Author Topic: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?  (Read 588 times)

2Vermont

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2017, 06:42:50 AM »
We don’t have the same issue of “rejection” I suppose “traditionalists” have when they refuse to follow Pope Francis.

How so?

2Vermont, here is the problem. I have learned to be very careful with the questions brought back to me. I made the statement you quoted as a conclusion to a very long post.

You took it out of its context, quoted it and ask, "How so?"

Therefore, I will ask you how you understood it in light of all that I said. Then we can have a discussion as to whether you followed why I said what I said. It is not confusing in context of what I wrote.

It sounds to me that you believe that the modern Eastern Catholics are allowed to reject Pope Francis (and his predecessors) and his Vatican II teachings because the pre-Vatican II popes that brought the Eastern Rite back into the Catholic Church said that the West can't make the East change their traditions, etc. 

Is that correct?
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2017, 10:02:34 AM »
Quote from: VinnyZee
“We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding.”

After Quo Primum we have these revisions:

1604 – Pope Clement VIII
1634 – Pope Urban VIII
1884 – Pope Leo XIII
1920 – Pope Benedict XV
1955 – Pope Pius XII

--------------------------
(What Sedes Reject)

1962 – Pope John XXIII
1970 – Pope Paul VI
1975 – Pope Paul VI
2002 – Pope John Paul II

Were the revisions of 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920 (and 1955) valid? If arguments can be made (and accepted by sedes or non-sedes) alike that the changes after 1570 until 1955 are acceptable despite the binding in perpetuity by Pius V, then how can one argue the changes after 1955 (the missal of John XXIII, et al) are wrong? Why do you argue for the changes in the 1955 missal as valid (if you do, I guess I should find out whether you do first?)

What does it mean for you that Pius V bound the mass in perpetuity, yet there seemed to be changes within 35 years of his proclamation in Quo Primum? Unless you can show me otherwise and I am open to seeing the evidence, but Quo Primum was not bound on the eastern churches as their liturgies had been older than 200 years when Pius V promulgated the encyclical.

Hey Vinny,

I think that the main popular rallying cry of traditionalists was a response to the New Mass, but there aren't any sedevacantists (except perhaps for the more recent brand of resignationists, who say that Francis is anti-pope but Paul VI-Benedict XVI are legit) who think that the anti-papacy began when Paul VI published the Novus Ordo.  This is important to keep in mind because while we can certainly discuss the illegitimacy of the New Mass without ever mentioning Paul VI (i.e., we can just look at the rite itself), from a sedevacantist P.O.V. there's the added (and probably more significant) ammunition that Paul VI wasn't pope.  So when push comes to shove, we can reject the New Mass without ever even looking at it, the same way that we might reject the canonization of Fr. Kolbe, a truly saintly priest, but who simply has never been canonized.  Likewise, even if the N.O.M. had nothing intrinsically wrong with it (as I would say is the case with the 1962 missal), the mere fact that it lacks the sort of approval required for use is as strong an argument as any to reject its use.  I say this simply as a way of showing that once one is convicted that Paul VI was not pope, the question of revising the missal doesn't even come up.  Because if he's not pope, it doesn't matter at all what the actual contents of the N.O.M. are, they can be rejected on the grounds that they lack the sort of approval required, and we can just stop there if we want (this isn't to cede that the N.O.M. is orthodox, because it certainly isn't, but just to really emphasize that bringing up prior revisions to the missal of Pius V is really only something that has a bearing on non-sedevacantist arguments, like those of Fr. Tauok.)

Next, if we do look at the N.O.M., it's clear enough that it is not a revision, but an entirely new rite altogether, and at that, one which replaces Pius V's missal in fact.  Unlike the other revisions (legitimately done up until the death of Pius XII), those revisions contained Quo Primum while Paul VI's missal doesn't.  That alone should tell you the mind of the authors.  But add to that, it was devised (literally) by a non-Catholic religious committee, and as many, many authors have shown, it stripped the mass of everything uniquely Catholic-- no Prayers at the foot of the altar (makes sense, given that there's no altar), no offertory (makes sense, given that there's no sacrifice), completely new canon, bereft of sacrificial language, new words of consecration, new prefatory prayers (which are more Jewish in nature than Catholic), etc.  So even from the position of Fr. Tauok (who is an SSPX priest and not a sedevacantist), one could mount a very strong case for the illegitimacy of the N.O.M. based on it being a new rite rather than a revision. 

