Also, here we avoid quoting Canon Law from the New (1983) Code. I attached a pdf of the 1917 Canon Law for you to use.....you will find that it does not have anything close to your above Canon Law quote - because all those things within the "The Divine Deposit" are unchangeable. Why? Because God ("Divine") is the one who deposited all those things in there. All those things in the "Divine Deposit (of faith)" are to be believed, preserved, defended and promulgated, not changed. Nobody can change anything within it.

* That was my point. Because sacraments are part of the divine deposit, their substance, protected by the Holy Ghost, remains unchanged.

The NO Canon Law in your quote is right when it says: "it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirement for their validity...". The sacrament's validity was previously, already approved and defined by the Supreme Authority of the Church, so what PPVI did was he made and defined his own NO sacrament, then he approved it.

* Pope Paul VI was the Supreme authority. This means he had the authority to "approve or define". He could not touch the substance - that is divinely protected - but he could lawfully make changes.

Quote from: Boru on September 02, 2025, 09:22:08 PMYes, that's right, the sacrament of Extreme Unction does indeed remain unchanged. The sacrament of "Anointing" is not in the Divine Deposit of Faith because PPVI is not divine and cannot deposit anything in there.

* Pope Paul VI did not deposit a new sacrament. 'The anointing of the sick' - a title used in antiquity - maintains the same Matter, Form, Intention of old. The ability to effect grace is still the same even though the traditional prayers and wording has been stripped back to a more simplistic form. As I mentioned to you in a previous post, if this sacrament, in an emergency, is deemed valid with just a quick cross on the forehead and a a quick prayer expressing the intent of the sacrament, then we can rest assured that this more expansive formula is also valid.

All those things in the Deposit of Faith are the Church's to safeguard and to use for the salvation of souls. She is the defender, protector and administer of all those things. Period. Popes do not have the power or authority to change any of those things within the deposit of faith.

* The formula of all the sacraments have changed over the centuries. Different rites, different prayers, different titles. What has never changed is the essentials.
   
He completely changed the sacrament's matter, form and intention. By him doing that, what he did was he replaced the sacrament of Extreme Unction with the NO sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. As I said earlier, the true sacrament was replaced with the new sacrament in much the same way that the True Mass was replaced with the new "mass."

You have a misguided idea as regards papal power and authority. This must change.

* Pope Paul the VI was the Supreme authority. When he was elected Pope, he became St. Peter who God gave the power to 'bind and loosen'. As we have stated numerous times, the Pope does not have the power to change the substance instituted by Christ - what the sacrament is. But he does have the power, as outlined by Pope Pius XII, to change its formula as long as the Matter, Form, and Intention still maintain the same sense of the sacrament and its intention to do what the Church has always done.


"So many Catholics have the idea that the pope, because he is the head of the Church, has limitless authority. This is altogether wrong. He is not at all limitless in what he may do, he is strictly bound to what he must do and he is bound to adhere to what has been established. The role and the duty of the pope is not to deviate from what has been established, but to make sure that all his subjects don’t deviate from it." - Fr. Wathen

* No, the Pope does not have limitless authority. He cannot change what Christ instituted. He cannot change divine or moral law. But he can change everything else. Yes, "the role and the duty of the Pope is not to deviate from what has been established but to make sure that all his subjects don't deviate from it". Totally correct. That is the role and duty of a Pope. Unfortunately, while his office is divine, his person is not and so when he is not teaching from the chair, he can err and set bad example. Again, distinctions need to be made.

I think that if you can erase what you currently think about the pope's authority and replace it with what is bolded, you will come to understand this issue and really, this whole crisis better. 

Your error is that you falsely define the Church as the pope.  Or those in new-rome as the Church.  Or some combination thereof.

**"Upon this rock I will build my Church." This rock is the visible foundation of the Church. We live in a rambley, old world, stone house. If we were to separate the house from its foundations, the house would collapse in a heap and be no more; because the house and its foundation are one.

