Where is the Church mandate for consecrating Bishops? Where is the Church mandate for granting annulments? Where is the Church mandate for exercising jurisdiction in various parishes, without the approval of the local ordinary (something far outside traditional Catholicism), where is the Church mandate for opening new orders of nuns, etc.? We could go on, but those are the high points, so to speak.Second, it proves that the Church documents and law under which the SSPX was created did not give the Society the power to do these things, as obviously he cannot make a single citation to the source for the authority and jurisdiction they have taken. Rather than refuting my point, that the Society had no Church mandate for these actions, he helps prove it.
What he argues is a different point, that the Society had to do it anyway. (“The first major principle that comes into play is that while ordinary cases are dealt with by ordinary laws, cases out of the ordinary, or emergency cases, need to be dealt with by principles behind and above the ordinary laws.”) He is wrong there as well, but that is another issue. The Society had no Church mandate or authority for what it has done, which is to establish a parallel Church structure, one with its own Bishops, its own tribunals, its own seminaries, etc.
If "Catholics follow Trent and Vatican II" as you suggest, why does Rome fight Trent tooth and nail? Why does it use trickery to disguise the Protestant bias of the Novus Ordo?It doesn’t do any of these things.
Why does it deliberately obscure allusions to the Real Presence or to the Sacrificial nature of the Mass while doing all it can to play up the Memorial Meal aspect in direct violation of Trent?It doesn’t do this either. We’ve talked about it before, I’ve quoted all the sacrificial language in the Mass to you, but they you babble on about how it doesn’t really mean what it says, etc. You are hopeless here, so I’ll just disagree with you.
I might use the same term about you: you are a heretic insofar as you buy into the modernist heresy which seeks to Protestantize Catholicism.LOL. Precisely which heresy is this? I do not seek to Protestantize Catholicism, your general term, so your going to have to be more specific about which Church teaching I conflict with.
As for your calling me a heretic, the charge is another slander and nothing else. What Catholic doctrine have I ever rejected? Name one. I do not even reject Vatican II, though I have called it unwise and believe it has given the enemies of the faith the excuse they needed to attack the Church from within. Nor have I rejected the Pope, though I have been critical of his policies. So explain how I am a heretic.I have called you a heretic for specific things in the past, I’m not going to go look every one up for you again, if you wanted to dispute the term you should have done so then.
patent +AMDG