SSPX or Orthodox
(10-18-2009, 01:11 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:05 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 07:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Look wsalty not every one si an aspiring head like u. So chill.
Yeah u know I guess ur right walty I remember a thread a while ago where some here me included were arguing with some about how prods r not catholic u know prods r not catholic mormons r not catholic hell jews and buddhists r not catholic
Oh wait
We shouldn't tell anyone they r not catholic.
See walty higher education is cponfusing u. Perhaps a bit to much postmodernism I dunno but the world is consists of concrete identifiable things. A K9 is not a feline. A himan is not an insect. The NO by the admission of its creators is not catholic,
Suprised I have to go though this again and again but u know this is not a pipe
Sip
I miss university in a way. All those years thinkong about not thinkong and writing paperd abpout non papers the only absolute is
Ah well never mind
Sip

I don't see how you can hold this view and not be a sede.  Are you?

Unless I really missed something, I don't see where DK denied that Pope Benedict XVI or any other post-conciliar pope is truly the pope.  There are MANY Trads, including myself (who is NOT a sede) that believe that the N.O. is NOT Catholic.  This is actually pretty evident when looked at side-by-side with the Traditional Latin Mass.  Even the Ottaviani Intervention delcared that:

"It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

I sympathize with Cardinal Ottiaviani but he is clearly not a greater authority than the entire Magisterium and an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.  That's like appealing to a group of liberal bishops to argue that women can be ordained.  We can't pick or choose what we want, be it on the conservative or liberal side.  The Church says that the NO (when done properly) is a valid Mass.  How could the Church that Christ set up and promised would remain free from error promulgate an invalid form of the holiest sacrament and the source, center, and summit of Catholicism and remain Christ's Church?  
Reply
Did he ever say that it was invalid?

And how does it follow that an un-Catholic rite make it invalid? Look at the prayers, many of them are not from Tradition. I think he's saying that it's not Catholic because it doesn't come from Tradition. The N.O. is  valid is because it contains the words of Consecration. There are even trads who question whether the N.O. was even properly promulgated - heck Paul VI didn't even read it when he signed it! That's why they had to correct the definition of the Mass a year later!

(10-18-2009, 01:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:11 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:05 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 07:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Look wsalty not every one si an aspiring head like u. So chill.
Yeah u know I guess ur right walty I remember a thread a while ago where some here me included were arguing with some about how prods r not catholic u know prods r not catholic mormons r not catholic hell jews and buddhists r not catholic
Oh wait
We shouldn't tell anyone they r not catholic.
See walty higher education is cponfusing u. Perhaps a bit to much postmodernism I dunno but the world is consists of concrete identifiable things. A K9 is not a feline. A himan is not an insect. The NO by the admission of its creators is not catholic,
Suprised I have to go though this again and again but u know this is not a pipe
Sip
I miss university in a way. All those years thinkong about not thinkong and writing paperd abpout non papers the only absolute is
Ah well never mind
Sip

I don't see how you can hold this view and not be a sede.  Are you?

Unless I really missed something, I don't see where DK denied that Pope Benedict XVI or any other post-conciliar pope is truly the pope.  There are MANY Trads, including myself (who is NOT a sede) that believe that the N.O. is NOT Catholic.  This is actually pretty evident when looked at side-by-side with the Traditional Latin Mass.  Even the Ottaviani Intervention delcared that:

"It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

I sympathize with the Cardinal Ottiaviani but he is clearly not a greater authority than the entire Magisterium and an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.  That's like appealing to a group of liberal bishops to argue that woman can be ordained.  We can't pick or choose what we want, be it on the conservative or liberal side.  The Church says that the NO (when done properly) is a valid Mass.  How could the Church that Christ set up and promised would remain free from error promulgate an invalid form of the holiest sacrament and the source, center, and summit of Catholicism?  
Reply
(10-18-2009, 01:23 PM)CatholicThurifer Wrote: Did he ever say that it was invalid?

And how does it follow that an un-Catholic rite make it invalid? Look at the prayers, many of them are not from Tradition. I think he's saying that it's not Catholic because it doesn't come from Tradition. The N.O. is  valid is because it contains the words of Consecration. There are even trads who question whether the N.O. was even properly promulgated - heck Paul VI didn't even read it when he signed it! That's why they had to correct the definition of the Mass a year later!

