SSPX leader calls Jewish people ‘enemies of the Church’
#51
(01-05-2013, 12:46 PM)Old Salt Wrote: So again, please explain to me how Christs Sacrifice on Calvary shedding His blood for men, and having an infinite value,
can be called "evil"?

It is likely that some or even most New Masses and most Satanic Black Masses both present Christ's Sacrifice on Calvary.  For the sake of the discussion we shall assume that both examples present a valid sacrifice.  The New Mass is similarly as deficient as Black Masses since neither do what they are supposed to do, and that is teach the Catholic religion (one teaches Satanism and one teaches neo-Modernism/Humanism, which is actually just veiled Satanism).  If one can call a Satanic Black Mass with a valid sacrifice "evil" then I think it is equally acceptable, upon those terms, to state that the New Mass is also "evil."  The Mass is more than just the sacrifice upon the altar, it is what it represents and effectively teaches.  Not one person on this forum will state that a valid sacrifice of Christ in the Mass is evil.  What is being determined as "evil" is what is being done around it.

But when we consider the very real possibility that many N.O. Masses, perhaps most or even all, do not contain a valid sacrifice, then we have a Mass that is probably even worse than a Satanic Black Mass.  I do not know whether or not the New Mass is valid or invalid, but what I do know, at the very minimum, is that it is not Catholic because it does not teach the Catholic religion.  Therefore, validity is not the issue - and such a Mass should be avoided at all costs simply due to this truth that many find hard to accept.  If the New Mass actually taught Catholicism then we absolutely would not be in the mess we are in today - and by mess I mean the worst crisis in the history of the Church.  The statistics do not lie, if the New Mass presented Catholicism like the TLM then we wouldn't have the majority of claimed Catholics rejecting simple truths of the religion such as the Real Presence.
Reply
#52
(01-06-2013, 07:09 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(01-06-2013, 06:57 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: What I find HEEFREAKINLARIOUS about this whole thing is Bishop Fellay expelled Bishop Williamson for being "anti-semitic" and now he has de facto labeled himself anti-semetic by saying this.  :LOL:  The SSPX needs a real leader. Fellay is so wishy washy he could be a New Church prelate.

I wouldn't go that far.

But for a man who called Williamson radioactive uranium he has certainly made a Fukishiming mess out of this whole debacle.

You're right. No one deserves to be compared to a New Churcher.
Reply
#53
(01-06-2013, 01:55 AM)GodFirst Wrote: ]The Church is immaculate in Her Essence Which is basically God. Your understanding of the Church is woefully mistaken. It is the true and real Church who sins when her members, Catholics, sin. The true Church in her human element on earth can be covered with blemishes. In fact this is often the commentary that the Saints put on our Lord's words on the Cross: "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

This is a false distinction, concerning the theoretical integrity of the Church and her actual integrity, as I pointed out in my post. "In her essence" means nothing if everytime you try to prove it with reality you simply say "but that's not part of her essence." It's like trying to reach a first down, but everytime you're almost there the markers are moved back again.

If her essence can't be manifested via her subsistence in history, then how is she visible? In other words, how is the Protestant here and now supposed to know she is the true Church if there is nothing that can prove her true? if she is only clean in belief but not practical reality? If the Mass isn't at least a partial expression of the Church's essence (it is the very lifeblood of the Church!), then what is? The Mass is not the same as the people. What you are saying here is that the Mass is no more guaranteed from evil than the persons who participate in it. That is a very dangerous belief.
Reply
#54
I wonder what the New Church would say about these quotes...looks like a lot of Saints need to be excommunicated!!!

