Traditional Latin Mass

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

Another exaggeration!

The Inquisition never ended. The office exists to this day. The papacy never was involved with The Spanish Inquisition. It was murderously headed by the kings of Spain.

Which Inquisition never ended? There were two: the Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition.

Please provide evidence that both the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions are still in existence. Please quote the relative {i]Annuario{/i] which describes a current dicastery of the Roman Church which is currently described as, say, “The Roman Inquisition.”

The facts are, of course, that the Inquisition was re-named out-of-existence as The Holy Office, and then re-named as The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I would ask you, Kristopher, to moderate your claims to those which may be factually proven.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

The similarities between a Nuvos Ordo Mass, and a Protestant Mass warrant enough evidence to demonstrate who is likened to Protestants–Nuvos Ordo Catholics, with their Masonic and Protestant druaghted Vatican II.

To claim that Vatican II is protestant is heresy! This is a logical step from the state of schism.

Ecumenism is to mean: Reaching out to people of other faiths; it has nothing to do with all being granted permission to participate in The Eucharist.

False! Ecumenism is a concern for and objective of “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ…” Catechism of the Catholic Church, #822.
It has nothing to do with “all faiths.”

The Eucharist is not for all, but for many. Never be confused about Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross: It was for all. The Eucharist is for many.

Confused and erroneous!

The Eucharist is both one of the Seven Sacrament and is also the Sacrifice of the Mass. One cannot have the Sacricife of the Mass without there being effected at the same time the Sacrament of the Eucharist. However, one can receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist outside of Mass.

There are two aspects to Christ’s death:

1. His death was sufficient for the redemption of all
2. His death was effective for the salvation of many

Heretics and schismatics are thieves of the property of the Catholic Church inasmuch as they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church who is the owner of the Sacraments, and illicitly exercise the ministerial functions.

The SSPX priests as well as Archbishop Lefebvre were suspended a divinis from the exercise of priestly functions in 1976, as well as being excommunicated for the crime of schism in 1988, and, therefore, are thieves of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church when they exercise those functions.

Are you a confused Catholic?

Read Marcel Lefebvre’s letter to you.

That will only make you more confused!

Instead, read An Open Letter to Confused “Traditionalists”

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

The similarities between a Nuvos Ordo Mass, and a Protestant Mass warrant enough evidence to demonstrate who is likened to Protestants–Nuvos Ordo Catholics, with their Masonic and Protestant druaghted Vatican II.

To claim that Vatican II is protestant is heresy! This is a logical step from the state of schism.

Ecumenism is to mean: Reaching out to people of other faiths; it has nothing to do with all being granted permission to participate in The Eucharist.

False! Ecumenism is a concern for and objective of “the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ…” Catechism of the Catholic Church, #822.
It has nothing to do with “all faiths.”

The Eucharist is not for all, but for many. Never be confused about Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross: It was for all. The Eucharist is for many.

Confused and erroneous!

The Eucharist is both one of the Seven Sacrament and is also the Sacrifice of the Mass. One cannot have the Sacricife of the Mass without there being effected at the same time the Sacrament of the Eucharist. However, one can receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist outside of Mass.

There are two aspects to Christ’s death:

1. His death was sufficient for the redemption of all
2. His death was effective for the salvation of many

Heretics and schismatics are thieves of the property of the Catholic Church inasmuch as they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church who is the owner of the Sacraments, and illicitly exercise the ministerial functions.

The SSPX priests as well as Archbishop Lefebvre were suspended a divinis from the exercise of priestly functions in 1976, as well as being excommunicated for the crime of schism in 1988, and, therefore, are thieves of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church when they exercise those functions.

Are you a confused Catholic?

Read Marcel Lefebvre’s letter to you.

That will only make you more confused!

