Would I be welcome here.... IF?

[theMutant]

myrna:

Someone even posted the Mass did not change, but if you take an old prayer book, maybe from your parents or grandparents, and try to follow it along with the novus ordo, you would find it impossible. However, as I stated you would follow just fine with the reformist changes.

You see the reformist you speak of are the ones that made the changes. The sedevacantist made absolutely no change in Roman Catholic church, if you can find just one, I will apologize.

…

Indifferentism is still a hersey.

I just wanted to go back a bit to address something for Myrna since she started this thread. She did not, after all, want to take this thread in precise direction that it has gone since she referred JLC here. I’m not complaining, but I don’t want her own statements and issues to get lost as we proceed in her absence. I hope that when she gets the chance to return that the direction we have gone will not drive her away from the forum.

I agree that the “modernization” of Church practice, especially in the liturgy, was a big mistake. However, I think that it is important to recognize that, while they are VERY important, the rituals used in practicing the faith are not the same as the faith itself. What I mean here is that just because the rituals (rites) have changed doesn’t mean that what is believed has changed.

The rite of Mass has changed drastically (and, in my opinion, for the worse) but what the Mass is (the re-presentation of Christ’s Sacrifice) has not. This is what distinguishes the current rite of Mass in the Latin Church from the worship services of Protestants. This is where I cannot agree with the sedevacantists who seem to claim that because the ritual has changed, the current rite is no longer valid. The test of validity that you are using is completely new and cannot be supported by reffering to pre Vatican II teaching. Even Pius V, who formalized the rite of Mass after the Council of Trent never declared that the rites he suppressed were invalid!

Likewise with the direction that the current ecuminical movement. The goal of the current ecuminical movement in the Church is the same; to bring Christians back to the one Church Christ established. Vatican II and subsequent Church documents made it very clear that in our ecumenical efforts the whole and complete faith must be affirmed and that “unity” will only exist when those separated from the Church have accepted all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I disagree with how this movement has progressed and how ecuminism is being pursued but it is only the practice that has been changed; not the teaching of the Church.

JLC and Wandering Catholic have given a couple of examples of where they think the actual teaching of the Church has changed, but if you actually read the documents it can easily be seen that this is not the case. As Wandering Catholic once stated, “let the documents speak for themselves.” This isn’t simply a case of one’s interpretation because the documents cited EXPLICITLY refute their interpretation. I do not assume that their mistakes are deliberate, but they are mistakes.

Although I was born too late to experience the Church before the changes took place, I have studied and spoken with many older Catholics and have come to two conclusions. 1: The changes that have been made were unwise, have led to confusion among the faithful, and should be reconsidered but they do not constitute a change in the faith or in Church teaching. 2: While these changes brought problems in the Church out in the open, these problems DID exist before the changes were made.

 

[Mandi]

theMutant:

Likewise with the direction that the current ecuminical movement. The goal of the current ecuminical movement in the Church is the same; to bring Christians back to the one Church Christ established. Vatican II and subsequent Church documents made it very clear that in our ecumenical efforts the whole and complete faith must be affirmed and that “unity” will only exist when those separated from the Church have accepted all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I disagree with how this movement has progressed and how ecuminism is being pursued but it is only the practice that has been changed; not the teaching of the Church.

I totally agree with you on this. I am having a hard time believing some of the thoughts I read on this forum. Maybe the concept of ecuminism had a point but the pursual of it definiatly is having a reverse effect. I read in here somewhere a comment that “we pray to the same god as the hindu’s” - This is mis-information at it’s height. For those who don’t know - the hindus have over 35,000 different gods - sanatansociety.org/hindu_gods_and_goddesses.htm

and the Holy Trinity is NOT amoung them!

Pary for us, O Holy Mother of God,
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Mandi:

Pary for us, O Holy Mother of God,
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ

I second that!

G.G.

 

[jordan]

theMutant:

JLC and Wandering Catholic have given a couple of examples of where they think the actual teaching of the Church has changed, but if you actually read the documents it can easily be seen that this is not the case.

You are right; and to suggest that the “lesser clergy and the laity” can go their own way when in their judgment the Bishop of Rome, and the Episcopal College, have erred in some fundamental way would be to justify nearly every schism. It would also undermine the validity of the Faith which they claim to accept.