“To judaize, namely to observe Saturday, or other Jewish ceremonies, is mortal [sin]: because that pertains to the superstition of a false divine cult, according to Cajetan, in his summa. If however one observes Saturday, not for the purposes of a Jewish rite, but for some other pious reason, such as to venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary, he would not sin mortally.
To converse with Jews is forbidden at Canon Law, in many places in the capitular De Judaeis etc. 28 q. 1 Capitular Nullus, etc and all of them regarding assiduous, and familiar conversation, due to the danger of subversion, and especially in ten cases is it forbidden:
First, to live with them;
Second, to eat with them;
Third, to bathe with them;
Fourth, to call upon them for medical care;
Fifth, to accept their medicine;
Sixth, to feed their children in their houses;
Seven, to serve them, as employees;
Eight, to be their slaves;
Nine, for them to hold public office amongst Christians;
Ten, to eat their azyme [matzo].
To tolerate them in public office is mortal, because this disparages the dignity of the Christian Faith, and for that reason is it forbidden. The same, because this would cause too great a familiarity, and consequently a danger of subversion, as supra. I say the same for the consumption of their azyme. To do all of that is mortal. To eat food with them when one has a choice is never permitted, apart from extreme necessity.” ~ Fra Bartolomeo Fumo, O.P., Inquisitor General for the Duchies of Parma and Piacenza, +1542 A.D. (Citation from the medieval Inquistor’s manual explaining what can and cannot be done vis-à-vis Jews, based on the canonical legislation promulgated by Pope Gregory IX in A.D. 1234, in the capitular “De Judaeis” [Of the Jews].)

Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.
~ Pope Innocent III



Well should the Jew mourn who, not believing in Christ, has assigned his soul to perdition ...
The Jews have crucified the Son and rejected the Holy Ghost, and their souls are the abode of the devil.
~ St. John Chrysostom

The Jews are enemies of God and foes of our holy religion.
~ Padre Pio



The Synagogue is a godless house, a collection of wickedness, and God Himself has damned it.
~ St. Ambrose (PAC, p.642)




Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies and haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers' faith, advocates of the devil, a brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, the leaven of Pharisees, a congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, haters of goodness!
~ St. Gregory of Nyssa


If someone should kill the beloved son of a man, and then stretch forth their hands still stained with blood to the afflicted father, asking for fellowship, would not the blood of his son, visible on the hand of his murderer, provoke him to just anger instead? And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God-the-Father of their sin against His Son.
And at every stretching-forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ. For they who persevere in their blindness inherit the blood-guilt of their fathers; for they cried out: "His blood be upon us, and upon our children" (Matthew xxvii.25).
~ St. Basil the Great




How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Jews, those most miserable of all men. They are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits -- pests of the universe! Indeed, an entire day would not suffice to tell of all their rapine, their avarice, their deception of the poor, their thievery, and their huckstering.
Are they not inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil? Jews are impure and impious, and their synagogue is a house of prostitution, a lair of beasts, a place of shame and ridicule, the domicile of the devil, as is also the soul of the Jew.
As a matter of fact, Jews worship the devil: their rites are criminal and unchaste; their religion a disease; their synagogue an assembly of crooks, a den of thieves, a cavern of devils, an abyss of perdition! Why are Jews degenerate? Because of their hateful assassination of Christ. This supreme crime lies at the root of their degradation and woes. The rejection and dispersion of the Jews was the work of God, not of emperors. It was done by the wrath of God and because of His absolute abandonment of the Jews.
Thus, the Jew will live under the yoke of slavery without end.
God hates the Jews, and on Judgment Day He will say to those who sympathize with them., "Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with My murderers!" Flee, then, from their assemblies, fly from their houses, and, far from venerating the synagogue, hold it in hatred and aversion. ~ St. John Chrysostom





Whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is Antichrist, and whosoever does not profess the testimony of the cross is a devil, and whosoever perverts the saying of the Lord to his own evil desires ... is the first-born of Satan. ~ St. Polycarp of Smyrna





Pope Benedict XIV It is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews. On the contrary, the Jews, as servants rejected by that Savior Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognize themselves in fact and in creed the servants of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen. ~ Pope Innocent III ("Etsi Judaeos," a Decretal cited by Pope Benedict XIV in the above; same page).




It is known that the Jewish people are polluted with wickedness, blasphemy, and the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ so that their wickedness has no limit. ~ St. Felix of Toledo ("On the Condemnation of the Jews," Council XVII of Toledo, Spain, Canon No. 8; PAC, p.376).




There are innumerable judgments of the ancient Fathers concerning the falsehood of the Jews ... According to the prophetic forecast concerning their stiffneckedness, theirs is the sin of Judas who, in their blindness and stiffneckedness, are harder than a stone. ~ Council of Toledo XVI, Canon no.1 "In the Face of Jewish Falsehood," PAC, p.371).




