POPE'S ASTONISHING POWER HAS CHANGED THE WORLD

Spirit Daily ^ | July 27, 2002 | Michael Brown

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. There are quite a few FSSP (Priestly Fraternity) parishes all over Texas. These are Indult Masses. Check with the National Registry of Traditional Latin Masses.

[Stavka2]

Pride has nothing to do with why the Orthodox are Orthodox and reunification under any circumstances but 1: the Pope accepting his place as a patriarch of equals, will not occur. Simply put, Papal Infallibility (which is interesting concept when two popes contradict each other) is some thing that is simply profane to our faith.

[ultima ratio]

Well, I'm happy for you. Most parishes are not so lucky and the tabernacle is not at center of what used to be a sanctuary but is now more or less center stage.

[JMJ333]

“To Contend Forever With Error” (Pope Leo XIII)

IN DEFENCE OF THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI

Included is:

INTRODUCTION
PART I: Argument from History
PART II: Argument from Tradition
PART III: Argument from Theology
PART IV: Argument from Faith
CONCLUSION
POSTSCRIPT: Letter of Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Papal Commission Ecclesia Dei, to the General Chapter of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

[patent]

I break this out because I have focused on this issue, and think it is important. Did Protestants write the Novus Ordo?

The only citation provided so far is NYer’s. The link is from a schismatic who claims the Novus Ordo is heretical:

THE NEW MASS AND HERESY

This is a site created by an SSPX supporter. If this is the best type of support, people who hate the new Mass trying to turn a vague statement by an ecumenist into a grand statement that the Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo, I think I’ll still trust the Vatican on this one.

This author goes off the deep end on the Novus Ordo. Do you agree with him that the Novus Ordo is heretical? That’s an allegation even a ways beyond an allegation its invalid. That would mean Paul VI promulgated heresy. You should understand that if you think this of the Novus Ordo, with only a few exceptions, you are pretty much a sedevacantist, as you inherently claim a sitting Pope (or non Pope) promulgated an invalid Mass, not to mention that he officially taught heresy to the ENTIRE Church by establishing this as the normative Rite. Which is to say you either deny he was Pope (and thus the Mass was of course invalid anyway) or deny the Church’s indefectibility in its Sacraments and hierarchical constitution, which is to deny its very character.

Regardless, this guy is hardly trustworthy. Even the SSPX, with some nutcase exceptions, admits that the Novus Ordo is valid, they just have concerns about it, so to speak.

But despite this being the best support that is out there, the closest proof that he can provide is a supposed quote that indicates that Protestants participated in the discussions. This is nothing near their having written it, nor does it indicate that a single idea of theirs was accepted. You may believe that true, but that is your bias, not a proven fact. I will now address that belief, as I am long past tired of waiting for Ultima Ratio to even try to support his claim.

In the foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:

The Sacrificial character of the Mass was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent in accordance with the universal tradition of the Church (Session 22, Sep. 17, 1562). The Second Vatican Council has enunciated this same teaching once again, and made this highly significant comment: ‘ At the Last Supper our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross until he should come again; (Constitution On the Sacred Liturgy #47).

This foreword describes the New Order of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation and satisfaction, thus affirming doctrines that Protestants specifically deny. The Pauline Mass affirms these things; it was not designed to please Protestants by compromising Catholic doctrine whatsoever (Whitehead, p. 80).

What about the charge of the Mass being Protestantized? After all, there is more hymn singing, vernacular liturgy, a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, etc. The fact is that “the early church had some of the same things-hymn singing, vernacular liturgy, greater emphasis on the Scriptures- and that, finally, the fact that the Church has adopted these particular things today means that they are really compatible with Catholic worship.” (Whitehead, 82).

One thing that must be noted of the input of Protestant observers at Vatican II. On July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared: “The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of the new Missal.”( Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649). What is clear in the Pauline Rite Mass? It reflects the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a propitiatory work offered for the living and the dead; concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ; concerning the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints; concerning prayer for the dead- are all points on which Protestants continue to disagree with the Catholic Church but all of which are explicitly present in the Pauline Rite Mass. (Whitehead, p. 85). You can place your bets that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo on a guy who claims the Novus Ordo is invalid and heretical on a website, based on a vague quote from a Cardinal, or you can accept the declaration of the Vatican. Really, its your choice.

It is an important choice though, isn’t it? You know full well what that choice means.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Your credibility is gone if you can’t back up the statement about Protestant’s writing the Novus Ordo, much less the others.

Ding, ding, ding ... gloves down! Gentlemen, please take your corners. Thank you!

