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 - 09-21-2011

(09-21-2011, 10:47 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: then your zelotry for the No on here has no excuse.
if its just cuz u wanna spar sure fair ill do that. but if its soem twisted shit in regards to you hating yet lauding the NO here well thats sick
I have never been zealous for or stated that I loved the NO, quite the contrary, that is why I am here.
I have only stated repeatedly that the NO can be a Catholic Mass and if there is no other option at fulfilling the First Precept of the Church then we must assist at it, if physically able to, and as such as it is a Catholic Mass it is the Sacrifice of Golgotha re-presented in an unbloody manner and that is an awesome thing, the most awesome thing this side of the vale of tears.
But I have no zealous love for the NO over the TLM.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - devotedknuckles - 09-21-2011

thats a heavy load rubbish. can be a catholic mass does not cut it. souls are at stake
ya basta!!


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - INPEFESS - 09-22-2011

(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 08:36 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 06:37 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Mass is extremely rich in meaning.

And the meaning has already been explained and defined. It can only be specified further. It can't evolve into a new meaning or purpose.

Quote:  Expanding on what was said at Trent to include other traditional ideas on the Mass is perfectly reasonable and orthodox.

Then please provide evidence that the common practice of the Church is to change (rather than further specify) Her traditional teachings to suit the needs of the time.

The Church specifies concepts within an already-infallible definition. It answers challenges to the meanings of the words themselves. It doesn't apply new concepts or new ideas to what has already been infallibly defined.

The Mass is Christ's sacrifice on the cross made present.  It is also a gathering a God's people.  It is also a foretaste of the Heavenly Banquet.  It is also an opportunity to receive Grace.  It is also an opportunity for the faithful to be instructed.  It is also the supreme prayer of the Church. It is also the New Passover. It is also the Lord's Supper. Etc. 

But the Mass is the Sacrifice; it's purpose is to make propitiation for sin. This is what Trent already defined. There are other functions of the Mass as well, but without they sacrifice they are ineffective. It is a sacrifice first and foremost. It is not a gathering first and foremost to celebrate Christ's presence among the people.   

Quote:The Church's teaching on the Mass has many, many things to say.  There was nothing in the GIRM that was a new teaching or a change to tradition or a contradiction of what went before, even if it did not use the exact same wording as Trent. 

You have not provided evidence. You are simply making claims. Find that definition of the Mass taught by the magisterium of the Church throughout all the ages pre-Vatican II--including Trent--and I'll concede that this just a reiteration of what the Church has always and everywhere taught.

Quote:From my perspective, you keep seeing problems that aren't really there.  You seem to be looking for the most negative way to interpret what is said and done in the Church. And you certainly look to me like you already have your conclusion.  I am not going to accept anything just because you say it.  You have absolutely no authority in yourself.  Your words can only have value to me if you are able to convince me of their truth.  When I weigh what you write against what I know of Church teaching, I conclude that you are wrong.

The Church teaching is being contradicted whether you like it or not. I have shown this to you in black and white and you find excuses to get yourself off the hook. This is not weighing what I write against what you know of the Church; this is you not wanting to have to deal with evidence.

You are making claims (that this has always been the teaching of the Church) and then not backing them up. Intellectual honesty demands that you stop side-stepping the words of the Church, which I have been providing to you over the past several months, and actually deal with them. Instead, you simply say: "Oh, these three pages of text is only saying simply x," when it is written in black and white that they are explaining in great detail that they are saying y. They don't mean x because you say they mean x. The words say what they say, JayneK. They don't say something different because you want them to.

The Novus Ordo teaches, in its own words, that "non-Catholic Christians are therefore not outside of the one church." It uses those exact words. I have shown you this before.

That is a black and white denial of the Church's teaching, and it appeals to the ambiguity of Vatican II to teach that error. And Benedict XVI stated in black and white that the said-ambiguity (that everyone tries to justify by interpreting it "in the light of tradition") of Vatican II was intentional for the purpose of facilitating the teachings of those same texts that now deny the teachings of the Catholic Church. You can make excuses all day long, but at the end of the day, the denial is still there in black and white and so is the intention to do it. It doesn't go away because you think that I am reading too much into things.

