Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9

Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul  (Read 8813 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JPaul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3832
  • Reputation: +3722/-293
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2018, 03:37:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM
    Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
    The minister may or may not be, depending.
    Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
    I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.
    That they are questionable is enough to set them as off limits. Sean, that is the very point, if one cannot be sure of the validity of any given priest, then the validity of the sacrament must be held a doubtful, because the Church always requires us to take the safer course in these matters.

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

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

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

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #16 on: June 04, 2018, 10:57:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #17 on: June 04, 2018, 11:00:54 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0

    • 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.  
    Logged

    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 61
    • Reputation: +82/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #18 on: June 08, 2018, 01:41:36 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM
    Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
    The minister may or may not be, depending.
    Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
    I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #19 on: June 08, 2018, 09:44:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 04, 2018, 01:59:33 PM
    Neither form, matter, or intention of the NOM are necessarily doubtful.
    The minister may or may not be, depending.
    Consequently, the NOM is not in every instance doubtful (but remains evil despite possiblity of confecting a valid sacrament).
    I find the honesty of your rejection of ABL quite refreshing, despite my opposition to it.
    How on earth can it be valid if it's evil? 
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #20 on: June 08, 2018, 10:23:04 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!5
    • Quote from: forlorn on June 08, 2018, 09:44:20 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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41846
    • Reputation: +23908/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #21 on: June 08, 2018, 10:42:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 10:23:04 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.
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #22 on: June 08, 2018, 10:59:14 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on June 08, 2018, 10:42:48 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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3722/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #23 on: June 08, 2018, 11:18:39 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • 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.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #24 on: June 08, 2018, 11:23:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: 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.
    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.
    Logged

    Offline forlorn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2449
    • Reputation: +964/-1098
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #25 on: June 08, 2018, 11:26:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 10:23:04 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. 
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #26 on: June 08, 2018, 11:27:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
    • Quote from: 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.
    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.).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #27 on: June 08, 2018, 11:30:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
    • Quote from: forlorn on June 08, 2018, 11:26:25 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).
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5767
    • Reputation: +4620/-480
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #28 on: June 08, 2018, 11:33:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 08, 2018, 10:59:14 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"?
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15064
    • Reputation: +9980/-3161
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #29 on: June 08, 2018, 11:56:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: TKGS on June 08, 2018, 11:33:50 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.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
    « previous next »