"The Church alone has the authority to declare the invalidity or invalidity of the rite, not allegiance to our own personal interpretation of tradition."
Yup. What makes such people any different then the Montanists, Donatists, and Jansenists, all who thought that the Church wasn't "tough" enough or holy enough, and went their own way. This shows little reliance on the working of the Holy Spirit - Who seems to think in different terms then men.
No, no no. That's not it at all. It constantly suprises me how many people don't have the slightest clue about what Church Authority is and more importantly "when it is being exercised".
As I've stated before, when Pope Stephen declared all the ordinations and functions of his predecessor Pope Formosus, null and invalid. He was flat out wrong. His successor reversed him on that ruling.
A "Catholic Answers" type would have to conclude (if they were to try) that "Well, they were valid when Formosus ruled and when "the Magisterium declared them invalid, they became invalid and they were only valid again when "the Church" ruled them valid again."
The above comments are indicative of the current ultramontanist attitude where papal infallibility and the indefectability of the Church are translated into impeccability.
"No, no no. That's not it at all. It constantly suprises me how many people don't have the slightest clue about what Church Authority is and more importantly "when it is being exercised"."
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? Is that how obedience to those in authority works? Use our own personal opinions to disclaim the Church's actions, and claim that some day, the Church will "see the light"?
By the way, what are you talking about with "papal infallibility and the indefectability of the Church are translated into impeccability."? Who ever said that I thought the Church was impeccabile? 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?
Regards
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.