What if tomorrow BXVI stated that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not the mother of God? Would you tell me that I'm just perceiving problems where there really are none? What do words mean if not what they mean?

What is the point of having teachings of the Church necessary for the salvation of all if we haven't the competence to even know what they mean, to understand the basic truths of the Faith, or to recognize error when we see it? How do we know we aren't in error if no-one really knows what error is? How is there a unity of faith if no-one can know what the Faith is? How can we avoid error if we aren't even able to know truth--because it is, as you say, too complex to really know what truth is?

The Church has told us that we are permitted to use Her teachings to recognize even subtle error. You seem to disagree. And so out of obedience to the hierarchy today you seem to forsake obedience to the entire hierarchy of the Church for the past 2000 years, including St. Paul himself, who says that we are to recognize even perversions of the truth (not outright denials of it) and then consider such a person to be anathema. 

Quote:It is a basic principle of theology that one ought to start with the presupposition that the magisterium is correct.

It is a basic principle of logic that one ought to start with one's premise.

You, however, assume that this is the magisterium when that is the very point being debated.

The magisterium is pristine. If only one error is taught using the teaching authority of the Church, it cannot be the magisterium.

If a cardinal tells me the magisterium says that the Blessed Virgin Mary is not the mother of God and then hands me some document confirming it with BXVI's signature on it, I'm obviously going to reject it as not being from the authentic magisterium. I don't care what men signed it. "We ought to obey God rather than men." The ordinary magisterium cannot teach errors pertaining to the Faith. It is impossible. That is an eternal truth. If something claiming to be the magisterium contains error, then (1) either the Catholic Church is false, or (2) it is not actually the magisterium. The only other option is to turn a blind eye to the document and pretend that it really means something different than what it actually says. This destroys the unity of faith, is intellectually dishonest, destroys the purpose of divine revelation, and reduces the Catholic Church to a political game.

It is not hard to know what the Church teaches. Difficult to fully comprehend these truths, yes; difficult to know what these truths are, no.

For example, I don't have to understand how the Trinity works to know what the Church teaches about it. If BXVI comes out and says that there are really four persons of the Blessed Trinity--of which Mary is now the fourth person--I don't have to understand the complexities of the Trinity to conclude that that is not what the Church teaches.

Similarly, the Church teaches that non-Catholics are outside of the one true Church. It doesn't matter how God's grace maintains this unity, how He sees to it that even those who privately deny truth separate themselves from the Church, or at what exact point someone separates himself from the Church. What the Church teaches is what we must believe. She teaches that non-Catholics are outside of the one true Church. A statement that manifestly contradicts it is in error, and no appeal to complexities beyond our understanding can reconcile them. We don't have to know how the Church works, but we do need to know what She teaches in order to maintain the unity of faith. If no-one knows what the Church teaches, and if no-one can recognize error, then how is this unity maintained and how do we ever know that are not in error?

You have this modern RCIA-esque notion that truth is too elusive to actually know with certainty. That idea, JayneK, comes from the heresy of Modernism. Since no-one can know it, and since dogmas are merely formulas and expressions that can change from age to age, then no-one should be upset when the "magisterium" changes the expression of the dogma to mean something different. After all, who really knows? It's just too elusive and complex to know with certainty, so just obey whatever they tell you and you can't go wrong. Meanwhile, the divinely-revealed truth continues to twist and turn to adapt to the needs of the age.

God has divinely revealed His religion to us that we might know, with absolute certainty, what that Truth is. We don't have to understand how it works in order to know what the truth is. If something contradicts what that truth is, then it is in error. "But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil." To deny that these truths are simply too complex to know with certainty is a denial of divine revelation and is condemned as a heresy by the Church.

But this brings up an interesting question: How do we know it is condemned by the Church? Maybe all those wordy encyclicals that explained this to us are simply too complex to understand. Maybe all the popes, saints, fathers, and theologians were simply wasting their time telling us about the truth when there was really no way to know what truth was in the first place.

