Validity of None-Tridentine Mass

[AFISHN]

it is metaphysically impossible for one mass to produce more grace than another mass as again, infinity has no degrees. Deacon Ed B

Great point ,Deacon ED.
It it either the Holy Sacrifice and produces grace or it is not the
Holy Sacrifice,and therefore does not produce grace.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Great point ,Deacon ED.
It it either the Holy Sacrifice and produces grace or it is not the
Holy Sacrifice,and therefore does not produce grace.

See this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=261253

 

[SFD]

Again, let’s remember that fine day in 1967 when the Vatican published a lovely book, red and with gold stamp on cover, entitled “Novus Ordo Missae”. The book contained only the Ordinary and new Canons.

One Canon was a fabricated one: “Prex Eucharistica IV”. The Latin text…approved by Paul VI’s authority…contained the words, “Pater, tu us solus Deus”.

The first English translation read, “Father, you alone are God.” Accurate indeed! No complaints here!

Alas, that’s called the Arian heresy. It took 1500 years, but finally the Church reverted to the error of Arius. Of course the book was discontinued and corrected:

“Pater, tu es unus Deus.”

See what happens when committees in Swiss hotels write Canons? Even “expert” committees. And no, I don’t think for a minute the committee was deliberately trying to be Arian. I think they were arrogant fools who presumed to rewrite the Roman Rite of centuries.

**Paul approved it. Incidentally, if you read Bugnini, there are places where it records Paul would approve something he hadn’t read, giving a cover note that said he had faith and trust in his liturgy consilium.

So one could argue the pope indeed can’t promulgate error…but maybe the pope should read what he puts his name on.**

The pope is protected from promulgating anything contrary to faith and morals. Are you saying that charism is only valid if he’s read everything?

Actually, the Vatican Council tells us that this charism is precisely that the pope cannot neglect this duty and thus is protected from making an error in faith and morals such as promugating a false liturgy.

SFD

 

[ProVobis]

The pope is protected from promulgating anything contrary to faith and morals. Are you saying that charism is only valid if he’s read everything?

Actually, the Vatican Council tells us that this charism is precisely that the pope cannot neglect this duty and thus is protected from making an error in faith and morals such as promugating a false liturgy.

SFD

Actually Pope Paul’s signature was on the false definition of the Mass, which he later redefined when convinced of it afterwards. Many still take the first definition at face value, though.

So where’s the protection if no one questions what he signed in public but knew to be contrary to Catholic teaching?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

See this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=261253

You make an incorrect assumption that as long as all masses are equal that some believe the abuses are OK. Such is not the case. Even with abuses the masses are equally efficacious, but abuses are wrong.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

WOW. First let me apologize. I gather by the tone of your post I quoted that you are having a bad or stressful day. For this I am sorry, and will hold you in prayer. If you are not and are just irked at me, I am also sorrow and will still hold you in prayer. If you are not irked with me, thats OK too, as I will still hold you in prayer.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You make an incorrect assumption that as long as all masses are equal that some believe the abuses are OK. Such is not the case. Even with abuses the masses are equally efficacious, but abuses are wrong.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I don’t think that anyone believes the abuses are OK. I realize that everyone things abuses are wrong. My point is that the abuses lessen the efficacy of the Mass on the level of the graces received in such a way that, all other things being equal, a person who attends a Mass with abuses, or a Mass celebrated ireverently, will receive less grace than one who attends a Mass without abused and/or celebrated reverently by a pious Priest. The reverence or lack thereof of the Priest will have an effect of the subjective efficacy of the Mass.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I don’t think that anyone believes the abuses are OK. I realize that everyone things abuses are wrong. My point is that the abuses lessen the efficacy of the Mass on the level of the graces received in such a way that, all other things being equal, a person who attends a Mass with abuses, or a Mass celebrated irreverently, will receive less grace than one who attends a Mass without abused and/or celebrated reverently by a pious Priest. The reverence or lack thereof of the Priest will have an effect of the subjective efficacy of the Mass.

I think I see what you are saying. It is well said, but I don’t know if I can agree with it. Maybe with rephrasing it.

I would not call efficacy objective or subjective. It simply is what it is. I think what you may be saying is that the disposition of a priest and/or the person attending the mass may be affected by either the reverence of the priest and/or the person attending. I do agree that this can affect the grace one receives, but the grace of the mass, being infinite, is still the same. It is the subjective disposition of the person that limits his or her grace, not the graces produced by the mass itself. Is this what you are saying. If so, we are in agreement.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ProVobis]

You make an incorrect assumption that as long as all masses are equal that some believe the abuses are OK. Such is not the case. Even with abuses the masses are equally efficacious, but abuses are wrong.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Deacon Ed B, even Satanic Masses?