Normally, my ignorance on such issues prevents me from stepping into the fray. However, this time, I must come out and lend credence to ultima ratio's statement, with some adjustment in terminology. I have read supporting information at a reputable web site but cannot pinpoint it that quickly. The information indicated that protestants were called in as "consultants". They did not write the material but contributed heavily to the implementation of the Novus Ordo mass.

As I’ve said over, and over, and over. They were there as advisors, as they were at Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, etc. They did not, as ultima ratio claims, write it. If they had, it would not be so hard for him to support it, nor would it be so hard for you to do so.

In the article you posted, you seem to be focused on a different question than ultima is. You seem focused on what happened after the Latin Typical Edition was finished. Or, the question of whether subsequent events and liberal Bishops incorporated Protestant ideas after the Novus Ordo was written? That is an entirely different question. The Latin Typical Edition is not even remotely the same thing as the Mass said in Rochester, for example.

Is Your Mass Valid? Liturgical Abuse

I largely agree with this article. A couple nitpicks, I’ll address them in more detail if anyone cares.

The priest must have the intent of doing what the Church does, that being the intent to make Jesus physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation at the consecration.

I think they incorporate too much here, the priest doesn’t have to have the intent all the way to intent for transubstantiation. He only needs the intent to do what the Church does. That is all the quote they provide from Trent said. Aquinas further states (3:64:8):

Reply to Objection 2.

. . .

Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. Although he who thinks of something else, has no actual intention, yet he has habitual intention, which suffices for the validity of the sacrament; for instance if, when a priest goes to baptize someone, he intends to do to him what the Church does. Wherefore if subsequently during the exercise of the act his mind be distracted by other matters, the sacrament is valid in virtue of his original intention. Nevertheless, the minister of a sacrament should take great care to have actual intention. But this is not entirely in man's power, because when a man wishes to be very intent on something, he begins unintentionally to think of other things, according to Ps. 39:18: "My heart hath forsaken me."

And (3:64:9)

Reply to Objection 1. It may happen that a man's faith is defective in regard to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament. But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good.

---

Regardless of the answer to that question, you must back up one more step to the next obvious question. Why were they invited? And, by whom? They participated fully in order to accomplish someone's agenda.

Why were they [Protestants] invited to Trent? By whom? Why did they participate in the discussions there? [In the event you don’t believe me on this, go to any site with the Trent documents, and look at all the guarantees of safe passage to Protestants, etc. It goes on from there, but it is general practice to invite other Christians to these things, and to listen to their input while they are there.]

You will gain an immense understanding of Dr. (Fr.) Vosko's insidious plan to "protestantize" catholic worship spaces by moving the Tabernacle, ripping out the communion rail and kneelers, replacing the crucifix with a simple cross and baptismal fonts with pools.

Vosko is a heretic, but you can’t connect that issue to the authorship of the Novus Ordo.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Narses,

If a priest has lost his faith but continues "doing his job", does he really have the intent required?

See quotes above in 166, I believe he does if he intends to do his job, and if he doesn’t publicly express his belief contrary to that intent. Aquinas seems very liberal on that issue.

And if he ad libs the words of the consecration (as some have reportedly done), doesn't that leave little room for doubt in terms of validity?

Yes, that clearly does. Change the Consecration (that very short section) and its not valid.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Hey, I'm not writing a doctoral dissertation here. If you want sources, look them up yourself. I've given most of them in a general way.

No you haven’t. You haven’t even tried. Every time you get challenged you run away, just like you did above.

Most are generally well known. There are a dozen of you and only one of me and I'm typing away to all of you.

Whatever. If you can’t support your claims, don’t make them.

Let's cut to the chase.

Let’s not. You’ve made literally dozens of claims, and have not supported a single one. You shift every time. So I am going to keep asking you to prove that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo, over and over again until you support or withdraw it.

In any case, why should any of you care if we have freedom of conscience? Why should any of you mind if I am a Sedevacantist or a Baptist or a plain old Catholic pope-worshipper.

Because bias matters. Ask the media.

Hey, whatever works for you, there's no such thing as truth, whatever this pope says may be contradicted by another pope tomorrow, so why sweat it?

It seems you truly believe this “no such thing as truth” idea, since you think you can state whatever you like, about whomever you like, and when asked for proof you just move on, ignoring the request. Please prove that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo.

I wanted to underscore the fact that magisteria differ--and they do.

Then prove it. Give actual quotes and sources. You can’t, haven’t, and won’t. You can’t underscore what you haven’t typed in the first place.

Why bother, since you've already treated what I say with so little respect? If you wish a dialogue, fine. Then I will find the sources and dialogue. But if you want to hurl abuse, find somebody else to fight with and save me some trouble.