Mutant: I can also appreciate your other comments. Change is hard to manage, and it has not been managed well. What many have claimed as the “spirit” of Vatican II, has often been something quite other than the Holy Spirit. Thanks for your efforts.

 

[theMutant]

jordan:

Mutant: I can also appreciate your other comments. Change is hard to manage, and it has not been managed well. What many have claimed as the “spirit” of Vatican II, has often been something quite other than the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for this. However, I don’t want to change the direction of the thread (which would go against the rules of the forum) to start simply comparing the new versus the traditional rites. There are already other threads on this topic in the appropriate forum section (Liturgy) and I have posted my opinions on the thread entitled “Universal Indult.” I do feel it would be in line with this thread, however to discuss the validity of the current rite because the sedevacantists don’t believe it is valid.

My main reason for making this statement is that threads are subject to being locked by the administrators if they stray from their original topic; especially if they no longer address the topic of the forum they are in. Technically, this thread could have been closed after Karl Keating’s post which answered the original question posted by Myrna; is she welcome to participate in the Catholic Answers forum.

A discussion with sedevacantists on the validity of the current ligurgy would be appropriate in an apologetics forum, but a discussion on different views of the benefits or problems of the current liturgy belong in the liturgy forum. I felt that it was important to make this distinction since I am the one who brought my opinion of the changes since Vatican II into this discussion. My only reason for doing so was to demonstrate that one does not have to agree with the changes to the practice of the faith instituted by a pope in order to remain in union with him.

 

[JLC]

With all the points flying around, it is rather disorganized to try to argue all of them simultaneously. Let’s try to address a point at a time. I must say, it is strange to see accusations even after I show approved Catholic quotes that unmistakeably show the opposite. Do people here *really *read things thoroughly? I wonder.

• For instance, I have shown three quotes that explicitly say that one is NOT to be considered a schismatic for doubting the legitimacy of a pope. How could anyone have the nerve to contradict approved Catholic canonists/moralists on this point?
• Does anyone know what the logical fallacy of “begging the question” is? It is very important to proper reasoning and apologetics. Yet, I have seen this fallacy here repeatedly. If the very question is whether JP2 is a true pope or not in the first place, it is a fallacy of reason to use as a premise that JP2 is in fact a true pope. If you don’t understand this, say so…because so many here have fallen into it.
• Authority. It remains always with the clergy who have retained the Faith, even after other bishops cease to be Catholic through heresy. And even after a Pope dies, resigned or falls into heresy himself. Authority is not an issue. The Church goes on, even as St. Athanasius said, if it is reduced to a handful.
• Interesting to see Whit accused the so-called “sedevacantist” Catholic of believing in a “democratic communion of worshippers”. No sedevacantist would dare say anything other than that the Church is a monarchy. And this is further ironic because if Whit thinks it is a monarchy, then he violates Vatican II which started the innovation of “collegiality” among the bishops, which is a democracy.
• My tag line. I have quoted Abp. Lefebvre. But that doesn’t mean I agree with the SSPX stand. I don’t. You will find that most SSPXers will argue with that quote by Lefebvre whom they seek to make a Saint!
• Mutant made the statement “The divine protection of infallibility is only in effect when the pope teaches ex cathedra”. This is not true. The Council of the Vatican was only defining “PAPAL infallibility”. The infallibility of the Church is quite another thing. Even if the pope NEVER made an ex cathedra statement the Church is ALWAYS protected by infallibility. It is a mystery of our Faith. The ordinary magisterium is infallible also. Read the 1870 document.

We should address this issue with logical priorities. First, if anyone denies a pope can become a heretic, say so. Let give anyone time to say it.

Then, let’s focus on whether we can judge such a thing. I have already given plenty on that, and much of it ignored. But I am willing to go calmly and logically head-to-head with anyone, such as Mutant, who wants to focus.

Those things have priority and must be settled with a focus before anything else.

JLC

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

I have shown three quotes that explicitly say that one is NOT to be considered a schismatic for doubting the legitimacy of a pope. How could anyone have the nerve to contradict approved Catholic canonists/moralists on this point?

