Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#81
(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.
I don't believe Dr Bombay is arguing with any one. He told us what he believes.  He needn't prove anything to us, he's not try to change our opinions and beliefs, why can't we respect his? I don't know about anyone else but if I believed with my head and my reason I would have struck out on the Trinity, Transustantiation, the Virgin Birth etc. a long time ago. That's why they call it faith.
Reply
#82
(04-24-2009, 07:35 PM)Sinner Wrote: I don't believe Dr Bombay is arguing with any one. He told us what he believes.  He needn't prove anything to us, he's not try to change our opinions and beliefs, why can't we respect his? I don't know about anyone else but if I believed with my head and my reason I would have struck out on the Trinity, Transustantiation, the Virgin Birth etc. a long time ago. That's why they call it faith.

Those things are part of the infallible teachings of the Church, theyve got nothing to do with papal authority!!!

Faith in what???  the promulgation of the New Mass?, show me some evidence that Catholic are entitled or obliged to make an act of 'faith' as you put it in Papal Authority, or are we back again to the confusion of papal infallibility and papal authority (they are not the same thing you know one is very much fallible).

The promulgation of the Novus Ordo, employs papal authority not papal infallibility.

So now youve been bold enough to make the statement, please back it up?

Ill repeat the question where is it stated in any part of our religion by any theologian worth his salt or any by any doctor of the Chruch or by and infallible papal statement, or council, that we are to make an act of faith in Papal Authority

Reply
#83
(04-24-2009, 05:44 PM)DrBombay Wrote: 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:

Well theres no need to be sarcastic, i presume your referring to a post i made, where i cited the credentials of the author of my way of life?

The burden is on you to prove using theological reasons.....not feelings....or emotions....or statements without any evidence or poof that going to the Novus Ordo is permissible. After all you have just advised somebody to do so (a fact btw that wont stand to your benefit if your wrong!)
"Go to the NO without any fear,"

What has the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church got to do with anything? Is that really using your head? Have you totally forgotten about the other arguments made?

Am i to assume you mean by this that if the New Mass is wrong then the gates of hell have already prevailed against the Church?
Surely you know your basic catechism, surely you read above the quote:

"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.""

or this one:

  "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."

Abuse of Papal authority does not constitute the 'gates of hell prevailing against the Church'.

Therefore with your reason, with your intellect, your proof does not suffice.
So if youre head tells you that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church - thats very good, its a good thing to think about - buts its got nothing to do with the Novus Ordo being right or wrong - and more importantly the Roman Mass being the true Mass and the only Mass we are obliged to attend.

Reply
#84
(04-24-2009, 07:47 PM)tradmaverick Wrote:
(04-24-2009, 07:35 PM)Sinner Wrote: I don't believe Dr Bombay is arguing with any one. He told us what he believes.  He needn't prove anything to us, he's not try to change our opinions and beliefs, why can't we respect his? I don't know about anyone else but if I believed with my head and my reason I would have struck out on the Trinity, Transustantiation, the Virgin Birth etc. a long time ago. That's why they call it faith.

Those things are part of the infallible teachings of the Church, theyve got nothing to do with papal authority!!!

Faith in what???   the promulgation of the New Mass?, show me some evidence that Catholic are entitled or obliged to make an act of 'faith' as you put it in Papal Authority, or are we back again to the confusion of papal infallibility and papal authority (they are not the same thing you know one is very much fallible).

The promulgation of the Novus Ordo, employs papal authority not papal infallibility.

So now youve been bold enough to make the statement, please back it up?

Ill repeat the question where is it stated in any part of our religion by any theologian worth his salt or any by any doctor of the Chruch or by and infallible papal statement, or council, that we are to make an act of faith in Papal Authority
Perhaps I confused the issue by comparing a non dogmatic belief with dogmatic ones. My apologies. My point was that beliefs are not always subject to intellect and reason that's where faith enters.

tradmaverick Wrote:Faith in what??? 


Please read what Dr Bombay said
Dr Bombay 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.

If you do not concur with his belief as stated above, I should think it would be up to YOU to prove that Christ WOULD  allow His Church to promulgate a questionably valid Mass and allow four of his Vicars to say it publicly.  

Please show me where anyone has said anything about "an act of faith in Papal authority "other than you. But yes I  do believe in Papal authority, and yes the liturgy is included in that.

Jesus told Peter whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. That sounds like Papal authority to me, straight from the Source, and He didn't say it had to be cleared thru us.