And why aren’t you capitalizing the word Mass? Without capitalizing, your statements read like physics equations, especially when you introduce infinity into the sentence.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I think I see what you are saying. It is well said, but I don’t know if I can agree with it. Maybe with rephrasing it.

I would not call efficacy objective or subjective. It simply is what it is.

Yes, I agree. I should have called it the objective value, vs the efficacy.

I think what you may be saying is that the disposition of a priest and/or the person attending the mass may be affected by either the reverence of the priest and/or the person attending. I do agree that this can affect the grace one receives, but the grace of the mass, being infinite, is still the same. It is the subjective disposition of the person that limits his or her grace, not the graces produced by the mass itself. Is this what you are saying. If so, we are in agreement.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Yes, I think we are close to agreeing. Where we may differ is that I am saying that the efficacy of the mass is effected by the reverence of the Priest. Not only because a reverent Priest may cause the faihtful to be more reverent, and thus better disposed, but that the reverence of the Priest in and of itself will effect the amount of grace received. In other words, all other things being equal, I think that a Mass celebrated by an irreverent Priest will be less efficacious than one celebrated by a reverent Priest, since the Priest stands in as the official minister of the Church on behalf of the faithful. The Priest prays for the faithful, and an irreverent Priest will obtain less of what he asks.

St. Thomas.

Whether the mass of a sinful priest is of less worth than the mass of a good priest?

I answer that, There are two things to be considered in the mass. namely, the sacrament itself, which is the chief thing; and the prayers which are offered up in the mass for the quick and the dead. So far as the mass itself is concerned, the mass of a wicked priest is not of less value than that of a good priest, because the same sacrifice is offered by both.

Again, the prayer put up in the mass can be considered in two respects: first of all, in so far as it has its efficacy from the devotion of the priest interceding, and in this respect there is no doubt but that the mass of the better priest is the more fruitful.

That is not to say that a lack of piety in the faithful will not also effect the amount of grace they receive. Obviously it will. But I think that both will have an effect on the efficacy of the Mass - the irreverence of the Priest will lessen the grace, and the irreverence of the faithful, in such a way that if a person attended Mass with the same amount of devition, that was offered in a more reverent way by a Priest, they would receive more grace.

From this we can see how wise they were who were storng int eh faith during the Arian crisis, for they fled the local Church which had become corrupted. Those strong in the faith fled their local Churches because “they would have no part of the wicked Arian leaven”, and attended Mass in the desert. By doing this, they received additional grace which is probably how they remained strong in the faith during that time.

During the Arian crisis, St. Basil wrong the following. See if this sounds familiar:

**St. Basil the Great: ** "The danger is not confined to one Church… This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord’s flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven. --Epistulae 92 (ca. 372)

Notice what those who were “sound of faith” did. They did not take part in the profanation, but instead “avoided the places of worship, as schools of impiety”, just like the Traditionalists have done for the past 40 years.

And what was the one offense that was punished duirng the Arian Crisis? St. Basil tell us.

St. Basil: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers’ traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries and transported into the deserts…

St. Basil: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise inform, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and now-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven. --Epistulae 242 (376)

There was a thread a few months ago asking why the Traditionalists didn’t “stay and fight”. It is not that they didn’t stay and fight. It is that they would have no part with the wicken Liberal leaven.

They fought by avoiding the corrupt places of worship, and keeping the undiluted faith. That was their first duty in the present crisis, just as it was for those during the Arian crisis.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Yes, I think we are close to agreeing. Where we may differ is that I am saying that the efficacy of the mass is effected by the reverence of the Priest.

I cannot agree with this. Whether the priest is or is not reverent, the grace produced by a mass is infinite. (I will not even try to respond to a post that asked if this applied to a satanic mass. If anyone believes that this does, God help them as this obviously is not the mass being discussed) What a person receives due to reverence has nothing to do with the efficacy. If it is infinite, it is always infinite. That does not, cannot and will not change. It is the disposition of the person and attitude of the priest that can have an effect on the grace one receives, but the grace of the mass is still infinite.

That is not to say that a lack of piety in the faithful will not also effect the amount of grace they receive.

agreed

l. But I think that both will have an effect on the efficacy of the Mass -

Such a statement infers that there are degrees of infiniteness. This I categorically deny.