But then if that is the case, then God, too, wasted His time sending His Son to teach us a truth that was too complex to know with certainty. Those disciples who walked away when Christ told them, unequivocally, of His Real Presence in the Eucharist just didn't understand. Maybe they weren't wrong after all. Maybe it was just too complex for them to know with certainty.

But all of this denies the whole point of Catholicism, which is the divinely-revealed truth of God. It is called "revealed" because it has been made known to us and is no longer hidden from us as it was from the Jews. It has been taught to us by Christ and His Apostles that we might know what the truth is. St. Paul warns us to keep a look-out for false gospels that pervert the teachings of Christ. He tells us that even if an angel from Heaven or they, the Apostles themselves, who were the Church hierarchy, teach anything besides that which we had already received (meaning that we are comparing a new teaching from the hierarchy itself to the old teaching already set in stone), then we are to consider such a teacher to be anathema. In order to do this, it requires that we know what truth is and be able to defend it; to recognize error when we see and then then condemn it; and to hold fast to these teachings even if our leaders are effectively denying it. 
Pope Leo XIII Wrote:"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no.  9, June 29, 1896.

Teaching from St. Paul's divinely-revealed teaching, that means anyone, and it means that we have to be able to detect even the least degree of recession from the faith. If it is as you say--that it is too complex to know--then you have to ignore Leo XIII and the unanimous teaching of the fathers.

We are to know the Faith and be able to recognize heresy when we encounter it:
Pope Pius IV Wrote:“These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 4.

In order to buy into the post-conciliar magisterium, and in order to ignore its contradictions in the name of some illusive, unknowable truth, you have to effectively reject what the Church taught before Vatican II. That is impossible for a Catholic to do in good faith.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - ggreg - 09-22-2011

(09-21-2011, 10:25 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 10:21 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 10:20 PM)dan hunter Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 10:18 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: actually if by that you mean as in  obey in all things not sinfull then alas i am
guilty as charged
No, As in pick and choose from the Deposit of the Faith what you want to believe.

Are you out of your mind?

You're not describing DK, you're describing the majority of so-called "Catholics" today: laity and clergy alike.
No, I am also describing him, if he believes that the NO can not be a Catholic Mass than he is a cafeteria catholic.

In a cafeteria you choose the things you like that fuel your passions, and leave the things you don't like.

A Catholic using artificial contraception is a cafeteria Catholic.  A Catholic supporting women priests because their sister or friend would like to become a priestess is a cafeteria Catholic.  A Catholic parent who puts up with their children sleeping around before marriage is a cafeteria Catholic.

DK gains no personal advantage in believing that the NO mass is not Catholic.  There are reasons to believe this MIGHT be the case.  So he is not really a cafeteria Catholic.  You're using a false term to describe him.

Objecting to something because you think it is immoral and wrong is NOT the same as ignoring or rejecting a moral law because it is convenient and more pleasant for you to do so.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Nic - 09-22-2011

In reality, it is the N.O. and Vatican II defending neo-cons that are the true "Cafeteria Catholics."  They now accept religious liberty and (false) ecumenism when the Tradition of the Church tells them not to.  They accept a Mass that clearly doesn't teach the traditional Catholic Faith and is based upon a rite that was previously condemned by the Church.  They choose to reject the sustaining nutrition of tradition and "feed" upon the novelty of the day - just because "Rome" says it tastes good.

