Q's for Traditionalists who believe Vatican II and NO were wrong/invalid:

[TNT]

Are you suggesting we do not take these statements as True? How are we to understand them? Elaborate because you and BEAR06 are very unclear.​

WHAT IS YOUR MEANING HERE?

---

If you can’t understand an 11 word invitation to share a drink, I can’t really hep ya no more. Course ya mite be a she.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

So basically Deeds, you’re only going to get him alluding to it. He won’t actually say what he’s alluding to which always strikes me as cowardly. If someone asks if you think Vatican II was heretical, why can’t you just answer the question?.

Have you not read the previous posts with the references cited? LOOK before you post, READ the previous post for which you are addressing. Formulate a discussion or question or answer that you may have and present it. AS I have told you justify your position and make a good argument. [edited by Moderator] Break them down and compare them to the Vatican II sect Sacrosanctum Concilium. [edited by Moderator] If the Vatican II sect is not heretical, as I have shown that it is, then what is it by your explaination? SO AGAIN, explain the contrary position you hold to those cited statements (of my previous posts) and why it is in contradiction to the dogmatic teaching of the Church.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Another example:
Pope Leo XII has already made the contradiction to the Vatican II sect document Nostra aetate # 2:

Pope Leo XIII, Ad Extremas (#1), June 24, 1893: “Our thoughts turn first of all to the blessed Apostle Thomas who is rightly called the founder of preaching the Gospel to the Hindus. Then, there is Francis Xavier… Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests… they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the Earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307).

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307.)

PLEASE NOTE: Vatican II sect is praising hinduism, a religion that has 1000’s of false gods among other things.

In addition:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928:
“… that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, … Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it…”The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 313-314.

Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846: “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.” ( The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 280.)

This is substantial grounds to indicate the invalidity of the Vatican II. If this is not correct, please relay your explanation with justification for all on this thread.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Let us look at another Vatican II document:

Vatican II document, Unitatis Redintegratio # 1: “Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1990, Vol. 2, p. 908.)

This has stated that all long for the one universal Church. The one Church is the Catholic Church the one true Church of Jesus Christ+.
So can you see the ***paradox ***here? Why are we longing for the One True Church when we already have it? (This Is a Very Important Point to Note!). Vatican II sect is stating that we long for the One true Church since it does not exist.

It is further mentioned by no other than JP2:
John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics: “When we pray together, we do so with the longing ‘that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be
converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God’.

The statement cited are in total contradiction of the Universal Church and suggest once again the invalidity of the Vatican II sect. Discuss these paradoxical statements of the Vatican II sect and JP2, your comments are welcome.

 

[AMDGJMJ2]

A.M.D.G.
J.M.J.
+
Dear BearO6,
Thanks for the explaination…he did not take you telling me this very well, but then he reminds me very much of one of my other friends who believe the same thing…It is becuase of him that I actually got me into this in the first place. He has had a very rough life of it…so take pity on our other friend here, even though he may be saying things that we do not agree with. It is by being kind and loving that people will become convinced that we are right.
Please pray for me and my friend…

May God bless all!

Yours in Christ through Mary,
Deeds

 

[Uxor]

Another example:
Pope Leo XII has already made the contradiction to the Vatican II sect document Nostra aetate # 2:

Pope Leo XIII, Ad Extremas (#1), June 24, 1893: “Our thoughts turn first of all to the blessed Apostle Thomas who is rightly called the founder of preaching the Gospel to the Hindus. Then, there is Francis Xavier… Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundreds of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion. In the footsteps of this holy man followed numerous priests… they are continuing these noble efforts; nevertheless, in the vast reaches of the Earth, many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstition.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307).

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307.)

PLEASE NOTE: Vatican II sect is praising hinduism, a religion that has 1000’s of false gods among other things.

In addition:

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928:
“… that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, … Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it…”The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), pp. 313-314.

Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846: “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.” ( The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 280.)

This is substantial grounds to indicate the invalidity of the Vatican II. If this is not correct, please relay your explanation with justification for all on this thread.

Makes me wonder about Father Mitch Pacwa who wrote in his book “Catholics and the New Age” when he was a Jesuit seminarian was introduced to Jungian Psychology, the enneagram, astrology, new age and illicit practices etc. he even taught it at a High School, if this was taught because of V2.