(10-18-2009, 01:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:11 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:05 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 07:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Look wsalty not every one si an aspiring head like u. So chill.
Yeah u know I guess ur right walty I remember a thread a while ago where some here me included were arguing with some about how prods r not catholic u know prods r not catholic mormons r not catholic hell jews and buddhists r not catholic
Oh wait
We shouldn't tell anyone they r not catholic.
See walty higher education is cponfusing u. Perhaps a bit to much postmodernism I dunno but the world is consists of concrete identifiable things. A K9 is not a feline. A himan is not an insect. The NO by the admission of its creators is not catholic,
Suprised I have to go though this again and again but u know this is not a pipe
Sip
I miss university in a way. All those years thinkong about not thinkong and writing paperd abpout non papers the only absolute is
Ah well never mind
Sip

I don't see how you can hold this view and not be a sede.  Are you?

Unless I really missed something, I don't see where DK denied that Pope Benedict XVI or any other post-conciliar pope is truly the pope.  There are MANY Trads, including myself (who is NOT a sede) that believe that the N.O. is NOT Catholic.  This is actually pretty evident when looked at side-by-side with the Traditional Latin Mass.  Even the Ottaviani Intervention delcared that:

"It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

I sympathize with the Cardinal Ottiaviani but he is clearly not a greater authority than the entire Magisterium and an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.  That's like appealing to a group of liberal bishops to argue that woman can be ordained.  We can't pick or choose what we want, be it on the conservative or liberal side.  The Church says that the NO (when done properly) is a valid Mass.  How could the Church that Christ set up and promised would remain free from error promulgate an invalid form of the holiest sacrament and the source, center, and summit of Catholicism?  

He said it was un-Catholic and that would imply, to me, that it is invalid.  I would hope that no one would call a valid sacrament the brings forth the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus the Christ would call that unCatholic.  If it's valid and the Church approves of it then it is Catholic.

And even if one were to argue that the TLM is superior, most people have been raised by a Spirit of VII world and have neither the knowledge nor time to discover a problem or to find Tradition as an answer to a problem they didn't know existed.  People on this thread have been telling those who attend or defend the NO that they are not Catholic.  That is beyond ridiculous and against the rules of this forum.

EDITED TO ADD:  DK, there is a clear difference between telling a Buddhist that they aren't Catholic and telling and NO Catholic that they aren't Catholic.
Reply
(10-18-2009, 01:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:11 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:05 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 07:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Look wsalty not every one si an aspiring head like u. So chill.
Yeah u know I guess ur right walty I remember a thread a while ago where some here me included were arguing with some about how prods r not catholic u know prods r not catholic mormons r not catholic hell jews and buddhists r not catholic
Oh wait
We shouldn't tell anyone they r not catholic.
See walty higher education is cponfusing u. Perhaps a bit to much postmodernism I dunno but the world is consists of concrete identifiable things. A K9 is not a feline. A himan is not an insect. The NO by the admission of its creators is not catholic,
Suprised I have to go though this again and again but u know this is not a pipe
Sip
I miss university in a way. All those years thinkong about not thinkong and writing paperd abpout non papers the only absolute is
Ah well never mind
Sip

I don't see how you can hold this view and not be a sede.  Are you?

Unless I really missed something, I don't see where DK denied that Pope Benedict XVI or any other post-conciliar pope is truly the pope.  There are MANY Trads, including myself (who is NOT a sede) that believe that the N.O. is NOT Catholic.  This is actually pretty evident when looked at side-by-side with the Traditional Latin Mass.  Even the Ottaviani Intervention delcared that:

"It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

I sympathize with the Cardinal Ottiaviani but he is clearly not a greater authority than the entire Magisterium and an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.  That's like appealing to a group of liberal bishops to argue that woman can be ordained.  We can't pick or choose what we want, be it on the conservative or liberal side.  The Church says that the NO (when done properly) is a valid Mass.  How could the Church that Christ set up and promised would remain free from error promulgate an invalid form of the holiest sacrament and the source, center, and summit of Catholicism and remain Christ's Church?  