What absolutely blows my mind is that these people, who call themselves "trads," thus showing that they have some knowledge of this current crisis, defend and attend a Mass that has done so much destruction to the Church.  This is absolutely ridiculous! Can they not see just what happened at its arrival?  Can they not see that the altars were stripped out of the churches and Protestant tables brought in when this rite usurped within the official structure of the Church?  Can they not see that the use of "for all" instead of "for many" goes strictly against what the Church has always taught?  Can they not see the countless abuses that are allowed and even encouraged by this rite? (altar girls, women wearing no veils, women speaking in church, Holy Communion under both forms, Holy Communion received in the hands) - these are all abuses ALLOWED by the N.O. to keep people away from true Catholicism and to make them believe that the Mass is nothing more than a symbolic community meal.  AND GUESS WHAT!?  That is EXACTLY what has happened?  Come on people, let's get real here!  The statistics don't lie - the state of the Church is plain to see for those who care to see it.  This isn't because of some "deficiencies" with the New rite of Mass - this is because the New rite of Mass itself is what is deficient.  Anything that allows such "deficiencies" is deficient itself.  The Latin Mass never allowed such things and still doesn't. 

Blind obedience simply doesn't cut it, folks.  Just because a rite of Mass is (falsely) called the "Ordinary Form" doesn't mean at all that it is a Catholic Mass that truly teaches the traditional Catholic Faith and that we should attend it no matter what, just because it is "all that is available."  It is absolutely NOT Catholic to just put up with all of the abuses and sacrileges just to receive a (possibly) valid sacrament.  When Arianism thoroughly infected the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, do you think that St. Athanasius and his followers just "put up with" the Arian abuses in the Mass just to get their Sunday Obligation "stamp" for the week?  Absolutely NOT! - they were "excommunicated" for their strict adherence to tradition.  When Protestantism was infecting England in the 16th century and many Masses were becoming Protestant or "Protestantized", do you think those Catholics just "put up with" those abuses to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  Absolutely NOT! - many died for their traditional stance.  This plague of blind obedience is a major factor in tearing down the Church.

Just how far does it go?  We have a rite of Mass that is so thoroughly Protestant (or "Protestantized), with so many abuses and sacrileges, yet people STILL attend it just to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  How far does it go?  If a Mass that was said by a naked priest was "all that was available," would I be duty-bound to attend it?  If a Satanic Black Mass was all that was available, said by a validly ordained priest with a valid consecration, would I still be duty bound to attend it?  It is this same reasoning that keeps me away from the N.O. Mass.  If Catholics even 100 years ago were asked "Would you attend a Mass that is strictly based off of Thomas Cranmer's rite, a rite previously condemned by the Church, and this new rite was manufactured by 6 Protestants and a Freemason - would you attend this Mass if it was all that was available, even if Rome calls it the Ordinary Form."  I am sure that the overwhelming answer would be NO.  It is only because of the relatively slow pace that these abuses became prevalent that Catholics today are so blinded to them.  It is like the frog and the boiling water experiment.  Throw a frog into a pot of boiling water and he immediately jumps out.  Put a frog into cool water and bring it to a steady boil and he will boil himself to death.  The great thing is that many people, like Archbishop Lefebvre, began to notice the water getting hot.  They wouldn't let the errors, novelty and sacrileges boil them to death.  They got out and took a courageous stand.  God Bless them for that.  One day many of these people will be called saints by the Catholic Church, much like St. Athanasius is today - for taking the same stance that these folks did.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - Nic - 09-22-2011

Absolutely brilliant post, INPEFESS.  Brilliant!    :tiphat:

Unfortunately, most people like JayneK refuse to see the clear evidence of this crisis.  She'll probably come back with something like, "well, the Pope says the Novus Ordo Mass is the Ordinary Form.  That is good enough for me."  As I have shown in my previous post, it is this sense of blind obedience today that is a major factor in the Church's destruction.  The Church herself teaches us to recognize error using her own Tradition - and to reject that error even if the Pope himself is the one stating it.  We ought to be obedient to God over man.

Just like you stated, I know that something that is clearly against the Church's infallible Tradition is not of the current infallible Magesterium.  The defense and teaching of religious liberty and ecumenism are great examples - as well as the New Mass itself.

God Bless you, INPEFESS.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - JayneK - 09-22-2011

(09-22-2011, 04:18 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Mass is Christ's sacrifice on the cross made present.  It is also a gathering a God's people.  It is also a foretaste of thuee Heavenly Banquet.  It is also an opportunity to receive Grace.  It is also an opportunity for the faithful to be instructed.  It is also the supreme prayer of the Church. It is also the New Passover. It is also the Lord's Supper. Etc. 