When Jews are admitted out of pity into familiar intercourse with Christians, they repay their hosts after the fashion of the rat hidden in the sack, or the snake in the bosom, or of the burning brand in one's lap. ~ Pope Innocent III (PAC, p.137).
Pope Alexander III



With troubled heart, We are reminded that many of those converted from the error of Jewish blindness to the light of the Christian Faith have fallen back into their former falsehood. Proceed with intensity against all who make themselves guilty of this crime, against heretics, and against those who support, protect, and defend them. ~ Pope Nicholas IV (the Bull, "With Troubled Heart," PAC, cf. p.659).



With great sorrow and mortal anxiety, We have heard that the Jews have in a Christian land the same rights as Christians, that Christian men and women live under the same roof with these traitors and defile their souls day and night with blasphemies! ~ Pope Stephen III (Epistle to the Bishop of Norbonne, PAC, cf. p.427).


Since this wicked generation did not know that it should repent, but daily became more wicked, its last state was worse than its first ... The evil and adulterous generation of the Jews were to be condemned because of their hard and unrepentant hearts. ~ St. Bruno



If anyone does not worship the Crucified One, let him be anathema and numbered among the deicides. ~ St. Gregory Nazianzen



The hearts of the unbelieving Jews do not even yet by any means acknowledge Christ to be God and, harder than flintstones, they will not be broken by repentance. ~ Pope St. Gregory the Great




O Jewish hearts, harder than rocks! ~ St. Ambrose



Do not add to your sins by saying that the Covenant is both theirs and ours. Yes, it is ours, but they lost it forever. Assuredly, God gave the Covenant to the Jews, but because of their sins they were not worthy to receive it. Moses received the Testament, but the Jews were not worthy. ~ St. Barnabas



The most holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the Mosaic Law ... cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation ... Everyone, therefore, who observes circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the Law, the Church declares not in the least fit ... to participate in eternal salvation. ~ Council of Florence



Therefore, the Jewish system is destroyed, for it was only a shadow; but that of the Church is firmly established, for it is built on the Rock, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
~ St. Athanasius






Jews are cursed and covered with malediction as by a cloak. The curse has penetrated them like water in their bowels and oil in their bones. They are cursed in the city and cursed in the country, cursed in their coming in and cursed in their going out. Cursed are the fruits of their loins, of their lands, of their flocks; cursed are their cellars, their granaries, their shops, their food, the very crumbs off their tables! ~ St. Agobard




I knew in my faith that the Jews were accursed and condemned without end, except those who were converted.
~ Bl. Juliana of Norwich




One who dies a Jew will be damned.
~ St. Vincent Ferrer




The Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and have persecuted us, do not please God, and they are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, to fill up their sin always: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the end.
~ I Thessalonians ii.14-16





It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime.
~ St. Thomas Aquinas



The Jews, whom Holy Church tolerates in diverse parts of the world in testimony to Jesus Christ, wish to persevere in their hardness and blindness rather than acknowledge the words of the prophets and the mysteries of the Holy Scriptures, and to come to the knowledge of the Christian faith and salvation.
~ Pope Martin V


Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled.
~ Pope Leo VII



Since His spouse, the Synagogue, refused to receive Him, Christ answered: "This is a harlot!" And He gave her a bill of divorce, as we read in Isaias (50:1): "Thus says the Lord: Behold, you are sold for your iniquities; and for your evil deeds have I put your mother away. Because I came and there was not a man; I called and there was no one who would hear." And so the Jews, the sons of the harlot, were repudiated.
~ St. Vincent Ferrer



Go, so that cured by Christian faith, you may not die in Jewish unfaith, but may live forever with Jesus Christ Our Lord.
~ St. Peter Chrysologus



The faithlessness of the Synagogue is an insult to the Savior. Therefore, He chose the barque of Peter and deserted the boat of Moses; that is, He rejected the faithless Synagogue and adopted the believing Church ... Of these two ships, one is left at the shore, idle and empty; the other, loaded filled, is launched into the deep. For the Synagogue is left idle on the beach. Because of its own fault, it has lost Christ along with the warnings of the prophets. But the freighted Church is taken out into the deep, because it received the Lord together with the teaching of the Apostles.
The Synagogue, I say, remains on the land, held fast as it were to earthly things. The Church is called forth to the deep, as though to search into the profound mysteries of Heaven.
~ St. Ambrose