 

[Uxor]

QUOTE]

Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2: “Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”(The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 307.)

I understand what your saying it is praising Hinduism…geez they even worship the Cow…We are not suppose to worship false idols, that is adbomination to God. I heard 300 gods, didn’t know 1000.
Basically I take it their type of worship and belief in God is no different than the Catholic Church. I don’t think they believe in Christ’s salvation or Jesus Christ, so how is this comparable, if so why not just become a Hindu. This is garbage, selling your soul out.

 

[bear06]

I responded to two posts:

Exactly, It is simply unbelievable how many of the New Order Mass goers fail to comprehend this.

And your response to this:

Are you basicly trying to say that Vatican II and the NO are invalid and heretical, because that it what it sounds like?

The kool-aid reference was to you believing Uxor’s mantra regarding the Tridentine even after it’s been explained to her about 1,000 times that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same in all of the Roman rites but the Last Supper was not, in format, the Tridentine. This has been explained to her again and again by various people but she just keeps bringing up this red-herring. This is part of a very cult like game called “say it enough times and it’ll be true” which is where the kool-aid comes in.

My second comment is about you not answering AMDG’s question with a yes or no. After all of your posts, it was still unclear to him/her. You chose to go on with your many quotes for which AMDG did not ask.

So TCOB1, are you a sedevacantist? I’m not leveling a charge. I’m just curious.

 

[Uxor]

I responded to two posts:

And your response to this:

The kool-aid reference was to you believing Uxor’s mantra regarding the Tridentine even after it’s been explained to her about 1,000 times that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same in all of the Roman rites but the Last Supper was not, in format, the Tridentine. This has been explained to her again and again by various people but she just keeps bringing up this red-herring. This is part of a very cult like game called “say it enough times and it’ll be true” which is where the kool-aid comes in.

My second comment is about you not answering AMDG’s question with a yes or no. After all of your posts, it was still unclear to him/her. You chose to go on with your many quotes for which AMDG did not ask.

So TCOB1, are you a sedevacantist? I’m not leveling a charge. I’m just curious.

You are being reckless about my character to everyone you post to about me and dishonest about the true facts. And then refer to me as involve in Jim Jones cult which is truly sad. Enough!

 

[bear06]

You are being reckless about my character to everyone you post to about me and dishonest about the true facts. And then refer to me as involve in Jim Jones cult which is truly sad. Enough!

I never said you were involved with Jim Jones. As a matter of fact, I didn’t even bring the name up and I’m pretty sure that nobody else here thinks you’re involved with him either. That said, I did say that you constantly same the same errors over and over again even after they’ve been explained time and time again and now somebody else is joining in. What have I been dishonest about? Have I been dishonest about the fact that many of us have said this time and again?

the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same in all of the Roman rites but the Last Supper was not, in format, the Tridentine.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You are being reckless about my character to everyone you post to about me and dishonest about the true facts. And then refer to me as involve in Jim Jones cult which is truly sad. Enough!

Exactly where has Bear been dishonest as to the “true” facts?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I responded to two posts:

And your response to this:

The kool-aid reference was to you believing Uxor’s mantra regarding the Tridentine even after it’s been explained to her about 1,000 times that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the same in all of the Roman rites but the Last Supper was not, in format, the Tridentine. This has been explained to her again and again by various people but she just keeps bringing up this red-herring.

According to:
Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1,
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441,
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227, and
St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on the Holy Eucharist:

The Novus Ordo Mass or New Order Mass is not the same as the TLM especially since the words of Consecration have been changed. In addition most of the Mass was in effect, the rite was already in place, long before The Tridentine Mass (read up history of Mass and Council of Trent, so what you say is irrelevent. Uxor is basically correct my dear friend).

This is part of a very cult like game called “say it enough times and it’ll be true” which is where the kool-aid comes in.

