FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: I have come to a conclusion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(04-29-2010, 10:52 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]How can you claim the NO is catholic? can the church contradict itself? can the church yesterday say one thing then today say another? is truth changing with popular whim or is the truth eternal? the NO is not a catholic mass. its theology isn't catholic its protestant. so then tell me pray tell are protestants now catholic?
the great apostasy will come from the top. bxvi is not  a heretic but we have had a heretic pope before. so then what do you make of that?

Fine.  You answer the question, then.  How is Benedict XVI the pope if he does not celebrate the TLM and was elected by cardinals that do not celebrate the TLM?  He is part of this "Novus Ordo Church" which you claim is not Catholic.
he was ordained pre vpoo. he is the pope hes election is valid. . but he offers a non catholic mass the NO. but he also sees the NO as an on the spot banal fabrication in other words a bastard. i don't see what your plm is in this. so will you now answer my question?
(04-29-2010, 11:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]he was ordained pre vpoo. he is the pope hes election is valid. . but he offers a non catholic mass the NO. but he also sees the NO as an on the spot banal fabrication in other words a bastard. i don't see what your plm is in this. so will you now answer my question?

I believe the NO to be Catholic, albeit minimally. 

So, if the next pope is not ordained prior to Vatican II are you going to be a sede?
no are you?
(04-29-2010, 11:19 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]no are you?

No, but that is the logical conclusion to your previous statement.  If you believe that Benedict XVI is the pope only because he was ordained prior to VII, then what happens when the next pope elected was ordained post VII? 

Also, I'm quite familiar with the quote that Ratzinger believes the NO to be a "banal, on the spot fabrication", however he still celebrates it both publicly and privately, so it can't be too bad in his view.  So clearly he is Novus Ordo, but you say the NO is not Catholic while at the same time say he is the pope.  Do you see the contradiction?
did anyplace claim only because?
(04-29-2010, 11:31 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]did anyplace claim only because?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.  Can you clarify?
yes there is a contradiction with a pope offering a non catholic mass. yes indeed completely i agree. now go take it up with bxvi. im not making that contradiction he is. im only stating it as u did
did i claim anyplace i believe him to be the pope only because he was ordained pre vpoo? i said he was ordained pre vpoo but thats not the only reason i stated. read my post again pls

(04-29-2010, 11:34 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]yes there is a contradiction with a pope offering a non catholic mass. yes indeed completely i agree. now go take it up with bxvi. im not making that contradiction he is. im only stating it as u did
did i claim anyplace i believe him to be the pope only because he was ordained pre vpoo? i said he was ordained pre vpoo but thats not the only reason i stated. read my post again pls

I asked how you think BXVI is the pope while he still offers the NO.  You said:

(04-29-2010, 11:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]he was ordained pre vpoo. he is the pope hes election is valid. . but he offers a non catholic mass the NO. but he also sees the NO as an on the spot banal fabrication in other words a bastard. i don't see what your plm is in this. so will you now answer my question?

The implication to the above is that you think he is a validly elected pope because he was ordained pre-VII.  I questioned the logical conclusion to that argument.  Is there another reason you are not stating?


Finally you have stated unequivocally that you believe the NO is protestant.  Benedict XVI celebrates only the NO.  He ordains only in the NO.  How is he not a protestant in your opinion? 
I can see what amasimp is getting at here.  It touches on an unresolved issue I have with the SSPX, too.  It appears to be a logical contradiction to say that Benedict is the true pope on the one hand and then on the other hand say that the NO is not part of the Catholic church.  Maybe this isn't a logical contradiction because of something I don't see or understand, but it certainly appears to be one.  I believe we can fully criticize the NO and pray for its hasty departure without having to say that it's not a part of the Catholic church.  I can also clearly see saying that it is a "bastard" mass (DK's favorite descriptor of it) and still saying that it's part of the Catholic church.  What I have hard time reconciling is saying that it is outside of the Catholic church, because then that places all priests who celebrate it outside of the Catholic church, including the Pope.  And if the Pope is outside of the Catholic church then the logical conclusion is sedevacantism, is it not?  So, those who believe that the NO is outside of the Catholic church and that the Pope is a true pope, how do you resolve this conflict?  Thanks.

I'd like to also say that Benedict is a true pope and therefore I believe that the NO is part of the Catholic church, albeit a part that needs to go.

Pax vobiscum,
Jesse
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10