On the contrary, the only document you have only shown that addressed this issue stated that one cannot be considered a schismatic for doubting the legitimacy of a pope if a cardinal involved in the election makes a claim of invalidity. One might ask how you have the nerve to reassert this claim in regard to yourself when you have not named one cardinal involved in JPII’s election that has made such a claim. Until you do, the document you cited doesn’t support your position and you CAN be considered a schismatic for maintaining that JPII is not a valid pope.

JLC:

If the very question is whether JP2 is a true pope or not in the first place, it is a fallacy of reason to use as a premise that JP2 is in fact a true pope.

If it is a fallacy to use the premise that JPII is, in fact, a true pope when addressing the question of whether or not he is a true pope, then it is also a fallacy to use the premise that he is not. Since you have not provided any real evidence that his election was not legitimate, then it is not only reasonable, but logical to assume that it was until you prove otherwise.

JLC:

It remains always with the clergy who have retained the Faith, even after other bishops cease to be Catholic through heresy. And even after a Pope dies, resigned or falls into heresy himself. Authority is not an issue. The Church goes on, even as St. Athanasius said, if it is reduced to a handful.

You have not demonstrated that Vatican II, JPII, or the bishops in union with him have not retained the Faith. I provided quotes from those same documents you cited which showed that they taught the same Faith as was taught prior to Vatican II. Authority IS an issue because you have failed to demonstrate that anyone has the authority to judge the Vicar of Christ. Please provide is with official Church teaching which asserts such an authority and I will accept it. You wield St. Athanasius like a sword but do not realize that the point is directed back at you. He sided against those who denied that the bishop of Rome is the Supreme Pontiff; the supreme authority over the Church second only to Christ.

JLC:

Mutant made the statement “The divine protection of infallibility is only in effect when the pope teaches ex cathedra”. This is not true. The Council of the Vatican was only defining “PAPAL infallibility”. The infallibility of the Church is quite another thing. Even if the pope NEVER made an ex cathedra statement the Church is ALWAYS protected by infallibility. It is a mystery of our Faith. The ordinary magisterium is infallible also. Read the 1870 document.

I suggest that you go back and read my posts on this topic. You will find that I have not addressed the infallibility of the Church’s extraordinary or ordinary magisterium in any way. My statements about infallibility only applying to the pope’s ex cathedra statements refer to the pope’s own infallibility and were in defense of your own position that the pope can commit heresy. The pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. When not speaking ex cathedra, the pope does not have the protection of infallibility.

JLC:

We should address this issue with logical priorities. First, if anyone denies a pope can become a heretic, say so. Let give anyone time to say it.

Then, let’s focus on whether we can judge such a thing. I have already given plenty on that, and much of it ignored. But I am willing to go calmly and logically head-to-head with anyone, such as Mutant, who wants to focus.

Those things have priority and must be settled with a focus before anything else.

While I thank you for the complement in singling me out in this, if you are saying that you cannot move forward with this discussion until EVERYONE agrees that the pope can be a heretic, then we might as well close this thread now. You know very well that in any gathering of humans there will be those who hold obstinately to their positions no matter what amount of evidence to the contrary is offered.

Therefore, let’s go ahead and move forward to whether we can judge such a thing. You say that much of what you have offered as evidence has been ignored. Well, I promise to go back to the very beginning of this thread and address any evidence on this topic that I have missed if you’ll promise to go back and address those questions that have already been raised as a result of the evidence you have offered.

 

[theMutant]

WanderingCathol:

I gave you one.

Christ’s church subsits in the catholic church.

when the teachings has always been the catholic church is christ’s church.

Another refutation of your assertion:

Dominus Iesus

1. … Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church - like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity - will never be lacking.

**The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity - rooted in the apostolic succession - between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). ** This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection - divided, yet in some way one - of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.

We can see here that the post Vatican II Church teaches the same as the pre Vatican II Church. The Catholic Church contains the full and complete unity that Christ promised. The other Churches only have a share of that unity in as much as they have maintained Catholic doctrine.