Instead, read An Open Letter to Confused “Traditionalists”

 

[Athanasius18]

i attend a very traditional and orthodox NO parish (with gregorian chant and the eaucharistic prayers in latin) but have great respect for the old mass. i do think that AUTHENTIC NO masses are are good, but they are so very few and far between it makes me wonder if the change was worth it. beyond that mass itself, i certainly sympathize with many of the concerns of the SSPX, especially eccumenicism. the Day of Prayer in Assisi a few years ago was truly disturbing, the late Great John Paul II allowed pagan hindus and buddhists to perform their rituals on Catholic altars! the modernism in the Church is truly striking, and leading so many souls away from Christ to a religion of “cafeteria catholicism” with is not catholicism at all and does not lead to salvation. i certainly see the points of the SSPX. i do regard them in schism, but i am glad to see that many talks are underway to bring about reunion. that would be the greatest blessing for the Church in centuries (perhaps less than an Orthodox-Catholic reuinion, but that is very far off). i just find it intreresting that the hiarchy has come down so hard on them while ignoring the liberal and heretical catholics that are in the Church. which is of greater concern, faithful, devout and God-fearing catholics going to the old latin mass or cardinal you-know-who in Los Angeles spreading his heretical ideas to already confused catholics. i think that the Church should spend more time worring about the true evil in the Church (modernism) and invite the SSPX back in to help combat it.

 

[gelsbern]

Catholic Heart:

Kristopher…What do you think of the 1962 Missal? I have been told that this is the Missal used by a an SSPX church here in Cincinnati.

I used to attend that SSPX church in Cincinnati. It’s on Blue Rock St. It does use the 1962 Missal and the liturgical calendar that was in effect at that time. According to them, the 1962 Missal was the last time that the “True Mass” was still in effect and that is why they use it. If I am not mistaken, the SSPX as a whole uses the 1962, I believe the SSPV does as well. Other more traditional groups use the 1958, but I believe they are all splitting hairs. (Pssst, don’t tell the SSPX, but the 1962 Missal was the first promulgation of Vatican II)

The reason I no longer attend the SSPX is because I disagree with their not wanting to use the vernacular and I disagree with them that the Novus Ordo is invalid. I attended the SSPX because I do love the tridentine mass, but the tridentine mass done in english is just as beautiful.

Up until I joined the SST, I attended the indult mass at Old St. Mary’s and then at Sacred Heart Church, now that I have brought excommunication upon myself from Rome, I do miss the tridentine mass.

When I am ordained to the presbyterate, my bishop has said he will give permission for me to do tridentine rite mass in either latin or english here in Cincinnati at my discretion and I plan on it being in english.

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Reader:

The numerous posts and links and lengthy posts will, obviously, require a bit of time to read. I will do my best to give them the attention that they deserve. I trust some effort will be given, other than directing me to link after link, to speak your explanations and your understanding of SSPX being in schism. It makes no sense to me that an absolute claim of SSPX being schismatic can be given, as the decision in Rome has not yet been given, but others appear to deem themselves, not the Pope, but themselves, or falsely, Rome, to be the authority. Was this too much of an exaggeration?

How can a man, Archbishop Lefebvre, be recognized as in excommunication after an apologist, Michelle Arnold, recognizes properly ordained priests in SSPX are sufficient for anyone on their deathbed to receive sacraments such as Communion from, which it is reasonable to conclude was done by the late Archbishop Lefebvre; thus, SSPX is exonerated of any claims either true, or false, of being schismatic.

What is heretical in stating that the Nuvos Ordo mass is very Protestant, and directly influenced by Masons, by Communists? The late Bishop Fulton Sheen wholeheartedly acknowledged the Catholic Church was infiltrated by Communists to the extent that the FBI told him, your life is being threatened by one of the most notorious FBI agents.

If there is anything at all ludicrous about my claim that the Nuvos Ordo mass is influenced by Modernism, then for what reason was the Society of Saint Pius X granted permission inside the Catholic Church to exist in the 1970’s to continue those traditions established in 1570 by Saint Pope Pius V.

The vernacular always has been part of the mass, how else is it possible that from the beginning, common people uneducated formally in foreign languages came to understand the mass?

Aramaic is not Hebrew, but whatever. Latin was the language of the people during the time of Jesus. It was not a historical inaccuracy of Mel Gibson to produce “The Passion of Christ” in not only Aramaic, but also in Latin–certainly there was very little Hebrew spoken as I remember it. The only Gospel written in a semitic language would have been Matthew, to my understanding.

My support of the claim, which I never first gave–I gave it secondly to an unsupported assertion that SSPX is in schism, with no one demonstrating any understanding at all about the topic at present; however, my support of my claim: SSPX is not in schism is supported by the Code of Canon Law 1323, 5/: The ordination of four bishops, (And where is the documentation to support the claim the Pope opposed this?), was done out of necessity to preserve the society and the traditions it as a society within the Catholic Church are meant to preserve. SSPX is not existing to continue the Latin language, but those most sacred traditions of the Catholic Church. The threats against these traditions are very real. Shortly after 1988 it was not too long afterwards Archbishop Lefebvre passed away.

