For the SSPXers: Men mess up, the Holy Spirit NEVER does!

[gelsbern]

demolitionman65:

That was Pius V. And how did he infallibly claim that this was the mass in perpetuity? The doctrine of Papal Infallibility was not found/declared until Vatican Council I, (if memory serves), in the 19th century, long before Pius V. …

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P5QUOPRI.HTM

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

That is how he declared it in perpetuity.

I am having trouble understanding your logic about the Papal Infallibility. Yes it was declared in Vatican I but they only codified a dogma, they didn’t make up something new. The church has always believed that Popes were infallible, even before it was declared by Vatican I.

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202sbs.asp

1. Didn’t the Church invent the doctrine of infallibility in 1870?

Whenever the Church defines a dogma of the faith, you will always have people assuming that that is the date of the doctrine’s “invention.” With this mindset, the divinity of Christ was “invented” in 325, and Christians did not “invent” the union of the human and divine natures of Christ until more than a century after that.

Needless to say, the definition of a doctrine is not synonymous with its invention. This would be similar to saying that the fruit of a tree is no different than its original seed. As a seed is planted and may not reach fruition for years, the doctrines of the faith—such as the personhood of the Holy Spirit—may take many centuries to develop and articulate clearly. But regardless of how long the Church takes to define a particular teaching, it must be present from apostolic times.

Evidence for this with regard to infallibility is not lacking. Almost a century before the divinity of Christ was dogmatically established, Cyprian of Carthage had this to say of the Church, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).

Prior to this, Irenaeus of Lyons said, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

In 433 Pope Sixtus III said that “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.” While there are many other passages from the early Church Fathers that demonstrate the infallibility of the Church, these should suffice to prove that the doctrine was not “invented” in 1870 when Vatican I defined it formally.

Now back to the subject at hand and why the SSPX holds to the TLM, we have a promise from a pope.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force—notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription—except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.

 

[jlw]

OK. Fair enough. My only caveat stems again from the reality that the Mass was intended, many many years ago, (LONG before Vatican II, or even Trent, for that matter) for access by the laity. So, Mass in the vernacular is desired.

Does that mean that we need to be exceptionally careful in our translations? Certainly.

Been my point all along…I think.

 

[TNT]

jlw:

SIG??

Short, really short for my signature.
Which is:
To destroy a Religion, you must first sever its traditions.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

You do realize the Catholic Faith will never be destroyed?

 

[demolitionman65]

I misspoke myself.

I am having trouble understanding your logic about the Papal Infallibility. Yes it was declared in Vatican I but they only codified a dogma, they didn’t make up something new. The church has always believed that Popes were infallible, even before it was declared by Vatican I.

My concern is that I am not sure that Pius V was speaking *ex cathedra, *which is a requirement for an infallible proclamation.

This is coupled with the “timelessness” of Pius V’s mass. If this had been declared say, at Jerusalem in the 100s, or at Lateran I, I can see its timelessness. To have it declared in the Renaissance? In Latin? I am skeptical, and I expect I am not alone in this.

Furthermore, (to get back to an old theme), the current Pontifex Maximus has told Lefevre and Co. to back off.

Regardless of any perceived coddling of liberals (which is an ad hominem argument), SSPX was told to obey and they did not. Ergo, *de facto *schism. To attend their mass is to attend and bless a valid but illicit liturgy, and to put oneself in the same camp as Luther, Calvin, Donatus et al.

 

[Catholic29]

bump

 

[gelsbern]

demolitionman65:

I misspoke myself.

My concern is that I am not sure that Pius V was speaking *ex cathedra, *which is a requirement for an infallible proclamation.

This is coupled with the “timelessness” of Pius V’s mass. If this had been declared say, at Jerusalem in the 100s, or at Lateran I, I can see its timelessness. To have it declared in the Renaissance? In Latin? I am skeptical, and I expect I am not alone in this.

Furthermore, (to get back to an old theme), the current Pontifex Maximus has told Lefevre and Co. to back off.

Regardless of any perceived coddling of liberals (which is an ad hominem argument), SSPX was told to obey and they did not. Ergo, *de facto *schism. To attend their mass is to attend and bless a valid but illicit liturgy, and to put oneself in the same camp as Luther, Calvin, Donatus et al.