But the Mass is the Sacrifice; it's purpose is to make propitiation for sin. This is what Trent already defined. There are other functions of the Mass as well, but without they sacrifice they are ineffective. It is a sacrifice first and foremost. It is not a gathering first and foremost to celebrate Christ's presence among the people. 

If I were to invoke the Blessed Virgin as Our Lady Seat of Wisdom or as Queen of Apostles, this would not imply that I do not consider her the Mother of God. Nor would it mean that I do not consider that her most essential title.  When there are many true things to be said, saying one of them is not a denial of the others.  Just because the newer teaching mentions other true things about the Mass, it does not mean the teaching denies that the Mass is a Sacrifice that makes propitiation for sin.  That is still very much a teaching of the Church.  Nowhere does recent teaching say that the foremost meaning of the Mass is to celebrate Christ's presence among His people.  That is given as one aspect, not the most important aspect.
 
(09-22-2011, 04:18 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: It is a basic principle of theology that one ought to start with the presupposition that the magisterium is correct.

It is a basic principle of logic that one ought to start with one's premise.

You, however, assume that this is the magisterium when that is the very point being debated.

The magisterium is pristine. If only one error is taught using the teaching authority of the Church, it cannot be the magisterium.

And this is probably why you keep seeing heresies in Church teaching.  You want to see them because you do not want to accept the authority of the magisterium.  You see errors because you want to find errors.  There is no question in my mind that the Pope is truly the Pope and this is my starting premise.  That is not something that I wish to debate and it is against the rules of this forum to do so.

I have not been able to address all the points you raised, since I have limited time available for this forum.  Researching and replying to your posts would be a full-time job.  If you would raise one question at a time, I could show that the contradictions and errors you claim exist, do not.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - ggreg - 09-22-2011

(09-22-2011, 08:37 AM)Nic Wrote: In reality, it is the N.O. and Vatican II defending neo-cons that are the true "Cafeteria Catholics."  They now accept religious liberty and (false) ecumenism when the Tradition of the Church tells them not to.  They accept a Mass that clearly doesn't teach the traditional Catholic Faith and is based upon a rite that was previously condemned by the Church.  They choose to reject the sustaining nutrition of tradition and "feed" upon the novelty of the day - just because "Rome" says it tastes good.

What absolutely blows my mind is that these people, who call themselves "trads," thus showing that they have some knowledge of this current crisis, defend and attend a Mass that has done so much destruction to the Church.  This is absolutely ridiculous! Can they not see just what happened at its arrival?  Can they not see that the altars were stripped out of the churches and Protestant tables brought in when this rite usurped within the official structure of the Church?  Can they not see that the use of "for all" instead of "for many" goes strictly against what the Church has always taught?  Can they not see the countless abuses that are allowed and even encouraged by this rite? (altar girls, women wearing no veils, women speaking in church, Holy Communion under both forms, Holy Communion received in the hands) - these are all abuses ALLOWED by the N.O. to keep people away from true Catholicism and to make them believe that the Mass is nothing more than a symbolic community meal.  AND GUESS WHAT!?  That is EXACTLY what has happened?  Come on people, let's get real here!  The statistics don't lie - the state of the Church is plain to see for those who care to see it.  This isn't because of some "deficiencies" with the New rite of Mass - this is because the New rite of Mass itself is what is deficient.  Anything that allows such "deficiencies" is deficient itself.  The Latin Mass never allowed such things and still doesn't. 

Blind obedience simply doesn't cut it, folks.  Just because a rite of Mass is (falsely) called the "Ordinary Form" doesn't mean at all that it is a Catholic Mass that truly teaches the traditional Catholic Faith and that we should attend it no matter what, just because it is "all that is available."  It is absolutely NOT Catholic to just put up with all of the abuses and sacrileges just to receive a (possibly) valid sacrament.  When Arianism thoroughly infected the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, do you think that St. Athanasius and his followers just "put up with" the Arian abuses in the Mass just to get their Sunday Obligation "stamp" for the week?  Absolutely NOT! - they were "excommunicated" for their strict adherence to tradition.  When Protestantism was infecting England in the 16th century and many Masses were becoming Protestant or "Protestantized", do you think those Catholics just "put up with" those abuses to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  Absolutely NOT! - many died for their traditional stance.  This plague of blind obedience is a major factor in tearing down the Church.