Furthermore, I have a missalette of the current ordinary of the mass, without any imprimatur. Why is this? The organization of the Catholic Church is dead. It no longer functions to serve Catholics that we may be assured our materials for continuing Catholic Traditions are indeed infallible with respect to faith and to morals.

Thank you for your citation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, if it is a paragraph without reference to other doctrinal references, such as the Council of Trent, and other authoritative matters of infallible doctrine, then it is nothing any Catholic is obligated to accept as the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a result of an apostolic and pastoral council of ecumenism, clearly not a doctrinal council. When the word “apostolic” is used it means: It is no different than what Lutherans, and Episcopalians claim as the origin of their schismatic church.

Other Catholic Rites are regarded to be in schism, why do you support permission given to them for continuing as they do in their traditions, which existed some 200 yrs. in many cases, to use vernacular in their masses, if this is in fact what you are doing?

I have more than adequately answered a number of your questions. This has gone unacknowledged. I have not called anyone with the word “stupid”, but I have labelled a number of actions as “stupid”.

There is photographic evidence of faces, of priests, in the dress appropriate to priests, of those Masons and Protestants, which we know infiltrated Vatican II. You need only attend a mass at SSPX; visit the library, and pick-up the brochure.

The theology of the Sacrament of Communion in a 1999 St. Joseph’s Missal has changed so dramatically that their is no reason at all to believe that Communion is for Catholics alone, but it is now for everyone!

Whom, exactly, are you to declare me to be in schism, and a heretic? Please tell me about the formal process required to adequately label a Catholic schismatic, and a heretic.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[HagiaSophia]

Kristopher:

Whom, exactly, are you to declare me to be in schism, and a heretic? Please tell me about the formal process required to adequately label a Catholic schismatic, and a heretic.

To make it brief and to the point: read Ecclesia Dei issued by John Paul II:

"…In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement.** Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.(8)**

John Paul II - Ecclesia Dei

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

 

[Adonis33]

Sean O L:

Kristopher wrote:

Another exaggeration!

Which Inquisition never ended? There were two: the Spanish Inquisition and the Roman Inquisition.

Please provide evidence that both the Spanish and Roman Inquisitions are still in existence. Please quote the relative {i]Annuario{/i] which describes a current dicastery of the Roman Church which is currently described as, say, “The Roman Inquisition.”

The facts are, of course, that the Inquisition was re-named out-of-existence as The Holy Office, and then re-named as The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I would ask you, Kristopher, to moderate your claims to those which may be factually proven.

Wasn’t the Spanish Inquisition a pruduct of the Spanish Government - and not the Church?

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Adonis33:

I stated in an earlier post that not The Inquisition, but The Spanish Inquisition was instigated by the Spanish monarchy. The papacy had next to no involvement with it.

The office named The Inquisition according to a recent, this past decade, TV or documentary on video showed the office to this day is open, and visiting vatican.va will show this to be true as well–last time I looked.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Sean_O_L]

Adonis33 wrote:

Wasn’t the Spanish Inquisition a pruduct of the Spanish Government - and not the Church?

No contest! But THAT was not the issue!

The issue was Kristopher claiming the continuance of an un-named “Inquisition” - which, logically, could include the Spanish and/or Roman Inquisition. Such imprecise claims do NOT help in debates.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

I stated in an earlier post that not The Inquisition, but The Spanish Inquisition was instigated by the Spanish monarchy. The papacy had next to no involvement with it.

The office named The Inquisition according to a recent, this past decade, TV or documentary on video showed the office to this day is open, and visiting vatican.va will show this to be true as well–last time I looked.

To claim that “not The Inquisition, but The Spanish Inquisition was…” is puerile English expression! You should simply have written: “The Spanish Inquisition was instigated by the Spanish monarchy, and the Roman Inquisition was instigated by the Roman Church authorities.” That sort of expression is understandable, is it not?

The next sentence is, equally, poorly constructed. By the way - simply quoting vatican.va is absolutely no way to prove your point. Please quote the precise URL if you want anyone to look for your “proof.”