You aren’t sure if a Papal Bull or Encyclical is infallible ex cathedra teaching? I don’t even know how to respond to this. How else do you think a Pope would pass on teachings of faith and morals?

Also it’s not really the same camp as the Luther et.al. as the SSPX teaches catholic faith and morals, they just have a problem with trying to rectify obeying a Pope that says “This is the Mass for ALL time and no other Mass is to be said, and this is the permission you need to say this Mass and you cannot be penalized ever for saying this Mass” to obeying a Pope that says, “Hey here’s a new Mass that protestants helped us develop so that it isn’t so offensive to them, and it’s valid too, oh and that old Mass, the one for all time, well you can’t use it anymore unless you get special permission.”

 

[demolitionman65]

Also it’s not really the same camp as the Luther et.al

It IS the same. They are arrogating for themselves the claim that they know better than the Heir of Peter.

It’s the oldest scam in the history of the Church.

As for Quo Primum:

What about the language in Quo Primum that says it is to apply “henceforth, now, and forever” and that “this present document cannot be revoked or Modified”? In perpetuity means that they are to last indefinitely, that no specific date or time is set in advance when this will automatically lapse; Thus it will remain in force until subsequently modified by legitimate authority. That legitimate authority is in fact future popes. For example, Clement XIV wrote Dominus ac Redemptor in 1773 which suppressed the Society of Jesus, and he declared that this measure should be “perpetuo validas”; but this in no way prevented his successor Pius VII from reestablishing the Society of Jesus anyway in Sollicitudo Omnium of August 7, 1814. The mere use of the term perpetual did not mean that a subsequent Pope no longer had the authority to revive the religious order which the previous Pope had dissolved. “Perpetual” merely means here until some further legitimate enactment is carried out by a sovereign Pontiff. (Whitehead, p. 59-60).

We must remember the text of Quo Primum shows that Pope Pius V recognized that his Mass was a NEW RITE, not the same thing that had been celebrated for 15 centuries. A pure reading of the text of the New Testament institution of the Eucharist by Christ, and very early rites showed that since then there were many changes over the years, though the substance was maintained. That is the same thing maintained by Pope Paul VI when he instituted the New Mass. The Council of Trent called for Pope Pius V to do a revised Roman Missal, just as Pope Paul VI did a revised Roman Missal at the request of Vatican II. The Council of Trent writes: “In the dispensation of the sacraments, provided their substance is preserved, the Church has always had the power to determine or change, according to circumstances, times and places, what she judges more expedient for the benefit of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments.” (Council of Trent, 21st Session). Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei explained, as circumstances warrant, “public worship is organized, developed and enriched by NEW RITES, CEREMONIES, and regulations (#22).” (Whitehead, p. 46-47).

Get over it, Gelsbern. SSPX is in stubborn, obdurate schism.

 

[Exporter]

jlw:

Two things:

1. I am not a big fan of the NO Mass, and I love and prefer the Latin Mass.
2. I am not a Canon Lawyer.

As to the title of my thread, need I remind everyone that part of our Catholic Faith is having faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Church!! Yes, we have FAITH in this mystery, that a church, seemingly “run” by men, has a supernatural hand on it’s direction.

Men, liberal men, have undermined the Church. One may say that this Pope is “too liberal”, because he accepts this and that and won’t accept so-n-so, etc. etc. Maybe that is true, but I think our problems are NOT with our Pope, but our renegade Bishops (left and right of our Pope, thank you!) and the priests they let run around like misbehaving children.

MEN are to fault for the ABUSES of our liturgy and the horrible religious education of our laity.

BUT NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT!! It is NEVER Wrong!!

How many SSPXers want to align themselves with King Henry VIII?? With Luther?? Instead of working WITHIN the Church to evangelize the faithful, you want to go off and be protestant???Private Revelation?? Relativism?? YOU know more than the Pope, decendant to the Chair of Peter, the head of THE One, Holy, Apostolic Church guided by the Holy Spirit HIMSELF???

Again, I prefer that Latin Mass. It feels more Catholic to me. BUT, that is a preference. The Mass said in a village in Africa less Catholic?? How 'bout in a small basement in China?? Hardly.

The Holy Spirit knows more than we do.

---

JLW, I am glad you wrote this post. I alingn myself with you except for that part where you said the SSPXers WANT to align with King Henry the VIII and Luther. I do not believe that!

