I'm sure that my confusion will only frustrate my Society ally friends. But this is a weighty matter, and I will hear what everyone has to say about it. I am no theologian, nor any kind of authority on this matter, and I will not pretend to be. I've always been just a regular guy. CMTV had BETTER put forth something substantial. And the SSPX had BETTER respond in kind. This is a battle that needs to happen--a subject that MUST be tested and proved. For my family's sake.
I find his comments interesting after Francis' latest comments/moves with the SSPX priests. Indirectly isn't Voris criticizing and contradicting his pope?
Again, if it were up to him in the late 60s/early 70s, there would be no traditional Catholic faith. He is a compromiser and would have gone along with the NO like all the compromisers.
This guy Voris is not to be taken seriously. Avoid all his programs like
the plaque.
Here's the next one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq2XWTIppko
He finally lost the pink tie here.
Voris is actually correct ...
...
...
...
...
if one assumes that Francis is an undoubtedly-legitimate pope.
By the way, I think Mr. Voris is actually setting himself up to claim credit when Bishop Fellay signs the formal agreement with the Conciliar sect during the "Year of Mercy". His internet show will demonstrate how his exposé exposed the schism to the faithful who clamored for reconciliation and Bishop Fellay heard those cries and finally, after seeing the light shined by Mr. Voris, "returned" to the "church". After the reconciliation, Mr. Voris will heap praise upon Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX while he will become the SSPX's favorite English-speaking apologist. Then, together, they will set out to condemn and crush all "resistance".
Quote from: LadislausHere's the next one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq2XWTIppko
He finally lost the pink tie here.
I can't believe it. He has lost his mind...
one cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected
Who cares what Voris says? He's just a floppy haired layman with the gift of gab. So what? I never watch him or listen to him, and the few times I did, I found him to be quite irritating and supercilious. Forget Michael Voris. Read the Poem of the Man God. Pray 15 decades of the Rosary. Pray for the soon Consecration of Russia, and lay low.
Quote from: Wernz-Visal, Ius Canonicuмone cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected
Notice the order hollingsworth puts things in. Valtorta first, then the Rosary.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: Wernz-Visal, Ius Canonicuмone cannot consider as schismatics those who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they would hold his person suspect or, because of widespread rumors, doubtfully elected
Do you also doubt JPII's election as well as post-Siri Benedict? I can't seem to recall how far back you go on that...
Quote from: StubbornAgain, if it were up to him in the late 60s/early 70s, there would be no traditional Catholic faith. He is a compromiser and would have gone along with the NO like all the compromisers.
Actually, he already did go along with the Novus Ordo and all the compromises with the Catholic faith.
A friend once told me that his Traditional Mass Apostolate (FSSP) invited him to give a Lenten talk several years ago. Mr. Voris would not even attend the traditional Mass offered at the parish. Instead, he attended the parish's Novus Ordo (it was a parish that had both rites offered) before speaking to the TLMA conference. He has since become an aficionado of the traditional Mass, but his affection for tradition extends only to the smells and bells of tradition.
By the way, I think Mr. Voris is actually setting himself up to claim credit when Bishop Fellay signs the formal agreement with the Conciliar sect during the "Year of Mercy". His internet show will demonstrate how his exposé exposed the schism to the faithful who clamored for reconciliation and Bishop Fellay heard those cries and finally, after seeing the light shined by Mr. Voris, "returned" to the "church". After the reconciliation, Mr. Voris will heap praise upon Bishop Fellay and the neo-SSPX while he will become the SSPX's favorite English-speaking apologist. Then, together, they will set out to condemn and crush all "resistance".
Don't forget those most reprehensible sedes!
Quote from: 2VermontDon't forget those most reprehensible sedes!
I don't think they will bother much with the sedes. They are not united and there are not many of them so they pose no threat. If a couple hundred SSPX priests left the society and joined the "resistance" because of a deal, then they might become a threat. Remember the SSPX is huge, with more than ten times as many priests as the CMRI, the largest sedevacantist group.
Don't forget those most reprehensible sedes!