Edit to correct speling.
Reply
#85
Dr.Bombay said this:

"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. "

Where is the act of faith here? Faith in what? specifically. There is no guarantee the Pope cannot abuse his authority, the only guarantee is papal infallibility which does not relate to papal authority.

"Please show me where anyone has said anything about "an act of faith in Papal authority "other than you. But yes I  do believe in Papal authority, and yes the liturgy is included in that."

....So you want me to explain the doctrines of papal infallibility and papal authority to you? Fine.
(But it is quite rude of you, as you are the one that made the claim about 'faith' in some unnamed doctrine, but im sure youll do me the common courtesy of answering my question in your next post - you did make a statement  -you should back it up - else your just flapping you lips...)


So firstly to distinguish, ill start with Papal infallibility:

I have nice book in front of me which i will paraphrase and quote.

The Holy Father's infallibility does not cover his jurisdiction (which is universal) it is strictly defined and covers a very specific area.

"The roman pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter in primacy, has not only the primacy of honor, but also the supreme and plenary power of jurisdiction throughout the universal church, both in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which have to do with the discipline and order of the Church. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary and direct, both over all and each of the Churches of Christendom, over all and each of the pastors and faithful and independent of any human authority whatsoever" - Codex Iuris Canonici Canon 218, Pars 1&2

So all Catholics including Priests regardless of station or rank must obey the Holy Father in all matters - except in sin (if they were commanded to sin)....this is quite logical obviously and normally need not be stated, but in reference to the New Mass it is very applicable.

His infallibility however does not cover his universal power and jurisdiction (which we will refer to as his authority). Think about it, common sense will approve this. The pope cant be infallible in EVERYTHING he says and does.

There is no gurantee anywhere in Divine Revelation or the teachings of the Church that prevent the Pope from for instance teaching erroneous things even heresy(as happened in the case of John 22nd), so long as he does not invoke his infallibility(Which the the Holy Ghost has guaranteed through the dogma of infallibilty (1st Vatican council)).

Theres is nothing stopping the Pope from being personally immoral or inept or imprudent or incompetent.


The doctrine of Papal infallibility has an inbuilt protection against people making the mistake of confusing the popes authority over his infallibiltiy.
By stating what he is infallible - by extension he states what he IS NOT infallible in. Following me (or my book) so far?

If Religous superiors (or any other superiors ) give a command to sin, quite logically we dont have to follow it. The same applies even to the pope.

So the point brought up earlier about the popes saying the New Mass and that Christ would never allow it were it wrong/questionably valid, is a truly ignorant notion, characteristic of someone who does not know how the doctrine of papal infallibility works.

So down to business - what is exactly is the pope infallible in?
Ex Cathedra statements, that is when the Pope defines a doctrine that is traditional (i.e is not new) and makes it obligatory for all Catholics to give their assent of faith to.
as to the conditions:
"the conditions required for an ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree : (a) The Pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely as his private capacity as theologian, preacher, or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as temporal Prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the universal Church.
(b) Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.
© Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense.
(d)Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church, to demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck according to the expressionused by Pius IX in defining the Imamaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin"
- Catholic encyclopedia

...so in defining Papal infallibility it should be clear the difference between anex cathedra definition and legislation concerning the Mass, the first being the Pope teaching and part of the 'deposit of faith' the second being an action of the Pope done for pastoral discipline.(In the first he has the guarantee and protection of the Holy Ghost in the second he is quite fallible and it is certainly possible for him to err.)

So therefore having established that Pope is not infallible in his authority and I would call on you to admit this, you must then admit that he is fallible (not right or wrong but has the possibility of being wrong) when it comes to promulgating a New Mass.

So then it is not permitted or even actually possible to make an  'act of faith' in papal authority - as it is NOT infallible.
So youre description of 'faith' in the words quoted above  -that Christ would never allow several Popes to say a questionably valid/wrong mass, is completely and utterly erroneous.

The sad thing is this error about the Holy Father being infallible in his authority is widespread and the true doctrine is completely misunderstood.

So as for your quoting of scripture about binding and loosing  - i hope it fits into context now you understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.




Reply
#86
(04-24-2009, 08:00 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: Well theres no need to be sarcastic, i presume your referring to a post i made, where i cited the credentials of the author of my way of life?

The burden is on you to prove using theological reasons.....not feelings....or emotions....or statements without any evidence or poof that going to the Novus Ordo is permissible. After all you have just advised somebody to do so (a fact btw that wont stand to your benefit if your wrong!)
"Go to the NO without any fear,"

I might remind you, friend, that it won't stand to your benefit if you are wrong in advising someone not to attend a validly promulgated Rite of the Church.