I also prefer the Latin Mass. Why? Because it is more Catholic!

 

[demolitionman65]

JLW. . .I alingn [sic] myself with you except for that part where you said the SSPXers WANT to align with King Henry the VIII and Luther. I do not believe that!

It is not a question of what they are intending to align themselves with, it is a question of what or whom they are aligning themselves with through their practice. Since they are in schism, they are identifying themselves with Henry and Luther, whether they intend to or not.

 

[Adonis33]

TNT:

The TLM, last figures I have, is in 130 of 170 US dioceses or 76%.

I feel the pain of those like EddieArent who are one of th 40 sterile dioceses.
Nevertheless, if I were him or in his position, and felt as he does, I would buy me a diesel VW @ 50mpg with my last dime, and go the nearest Indult, at least on Days of Obligation.
During the week I go with my SSPX wife to the SSPX Mass.

Now, here’s my last word on SSPX:

1. They are in Schism and consequently excommunicated. This is a Papal decision to which there is NO appeal except mercy.
2. The reigning Pope is not judged by any canon Law. No where in Church history. Period.
3. I love the SSPX as people, as Tradionalists, as lovers of God and superior teachers of the Apostolic Faith.
4. BUT their Masses do NOT meet the Sunday Obligation.
5. Is the pope’s decree just? One may cry UNJUST and not be outside the Church or in sin. NO decree of this nature is INFALLIBLY just.
6. Was it a terrible scandal to excommunicate a traditional bishop and raise hundreds of rotting souls of others to the episcopate or higher? One may say YES and not sin.
7. One may pray for the lifing of this excommunication just as many prayed and received the TLM back into the Church.
8. Until then the SSPX is in schism, and no canon law can be addressed to it. Even if it be outrageuosly unjust, it stands.
9. I hate the fact of #8 but just because I do, does not invalidate it.
   You cannot deny the Supreme Jurisdiction of the reigning Pope, and say “I am a Roman Catholic”. They are mutually exclusive. I too wish it were otherwise. But, over a period of 2000yrs, it worked for the better.
   For those who believe in good conscience that VATII and the NOM-english, and the behavior of approved bishops is an attack on the perennial Faith, go right ahead. I say it is a chastisement on the Church members (You want modernism, I’ll give you Modernism until you vomit" … maybe that was about meat in the desert) and I will not run from the punishment into the SSPX/SSPV. I will travel as far as is necessary to a Sunday TLM. That’s my penance. Glad to receive it.
   Our God did give the TLM back to us, and it was never absent in the Chuch for even 1 generation.

And that’s the whole truth…

Hello. I’m afraid that people have some misconceptions concerning the SSPX .To answer some of your assertions

JPII never excommunicated Marcel Lebreve, rather the Archbishop was automatically excommunicated from the Church. Their are many Canon experts who believe the excommunications were invalid. Further - According to Msgr. Perle of Ecclesai Dei, one may fulfill their Sunday obligation - and even make a modest contribution - by attending a SSPX mass.

I’m sorry that I do not have any references at hand - however I can proivide tehem at a later time (It’s 3am, and I am tired). If you have any concerns about SSPX - you should look up their web site - or go to the Ecclesai Dei web site.

God Bless

 

[Sean_O_L]

gelsbern wrote:

You aren’t sure if a Papal Bull or Encyclical is infallible ex cathedra teaching? I don’t even know how to respond to this. How else do you think a Pope would pass on teachings of faith and morals?

Then, when Pope Innocent VIII’s BULL Summis disiderantes affectibus stated “Men and women straying from the Catholic faith have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi” [male and female sexual partners which produced “off-spring” from those unions with human beings!!!] - you would accept this as being “eternal truth” - eh? Because it was from a “Bull”?

And when St Thomas Aquinas believed that “A female resulted from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing” - you would also accept that because, well, Thomas Aquinas WAS a mighty saint?

Would you also accept his opinion as beint “eternal truth” when he did not accept the Immaculate Conception?

gelsbern, you have a lot to learn, my friend!

 

[gelsbern]

Sean O L:

gelsbern wrote:

Then, when Pope Innocent VIII’s BULL Summis disiderantes affectibus stated “Men and women straying from the Catholic faith have abandoned themselves to devils, incubi and succubi” [male and female sexual partners which produced “off-spring” from those unions with human beings!!!] - you would accept this as being “eternal truth” - eh? Because it was from a “Bull”?