Unless over time more and more SSPX/Resistance folks become sedevacantist.
I simply do not believe there is any line that Bergoglio could cross that cause the anti-sedevacantists (whether they are SSPX, Resistance, or members of this forum) to change their opinion.
Quote from: TKGSI simply do not believe there is any line that Bergoglio could cross that cause the anti-sedevacantists (whether they are SSPX, Resistance, or members of this forum) to change their opinion.
Nearly every sedevacantist once accepted the conciliar Popes. Of course some anti-sedevacantists will change their opinions. Like Gerry Matatics.
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?
Voris' latest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8sQyq2FgQk
Strangely it's called "Vortex -- Offensive to God", which could be read as meaning that the Vortex is offensive to God LOL.
As long as MV keeps up the lies about the SSPX, I'll take that as a good sign for the SSPX, the day he stops with the slander and starts with praise is the time to be concerned - but by then, it'll probably mean the SSPX has already wholly joined the NO.
Quote from: LaramieHirschDoesn'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?
No.
In 2011 the Archdiocese of Detroit, citing canon 216 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, published notice to Voris and RealCatholicTV that "it [did] not regard them as being authorized to use the word 'Catholic' to identify or promote their public activities."[12] In 2012 the company name RealCatholicTV.com was changed to ChurchMilitant.tv.
Quote from: StubbornAs long as MV keeps up the lies about the SSPX, I'll take that as a good sign for the SSPX, the day he stops with the slander and starts with praise is the time to be concerned - but by then, it'll probably mean the SSPX has already wholly joined the NO.
Which lies, Stubborn? I don't see any lies. I only see him enunciating Catholic principles (along the lines of the same objections that SVs have to R&R) coupled with his opinion that there's no state of emergency in the Church that would warrant refusal of communion with the Holy See. His arguments are grounded in the indefectibility of the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church.
The reason we do not have to accept the changes wrought by the Conciliar Popes (of whom PopeBenedict XVIFrancis most certainly will prove to be one) is not that the lawgivers are illegitimate, but that THERE ARE NO LEGAL LAWS which bind us to do so, and, these individuals, legitimate or illegitimate, have neither the authority nor the power to require us by law to abandon the traditional beliefs and practices of our holy religion.
Moreover, just because we claim that these men do not have the authority to command us to violate the established laws and customs of the Church, we are not thereby removing ourselves from their authority, we are not disobedient to them, and we are not in a state of schism. Should they govern according to the laws of the Church, we would obey them and their new laws, should they make any.
We do not have to accept the New Mass, not because the Conciliar Popes have all been illegitimate, but because the Old Mass was established by inviolable law to be the only legal and acceptable Mass of the Roman Rite for all time to come. Just as it is totally impossible for a pope to exempt all Catholics from ever having to go to Mass on Sunday again, just as it is impossible for any pope to exempt all men from entering the Church for salvation, just as it is impossible for any pope to make a woman a priest, it is impossible for any pope to create a "new mass" and bind his subjects to attend it.
What I say of the Mass, I can say of many other things. A legitimate pope cannot nullify valid marriages; he cannot appoint his own successor; he cannot disqualify certain cardinals from their right to participate in the election of his successor; he cannot reduce the number of Sacraments; he cannot change the forms of the Sacraments so as to render them invalid; and so on.
How do we know what things the pope can and cannot legitimately do? We do not have to know. The only thing we have to know is our obligations to Christ as Catholics, all of which have been laid down for us for many centuries, all of which make up the traditional Catholic religion, practically all of which can be found in the catechism.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: LaramieHirschDoesn'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?
No.Thanks for going into detail.
Wikipedia reminded me. They aren't allowed to call themselves Catholic.QuoteIn 2011 the Archdiocese of Detroit, citing canon 216 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, published notice to Voris and RealCatholicTV that "it [did] not regard them as being authorized to use the word 'Catholic' to identify or promote their public activities."[12] In 2012 the company name RealCatholicTV.com was changed to ChurchMilitant.tv.
Ain't that somethin'.