 

[JLC]

Mutant,

Let me know what you think of these quotes from three separate moralists/canonists:

“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation…”
- Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398

“Nor is there any schism if…one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.”
- Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2

“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].”
- de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8

 

[ralphinal]

OK,
I have ignored this thread for some time. Wow, I’ve missed it. All I ask is three simple things. First, can someone provide me with the charges against the Pope point by point and the teaching o fthe church that each one violates without the preaching. Just action or statement in question, context, and teaching violated. Second, the list of ways that someone can be doubtful of the Pope seems mostly ment for those times when the election seems problematic (I have not seen it here), the identity of the man is in question (again, not present), or in cases where the pope tries to rule in a civil way (again, not here). Am i mis-reasing that? Third, if at no point in time a Pope has taught heresy before now, and the teaching of the CHurch is that the Pope cannot teach heresy when it come to matters of Faith and Morals, then is it not a herecy to beleive that the pope is a heretic? Even the popes that had no business in the office did not teach heresy. One that was placed there to teach a particular herecy had a change of heart once elected. The Church teaches that the pope is protected by the Holy Spirit, by saying that that is not true, isn’t that heretical? I am not trying to argue, just understand

 

[Becky]

swampfox:

PS You’re wrong about JPII–Any man whose faith and love and yes Catholicism virtually singlehandedly brought down communism and the Soviet Empire miraculously without a shot is filled with the Holy Spirit and is truly Christ’s representative here on Earth. I’m sure he prays for you to return too.

I believe that the gentleman below had a lot to do with the fall of Communism:

http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/graphics/rr_osfront.jpg

Godspeed Dutch.

 

[jordan]

JLC:

Mutant,

Let me know what you think of these quotes from three separate moralists/canonists:

“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation…”

• Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398

“Nor is there any schism if…one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.”

• Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2

“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].”

• de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8

JLC:

Let’s have a gut check here. You seem now to defending yourself as to whether you can be considered schismatic. According to Catholic teaching: “The Magisterium exists to protect the authentic teachings of Christ until the end of time.” Tell me what teachings you’ve got a problem with. Tell me whether, in regard to those teachings, there has been dissent between Bishop of Rome, and the extraordinary Magisterium.

 

[theMutant]

The Roman Catechism published by Pope St. Pius V quotes St. Jerome regarding the Papacy, “One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed.” The unity of the Church is personally embodied in the papacy as our sure guide to the faith. This is why he is the Supreme Pontiff. As the successor of St. Peter in Rome, he is the sign of the Church’s unity and with him, according to St. Irenaeus, all Churches, indeed all the faithful of the whole world must agree.

In all previous cases when there were people who falsely claimed to be the successor of Peter, there was always a true successor at the same time at the same time that they were making these false claims. In this way, God provided the means for the faithful to know and follow the true teaching of Christ. The sedevacantists of today, however, claim that no successor to Peter has been elected since the death of Pius XII. If their claim is true, then one must wonder what happened in regard to the prayer of Christ that we would be one. We have bishops today who declare that the current methods of ecuminism are incompatible with the faith and constitute heresy. Only a pope can settle this question. If we do not have a pope, we have no sure guide to the faith.

In my reading of historical Church teaching, only a pope can change the laws that govern the universal Church. When a pope dies, the universal laws in place remain unchangeable until his successor is elected because only his successor has the authority to change them. Even if all of the bishops of the world held a council and voted to change the universal law, it would not take effect until the successor of Peter approved of the change. The law of the Church when Pius XII died was that his successor would be elected by the cardinals. If Pius XII was the last legitimate pope, then all cardinals appointed after his death would not be legimate cardinals because only a pope can appoint cardinals. Therefore, the successor to Peter could only be elected by those who were cardinals at the time that Pius XII died. I haven’t checked to see how many of those cardinals are still living, but once they have all been called home to God, we won’t have any means of electing a successor to Peter! Granted, the law limiting the election of a pope is a changeable one, but it was (and still is) part of the universal law of the Church and the universal laws can only be changed with the approval of the successor of Peter. If the last legitimate cardinal dies, then no one will have the authority to make the necessary change of law to elect a legitimate successor to the papacy.

If the sedevacantists are right, then God has not provided us with any shepherd for forty years in spite of the fact that we have had four illegitimate popes and one false council that have all been heretical and the Mass has been corrupted to the point where it is no longer valid. In my opinion this contradicts the promises of Christ and the teaching of the Church about how the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church until the end of this age. If one of God’s purposes in establishing the papacy was to remove all occasions of schism, then why is there no shepherd during what clearly must be a time of enormous schism? God cannot contradict Himself. He promised that we would have a shepherd to guide us but the sedevacantists say that we do not. (Except for those sedevacantist groups that have elected their own pope. In their case, I refer back to the previous paragraph and wonder what legitimate cardinals elected their pope.)

