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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lampo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Caesar said:
There are some nutbars out there who seem to think that the current Pope is invalid. Some sedevacantists will claim Pius XII was the last valid Pope, others will say John XXIII. Then there are the groups that say there is in fact a valid Pope, but it seems that they have elected an anti-Pope ( such as anti-Pope Michael, anti-Pope Pius XIII, anti-Pope Peter II, ect. ect.).
Click to expand...
That was my concern as well. What did the Popes do to make the people believe they were invalid?
 
Lampo said:
This question shows my limited knowledge of my Catholic faith, but would the Pope be allowed to overturn Vatican II? Or could the Pope at least abolish novus ordo and revert to the Tridentine Mass?
Click to expand...
The pope cannot contradict revelation, neither Scripture nor Tradition, he can explain them and in doing that give us a better understanding of them.
 
Lampo said:
This question shows my limited knowledge of my Catholic faith, but would the Pope be allowed to overturn Vatican II? Or could the Pope at least abolish novus ordo and revert to the Tridentine Mass?
Click to expand...
With the stroke of the pen.

And the sooner, the better.
 
Caesar said:
There are some nutbars out there who seem to think that the current Pope is invalid. Some sedevacantists will claim Pius XII was the last valid Pope, others will say John XXIII. Then there are the groups that say there is in fact a valid Pope, but it seems that they have elected an anti-Pope ( such as anti-Pope Michael, anti-Pope Pius XIII, anti-Pope Peter II, ect. ect.).
Click to expand...
Don’t forget there were two different anti-Pope Gregory XVII. One was in Seville, Spain and the other in Canada.

This website provides a brief history of modern anti-popes.

angelfire.com/weird2/obscure2/anti-pope.html
 
litllulu said:
That was my concern as well. What did the Popes do to make the people believe they were invalid?
Click to expand...
I can only give a simplistic answer to this question. It’s not what the popes did, it’s what they didn’t do. They didn’t do what these people wanted them to do. So they decided the popes weren’t valid and decided to make themselves pope.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
But he won’t.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m still waiting for the universal indult.

While it’s no secret to anyone what I think of the Novus Ordo Mass, I believe it would be a mistake for the Holy Father to abrogate it with the stroke of a pen. It’s been around for almost 40 years and many people have become accustomed to it. Abrogating it (or even supressing it) would cause more problems than its institution 40 years ago.

The Novus Ordo Mass (actually the Mass of Paul VI) is valid and I know many people who attend it faithfully and live as orthodox Catholics. It can’t compare to the Tridentine Mass, but it’s a valid Mass which gives grace. Christ is still made present on the altar at a Paul VI Mass.
 
Lampo said:
  1. Vatican Council I dogmatically defined the teaching on the infallibility of the Pope. Do you believe the teaching of Vatican Council I? Yes.
  2. Therefore, based on the teaching of Vatican Council I, who has final authority to decide on matters of faith and morals?
    The Pope. This doesn’t mean he is infallible whenever he utters anything relating to faith or morals. He is only infallible under limited prescribed circumstances, like when he is making solemn pronouncements. Papal encyclicals are not even infallible. And John Paul II made statements relating to faith that are not only infallible but contradict Catholic teaching (such as suggesting that no one might go to hell).
  3. Are issues relating to the Mass issues of faith?
    Yes, most definitely. Which is why we reject the “Novus Ordo” Mass–it does not really express the Catholic faith and can even be harmful to our faith.
  4. Do the guys/gals who claim Vatican II and the Norvus Ordo are wrong have more authority than the Pope to decide on matters of faith and morals?
    **Depends on who the Pope is :whacky: Under normal circumstances, we would have no problem trusting the Pope to be a defender and promoter of the true Catholic faith. But we are not in normal circumstances–we are in a CRISIS. Vatican II and the Novus Ordo are in opposition to our sacred Tradition. The Pope’s job is to guard the faith. We can’t follow everything he does when he is NOT doing his job. We are obedient to the Pope in areas where we should be obedient, but we cannot follow him in his errors.
Question for you: does the current Pope have MORE authority to decide on matters of faith and morals than previous popes?**
5) Why, then, should I listen to what these people say over what the Pope says regarding the Mass?
Because we are actually siding with popes and theologians in the past. The Vatican II popes–especially Paul VI and John Paul II–have done much damage to the Church. The Novus Ordo Mass was created with the specific goal in mind of making as close to the Protestant liturgies as possible. It is really disconcerting to study the changes that were made in the Mass to create the NO and the changes the “reformers” made to the Mass. We really can’t harm our own faith by supporting such a Mass. Obedience to God comes before obedience to the Pope. Ideally there would be no difference between the two but we are not living in such an ideal time.
Click to expand...
 
