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

Author Topic: What We Have Lost:  (Read 5947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline parentsfortruth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3821
  • Reputation: +2664/-26
  • Gender: Female
What We Have Lost:
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2013, 09:30:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote


    The "new holy week" instituted by Pius XII was a NEW RITE.


    Are you denying the power of St. Peter's successors to revise the liturgy?  Be careful before answering, because if you are denying this, it is heresy.


    Quote from: parentsfortruth
    Quo Primum states:

    This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

    All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

    We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

    Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.


    The "new holy week" instituted by Pius XII was a NEW RITE.


    It's pretty plain.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Marlelar

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3473
    • Reputation: +1816/-234
    • Gender: Female
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #16 on: March 05, 2013, 10:14:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote


    The "new holy week" instituted by Pius XII was a NEW RITE.


    Are you denying the power of St. Peter's successors to revise the liturgy?  Be careful before answering, because if you are denying this, it is heresy.


    Read Quo Primum for your answer.

    Quo Primum link


    Offline trento

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 835
    • Reputation: +257/-146
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #17 on: March 05, 2013, 11:05:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marlelar
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote


    The "new holy week" instituted by Pius XII was a NEW RITE.


    Are you denying the power of St. Peter's successors to revise the liturgy?  Be careful before answering, because if you are denying this, it is heresy.


    Read Quo Primum for your answer.

    Quo Primum link

    Then Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII, John XXIII too would have been condemned by Quo Primum?

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8278/-692
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #18 on: March 05, 2013, 11:24:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote

    The "new holy week" instituted by Pius XII was a NEW RITE.



    Are you denying the power of St. Peter's successors to revise the liturgy?  

    Be careful before answering, because if you are denying this, it is heresy.


    It is not "heresy."  Where did you come up with that line of nonsense?


     
    Popes have ultimate power in the Church, but they have no power to abolish
    what has been handed down from antiquity, especially from the Apostles.  Nor
    can they arbitrarily displace the Sacred Traditions of the Church with banal,
    on-the-spot concoctions, such as those of a Freemason and 6 Protestant ministers.

    The Canonized Traditional Latin Mass of Quo Primum can never be replaced,
    nor can it be forbidden for any priest to offer it, for all time, without end.  

    And that isn't "heresy," it's the teaching of a POPE SAINT, supported by ANOTHER
    Pope Saint, and several DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH.  



    So you're barking up the wrong tree, Ambrose.  





    You say you'll follow whatever reforms the current Pope comes up with and
    then you'll happily follow his successor when he reverses the reforms.  Well
    good for you.  You're the kind of guy who would be just fine with doing
    whatever the Antichrist demands, when he comes to power, "insomuch as to
    deceive (if possible), even the elect."  But you can't demand that all Catholics
    imitate your blind and thoughtless false obedience.  Show me that dogma.  
    Some of us have learned from the Vatican II experience, but apparently there
    are those who have not learned, like you.


    And you had better pay attention before these criminals come up with
    a new shipment of so-called 'saint popes' who attempt to deny the
    principle of non-contradiction-in-your-face.  Because then you'll be
    forced to deny truth itself or you will be told you're a 'heretic.'   And
    you, of course, will believe it.  

    Welcome to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.

    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #19 on: March 06, 2013, 12:29:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote

    The "new holy week" instituted by Pius XII was a NEW RITE.



    Are you denying the power of St. Peter's successors to revise the liturgy?  

    Be careful before answering, because if you are denying this, it is heresy.


    It is not "heresy."  Where did you come up with that line of nonsense?


     
    Popes have ultimate power in the Church, but they have no power to abolish
    what has been handed down from antiquity, especially from the Apostles.  Nor
    can they arbitrarily displace the Sacred Traditions of the Church with banal,
    on-the-spot concoctions, such as those of a Freemason and 6 Protestant ministers.

    The Canonized Traditional Latin Mass of Quo Primum can never be replaced,
    nor can it be forbidden for any priest to offer it, for all time, without end.  

    And that isn't "heresy," it's the teaching of a POPE SAINT, supported by ANOTHER
    Pope Saint, and several DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH.  



    So you're barking up the wrong tree, Ambrose.  





    You say you'll follow whatever reforms the current Pope comes up with and
    then you'll happily follow his successor when he reverses the reforms.  Well
    good for you.  You're the kind of guy who would be just fine with doing
    whatever the Antichrist demands, when he comes to power, "insomuch as to
    deceive (if possible), even the elect."  But you can't demand that all Catholics
    imitate your blind and thoughtless false obedience.  Show me that dogma.  
    Some of us have learned from the Vatican II experience, but apparently there
    are those who have not learned, like you.


