So if this crisis unprecedented in the Church warrants... what crisis? Start by reading the Ottaviani Intervention, after reading this and other studies of the new mass...see what Fr. Hesse and Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests of Campos said about the new mass....

You make a good point.  I know it sounds elementary here, but I think I'm interested in having a thesis proved ... in technical and exact terms.  The thesis:

The Church is in a state of emergency.

It certainly seems so to me.  But what constitutes an emergency?  Isn't this current environment bad enough?

Are there any docuмentaries that focus on this singular point?

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Doesn't CMTV also "not have faculties" from their local Detroit bishop, and that is why they were forced to change their name from RealCatholicTV?

If so, isn't it arguable that CMTV is also in a spirit of rebellion against their very own local authority?

Yes and there are bishops who don't allow them to come speak in their dioceses.

And yet, that's okay if THEY do it.  They've cornered the market.

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Ladislaus

R&R has polluted your minds to the point that I can hardly recognize you as Catholics anymore.  If you do not understand the validity of Voris' arguments, then I would have to agree with him that you are in fact a schismatic.  Your insanely stupid "faith is greater than obedience" crap is just beyond the pale.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not a sedevacantist (a sede-doubtist rather), but had I been sure with certainty of faith that V2 Popes are legitimate Popes I would not attend the SSPX chapel.

I don't think they have the certainty of faith either, but they won't admit it.

Well considering that R&R has been the essential position of the Society along with other unpopular "trad" stances such as being against Feeneyism from the beginning, the SSPX is much too milquetoast (read heretical!) for a lot of those who post here anyway... although every trad group out there has and continues to benefit from its existence.

So Laramie, pick your piece of floating debris carefully. There aren't that many that maintain their buoyancy, just try to focus on the Mass. As Bishop Williamson has said, this is a crisis of authority and nothing will be 100% safe or surefire until it is corrected from the top. Matter, form and intent, everything else you can sort out later.

One thing is for certain: the New Mass is a danger to the faith, validly consecrated Host or not.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

I do not feel qualified to know what to decide.  I do not know what I am doing.  I do not know what to believe.

How on earth can you not know what you are doing?  

Probably because I'm just a regular guy.  Not a Canon lawyer.  I do radiography.  Not theology.  I've always been on the fence on the matter.  Then, last week, after a crappy diocesan mass experience, I resolved to take the family to SSPX.  Then Voris came out with all this.  I'm confused.  I'm waiting for more development on this matter.  I am eager to watch the special tomorrow and to read detailed rebuttals.

First, if you mistake Michael Voris for a theologian or Canon Lawyer or even an expert on the SSPX issue, then you are mistaken.

But there are people like Fr. Hesse who are theologians and have spoke on the issue time and time again.

It seems like the core of your decision to be on the fence lies elsewhere, in that you do not see a grave crisis that you believe validates the SSPX position.  If the danger to souls is grave then Church law cannot go against the good of souls as the laws of the Church are ordered with their end in the salvation of souls.  So if this crisis unprecedented in the Church warrants... what crisis? Start by reading the Ottaviani Intervention, after reading this and other studies of the new mass...see what Fr. Hesse and Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests of Campos said about the new mass....

Referring to the work of the late Fr. Gregory Hesse is a good suggestion.

Fr. Hesse explained IN DETAIL how saying that Pope Paul VI "promulgated" the Novus Ordo mass is a lie.  Because he never promulgated the new mass.  The new mass was never promulgated.  But they have been claiming that it was -- another lie.  It's a foundational lie which they build upon, and when you build on a lie all your statements following are subject to negation because they're founded on a lie.

.

Here is a link that helps explain a little better about how the new "mass" is not protected by the Church's indefectibilty.

Briefly, Fr. Wathen's book, The Great Sacrilege, was finally challenged by one Brother Alexis Bugnolo. Br. Alexis did a Theological Critique of the book and disputed many of the claims in the book as being wrong.

Then some time later, 6 years I think, he came back and retracted his disputes, and he ended up agreeing with Fr. Wathen that the new mass is not protected by the Church's indefectibility - you can read why and what he said in the above link.
   

I had to do some reflection this evening/morning. I started off just recording a point-by-point play-through of how the last two weeks have progressed.

By the time I got to typing the end of the post, I found myself angry with CMTV once more.  Particularly when I saw Nicholson's nastily glib picture of who he thinks is a damned man.

"The more I think of [these] points, the more I return to being angry with CMTV. That is where I stand this morning."

Their 1-hour docuмentary came out this morning.  Don't have the heart to watch it at the moment.  I hope there'll be lots of analysis and refutation of any errors they might have.

Here's my latest.  I think I'm still on the SSPX team.

I'm tired.

Laramie,
You need to avoid confusion, which means you need to avoid CMTV and you need to avoid anything to do with the NO and new "mass" entirely.

Trads who have done as much over the last 5 decades or so are usually a lot less confused than folks relatively new to this crisis. Confusion is still pretty much there for everyone, but it seems confusion is more easily avoided when you do not permit your focus to be side tracked with crap like CMTV is sputtering. The stuff they are saying is the same stuff that the enemies have been saying for 50 years and is part of the reason you stayed a NOer even though you likely knew better, or at least knew there was something not right.

