Difference between trad., SSPX etc

[Joysong]

Dear Triumpha,

I think the Remnant and CFN are fairly trustworthy. Though, I can appreciate that you may not agree!

You are right that I do not agree, because any reputable website that fails to give the source of its information so a reader can verify its truthfulness is certainly suspect, in my eyes. And it should be critiqued also by you, don’t you think?

This is the second site now with the danger rating, yet you believe it is “trustworthy.” Are you aware of where you get this information? I posted the link to site reviews for your future reference.

Site Review for
The Remnant Newspaper
remnantnewspaper.com/
RATINGS
Fidelity: DANGER! || Resources: Good || Useability: Normal
First Evaluated: 05/31/06

DESCRIPTION
This website is the home of the Remnant Newspaper and contains information about the publication, as well as artices and commentary. The editors claim that their newspaper upholds and defends the “infallible teachings and immutable traditions of the Catholic Church.” In order to defend these teachings, they cry out against the abuses within the Church’s hierarchy, liturgy, recent council, and clergy, saying, “Catholics cannot leave the Church, nor are they free to lambaste and deny the Pope at will for things like his ‘Altar Girl Permission’ or the ‘Assisi Ecumenical Affair’ or the convening of the Second Vatican Council.”

However, the Remnant’s articles prove the contrary. Not only have they defended and supported schismatics such as SSPX founder Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX clergy, but they have continually rejected most of the teachings in Vatican II and entirely rejected the Novus Ordo Mass. Thus, though the Remnant does have many articles which defend the teachings of the Church, the value of these is compromised because of the publication’s dissidence regarding these noted errors.

WEAKNESSES

· The Remnant attacks the authority of Vatican II and rejects certain doctrinal teachings of the council. (Fidelity)
Example(s)
· The Renmant supports schismatic Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX. (Fidelity)
Example(s)
· The Novus Ordo Mass is completely rejected and denouced as a horror of the Church. (Fidelity)

 

[ctos]

And where does Tradition say that we should use Tradition to judge that a pope has commited error in his governance or through a council?

A pope can err, because he is a man. If he errs in faith or morals, he ceases to be pope, on the spot. The first event, in the order of logic, is that the faithful would say, ‘Wait a minute, that’s an error! That’s not what we’ve always done and taught!’

Consider the contrasts between, say, Mortalium Animos, and Unitatis Redintegratio. Or between the Syllabus of Pius IX, and the common behavior and beliefs of the Novus Ordo.

 

[Joysong]

Ctos:

Yet obviously, the changes in the Church were not for the common good at all

I’m not sure where you are hoping to take this thread, but I would like to share the words of “Itsjustdave88” in a recent thread that are very much to the point some of us have been discussing:

From the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia: Tradition and the Living Magisterium, written during the papacy of St. Pius X:

…it will be understood that the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds…

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance.

It is revealed truth always living in the…present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.

The living magisterium vested ONLY in the current pope and the bishops in communion with him can give immutable truth a “new expression.” What dissidents erronously and non-authoritatively claim is “new doctrine,” is in the eyes of the magisterium a new expression of the same doctrines.

"If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. " (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)

This isn’t hard…even a child can understand the Baltimore Catechism, No.4: “we should have the very greatest respect for the opinions and advice of the Holy Father on any subject. We should not set up our limited knowledge and experience against his, even if we think we know better than he does”

 

[Thursday1]

Jurisdiction does not come solely from the local Ordinary. There are other sources as well. Like it or not, there are times when it is true to say, “They have the buildings, but we have the faith”. It is excruciatingly painful to be in the Novus Ordo. People there, clergy and lay, are constantly insinuating heresy and error, frequently saying things that are offensive to pious ears. Being near them can easily be an occasion of sin.

Why don’t you post your proof for this novel interpretation of canon law in the thread on SSPX marriages?

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[Joysong]

ctos:

Originally Posted by Lisa Lavadores
And where does Tradition say that we should use Tradition to judge that a pope has commited error in his governance or through a council?

A pope can err, because he is a man. If he errs in faith or morals, he ceases to be pope, on the spot. The first event, in the order of logic, is that the faithful would say, ‘Wait a minute, that’s an error! That’s not what we’ve always done and taught!’

Consider the contrasts between, say, Mortalium Animos, and Unitatis Redintegratio. Or between the Syllabus of Pius IX, and the common behavior and beliefs of the Novus Ordo

Could we have an explanation for this smoke screen, please? Why would you expect that the average reader is going to know what you are talking about? You did not answer Lisa’s question.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ve no idea!