During the Arian crisis, St. Basil wrong the following. See if this sounds familiar:
**St. Basil the Great: ** "The danger is not confined to one Church… This evil of heresy spreads itself. The doctrines of Godliness are overturned; the rules of the Church are in confusion; the ambition of the unprincipled seizes upon places of authority; and the chief seat is now openly proposed as a reward for impiety; so that he whose blasphemies are the more shocking, is more eligible for the oversight of the people. Priestly gravity has perished; there are none left to feed the Lord’s flock with knowledge; ambitious men are ever spending, in purposes of self-indulgence and bribery, possessions which they hold in trust for the poor. The accurate observation of the canons are no more; there is no restraint upon sin. Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven. --Epistulae 92 (ca. 372)

Notice what those who were “sound of faith” did. They did not take part in the profanation, but instead “avoided the places of worship, as schools of impiety”, just like the Traditionalists have done for the past 40 years.

If by this you are implying that this is the state of the Roman Catholic Church today, this is where we part ways, as I will not debate or discuss that which I think is absurd. If you feel you are part of “a remnant”, someone, bluntly stated, as gotten into your mind. Follow Rome and the Magisterium. They will show you the way to heaven. Fight Rome and the magisterium, and you well be led on the way to where I wish no one will go.

I deliberately deleted what you have quoted of St Basil, as this in no way applies to our Church today.

There was a thread a few months ago asking why the Traditionalists didn’t “stay and fight”. It is not that they didn’t stay and fight. It is that they would have no part with the wicken Liberal leaven.

I would certainly hope that you do not believe in this dribble. Anyone who believes this is beyond fundamentalist and is fanatic.

They fought by avoiding the corrupt places of worship, and keeping the undiluted faith. That was their first duty in the present crisis, just as it was for those during the Arian crisis.

I thought I could dialogue with you, but if this is what you believe of the Church today, that it is a corrupt place of worship, than all I can say is that you will sincerely remain in my prayers.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I cannot agree with this. Whether the priest is or is not reverent, the grace produced by a mass is infinite.

Well, I’ve produved a lot of quotes that say the contrary. In this thread and the other one I started, I have provided a lot of authoritative quotes that say the efficacy of the Mass is not always the same, but is, in part, dependent on the piety of the Priest and the external solemnity of the liturgy. I guess you are free to disagree with the quotes I provided, but I don’t. I think they are correct.

It is true that the value of the Mass in infinite, but the graces bestowed are not always equal. These are two different things.

If by this you are implying that this is the state of the Roman Catholic Church today, this is where we part ways, as I will not debate or discuss that which I think is absurd.

In my opinion the only difference between today’s crisis and the Arian crisis is that today’s crisis is FAR WORSE.

If you feel you are part of “a remnant”, someone, bluntly stated, as gotten into your mind. Follow Rome and the Magisterium. They will show you the way to heaven.

Like the teachings such as

1.) That heretics and schismatics are part of the Church, and should not be converted (see the Bellamand Agreemnt)?

2.) That “the Old Covenant has never been revoked by God” and that it is no lnoger theologically appropriste to attempt to convert the Jews since their Covenant is still valid and salvific as the USCCB taught? (BTW, did you know that the US Bishops are in the process of attempting to correct that particular heresy that was in their Catechism? Too bad for all those who read the Catechism and blindly followed the false teaching taught them by their “shepherds”, wouldn’t you agree?)

3.) That a “mass” containing no words of consecration is valid?

Do you follow those teachings? If not, why? They were all taught by the magisterium. If you don’t follow them you are not following the magisterium; if you do, you are departing from what the Church has always taught

Sorry, but I won’t accept error, even if it is taught by members of teh magisterium.

During the Arian crisis, it was said by Fr. Jurgins, who wrote Faith of our Fathers, that between 97% and 99% of the magisteriim were Arian heretics. Just as it would have been imprudent to blindly follow the magisterium in that day, so too is it in our day when the errors equally bad and even more diverse.

I follow what the Church has always taught. If it so happens that a Pope, or the magisterium teach otherwise, I will not follow.

I realize that a lot of Catholic will follow anything that comes from above. I have no doubt that if John Paul II would have taught that Jesus is not God, 99% of the Catholic would have believed and taught the same. A few would have objected and been labeled heretics for doing so.

Fight Rome and the magisterium, and you well be led on the way to where I wish no one will go.[/uote]

Tell me where I am fighting Rome or the magisterium. Show me one single teaching of the Church that I reject. Just one.

I would certainly hope that you do not believe in this dribble. Anyone who believes this is beyond fundamentalist and is fanatic

Were they fundamentalists fanatics who refused to attend the local Church during the Arian crisis because they would “have no part of the wicken Arian leaven?” If not, then tell me how is it being a fundamentalist fanatic to avoid local Churches today that are infested with Liberal leaven.

