Catholics vs the SSPX

[bear06]

I’ll check with the people at Tradition In Action. It seems that they may have an original copy of the article.

I noticed that they have other originals of Guitton showing images of the real article and their translations.

traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_049_GuittonJP2.htm

I searched their site but didn’t find anything.

 

[pnewton]

Stop! Now there’s water all over my keyboard. Thankfully I bought the waterproof model last time just for these occasions. You’re on a roll today, my friend.

I don’t keep a waterproof keyboard, but I bet I am not alone in an extreme eye roll when ever this topic goes off into conspiracy theories. I do not think such tactics appeal to anyone but the convinced and water down any potential legitimate arguements.

 

[bear06]

I don’t keep a waterproof keyboard, but I bet I am not alone in an extreme eye roll when ever this topic goes off into conspiracy theories. I do not think such tactics appeal to anyone but the convinced and water down any potential legitimate arguements.

In all fairness, the quote could be real. I’m just suspect of it. I’ve seen many fake quotes floated on these forums (such as the infamous St. Catherine quote - these are not necessarily faked by the posters) so I usually ask for a source. It would seem someone would have a copy, link, whatever of an article that used a quote like the one attributed to Paul VI, via Guitton.

 

[GerardP]

I don’t keep a waterproof keyboard, but I bet I am not alone in an extreme eye roll when ever this topic goes off into conspiracy theories. I do not think such tactics appeal to anyone but the convinced and water down any potential legitimate arguements.

Who said anything about conspiracy theories? I’m referencing a liberal theological movement.

If you want conspiracy theories, you just have to read Pope St. Pius X. You’d think he was a total nutcase. And Leo XIII and Pius IX while we’re at it.

 

[pnewton]

Who said anything about conspiracy theories? I’m referencing a liberal theological movement.

Tomato, tom-ah-to.

I don’t doubt that liberal theology has following of those that are weak in the faith and would rather show disrespect for God than risk offending anyone. What I find ridiculous is that the creation of the Mass we have today was because of an organized and hidden effort on the part of key players. You can believe what you want, but don’t expect to sell those not already looking for conspiracy.

 

[daniel_connolly]

“…If you want conspiracy theories, you just have to read Pope St. Pius X. You’d think he was a total nutcase. And Leo XIII and Pius IX while we’re at it…”

Yep, folks. It just doesn’t get any better than that. Hehe. Ol’ man Leo had his famous vision 33 years to the day before the Apocalyptic dancing of the sun at Fatima. After his vision he cranked out the famous Prayer to St. Michael- which was politely tossed aside at Vatican II (along with demolishing of the rite of exorcism). Has anyone noticed? No vocations, almost no belief in the Real Presence, utterly weak American Bishops giving Eucharist to brazenly open, homosexual drag queens and seminaries spewing out jive the likes of Kung, Chardin and de Lubac? Run for the hills! hehe

The Spirit of Assisi is truly far removed from The Social Reign of Christ…

 

[pnewton]

Has anyone noticed? No vocations, almost no belief in the Real Presence, utterly weak American Bishops giving Eucharist to brazenly open, homosexual drag queens and seminaries spewing out jive the likes of Kung, Chardin and de Lubac?

Four questions:
Do you really think we have no new priests?

Do you not believe in the Real Presence?

Have you ever seen a Bishop give communion to a man dressed in drag?

Do you not think seminaries also ordain any godly priest?

 

[stmaria]

Tomato, tom-ah-to.

I don’t doubt that liberal theology has following of those that are weak in the faith and would rather show disrespect for God than risk offending anyone.

What I find ridiculous is that the creation of the Mass we have today was because of an organized and hidden effort

The mere FACT that the same theologians that WROTE the Constitution on the liturgy and then formed a Consilium to interpret the very Constitution that they had written was an organized and hidden effort

The mere FACT that the New Mass and the Constitution have very little in common shows that there was an **organiized and hidden effort **to deceive the Vatican II Fathers.

