Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#71
(04-24-2009, 04:21 PM)DrBombay Wrote: Let not your heart be troubled.  Go to the NO without any fear, especially if you are fortunate enough to find one without any grave abuses.  It's the same Mass the Vicar of Christ says every day. I'll take Christ's promise that His Church is indefectible over the ravings of amateur internet theologians anyday.

So the Pope is the universal standard of goodness? If does Pope does its ok?? Imagine if you lived in the time of Alexander 6th!!!!

About the indefectible issue Ill leave it to the good Fr.Scott: (underlining is mine)


"The misunderstanding here lies in the meaning of the term "indefectible". What do we mean when we call the Church indefectible? The catechism tells us that it means that the Church will last until the end of time as Christ founded it, that is without any substantial change. The Popes have repeated the "everlasting" (Leo XIII, Dz 1955) nature of the Church, rock solid until the end of time (Vatican I, Dz 1794), without which Our Lord’s words "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18) would not be true. However, that indefectibility does not necessarily lie in any particular exterior function of the hierarchy. If this were the case, the great Western Schism, with up to three parallel Popes at one time could not have existed, nor would the stringent limitations on Papal infallibility defined by Vatican I exist. The fact that the Pope is not always infallible means by definition that he can fail, as a person, as a teacher, for as long as he does not use the fullness of Papal authority to which infallibility is attached."

"Dr. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma explains, to the contrary, the true nature of the Church’s indefectibility:

    "The intrinsic reason for the indefectibility of the Church of Christ lies in her inner relation with Christ, who is the Foundation of the Church (I Cor 3:11) and with the Holy Ghost, who dwells in her as essence and life-principle." (p. 297)"



"The indefectibility thus primarily consists in the divine life infused into the Church’s members through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacraments, and is in no way tainted by the human defects, imperfections and failures of members of the visible hierarchy, as high as they might be. Pope Pius XII points out in his magnificent 1943 encyclical On the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis Christi) that although the Church’s hierarchy was instituted by Christ, it is not on such juridical structures that its indefectibility is founded:

    "Although the juridical principles, on which the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given to it by Christ and contribute to the attaining of its supernatural end, nevertheless that which lifts the Society of Christians far above the whole natural order is the Spirit of our Redeemer who penetrates and fills every part of the Church’s being and is active within it until the end of time as the source of every grace and every gift and every miraculous power." (§ 63)

It is in fact the enemies of Catholicism who see exclusively the external structure and who accuse the Catholic Church of "ecclesiastical formalism". This is Dom Aelred Graham’s term in The Teaching of the Catholic Church (Vol II, p. 730, Ed. Canon Smith, 1947), and here is his commentary:

    "The reason for this power of survival lies, not in the Church’s juridical elements, but in the indestructibility conferred upon her by the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit and of Christ himself. The visible hierarchy, the elaborate Church organization, being inseparable from human imperfections, though a part of Our Lord’s plan from the beginning, have not in themselves the stuff of immortality. This they derive from the sources of grace and divine life within, the hidden riches of the Mystical Body which constitute the veritable "mystery of the Church."
"


"over the ravings of amateur internet theologians anyday. "

...... You think the people quoted, St.Thomas Aquinas, the writers of my way of life, the Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci and the group of theologians accompanying them, Ludwig Ott, Pius XII are amateur theologians?

Fine if you want to counter my words, and its purely because im a layman that you dont believe them, but try and counter theirs and give people THEOLOGICAL reasons why they can attend the New Mass.

Ranting on about Indefectibility (which im wondering do you understand) and confusing papal authority with papal infallibilty is hardly the way to do it. Lets see some theologians quoted, St.Thomas Aquinas for instance, or how about Ludwig Ott?




Reply
#72
There are many things I don't understand, not being a theologian.  Not even much of a philosopher I must admit. 

What I do believe with all my heart is that Christ would not allow his Church to promulgate a questionably valid Mass and allow four of his Vicars to say it publicly.  Appeals to Aquinas and Ott, et al don't move me I'm afraid.  Even the devil can quote scripture.
Reply
#73
Even the devil can quote scripture?

Are you serious? You are joking right? Thats youre argument!

Scripture can be interpreted, theology is black and white, its read!!

This is the whole reason why things like Dei Defectibus, quo primum, all the encyclicals of the Popes, all the manuals of moral theology, all the books of canon law, the summa theologica by St.Thomas Aquinas,etc etc etc, in order to teach the faith - to root out errors and to prevent people from falling for them.

You cant just argue it all away with 'even the devil can quote scripture'...thats sounds like protestant talk.....


(04-24-2009, 05:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote: What I do believe with all my heart is that Christ would not allow his Church to promulgate a questionably valid Mass and allow four of his Vicars to say it publicly.  Appeals to Aquinas and Ott, et al don't move me I'm afraid.

What you believe with your heart??? Move you??? What about with your head? your reason? where are youre reasonable argument to the contrary, the burden of proof is now on you to prove your claims.
Reply
#74
(04-24-2009, 05:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote: There are many things I don't understand, not being a theologian.  Not even much of a philosopher I must admit. 

What I do believe with all my heart is that Christ would not allow his Church to promulgate a questionably valid Mass and allow four of his Vicars to say it publicly.  Appeals to Aquinas and Ott, et al don't move me I'm afraid.  Even the devil can quote scripture.