You just make bald assertions, and then whine when I ask for support for these assertions, and now you complain I don’t treat them with respect? Support one of them. Please prove that Protestants wrote the Novus Ordo.

Then it will be much easier to treat what you say with respect.

. The old Roman Rite, which Pius V in Quo Primum declared should be the Mass "in perpetuity", had never been formally abrogated. It is a little known fact that Paul VI never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo, he merely signed permission to have it printed, an entirely different matter. The new rite was imposed on the faithful by subordinate Vatican officials. For a full explanation of this deception, check out Michael Davies' magnificent study, "The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass," 1982.

Ahhh, your back to Quo Primum again? We dealt with this the other day, and I quoted Mediator Dei to you. Instead of addressing the quotes I provided directly to you, you snip a brief little quote out, and ignore all the rest that refutes your positions. Again, from Mediator Dei: No pontiff has believed the traditionalist argument that Quo Primum means the Pope can’t change the Mass. Mediator Dei:

22. As circumstances and the needs of Christians warrant, public worship is organized, developed and enriched by new rites, ceremonies and regulations, always with the single end in view, "that we may use these external signs to keep us alert, learn from them what distance we have come along the road, and by them be heartened to go on further with more eager step; for the effect will be more precious the warmer the affection which precedes it."[25] Here then is a better and more suitable way to raise the heart to God. Thenceforth the priesthood of Jesus Christ is a living and continuous reality through all the ages to the end of time, since the liturgy is nothing more nor less than the exercise of this priestly function. Like her divine Head, the Church is forever present in the midst of her children. She aids and exhorts them to holiness, so that they may one day return to the Father in heaven clothed in that beauteous raiment of the supernatural. To all who are born to life on earth she gives a second, supernatural kind of birth. She arms them with the Holy Spirit for the struggle against the implacable enemy. She gathers all Christians about her altars, inviting and urging them repeatedly to take part in the celebration of the Mass, feeding them with the Bread of angels to make them ever stronger. She purifies and consoles the hearts that sin has wounded and soiled. Solemnly she consecrates those whom God has called to the priestly ministry. She fortifies with new gifts of grace the chaste nuptials of those who are destined to found and bring up a Christian family. When as last she has soothed and refreshed the closing hours of this earthly life by holy Viaticum and extreme unction, with the utmost affection she accompanies the mortal remains of her children to the grave, lays them reverently to rest, and confides them to the protection of the cross, against the day when they will triumph over death and rise again. She has a further solemn blessing and invocation for those of her children who dedicate themselves to the service of God in the life of religious perfection. Finally, she extends to the souls in purgatory, who implore her intercession and her prayers, the helping hand which may lead them happily at last to eternal blessedness in heaven.

. . . .

44. Since, therefore, it is the priest chiefly who performs the sacred liturgy in the name of the Church, its organization, regulation and details cannot but be subject to Church authority. This conclusion, based on the nature of Christian worship itself, is further confirmed by the testimony of history.

. . . .

49. From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]

50. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized. This will explain the marvelous variety of Eastern and Western rites. Here is the reason for the gradual addition, through successive development, of particular religious customs and practices of piety only faintly discernible in earlier times. Hence likewise it happens from time to time that certain devotions long since forgotten are revived and practiced anew. All these developments attest the abiding life of the immaculate Spouse of Jesus Christ through these many centuries. They are the sacred language she uses, as the ages run their course, to profess to her divine Spouse her own faith along with that of the nations committed to her charge, and her own unfailing love. They furnish proof, besides, of the wisdom of the teaching method she employs to arouse and nourish constantly the "Christian instinct."

53. The subsequent advances in ecclesiastical discipline for the administering of the sacraments, that of penance for example; the institution and later suppression of the catechumenate; and again, the practice of eucharistic communion under a single species, adopted in the Latin Church; these developments were assuredly responsible in no little measure for the modification of the ancient ritual in the course of time, and for the gradual introduction of new rites considered more in accord with prevailing discipline in these matters. 58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. [50] Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded.. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days--which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation--to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

. . . .

65. In every measure taken, then, let proper contact with the ecclesiastical hierarchy be maintained. Let no one arrogate to himself the right to make regulations and impose them on others at will. Only the Sovereign Pontiff, as the successor of Saint Peter, charged by the divine Redeemer with the feeding of His entire flock,[54] and with him, in obedience to the Apostolic See, the bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church of God,"[55] have the right and the duty to govern the Christian people. Consequently, Venerable Brethren, whenever you assert your authority--even on occasion with wholesome severity --you are not merely acquitting yourselves of your duty; you are defending the very will of the Founder of the Church.