    And you had better pay attention before these criminals come up with
    a new shipment of so-called 'saint popes' who attempt to deny the
    principle of non-contradiction-in-your-face.  Because then you'll be
    forced to deny truth itself or you will be told you're a 'heretic.'   And
    you, of course, will believe it.  

    Welcome to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.



    Neil and others who have challenged me on this:

    The power of the Papacy to bind and loosen laws is taught directly by Our Lord:

    Quote
    18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
    19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
    St. Matthew XVI: 18-19

    To deny the powers given to St. Peter and his successors by Our Lord is heretical.  The Pope is supreme in the Church, and he is not bound by the laws of his predecessors.  In regards to the liturgy, the Pope can modify or revise the liturgy.  


    Quote
    II. In the matter of jurisdiction the position of the Roman Pontiff is widely different from that of ordinary bishops, archbishops, or patriarchs. Their jurisdiction is dependent and limited: his is supreme and universal. To him alone the whole of Christ's flock is entrusted; he holds the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and the power of binding and loosing; and these functions come to him not from below, but from above by succession to St. Peter, whom Christ Himself directly appointed. "The Roman Pontiff." says the Council of Florence,” is the head of the whole Church, Father and Doctor of all Christians: to him [in the person of] blessed Peter was given full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church, as also (qnemadmodum etiairi) is contained in the acts of Ecuмenical Councils and in the holy canons." And the Vatican Council: "If any shall say that the Roman Pontiff hath the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread through the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part (potiores partes) and not all the fulness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema" (sess. iv. ch. 3). This latter Council takes care to note that the Primacy of the Pope in no way derogates from” the ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction by which bishops, who have been set by the Holy Ghost to succeed and hold the place of the Apostles,'1
    1 Council of Trent, sess. xxiii. ch. 4

    (A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's “Dogmatik” Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D.,  Volume II --Book VII –The Church and the Sacraments:  http://strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_2_6.html )

    The theology manual is but one, and it can be replicated.  Every theologian says this, as they must.  The teaching comes from Our Lord, it has been defined by the Church, and it cannot be denied.  

    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #20 on: March 06, 2013, 12:32:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: trento
    Quote from: Marlelar
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote


    The "new holy week" instituted by Pius XII was a NEW RITE.


    Are you denying the power of St. Peter's successors to revise the liturgy?  Be careful before answering, because if you are denying this, it is heresy.


    Read Quo Primum for your answer.

    Quo Primum link

    Then Clement VIII, Urban VIII, Leo XIII, St Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XII, John XXIII too would have been condemned by Quo Primum?


    Trento,

    Thank you for posting this.  I hope that this helps those on here to see that Pope's have the power to change and revise the liturgy, and they are not bound by any laws of their predecessors.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #21 on: March 06, 2013, 12:50:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil,

    One last point to your post.  If you think I am arguing for the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, then you have completely misunderstood what I wrote.  The travesty given by Paul VI is heretical, evil, and impious.  Such evil cannot come from the Church.  

    I love the Roman Rite of the Mass which goes back to antiquity, and has been passed down faithfully by the popes over the ages.  But, what is troubling me about this thread is that Catholics on here seem to not understand that the Pope can lawfully make revisions to the Mass.

    One interesting thing about this is that all on this subforum, including myself, hold Archbishop Lefebvre in great esteem.  He understood this principle.  I am not saying anything novel here.

    Archbishop Lefebvre accepted and even enforced the use of the changes to the Missal approved by Pope Pius XII and John XXIII.  They made changes to the missal as other popes before them had done.  If Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a Pope could not do this, then he would not have accepted their changes, but he did know his theology, and he applied it.


    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1234
    • Reputation: +1208/-6
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #22 on: March 06, 2013, 01:14:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Archbishop Lefebvre accepted and even enforced the use of the changes to the Missal approved by Pope Pius XII and John XXIII.  They made changes to the missal as other popes before them had done.  If Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a Pope could not do this, then he would not have accepted their changes, but he did know his theology, and he applied it.


    He only enforced it in 1983 during the negotiations with Rome. Prior to that, the several districts used different variants; the UK district used exclusively the pre-1955 Holy Week.
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this


    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #23 on: March 06, 2013, 01:16:42 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Archbishop Lefebvre accepted and even enforced the use of the changes to the Missal approved by Pope Pius XII and John XXIII.  They made changes to the missal as other popes before them had done.  If Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a Pope could not do this, then he would not have accepted their changes, but he did know his theology, and he applied it.