When have I ever said that the Novus Ordo Mass, when properly done, is not valid???

Validity is NOT the question here, walty.  Sacrilege is the question, and the Novus Ordo Mass is sacrilegious.  Is the Eastern Orthodox Mass a Catholic Mass?  NO, it is not.  Is it valid - YES, it is.  Does it present the Catholic Faith - NO, it does not.

A Catholic sins against God when he attends sacrilegious worship.  If there is any reason of doubt for a sacrament, then it is to be avoided.  These are words that have been echoed by the Church and her saints.

Also, you need to check your definition of sedevacantism.  The word "sede" mean"seat or chair" and vacante means " empty or vacant."  Sedevacantism has to do with the illegitamcy of the post-conciliar popes - NOT the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass!

AND ONE more thing, walty - Asking someone if they are a sedevacantist is against the rules of this forum as well, so don't be a hypocrite.
Reply
(10-18-2009, 01:29 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:11 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:05 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 07:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Look wsalty not every one si an aspiring head like u. So chill.
Yeah u know I guess ur right walty I remember a thread a while ago where some here me included were arguing with some about how prods r not catholic u know prods r not catholic mormons r not catholic hell jews and buddhists r not catholic
Oh wait
We shouldn't tell anyone they r not catholic.
See walty higher education is cponfusing u. Perhaps a bit to much postmodernism I dunno but the world is consists of concrete identifiable things. A K9 is not a feline. A himan is not an insect. The NO by the admission of its creators is not catholic,
Suprised I have to go though this again and again but u know this is not a pipe
Sip
I miss university in a way. All those years thinkong about not thinkong and writing paperd abpout non papers the only absolute is
Ah well never mind
Sip

I don't see how you can hold this view and not be a sede.  Are you?

Unless I really missed something, I don't see where DK denied that Pope Benedict XVI or any other post-conciliar pope is truly the pope.  There are MANY Trads, including myself (who is NOT a sede) that believe that the N.O. is NOT Catholic.  This is actually pretty evident when looked at side-by-side with the Traditional Latin Mass.  Even the Ottaviani Intervention delcared that:

"It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

I sympathize with the Cardinal Ottiaviani but he is clearly not a greater authority than the entire Magisterium and an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.  That's like appealing to a group of liberal bishops to argue that woman can be ordained.  We can't pick or choose what we want, be it on the conservative or liberal side.  The Church says that the NO (when done properly) is a valid Mass.  How could the Church that Christ set up and promised would remain free from error promulgate an invalid form of the holiest sacrament and the source, center, and summit of Catholicism and remain Christ's Church?  

When have I ever said that the Novus Ordo Mass, when properly done, is not valid???

Validity is NOT the question here, walty.  Sacrilege is the question, and the Novus Ordo Mass is sacrilegious.  Is the Eastern Orthodox Mass a Catholic Mass?  NO, it is not.  Is it valid - YES, it is.  Does it present the Catholic Faith - NO, it does not.

A Catholic sins against God when he attends sacrilegious worship.  If there is any reason of doubt for a sacrament, then it is to be avoided.  These are words that have been echoed by the Church and her saints.

Also, you need to check your definition of sedevacantism.  The word "sede" mean"seat or chair" and vacante means " empty or vacant."  Sedevacantism has to do with the illegitamcy of the post-conciliar popes - NOT the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass!

How could Christ's Church promulgate such a huge error like that?
Reply
Well I'll leave it up to him to defend his words, but I do see where he is coming from. I also see your point too. I tend to agree with the SSPX concerning validity and all of that.

(10-18-2009, 01:29 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:23 PM)CatholicThurifer Wrote: Did he ever say that it was invalid?

And how does it follow that an un-Catholic rite make it invalid? Look at the prayers, many of them are not from Tradition. I think he's saying that it's not Catholic because it doesn't come from Tradition. The N.O. is  valid is because it contains the words of Consecration. There are even trads who question whether the N.O. was even properly promulgated - heck Paul VI didn't even read it when he signed it! That's why they had to correct the definition of the Mass a year later!