The mere fact that the Mass of 1965 which is the Mass of the Constitution was rejected by Father Bugnini and the theologians shows there was an organized and hidden effort.
!965 Mass coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

The mere FACT that Bugnini admits in his book Reform of the LIturgy that much of the New Mass was already written in 1965 and when Pope Paul found out he suspended all work at the Consilium for almost two years shows an organized and hidden effort.

*Reform of the Liturgy *Page 151-152 “ General meeting October-December 1965, Monsignor Wagner, the realtor of study group 10, presented the complete schema of the Ordo Missae… During the meeting the Mass was twice celebrated in accordance with the new Ordo, first on October 29 in Italian [celebrant Father Bugnini] and then in French [celebrant P. Journel] …Unfortunately, the experiments became known…the press reported on them…the result was that work on the Ordo Missae was stopped until the Synod of 1967.”

The mere FACT that Communion in the hand and lay ministers giving communion without the knowledge of the Pope was started in 1965 by a MEMBER of the Consilium Bishop Jean Bluyssen shows an organized and hidden effort.

Pg 105 **March 1965 “…But a need was very quickly felt for having the entire liturgy in the vernacular…particularly in the Netherlands, where translations of the Canon were beginning to circulate, along with texts of the new Eucharistic prayers…the Dutch presented requests via Bishop Jean Bluyssen…a member of the Consilium. These **requests were for permission to translate the Canon…to use other Eucharistic prayers, to allow the laity to distribute communion, and to let them do so by placing the sacred host in the hand of the faithful"

The most unbiased book every written on Vatican II is The Rhine Flows into the Tiber which states the following.
Page 138-140
…. Pope Paul announced that a special commission would be appointed…. everyone on the Liturgical Commission was aware that three separate versions of the document the COnstitution] had been prepared for the Pope. The one that eventually reached him had been **so thoroughly altered by Archbishop Felici **that in part it even contradicted the Constitution as promulgated. Unfortunately, Pope Paul relying on the Secretary General had permitted publication of the text.”

Yes, an organized and hidden effort.

 

[pnewton]

The mere FACT that the same theologians that WROTE the Constitution on the liturgy and then formed a Consilium to interpret the very Constitution that they had written was an organized and hidden effort

The mere FACT that the New Mass and the Constitution have very little in common shows that there was an **organiized and hidden effort **to deceive the Vatican II Fathers.

The mere fact that the Mass of 1965 which is the Mass of the Constitution was rejected by Father Bugnini and the theologians shows there was an organized and hidden effort.
!965 Mass coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

The mere FACT that Bugnini admits in his book Reform of the LIturgy that much of the New Mass was already written in 1965 and when Pope Paul found out he suspended all work at the Consilium for almost two years shows an organized and hidden effort.

*Reform of the Liturgy *Page 151-152 “ General meeting October-December 1965, Monsignor Wagner, the realtor of study group 10, presented the complete schema of the Ordo Missae… During the meeting the Mass was twice celebrated in accordance with the new Ordo, first on October 29 in Italian [celebrant Father Bugnini] and then in French [celebrant P. Journel] …Unfortunately, the experiments became known…the press reported on them…the result was that work on the Ordo Missae was stopped until the Synod of 1967.”

The mere FACT that Communion in the hand and lay ministers giving communion without the knowledge of the Pope was started in 1965 by a MEMBER of the Consilium Bishop Jean Bluyssen shows an organized and hidden effort.

Pg 105 **March 1965 “…But a need was very quickly felt for having the entire liturgy in the vernacular…particularly in the Netherlands, where translations of the Canon were beginning to circulate, along with texts of the new Eucharistic prayers…the Dutch presented requests via Bishop Jean Bluyssen…a member of the Consilium. These **requests were for permission to translate the Canon…to use other Eucharistic prayers, to allow the laity to distribute communion, and to let them do so by placing the sacred host in the hand of the faithful"

The most unbiased book every written on Vatican II is The Rhine Flows into the Tiber which states the following.
Page 138-140
…. Pope Paul announced that a special commission would be appointed…. everyone on the Liturgical Commission was aware that three separate versions of the document the COnstitution] had been prepared for the Pope. The one that eventually reached him had been **so thoroughly altered by Archbishop Felici **that in part it even contradicted the Constitution as promulgated. Unfortunately, Pope Paul relying on the Secretary General had permitted publication of the text.”

