Posted on 04/28/2005 8:32:46 AM PDT by murphE
This is the reform of the reform argument. I don't agree with all of it, but he does present clear evidence that the NO as it is celebrated today is not consistent with the documents of Vatican II.
I am a Sede Vacantist ( The Seat is Empty). Pope Benedict XVI knows the true intent of VII, he was there, he knows what has happened to the church and the modernist culprits who have gutted the Catholic Religion and the Churches.
I anxiously await his guidence toward a return of the Catholic Church in reversing all of the Heretic practices that the Moderist Bishops and Priests have invented and placed into the Mass. The hunting sown and extradition of the Homosexual and Pedophile Priest that have infiltrated the Priesthood, becaus eof the Liberal Modernists controlling the diocese. They will go, defrocked and thrown out as they should be.
Praise be to the Lord out God!
And Fr. Fessio can continue to offer Mass in this manner (I have assisted with him, and with another priest who offered it identically. They have their own "Mass of Vatican II" missals.
Unfortunately, they are the only two priests in the nation who believe this is the Mass of Vatican II. Perhaps he should inform all the bishops and the Holy See, who allowed a myriad of options that are not in this "Mass of Vatican II" missal.
The truth of the matter is that it does not represent the Mass of Vatican II because Sacrosactum Concilium gave the authority of various "options" within the liturgy to the bishops.
Could you please explain to me, that providing these anticipated improvements you hope for come to pass, as a sedevacantist, would you then acknowledge Benedict XVI as the true Pope?
If you believe the Seat of Peter is vacant now, how would the making of some improvements from the Vatican justify to you that the Seat of Peter is then occupied?
What principle of a valid Papacy do you use? On what canon law(s) or Church teaching(s) do you base your judgment?
The seat is empty because of the illegalities and illegal changes to the Mass and to the teachings of the Religion.
NO religion can profess to abide by the laws of God according to the bible and accept Homosexuality, abortion or any other practice the goes against the Laws of God! The modernist changes that were implemented by the Modernist during VII, or what I refer to as the Hijacking of the Catholic religion and and it teachings. Also it's property, the churches themselves.
There was nothing in VII that was to produce the heresey we see in the NO Catholic Churches today, it has been "Protestantized, Lutherinized into something that was not ment to be. It is NOT Catholic.
When this Pope, if this Pope enforces his edicts and removes those who will not abide by the edicts oaf Rome and the Pope then he will start on the path to return the Catholic Church to the Teachings of the Catholic Religion.
The Bishops were running amok, doing as they pleased!! Giving Communion to politicians and their supporters is going against the laws of God.
There were many an argumwnt here on FR concerning this confusion in the Churches and what the people should do even when their Bishop was going against the instructions of JPII.
I'm waiting to see what happens with B-16 in charge. I'm praying he sets things right within the church and gets them (The Bishops)in line or gets rid of them.
My own pastor does the same every Sunday.
This is just not so. Mediator Dei is quite plain:
105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.
Great. Then you know one of the two priests.
So he offers the Novus Ordo all in Latin, ad orientem, uses only the Roman Canon, no altar girls, no extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, no distribution of the Precious Blood to the laity, gives Holy Communion to the laity kneeling at the altar rail--and uses none of the innovations nor options in the Sacramentary or Missal?
Nope. Doubt it. Otherwise, you attend Fr. Fessio's Mass or another priest I know. In either case, this is NOT the Mass of Vatican II.
"NO religion can profess to abide by the laws of God according to the bible and accept Homosexuality, abortion or any other practice the goes against the Laws of God!"
You are correct! That is good to know you agree with what Pope John Paul II taught consistently throughout his pontificate, as well as the new Benedict XVI, particularly regarding homosexuality.
Try reading Evangelium Vitae. It agrees with YOU 100 percent.
The Moderates have it backwards!
>>Then you have the moderates. Those in the middle. Me and a few others. But I am going to insist on my right as a Catholic and as priest to celebrate the liturgy according to the Council, according to the presently approved liturgical books, to celebrate a form of the Mass
>>>that therefore needs no special permission<<< — and which in fact
>>>cannot be prohibited<<< — what I’ve called “the Mass of Vatican II.”<<
Interesting that Fessio is afraid of some liturgy needing "special permission."
Or that a particular rite might be "prohibited."
According to authentic Catholic tradition, the only prohibited rites have been RECENTLY DEVELOPED ones, like any of them that were less than 200 years old at the time of Trent.
According to authentic Catholic tradition, the only "special permission" should be for the use of the Novus Ordo liturgies!
But Fessio is emphatically concluding that that of his own terminology, "the Mass of Vatican II" (the quote marks are his own), is the one that "therefore needs no special permission" and "cannot be prohibited."
I'm so sorry to see he's got it all backwards! This must be another pathetic case of Diabolical Disorientation, again. D2 strikes when you least expect it! D2 is kind of like AIDS and the Plague in that way: you never know when it's coming, like an unwelcome vial from the Angel of the Apocalypse.
In fact, this is probably one of those very vials! Those with eyes to see, let them see! But there are none so blind as those who WISH NOT to see.
Fessio and the Moderates have it backwards. In fact, they might be more honest to refer to themselves as neo-Modernists, not "Moderates." Why? They are not Modernists, because Modernists tried to use the force of logic to defend their defection from Tradition. Neo-Modernists, on the other hand, have abandoned that tack since it doesn't work. There is no logically defensible course for them to use. Neo-Modernists instead attempt to corral the last vestiges of authority (while it lasts) to usurp Tradition and to attack it with inside out logic (like Fessio's here), until the house of cards collapses all around them; at which point they will walk away like they did with the Anglicans.
Furthermore, he insinuates the false premise that the missal of 1962 is the furthest any priest could dare to go, in distancing himself from the modern (abominations). Unfortunately, the missal of 1962 already contains the seeds of corruption that blossomed into the Robber Council II.
The Mass that needs no "special permission" is the Traditional Latin Mass, not Fessio's "Mass of Vatican II."
The Mass that cannot be prohibited is the Traditional Latin Mass, NOT Fessio's "Mass of Vatican II."
It might seem like a bitter pill, but the truth is actually sweet. The bitterness is a subjective sensation that disappears once erstwhile error is recognized and abandoned. That's the way it is with intellection.
Nope. Doubt it.
It's still a tight little club, but not quite as private as you think.
Thank you for trying to respond to me.
I can sympathize with your concerns, generally.
But I still do not understand your logic. If Benedict XVI is not the Pope, as sedevacantists (like you?) claim he is not, how can anything he does cause him to BECOME Pope?
I quit a couple of weeks ago.
I also had a couple of flirtations with the idea in 1978.
It never seems to last.
Just when I'm getting used to being one, something called a "conclave" always jolts me out of it.
OK. There are three places in the entire U.S.
Now, did you happen to know my good friends, the Mooneys?
No but if they're friends of yours, I'm sure they're very nice.
Yes JPII did did profess that, the problem is that the majority of the Council of Bishops stated that they felt it was their job to advise against Homosexuality and Abortion instaed of standing fast against it, so was JPII INCHARGE, did the Bishops adhere to the Laws pf God and JPII'S direction -- NO. So wo is incharge?? The seat is empty!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.