Quote from: LadislausQuote from: StubbornAs long as MV keeps up the lies about the SSPX, I'll take that as a good sign for the SSPX, the day he stops with the slander and starts with praise is the time to be concerned - but by then, it'll probably mean the SSPX has already wholly joined the NO.
Which lies, Stubborn? I don't see any lies. I only see him enunciating Catholic principles (along the lines of the same objections that SVs have to R&R) coupled with his opinion that there's no state of emergency in the Church that would warrant refusal of communion with the Holy See. His arguments are grounded in the indefectibility of the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church.
Which lies? Take your pick. I only watched the first few seconds, up to the point that he said the SSPX was in schism. That, my friend, is a lie, even by Voris' standards.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: LadislausQuote from: StubbornAs long as MV keeps up the lies about the SSPX, I'll take that as a good sign for the SSPX, the day he stops with the slander and starts with praise is the time to be concerned - but by then, it'll probably mean the SSPX has already wholly joined the NO.
Which lies, Stubborn? I don't see any lies. I only see him enunciating Catholic principles (along the lines of the same objections that SVs have to R&R) coupled with his opinion that there's no state of emergency in the Church that would warrant refusal of communion with the Holy See. His arguments are grounded in the indefectibility of the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church.
Which lies? Take your pick. I only watched the first few seconds, up to the point that he said the SSPX was in schism. That, my friend, is a lie, even by Voris' standards.
I guess you don't understand what "lie" is. Voris is expressing his position on the matter. Whether or not you buy his arguments, it's not a lie. That would be like your opponents on the BoD issue calling you a "liar" simply for holding the position. In fact, if the V2 hierarchy are in fact certainly legitimate popes, the contention that the SSPX is in schism can hardly be refuted.
Well, he knows well enough that JP2 excommunicated +ABL and the 4 bishops, why doesn't he know the excommunications were lifted? And aside from the excommunications being a sham, if he knows they were lifted, and we must presume he knows, then he is outright lying when he says they are in schism.
And if he actually doesn't know the excommunications were lifted, then he has no business spouting remarks born out of his ignorance.
And since when does a pope grant faculties for the sacrament of penance to schismatics?
No, MV is a liar - make no mistake about it. His position is one of fraud and bad will, just like all Modernists - he is no different in that regard.
And no, it's not the same as the BoD issue. You are trying to base an argument around the validity of the pope issue, same as SVs do, so there is no comparison on that, I think you know it too but not sure why you've been stuck on that lately.
Quote from: StubbornWell, he knows well enough that JP2 excommunicated +ABL and the 4 bishops, why doesn't he know the excommunications were lifted? And aside from the excommunications being a sham, if he knows they were lifted, and we must presume he knows, then he is outright lying when he says they are in schism.
And if he actually doesn't know the excommunications were lifted, then he has no business spouting remarks born out of his ignorance.
Excommunication is not the only way to be "schismatic". Voris made the distinction between being in formal/declared schism and de facto schism, and he's arguing for the latter. He made this distinction and is therefore not lying. He went into great detail about this distinction, admitting that there has been no formal sentence while arguing that the attitude and mentality are nothing short of schismatic. One of the V2 Popes lifted the excommunication on the Eastern Orthodox; that by itself doesn't mean they're not schismatics.QuoteAnd since when does a pope grant faculties for the sacrament of penance to schismatics?
Popes do this all the time. In fact, the Catholic Church ORDERS schismatic priests to hear the Confessions of Catholics in danger of death.
QuoteNo, MV is a liar - make no mistake about it. His position is one of fraud and bad will, just like all Modernists - he is no different in that regard.
Nonsense.QuoteAnd no, it's not the same as the BoD issue. You are trying to base an argument around the validity of the pope issue, same as SVs do, so there is no comparison on that, I think you know it too but not sure why you've been stuck on that lately.
No, my point is that your use of the term "liar" is ridiculous. You disagree with his arguments and his assessment of the situation. Fine. But making a bad argument is not tantamount to "lying".
voris is a joke. He offers no argument against the sspx. He only claims that because pope paul vi promulgated the new mass it is wrong the for sspx to attack it.... pukeworthy...