You are gravely mistaken this is all about the truth. You must remember the traditional Catholic Mass has been the same for many years and was and is Catholic. There is no cult-like game here unless you are referring to the Vatican II sect (see posts #156. 163, 165,166.168,177,178, 179) You must remember The Traditional Latin Mass, the most holy act of worship of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, was codified by Pope St. Pius V in his Bull Quo Primum in 1570. So it is you that must defend the New Ordo Mass because it is what is in question. TLM is still Catholic and is still offered, unless you are claiming it is not Catholic? If so state your argument with justification.

My second comment is about you not answering AMDG’s question with a yes or no. After all of your posts, it was still unclear to him/her. You chose to go on with your many quotes for which AMDG did not ask.

Please again read the post I replied to. You tend to confuse yourself. I replied to AMDG once. the others were meant to be viewed by all. And I did not know you also spoke for AMDG. Be courteous and let others express themselves, it is their right.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I never said you were involved with Jim Jones. As a matter of fact, I didn’t even bring the name up and I’m pretty sure that nobody else here thinks you’re involved with him either. That said, I did say that you constantly same the same errors over and over again even after they’ve been explained time and time again and now somebody else is joining in. What have I been dishonest about? Have I been dishonest about the fact that many of us have said this time and again?

Be careful the ground you tread. Defamation of character is a serious injustice and is definitely not Christian in nature. You words defy the logic of this forum. Enough is Enough. Do not trample on good peoples integrity, such as Uxor, and compare them to Jim Jones.

 

[MTD]

Sacrosanctum Concilium # 30 encourages bodily self expression (?) among other things, and Sacrosanctum Concilium # 40 presses the more radical adaptation of the liturgy.

Sacrosantum Concilium, no. 30: “To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.”

Now, where did you see bodily self-expression in this quote??? If you think we, composed of body and soul, aren’t supposed to express to some extent with our bodies the sentiments of the soul, think again. We might as well do away with genuflection, or kneeling, or bowing.

It is for this reason we have seen Masses with guitars, rock music, Native American rituals in Mass, extra eucharist ministers, all sorts of other music, balloons, dancers, priests dressed in sport jerseys conducting mass, drastic drop in church members, church bankruptcies, court cases, abuses, etc. The list goes on.

It would be nice if you would refrain from naming abuses as if they were licit rubrics in the NO.

And Maria let me put an end to you argument with this:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13, ex cathedra:
“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 856.)

So are you saying that Pope Pius XII was anathema when he said the following in his encyclical Mediator Dei?

“It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

Maria

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Exactly where has Bear been dishonest as to the “true” facts?

Where have you been? Do you conspire with Bear06 and the character attacks? What facts has he brought up? I have posted about 10 issues here with regards to the Vatican II sect, and Bear06 has not addressed one of them. Are you two for real? Where are your facts against post # 156, 163, 1665, 166 168 177 178 179? Stop the character assaults and prove your worth. Put up or post up or whatever. We on this thread await your Christian replies.

 

[gorman64]

It would be nice if you would refrain from naming abuses as if they were licit rubrics in the NO.

So are you saying that Pope Pius XII was anathema when he said the following in his encyclical Mediator Dei?

“It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.”

I agree. That is a silly argument. Trent is not saying the Pope cannot modify the liturgies of the Church.

But the modernist didn’t really care what Pius XII said in Mediator Dei…as indicated here:

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Do you consider them anathema?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I agree. That is a silly argument. Trent is not saying the Pope cannot modify the liturgies of the Church.

But the modernist didn’t really care what Pius XII said in Mediator Dei…as indicated here:

Quote:
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Do you consider them anathema?

Yours,

Gorman

No doubt:thumbsup:

 

[Uxor]

IQUOTE]

That is the meaning when one says Kool-aide…going to deny that too?

JKirkLVNV
You’re grievously, grievously in error. The Tridentine Mass could be suppressed tomorrow and the Church would still be assured of Christ’s promise. It’s the Church and the Mass, not your idea of the Church and the form of the Mass. You’ve also insulted all of the Eastern Rite Christians in communion with the Holy See, for the promise is theirs as well.

JKirkLVNV
The Tridentine Mass probably never will be suppressed. It certainly shouldn’t be. Whether it is or isn’t will have no bearing on Christ’s promise, however, which was made to the Church long before what we know as the Tridentine Mass took its final form.