For those who think John Paul II and Paul VI are in line with other magisteria,

How can a Pope not be in line with other Magisteria. Please explain what that means, in your view. What happens when someone claiming to be Pope contradicts magisterial statements from a past Pope or Council?

got it half right. I'm claiming that the Novus Ordo crowd has defected.

And the Pope who approved all this? You know, one of these Popes that contradicts the “other magisteria”, approves a church that has defected, in your view, and has done nothing for the faith? Has this Pope defected?

And explain again that you aren’t a sedevacantist. How are your beliefs different than theirs? I’m having some difficulty seeing any differences, despite your indication you aren’t one.

Find a church with a tabernacle that isn't shunted aside.

Got hundreds of them up here in Minnesota. Stop up and I’ll give you directions to a dozen or so.

Not only this, but it was illicitly imposed.

A Pope illicitly imposed a Rite of the Mass? A couple days ago you admitted that the Popes could change the Mass, despite Quo Primum. Please explain, in view of that, how a Pope can illicitly impose a Mass.

It is a little known fact that Paul VI never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo, he merely signed permission to have it printed, an entirely different matter.

Hogwash:

The Code of Canon Law simply says: “Laws enacted by the Holy See are promulgated by their publication in the official commentary Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless in particular cases another mode of promulgation is prescribed.”

This is all that the Code requires and it suffices to make known the will of the legislator, the pope.

Unless another provision has been made in a particular law itself, a law becomes effective (binds) three months after its official publication date in the Acta. The intervening period before the effective date is called the vacatio legis.

The question is easily answered. In the 30 April 1969 Acta Apostolicae Sedis we find the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, bearing Paul VI’s signature. Its heading: “Apostolic Constitution. By which the Roman Missal, restored by decree of Vatican Ecumenical Council II, is promulgated. Paul, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, for an Everlasting Memorial.” [12]

The legislation, obviously, then meets the simple canonical norm for promulgation. The Supreme Legislator needs no Decree from a Cardinal for his law to “take.” The New Mass is promulgated, and the law is binding.

In the text of the Constitution, moreover, Paul VI makes it abundantly clear that his will is to impose the obligation of a law on his subjects. Note in particular his language in the following passages:

• The General Instruction preceding the New Order of Mass “imposes new rules for celebrating the Eucharistic sacrifice.” [13]

• “We have decreed that three new Canons be added to this Prayer [the Roman Canon].” [14]

• “We have ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same formula in each Canon.” [15]

• “And so, it is Our will that these words be thus said in every Eucharistic Prayer.” [16]

• “All of which things we have prescribed by this, Our Constitution, shall begin to take effect from 30 November of this year.” [17]

• “It is Our will that these laws and prescriptions be, and they shall be, firm and effective now and in the future.” [18]

The standard Latin canonical terms a pope customarily employs to make a law are all present here: normae, praescripta, statuta, proponimus, statuimus, jussimus, volumus, praescripsimus, etc.

This language is important for another reason: Some of it also appears in Quo Primum, the 1570 Bull by which Pope St. Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Missal.

Next?

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

You misunderstand the concept of Papal Infallibility--as do a lot of cradle Catholics. The popes are infallible only when they speak ex-cathedra, that is, from the Chair of Peter, officially, on matters of faith and morals. Encyclicals, for instance, are not infallible. There has been no known instance of a pope speaking ex cathedra in contradiction to another pope, although Vatican I cited 40 popes who were outright heretics. Fortunately, none spoke officially to declare their heretical views as doctrine. And of course there are many instances recently of the magisterium--the teaching authority-- being out and out in opposition to the teaching that has gone on before. This is another matter and illustrates why tradition ought to be our guide and not novelty. Tradition alone takes us back to the earliest days of the Church, to the early Fathers and beyond to the apostles themselves. fidelity to tradition ought to be paramount for Catholics. This is another reason why pope-worship is so dangerous. The pope as a celebrity is not a good thing. People start to think everything he does--like kiss the Koran--is okay.

[patent]

Most parishes are not so lucky and the tabernacle is not at center of what used to be a sanctuary but is now more or less center stage.