Cmon Lad - the Catholic Church ORDERS a schismatic? to do what? Preposterous. So the Church orders those outside the Church too now?
In danger of death, we are permitted to receive the sacrament from a schismatic, but I never heard of the Church ordering a schismatic to administer any sacrament. A schismatic is stripped of priestly duties except in the case of emergency, only then the schismatic is duty bound to administer the sacrament - but ordered?
You also know the truth of the matter as I learned much from you, but now you seem to have changed your thinking to displace the order of obedience over truth,
Quote from: Paul FHCvoris is a joke. He offers no argument against the sspx. He only claims that because pope paul vi promulgated the new mass it is wrong the for sspx to attack it.... pukeworthy...
I agree.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: Paul FHCvoris is a joke. He offers no argument against the sspx. He only claims that because pope paul vi promulgated the new mass it is wrong the for sspx to attack it.... pukeworthy...
I agree.
You agree because you WANT to agreed. It's absolutely moronic to state that he offers "no argument" against the SSPX. What we have here is cognitive dissonance. Your brains and your sensus fide are so utterly polluted that you cannot recognize basic traditional Catholic principles involving submission to the Magisterium, the indefectibility of the Magisterium, and the indefectibility of the Church's Universal Discipline.
Talk about "pukeworthy". This is precisely the non-Catholic puke that caused me to reject R&R and become a sedevacantist all those years ago. You have no concept whatsoever regarding the Holiness of the Catholic Church, and the indefectibility of the Magisterium and Universal Discipline.
Just listened to his latest. I am even more convinced that he is setting himself up as the man who convinced the SSPX to "come home"...as if Bishop Fellay studiously listens to The Vortex is is right now saying, "He's got a point!"
The way he is going after the SSPX reminds me of Gerry Matatics. It's as if he read something that he hadn't thought of before and has gone hog wild!
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: LadislausQuote from: StubbornAs long as MV keeps up the lies about the SSPX, I'll take that as a good sign for the SSPX, the day he stops with the slander and starts with praise is the time to be concerned - but by then, it'll probably mean the SSPX has already wholly joined the NO.
Which lies, Stubborn? I don't see any lies. I only see him enunciating Catholic principles (along the lines of the same objections that SVs have to R&R) coupled with his opinion that there's no state of emergency in the Church that would warrant refusal of communion with the Holy See. His arguments are grounded in the indefectibility of the Magisterium and the Universal Discipline of the Church.
Which lies? Take your pick. I only watched the first few seconds, up to the point that he said the SSPX was in schism. That, my friend, is a lie, even by Voris' standards.
I guess you don't understand what "lie" is. Voris is expressing his position on the matter. Whether or not you buy his arguments, it's not a lie. That would be like your opponents on the BoD issue calling you a "liar" simply for holding the position. In fact, if the V2 hierarchy are in fact certainly legitimate popes, the contention that the SSPX is in schism can hardly be refuted.
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.
Quote from: LadislausR&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 do not feel qualified to know what to decide. I do not know what I am doing. I do not know what to believe.
Quote from: LaramieHirschI 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?
Quote from: TKGSQuote from: LaramieHirschI 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.
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....
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?
Quote from: LaramieHirschDoesn'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.
The latest:
http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/the-vortexsspx-sunday-massI do not feel qualified to know what to decide. I do not know what I am doing. I do not know what to believe.
Quote from: ArvingerQuote from: LadislausR&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.
Quote from: LaramieHirschFirst, if you mistake Michael Voris for a theologian or Canon Lawyer or even an expert on the SSPX issue, then you are mistaken.Quote from: TKGSProbably 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.Quote from: LaramieHirschI 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?
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....
Quote from: CentroamericaQuote from: LaramieHirschFirst, if you mistake Michael Voris for a theologian or Canon Lawyer or even an expert on the SSPX issue, then you are mistaken.Quote from: TKGSProbably 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.Quote from: LaramieHirschI 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?
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.
.
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. (http://thehirschfiles.blogspot.com/2015/09/bad-timing-coming-into-sspx-hearing.html)
I'm tired.