Talking form…not Sacrament.

JKirkLVNV
I would never deny that Christ instituted the Mass. I’m a Catholic.

Are you asserting that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, instituted that Mass in the exact form that Pope St. Pius V codified?

Talking form not Sacrament

JKirkLVNV
If our Lord said the Tridentine Mass, then why did the Apostles who took the Gospel and the Mass to the East do it differently? Why does the Church acknowledge these ancient liturgies as being “Apostolic?”

Talking Form…not Sacrament

See post 14, Uxor. They don’t say the Traditional Mass in the Eastern Catholic Churches in union with Rome, yet their Divine Liturgies are regarded as being of Apostolic origin or having Apostolic antecendents (by our Church). Did the Apostles get confused as to which Our Blessed Lord offered?

This is confusing…Our Lord offered…Are you talking now Sacrament or Form

bear06
Oh my goodness. Are you referring to THE Mass? If yes, I would agree. If you mean Traditional Mass as in the TLM, I’d be stunned. Of course Kirk’s not going to refer to the Mass Christ instituted as the Traditional Mass. Who does? It sounds more like you’re trying to “catch” Kirk. He believes (if I may Kirk) in the Mass Christ instituted at the Last Supper.

Talking form
.
JKirkLVNV
No, on the contrary, Christ only instituted one Mass.

Now we are talking Sacrament…

bear06
Uh, no, I’m not. Maybe it would help if you’d share which Mass you are talking about. Christ instituted the Mass of all ages.

Do you somehow think the Mass of Justin Martyr is a different Mass than the one Christ instituted?

Talking Sacrament

guanophore
So, what are you saying? The Eastern Liturgies don’t “count”?

Talking Sacrament

Uxor
I’m not saying your Mass is invalid, the Church as far as I know has never said that. I believe the words in the Core of the Canon are Christ’s words in the Traditional Mass.

Talking Sacrament…And yes it was me (Bear) that said the Core Essentials are Christ’s words, before anyone else did.

Uxor
What about the essential core?

I’m still on Sacrament as initially.

JKirkLVNV
When you say the core of the Canon, do you mean the words of consecration? “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood?”

And this was explained to me 1000 times???

bear06
As far as the Mass of all ages…Isn’t the Mass instituted at the Last Supper the Mass of all ages? Again, it wasn’t the TLM.

Talking form again

bear06
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uxor
What about the essential core?

What about it? The Mass of the Roman rite that I attend every week has it.

I’m referring to the Traditional Mass/Bear referring to the N.O and as the Sacrament not the Form

Uxor
When you made that statement it says to me that Christ had nothing to do with it, man-made, not valid, I don’t know. I’ve never heard anyone ever say that, ever. I believe it was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, handed down by the Apostles and their successors. It was organically grown, yes there were additions, things moved around, but it leads back to the Last Supper and consists of the very words of Christ.

I’m still on Sacrament

JKirk
The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had."

Yeah, Uxor, it is. It’s the same Eucharist as Jesus instituted.
You can go on and on and on until the hills fall, but the word of the authority of the Church is going to drown you out.

Now when the N.O. Mass is meantioned…we are talking Sacrament…

 

[MTD]

1. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

That canon from Trent says any minister who disdains, omits, or changes the approved rites of the Church is anathema. This obviously excludes the pope because he has the authority to approve and change rites. So my answer is that it depends on who is doing those things and whether they have been approved. No one is allowed to forbid the use of images/statues because the pope hasn’t approved that and won’t; such a one who forbids it is anathema (if that anathema still applies in canon law). On the other hand, tableform altars have been approved, so one who installs such an altar in a church is not anathema.

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Where have you been? Do you conspire with Bear06 and the character attacks? What facts has he brought up? I have posted about 10 issues here with regards to the Vatican II sect, and Bear06 has not addressed one of them. Are you two for real? Where are your facts against post # 156, 163, 1665, 166 168 177 178 179? Stop the character assaults and prove your worth. Put up or post up or whatever. We on this thread await your Christian replies.

I have made no character assualt on anyone. I asked a very simple question.

I suggest that YOU drop your arrogant attitude. You do NOT dictate the terms of the conversation here.