In any event, you castigate posters here for us providing YOU with URLs to direct evidence which contradicts your claims - and have the chutzpah to require of us to provide on the spot dialogue for you here and now!

For your information, posters here have had to contend with (perhaps) hundreds of persons who are like-minded SSPXers and adherents to other schismatic groups. It is extremely wearying to “put someone right” six or so months ago, and be required by someone new every third or so day from then on to provide the same dialogue data.

Therefore, in the interests of staying sane, enjoying a normal family life-style, doind a bit of exercise, and so on - one develops FILES on the SAME subjects which keep cropping up on a daily basis.

For starters, you will have to some “hard-yards” and do some constructive reading. Of course, you will have questions - which will readily be answered to the best of our abilities.

The main things to remember are:
Christ’s promises to His Church are until the end of time.
It is Catholic Dogma that there will be a Successor to St Peter until the end of time - and that successor WILL always be the Bishop of Rome.
The Bishop of Rome IS the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and Head of Christ’s Church, the Supreme Law-Maker, and the Supreme Law-Interpreter.

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

Sean O L:

Kristopher wrote:

To claim that “not The Inquisition, but The Spanish Inquisition was…” is puerile English expression! You should simply have written: “The Spanish Inquisition was instigated by the Spanish monarchy, and the Roman Inquisition was instigated by the Roman Church authorities.” That sort of expression is understandable, is it not?

The next sentence is, equally, poorly constructed. By the way - simply quoting vatican.va is absolutely no way to prove your point. Please quote the precise URL if you want anyone to look for your “proof.”

In any event, you castigate posters here for us providing YOU with URLs to direct evidence which contradicts your claims - and have the chutzpah to require of us to provide on the spot dialogue for you here and now!

For your information, posters here have had to contend with (perhaps) hundreds of persons who are like-minded SSPXers and adherents to other schismatic groups. It is extremely wearying to “put someone right” six or so months ago, and be required by someone new every third or so day from then on to provide the same dialogue data.

Therefore, in the interests of staying sane, enjoying a normal family life-style, doind a bit of exercise, and so on - one develops FILES on the SAME subjects which keep cropping up on a daily basis.

For starters, you will have to some “hard-yards” and do some constructive reading. Of course, you will have questions - which will readily be answered to the best of our abilities.

The main things to remember are:
Christ’s promises to His Church are until the end of time.
It is Catholic Dogma that there will be a Successor to St Peter until the end of time - and that successor WILL always be the Bishop of Rome.
The Bishop of Rome IS the Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and Head of Christ’s Church, the Supreme Law-Maker, and the Supreme Law-Interpreter.

Would you please stop ,hijacking this thread?
WITH YOUR ENDLESS BLATHER
WE GET IT ALREADY
OH WISE ONE
TEACH US SOMETHING NEW

 

[SteveG]

Kristopher:

Jesus largely spoke throughout his mission, Latin, because Latin was the language of The Roman Empire.

You are woefully misinformed here. The Lingua Franca of the Mediterranean world (and the Roman Empire) at the time of our Lord’s earthly mission was Greek, not Latin. This is an absolutely indisputable fact. Its part of the reason all the original manuscripts of the NT are in Greek and Jerome had to translate them from Greek to Latin. It’s the reason the Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated into Greek (not Latin) for the Jews. You really need to research what you are claiming more thoroughly as you sound very foolish.

Read this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (pre-dates VII by the way)…

newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm where it discusses the Latin of the church. This quote, directly from the article…

Until the middle of the third century the Christian community at Rome was in the main a Greek speaking one. The Liturgy was celebrated in Greek, and the apologists and theologians wrote in Greek until the time of St. Hippolytus, who died in 235.
*…*Even in Rome, Greek was the dominant language of the liturgy until well into the 3rd Century. Latin only slowly and later than this became the dominant Language of the Church as Latin replaced Greek as the more commonly spoken language. But not so at the time of the Lord’s earthly mission.

Kristopher:

As to your comment about a “vernacular Hebrew”, Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Christ.