You are personally defining what "the gates of hell shall not prevail" means, and then applying it to the V2 church.  But Christ was not that specific.  He never promised that the Church would always remain in rome, or that the pope would always remain orthodox.  Theologians for centuries have said that the idea that a pope could not become a heretic is a "pious belief".  Even they knew that such an idea is not a doctrine. 

** I'm defining it how it has always been defined: "Upon this rock (papacy) I will build my Church. And the gates of hell, will not prevail against it." Prevail: to be greater in strength or influence; to triumph over. The meaning is clear Pax - the gates of hell will not be greater in strength than the Papal Church (the fountain of grace) - even though hell will do its best to triumph over it.

The number of people who stayed true to Christ during His passion was a handful.  11 of the 12 apostles fled.  There's no doctrine which says that the Church could not succuмb to heresy to a very high %, if not most.  And that +ABL and a few hundred priests around the world would be all the remnant who resisted V2 and the apostasy.  There's NOTHING CONTRARY TO THE FAITH in this idea.  In fact, these few hundred Trad clerics, as a % of the whole cleric world, would be akin to the handful of faithful who remained faithful to Christ.

** I agree. What you have painted in broad strokes resembles what happened during the Arian heresy. My only objection is the use of Vatican II, and the implication of the word "remnant" in your line: "and a few hundred priests around the world would be the remnant who resisted V2 and the apostasy." Modernism did not start with Vatican II and Vatican II in itself as a council, was perfectly legit. Let us keep it to resisting 'Modernism' (because one can adhere to Modernism without necessarily being an apostate). As such, we must be careful about using the word 'remnant' as if we and a handful of others were now the Church. There are many Catholics who interpret V2 in light of tradition and ignore the abuses and false interpretations. They are certainly not apostates.

We also need to qualify what it means to be faithful to Christ. Christ is the Church; that visible Roman mystical body governed by the head, the Pope, the vicar of Christ. To be a member of this mystical body - to be faithful to it - we must stay united to it.

Your entire argument for V2 rests on your false opinion that "God wouldn't allow V2 to be heretical".  Or that "God wouldn't allow the Church to fall into such disarray".  But scholars say that the Arian heresy engulfed 95% of catholics and that was long, long ago. 

** That's not my argument. I am saying that despite this 'disarray' within the Church caused by Modernism, the deposit of faith has not been touched. The ruling authority of the Pope, Cardinals and bishops is not effected, and the divine 'fountain of grace', eternal and indefectible, continues on. I pay no heed to the smoke and mirrors caused by these Judas magicians within the Church and simply carry on living my Catholic life, of old, as if they weren't there, just like the Holy family did even though the Temple priests were corrupt and teaching erroneous man-made laws.

The historical parallels to V2 are all there; it's just V2 had the new dimension - a string of heretical popes.  Or a string of non-popes who pretended to be catholic.  Either way, this is a unique thing of history.  But there's NOTHING IN THE FAITH WHICH SAYS THIS CAN'T HAPPEN.  You (and many others) just DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT the possibility.  Your entire position rests on the "pious belief" that a pope cannot become a heretic.  Or that a non-pope can't sneak in and play pretend. 

** There is no precedent of a Pope being condemned as a heretic in over 2000 years of its history. Clearly, during the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius condemned St. Athanasius and signed an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox OR an Arian way - so to all appearances this Pope was a heretic - however, as soon as he was free from duress, this Pope came out clearly in favour of orthodoxy.

Heresy, as we know, comprises of matter (a belief contrary to a formal teaching of the Church) and form (pertinacity in the will).

It has been said that Pope Honorius was a heretic, however, this is not true. He was never accused of being a heretic during his lifetime but after his death he was condemned for not stepping in to stop a heresy and thus was considered guilty of its spread. He was not condemned as actually believing or teaching the heresy in question.


But our Faith isn't based on "pious beliefs".  We have to accept what is.  We have to accept that God's ways are mysterious.  And many times unpredictable.

