Does your post mean that you are waiting for the "inevitable" declaration that every Mass said in the last 50 years under the N.O. was invalid?
Every Mass said in the last 50 years would not have been invalid. But not every Mass was a Novus Ordo in the vernacular. So, every vernacular Novus Ordo could very well have been invalid. Enough of them are already manifestly invalid due to invalid matter.
Is that how obedience to those in authority works?
"Obedience" as servility is now called, is sometimes used by lazy Catholics to justify their laziness. If they don't want to fend off a subtle attack against the Church and instead only look for overt attacks, then they will suffer the consequences. The Anglicans who first allowed Cranmer's changes didn't think they were separating from the Catholic Church. They were led by the nose out of the Church and didn't even know it. Aquinas teaches that there are three kinds of obedience, perfect obedience, true obedience and false obedience.
Use our own personal opinions to disclaim the Church's actions, and claim that some day, the Church will "see the light"?
How does one know anything with certitude? Do you claim 2+2=4 as only your opinion? Do you need the Church to tell you 2+2=4 in order to know that? Is Holy Communion really Holy Communion if cupcake mix is used for matter? Was the judgement of Pope Stephen on Pope Formosus and "action of the Church?" Calling something "the Church's actions" is also a vague term. And this type of terminology is often supposed to imply (in my opinion) some kind of infallibility where there is none.
Churchmen wield alot of power. Even a Pope can attempt to destroy the Church if he were a scoundrel. He'll fail. We don't know how far he'll get before he fails but he could knock 90% of it into the dustbin before he fails.
By the way, what are you talking about with "papal infallibility and the indefectability of the Church are translated into impeccability."?
Just read this thread along with numerous other ones. Go to Envoy or EWTN or Catholic Answers and you'll see this foolish idea that anything that comes out of Rome is automatically a good thing. There is no promise from Christ that this is true. Add to that, this constant misuse of the term "Magisterium" as if it's equivalent to saying "The Congress of the United States" Too many "conservative" Catholics think the Curia is the Magisterium of the Church. It is not. The Holy Spirit does not guide every action of the Vatican. He doesn't even positively pick the Pope in the conclave. But people don't have time to learn about God's permissable will it seems.
Who ever said that I thought the Church was impeccabile?
I didn't specify you. But to probe the issue, can you speculate on just how bad can a Pope be?
Again, you are basing your premise on the idea that you are right, and it is only a matter of time before the Church gets on board with your proclamation. Is that what you are saying?
My premise is based on what the Church has always taught and what is de facto going on. It doesn't take a church proclamation on each case to determine that the Mass isn't happening when the priest uses bread with honey and eggs in it. The Church has already proclaimed efficiently what will cause the Mass to defect.
What we've got now, is a case where the Churchmen in the Church, won't exercise their power to clarify the issues of validity plagueing the Church. The fact is, they've made a rite that is nowhere near the exact thing that Paul VI validated. It was defective but not invalid. There is no papal guarantee that prevents the evolution of the Novus Ordo and the constant instability it promotes has led to numerous invalid masses.
Always so clear and to the point, G.
""Obedience" as servility is now called, is sometimes used by lazy Catholics to justify their laziness. If they don't want to fend off a subtle attack against the Church and instead only look for overt attacks, then they will suffer the consequences"
There is a difference between thrusting yourself as the liturgical police and determine what is valid and what is not, vs. obedience to the Church's authority that they are doing what they claim to be. When a priest intends to celebrate the Mass and does not violate the canon law, he is celebrating Mass. It is Christ's action that we should focus on, not the rituals of the priest. They are a means to an end, not the end itself. The liturgy is supposed to bring you into communion with the sacrifice of the Passion being offered up to the Father. Not about putting yourself above the Church because you disagree with how they do things.
"Even a Pope can attempt to destroy the Church if he were a scoundrel. He'll fail. We don't know how far he'll get before he fails but he could knock 90% of it into the dustbin before he fails."
So can so-called liturgical movements that claim that the vast majority of Masses offered up were invalid. All this does is scandalize other Catholics. Nothing good can come from this dissent. Rather than trying to rationalize your fomenting of rebellion against God's Church, perhaps it would be wiser to approach this with a more pastoral view.
Petition your bishop to get an indult Mass.
"Just read this thread along with numerous other ones. Go to Envoy or EWTN or Catholic Answers and you'll see this foolish idea that anything that comes out of Rome is automatically a good thing. There is no promise from Christ that this is true. Add to that, this constant misuse of the term "Magisterium" as if it's equivalent to saying "The Congress of the United States" Too many "conservative" Catholics think the Curia is the Magisterium of the Church."
Certainly. Does this justify causing dissent? What does our Bible say about this? Are there other ways to approach this without claiming that all Masses are invalid? Which, by the way, means nothing, as the Church must declare that, not you.
"I didn't specify you. But to probe the issue, can you speculate on just how bad can a Pope be?"
Despite how bad a pope can be, God will not abandon His Church. Even during the Medieval popes, we didn't see any false dogmas promulgated. And another thing, I think you are giving the Pope to much power to his credit.
"My premise is based on what the Church has always taught and what is de facto going on. It doesn't take a church proclamation on each case to determine that the Mass isn't happening when the priest uses bread with honey and eggs in it. The Church has already proclaimed efficiently what will cause the Mass to defect."
Well, here we agree. But how many such "Masses" have been said? This goes beyond "every vernacular NO" Mass, don't you think. The Church has already said that the host must be made of wheat. They have said that any substitution is invalid. They say it is not a valid Mass said this in this manner. They have ruled on the matter. You are worrying too much on what "might" happen. Don't you think it is being a bit paranoid? I'll trust that God is not going to allow the Eucharist to be so destroyed within the Church.
Regards