And neither is everything the pope approves!

Triumpha.

The Council of Trent pronounced an anathema against ANYONE who stated that the disciplines and outward forms with which she governed the sacraments could lead the faithful to impiety. That was TRENT, not VII.

 

[ctos]

I don’t think it’s a question of the rites leading people to impiety. Rather, I think what happened is that with so much in flux, it became possible for Modernists to do things that are inconsistent with Catholicism. The Church has forever evaluated and critiqued its liturgies. There is no harm in that. The liturgical flux over centuries and regions is continuous. Of course it is permissable to suggest that X may be better than Y. But while the liturgy is not in se a contributor to impiety, much else is in the Novus Ordo. And so one must flee.

How was it to live among Arians? Was it clean-cut? Was it obvious what one must do? Was there a specific way to avoid the heresy? Did the heresy appear suddenly one day and starkly define itself? Of course not. No, as with Modernism, there was a general infection, and once a member of the body of Christ observed it, he wisely separated himself from the infection.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t think it’s a question of the rites leading people to impiety. Rather, I think what happened is that with so much in flux, it became possible for Modernists to do things that are inconsistent with Catholicism. The Church has forever evaluated and critiqued its liturgies. There is no harm in that. The liturgical flux over centuries and regions is continuous. Of course it is permissable to suggest that X may be better than Y. But while the liturgy is not in se a contributor to impiety, much else is in the Novus Ordo. And so one must flee.

How was it to live among Arians? Was it clean-cut? Was it obvious what one must do? Was there a specific way to avoid the heresy? Did the heresy appear suddenly one day and starkly define itself? Of course not. No, as with Modernism, there was a general infection, and once a member of the body of Christ observed it, he wisely separated himself from the infection.

There is no comparison between Arianism, defined as a heresy by the Church, and the Pauline Mass, lawfully promulgated by the Vicar of Christ, celebrated by him, and all three of his successors.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

There is no comparison between Arianism, defined as a heresy by the Church, and the Pauline Mass, lawfully promulgated by the Vicar of Christ, celebrated by him, and all three of his successors.

I have to agree that there is no comparison between Arianism and the Pauline Mass.

But id have to say that nowadays Heresy in general are synonymous with anything Novus Ordo.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I have to agree that there is no comparison between Arianism and the Pauline Mass.

But id have to say that nowadays Heresy in general are synonymous with anything Novus Ordo.

But then, you would be wrong. The Church cannot promulgate, cannot devise, cannot promote, cannot lead the faithful into heresy.

HOW, precisely, is heresy synonymous with the Novus Ordo? You confuse abuse of the Mass with Mass itself. I’ve attended the Novus Ordo all of my life as a Catholic and I’ve never once heard heresy taught. I’ve seen abuses of the Mass, certainly. I’ve heard heresy taught by Catholics in RCIA. But I’ve never heard it proclaimed from Altar or ambo. I’ve no doubt that it HAS been done, but that does not make it ontologically inherent in the NO Mass.

That’s the error commonly made by here, Missa (such as the individual who started a thread on art inspired by the NO Mass, failing to realize that it was art inflicted ON the NO).

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

But then, you would be wrong. The Church cannot promulgate, cannot devise, cannot promote, cannot lead the faithful into heresy.

HOW, precisely, is heresy synonymous with the Novus Ordo? You confuse abuse of the Mass with Mass itself. I’ve attended the Novus Ordo all of my life as a Catholic and I’ve never once heard heresy taught. I’ve seen abuses of the Mass, certainly. I’ve heard heresy taught by Catholics in RCIA. But I’ve never heard it proclaimed from Altar or ambo. I’ve no doubt that it HAS been done, but that does not make it ontologically inherent in the NO Mass.

The Church cannot lead the faithful into heresy thats true.

But it can give heresy an enviornment where it can thrive.

The NO Mass removes references to Sacrifice, removes references to unworthiness, removes references to Purgatory, suffering, and contrition, removes references to the theology of the Real Presensce, removes the concept of earning merit for the souls in Purgatory etc. etc.

Then people are surprised when Catholics stop believing in the above.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Church cannot lead the faithful into heresy thats true.

But it can give heresy an enviornment where it can thrive.

The NO Mass removes references to Sacrifice, removes references to unworthiness, removes references to Purgatory, suffering, and contrition, removes references to the theology of the Real Presensce, removes the concept of earning merit for the souls in Purgatory etc. etc.

Then people are surprised when Catholics stop believing in the above.