I don't think they have the certainty of faith either, but they won't admit it.
Quote from: LadislausR&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.
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" :facepalm:. 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.
Quote from: CentroamericaSo 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?
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.
Therefore it does not touch the indefectibility of the Church.
Quote from: Neil ObstatQuote from: StubbornAfter reading the quote from Ladislaus below, seemed like a good time to bump this back to the top.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28539&min=75#p2)Quote from: LadislausBy 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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=28539&min=130#p1) 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.
Laramie, best if you do not watch it. Seriously.
After listening to this "special report", I have a question: Why can Voris identify the undeclared schismatic but is totally incapable of identifying the undeclared heretic?
Quote from: Stubborn
Laramie, best if you do not watch it. Seriously.
Got to. I need to be fully informed about the choice I got to make
If he is wrong, I'm sure the special will be refuted point by point
Quote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: Stubborn
Laramie, best if you do not watch it. Seriously.
Got to. I need to be fully informed about the choice I got to make
If he is wrong, I'm sure the special will be refuted point by point
Well, shoot yourself.
MV is going to fully inform you his own lies and falsehoods with a few tidbits of truth mixed in. You are relying on the wrong source for your information - with MV, all roads lead into the NO, the very place you know you do not belong.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: Stubborn
Laramie, best if you do not watch it. Seriously.
Got to. I need to be fully informed about the choice I got to make
If he is wrong, I'm sure the special will be refuted point by point
Well, shoot yourself.
MV is going to fully inform you his own lies and falsehoods with a few tidbits of truth mixed in. You are relying on the wrong source for your information - with MV, all roads lead into the NO, the very place you know you do not belong.
I'm counting on the Remnant, Louie V, and others to tackle his points one by one. I'm sure we'll see something from such folks soon enough. I'm not just blindly listening to what Voris has to say on all of this, believing everything he says. This "conversation" between CMTV and their opponents will take time. Weeks, probably. I'm sure we'll see at least one informative rebuttal against this hour-long special before the weekend is up. And next week? Perhaps two more.
Quote from: StubbornQuote from: LaramieHirschQuote from: Stubborn
Laramie, best if you do not watch it. Seriously.
Got to. I need to be fully informed about the choice I got to make
If he is wrong, I'm sure the special will be refuted point by point
Well, shoot yourself.
MV is going to fully inform you his own lies and falsehoods with a few tidbits of truth mixed in. You are relying on the wrong source for your information - with MV, all roads lead into the NO, the very place you know you do not belong.
I'm counting on the Remnant, Louie V, and others to tackle his points one by one. I'm sure we'll see something from such folks soon enough. I'm not just blindly listening to what Voris has to say on all of this, believing everything he says. This "conversation" between CMTV and their opponents will take time. Weeks, probably. I'm sure we'll see at least one informative rebuttal against this hour-long special before the weekend is up. And next week? Perhaps two more.
Now, there hangs the 'Question'?
I know that you all have much more experience in religion and you have more at stake than I have (right now, I don't have my own children to worry about), but I can't see how Voris's basic argument is incorrect. I think that the SSPX does show a schismatic mentality. The liberal use of the term "Novus Ordo Catholic" or "NO Catholic" here by SSPX members shows that they consider themselves in some sense separated. And he's right; no matter how bad things got, that would never be legitimate reason to split off from Rome and start one's own faction.
Stubborn calls Voris a "Novus Ordo operative". You mean he's someone working for Rome? How can that be a bad thing unless the Catholic Church is no longer present in Rome?
Quote from: McFigglyI know that you all have much more experience in religion and you have more at stake than I have (right now, I don't have my own children to worry about), but I can't see how Voris's basic argument is incorrect. I think that the SSPX does show a schismatic mentality. The liberal use of the term "Novus Ordo Catholic" or "NO Catholic" here by SSPX members shows that they consider themselves in some sense separated. And he's right; no matter how bad things got, that would never be legitimate reason to split off from Rome and start one's own faction.