** Exactly Pax, exactly.

If the mere continuity of bishops or ecclesiastical structures were sufficient to define the Church, could the Anglican Church under Henry VIII still be called Catholic despite its formal rupture with the Faith? By the same logic, can the Conciliar Church—having formally embraced and propagated error—truly claim to be the Catholic Church, even while asserting apostolic succession? One must examine not human appearances, but fidelity to the Faith, for it is the Faith that alone renders the Church both One and Apostolic.

Boru, the question I have for you is - you make a distinction between V2 (theoretically good) with the abuses (practical application).  But the abuses are all one sees. 

I see no theoretically good new masses, etc.  In fact, Cardinal Ottaviani/Bacci etc (all of whom were good friends with +ABL) in their "Ottaviani Critique" of the new mass (in its purest/theoretical form) said that the new mass was "deficient", "protestant" and "contrary to Trent".  This was BEFORE THE NEW MASS WAS INTRODUCED.  And the "final product" wasn't different from what +Ottaviani studied.

**I have read through the 'Ottaviani Critique'. I agree with everything in this report and it was heart breaking to actually read it. However, the report does not say that the 'new Mass' is deficient in effecting the sacrament. It states that the new Mass would please protestants, that it is deficient in conveying the true meaning of the sacrifice of the Mass, and that 

Are you saying that those who follow V2/new mass are going to save their souls?  And aren't Modernists?  And that the "liturgical abuses" (i.e. sacrileges/blasphemies) have no effect on salvation?  And no effect on grace?

** I am saying that those that participate in a new Mass that is said without abuses to the essential form, and by a priest who has the intent to do as the Church does, is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, yes.

Whether they are Modernists or not, I cannot tell you as I cannot read into their souls. I do know of many faithful who go to daily mainstream Mass, say the rosary every day, weekly adoration, and hold bible studies for the youth using a Douay Rheims bible. Are they going to save their souls? Most likely. Do they truly understand their faith? Unlikely, but they understand enough to do the above.

Liturgical abuses do not render a Mass invalid if the the consecration is done validly, that is, the priest uses the correct Form, the correct Matter, and intends to do what the Church intends.

Canon Law forbids attendance at sacrilegious masses, or from heretic priests, or from any liturgical "abuse".  Canon Law forbids participation at "abusive" liturgies.  Those who participate commit grave sins.

**Does the new Mass qualify as a sacrilegious or abusive mass and are priests heretics who offer up a new Mass? No. Not in themselves.

And such have been going on for 50+ years.  There's no "secret abuses".  It's all out in the open.  The V2 "system" is one of abuses; it's the NORM to see sacrileges, communion-in-the-hand, immodest dress, etc.  The practical errors are common.

** Agreed. The abuses are horrendous. However, they do not invalidate a Mass if said correctly.

So your argument is that the THEORETICAL Church cannot be prevailed upon by hell, but the practical/street-level/day-to-day can be (and has).  That's quite a statement.

** Divine and human in one body. According to the Catechism of Trent, the Church consists of two parts: the Church triumphant (gone before) and the Church militant (present on earth still facing the enemy). This Church militant is comprised of good and bad. (pg. 99). This is why we can have error inside the Church. That is the distinction. This human error or deliberate attack, however, cannot harm the divine - because whatever is of Christ is eternal and indestructible.

No theologian has ever made this distinction.  In fact, as I've pointed out in the past, Christ told us to JUDGE by the FRUITS (i.e. practical effects).  It's impossible for a (theoretically good) church to give/promote/condone/allow bad fruits/abusive liturgies/sacrilegious masses ON A DAILY LEVEL.

Its in the Catechism of Trent.

The V2 church is a system of error.  It's a systemic, daily, monthly, DECADES-long, error.  You can't apologize for it and say it's a "one off".  That's ludicrous.

However, the report does not say that the 'new Mass' is deficient in effecting the sacrament. It states that the new Mass would please protestants, that it is deficient in conveying the true meaning of the sacrifice of the Mass,