Just how far does it go?  We have a rite of Mass that is so thoroughly Protestant (or "Protestantized), with so many abuses and sacrileges, yet people STILL attend it just to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  How far does it go?  If a Mass that was said by a naked priest was "all that was available," would I be duty-bound to attend it?  If a Satanic Black Mass was all that was available, said by a validly ordained priest with a valid consecration, would I still be duty bound to attend it?  It is this same reasoning that keeps me away from the N.O. Mass.  If Catholics even 100 years ago were asked "Would you attend a Mass that is strictly based off of Thomas Cranmer's rite, a rite previously condemned by the Church, and this new rite was manufactured by 6 Protestants and a Freemason - would you attend this Mass if it was all that was available, even if Rome calls it the Ordinary Form."  I am sure that the overwhelming answer would be NO.  It is only because of the relatively slow pace that these abuses became prevalent that Catholics today are so blinded to them.  It is like the frog and the boiling water experiment.  Throw a frog into a pot of boiling water and he immediately jumps out.  Put a frog into cool water and bring it to a steady boil and he will boil himself to death.  The great thing is that many people, like Archbishop Lefebvre, began to notice the water getting hot.  They wouldn't let the errors, novelty and sacrileges boil them to death.  They got out and took a courageous stand.  God Bless them for that.  One day many of these people will be called saints by the Catholic Church, much like St. Athanasius is today - for taking the same stance that these folks did.

It comes down to this.

If a good tree cannot bear bad fruit then the tree that produced the fruits we have now must be utterly rotten to the core.

The last 50 years have been an utter disaster for souls, vocations, altar boys, you name it.

Whatever tree produced those fruits is a shit tree.  If you say otherwise then you're denying the black and white logic of the Gospel as well as common sense.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - INPEFESS - 09-23-2011

(09-22-2011, 12:37 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(09-22-2011, 04:18 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: The Mass is Christ's sacrifice on the cross made present.  It is also a gathering a God's people.  It is also a foretaste of thuee Heavenly Banquet.  It is also an opportunity to receive Grace.  It is also an opportunity for the faithful to be instructed.  It is also the supreme prayer of the Church. It is also the New Passover. It is also the Lord's Supper. Etc. 

But the Mass is the Sacrifice; it's purpose is to make propitiation for sin. This is what Trent already defined. There are other functions of the Mass as well, but without they sacrifice they are ineffective. It is a sacrifice first and foremost. It is not a gathering first and foremost to celebrate Christ's presence among the people. 

If I were to invoke the Blessed Virgin as Our Lady Seat of Wisdom or as Queen of Apostles, this would not imply that I do not consider her the Mother of God.

No, but if you were teach, with Abp. Zollitsch (who is still "in full communion" by the way), that, though it was relevant at the time to teach that Christ may have died for our sins, the primary purpose of His dying on the Cross was to express His solidarity with the sufferings of mankind, you would be compromising the dogma of the redemption in the name of novel, humanistic interpretation. It may be somewhat true, but it is not found as the teaching of the Church throughout antiquity, and it serves only to marginalize the dogma of the Redemption. Such an error is perfect for bringing all peoples and religions together by appealing to the least common denominator upon which we can all agree while still paying lip-service to the dogma that was relevant at that time.

Traditionally, you would chastised for teaching such a thing as that--excommunicated perhaps. In the Vatican today, however, there would be no condemnation; instead, you would be promoted by the pope himself, as was the case of Abp. Zollitsch.


Quote:  
(09-22-2011, 04:18 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(09-21-2011, 09:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: It is a basic principle of theology that one ought to start with the presupposition that the magisterium is correct.