Do not even attempt to figure out the whole schism / jurisdiction thing - if you can get yourself to accept the fact that if the SSPX is in schism, then you will be forced to accept that the entire Church before V2 was in schism and CMTV is correct, accept that and move on with the NO.  

But you should know that is not the case, because all the SSPX did was not change. Because they did not change, they still offer the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, as of today their sacraments are undoubtedly valid and their catechetical instructions are over all sound - at least you won't lose your faith from them.

This is where you need to keep your focus as you block out all the noise from the likes of the CMTV crooks.

Quote from: Ladislaus

R&R has polluted your minds to the point that I can hardly recognize you as Catholics anymore.  If you do not understand the validity of Voris' arguments, then I would have to agree with him that you are in fact a schismatic.  Your insanely stupid "faith is greater than obedience" crap is just beyond the pale.

I couldn't agree more. I'm not a sedevacantist (a sede-doubtist rather), but had I been sure with certainty of faith that V2 Popes are legitimate Popes I would not attend the SSPX chapel.

Bravo!  Keep the faith, my friend!

People come up with justifications for R&R position which are sometime completely preposterous - one can see that  clearly on facebook groups of the SSPX supporters. A while ago I had a long argument there with a person who claimed that "a valid Pope can promulgate a liturgy that is harmful and schismatic without violating the Church's indefectibility" (direct quotation). His argument to support this assertion was that Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their famous Intervention called the New Mass schismatic but they recognized Paul VI as Pope. He also claimed that Paul VI promulgated the New Mass but it was not promulgated by the Church because "Paul VI abused his authority as Pope" . I understand the willingness to resist the crisis and at the same time fear of questioning the validity of V2 Popes and authority of post-Vatican II Church (which I think is one of the major factors leading to R&R position), but the results of these two mixed together are sometimes completely untenable positions.

Yes, these arguments are complete non-Catholic junk.  I don't care anything about what Ottaviani and Bacci did or did not say.  No theologian has ever admitted the possibility that the Pope could promulgate a harmful, non-Catholic, "bastard" rite of Mass that Catholics could not attend in good conscience.  If that wouldn't cause the Church to fail, then I have absolutely no idea what would.  At least with the non-promulgation argument they'll try to uphold in principle that the Universal Discipline of the Church cannot fail, but the non-promulgation position is absolutely ludicrous.  There's absolutely NO QUESTION that the V2 Popes promoted, promulgated, and desired the universal implementation of the NOM.  Whether or not they banned the Tridentine Mass per se is absolutely irrelevant.

.

the non-promulgation position is absolutely ludicrous.  There's absolutely NO QUESTION that the V2 Popes promoted, promulgated, and desired the universal implementation of the NOM.  Whether or not they banned the Tridentine Mass per se is absolutely irrelevant.

The Traditional Latin Mass could never be banned, and they knew it, so they wouldn't have dared try, but that doesn't mean the public perception of it being banned was impossible.  There were many priests going around after 1970 saying the old Mass was banned, and no bishops bothered to reel them in, so then people in the pews believed their lies.  Very similar to your believing the "promulgation" lie...............

According to Fr. Hesse, who had very high qualifications, there is a lot more than a "question" regarding the non-promulgation of the new mass.  There is a mountain of evidence.  First you have to understand what promulgation means.  It is not merely a bunch of sheeple following a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Every time a docuмent has been legitimately promulgated there have been key elements in place to docuмent the fact, and NONE of those elements are present with the case of the new mass.

Paul VI basically said, I like this book, regarding the Novus Ordo missal.  That's not promulgation.

The last page of his docuмent, where the promulgation announcement belongs, you find a letter by a SUBORDINATE to the pope, which pretends to set the necessary terms for the implementation of the new ritual.  But it is forbidden and impossible for any subordinate to put into law the work of his superior, therefore, this letter is BOGUS.  No promulgation.  

So you speak from ignorance, when you say "the V2 Popes promoted, promulgated, and desired the universal implementation of the NOM."  It was not promulgated at all, and its promotion is a moot point.  Promotion is no more relevant than commercials are to the story line they interrupt.  It's just noise.  And what they desired is of no consequence, for they could have desired anything, even the destruction of the Church or the reform of the 7 sacraments, but that has nothing to do with validity, legitimacy or the will of God.  Therefore it does not touch the indefectibility of the Church.

.

Not the first time around on this:


Post:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Stubborn

After reading the quote from Ladislaus below, seemed like a good time to bump this back to the top.

Post

Quote from: Ladislaus

By the way, I consider the argument that the New Mass was never officially promulgated to be utter nonsense.  Bishop Williamson realized that this is a real problem, i.e. that it runs counter to the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, and he made this same argument.  While I don't agree with Father Cekada on a lot of things, he completely demolished that line of thinking.  There's no legalistic "magic formula" involved in promulgating something.  In order to promulgate something, the Pope need only manifest his will in an official way.  Paul VI had the Missale printed up and ordered it to start being used throughout the Church.

I added the link to the original post, and here is my response to it, several pages later.

That was an excellent reply, Neil.

Everything about the NO amounts to deception of the most diabolical invention and on the grandest scale that's ever ever perpetrated on mankind.

 

The fact is as follows:  the newmass was never promulgated and the Canonized Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated.

See here.

.