I thought I could dialogue with you, but if this is what you believe of the Church today, that it is a corrupt place of worship, than all I can say is that you will sincerely remain in my prayers.

Not all Churches, but most Churches. Actually, I don’t see how anyone in their right mind would disagree. A diocesan Priest in my large archdiocese told me personally that out of all the Priest in our diocese, only 5 had the faith. All the rest are heretics.

After reading the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX not too long ago, the same Priest told me personally that in the Seminary he was taught - as true - every one of the errors contained in the Syllabus.

I’m not sure how you could be unaware of the gravity of the situation the Church is in. I hope the reason is not because you have been too effected by it to be able to see it. I hope that is not the case.

 

[SFD]

Actually Pope Paul’s signature was on the false definition of the Mass, which he later redefined when convinced of it afterwards. Many still take the first definition at face value, though.

So where’s the protection if no one questions what he signed in public but knew to be contrary to Catholic teaching?

Article III

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

The infallibility of the Church’s magisterium, viewed as a whole, has already been demonstrated (see nos. 79-99). Granted that fact, the primacy of the pope, since it comprises both teaching and ruling authority, must also include the prerogative of infallibility. If the Church’s magisterium cannot err, and if the pope by himself possesses the full power of that magisterium, it follows inevitably that the pope in exercising that magisterium is preserved from error. In other words, he is infallible. Still, the matter is so serious it must be discussed ex professo.

I. The Catholic Dogma

The Catholic dogma is expressed in the following words of the Vatican Council:
And so, faithfully holding on to that tradition recognized from the very beginning of the Christian religion … with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a dogma revealed by God: that the Roman pontiff when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when exercising his office of supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that some doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the universal Church, he possesses, thanks to the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines on faith or morals; and consequently that definitions by the same pontiff are by their very nature, and not because of the consent of the Church, irreformable. – DB 1839.

II. Explanation of the Dogma

1. The meaning of papal infallibility. The notion of infallibility was explained earlier in this book (see nos. 77 and 79). Many non-Catholics, however, still have distorted notions about this matter. It may be helpful, therefore, to clear aside some misconceptions by stating the following points:
   (a) The pope was declared infallible in his teaching activity, not in his other activities. It would, then, be pure wantonness to confuse the notion of infallibility with impeccability.
   (1) How infallibility may have an indirect bearing on the Church’s ruling power was explained above (see nos. 91 and 93).
   (b) The prerogative of infallibility does not make the pope’s will the ultimate standard of truth or goodness.
   (c) Infallibility is not omniscience.
   (d) Finally, infallibility does not imply inspiration. An infallible decree does not possess the same sort of dignity as Sacred Scripture.

2. The efficient cause of papal infallibility is God’s assistance. That assistance was promised to the Roman pontiff in the person of St. Peter. Keep in mind, however, that the popes in preparing an infallible decree do not neglect normal means of inquiry, re-search, discussion, or deliberation:
The Roman Pontiffs on their part, according as the condition of the times and circumstances dictated, sometimes calling together ecumenical councils or sounding out the mind of the Church throughout the world, sometimes through regional councils, or sometimes by using other helps which divine Providence supplied, have, with the help of God, defined as to be held such matters as they had found consonant with the Holy Scripture and with the apostolic tradition. – DB 1836; TCT 216.

1. The person endowed with the prerogative of infallibility is the currently-reigning Roman pontiff. That is why the Gallican theory could not possibly be squared with the Vatican Council definition. The Gallicans make a distinction between the see and its occupant. Thus the individual popes could err, but God would prevent “error from taking deep root” in the Roman see or Roman Church. In other words, God would see to it that an error committed by one pope would be swiftly repaired either by the same pope or at least by his successor. Obviously this opinion is not reconcilable with the statement of the council that “the Roman pontiff,” is infallible when speaking ex cathedra; nor with the necessary conclusion of the same council: "and consequently definitions made by the same pontiff are of themselves, and not because of the consent of the Church, irreformable."

The Gallicans wrongly appeal to Leo the Great’s epigram, “Sees are one thing, those who sit upon them another” (Epistula 106. 6). By that saying, Leo simply meant that the rights of a see do not depend upon the holiness of its occupant, “For even though those who occupy sees may differ at times in their merits, still the rights of the sees remain” (Epistula 119. 3).

Notice, however, that only the pope himself personally enjoys infallibility; not other people to whom he may delegate some share in his teaching authority. For example, even though the Roman congregations are organs of the papacy, they are not the pope himself. The reason for the restriction is this: the pope cannot cause the divine assistance, promised to himself personally, to come to the aid of other people. It should be clear, then, what is meant by saying that infallibility is a personal prerogative. It is personal insofar as it belongs to each individual pope and cannot be delegated to other people; it is not personal in the sense that it belongs to the pope as a private person, that is, in virtue of his personal qualifications.