(10-18-2009, 01:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:11 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:05 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 07:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Look wsalty not every one si an aspiring head like u. So chill.
Yeah u know I guess ur right walty I remember a thread a while ago where some here me included were arguing with some about how prods r not catholic u know prods r not catholic mormons r not catholic hell jews and buddhists r not catholic
Oh wait
We shouldn't tell anyone they r not catholic.
See walty higher education is cponfusing u. Perhaps a bit to much postmodernism I dunno but the world is consists of concrete identifiable things. A K9 is not a feline. A himan is not an insect. The NO by the admission of its creators is not catholic,
Suprised I have to go though this again and again but u know this is not a pipe
Sip
I miss university in a way. All those years thinkong about not thinkong and writing paperd abpout non papers the only absolute is
Ah well never mind
Sip

I don't see how you can hold this view and not be a sede.  Are you?

Unless I really missed something, I don't see where DK denied that Pope Benedict XVI or any other post-conciliar pope is truly the pope.  There are MANY Trads, including myself (who is NOT a sede) that believe that the N.O. is NOT Catholic.  This is actually pretty evident when looked at side-by-side with the Traditional Latin Mass.  Even the Ottaviani Intervention delcared that:

"It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

I sympathize with the Cardinal Ottiaviani but he is clearly not a greater authority than the entire Magisterium and an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.  That's like appealing to a group of liberal bishops to argue that woman can be ordained.  We can't pick or choose what we want, be it on the conservative or liberal side.  The Church says that the NO (when done properly) is a valid Mass.  How could the Church that Christ set up and promised would remain free from error promulgate an invalid form of the holiest sacrament and the source, center, and summit of Catholicism?  

He said it was un-Catholic and that would imply, to me, that it is invalid.  I would hope that no one would call a valid sacrament the brings forth the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus the Christ would call that unCatholic.  If it's valid and the Church approves of it then it is Catholic.

And even if one were to argue that the TLM is superior, most people have been raised by a Spirit of VII world and have neither the knowledge nor time to discover a problem or to find Tradition as an answer to a problem they didn't know existed.  People on this thread have been telling those who attend or defend the NO that they are not Catholic.  That is beyond ridiculous and against the rules of this forum.

EDITED TO ADD:  DK, there is a clear difference between telling a Buddhist that they aren't Catholic and telling and NO Catholic that they aren't Catholic.
Reply
(10-18-2009, 01:32 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:29 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:20 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:11 PM)Nic Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 01:05 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-18-2009, 07:14 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Look wsalty not every one si an aspiring head like u. So chill.
Yeah u know I guess ur right walty I remember a thread a while ago where some here me included were arguing with some about how prods r not catholic u know prods r not catholic mormons r not catholic hell jews and buddhists r not catholic
Oh wait
We shouldn't tell anyone they r not catholic.
See walty higher education is cponfusing u. Perhaps a bit to much postmodernism I dunno but the world is consists of concrete identifiable things. A K9 is not a feline. A himan is not an insect. The NO by the admission of its creators is not catholic,
Suprised I have to go though this again and again but u know this is not a pipe
Sip
I miss university in a way. All those years thinkong about not thinkong and writing paperd abpout non papers the only absolute is
Ah well never mind
Sip

I don't see how you can hold this view and not be a sede.  Are you?

Unless I really missed something, I don't see where DK denied that Pope Benedict XVI or any other post-conciliar pope is truly the pope.  There are MANY Trads, including myself (who is NOT a sede) that believe that the N.O. is NOT Catholic.  This is actually pretty evident when looked at side-by-side with the Traditional Latin Mass.  Even the Ottaviani Intervention delcared that:

"It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Clearly, then, the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli) and one quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This ultimately means as Fr. Gelineau, S.J., one of the "experts" who co-authored the New Mass, pointed out, that "The New Mass is a different liturgy. This needs to be said without ambiguity. The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed." The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

I sympathize with the Cardinal Ottiaviani but he is clearly not a greater authority than the entire Magisterium and an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.  That's like appealing to a group of liberal bishops to argue that woman can be ordained.  We can't pick or choose what we want, be it on the conservative or liberal side.  The Church says that the NO (when done properly) is a valid Mass.  How could the Church that Christ set up and promised would remain free from error promulgate an invalid form of the holiest sacrament and the source, center, and summit of Catholicism and remain Christ's Church?  