The Jews knew that Christ was the son of David. And even now they hope for His Coming. It is hidden from them that He has come, but it is hidden because they willed it so. For, not acknowledging Him on the cross, the knowledge of Him reigning in glory should not be theirs ... Why are the Jews hoping for what has already come, and not fearful for what is to come?
For Our Lord Jesus Christ ... referred Himself as "the Stone" (Matthew xxi.44), that whoever stumbles upon it shall be bruised; but upon whom it shall fall, it will grind to powder ... Lying on the ground, it shakes whoever falls over it; coming from on high, it crushes the proud. The Jews have already been shaken by their previous stumble. What awaits them is to be crushed by His Coming.
~ St. Augustine



For, raging against the Gentiles as unclean, Israel became in very truth unclean themselves; while the Gentiles have become clean, the justice of Israel has become like the rag of a menstruous woman.
~ St. Basil the Great
Reply
#55
(01-06-2013, 05:47 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(01-06-2013, 02:47 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: This is all a bit of a red herring.  There was a Second Vatican Council, and the overwhelming majority of the Catholic world has interpreted it is as this "Spirit of VII" as you call it.  Whether or not this spirit is inspired by the actual documents isn't actually relevant to the topic (for the record, I would say this spirit derives it's power from the council and leave it at that, I know most would disagree) because your question was what "accepting VII" means as a demand from the "regular" part of the Church to the "irregular" part of it.  It is obvious that most of the Catholic world believes in these errors (three main ones: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality) which are all addressed in the council, and the council is cited as the source for these teachings by the USCCB and from the pulpit.  Again, in terms of understanding the demands of the conciliarists to the traditionalists, whether or not the council documents themselves are in error is beside the point, because the majority of Catholic leaders believe that these errors are "truths," that they were taught at the council, and that they must be accepted in order for one to be a full member of the Church.

Catholics might think that VII was completely orthodox and free from error, that doesn't change the fact that everyone from the top to the bottom, with very, very few exceptions has accepted those three errors as teachings of the Catholic Church.  They are de facto teachings of the council, as far as the clergy is concerned. 

It isn't a red herring at all; it's a very important question, especially since, with the SSPX, the very question is a matter of "accepting Vatican II." Those words have to mean something in order for the question "Should we accept Vatican II" to be answered with any accuracy and meaning. And it's a big question as to whether the Council did, in fact, teach error (through its documents) and whether it even can teach error.

Second, I don't think it's the case that"everyone from the top to the bottom, with very, very few exceptions" has accepted the three errors you mention.  I think the exceptions are more numerous than you think. The Council's documents mean something; determining that meaning, their level of authority, and whether those meanings are consistent with Tradition and, therefore, whether they can be accepted have to be done in order for talk of "accepting" or "rejecting" the Council to have any meaning whatsoever. 

Third, saying, for ex., "I'm against clown Masses so I, therefore, reject Vatican II" makes no sense because Vatican II didn't push for clown Masses. IOW, what's gone on in the human element of the Church either comes directly from the documents or it doesn't, and that is why what I say in the previous paragraph is important. Chalking up all the problems, from clown Masses to sacrilege that stems from CITH to altar girls, to "Vatican II" just because it's convenient shouldn't cut it for people who take the religion seriously -- especially Bishops and priests. I mean, we're talking about the Faith here; logic and correctness are pretty important. Such a thing is in no way "beside the point"; they are the very point in question as to whether the SSPX should "accept Vatican II" and be reconciled or not.


(01-05-2013, 10:10 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Again, it can be deduced from reality that the conciliarsits mean accepting those three errors (and all that follows) when they demand acceptance to the council.  They are wrong, of course (that these errors must be obeyed) and maybe they are wrong that the council taught them, but it's a matter of fact that the human element of the Church regards the council to have taught these errors-- they just don't believe them to be errors.  Or don't care.  Out of curiousity, what scholars and theologians and latinists are you waiting for to clarify the council "once and for all?"  Did the Church suddenly run out of them after VII?  Virtually every "regular" Catholic clergyman holds these errors, and holds them because he believes the council taught them.  Where are these scholars and theologians that are to set everything straight?  Have they not been the ones interpreting the council for years already?  What about the popes?  The power of the papacy dwarfs any theologian or scholar.  They're just there to help apply the doctrine and do intellectual exercises.