(04-24-2009, 08:00 PM)tradmaverick Wrote: What has the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church got to do with anything? Is that really using your head? Have you totally forgotten about the other arguments made?

Am i to assume you mean by this that if the New Mass is wrong then the gates of hell have already prevailed against the Church?
Surely you know your basic catechism, surely you read above the quote:

"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.""

or this one:

   "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."

Abuse of Papal authority does not constitute the 'gates of hell prevailing against the Church'.

Therefore with your reason, with your intellect, your proof does not suffice.
So if youre head tells you that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church - thats very good, its a good thing to think about - buts its got nothing to do with the Novus Ordo being right or wrong - and more importantly the Roman Mass being the true Mass and the only Mass we are obliged to attend.

I can document trawl too.  c.f.:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIU...Sacraments The Catechism of Pope Pius X: 

5 Q. What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?
A. The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: "This is My Body: This is My Blood."


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.

and:

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;

But wait!  There's more!  How about a another Pope quote? http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16quogr.htm  Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora:

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth -- all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?

The Church is infallible in her disciplinary norms and cannot promulgate something that is detrimental to the faith, certainly not a liturgical rite.  It is a negative and indirect infallibility.  Your opinion to the contrary puts you far outside the mainstream of Traditionalism and is a position that not even the SSPX adopts.
Reply
#87
Eh, Mass shouldn't be used as a means of penance.
(04-23-2009, 12:16 AM)Tiny Wrote:
(04-23-2009, 12:04 AM)mamalove Wrote: our very conservative TLM priest told a friend that going to the NO mass for a weekday mass was fine, and to offer up the suffering caused by the "abuses" for the intention of your choice....

I am concerned that for some of the more egregious abuses I would be complicit in sin or abuse by attendance.
Reply
#88
Well, Tradmaverick, so far you have seemingly set yourself above the Supreme Pontiff in Rome, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican II and the Pauline Mass, you have been rude and condescending to Dr. Bombay and to me, and you seem to be babbling, so I doubt anything I can say would make a difference. Our Lord did not gladly suffer fools, nor do I. I shall remember you in my rosary this evening. Good-nite sir.
Reply
#89
(04-24-2009, 05:44 PM)DrBombay Wrote: 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?

The Scriptural cite which you referenced says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. That doesn't mean the Church won't have trials. It has struggled throughout history but will triumph in the end.
Reply
#90
Sinner (this should be the username for all of us), please pardon my interruption. I try to avoid this SSPX forum because of the constant quarrelling and uncharitable attitudes of many of the participators. I post only because I believe this is an issue worthy of serious consideration.

(04-24-2009, 09:00 PM)Sinner Wrote: Jesus told Peter whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. That sounds like Papal authority to me, straight from the Source, and He didn't say it had to be cleared thru us.

If the Pope then permitted something anti-Catholic, would it be bound in heaven? Would you go against your own conscience because the Pope told you to do so? The Pope is not guaranteed a place in heaven; he has been given free will and can reject God's grace much like any soul. If Apostolic Succession is perpetuated throughout a period of interregnum, then in order for this succession to continue, we know that Christ did not establish the Papacy for a person (this is a belief of many Protestants who claim that Peter alone possessed the keys to the kingdom), but rather appointed a person (Peter) for the established Papacy. If the Papacy bears an inseparable symbiotic relationship with its occupant, then the office of the Papacy would perish with its occupant. But this is not so for the Papacy endures throughout interregnums to be filled by another. A distinction must be made between man and office, just as a distinction needs to be made between man and God. The man, by opposing God, can oppose his office at which point we would cease to see a manifestation of the gifts of the Holy Ghost:


Q. 699. Which are the gifts of the Holy Ghost?

A. The gifts of the Holy Ghost are Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, and Fear of the Lord.

Where is the Wisdom in convening a council not called to address heresy or establish Dogma?
Where is the Understanding of Catholic Dogma made obscure by the ambiguities of the VII documents?
Where is the Counsel against the deceits of the devil amidst ecumenism, collegiality, Modernism, liberalism, indifferentism, pluralism, etc.
Where is the Fortitude of the Church which has conceded to Protestant ideals and reconciliation with Jews?
Where is the sound Knowledge of the Faith as evidence by the Catholic laity and clergy?
Where is Catholic Piety in the Novus Ordo Missae, the product of this council?
Amidst all of these voids, most especially, where is our Fear of God's wrath?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)