It is a basic principle of logic that one ought to start with one's premise.

You, however, assume that this is the magisterium when that is the very point being debated.

The magisterium is pristine. If only one error is taught using the teaching authority of the Church, it cannot be the magisterium.

And this is probably why you keep seeing heresies in Church teaching.  You want to see them because you do not want to accept the authority of the magisterium.

You can choose to believe this, of course, but let's try to be reasonable: Is is probable that I'd rather drive 2 hours and 20 minutes one-way each Sunday to attend the Mass of St. Pius V than 20 minutes to the beautiful new cathedral built for the Indult Mass?

I find errors because the errors exist. You ignore the errors because you don't want to have to consider there might actually be errors, due to your false premise that reduces your arguments to circularity: 'He must be the pope, so any contradiction that is found must just really be an illusion to the unknowability of what the Church really teaches.'

You can try to impugn my motives, but in the end it is you who fail to address the evidence I provide. I face the evidence; you ignore it by making excuses such as "too simple", "too complex", "inconclusive", "not enough", "benefit of doubt", etc.

But when the words themselves no longer leave any room for doubt, what then is left of its benefit?   

Quote:  You see errors because you want to find errors.

No, I see errors because I read objectively. When I see an error I try to excuse it; I can excuse many Vatican II documents. But when it cannot be excused, I do not defend it.

I have told you before. I approach this matter inductively. I start with observations, and then I come to a conclusion based upon the only possible meaning of those observations: the Novus Ordo denies what the Church has always taught. This does not destroy the Catholic religion, however, because I know that such a thing does not contradict the teachings of the Church concerning Her visibility and indefectibility. On the contrary, it is these very teachings of the Novus Ordo that contradict what the Church has taught concerning Her visibility and indefectibility.

You, however, start with your premise, which you stated:
JayneK Wrote: There is no question in my mind that the Pope is truly the Pope and this is my starting premise.

Based on a premise that refuses to acknowledge possibilities taught by Paul IV, Aquinas, Suarez, Bellarmine, Vidal, Liguori, Antoninus, et al., you then come to a conclusion: there is no contradiction. When I ask that you explain yourself, you simply brush aside the issue with the aforementioned excuses.

I think it you will agree that such a method is not objective reasoning.

Of this I could quote you and say, 'You refuse to find errors because you want to refuse to find errors.'

Quote:    That is not something that I wish to debate and it is against the rules of this forum to do so.

I understand, but (1) truth is no always what we wish, and (2) there is truth outside of what this forum permits to be discussed. So, if it indeed could be true, then I should hope that this forum would not be accountable for keeping you from it.

Quote:I have not been able to address all the points you raised, since I have limited time available for this forum.  Researching and replying to your posts would be a full-time job.  If you would raise one question at a time, I could show that the contradictions and errors you claim exist, do not.

I have raised the objection that the original GIRM is un-Catholic; it is Protestant at best. But it is not borrowed from the Protestants to be used for Protestants. It was borrowed from the Protestants to be used for false ecumenism, which was condemned as one of the goals of Modernism.

This official statement, which was promulgated by Paul VI, clearly shows what the purpose of the new liturgy was all about. If we want to know what the creators' intentions were concerning the point of the new liturgy, then the investigation starts there.


Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - INPEFESS - 09-23-2011

(09-22-2011, 07:14 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(09-22-2011, 08:37 AM)Nic Wrote: In reality, it is the N.O. and Vatican II defending neo-cons that are the true "Cafeteria Catholics."  They now accept religious liberty and (false) ecumenism when the Tradition of the Church tells them not to.  They accept a Mass that clearly doesn't teach the traditional Catholic Faith and is based upon a rite that was previously condemned by the Church.  They choose to reject the sustaining nutrition of tradition and "feed" upon the novelty of the day - just because "Rome" says it tastes good.