Amen,  Bombay! Remain unmoved! (And I see my favorite priest is back)

- Lisa
Reply
#75
When someone uses the appeal to authority, it often happens that that someone's personal's biases get into the 'gist' of what's that someone is taking in. So, all of this talk against Bombay is fine work of rhetoric.
Reply
#76
(04-23-2009, 08:52 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-23-2009, 08:11 PM)McMaster Wrote: Wow, good thing "sspx.org" has not been divinely appointed as the supreme arbiter of what is and what isn't injurious to Almighty God and to Our Lord Jesus Christ!

Please keep this type of discussion in the "vs" subforum.

Gladly, if people don't evoke it by putting forth hard-line SSPX propaganda as if it were authoritative teaching.

God bless you!

Don McMaster
Reply
#77
Edited by INPEFESS

I'm sorry, Quis. I didn't notice your post until after I'd submitted mine. I have moved my post. God bless you...
Reply
#78
(04-24-2009, 05:13 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: Even the devil can quote scripture?

Are you serious? You are joking right? Thats youre argument!

Scripture can be interpreted, theology is black and white, its read!!

This is the whole reason why things like Dei Defectibus, quo primum, all the encyclicals of the Popes, all the manuals of moral theology, all the books of canon law, the summa theologica by St.Thomas Aquinas,etc etc etc, in order to teach the faith - to root out errors and to prevent people from falling for them.

You cant just argue it all away with 'even the devil can quote scripture'...thats sounds like protestant talk.....


(04-24-2009, 05:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote: What I do believe with all my heart is that Christ would not allow his Church to promulgate a questionably valid Mass and allow four of his Vicars to say it publicly.  Appeals to Aquinas and Ott, et al don't move me I'm afraid.

What you believe with your heart??? Move you??? What about with your head? your reason? where are youre reasonable argument to the contrary, the burden of proof is now on you to prove your claims.

The burden is on me to prove what exactly?  That the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church? My head tells me that the gates of hell have not prevailed, nor will they.  How's that for reason?

I think the "Extraordinary Form" of the Mass is superior in every way to the "Ordinary Form."  I would be thrilled if the Novus Ordo withered and died and was never said again.  But questioning the validity of the NO is not a litmus test for being a traddy and if you think it is, you have a very warped view of what Traditionalism is.  

But you with your S.T.D. obviously know more about theology than I do.  So, I bow to your superior intellect.  :nonsum:
Reply
#79
(04-23-2009, 09:08 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So, McMaster, if an inward intention or lack thereof doesn't matter as long as the proper form and there is no outward lack of intention, please explain the following:

If a priest has 3 hosts on the altar, and he intends to Consecrate 2, only 2 are Consecrated, correct? Likewise, it may be a practice "Mass" (e.g., to instruct Seminarians) and he will in fact say the words of Consecration with no Consecration taking place because he intends none.

Neither has an outward show of intent, only an inward one, and proper form is used.  By how you are interpreting Aquinas, it seems that these other hosts would be Consecrated even though, AFAIK, they are not.

Please explain 1) If these hosts in my example(s) would be Consecrated or not, and, 2) please explain your answer in light of your interpretation of St. Thomas.

If a priest has 3 hosts on the altar, and he follows the formula of consecration but intends to consecrate zero because he doesn't believe the prescribed words have any supernatural effect, only zero are consecrated, correct? No, not necessarily. That is St. Thomas's point: "the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and ... this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament" (S.T. III, Q. 64, Art. 8, reply obj. 2). If it were not so, "he who approaches a sacrament could not know whether he has received the sacrament. Consequently he could have no certainty in regard to salvation" (ibid., obj. 2).

Because of the recipient's need for certainty regarding the sacraments, it is the certain, manifest, and unchanging intention of the Church--not the uncertain, hidden, and changeable intention of the minister--that is ultimately decisive. If there is no recipient, however, this principle does not apply, so no consecration unintended by the celebrant takes place. From this it follows that the hosts in your example would not be consecrated, on the supposition that they would not be given to recipients who might be misled into thinking they were consecrated.

God bless you!

Don McMaster
Reply
#80
(04-23-2009, 08:11 PM)McMaster Wrote:
Quote:The same can be the case with the New Mass, and this even if the priest still believes in the Real Presence. He could have a contrary intention to that of the Church. This would be the case if his intention explicitly refuses offering a true sacrifice, the unbloody renewal of Calvary, and explicitly considers that it is to be only a meal and a commemoration of the Last Supper. Such an intention would be directly contrary to the intention of doing what the Church does. We do not know how often this happens, but it is very reasonable to believe that it is a common occurrence. Consequently, there are probably many celebrations of the New Mass, by priests who are convinced of Modernist theories, that are invalid.

This quotation uses language in a highly misleading way, and actually contradicts the teaching of St. Thomas set forth above. In the text from St. Thomas, what is "expressed" by the minister must be the same as what is thereby made known to the recipient; otherwise the whole basis of his teaching on this point--the need for certainty regarding the sacraments--would be overthrown. But in the quotation just above, it is conjectured that a priest's "intention explicitly refuses" offering a true sacrifice, etc., although we "do not know how often this happens." Since we would know if the priest said so, the notion here must be that a priest's so-called "explicit," but actually undisclosed, contrary intention can invalidate a sacrament without the recipient knowing it. This is exactly the error that St. Thomas explodes.

Alright I can see your point there, the language does seem to indicate that as you say. But you could read another way, if you take the parts ive highlighted there, you could read it that he was saying that explicit meant public and expressed publicly. I think thats what he may have meant, but your right the language is too vague and on first glance it does seem to imply the error already above condemned.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)