When have I ever said that the Novus Ordo Mass, when properly done, is not valid???

Validity is NOT the question here, walty.  Sacrilege is the question, and the Novus Ordo Mass is sacrilegious.  Is the Eastern Orthodox Mass a Catholic Mass?  NO, it is not.  Is it valid - YES, it is.  Does it present the Catholic Faith - NO, it does not.

A Catholic sins against God when he attends sacrilegious worship.  If there is any reason of doubt for a sacrament, then it is to be avoided.  These are words that have been echoed by the Church and her saints.

Also, you need to check your definition of sedevacantism.  The word "sede" mean"seat or chair" and vacante means " empty or vacant."  Sedevacantism has to do with the illegitamcy of the post-conciliar popes - NOT the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass!

How could Christ's Church promulgate such a huge error like that?

How did nearly all of Christ's Church in the 4th century turn to Arianism - even infecting Pope Liberius??? (Just as Modernism has infected the post-conciliar popes)

Failure to look at the past is perhaps the biggest problem with people today who claim Catholicism as their religion.

You place WAY too much stock in Matthew 16:18.  The TRUTH of Christ Church cannot be taken away, and His Church will never die, for if there is but ONE person left in the world who proclaims the true Faith, then he is the Catholic Church.  Jesus neve ONCE stated that His Church was to be absolutely devoid of all error at all times, and that lying novelties and banal, on the spot productions would not pop up in His Church.  Our safeguard as Catholics is that error CANNOT be declared as an infallible definition - and to this day, it has not - if it does, then we would know that the Church is no longer the Church.

Pope Pius XII, the pope just prior to the horrid Second Vatican Council, surely believed that Christ's Church could "promulgate such an error."  He is quoted as saying this:

"I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy."

This quote of the holy pope speaks volumes that even he believed that the Church could "promulgate such an error."  If he didn't believe in such a thing, then why the profound worry?
Reply
The difference is that Arianism didn't infilitrate and change the form of the sacraments, as far as I can tell.
Reply
(10-18-2009, 02:00 PM)Walty Wrote: The difference is that Arianism didn't infilitrate and change the form of the sacraments, as far as I can tell.

So if you admit that the Sacraments have been changed, then why do you continue to defend the new Sacraments when we are supposed to "cling to Tradition."  (and yes, Arianism most DEFINATELY did infiltrate, and they did change the Sacraments - how could they not?  They didn't believe in the Divinity of Christ!)

Arianism is a DIRECT parrallel to our times.  The Arian Crisis and the Modernist Crisis are extraordinarily similiar.  St. Athanasius, who truly is the Saint of our times, was without a doubt one of the most courageous defenders of the Faith in Church history.  He shares many interesting parallels with His late Excellency, Archbishop Lefebvre.  Here is a quote from St. Athanasius that you really should read.  Word for word, it could have been written yesterday:

"May God console you! ... What saddens you ... is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way ...

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."

Reply
Walty allot to respond to ill try
To get all the points
First
The NO certainly is not catholic. Its protestant  through and through.
Is it valid? Well sometimes I suppose. Again as has been said better then myself here the orthodox masses r valid but not catholic. Hell black masses r valid but certainly r not catholic.
Walty its a very hard edged pill to swallow but the smoke of satan has done so much demolishin on the True faith by the imposition of a non catholic mass I sympathjize with u in having a hard time comming to grips with how how so very deep the destruction and revolution has been. But alas Tradition was not destroyed and the True mass the mass of all times like ST athanasius stands against the world. Walty the NO is no good lad! Avoid it like the plague. And I mean it. I don't know why God would allow what happened to happen  but God gave me eyes and I see the horrid catastrophe for what it is.
We r in dark times but satan and his demons will not prevail!
By extension
The NO being a non catholic mass how can catholics in good consciounce worship at it? Yoir a bright lad walty. So do ur soul a favor and compare the mass for all time side by side to the prod bastard mass the NO. And u will see. Just if u do go  stop going to the NO and only worship at the mass of all time. Tradition lad!!
The world will eat itself along with the modernists but stand with Tradition.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)