Author Topic: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?  (Read 586 times)

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 #30 on: December 31, 2017, 06:31:11 PM »
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.

Mithrandylan there was a reason I brought up the liturgical changes. I know it may look like, from the structure of my introductory post on this thread that I was making the liturgy the main point of the issues sedevacantists have. In actuality, both the (now deleted) thread and this one I res-posted here were started with the exact same comments. Initially I had responded on an Introduction from Awkward Customer, which was the first part of my post. The second part came from a response to the comment, "No traditionalist, or sedevacantist, has ever had a problem with the historical fact that there are eastern Catholic rites, and that some of the Eastern schismatics gave up their schism and joined their Eastern rite Catholics. However, it is not an alternative to join any Catholic rite where the clergy recognizes Vatican II and its false popes. Communicatio in Sacris is a term that applies canonically to separation from [religious practice with] those who are recognized by the Church as schismatic or heretical. But even besides this canonical imperative there is the separate, serious moral obligation to have no religious association with clergy who accept Vatican II and its false popes."

Alright, thanks for clarifying. 

Quote
In response to this, I provided my response about the liturgy. After it was suggested it be moved to a new thread, I combined my initial reply to Akward Customer and my reply to Rubecorks in one opening comment. I fully understand that Mass/Liturgy is not the only issue for Sedevacantists and is actually, as I think I understand you are saying (and others have said) it is one of the many issues and is really an outgrowth of what was the apostasy of Vatican II. Digressing here for a second, I guess you all would say traditionalists have the same problem people who escape over to the Eastern Rite have, i.e. they believe if you just fix the liturgy part of the problem the problem is fixed? Not sure if that is the overall conclusive point on that. 

I'm not sure I understand the digressive question.  The rot runs deeper than the mass, if that's what you're asking.  The law of belief resolves itself into the law of prayer; for instance, Protestant reformers first disbelieved in transubstantiation and ideologically promoted iconoclasm; the actual reforms to their liturgies and emptying of their churches came after the belief, as a logical fulfillment of the belief.  Restoring the mass (i.e., tossing the N.O.M. in the dustbin) will certainly be an indication of the faith being restored, but it will only happen as a logical consequence of that.  So long as the Vatican II doctrines remain the cornerstone of the conciliar faith, there will be a N.O.M. imposed by imposters on the Catholic world.

Quote
Anyway, continuing on to my last points.  I have raised this before and because there has been some recent discussion here about terms and how they are used, I will reiterate my point on something.  I often hear the Eastern Catholics are "Novus Ordo" or there is reference to the "Novus Ordo Catholics." My understanding is that Novus Ordo related specifically to the change of the mass itself. However, it has become a term that has become synonymous with every single Catholic who is in the Post-Vatican II church.  It is, from my point of view, the same type of derogatory term the Eastern Orthodox gave to us by calling us Uniates.  Therefore, "Novus Ordo" or "N.O." has become a term of derision for referring to someone who is not a Sedevacantist.  Perhaps maybe there are traditionalists, who not being sedes, use this term too, but by and large this is a term I almost universally here Sedevacantists use.

As was pointed out, context typically determines what is meant by "Novus Ordo"/"N.O."  There's the Novus Ordo Missae (N.O./N.O.M.) which refers specifically to Paul VI's order of mass.  Then there's "just" Novus Ordo, referring (if not to the N.O.M.) to the whole system/structure of non-Catholic belief imposed at, after, and by Vatican II and its architects.

As to the term "Novus Ordo Catholics," this is a term used by some traditionalists (definitely not just sedevacantists-- go check C.I. and you'll see the term used all the time) to describe any range of types of people who might be found attending the Novus Ordo.  It certainly can be a derisive term, though it can also be used simply as a way to communicate that someone attends the Novus Ordo, and aside from that, seems to be upright in belief.

I have thought about this term a lot lately and at the moment, I am not convinced that it communicates any great truth that couldn't be communicated otherwise.  At the end of the day, it is a neologism, just as the term "sedevacantist" is, derived to communicate an unusual state of affairs.  It's value, then, is determined by how well it does that.  But for my part, I'm not sure "Novus Ordo Catholic" is very useful because if "Novus Ordo" (as an adjective) "overcomes" "Catholic," then the term is something of an oxymoron.  The word has slightly more value, though, if it is used only to refer to Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo (i.e., those who, despite attending the Novus Ordo, are Catholics).