i can only comment on this in a theoretical way, in-as-much as i am not privvy to the workings of the vatican. however, that being said, it is not all to well known that for years the vatican has been in discussions with many of the protestant faiths looking for areas of agreement with a view of unification (et unum sunt). with the resurgence of islam and from past history they know that a house divided cannot stand. therefore, from a politican point of view, the novus ordo might have been created with a view to bring all christian believers into one fold. again, in my opinion, the supression of the mass may have been a miscalculation. but that again is only my opinion. have a good year. (alih)🤷
 
alih said:
i can only comment on this in a theoretical way, in-as-much as i am not privvy to the workings of the vatican. however, that being said, it is not all to well known that for years the vatican has been in discussions with many of the protestant faiths looking for areas of agreement with a view of unification (et unum sunt). with the resurgence of islam and from past history they know that a house divided cannot stand. therefore, from a politican point of view, the novus ordo might have been created with a view to bring all christian believers into one fold. again, in my opinion, the supression of the mass may have been a miscalculation. but that again is only my opinion. have a good year. (alih)🤷
Click to expand...
Oh I see. So instead of converting people to Catholicism, we just dumb down our beliefs until it comes to the point where we’ve reached the lowest common denominator and there are no longer any areas of disagreement. And the sad thing is the creator of the Novus Ordo ([edited by Moderator] Archbishop Bugnini) and many high-up Cardinals in the Vatican (such as Cardinal Kaspar) have this view.

And “miscalculation” would be a HUGE understatement.
 
gorman64 said:
Artifical birth control was condemned. The pill is ABC. Any form of ABC was condemned in principle in Castii Conubii.

So Paul VI didn’t know about Castii Conubii? He helped create all the confusion. Was he invincibily ignorant of the Church’s teaching up to that point?

Why should this stun anyone? Only a modernist could think that the Church would possibly “change it’s teaching”.

Yes, but you realise that you are saying that the Teaching Church…whose preaching is the proximate rule of faith for us Catholics…cannot be trusted. This contradicts the general infallibility of the Church…if these members truly have authority.

Yes, it does…but it is not the Church that undermines Catholicism…an enemy hath done this.

Yours,

Gorman
Click to expand...
good points:):yup:
 
Swiss_Guard said:
I can only give a simplistic answer to this question. It’s not what the popes did, it’s what they didn’t do. They didn’t do what these people wanted them to do. So they decided the popes weren’t valid and decided to make themselves pope.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis! You made some good clear cut points!👍
 
40.png
Cor_Jesu:
Question for you: does the current Pope have MORE authority to decide on matters of faith and morals than previous popes?

I would say yes because there is only one Pope at a time. Isn’t that the same as asking, “Does George W. Bush have more authority right now than Bill Clinton?”
 
Even if the SSPX doesn’t claim that the current order of the Mass is invalid, they definitely claim that the old one is more pleasing to God. In their opinion, Vatican II and everyting that followed it was a big mistake. From this follows that, according to them, the only parishes where the “true” Catholic faith has been preserved must be in those SSPX parishes where one does not only use the older form of the Mass but also rejects the current form as being less pleasing to God. Retorical question: Would God really allow something that serious to happen to his infallible Church, even if the order of the Mass itself isn’t infallible?

When it comes to those who prefer attending indult masses prior to the current order of the Mass, is it because they think that the older form is more pleasing to God or just because they like it better (or “feel more attached” to it)?
 
Cor Jesu,

What about disciplinary infallibility? Do you deny that the disciplinary actions of a pope are infallible with regards to the doctrinal aspect? Do you deny that a pope cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine Law?

Maria
 
Ahlman said:
When it comes to those who prefer attending indult masses prior to the current order of the Mass, is it because they think that the older form is more pleasing to God or just because they like it better (or “feel more attached” to it)?
Click to expand...
I’m not a traditionalist, but I will say that although both the NO and TLM are the same sacrifice, the TLM rite is objectively superior to the NO rite, in my humble opinion, with regards to aesthetics and, for lack of a better term, theology.

Maria
 
Cor_Jesu said:
Oh I see. So instead of converting people to Catholicism, we just dumb down our beliefs until it comes to the point where we’ve reached the lowest common denominator and there are no longer any areas of disagreement. And the sad thing is the creator of the Novus Ordo ([edited by Moderator] Archbishop Bugnini) and many high-up Cardinals in the Vatican (such as Cardinal Kaspar) have this view.

And “miscalculation” would be a HUGE understatement.
Click to expand...
Excellent points:thumbsup: It is very strange how most Catholics do not or scarcely comment on Bugnini [edited by Moderator].🤷
 
several centuries ago, as a result of a position of “no co-operation” with one another, the mongols over-ran eastern europe and ruled for 300 years. similarly, in the sixth century and beyond islam was imposed on one christian nation after another. these included but were not limited to egypt, syria mesopotemis, etc. the crusade launched in part by pope urban, was, from what i understand, was to return that part of that world to christianity. history has proven, it didn’t work. people this present time seem to be unaware of the serious threats facing them. it would be in the best interest of all, to come to an understanding of our situation. denigrating one position of another at this time is futile. as catholics, at this time, we seem to be too fragmented. from this person’s perspective, i can only hope that an amicable answer can be found. have a good year. (alih)
 
ThereCanBeOnly1 said:
Excellent points:thumbsup: It is very strange how most Catholics do not or scarcely comment on Bugnini (freemason).🤷
Click to expand...
In the early 70’s, the Holy See emphatically denied that the Archbishop was a freemason. Most Catholics have no reason to comment on it, because it’s not true (unless, of course, you believe yet more conspiracy theories).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top