Rubbish. I don’t know what propaganda you’re reading now, but I despair for the future of the Republic if our youth are not taught more critical reading skills. The NO is completely sufficient for the expression of the fullness of the Catholic faith. And though you may try to sidestep it, you’re essentially saying that the NO Mass has lead the faithful into impiety (being the breeding ground for heresy? please). And by what authority do you do so? To whom should the faithful listen. The Church? Or you?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Rubbish. I don’t know what propaganda you’re reading now, but I despair for the future of the Republic if our youth are not taught more critical reading skills. The NO is completely sufficient for the expression of the fullness of the Catholic faith. And though you may try to sidestep it, you’re essentially saying that the NO Mass has lead the faithful into impiety (being the breeding ground for heresy? please). And by what authority do you do so? To whom should the faithful listen. The Church? Or you?

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

Might be considered ‘propaganda’ (which by the way is not a good term to used in the context of a discussion)
but it is factual.

If you dont believe it…take a NO missal and a TLM missal and just look for yourself where the prayers are taken out.

I said references by the way…not beliefs.

And it is indeed “rubbish” if you think the NO does not lack references to the above doctrines that are found in the Tridentine.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

Might be considered ‘propaganda’ (which by the way is not a good term to used in the context of a discussion)
but it is factual.

If you dont believe it…take a NO missal and a TLM missal and just look for yourself where the prayers are taken out.

I said references by the way…not beliefs.

And it is indeed “rubbish” if you think the NO lacks references to the above doctrines that are found in the Tridentine.

Forgot to add…that since we are talking about wether or not the NO provides an atmopshere that is pro-heretical.

The link compares the TLM both with the NO and the heretical Cranmer service.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

Might be considered ‘propaganda’ (which by the way is not a good term to used in the context of a discussion)
but it is factual.

If you dont believe it…take a NO missal and a TLM missal and just look for yourself where the prayers are taken out.

I said references by the way…not beliefs.

And it is indeed “rubbish” if you think the NO lacks references to the above doctrines that are found in the Tridentine.

I have looked at the text side by side. Both are lovely. Both do what the Church teaches that they do, both confect what the Church intends that they should confect. Here’s what you don’t seem to get. By attacking the NO (and the popes who gave it to us and offered it and still offer it), you attack the very authority of the TLM (it was promulgated BY THE SAME AUTHORITY). Either the Church possesses that authority or she doesn’t. Either she’s lead the faithful into error (and make no mistake, if there IS error, then the faithful were lead into BY THE CHURCH) or she hasn’t.

I freely admit that the NO is more spare than the TLM, but I don’t think that’s bad (“noble simplicity” seems to have a bad name around here these days, but I frankly think it’s grand).

And an example of the ignorant bias of that particular reference is clearly seen by (for example) it’s suggestion that giving Both of the Sacred Species to the laity is inherently Protestant! The Church allowed both species up until the 1400’s! It was the ancient practice of the Church, of the Apostles and their disicples. They commit the genesis error, that something is bad because of it’s origin. Guess they have little use for the Apostles. And please don’t bore us with “but now the Church KNOWS better!” That’s just “modernism” set back about 500 years. The Church allows it, as she may. The Church may discipline her sacraments according to her judgement (whether you believe it or not, that’s basically all I’m really concerned with defending, because the NO Mass will be here long after you and I are dead).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Forgot to add…that since we are talking about wether or not the NO provides an atmopshere that is pro-heretical.

The link compares the TLM both with the NO and the heretical Cranmer service.

And it’s bloody poor scholarship, as well. The TLM was allowed to be offered in parts of Europe in the vernacular long, long before the VII council, long before the 20th Century even. Yet they sinisterly suggest that THAT is one thing “bad” thing the NO has in common with Cranmer’s service: the verncular!

Incidentally, it was also misleading (you can receive in Italy in the hand, at the Holy See itself) and a bit behind (the Holy Father approved Communion in the hand for Poland at the request of the Bishop’s Conference on the 7th of January, 2007, via Cardinal Arinze).

What actual website is that from, please?

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

I have looked at the text side by side. Both are lovely. Both do what the Church teaches that they do, both confect what the Church intends that they should confect. Here’s what you don’t seem to get. By attacking the NO (and the popes who gave it to us and offered it and still offer it), you attack the very authority of the TLM (it was promulgated BY THE SAME AUTHORITY). Either the Church possesses that authority or she doesn’t. Either she’s lead the faithful into error (and make no mistake, if there IS error, then the faithful were lead into BY THE CHURCH) or she hasn’t.

