FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians (/showthread.php?tid=48895)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Old Salt - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 02:44 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:51 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:41 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: validity does not make a mass catholic. the orthodox have valid masses, shit a black mass can be valid. neither are catholic. the orthodox certainly is more catholic then the NO. the no is catholic in paperwork only. it has the paperwork to show a prod bastard mass it is as catholic.
its not
its very far from it
Stubborn said the NO is not valid, I was pointing out that he is wrong.

That it is always valid is absolutely impossible to prove - particularly when compared to that with which it replaced.
You made the statement that the "NO is not valid", not that is impiossible to prove its validity or invalidity.
For that matter one could not prove the validity of the TLM or Divine Liturgy..
To make a balnket statement in the Language arts one does not use a quantifier, and you did not use a quantifier in your previous statement:
"the NO is not valid"

Proving the validity of the NO or not is an altogether different point than saying: "the NO is not valid"


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Stubborn - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 02:09 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:30 PM)Stubborn Wrote: That begs the question.......why would anyone believe any thing that the NO taught?

Stubborn, the issue is not as clear-cut for the vast majority of people as it appears to be for you.  You show great arrogance in looking down on people who are sincerely trying to be faithful Catholics, insinuating that they are somehow stupid for trying to follow the visible Church.  This is a seriously confusing time; that's why it is a crisis.  Please don't act like you are better and smarter than those who with good faith and sincerity are trying to do the right thing.  I find it hard to imagine Christ casting someone into hell because they sincerely tried to follow the Pope and the Magisterium in a time of crisis.  It is a CRISIS, and a terrible one at that, when the Church herself becomes an obstacle to sanctity.  But we cannot fault well-intentioned faithful Catholics who are simply trying to do what the Church has taught:  follow the Pope and the Magisterium.  They may be wrong, but we shouldn't insinuate that they are stupid or faithless.  In the end, Christ may well have more mercy on them for trying to do the right thing and remaining humble than for those who put themselves above others.

Pax,
Jesse

I assure you that I have/had no intention of making myself seem smarter and making other folks seem stupid. Sorry to come across that way - but at the same time, this is a TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC Forum. And using the logic of the last few posts, I am innocent due to my own lack of knowing that I came across that way - so please accept my acknowledgement as a positive sign that I do not mean to come across that way from now on please.

If the NO never existed, this would simply be a Catholic Forum. Whoever comes here trying to say the NO is valid, licit, wonderful or any other such bs is going to hear what they do not want to hear. They have ears to hear - let them hear.

I've been around and lived my whole life as a trad - and trads do not participate with the modernists under the false presumption that the NOM enjoys the protection of the Church's Indefectibility  as I posted elsewhere.

And I do get angry when the same posters who think they can serve God and Mammon call themselves "Trads". If I cannot attend the NO because of what it is, then the same goes for the rest of you. And I know that I cannot attend the evil thing under any circumstances and that fact has caused me it's share of suffering in my life - but things sure could have been much simpler if I coulda just said "well, the pope says it" or some other such bs.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Stubborn - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 02:50 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 02:44 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:51 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:41 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: validity does not make a mass catholic. the orthodox have valid masses, shit a black mass can be valid. neither are catholic. the orthodox certainly is more catholic then the NO. the no is catholic in paperwork only. it has the paperwork to show a prod bastard mass it is as catholic.
its not
its very far from it
Stubborn said the NO is not valid, I was pointing out that he is wrong.

That it is always valid is absolutely impossible to prove - particularly when compared to that with which it replaced.
You made the statement that the "NO is not valid", not that is impiossible to prove its validity or invalidity.
For that matter one could not prove the validity of the TLM or Divine Liturgy..
To make a balnket statement in the Language arts one does not use a quantifier, and you did not use a quantifier in your previous statement:
"the NO is not valid"

Proving the validity of the NO or not is an altogether different point than saying: "the NO is not valid"

One has infallible declarations regarding the validity of the True Mass - look them up sometime.

The new mass has nothing older than 1965 - which makes it suspect every time it is said.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Stubborn - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 02:47 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 02:44 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:51 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:41 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: validity does not make a mass catholic. the orthodox have valid masses, shit a black mass can be valid. neither are catholic. the orthodox certainly is more catholic then the NO. the no is catholic in paperwork only. it has the paperwork to show a prod bastard mass it is as catholic.
its not
its very far from it
Stubborn said the NO is not valid, I was pointing out that he is wrong.

That it is always valid is absolutely impossible to prove - particularly when compared to that with which it replaced.

It is equally impossible to say that the TLM is *always* valid.  I imagine there have been invalid TLMs said over the years, eh?

That would be as impossible to prove as it is to prove there has ever been a valid NOM.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Old Salt - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 02:57 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 02:47 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 02:44 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:51 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 01:41 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: validity does not make a mass catholic. the orthodox have valid masses, shit a black mass can be valid. neither are catholic. the orthodox certainly is more catholic then the NO. the no is catholic in paperwork only. it has the paperwork to show a prod bastard mass it is as catholic.
its not
its very far from it
Stubborn said the NO is not valid, I was pointing out that he is wrong.

That it is always valid is absolutely impossible to prove - particularly when compared to that with which it replaced.

It is equally impossible to say that the TLM is *always* valid.  I imagine there have been invalid TLMs said over the years, eh?

That would be as impossible to prove as it is to prove there has ever been a valid NOM.
It actually is very easy to prove the validity of the NO Mass; if the correct form and matter are used.
I have been to maybe two invalid NO Masses that I could blatantly tell.
I have been to one invalid TLM that I know of for sure.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Someone1776 - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 02:56 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The new mass has nothing older than 1965 - which makes it suspect every time it is said.

You mean 1969.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Stubborn - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 03:05 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(09-16-2011, 02:56 PM)Stubborn Wrote: The new mass has nothing older than 1965 - which makes it suspect every time it is said.

You mean 1969.

I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.  ;)


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Vetus Ordo - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 03:05 PM)dan hunter Wrote: It actually is very easy to prove the validity of the NO Mass; if the correct form and matter are used.

You're forgetting intention.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - devotedknuckles - 09-16-2011

a half breed did get whipped up in 65 if im no mistaken




Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Someone1776 - 09-16-2011

(09-16-2011, 03:07 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: a half breed did get whipped up in 65 if im no mistaken

The missal used form 1965-1969 still used the text of the 1962 missal only in the vernacular, without the prayers at the foot of the altar, the last gospel, and the priest facing the altar.  Deficient as it was it still used the same calendar, propers, and ordinary (with exceptions noted) as the 1962 missal. 

In contrast, the Novus Ordo was a brand new missal made from scratch.