Most parishes? You’ve what, done a survey? Please support this claim as well. My personal experience greatly differs.

patent  +AMDG

[ultima ratio]

Look, if you want to dialogue, fine. But this is ridiculous. This is not the time nor the place for collecting pages and pages of written material and expect it to be digested. It would take days to deal with that--and that would no longer be fun, it would be work. I've met guys like you before. It becomes a ploy. You are not interested in an open and free exchange, you want to tie people down with busy work. If you don't like my arguments, try writing something a little more spontaneous. I will sum up my position on Quo Primum--it is exactly the same as Michael Davies' masterful treatment: "The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass." Don't ask me who published it. It came out in 1982. Do the research yourself, you seem to be good at it. And if that isn't good enough, check out the findings of the Commission of Cardinals who John Paul II asked to determine the status of the Tridentine Mass. They unanimously agreed it had not been abrogated. Quattor Adhinc Annos, 1982.

[JMJ333]

You have to realize that on this forum you will be called to task on whatever you say. You either provide your sources or no one will take you seriously. Being new, I can understand the desire to jump into the fray, but sometimes you have to step back and cut your losses.

[ultima ratio]

You write, "They were there as advisors, as they were at Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II. They were not there to WRITE it."

Sources, please. Back up your statement. How do you know this? How do ou know they did not write it? How do we know they were at Trent and Vatican I, Vatican II? Who were these people. Names, please. Dates. Publishers.

[ultima ratio]

Hoyos has a deficient background in these matters--which is why he failed to snooker the SSPX when he opened up a dialogue with their bishops. One of the reasons he failed was they saw he did not have the vaguest idea of what the problem was. Novus Ordonians think because they have the buildings and the pope, they have the Faith. He would sum up the faith this way: "Where Peter is, there is the Church." The answer is, "Only when Peter acts within the bounds of the papal office. That is to say, only when he defends the deposit of faith, not when he explores novelties."

[Stavka2]

That is one of the advantages of the Orthodox...our Patriarchs can not make Dogma or Dogmatic decisions...only the Ecomunical Councils..and the last one was in the 8th centuary. Only interpretations of the Dogma can be made and all the Patriarchs (though there is internal political maneuvering to some degree) are equal and in unison.

[ultima ratio]

Don't play the sources game with me. I have given plenty, far more than most of those who oppose me. But I am not going to spend my days doing busy work. Read what I write and answer my arguments. What I say requires little more than common sense. It's not rocket science. Catholicism is not this stuff coming out of Rome, it's not Asissi I or II, or what you see and hear in your average Novus Ordo parish on Sunday. What they say and do is little more than what the Democratic Party affirms in its platform. That's not Catholicism, that's Dr Laura. When was the last time you heard a sermon on Hell? Never, I'll bet. Or on mortal sin? Or on original sin? Or on the divinity of Christ? Or on Mary? Give me a break. What we've got coming out of Rome is sheer novelty--Youth rallies, praying with rabbis and mullahs, etc., etc., etc.

[Siobhan]

Gee, you sooooo smart....if I wanted to sink to your level, I'd post ample evidence of the Vatican whoring itself out to the Nazies, the Facists and the Utushies...amongst others. You throw a lock of bricks for a glass man in a glass house. But then again, I won't sink to your ignorance or arrogance or self delusional worship of a man, as opposed to God.

Knock yourself out.
< /double entendre>

But then again maybe you shouldn't strain your neuron.

[ultima ratio]

Your personal experience differs? It must be very limited.

[St.Chuck]

Many of us here are more than familiar with your assertions about the current state of affairs in the church...and past affairs. Tell me. What's the end game? What do you think you are going to do about anything as an active member of the SSPX? Your credibility and leverage are nil. You may as well be Saddam Hussein telling the U.S. how to fight the war on terrorism.

The SSPX is a heretical, schismatic protestant cult. It's fruits are paranoia and stupidity. It is the Birch Society of the True Church it mistakenly thinks it is, and as such does tremendous harm to all believers with a more traditional bent. In fact, it is outright hostile to traditionalists in communion with Rome. It is critical of the FSSP, and now the Campos diocese.

It's leadership is disingenuous in it's attempts at reconciliation. They are freakishly paranoid and privvy to believing whacked out conspiracy fantasies. Their absolute hatred for the Novus Ordo mass is pathological. They rant on and on about clown masses and honey bread, but wouldn't have a clue of what they are talking about because they wouldn't dare attend a Novus Ordo mass. Their criticisms of the Church of Rome are nothing more than cultic doctrine invented by power loving mediocrities. Their criticisms are more vitriolic than any mainstream Protestant sect and more numerous.

Don't ask for documentation; it is generally well known.

[ultima ratio]

Sorry I missed your request. I've been so busy typing away. I would suggest checking the Catholic Encyclopedia. It was a famous list of modernist errors which were condemned first by Pius IX, then by every pope after him up to, but not including John XXIII. It is generally conceded Vatican II sought to reverse its force. I apologize for missing your post.