I freely admit that the NO is more spare than the TLM, but I don’t think that’s bad (“noble simplicity” seems to have a bad name around here these days, but I frankly think it’s grand).

And an example of the ignorant bias of that particular reference is clearly seen by (for example) it’s suggestion that giving Both of the Sacred Species to the laity is inherently Protestant! The Church allowed both species up until the 1400’s! It was the ancient practice of the Church, of the Apostles and their disicples. They commit the genesis error, that something is bad because of it’s origin. Guess they have little use for the Apostles. And please don’t bore us with “but now the Church KNOWS better!” That’s just “modernism” set back about 500 years. The Church allows it, as she may. The Church may discipline her sacraments according to her judgement (whether you believe it or not, that’s basically all I’m really concerned with defending, because the NO Mass will be here long after you and I are dead).

What I dont seem to get?

Well if you ask me wether or not Paul VI and the liturgical commisions assosciated with the NO count as the entire Church…your right, I dont get that.

To assert that just because Paul VI is the vicar of Christ he cannot lead people astray is like saying that when Julius II officially assured men of their salvation provided they fought his wars he did not lead them into a heretical belief.

Julius II by the way (as well as Urban II with the crusades) were speaking officially as the Pope in both occasions.

Paul VI is not the entire Church’s Magesterium. And there is no proof that the Pauline Mass is from the Holy Spirit anymore than the Crusades were. Validity is not verification of its origins.

The arguement was about wether or not the NO supressed references to Catholic doctrines. Not wether or not it contained the fullness of the faith. Neither the TLM or the NO contains the fullness of the Catholic Faith.

We were talking about wether or not it suppressed the theology of Sacrifice, Communion with the Saints, Merit and Works etc. etc.

Which it obviously has and does.

The point is…for a normal Catholic. If he doesnt hear the words Sacrifice, how is he supposed to know (without prior theological training) that the Mass is a Sacrifice.

Besides the one clear reference to it…which is somewhat vague anyway.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

And it’s bloody poor scholarship, as well. The TLM was allowed to be offered in parts of Europe in the vernacular long, long before the VII council, long before the 20th Century even. Yet they sinisterly suggest that THAT is one thing “bad” thing the NO has in common with Cranmer’s service: the verncular!

Incidentally, it was also misleading (you can receive in Italy in the hand, at the Holy See itself) and a bit behind (the Holy Father approved Communion in the hand for Poland at the request of the Bishop’s Conference on the 7th of January, 2007, via Cardinal Arinze).

What actual website is that from, please?

Its the first thing I came up with when I googled it.

If you want to see an ubiased view of the destruction…just compare the two missals.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Its the first thing I came up with when I googled it.

If you want to see an ubiased view of the destruction…just compare the two missals.

Here is where we can all see for ourselves wether or not Paul VI suppressed certain aspects of the Mass.

geocities.com/Vienna/Strasse/5816/compare.html

 

[JKirkLVNV]

What I dont seem to get?

Well if you ask me wether or not Paul VI and the liturgical commisions assosciated with the NO count as the entire Church…your right, I dont get that. No one said that they count as the whole Church. But Paul VI wielded Christ-given authority OVER the whole Church and in Her name.

To assert that just because Paul VI is the vicar of Christ he cannot lead people astray is like saying that when Julius II officially assured men of their salvation provided they fought his wars he did not lead them into a heretical belief. **Actually, the two have nothing to do with each other (but it’s a lovely dodge). Julius was attempting to manipulate men into doing his will as a secular ruler. Paul VI promulgated a Mass for the entire Church. It’s is on just such a point that the TLM hangs as well, for pity’s sake! They’re done BY THE SAME AUTHORITY! The popes cannot lead the faithful astray on this terribly urgent matter so central to our salvation (the confection of the Holy Sacrifice that saves us). **

Paul VI is not the entire Church’s Magesterium. And there is no proof that the Pauline Mass is from the Holy Spirit anymore than the Crusades were. Validity is not verification of its origins.** There is no more or less proof that the TLM is, either! That’s where the question hinges on authority.**

We were talking about wether or not it suppressed the theology of Sacrifice, Communion with the Saints, Merit and Works etc. etc. And I don’t believe that it does, particularly in the Roman Canon!

The point is…for a normal Catholic. If he doesnt hear the words Sacrifice, how is he supposed to know (without prior theological training) that the Mass is a Sacrifice. **I don’t know any Catholic who doesn’t know that the Mass is a re-presentation, in a bloodless manner, of the Sacrifice of Calvary. **