Yes, an organized and hidden effort.

Thank you for proving my point. Not one of your “mere facts” actually prove what you say it does. Only one who believes that every bad thing has a conspiracy behind it will see what you see. Again, you will only convince those already convinced, or the paranoid.

 

[Like]

I searched their site but didn’t find anything.

Bear, have you seen this site ref. “The Tradition in Action”
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3026&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=116608
Seems their as wacky as those recommending them.

 

[BobP123]

Thank you for proving my point. Not one of your “mere facts” actually prove what you say it does. Only one who believes that every bad thing has a conspiracy behind it will see what you see. Again, you will only convince those already convinced, or the paranoid.

But isn’t it just as (or more) paranoid to see those with possible alternatives to what you’ve read or heard gaining the wider audience?

But then maybe Julius Caesar died in his sleep and we were wrong to think otherwise all along.

 

[ncjohn]

Yes, an organized and hidden effort.

And of course the mere “FACT” that the overwhelming majority of those present at Vatican II approved of the Constitution as written. Must be a well-hidden conspiracy when the vote is nearly unanimous.

And while the interim 1965 Mass, designed to have something quickly in place that complied with the documents, may indeed have been what was initially envisioned, one cannot at all say that it was the “intended” liturgy. If that were the case the documents would not have specifically called for the study commission to determine the actual needs.

And again, the commission listened to the overwhelming concensus of opinion that a mixed liturgy was going to be both confusing and hard to follow and found that there was a much greater preference for the vernacular version that eventually became the Pauline Mass, approved by the Pope. Yup, must have been another conspiracy, and the Pope must have been in on it.

The idea that a group might envision something that they later have to modify because the “market” is looking for something else is universal. It happens in business and government all the time when new products or services are being contemplated. That doesn’t indicate a conspiracy; it indicates that the Church had an idea what was wanted but was willing to listen to what the people wanted, just as any smart business does. And again, the fact that they specifically called for a study commission indicates that they recognized that what they envisioned may not be the final product. Gee, it might have even been the same kind of thing that brought about the Mass originally being switched to Latin because the people of the day, who spoke Latin, wanted the Mass in their own language. What a concept!

And one final thing…“The most unbiased book every written on Vatican II is The Rhine Flows into the Tiber …” Those attempting to pass this one off might indeed have an “organized and hidden” effort in progress, trying to revise history to say that the small minority opinion was what the Council Fathers “really” meant. But since I don’t buy into conspiracy theories, I’ll just assume that isn’t the case.

 

[GerardP]

Thank you for proving my point. Not one of your “mere facts” actually prove what you say it does. Only one who believes that every bad thing has a conspiracy behind it will see what you see. Again, you will only convince those already convinced, or the paranoid.

How did he “prove your point”? You say that not one fact proves any point he’s made. That’s simply an assertion.

Another bit of stellar brilliance is: “**Only **one who believes that **every bad thing **has a conspiracy behind it will see what you see.”

Aside from being a straw man, since you’ve caricaturized anyone who believes that there are enemies of the Church within the Church. I’d like to see you prove that.

But I guess that any Pope who warns of conspiracies and enemies and doesn’t conform to the jello and sunshine ecclesiology of the ignorant polly-anna set is going to be implicitly tossed in with the “conspiracy” set.

Of course that also includes the Gospel authors who wrote that there was a conspiracy to put Jesus to death.

I know, I know…those things don’t happen nowadays and current biblical exegesis will show that we’ve misunderstood the texts for over 19 centuries.