If the sedevacantists are right, then we may soon be without the means of electing a successor to Peter or, at the very least, without the means to settle the question of how the next successor will be elected. We may already be in this situation.

If the sedevacantists are right, then bishops have the authority to pass judgment on a pope’s teaching even to the point of declaring him to no longer be the pope due to heresy. This is a new teaching that not only did not exist before Vatican II, but contradicts the historical teaching of the Church. I find it ironic that it is the sedevacantists who have introduced this new teaching accuse Vatican II and the Popes after Pius XII of changing the teaching of the Church.

Fortunately, the sedevacantists cannot support their position. I assume that they hold their views with all sincerity, but they have not fully examined the documents that they claim have “changed” the Church’s teaching. Their leaders have presented them with partial quotes of these documents in such a way that it seems that this is the case but, as I have shown with those documents they have cited on this thread, a more thorough examination of those documents reveal no change in Church teaching.

 

[theMutant]

JLC:

Mutant,

Let me know what you think of these quotes from three separate moralists/canonists:

“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation…”
- Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, n. 398

“Nor is there any schism if…one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.”
- Szal, Rev Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p.2

“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded ‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].”
- de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8

Well, I’ll have to find and read the entire texts from which you are extracting these very limited quotes. From what you’ve quoted, though, I can see that these maintain the same teaching as the other quote you previously provided. The only basis for denying one’s subjecting to the Pontiff or viewing him as an illegitimate successor to the see of Peter is if his election was invalid. You have consistently ignored this point and you have consistently failed to demonstrate that the election of John Paul II was in any way invalid. These quotes clearly do not support your view that you can lawfully refuse to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or consider him to be illegitimate because you consider him to be a heretic. Unless you can show that the election of the pope was somehow invalid, your own defense convicts you of schism.

 

[myrna]

WOW! Believe it or not; I never thought this thread would evolve like this and I believe it was providence that God arranged my leaving for a short time, while JLC came to answer the questions presented here.

You see my faith is very simple, I believe the Pope is infallible and can not err in matters of Faith and Morals, since JPII has made some serious errors he can not be a true pope. JLC has been able to sort out these matters in much detail for those of you who can face the truth of the matter.

We are not is schism and I may be wrong on this, correct me if I am, but I thought the new thinking of Vatican II is now the word “schismatics” were no longer part of the new religions vocabulary, yet you disobey your pope. I believe even in JPII’s new canon law it states that the faithful, if they feel in conscience they can not attend their parish service they are allowed to go elsewhere, it seems to me it is 844 but not sure on that point either. I am going to do a search on the internet to get the exact canon law on that.

So many notes here it will take me a week just to catch up.

Thank you JLC and please don’t leave, I certainly am not as well prepared as you to address the concerns here.

 

[myrna]

Okay it didn’t take me long to find what I was looking for, an article by Braian Kaspar about what your pope said, so if he is truly your pope you might want to read what he said.

Even if you don’t agree with JLC on the points he speaks of you are also not agreeing with JPII because he says we have a right … So who do you agree with then, who is the real Protestant?

Canon 844(2): “Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or
indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.”

Following this Canon, we can safely assume that if…

1. “a genuine spiritual advantage commends it”, and
2. “the danger of indifferentism is avoided”, and
3. “we find it ‘morally impossible’ to approach a
   Catholic minister”, then we may receive the Eucharist from even non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.

The first condition is simple. Assisting at a Tridentine Mass certainly gives us a spiritual advantage, as does associating with traditional Catholics who unabashedly adhere to all of the Church’s teachings and dogmas.

The second is as easy: no person attending a Latin Mass would be in danger of indifferentism, which is the heresy that all religions are equally advantageous to souls and that all religions can, in and of themselves, lead to salvation. Many attendees at the Tridentine Latin Mass, in fact, are there precisely because indifferentism is being implied - or worse, taught - from the pulpit of their local novus ordo parish.

For the third condition there is a litany of reasons why one will find it morally impossible to approach a Novus Ordo catholic minister, many of which are presented every month in the newspaper. While there are certainly orthodox Novus Ordo priests who boldly assert and teach the dogmas of the Church, it is far too hard to find one. Those conditions being met, I may attend a valid Latin Mass.