And when St Thomas Aquinas believed that “A female resulted from defective seed or from the fact that conception took place when a damp wind was blowing” - you would also accept that because, well, Thomas Aquinas WAS a mighty saint?

Would you also accept his opinion as beint “eternal truth” when he did not accept the Immaculate Conception?

gelsbern, you have a lot to learn, my friend!

St. Thomas was never part of the Magesterium, therefore it is possible that there was error in his writing especially in regards to science. The Church is infallible in regards to faith and morals, it has never been considered infallible in regards to science.

As far as Pope Innocent’s writing, I would agree with him because anyone who does leave the Catholic church does indeed abandon themselves to the devils as there is no salvation outside the church and if one dies out of communion with the church, one will certainly end up dwelling incubi and succubi in the pits of hell.

My friend, I have a lot less to learn that you think.

 

[EddieArent]

Regarding a state of necesity to consecrate the bishops;

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1540&u=/afp/20050325/sc_afp/vaticanpopereligion_050325193603&printer=1

Cardinal Ratzinger according to that article, the Cardinal compared the Church of today to a boat “about to sink.”

Regarding the Luther comments, take a look at the Tridentine Mass and the most common English only ICEL Masses where you have the priest facing the people, etc. Even Eucharistic prayer #2 is used by some Lutherans according to many Catholic priests. My question is, would any Lutheran dare use the Tridentine Canon for their “services?”

 

[Jim_B]

Dear Eddie,

I would like to add a comment here for the good of the order. Although I cannot directly answer your question, it’s likely that some Lutherans are interested in following this thread.

A prominent Lutheran recently converted to the Catholic faith in 2003,
former Lutheran pastor Leonard Klein and his wife. Leonard was characterized as one of the the “adornments of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America” (George Weigel,Denver Catholic Register Newspaper & Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC.) I quote Weigel here:

Writing about his experience as a Catholic, Leonard Klein said that one of the things he had found most satisfying was the sense of freedom Catholicism engendered. This was, to be sure, “quite the opposite of what many would expect.” “How can this be, the Protestant polemicist might ask? How can one speak of a greater freedom under the burden of Roman obedience? The answer is simple - Catholics. . . . know that it is not all up to them … . . .
Toward the end of my time as a Lutheran pastor I used to protest that we were all reduced to being gurus. I tried to be authentically Lutheran, but who was to say that I was and the liberal feminist or the church-growth erstaz Evangelical down the street wasn’t just as Lutheran as I… By contrast a Catholic priest or lay person can speak of what the Church teaches or permits, and that is freedom.
It should as no surprise to anyone who understands that our true freedom lies in obedience, not the quivering obsequiousness imagined by post-Enlightenment people but the liberating obedience of faith.”

It is a wonderful thing when a non-Catholic discovers the beauty of the Catholic faith and enters into this newfound freedom of obedience, rather than the slavery of a self-proclaimed infallibility
so common among many today. I wish you a Blessed Easter, and, as we Irish say,

God Love Ya from the Lincoln Diocese,
Jim

 

[Sean_O_L]

gelsbern replied:

St. Thomas was never part of the Magesterium, therefore it is possible that there was error in his writing especially in regards to science. The Church is infallible in regards to faith and morals, it has never been considered infallible in regards to science.

So - it is also possible that he was in error in respect of theology. In respect of the Immaculate Conception - at that point of time, it was not yet a Dogma and, therefore, not required to be believed. As far as conception was concerned - he expressed only an opinion: an erroneous opinion! It IS true that 1000 St Thomas Aquinas’ do not have the authority of one reigning pope - such as Popes Paul VI and John Paul II - who respectively authoratively promulgated the Pauline liturgy of Mass, and excommunicated Lefebvre and Company.

As far as Pope Innocent’s writing, I would agree with him because anyone who does leave the Catholic church does indeed abandon themselves to the devils as there is no salvation outside the church and if one dies out of communion with the church, one will certainly end up dwelling incubi and succubi in the pits of hell.

Which does NOT answer the point raised! YOU bitched about a BULL being infallible and why some folks would not accept the contents, on the basis of it being a BULL! I have demonstrated that the full contents of a Bull HAS contained errors: which answers your complaint.