 

[cam100]

And Mr. Christian would normally give true obedience to Captain Bligh but when the Captain goes too far out of the realm of moral behavior, he must be resisted. (based on the dubious examples of the films and books )

You can’t liken the authority of the pope to promulgate liturgy to the authority of a ship captain. One reason is that the pope has no earthly superior in certain matters. He alone has the sole power to set the form of the mass. Only another pope can come along and and decide to do something different.

There was no controversy over Formosus’ claim to the papacy.
It was the fraudulant actions of Pope Stephen against Formosus that demonstrate the major faults in treating all papal declarations as irresistible.

Actually, the issue WAS Pope Formosus’ right to hold the papacy. Take another look at the piece you quoted.

And that’s not where it ended. The decisions of the Holy See, the Vicar of Christ the Supreme Pontiff, the Servant of the Servants of God were overturned back and forth for many years.

Yes, they were overturned by other popes, not by lay people claiming to have the power to pronounce judgement on the decisions of the Holy See.

 

[St_Isidore]

Four questions:
Do you really think we have no new priests?

Do you not believe in the Real Presence?

Have you ever seen a Bishop give communion to a man dressed in drag?

Do you not think seminaries also ordain any godly priest?

Actually I have been witness to worse. Come to Ontario Canada. BTW we also have women 9 priests validly ordained.

 

[GerardP]

Bear, have you seen this site ref. “The Tradition in Action”
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3026&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=116608
Seems their as wacky as those recommending them.

This is always funny. The review of a traditional website by a moderate/liberal website.

They seem to be straining a bit to come up with a criticism of TIA over at Catholic Culture I wonder why they changed the name from Petersnet?

I remember someone on Envoy’s website acting like I had just crossed the magisterium of the Church when I said that a petersnet review didn’t have any authority.

The question is still valid, where does Catholic Culture get it’s authority from?

Here are a few articles giving evaluations about them:

ecatholic2000.com/pn/pn.html

hiddentruth.50megs.com/peternet.htm

 

[GerardP]

Actually I have been witness to worse. Come to Ontario Canada. BTW we also have women 9 priests validly ordained.

You can’t have a validly ordained woman. Sacramentally it doesn’t work. It’s like Baptizing with milk or beer. Do you mean they were falsely “ordained” by a valid bishop?

 

[GerardP]

Tomato, tom-ah-to.

I don’t doubt that liberal theology has following of those that are weak in the faith and would rather show disrespect for God than risk offending anyone. What I find ridiculous is that the creation of the Mass we have today was because of an organized and hidden effort on the part of key players. You can believe what you want, but don’t expect to sell those not already looking for conspiracy.

Let’s look at this:

You don’t doubt that there are liberal theologians and followers of liberal theologians who are weak in faith and show disrespect to God.

What you find ridiculous is that the Mass could have had any of those liberals on the committees.

You also seem to suggest that a wolf in sheeps clothing is an unheard of phenomena.

You seem to believe in a “magical” Catholic Church that has no connection with reality or the Catholic Church that Our Lord Jesus Christ founded in the real world.

Was Pope St. Pius X ridiculous when he described modernists in the Church?

…this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church;

 

[GerardP]

You can’t liken the authority of the pope to promulgate liturgy to the authority of a ship captain.

Sure you can. The whole metaphor of Peter is that he is in his ship. Both sailors and Catholics are on a journey. If a Pope makes a decision on disciplinary matters that endanger the faith of many than he is to be resisted. If the Captain is steering the ship well and making good decisions than he uses his authority well. But at some point, others recognize that the Captain is going to sink the ship or needlessly endanger the crew.

One reason is that the pope has no earthly superior in certain matters. He alone has the sole power to set the form of the mass. Only another pope can come along and and decide to do something different.

Obviously in regards to the Novus Ordo we are talking about the Pope relinquishing that power to the local ordinaries. Which is what happened and how we got legal liturgical abuse.

Actually, the issue WAS Pope Formosus’ right to hold the papacy. Take another look at the piece you quoted.