So, the question, it appears, is whether the Tridentine Latin Mass is actually valid.

According to Catholic theology, a Mass is valid if it has the proper form (mostly, the words of Consecration along with other prayers and ceremonies), proper matter (the bread and wine) and proper intent (the priest must intend to turn the species into the body and blood of
Christ). The Mass must also be celebrated by a valid priest.

If we look at these three conditions, we can see that all Latin Masses offered around the world are, at very least, valid. Let us look at:
FORM. We know for sure that the Latin liturgy is valid as it is still used by the Church in many dioceses.
MATTER. We know that the unleavened bread and wine are proper matter to be used. They have been used for centuries.
INTENT. I have never heard anyone question the intent of priests at Tridentine Latin Masses to actually turn the host and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
The only question, then, is whether the priest offering the Mass is a valid priest. Any priest who has been ordained by a valid bishop, with or without diocesan or Vatican approval, is a valid priest… .

We are NOT in any doubt about attending
Masses offered by traditional priests who are labeled as “illicit,” “schismatic” or “disobedient.” THE POINT IS BY YOUR OWN LAWS YOU CAN NOT SAY WE ARE WRONG.

You see, if the Novus Ordo hierarchy is right and the New Mass is valid, we have the right to attend the Latin Mass under the New Canon Law. And if the most adamant traditionalists are right and both the New
Canon Law and the New Mass are invalid, then we have the obligation to attend the Latin Mass.

 

[potterygirl]

LOL…my mom is Baptist and she thinks the Pope is cool. She loves all his books he has written and she definitely considers him a Holy Man.

~amy

 

[myrna]

potterygirl:

LOL…my mom is Baptist and she thinks the Pope is cool. She loves all his books he has written and she definitely considers him a Holy Man.

~amy

That is nice, but it doesn’t mean much, most of the world will think the Anti-Christ is cool too! So it is written.

 

[theMutant]

myrna:

We are NOT in any doubt about attending
Masses offered by traditional priests who are labeled as “illicit,” “schismatic” or “disobedient.” THE POINT IS BY YOUR OWN LAWS YOU CAN NOT SAY WE ARE WRONG.

Myrna,

You are quire right in pointing out that faithful Catholics can licitly go to mass offerred by a legitimate sedevacantist priest serving an authentic sedevacantist bishop. Their masses, like those of the Orthodox churches, are valid and catholics are permitted to attend in the circumstances you cited. However, I would give serious thought to whether or not doing so is truly spiritually advantageous.

I say this because my father and I had to make the same decision. Ultimately, for us, the reason we continue to suffer through the current rite is that we do not want to give even the appearance of supporting those who have broken away from Rome. I have studied their positions and found their reasons for holding the last four popes and the Second Vatican Council as heretical easily refuted and sometimes self-contradicting. I would LOVE to be able to attend the mass according to the 1962 Missal but my own bishop will not give his approval. For myself, the personal spiritual benefits of attending the traditional mass offered locally by the sedevacantists is overruled by the fact that they have broken from the see of Peter and attending a mass offered by them would ultimately be spiritually damaging to me because of this fact.

However, you also that that, by “our” own laws, we cannot say that you are wrong. This is incorrect because it takes the law out of context. The law merely states that a Catholic can attend a mass offered by a schismatic who has valid orders and offers a valid mass. It does not say that we are free to accept their reasons for rejecting the validity of the current rite of mass, Vatican II, or the legitimacy of the last four popes. Therefore, like all of the examples JLC has cited, your own evidence shows that you are misrepresenting what the Church is saying. I do not say that you are doing so deliberately, I am merely trying to point it out. According to you, the law you quoted says that we cannot say you are wrong. This is only true in regard for attending mass; not for all of the other positions.

 

[the_geezer]

theMutant:

Myrna,

It does not say that we are free to accept their reasons for rejecting the validity of the current rite of mass, Vatican II, or the legitimacy of the last four popes. Therefore, like all of the examples JLC has cited, your own evidence shows that you are misrepresenting what the Church is saying.

Well put.

The internal contradictions of sedevacantist arguments are fascinating. That personal opinion becomes greater than the authority of the Pope is the foundational contradiction that fascinates me. It is supremely Protestant in its model and function.