And if Paul VI was a pope, then his revisions came from the Church, and they are infallibly protected too.

Wow, do you see how badly you're contradicting yourself here?

Quote from: ambrose

On this point we agree, there are questions about John XXIII.  For myself, I have looked into this over the years.  There is nothing ironclad to indicate that John XXIII was a heretic.  There is no definitive proof that he was a freemason, despite some allegations to that effect.

He certainly had more liberal tendencies, and he was no Pius XII, but, there is no evidence to show that he would have supported the heresies and errors of Vatican II.

I do not fault those that think that that John XXIII's involvement in the revolution, makes him sufficiently suspect to retreat to the safe ground of Pius XII.  The Church will eventually judge John XXIII.

But, part of this discussion focused on Pope Pius XII, a certain Pope who revised the Holy Week rites.  There would never be a reason to doubt the certain pontificate of Pius XII, and therefore not his liturgical laws.  

BUT WAIT, in the next breath, you say this!

Quote

Paul VI publicly taught heresy to the universal Church, and due to this we can have moral certainty that he was not a pope.  Vatican II contains both heresy and error, Paul VI approved and supported this.

A true Pope could never have given the Novus Ordo to the Church.  It would be impossible.  The Church cannot give a rite that leads to impiety or a potentially invalid form, even in its translated form.

From the Council of Trent:  "Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema. "

The law only applies when you want it to. YOU have YOUR opinion about whether Pius XII messed up or not. You also are following your OWN prerogative to go along with changes of John XXIII, changes that Venerable Pius IX recognized he didn't have the power to do.

But what you just said was a total contradiction. You choose to label Paul VI as a formal public heretic, and so his changes were totally invalid, but then you call someone a heretic if they see problems with the immediately previous pope's actions, and the company they trusted. So you judge the pope, and then you try to chastise ME for "judging a pope."

=/ Well, I am going back to BEFORE the crisis occurred. That's what the Church teaches us to do! They don't say, "Well, let's be cafeteria Catholics about things." No, it teaches that She is the Bride of Christ, and we were warned that the enemy would get to the highest places. They have, we see it, we know it. So, what do we do? We go to the way it was BEFORE this mess started with the liturgy. Because that's where we KNOW the devil was working. Pius XII started a "Commission on the revision of the liturgy." IN 1947! AND YOU THINK THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM with what he did? Really? Why would he need a "Commission," about this? Something he was not permitted to do, and no pope DARED do, he set up a COMMISSION on?

Go back to BEFORE the Crisis. The Church teaches we are pleasing to God that way. You can't go wrong with what was before. It was done in a way that was totally pleasing to God with no changes to anything. We don't really KNOW if these changes are legit or not, especially when Pius XII BROKE with tradition and installed a NEW HOLY WEEK RITE to replace the MOST ANCIENT RITES IN THE CHURCH!

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Wow, do you see how badly you're contradicting yourself here?

Quote from: ambrose

On this point we agree, there are questions about John XXIII.  For myself, I have looked into this over the years.  There is nothing ironclad to indicate that John XXIII was a heretic.  There is no definitive proof that he was a freemason, despite some allegations to that effect.

He certainly had more liberal tendencies, and he was no Pius XII, but, there is no evidence to show that he would have supported the heresies and errors of Vatican II.

I do not fault those that think that that John XXIII's involvement in the revolution, makes him sufficiently suspect to retreat to the safe ground of Pius XII.  The Church will eventually judge John XXIII.

But, part of this discussion focused on Pope Pius XII, a certain Pope who revised the Holy Week rites.  There would never be a reason to doubt the certain pontificate of Pius XII, and therefore not his liturgical laws.  

BUT WAIT, in the next breath, you say this!

Quote

Paul VI publicly taught heresy to the universal Church, and due to this we can have moral certainty that he was not a pope.  Vatican II contains both heresy and error, Paul VI approved and supported this.

A true Pope could never have given the Novus Ordo to the Church.  It would be impossible.  The Church cannot give a rite that leads to impiety or a potentially invalid form, even in its translated form.