Quote
In conclusion, the other point I was making is that Quo Primum, if I remember, was bound on any liturgy no older than 200 years old.  The liturgy of St. John Chrysostem, that we use, is from the 4th century in addition to those times of the year we use the liturgy of St. Basil or St. James and therefore, Quo Primum would not have been binding on the East anyway.  Just before I moved my comments on the intro to the new thread, the following comment was put to me, "I really don't know what's so difficult to understand about the Eastern Rite Catholics being no alternative to the N.O., since they are part of the N.O." If we are in agreement that Novus Ordo specifically applies to the changes in the mass itself, and we also agree Quo Primum would not have ever been binding on us anyway and finally that the Eastern Liturgies were left intact even after the promulgation of the Novus Ordo, I still don't understand how some say the Eastern Catholics are, "Part of the Novus Ordo?"

Well, I don't say that, so I wouldn't be able to answer the question.

Wenceslav, a Ukrainian Catholic who posts here, is intimately familiar with the problems at least with the Ukrainian rites.  Check out his posts for some great info on why people might be slow to accept that Eastern Catholicism "in communion" with Francis as a legitimate option for mass attendance.

I think this is a really complex issue that should be understood according to all of its unique dynamics rather than simplified.  There are, what, two dozen particular eastern Churches?  Only so much can be known about each one, and even finding a particular Church which appears to be swimming in the Novus Ordo gutter doesn't mean that one couldn't find a good priest or parish which belongs to that Church.  Over time the rot spreads and it becomes more difficult to find a pastor (in the east or the west), but as far as I'm concerned, if one could attend the mass of a priest (validly ordained, not a heretic) who was celebrating the Latin Mass "in communion" with Paul VI in 1972, then I don't see the principle by which one stands up and draws the line at the same situation in 2017 (whether the mass of Pius V or of John Chrysostom). 

Not sure how well that answers your question(s).  Happy new year!
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

TKGS

Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #31 on: December 31, 2017, 07:51:45 PM »
Quote
Anyway, continuing on to my last points.  I have raised this before and because there has been some recent discussion here about terms and how they are used, I will reiterate my point on something.  I often hear the Eastern Catholics are "Novus Ordo" or there is reference to the "Novus Ordo Catholics." My understanding is that Novus Ordo related specifically to the change of the mass itself. However, it has become a term that has become synonymous with every single Catholic who is in the Post-Vatican II church.  It is, from my point of view, the same type of derogatory term the Eastern Orthodox gave to us by calling us Uniates.  Therefore, "Novus Ordo" or "N.O." has become a term of derision for referring to someone who is not a Sedevacantist.  Perhaps maybe there are traditionalists, who not being sedes, use this term too, but by and large this is a term I almost universally here Sedevacantists use.

As was pointed out, context typically determines what is meant by "Novus Ordo"/"N.O."  There's the Novus Ordo Missae (N.O./N.O.M.) which refers specifically to Paul VI's order of mass.  Then there's "just" Novus Ordo, referring (if not to the N.O.M.) to the whole system/structure of non-Catholic belief imposed at, after, and by Vatican II and its architects.

As to the term "Novus Ordo Catholics," this is a term used by some traditionalists (definitely not just sedevacantists-- go check C.I. and you'll see the term used all the time) to describe any range of types of people who might be found attending the Novus Ordo.  It certainly can be a derisive term, though it can also be used simply as a way to communicate that someone attends the Novus Ordo, and aside from that, seems to be upright in belief.

I have thought about this term a lot lately and at the moment, I am not convinced that it communicates any great truth that couldn't be communicated otherwise.  At the end of the day, it is a neologism, just as the term "sedevacantist" is, derived to communicate an unusual state of affairs.  It's value, then, is determined by how well it does that.  But for my part, I'm not sure "Novus Ordo Catholic" is very useful because if "Novus Ordo" (as an adjective) "overcomes" "Catholic," then the term is something of an oxymoron.  The word has slightly more value, though, if it is used only to refer to Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo (i.e., those who, despite attending the Novus Ordo, are Catholics).

I prefer to use the term "Conciliar", as in the Conciliar sect or Conciliar Catholics.

When I use "Conciliar sect", I am referring to the entire Vatican apparatus that has rejected the Catholic Church and founded a new sect while using the pomp and ceremonies, not to mention all of the property, of the Catholic Church as window dressing in their attempt to appear to be the Catholic Church. 

When I use "Conciliar Catholic", I am referring to the lay faithful who are attached to the Conciliar sect.  They may or may not attend the Novus Ordo.  They may or may not be in, what the Conciliar sect refers to as "full communion" with the Conciliar sect.  They recognize the pope of the Concilar sect as the Catholic Pope.  They may or may not have the Catholic Faith even as they profess some sort of submission to the heretic Bergoglio (because I really don't know what they truly believe).  Nonetheless, I do not consider that any of these lay faithful are objectively Catholic for they manifestly proclaim to be in communion with heretics and schismatics.  Since they are not objectively members of the Church, their eternal salvation is to be judged by God alone (cf. 1 Cor. 5:12-13).