So to sum it up,

1) If sedevacantism is our starting point, there's nothing to be said about the N.O.M. since it was never legitimately promulgated regardless of its content

2) Even otherwise, it is clearly not a revision and definitely not a case of special pleading.  The "line drawn" at the N.O.M. is anything but arbitrary.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 10:46:37 AM by Mithrandylan »
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, Nick, Rubecorks, Vinny Zee

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2017, 10:43:58 AM »
Thank you, Mith.  I think that is a very good explanation as to why the New Mass is not relevant to the sedevacantist arguments.  Most anti-sedevacantists seem to think that the New Mass is where sedevacantism began and why it's foundation is flawed.  But this is plainly not the case.  Another, very intelligent anti-sedevacantist, Robert Sungenis, also fell into this trap when he debated John Lane on the issue of sedevacantism at the 2006 Fatima Conference in Spokane, Washington.  His entire argument centered on the issue of the Novus Ordo while John Lane kept trying to get Sungenis off the issue because it was completely irrelevant to the question of sedevacantism.  In the end, anti-sedevacantists seem to think Robert Sungenis "won" the debate even though he never actually address any sedevacantist arguments.
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2017, 10:49:16 AM »
The Sungenis/Lane debate is like a Grindhouse B-movie slasher flick.  Just... painful to watch.  So painful that it almost exudes a certain idiotic charm.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 

Rubecorks

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2017, 12:09:18 PM »
The Sungenis/Lane debate is like a Grindhouse B-movie slasher flick.  Just... painful to watch.  So painful that it almost exudes a certain idiotic charm.

I knew it would be painful, so I didn't watch it!

 

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2017, 12:14:34 PM »
Is there a video of the event?  I only have the audio.

I've been told that people who were at the event were amazed at some of the mannerisms of the debaters.
 

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2017, 01:06:44 PM »
Is there a video of the event?  I only have the audio.

I've been told that people who were at the event were amazed at some of the mannerisms of the debaters.

The entire debate is on You Tube, but it is in parts. However, if you have autoplay on, it will roll from one to the next. I think someone has it on in 17 or 88 parts at about 6-10 minutes per clip, but I did not notice any gaps. I don't think Sungenis was only dealing with the Novus Ordo in that debate. I think it eventually became central to the debate because there was a back and forth about the words of institution and whether there was a real change to the body and blood of Christ. Sungenis offered to have a separate debate about the N.O. only, which signaled to me he did not want to just debate that.



That is clip one, it can get someone started and they can go from there if they desire.
 

Vinny Zee

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2017, 01:10:56 PM »
It sounds to me that you believe that the modern Eastern Catholics are allowed to reject Pope Francis (and his predecessors) and his Vatican II teachings because the pre-Vatican II popes that brought the Eastern Rite back into the Catholic Church said that the West can't make the East change their traditions, etc. 

Is that correct?
[/quote]

2Vermont, I will have this conversation with you, but you're going to have to let me know what you mean by a modern Eastern Catholic? If possible, I would also appreciate then and explanation, in your mind, of what a pre-modern Eastern Catholic is.

And I swear I thought I left the quote in, so don't ding me on it I was trying to avoid the crazy quote tree everyone was complaining about last time.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2017, 01:19:16 PM by Vinny Zee »
 

2Vermont

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2017, 01:32:48 PM »
I *think* what I meant was a post-Vatican II Eastern Catholic.  I believe I was merely trying to distinguish one that is in the Eastern Rite before and after Vatican II.

By the way, if you use the preview function you should be able to figure out what is wrong with the formatting of the post, if there is something wrong.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2017, 02:15:40 PM »
I have to say that, having never seen John Lane before, he most certainly does not look like how I pictured him in my mind from his voice and that I know his age.  Interesting.

Not sure I have the time to watch the debate nor am I sure I even have the inclination to do so.  I prefer to listen to such things while I am walking or otherwise employed.  I'm not so excited about having to sit down and watch videos of such things for a couple hours.
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen