Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses?
#99
..Nonsense , I have theological certitude based on reason  - not emotions, that attending the New Mass is not a sin.  The Church possesses disciplinary infallibility, of this I am certain and your document trawling does not dissuade me. Your "sources" are about as trustworthy as a sneaking pollcat, blast your eyes. The Truth does not require a hyperlink.  However, I am quite confident that no person posting under a pseudonym on the internet may assume for himself a power reserved to the Apostolic See. But good luck with your plan of declaring the Pope, the College of Cardinals, the majority of bishops, priests and laymen in the Church in a state of mortal sin and destined for hell. In fact, it seems to me you're arguing that there are only a handful of valid bishops in the world and maybe a few hundred valid priests.


Really you have theological certitude? Perhaps my friend you should look up the definition of certitude, you need to be CERTAIN, that means you should easily be able to refute all the points I have made. Or else you should accept them, that would be a the sign an honest man.

The Church possesses disciplinary infallibility

....Im afraid it doesnt as is pointed out in my previous points....which you have ignored....conveniently.

I must address something that seems to be a common theme throughout your posts, namely argumentum ad hominen(s), attacking the characteristics of or the person of the individual making the argument. You accuse me of 'web trawling', a strange crime indeed, tell me if I had typed my reference from a book would they be more trust worthy? Would you have expected me to type the many quotations I provided you? Missale Romanum, Quo Primum?
It is the sign of a dishonest debater and one who cannot prove his claims to start on about web trawling. For shame....

...In fact I am quite dissapointed that you have once again refused to answer ANY of my points....conveniently skipping over them and not addressing them at all - have I not addresses all of your points? Have I skipped anything?


I am quite confident that no person posting under a pseudonym on the internet may assume for himself a power reserved to the Apostolic See. But good luck with your plan of declaring the Pope, the College of Cardinals, the majority of bishops, priests and laymen in the Church in a state of mortal sin and destined for hell. In fact, it seems to me you're arguing that there are only a handful of valid bishops in the world and maybe a few hundred valid priests.


What power am I assuming for myself? Is a layman not permitted to educate himself about his faith? If he perceives that his religous superiors are imposing on him something dubious, something contrary to the will of God, something that is objectively wrong - is he not morally obliged to research it? Is this not the whole basis for the traditional movement? Have you not read any of the books of Michael Davies, or anything from the sspx? Or anything by the many many many traditional writers who complain of a crisis in the Church -especially in her liturgy?


But good luck with your plan of declaring the Pope, the College of Cardinals, the majority of bishops, priests and laymen in the Church in a state of mortal sin and destined for hell. In fact, it seems to me you're arguing that there are only a handful of valid bishops in the world and maybe a few hundred valid priests.


Where have I said that they are in a state of mortal sin? I have NEVER ONCE said anything about their individual culpability, whether or not they KNOW they are doing anything wrong. Dont put words in my mouth it is a dishonest practise.
'A handful of valid Bishops and Priests' - What are you ON ABOUT? I never once questioned the validity of their orders. You seem very desperate to discredit me my friend.



"This is My Body: This is My Blood."  That's the form. Period.  Your argument is invalidity.  The form exists in the NO.  Therefore, its valid.[/b
Your very confused my friend, the intrinsic form is 'this my body this my blood', I am referring to Dei Defectibus, which I have posted already but ill qoute specifically to avoid confusiion.:

"Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

      HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

21. If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried. If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there. If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed. But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass. "



[/i]"Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. 73, 3, ad 1)." -Summa


[b]The aforementioned is of course This is my body, my blood. [b]



However clearly here St.Thomas is expressing that the intrinsic form of the sacrament is this is my body this is my blood, and the sacrament is valid as long as the Priest has the intention of consecrating the sacrament, but hes assuming the Priest is following the form of the Church, as was stated above by Pope St.Pius V in his PAPAL BULL Dei Defectibus, consequently were the form of the sacrament to be changed so that it did not mean the same thing (i.e for all for many then the sacrament would be invalidated - I would remind you its a papal bull....

But having said that, the New Mass can only be said to be questionably valid never once have i explicitly stated the N.O is an invalid rite in and of itself. I am following along with INPEFESS in his line of argument that a doubtful law or sacrament does not bind. This is the position of the sspx my friend that in many cases the N.O is questionably valid not invalid. And if there is doubt you may not have anything to do with it.[/b]



As is everything you say.  Your opinion.  More insidiously, your interpretation of other's opinions. Such hubris.

...Pardon me  -what am I interpreting exactly - its black and white, theres no interpreting with what ive posted, theology is an objective subject, something you clearly dont seem to understand, its not relative!



"The Pope no longer takes that coronation oath so it is irrelevant to this discussion."

Are you actually serious? I presume you didnt think clearly before you posted that - I was talking about papal authority and its fallibilty!!! Just because its not taken anymore doesnt mean it wasnt taken for 2000 years!!! It indicated that if a Pope has to take an oath not to do certain things as is mentioned in  the oath - then he can OBVIOUSLY DO THEM  -if he so wishes. Please read the posts before you reply!



"Oh my.  You are actually bringing up the Quo Primum canard?  That's so old it stinks and is a reason Traditionalists are laughed at, because people insist on clinging to ridiculous opinions, namely that  pope can bind his successor on discipline.

I'd like to know exactly what your theological education is?  S.T.D.?  Something equivalent?  You must have spent years studying at an accredited institution to develop such theological certitude.  I've already admitted my theological education is severely lacking.  I'd just like to know what kind of theologian you are since at some point this discussion is going to go way beyond my comprehension.
"


.....Instead of calling a canard - disprove it!!! I am not saying that a pope can bind his successor on discipline that would be tantamount to saying that paul 6th could not abrogate quo primum, I AM SAYING THAT HE DID NOT NOT HE CANNOT!

As for my education....hmmm does this sound like another argumentum ad hominem?? I thinks so.....

If you must know I am an engineer by profession. A layman in every sense of the word. But that does not prove anything.

As has been pointed out to me by another member - you are clearly not responding to my points, not addressing them and not debating, so i would call on you to either argue correctly or stop responding. I have no wish to continue to deal with your argumentum ad hominem! So please if I am wrong in charity prove me wrong and Ill accept it - and do thou likewise!

God bless
Tradmav




Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Licit to attend weekly NO Masses with abuses? - by tradmaverick - 04-25-2009, 07:46 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)