There is ‘some’ truth here, but it presents and incomplete picture. The common language of 1st century Palestine was Aramaic. While most people living in the Roman Empire would have had at least a working knowledge of Greek, that doesn’t mean it (and certainly not Latin) was spoken in day to day conversation amongst themselves. We know that the Lord and his apostles spoke Aramaic because we have many Aramaic phrases uttered by our Lord retained in the NT. The name Cephas, which Paul and John’s Gospel (1:42) tell us was the actual name Christ gave Peter is the Aramaic equivalent to the Greek Petros. Likewise, the phrase the Lord spoke to the little girl when he raised her…

Mark 5:41Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal’itha cu’mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”

Tal’itha cu’mi is Aramaic. Similarly when in agony on the cross, our dear Savior cried out…

Mark 15:34: And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “E’lo-i, E’lo-i, la’ma sabach-tha’ni?” which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Again, E’lo-i, E’lo-i, la’ma sabach-tha’ni is Aramaic. There are others. For you to argue that Christ spoke Latin primarily (or at all) finds no support among the evidence.

I hate to throw all these facts on you ramblings, but most of what you say is similarly misinformed and I am worried that you will mislead people truly seeking to understand this issue.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Kristopher wrote:

The numerous posts and links and lengthy posts will, obviously, require a bit of time to read. I will do my best to give them the attention that they deserve. I trust some effort will be given, other than directing me to link after link, to speak your explanations and your understanding of SSPX being in schism. It makes no sense to me that an absolute claim of SSPX being schismatic can be given, as the decision in Rome has not yet been given, but others appear to deem themselves, not the Pope, but themselves, or falsely, Rome, to be the authority. Was this too much of an exaggeration?

Partially answered in my previous post. A decision HAS been given by the Vicar of Christ! In fact, the SSPX acknowledge the fact of the excommunication, but (falsely and contrary to the principle of the pope being the Supreme Law-Maker and Law Interpreter) claim that the excommunication was unjust.

Was it unjust? Perhaps - but it makes no difference to the fact that the excommunication (which was incurred by Lefebvre & Co, automatically) was lawfully incurred.

How can a man, Archbishop Lefebvre, be recognized as in excommunication after an apologist, Michelle Arnold, recognizes properly ordained priests in SSPX are sufficient for anyone on their deathbed to receive sacraments such as Communion from, which it is reasonable to conclude was done by the late Archbishop Lefebvre; thus, SSPX is exonerated of any claims either true, or false, of being schismatic.

Again you make an unsubstantiated claim regarding Michelle Arnold’s reply. You should provide the URL for checking! In any event, there is NO dispute that the SSPX priests are validly (as opposed to licitly) ordained! THAT is the crux of the matter. Anyone on his deathbed (who is unable to secure the services of a priest in good-standing with the Church) may receive the Sacraments from a valid (but schismatic or heretic or suspended) priest. The same applies to any Catholic (say in the Arctic, or Siberia, or Mesopotamia, or Timbuctoo, etc.) who cannot attend an authorised Catholic Mass - that person may attend Mass and receive Communion and fulfill the Sunday obligation in a schismatic Church. But, note, this does NOT apply if a local parish Church IS readily available. Love of the so-called Tridentine Mass is NOT a sufficient reason.

What is heretical in stating that the Nuvos Ordo mass is very Protestant, and directly influenced by Masons, by Communists? The late Bishop Fulton Sheen wholeheartedly acknowledged the Catholic Church was infiltrated by Communists to the extent that the FBI told him, your life is being threatened by one of the most notorious FBI agents.

What is wrong is in your “preciousness” in making this claim here and now! Let me quote what you wrote in Message 29 which was the subject of my statement: you wrote:

The similarities between a Nuvos Ordo Mass, and a Protestant Mass warrant enough evidence to demonstrate who is likened to Protestants–Nuvos Ordo Catholics, with their Masonic and Protestant druaghted Vatican II.

My objection was with “Nuvos (sic!) Ordo Catholics, with their Masonic and Protestant druaghted (sic!!!) Vatican II”

Vatican II was neither Masonic nor Protestant – all unsubstantiated claims to the contrary by you notwithstanding!

It is a defined Dogma of the Catholic Faith that “The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. (De fide.)”

Vatican Council II DID include propose many existing “teachings of faith or morals” and, as such was infallible in those matters.

If there is anything at all ludicrous about my claim that the Nuvos Ordo mass is influenced

by Modernism, then for what reason was the Society of Saint Pius X granted permission inside the Catholic Church to exist in the 1970’s to continue those traditions established in 1570 by Saint Pope Pius V.

Continued:

 

[Sean_O_L]

What is ridiculous is equating the above two propositions. It is one thing to speak about Modernist influences, and another to apply them to the continued existence of the SSPX.