I don't think it can be "deduced from reality" that "conciliarists" (whatever that means exactly) mean that one has to accept the three errors you mention in order to "accept Vatican II." I've never seen it spelled out that way. Maybe such things are laid out in that preamble Bishop Fellay wrote about, but I've not seen any such thing laid out myself anywhere.

I never said that there are "scholars and theologians and latinists that are to set everything straight." I intimated that there should be. What is needed, IMO, is total clarification as to what the Council's documents mean, what their level of authority is, and so on so we can know what the deal is and so the meaningless, sloppy talk about "accepting" or "rejecting" " Vatican II" will stop and meaningful conversation can be had.

Ok, well I think we're talking about something else now.  I answered the question of "what do they mean when they say 'accept VII'?" 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#56
(01-06-2013, 07:05 AM)ggreg Wrote: Vox, if I went to a typical NO mass today in Europe or North America, Australia and shared my view of Original Sin, Birth Control, the mass being a Sacrifice, Christ being a King, Sodomy being a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance, other religions being non salvic, error having no rights. Would the vast majority or a tiny minority of diocesean priests and laity agree with me?

If they did not agree what would they justify their enlightened thinking with?  What watershed moment would they refer to that made my views old fashioned or out of date?

I don't know much about the Church in Europe, but assuming you'd hear a lot of heresy, they'd most likely point to "Vatican II" as a "reason" for believing what they do. But they doesn't mean that the documents of Vatican II mandate such beliefs at all. Like I said, there's what the documents of Vatican II say, in fact, and there's "the spirit of Vatican II" that "justifies" anything. The two are different, and when we're talking about whether a group of Bishops and priests should "accept Vatican II," we have to go by the documents. I don't think anyone anywhere, minus the aging revolutionaries, would have any problem with Bishop Fellay saying "we refuse to accept the spirit of Vatican II." Even the "neo-cons" at CAF claim to reject that.
Reply
#57
(01-05-2013, 12:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-04-2013, 11:59 PM)MRose Wrote: Evil is a privation. It is the lack of good where good ought to be. Thus, it is quite right to call the Novus Ordo "evil." The fact that people have emotional reactions to the word and/or do not understand it is reprehensible, but evil it is nonetheless.

I think this oversimplifies the issue. As St. Thomas says:
ST I q48 a4 Wrote:Evil cannot wholly consume good. To prove this we must consider that good is threefold. One kind of good is wholly destroyed by evil, and this is the good opposed to evil, as light is wholly destroyed by darkness, and sight by blindness. Another kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil, and that is the good which is the subject of evil; for by darkness the substance of the air is not injured. And there is also a kind of good which is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away; and this good is the aptitude of a subject to some actuality.

A blanket condemnation of the NO as "evil" lacks precision. If the NO is deficient in some respect, and I believe that it is, then it would not be incorrect to say that there are evils in the NO where particular goods are lacking, but simply condemning the NO as evil without qualification seems to be inaccurate, especially if one believes it to be a valid liturgy. It would be like calling a man evil because he occasionally lacks imprudence. Obviously, a lack of prudence is a privation of good, but this does not mean that the man is an evil monster who cannot be distinguished from Hitler or Stalin. I am also not sure that simply calling something "evil" without qualification is likely to lead to fruitful arguments or convince anyone who does not already agree. But if one does want to say that the NO is evil while maintaining that this is an objective and disinterested statement, I think one would at least need to be a little more precise.

I think there might also be a tendency here to confuse moral evil with a broader definition of evil. For example, St. Thomas uses the example of blindness above, which is an evil but not a moral evil. Obviously, we would never say that a blind man is evil because he is blind. Presumably, the evils that are to be found in the NO are evil not in the moral sense, but in the broader sense that includes things like blindness and illness. If this is so, then it would seem to be incorrect to refer to the NO as evil on account of the deficiencies to which it is subject.
Thank you for the reply. I think you overlook the ways in which the NO is deficient. Making an analogy between what I said and calling a man evil for being imprudent implies that the deficiencies of the NO are not intrinsic to it - for example, that the only problems with the NO are altar girls, versus populum, bad vestments, etc. Putting aside the fact that the existence of legal permission for those things is problematic in itself, the NO is intrinsically deformed, not simply extrinsically. The prayers and ceremonies, or lack thereof at times, of the NO are the problem, not  simply the way in which it is often celebrated. I think many of the responses to what I said display the problem I identified: people have this huge, overarching "sense" of the bad-ness of the term "evil" but do not know what it actually means.
Reply
#58
(01-05-2013, 12:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: A blanket condemnation of the NO as "evil" lacks precision.