Stubborn calls Voris a "Novus Ordo operative". You mean he's someone working for Rome? How can that be a bad thing unless the Catholic Church is no longer present in Rome?
I agree with J.Paul that MV is a NO operative - whether by accident or on purpose, the result is the same, but fwiw, I think it's on purpose.
I mean there is a crisis in the Church, the main fuel that keeps the crisis burning is in the fact that the compromisers are easily fooled into obedience to the authorities (read:crooks) in Rome at the expense of their own faith.
The NO faith is not the Catholic faith - those who try to be faithful to both will find themselves accepting the one and despising the other, it really is as simple as those words of Our Lord.
Personally, I despise everything about the Novus Ordo - how about you?
Further, this is the reason that after 27 years, the FSSP, whom MV references to promote his cause, have done absolutely zero "from within". In fact, things have gotten only worse in the last 27 years - and as long as the conciliar crooks are in charge, and as long as the FSSP accept V2 and the NO, they have zero hope of promoting change from "within" even if they last another 1000 years.
Voris sings a tired old tune, one which has repeatedly proven itself a great success ever since the late 60s. I've said a few times MV's battle cry is a bad rerun of those days and no doubt it will prove a great success yet again to all who allow themselves to be talked into the well worn and well proven modernist tactic of transferring truths from the order of truth-falsehood to the order of authority-obedience, and then use authority as a weapon against truth. That's how they work. Don't fall for it - actually, don't keep falling for it or better to say, stop falling for it already.
Stubborn calls Voris a "Novus Ordo operative". You mean he's someone working for Rome? How can that be a bad thing unless the Catholic Church is no longer present in Rome?
McFiggly:QuoteStubborn calls Voris a "Novus Ordo operative". You mean he's someone working for Rome? How can that be a bad thing unless the Catholic Church is no longer present in Rome?
Well, that's the 64 thousand dollar question, isn't it? Is the Catholic Church present in Rome today? Or, stated in another way: Does that entity, once headquartered in Rome, still exist? I don't think that it is unreasonable, after the unfolding events of the last 50 years, to ask such a question so starkly.
The reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, viz., the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it [the conciliar church] can be saved. We say that we speak thus with genuine charity, because true charity seeks to inform one's neighbor what he must do for his salvation, and when he is in danger of losing it.
I know that you all have much more experience in religion and you have more at stake than I have (right now, I don't have my own children to worry about), but I can't see how Voris's basic argument is incorrect. I think that the SSPX does show a schismatic mentality. The liberal use of the term "Novus Ordo Catholic" or "NO Catholic" here by SSPX members shows that they consider themselves in some sense separated. And he's right; no matter how bad things got, that would never be legitimate reason to split off from Rome and start one's own faction.
Stubborn calls Voris a "Novus Ordo operative". You mean he's someone working for Rome? How can that be a bad thing unless the Catholic Church is no longer present in Rome?
Quote from: stgobnait
Now, there hangs the 'Question'?
Sure is the Question.
unless the Catholic Church is no longer present in Rome?
Quote from: hollingsworthMcFiggly:QuoteStubborn calls Voris a "Novus Ordo operative". You mean he's someone working for Rome? How can that be a bad thing unless the Catholic Church is no longer present in Rome?
Well, that's the 64 thousand dollar question, isn't it? Is the Catholic Church present in Rome today? Or, stated in another way: Does that entity, once headquartered in Rome, still exist? I don't think that it is unreasonable, after the unfolding events of the last 50 years, to ask such a question so starkly.
It is without any doubt NOT unreasonable to ask such a question so starkly.
From his book; Who Shall Ascend?;Quote from: Fr. WathenThe reader is implored to believe that as it is in the spirit of Christian charity that we have been compelled to proclaim the Catholic Church to be the sole and exclusive instrument of salvation for men on earth, it is in the same spirit that we assert the major thesis of this third part, viz., the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church, though it is within it, like a fifth column. Hence, no one who maintains membership within it [the conciliar church] can be saved. We say that we speak thus with genuine charity, because true charity seeks to inform one's neighbor what he must do for his salvation, and when he is in danger of losing it.