    He only enforced it in 1983 during the negotiations with Rome. Prior to that, the several districts used different variants; the UK district used exclusively the pre-1955 Holy Week.


    I agree, but my overall point was that he understood that a Pope could make changes to the Missal, as Pope Pius XII and John XXIII had done.  Archbishop Lefebvre accepted these changes, and did not use arguments as some on here are using saying a Pope cannot do this.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline Quo Vadis Petre

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1234
    • Reputation: +1208/-6
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #24 on: March 06, 2013, 01:21:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre
    Quote from: Ambrose
    Archbishop Lefebvre accepted and even enforced the use of the changes to the Missal approved by Pope Pius XII and John XXIII.  They made changes to the missal as other popes before them had done.  If Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a Pope could not do this, then he would not have accepted their changes, but he did know his theology, and he applied it.


    He only enforced it in 1983 during the negotiations with Rome. Prior to that, the several districts used different variants; the UK district used exclusively the pre-1955 Holy Week.


    I agree, but my overall point was that he understood that a Pope could make changes to the Missal, as Pope Pius XII and John XXIII had done.  Archbishop Lefebvre accepted these changes, and did not use arguments as some on here are using saying a Pope cannot do this.  


    I can't argue there. The SSPX priest who wrote The Liturgical Movement agreed, too, that the Pope can make additions and changes to the liturgy but he also believed the 1956 Holy Week was the start of the demolition of the Liturgy, even while still remaining orthodox.
    "In our time more than ever before, the greatest asset of the evil-disposed is the cowardice and weakness of good men, and all the vigour of Satan's reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics." -St. Pius X

    "If the Church were not divine, this

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8278/-692
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #25 on: March 06, 2013, 02:38:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose
    Neil,

    One last point to your post.  If you think I am arguing for the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, then you have completely misunderstood what I wrote.  The travesty given by Paul VI is heretical, evil, and impious.  Such evil cannot come from the Church.  


    So you want the pope to be able to willy-nilly change whatever he wants, but then
    when Paul VI comes along and does just that, which you said was fine, suddenly
    it's not fine, and he's terrible.  You make a lot of sense.    NOT.

    Quote
    I love the Roman Rite of the Mass which goes back to antiquity, and has been passed down faithfully by the popes over the ages.  But, what is troubling me about this thread is that Catholics on here seem to not understand that the Pope can lawfully make revisions to the Mass.


    And the pope can dig up his predecessor and throw his ass in the Tiber.  Okay?  It
    already happened.  And then the next pope can come along and fish the corpse
    out of the Tiber and put it back into the tomb again.  Okay?  It already happened.

    So let's throw away the Mass, and forget all about it for 3 generations, and then
    try to piece it all together and put it back into place again, so that after another
    3 or 4 generations we can throw it back into the Tiber and let bygones be
    bygones.  Okay?

    Quote
    One interesting thing about this is that all on this subforum, including myself, hold Archbishop Lefebvre in great esteem.  He understood this principle.  I am not saying anything novel here.

    Archbishop Lefebvre accepted and even enforced the use of the changes to the Missal approved by Pope Pius XII and John XXIII.  They made changes to the missal as other popes before them had done.  


    He was using the pre-1955 missal and rubrics until an uprising of demonic
    controversy allowed satan's agents in Rome to force him to accept the missal
    of John XXIII, predecessor to the Newmass, a.k.a. 1962 Missal.  Never before
    in the history of the Church did a Pope throw out the entire Mass and start over
    with a Rogue's Gallery of hoodlums spewing out a foul stream for general
    consumption.  Never.  So don't even try that line of B.S.  

    How many pages of facts do you want to ignore, anyway?  

    And Trent did not concoct a New Mass of Trent.  That's why we shouldn't be
    calling it the "Tridentine Mass" -- that's another lie of the devil, for general
    consumption.  

    They're harping on and on about continuity between Vatican II and what
    came before it.  You can say the same thing about the Missal of John XXIII and
    what came before that.  This is a never-before situation here.  Never before
    in the history of the Church has it been argued again and again that the latest
    council has to be reconciled with the previous councils.  It was never a topic
    of discussion to reconcile Vatican I with Trent, because they were both already
    the same Faith and the same religion.  Vatican II is a DIFFERENT religion, and
    I dare say it could not have happened if it were not for the fact that the Missal
    of John XXIII was right there on the altar.  If they had been using the 1570
    missal, the Missal of Pius XI, Vatican II would have flopped big time.  So there.