Nor have you answered whether YOU believe that a) there are incubi and succubi, b) which have sexual relations with human beings, and c) produce off-spring.

My friend, I have a lot more to learn that you think.

Self praise is not evidence.

Seeing that you claim to know a lot less than I think - how about imparting your knowledge on the above?

 

[katolik]

Sean O L:

gelsbern replied:

So - it is also possible that he was in error in respect of theology. In respect of the Immaculate Conception - at that point of time, it was not yet a Dogma and, therefore, not required to be believed. As far as conception was concerned - he expressed only an opinion: an erroneous opinion! It IS true that 1000 St Thomas Aquinas’ do not have the authority of one reigning pope - such as Popes Paul VI and John Paul II - who respectively authoratively promulgated the Pauline liturgy of Mass, and excommunicated Lefebvre and Company.

Which does NOT answer the point raised! YOU bitched about a BULL being infallible and why some folks would not accept the contents, on the basis of it being a BULL! I have demonstrated that the full contents of a Bull HAS contained errors: which answers your complaint.

Nor have you answered whether YOU believe that a) there are incubi and succubi, b) which have sexual relations with human beings, and c) produce off-spring.

Cursing St.Thomas Aquinas’ theology which has been many times approved by the Church… Modernists!
Show me the document in which the NO Mass is “authoratively promulgated”. Where, oh where are you?

 

[Kielbasi]

St. Thomas was never part of the Magesterium,

You both spelt the word “magisterium” wrong, as well as used it in a nonsensical way. No one is ‘part’ of the magisterium, the magisterium is something which is exercised.

Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master):

The Church’s divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion,

• “Going therefore, teach ye all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. xxviii, 19-20). This teaching is infallible: “And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (ibid.).

The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of æcumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or æcumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.

A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY (THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPÆDIC DICTIONARY)
Edited By Donald Attwater
New York, The Macmillan Company, 1962.
(Copyright 1958, Third Edition)
Library of Congress catalog card number: 58-5797

 

[gelsbern]

So excuse the spelling errors, I didn’t know we were being graded. It was late and my splelling and grammer falls off.

And I am fully aware of what the Magisterium is, but thanks for the definition.

Now, as far as incubi and succubi have a look at this thread.:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=529478

Do I believe they exist? Yes, is that against the teachings of the Church? Nope.

Pope Pius’ Bull was an infallible teaching in faith. Period.

Catholics in union with Rome can teach their errors and try to find fault with the past popes all they want, they will never change my mind about the infallibility of the Magisterium, both past and present.

Now again let me set the record straight, the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass when it is done properly, with correct intent, form and matter.

The TLM is also a valid Mass that can never be abrogated, obrogated, or done away with and we are guaranted by St. Pius V there there can be no penalty or sanction for using that Mass.

You will know them by their fruits.

What are the fruits of the modernits ridden Church? Empty Seminaries, Cowtowing to the laity, abuse by clergy.

What are the fruits of those who hold to the tradition? Full Seminaries, a truly sanctifying Mass and no abuse by clergy.

The SSPX is against modernism. Modernism is specified as heretical in the Syllabus of Errors. I cannot see how once an error is defined, that it goes away with time.

You can follow a man to your damnation, I will follow the Church to my salvation.

 

[Sean_O_L]

katolik wrote:

Cursing St.Thomas Aquinas’ theology which has been many times approved by the Church… Modernists!
Show me the document in which the NO Mass is “authoratively promulgated”. Where, oh where are you?{/QUOTE]
Obviously English is not your first language: nowhere have I “cursed St Thomas Aquinas’ theology which has been approved by the Church.”

If I am wrong, then you will be able to demonstrate the “curse”. Do you know what a curse is? It does not appear to be so!

Where has the Church upheld authoratively that the Immaculate Conception is false?

Do YOU believe that incubi and succubi are fornicating or adulterating with human beings?

Of course, the new liturgy of Mass - the Pauline Rite was authoratively promulgated by Pope Paul VI in “Missale Romanum” exercising the same fullness of the Apostolic office as did Pope St Pius V in HIS “Novus Ordo” under the name “Quo Primum.”
Can you produce any evidenve that individuals are the result of the aforesaid carnality?