First of all, the SSPX was established on an “ad experimentum” basis in the early 1970, but, the permission for their continuation was withdrawn by lawful authorities, with the consent and backing of the Pope, AND, Lefebvre and his priests, in 1976, were ALL suspended a divinus (i.e. from all priestly functions). Lefebvre & Co’s response to the Pope was: get stuffed! (Not in those words, of course, but with that effect.)

The vernacular always has been part of the mass, how else is it possible that from the beginning, common people uneducated formally in foreign languages came to understand the mass?

No it has not! Of course, it commenced in the vernacular (Aramaic), crossed over for several centuries in the (vernacular) Greek, and then crossed over in Rome to the working-class (vernacular) Latin. But, as the various European nations became Christianised, the imposed Latin was NOT the vernacular of the Goths, Gauls, Celts, etc. – and, there were NO bi-lingual missalettes for the common people until the invention of printing – and, even then, it took several centuries to get bi-lingual missalettes into the hands of the laity, who mainly comprised illiterate yokels!

Aramaic is not Hebrew, but whatever. Latin was the language of the people during the time of Jesus. It was not a historical inaccuracy of Mel Gibson to produce “The Passion of Christ” in not only Aramaic, but also in Latin–certainly there was very little Hebrew spoken as I remember it. The only Gospel written in a semitic language would have been Matthew, to my understanding.

Latin was only the language of the common people of Rome. Of course, it was also the language of the antichrist Nero – as “otm” pointed out!

My support of the claim, which I never first gave–I gave it secondly to an unsupported assertion that SSPX is in schism, with no one demonstrating any understanding at all about the topic at present; however, my support of my claim: SSPX is not in schism is supported by the Code of Canon Law 1323, 5/: The ordination of four bishops, (And where is the documentation to support the claim the Pope opposed this?), was done out of necessity to preserve the society and the traditions it as a society within the Catholic Church are meant to preserve. SSPX is not existing to continue the Latin language, but those most sacred traditions of the Catholic Church. The threats against these traditions are very real. Shortly after 1988 it was not too long afterwards Archbishop Lefebvre passed away.

“Necessity” is rubbish! There ARE thousands of validly consecrated Bishops, and multiple thousands of validly ordained priests in the world. What WAS necessary was for Lefebvre to have HIS way, despite the consequences. May he rest in peace. I remind you that NONE of the SSPX nor any of ten thousand experts or theologians have the POWER possessed by the Vicar of Christ. It is he alone who is able to detemine who is in communion with him – or not! The proof of the pudding as to whether Lefebvre and his bishops were in communion with the Bishop of Rome is proveable by inspecting the Vatican Year-Book, the Annuario Pontifico – which, from 1988 on, deleted the names of Marcel Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer from the lists of those who WERE in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

See the file on “necessity”

Furthermore, I have a missalette of the current ordinary of the mass, without any imprimatur. Why is this? The organization of the Catholic Church is dead. It no longer functions to serve Catholics that we may be assured our materials for continuing Catholic Traditions are indeed infallible with respect to faith and to morals.

Man! What rubbish you write! Lack of an imprimatur is absolutely NO indication of the “organization of the Catholic Church is dead” – but, it IS an indication of YOUR heretical disposition! It is defined Catholic Dogma that the Catholic Church WILL endure until the end of time, and that the Bishop of Rome will be it’s head until the end of time. Wake up, man – please!

Thank you for your citation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, if it is a paragraph without reference to other doctrinal references, such as the Council of Trent, and other authoritative matters of infallible doctrine, then it is nothing any Catholic is obligated to accept as the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a result of an apostolic and pastoral council of ecumenism, clearly not a doctrinal council. When the word “apostolic” is used it means: It is no different than what Lutherans, and Episcopalians claim as the origin of their schismatic church.

continued

 

[Sean_O_L]

Well, mate – your Baptist past is really showing! The Catechism of the Catholic Church IS the authoritive document for the Catholic Church that YOU claim is a dead organization!

Other Catholic Rites are regarded to be in schism, why do you support permission given to them for continuing as they do in their traditions, which existed some 200 yrs. in many cases, to use vernacular in their masses, if this is in fact what you are doing?

Sigh! Which “Other Catholic Rites”? When you state “if this is a fact” as if you think you can con me into agreeing with you. Repeat: “sigh”!