    Quote
    If Archbishop Lefebvre believed that a Pope could not do this, then he would not have accepted their changes, but he did know his theology, and he applied it.



    What ABL did was take an impossible situation and make the best of it.  He did
    not desire or promote all the changes, but he rather tried the best he could to
    avoid the avalanche of sewage spilling out of Rome.  What he accomplished
    almost single-handedly is nothing short of miraculous.  But his theology is not
    what caused the 1962 Missal, nor the Holy Week changes that preceded it.

    We're going through the same stuff again, and it's all too easy to lose sight
    of what was lost.  The devil's plan is to keep shoveling changes on in layers,
    so that we scramble to deal with layers of an onion.  When we hang on fast
    to that which is irreproachable, we do not fall prey to any of the devils tactics,
    except inasmuch as we end up arguing over details.  That's back to the onion
    layers again.  Don't even go there!  



    Keep in mind the thread title:  



    What We Have Lost




    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8278/-692
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #26 on: March 06, 2013, 02:42:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ambrose


    Thank you for posting this.  I hope that this helps those on here to see that Pope's have the power to change and revise the liturgy, and they are not bound by any laws of their predecessors.  


    And the Popes (no apostrophe - DUUH) have the power to dig a hole for
    themselves in hell, too.  So do you and so do I.  Does that make it okay
    or advisable??


    The Ambrose definition of heretic:  
    Anyone who thinks he does not have the power to commit ѕυιcιdє is a
    heretic.  And that goes for the Pope too, so there.  



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #27 on: March 06, 2013, 07:12:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Neil wrote:
    Quote

    So you want the pope to be able to willy-nilly change whatever he wants, but then
    when Paul VI comes along and does just that, which you said was fine, suddenly
    it's not fine, and he's terrible.  You make a lot of sense.    NOT.


    This has nothing to do with me, it is the teaching of the Church.  The problem of how Paul VI could have imposed heresy by giving the Novus Ordo disappears once it becomes clear that he could not have been a Pope.  The indefectibility of the Church would prevent such things, and it has prevented such things.  

    Neil wrote:
    Quote
    And the pope can dig up his predecessor and throw his ass in the Tiber.  Okay?  It
    already happened.  And then the next pope can come along and fish the corpse
    out of the Tiber and put it back into the tomb again.  Okay?  It already happened.

    So let's throw away the Mass, and forget all about it for 3 generations, and then
    try to piece it all together and put it back into place again, so that after another
    3 or 4 generations we can throw it back into the Tiber and let bygones be
    bygones.  Okay?


    If you think I am arguing that Popes are perfect in everything they have done, then you have misunderstood me.  But, when it comes to the laws of the Church, and that includes the sacramental rites, they are infallibly protected from error.  

    A real pope would have never did what Paul VI did.  He broke with Tradition and officially taught heresy and then gave us the Novus Ordo ecuмenical meal.  

    Neil wrote:
    Quote
    He was using the pre-1955 missal and rubrics until an uprising of demonic
    controversy allowed satan's agents in Rome to force him to accept the missal
    of John XXIII, predecessor to the Newmass, a.k.a. 1962 Missal.  Never before
    in the history of the Church did a Pope throw out the entire Mass and start over
    with a Rogue's Gallery of hoodlums spewing out a foul stream for general
    consumption.  Never.  So don't even try that line of B.S.

    How many pages of facts do you want to ignore, anyway?

    And Trent did not concoct a New Mass of Trent.  That's why we shouldn't be
    calling it the "Tridentine Mass" -- that's another lie of the devil, for general
    consumption.

    They're harping on and on about continuity between Vatican II and what
    came before it.  You can say the same thing about the Missal of John XXIII and
    what came before that.  This is a never-before situation here.  Never before
    in the history of the Church has it been argued again and again that the latest
    council has to be reconciled with the previous councils.  It was never a topic
    of discussion to reconcile Vatican I with Trent, because they were both already
    the same Faith and the same religion.  Vatican II is a DIFFERENT religion, and
    I dare say it could not have happened if it were not for the fact that the Missal
    of John XXIII was right there on the altar.  If they had been using the 1570
    missal, the Missal of Pius XI, Vatican II would have flopped big time.  So there.


    I posted the principles that Archbishop Lefebvre used to explain the use of the 1962 missal earlier on this thread.  Do you disagree with those principles?  

    I agree with you that the term "Tridentine Mass" is a poor term.  

    Regarding the missal of John XXIII, there is nothing in it against the Faith.  This was the principle that Archbishop Lefebvre enunciated.  

