NOM is prefaced by the words, “In the translations...”

In other words, he is not speaking of doubt in the NOM as promulgated.

Tune in to a new thread for a new prediction...

Nonetheless, there were/are a lot of "translated" Masses, so that makes a lot of doubtfully valid Masses.
Title: Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
Post by: Jaynek on June 11, 2018, 11:33:38 AM
Ignoramus and Flats:

You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.
You were speculating elsewhere about why you get down votes, Sean.  I have given you many and this is sort of post that leads to it. 

It is not because I am a sede or object to the R&R position.  On the contrary, I voted R&R on a recent forum poll.  I have become more sympathetic to SVs as a result of this papacy.  I moved from considering them schismatic to seeing it as an error of fact.  But I am very far from accepting the SV position.

When I have voted down your posts, it is because I object to you making yourself an Inquisitor and to your belligerent style. I disliked your style when I saw it in the Anonymous subforum and did not know it was you.