No you have not, Kristopher! You may think so, but, like your views, you are deluded. In fact, the following statement from Message 9 really could be classified in your terms:

It seems, pardon the vulgarity, but it seems very stupid to think that any mass at any time by any pope ever

said, no mass shall be given in the vernacular.

There is photographic evidence of faces, of priests, in the dress appropriate to priests, of those Masons and Protestants, which we know infiltrated Vatican II. You need only attend a mass at SSPX; visit the library, and pick-up the brochure.

I know the brochure well, Kristopher – some of the SSPX lies are critiqued

here, and

here, and

here.

The theology of the Sacrament of Communion in a 1999 St. Joseph’s Missal has changed so dramatically that their is no reason at all to believe that Communion is for Catholics alone, but it is now for everyone!

Unsubstantiated claim.

Whom, exactly, are you to declare me to be in schism, and a heretic? Please tell me about the formal process required to adequately label a Catholic schismatic, and a heretic.

Not “whom”, mate! “Who” is the proper word here. In any event, your question simply demonstrated that you are deficient in your understanding of matters. First of all, you are obviously an adherent to the schism of the SSPX, and under that category, incur the same penalty imposed by law. That is you are automatically excommunicated for the crime of schism.

Secondly, I did NOT call you an heretic. There IS a difference in uttering heresy and being an heretic. It is within the competence of lawful authority to call a pertinacious person who, after being advised of his heretical utterances, and who will not retract from them, to be named as an heretic. After that process, any Catholic may use the term in regards that person.

In the interim, any Catholic can observe and advise that utterances are heretical, or proximate to heresy, etc. That is NOT calling you an heretic.

You demonstrate your ignorance on this matter as well as on the subject of the schism and excommunication of the SSPX. That is very sad, and I urge you to better inform yourself on this very serious matter which impacts on your soul – as it did mine as a former adherent to the SSPX for more than 23 years.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Quecumquevult wrote

Would you please stop ,hijacking this thread?
WITH YOUR ENDLESS BLATHER
WE GET IT ALREADY
OH WISE ONE
TEACH US SOMETHING NEW

Et cum spiritu tuo, mate!

“Something new”?

“Who knows or ‘gets it already’ may choose to ignore that which displeases or annoys.”

 

[QUICUMQUE_VULT]

Sean O L:

Quecumquevult wrote

Et cum spiritu tuo, mate!

“Something new”?

“Who knows or ‘gets it already’ may choose to ignore that which displeases or annoys.”

Forgive me for being uncharitable
Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea maxima culpa!
It just seems to me you have made your point. ad nauseum
Not trying to be rude or unchristian here
Why would you say someones “Baptist past” is showing?
As A convert myself, I think that is the most uncharitable thing A “cradle” Catholic can say to A convert. (I assume you are A cradle catholic)
I have encountered this same attitude myself, from you “Lifers”
My only consolation is this.
The Apostles
Our Blessed Lady
And the very first Christians (whatever language they were speaking)
were ALL converts
Pretty good company to find yourself in! IMHO
God Bless
P.S. If you make it to heaven (my fervent prayer) Are you going to say to St. Peter or Our Lady your Jewish past is showing?

 

[SteveG]

QUICUMQUE VULT:

And the very first Christians (whatever language they were speaking) were ALL converts

I think the language issues are being highlighted because Kristopher is making them pretty fundamental to some of his arguments. He continues to profess confidently on the issues, but he’s clearly unknowledgeable about them. I’ve seen you repeatedly praise his posts, but I wonder if you see the problems and misinformation he’s presenting. If he’s getting some of the most basic historical facts wrong, doesn’t this make you question the rest? Please, whatever you do, investigate what’s being claimed (by both sides) for yourself and don’t just take anyone’s unsubstantiated word as fact.

I think what’s being hinted at here is the penchant for ‘protesting’. While I suppose all the first Christians could be called converts, it’s a little bit of a misnomer in comparing to modern day converts. The Baptist is already a Christian, but a protesting one (protesting against the authority of the church). The Baptist (Protestant) who becomes Catholic and then proceeds to radical traditionalism ends up in the same mindset they had prior to their conversion. That mindset of protesting against the valid authority of the Church. I think that’s what’s being referenced.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thank you for your participation in this discussion. This thread is now closed.