    Regarding the Vatican II Council, I agree with you again, there is no way to reconcile it with the teaching of the Church.  It is impossible, as it contains both heresy and error.  This Council did not come from the Catholic Church.  

    If you want to think Vatican II was caused by Pius XII's law revising the Holy Week, and some relatively minor changes by John XXIII, then that is up to you.  I wonder if Pope Urban VIII's changes to the Missal in the 1600's also led to Vatican II, as that is where your logic seems to lead.

    Neil wrote:

    Quote
    What ABL did was take an impossible situation and make the best of it.  He did
    not desire or promote all the changes, but he rather tried the best he could to
    avoid the avalanche of sewage spilling out of Rome.  What he accomplished
    almost single-handedly is nothing short of miraculous.  But his theology is not
    what caused the 1962 Missal, nor the Holy Week changes that preceded it.

    We're going through the same stuff again, and it's all too easy to lose sight
    of what was lost.  The devil's plan is to keep shoveling changes on in layers,
    so that we scramble to deal with layers of an onion.  When we hang on fast
    to that which is irreproachable, we do not fall prey to any of the devils tactics,
    except inasmuch as we end up arguing over details.  That's back to the onion
    layers again.  Don't even go there!  


    As I said, the Archbishop gave his principles on why he accepted the 1962 missal.  There was nothing in it against the Faith.  

    The devil does have his plans, and as Catholics we defend ourselves by submission to the Church.  To avoid falling prey to the devil, trust in the Church, and do not become part of the problem by doubting Her Holiness.  Nothing evil or impious can come through the sacramental rites or the official prayers of the Church.

    Neil wrote:
    Quote

    And the Popes (no apostrophe - DUUH) have the power to dig a hole for
    themselves in hell, too.  So do you and so do I.  Does that make it okay
    or advisable??


    The Ambrose definition of heretic:
    Anyone who thinks he does not have the power to commit ѕυιcιdє is a
    heretic.  And that goes for the Pope too, so there.


    Yes, Popes can go to Hell, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.  What we are discussing here is the power of the popes to bind and loosen the laws of the Church.  You seem to be having trouble accepting this.  I will pray for you in my Rosary today that God will give you the grace to not doubt any teaching of the Church.

    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2664/-26
    • Gender: Female
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #28 on: March 06, 2013, 10:28:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The fourth session of Vatican I says:

    Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

    1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls [37], in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a Church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity.

    2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one [38].

    3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39], even as he had been sent by the Father [40], in like manner it was his will that in his Church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time.

    4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

    5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41].

    6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.

    7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.

    8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.

    Chapter 1
    On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

    1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

    2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

    Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

    3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
    Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

    4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

    5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

    6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

    Chapter 2.
    On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

    1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

    2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

    3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

    4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

    5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

    Chapter 3.
    On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

    1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecuмenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

    To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

    All this is to be found in the acts of the ecuмenical councils and the sacred canons.

    2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

    3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

    4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

    5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due." [51]

    6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

    7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

    8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

    9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

    Chapter 4.
    On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

    1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecuмenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

    2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion [56].

    What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
    "The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." [57]

    Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
    "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church." [58]

    3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

    4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59].

    5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circuмstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecuмenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

    6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

    Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60].

    7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

    8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

    9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

    So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

    Given at Rome in public session, solemnly held in the Vatican Basilica in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, on the eighteenth day of July, in the twenty-fifth year of Our Pontificate.

    That would include Quo Primum. It is irreformable!


    Quo Primum says:

    Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline Ambrose

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3447
    • Reputation: +2429/-13
    • Gender: Male
    What We Have Lost:
    « Reply #29 on: March 06, 2013, 01:59:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    That would include Quo Primum. It is irreformable!


    Quo Primum says:

    Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present docuмent cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing.


    Quo Primum
    was a disciplinary law of the Church.  A future Pope can make changes to it.  I have tried to tell you the truth about this, but you seem fixed in your ideas.  

    If you believe a Pope lacks the power to bind and loosen laws, then you are denying Our Lord's words to St. Peter, and the explicit teaching of the Church, and Sacred Tradition.  I hope you are just confused on this and are not culpable.

    By the way, if you go to Mass on Sunday, you are not going to the same Mass as approved by St. Pius V.  There have been changes to the Missal since Quo Primum.  
    The Council of Trent, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Papal Teaching, The Teaching of the Holy Office, The Teaching of the Church Fathers, The Code of Canon Law, Countless approved catechisms, The Doctors of the Church, The teaching of the Dogmatic