I do, on occasion use the term Novus Ordo even when not specifically referring to the Novus Ordo Last Supper Service.  But I prefer using the terms above.

I do not find anything objectionable in using these (or any terms) that connotes a derogatory feeling.  A Catholic in an Eastern Rite shouldn't be offended by a term given them by the Orthodox since it clearly connotes that they are unified with the One True Church.  On the other hand, saying someone is Orthodox (that is, with the Capital O) should be thought as derogatory since it connotes schism and heresy.  Any Catholic should think very hard when he is referred to as a "Conciliar" or "Conciliar Catholic" since it means that his "church" was founded in schism and heresy at Vatican 2 and he is complicit in keeping the heretics in power.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

true catholic

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 44
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Catholic Church - Where is it? What Is it?
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2018, 03:42:15 PM »
The Catholic church is a society of believers.  The Catholic church is found in a faithful remnant. 

2 John 1:2 For the sake of the truth which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.

The second vatican robber council was allowed to happen by God because of man abusing the truths of God i.e. the Catholic Faith.  The Catholic Faith is greater than the Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass.

1 Kings 15:22 And Samuel said: Doth the Lord desire holocausts and victims, and not rather that the voice of the Lord should be obeyed? For obedience is better than sacrifices: and to hearken rather than to offer the fat of rams.

Obeying God's truths was the conditionality for the promise of perpetuity of a man sitting on God's Throne with infallibility.  History has clearly taught everyone that when God's people revolted from HIM, God either physically destroyed HIS temple [church] or allowed it to be profaned.  Solomon's temple was a prototype of the Catholic church in the old testament.  Here is God's promise and condition that He laid down.

3 Kings 9:3-9  And the Lord said to him: I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, which thou hast made before me: I have sanctified this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever, and my eyes and my heart shall be there always.  And if thou wilt walk before me, as thy father walked, in simplicity of heart, and in uprightness: and wilt do all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my ordinances and my judgments, I will establish the throne of thy kingdom over Israel for ever, as I promised David thy father, saying: There shall not fail a man of thy race upon the throne of Israel. But if you and your children revolting shall turn away from following me, and will not keep my commandments, and my ceremonies, which I have set before you, but will go and worship strange gods, and adore them:  I will take away Israel from the face of the land which I have given them; and the temple which I have sanctified to my name, I will cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb, and a byword among all people.  And this house shall be made an example of: every one that shall pass by it, shall be astonished, and shall hiss, and say: Why hath the Lord done thus to this land, and to this house:  And they shall answer: Because they forsook the Lord their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and followed strange gods, and adored them, and worshipped them: therefore hath the Lord brought upon them all this evil.

Here is Haydock's commentary on 3 Kings 9 verse 7.

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
3 Kings 9 verse 7. Take away, by death or exile. (Haydock) --- Sight. God is disposed to grant favours to those who approach his temples with piety. If they indulge their passions, he will suffer these holy places to be profaned, as a dreadful warning of his displeasure. The Jews enjoyed prosperity while they continued faithful. On their revolt, the ark was taken, the temple pillaged by Sesac, burnt by Nabuchodonosor, profaned by Antiochus, and destroyed by the Romans. (Calmet)

Profaned by King Antiochus with false altars over against the true altar of God, in the Book of the Machabees.

Without a doubt, the second vatican council was a complete departure, in complete opposition to the consistent teachings of the Catholic church.  Concerning antipope paul VI's new Missae, the most egregious and odious outrage was the change of the words of consecration of the wine portion of the Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass.  Isaias gives a prophecy concerning this outrage, in chapter 24.  Isaias says that the whole earth is laid waste with this new odious mass of the vatican II sect.

Isaias 24:5-31  And the earth is infected by the inhabitants thereof: because they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore shall a curse devour the earth, and the inhabitants thereof shall sin: and therefore they that dwell therein shall be mad, and few men shall be leftThe vintage hath mourned, the vine hath languished away, all the merryhearted have sighed. [8] The mirth of timbrels hath ceased, the noise of them that rejoice is ended, the melody of the harp is silent.  They shall not drink wine with a song: the drink shall be bitter to them that drink it.  The city of vanity is broken down, every house is shut up, no man cometh in. There shall be a crying for wine in the streets: all mirth is forsaken: the joy of the earth is gone away.  Desolation is left in the city, and calamity shall oppress the gates.  For it shall be thus in the midst of the earth, in the midst of the people, as if a few olives, that remain, should be shaken out of the olive tree: or grapes, when the vintage is ended.

Here is the evidence for the true words and the false words of consecration of the wine portion of the sacrifice.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

In Pope St. Pius V’s Decree De Defectibus, we find the same words repeated: Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: “The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.

Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS
“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

Mysterium Fidei-Mystery of Faith, is completely removed.

The evidence is overwhelming, its conclusive!