From the Council of Trent:  "Canon 7. If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety rather than stimulants to piety, let him be anathema. "

The law only applies when you want it to. YOU have YOUR opinion about whether Pius XII messed up or not. You also are following your OWN prerogative to go along with changes of John XXIII, changes that Venerable Pius IX recognized he didn't have the power to do.

But what you just said was a total contradiction. You choose to label Paul VI as a formal public heretic, and so his changes were totally invalid, but then you call someone a heretic if they see problems with the immediately previous pope's actions, and the company they trusted. So you judge the pope, and then you try to chastise ME for "judging a pope."

=/ Well, I am going back to BEFORE the crisis occurred. That's what the Church teaches us to do! They don't say, "Well, let's be cafeteria Catholics about things." No, it teaches that She is the Bride of Christ, and we were warned that the enemy would get to the highest places. They have, we see it, we know it. So, what do we do? We go to the way it was BEFORE this mess started with the liturgy. Because that's where we KNOW the devil was working. Pius XII started a "Commission on the revision of the liturgy." IN 1947! AND YOU THINK THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM with what he did? Really? Why would he need a "Commission," about this? Something he was not permitted to do, and no pope DARED do, he set up a COMMISSION on?

Go back to BEFORE the Crisis. The Church teaches we are pleasing to God that way. You can't go wrong with what was before. It was done in a way that was totally pleasing to God with no changes to anything. We don't really KNOW if these changes are legit or not, especially when Pius XII BROKE with tradition and installed a NEW HOLY WEEK RITE to replace the MOST ANCIENT RITES IN THE CHURCH!

parentsfortruth,

I have said repeatedly that I have hoped you are confused on this, and are not a heretic.  You keep denying the power of the Pope to bind and loosen the laws of the Church, and when you do this, you are denying the power that Our Lord gave to St. Peter's successors.  Draw your own conclusions.

You were going beyond saying Pius XII messed up, you were denying his power to reform the rite.  You kept saying that the rite approved by St. Pius V was irreformable.  Read your own words, I am not making this up.  But, either way, whether you wish to argue a rite is "messed up," you are talking about a sacramental rite of the Church!  

Pope Pius XII did not break with tradition, the pope is tradition.  Where Peter is, there is the Church.  

There is no contradiction in what I have said.  Pope Pius XII was a certain Pope, his laws are certain.  His power to bind an loosen cannot be questioned.  

Paul VI was not a certain pope.  A doubtful law is no law.  If the man giving the law is not one authorized to promulgate law, then his law does nothing, it binds no one, and is null.

So you are now the authority on who is pope and who is not. I'll defer to the higher authority, which is an irreformable statement he made in 1570 codifying the Mass of All Time.

Peter had the power to bind his successors in matters of discipline. Here's an example.

What if a pope came out and said that everyone must be circuмcised? It was part of the old law, and Peter said that no one is bound by it anymore. But what if a future pope reversed that? Would that be allowed? I argue NO, it would NOT be allowed, because Peter BOUND it. He BOUND his successors in this matter of discipline, and so I believe that Pope Saint Pius V, speaking EX CATHEDRA, pronounced that the Roman Missal could not have any additions or subtractions to it. This, of course, would be allowed to the changable parts of the Mass that change EVERY SINGLE DAY, and therefore, a future pope could add more saints to the calendar if he deemed it good for the Church. BUT with the rest of the Mass, no one dared touch it, not even Venerable Pius IX.

I believe that once a pope speaks on a MATTER OF FAITH (as Vatican I says, and I believe that Quo Primum was NOT a matter of discipline, it was a matter of discipline based on DOGMA) that it is absolutely irreformable. So, call me a heretic if you want, but I'm basing my belief on extensive reading.

You want to read some interesting docuмentation, on how John XXIII's intention was to "make some changes, as you will all see?" Then you will see why I doubt any moves he made were legit whatsoever. Perhaps you will think the same way after reading them, but somehow I doubt it.

Read these.