No. The issue was revenge against Formosus. And it wasn’t his right to hold the papacy, it was his worthiness. The charges against him had all been previously dropped before he was elected unanimously Pope. They were dug up just like his body as an excuse to smear him.

Yes, they were overturned by other popes, not by lay people claiming to have the power to pronounce judgement on the decisions of the Holy See.

So, do you think that right became wrong or truth suddenly became error because a Pope says so? What kind of papal power is that? You can’t have it both ways, some Popes were objectively wrong about Formosus. His ordinands were objectively valid. The Supreme Pontiff was wrong on a number occasions in his judgement to the detriment of his flock.

And, why does no one ever want to tackle the question of whether the deacon had the moral right to disobey the Pope when the Pope commanded him to provide answers for the corpse of Pope Formosus? I always think it’s funny how people and certain priests of good repute don’t seem to want to answer that question.

 

[stmaria]

ncjohn;2994421]And of course the mere “FACT” that the overwhelming majority of those present at Vatican II approved of the Constitution as written. Must be a well-hidden conspiracy when the vote is nearly unanimous. :rolleyes

:

Thank you for making my point. The Constitution on the Liturgy, was approved by a vote of 2147 for and 4 against And why by such a large margin? Because the Constitution proposed no radical changes in the Mass. The Fathers had no idea that the the entire Mass would be said in the vernacular, only the epistle, Gospel and a few readings. The Constitution **did not give approval **to communion in the hand, the removal of the Tabernacle, the priest facing the people, the changing of the words of Consecration, replacing the Sacred Canon with nine Eucharist prayers etc., etc.So there is no wonder it passed!

And while the interim 1965 Mass, designed to have something quickly in place that complied with the documents, may indeed have been what was initially envisioned, one cannot at all say that it was the “intended” liturgy

.

Thank you aagain. The 1965 Mass DID comply with the Constitution.

if that were the case the documents would not have specifically called for the **study commission **to determine the actual needs.

THe Comission was created by Pope Paul to IMPLEMENT the Constitution not to INTERPRET the Constitution.

Sacram Liturgiam
Pope Paul VI
adoremus.org/SacramLiturgiam.html

Encyclical promulgated on 25 January 1964
…For these reasons it is apparent to all that it is our uppermost concern that all Christians, and especially all priests, should consecrate themselves first of all to the study of the already-mentioned Constitution and from now on, **resolve to implement its individual prescriptions in good faith as soon as they enter into force…. Meanwhile, it seems evident that many prescriptions of the Constitution cannot be applied in a short period of time, especially since some rites { rite of Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage} must first be revised and new liturgical books prepared.
In order that this work may be carried out with the necessary wisdom and prudence, we are establishing a special commission **whose principal task **will be to implement **in the best possible way the prescriptions of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy itself."

And again, the commission listened to the overwhelming concensus of opinion that a mixed liturgy was going to be both confusing and hard to follow and found that there was a much greater preference for the vernacular version that eventually became the Pauline Mass, approved by the Pope. Yup, must have been another conspiracy, and the Pope must have been in on it.

Yes the overwhelming consensus of the opinion of the REFORMERS that made up the Commission.

The idea that a group might envision something that they later have to modify because the “market” is looking for something else is universal. It happens in business and government all the time when new products or services are being contemplated

. ???

That doesn’t indicate a conspiracy; it indicates that the Church had an idea what was wanted but was willing to listen to what the people wanted

,

Listen to what people??? You mean like Monsignor Gambler?
“ One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers*.”-Monsignor Klaus Gambler Reform of the Roman Liturgy*

And one final thing…“The most unbiased book every written on Vatican II is **The Rhine Flows into the Tiber **…” **Those attempting to pass this one off **might indeed have an “organized and hidden” effort in progress, trying to revise history to say that the small minority opinion was what the Council Fathers “really” meant. But since I don’t buy into conspiracy theories, I’ll just assume that isn’t the case.

Wow! You really are clueless.That is not only my opinion that is everyone’s opinion. Please due some research.