Bishop Fellay has made the precisions in previous talks. If I remember well, I heard it in a recent one recorded in Argentina, where he defined what he meant by "evil" as: privatio boni debiti(privation of a due good).
Reply
#59
(01-06-2013, 11:14 PM)MRose Wrote:
(01-05-2013, 12:57 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(01-04-2013, 11:59 PM)MRose Wrote: Evil is a privation. It is the lack of good where good ought to be. Thus, it is quite right to call the Novus Ordo "evil." The fact that people have emotional reactions to the word and/or do not understand it is reprehensible, but evil it is nonetheless.

I think this oversimplifies the issue. As St. Thomas says:
ST I q48 a4 Wrote:Evil cannot wholly consume good. To prove this we must consider that good is threefold. One kind of good is wholly destroyed by evil, and this is the good opposed to evil, as light is wholly destroyed by darkness, and sight by blindness. Another kind of good is neither wholly destroyed nor diminished by evil, and that is the good which is the subject of evil; for by darkness the substance of the air is not injured. And there is also a kind of good which is diminished by evil, but is not wholly taken away; and this good is the aptitude of a subject to some actuality.

A blanket condemnation of the NO as "evil" lacks precision. If the NO is deficient in some respect, and I believe that it is, then it would not be incorrect to say that there are evils in the NO where particular goods are lacking, but simply condemning the NO as evil without qualification seems to be inaccurate, especially if one believes it to be a valid liturgy. It would be like calling a man evil because he occasionally lacks imprudence. Obviously, a lack of prudence is a privation of good, but this does not mean that the man is an evil monster who cannot be distinguished from Hitler or Stalin. I am also not sure that simply calling something "evil" without qualification is likely to lead to fruitful arguments or convince anyone who does not already agree. But if one does want to say that the NO is evil while maintaining that this is an objective and disinterested statement, I think one would at least need to be a little more precise.

I think there might also be a tendency here to confuse moral evil with a broader definition of evil. For example, St. Thomas uses the example of blindness above, which is an evil but not a moral evil. Obviously, we would never say that a blind man is evil because he is blind. Presumably, the evils that are to be found in the NO are evil not in the moral sense, but in the broader sense that includes things like blindness and illness. If this is so, then it would seem to be incorrect to refer to the NO as evil on account of the deficiencies to which it is subject.
Thank you for the reply. I think you overlook the ways in which the NO is deficient. Making an analogy between what I said and calling a man evil for being imprudent implies that the deficiencies of the NO are not intrinsic to it - for example, that the only problems with the NO are altar girls, versus populum, bad vestments, etc. Putting aside the fact that the existence of legal permission for those things is problematic in itself, the NO is intrinsically deformed, not simply extrinsically. The prayers and ceremonies, or lack thereof at times, of the NO are the problem, not  simply the way in which it is often celebrated. I think many of the responses to what I said display the problem I identified: people have this huge, overarching "sense" of the bad-ness of the term "evil" but do not know what it actually means.

I don't buy this argument. If the lack of certain prayers or ceremonies makes the NO intrinsically evil, does that mean that the other liturgies in the history of the church that differed from the Tridentine Mass were likewise evil? Tell me what specifically about NO is in an of itself evil, as opposed to deficient when compared to the traditional roman liturgy.
Reply
#60
(01-06-2013, 11:22 PM)DoktorDespot Wrote: I don't buy this argument. If the lack of certain prayers or ceremonies makes the NO intrinsically evil, does that mean that the other liturgies in the history of the church that differed from the Tridentine Mass were likewise evil? Tell me what specifically about NO is in an of itself evil, as opposed to deficient when compared to the traditional roman liturgy.

That was never answered in 41 pages here...
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...161.0.html
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)