What absolutely blows my mind is that these people, who call themselves "trads," thus showing that they have some knowledge of this current crisis, defend and attend a Mass that has done so much destruction to the Church.  This is absolutely ridiculous! Can they not see just what happened at its arrival?  Can they not see that the altars were stripped out of the churches and Protestant tables brought in when this rite usurped within the official structure of the Church?  Can they not see that the use of "for all" instead of "for many" goes strictly against what the Church has always taught?  Can they not see the countless abuses that are allowed and even encouraged by this rite? (altar girls, women wearing no veils, women speaking in church, Holy Communion under both forms, Holy Communion received in the hands) - these are all abuses ALLOWED by the N.O. to keep people away from true Catholicism and to make them believe that the Mass is nothing more than a symbolic community meal.  AND GUESS WHAT!?  That is EXACTLY what has happened?  Come on people, let's get real here!  The statistics don't lie - the state of the Church is plain to see for those who care to see it.  This isn't because of some "deficiencies" with the New rite of Mass - this is because the New rite of Mass itself is what is deficient.  Anything that allows such "deficiencies" is deficient itself.  The Latin Mass never allowed such things and still doesn't. 

Blind obedience simply doesn't cut it, folks.  Just because a rite of Mass is (falsely) called the "Ordinary Form" doesn't mean at all that it is a Catholic Mass that truly teaches the traditional Catholic Faith and that we should attend it no matter what, just because it is "all that is available."  It is absolutely NOT Catholic to just put up with all of the abuses and sacrileges just to receive a (possibly) valid sacrament.  When Arianism thoroughly infected the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, do you think that St. Athanasius and his followers just "put up with" the Arian abuses in the Mass just to get their Sunday Obligation "stamp" for the week?  Absolutely NOT! - they were "excommunicated" for their strict adherence to tradition.  When Protestantism was infecting England in the 16th century and many Masses were becoming Protestant or "Protestantized", do you think those Catholics just "put up with" those abuses to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  Absolutely NOT! - many died for their traditional stance.  This plague of blind obedience is a major factor in tearing down the Church.

Just how far does it go?  We have a rite of Mass that is so thoroughly Protestant (or "Protestantized), with so many abuses and sacrileges, yet people STILL attend it just to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  How far does it go?  If a Mass that was said by a naked priest was "all that was available," would I be duty-bound to attend it?  If a Satanic Black Mass was all that was available, said by a validly ordained priest with a valid consecration, would I still be duty bound to attend it?  It is this same reasoning that keeps me away from the N.O. Mass.  If Catholics even 100 years ago were asked "Would you attend a Mass that is strictly based off of Thomas Cranmer's rite, a rite previously condemned by the Church, and this new rite was manufactured by 6 Protestants and a Freemason - would you attend this Mass if it was all that was available, even if Rome calls it the Ordinary Form."  I am sure that the overwhelming answer would be NO.  It is only because of the relatively slow pace that these abuses became prevalent that Catholics today are so blinded to them.  It is like the frog and the boiling water experiment.  Throw a frog into a pot of boiling water and he immediately jumps out.  Put a frog into cool water and bring it to a steady boil and he will boil himself to death.  The great thing is that many people, like Archbishop Lefebvre, began to notice the water getting hot.  They wouldn't let the errors, novelty and sacrileges boil them to death.  They got out and took a courageous stand.  God Bless them for that.  One day many of these people will be called saints by the Catholic Church, much like St. Athanasius is today - for taking the same stance that these folks did.

It comes down to this.

If a good tree cannot bear bad fruit then the tree that produced the fruits we have now must be utterly rotten to the core.

The last 50 years have been an utter disaster for souls, vocations, altar boys, you name it.

Whatever tree produced those fruits is a shit tree.  If you say otherwise then you're denying the black and white logic of the Gospel as well as common sense.

Indeed.

But when this argument has been used (arguing from most basic principles of the Faith to avoid the "these truths are too complex" response), the response is that such an argument as yours is "too simplistic; it is more complex than that."

When discussing this with those whose argument is effectively reduced to "this whole crisis is just one big misunderstanding", you can't win with theological complexity; neither can you win with theological simplicity.

I suppose the Holy Ghost is thought to have just accidentally steered the Church into an iceberg.