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

SFD,

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the quotes you provide.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Well, I’ve produved a lot of quotes that say the contrary. In this thread and the other one I started, I have provided a lot of authoritative quotes that say the efficacy of the Mass is not always the same, but is, in part, dependent on the piety of the Priest and the external solemnity of the liturgy. I guess you are free to disagree with the quotes I provided, but I don’t. I think they are correct.

It is true that the value of the Mass in infinite, but the graces bestowed are not always equal. These are two different things.

In my opinion the only difference between today’s crisis and the Arian crisis is that today’s crisis is FAR WORSE.

Like the teachings such as

1.) That heretics and schismatics are part of the Church, and should not be converted (see the Bellamand Agreemnt)?

2.) That “the Old Covenant has never been revoked by God” and that it is no lnoger theologically appropriste to attempt to convert the Jews since their Covenant is still valid and salvific as the USCCB taught? (BTW, did you know that the US Bishops are in the process of attempting to correct that particular heresy that was in their Catechism? Too bad for all those who read the Catechism and blindly followed the false teaching taught them by their “shepherds”, wouldn’t you agree?)

3.) That a “mass” containing no words of consecration is valid?

Do you follow those teachings? If not, why? They were all taught by the magisterium. If you don’t follow them you are not following the magisterium; if you do, you are departing from what the Church has always taught

Sorry, but I won’t accept error, even if it is taught by members of teh magisterium.

During the Arian crisis, it was said by Fr. Jurgins, who wrote Faith of our Fathers, that between 97% and 99% of the magisteriim were Arian heretics. Just as it would have been imprudent to blindly follow the magisterium in that day, so too is it in our day when the errors equally bad and even more diverse.

I follow what the Church has always taught. If it so happens that a Pope, or the magisterium teach otherwise, I will not follow.

I realize that a lot of Catholic will follow anything that comes from above. I have no doubt that if John Paul II would have taught that Jesus is not God, 99% of the Catholic would have believed and taught the same. A few would have objected and been labeled heretics for doing so.

Fight Rome and the magisterium, and you well be led on the way to where I wish no one will go.[/uote]

Tell me where I am fighting Rome or the magisterium. Show me one single teaching of the Church that I reject. Just one.

Were they fundamentalists fanatics who refused to attend the local Church during the Arian crisis because they would “have no part of the wicken Arian leaven?” If not, then tell me how is it being a fundamentalist fanatic to avoid local Churches today that are infested with Liberal leaven.

Not all Churches, but most Churches. Actually, I don’t see how anyone in their right mind would disagree. A diocesan Priest in my large archdiocese told me personally that out of all the Priest in our diocese, only 5 had the faith. All the rest are heretics.

After reading the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX not too long ago, the same Priest told me personally that in the Seminary he was taught - as true - every one of the errors contained in the Syllabus.

I’m not sure how you could be unaware of the gravity of the situation the Church is in. I hope the reason is not because you have been too effected by it to be able to see it. I hope that is not the case.

Pax - you will remain in my prayers. May God be with you
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

Not all Churches, but most Churches. Actually, I don’t see how anyone in their right mind would disagree. A diocesan Priest in my large archdiocese told me personally that out of all the Priest in our diocese, only 5 had the faith. All the rest are heretics. .

Sounds schismatic to me.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Sounds schismatic to me.

Sounds like somebody needs the word defined to me.

When 80% of the bishops accepted the Arian heresy, would somebody who pointed this out then be in schism? Were the 20% who were orthodox, and all who have come after them who condemned the heresy, including every pope, then “schismatic” for pointing out that certain clerics were, by definition, heretics?

Do you understand the definition of “heretic”? It means “someone who has heretical beliefs”. A heretical belief is a belief that contradicts the orthodox teachings of the Church, the doctrines and dogma.

So, you are now stating that somebody who points out heresy is in schism. Does this depend on how many he’s leveling the charge at? If he’s correct or incorrect? Certainly, if he’s incorrect, then there’s no heresy, but how does that make him schismatic?

What is the working definition of “schismatic” you’re using in this rationale?

 

[ProVobis]

SFD

What does this have to do with reading a document before signing it?

If it’s infallible, it’s always infallible. If the Pope can effectively erase his signature on a document, or someone else erases it for him, then how can it be infallible?

 

[ProVobis]

Sounds schismatic to me.

Who, the priest making the statement or the 5 who held the faith?

 

[AlexV]

The word “schism” is thrown around awfully loosely on these fora.