The Smoke of the Anti-Christ

[QuisUtDeus]

and catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility) does not cause the Pope to cease to be Catholic.  I have never seen a time-honored theological principle that even suggests that.

Nor is there any "time-honored theological principle' that suggests that there can be a "catastrophic failure of the Papal charism of infallibility". Vatican I says otherwise. We all admit the infallibility granted the Church cannot fail Her. You are claiming that the infallibility of the Pope can fail. I don't see any indication that this can be true.

I didn't claim that, I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

I offered it for the sake of argument.  Stop putting words in my mouth.

You offered it. I refuted it because it is incorrect. I didn't put any words into your mouth.

if the Pope were able to promulgate an invalid Mass (which we are saying solely for the sake of argument), ... catastrophic failure of a Papal charism (infallibility)

I clearly said it was solely for the sake of argument - I made no claim about it whatsoever.   Please discuss things honestly and don't mischaracterize what I say.

I am being honest and I am not questioning your honesty.  Explain for me why one would state something "soley for the sake of argument" and then balk when someone makes an argument refuting it?

I'm not balking at you refuting it, I'm balking at you characterizing it as a "claim" made by me.

You said: "You are claiming that the infallibility of the Pope can fail."  I did not make a claim.  A claim is an assertion of belief or fact, and I did no such thing.  I offered a posit to have a discussion.

[INPEFESS]

If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?

The writer of that article is therefore stating that the Pope and Magesterium are invalid.

How is this any different from what Martin Luther was saying in 1521?

I don't remember him ever saying that the Mass was de facto invalid. Does he say this? If so, on what page?

I was making a logical deduction from his assertions. Are you stating that the logic is flawed, or that my claims of his assertions are false?

I'm stating, very fallibly of course, that your claims of his assertions are false as he does not say the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. He may claim it is illicit, but not necessarily invalid. Validity is not the only concern here. A valid priest could validly consecrate a Host to be desecrated at a black mass considering he employs the proper form, matter, and intention to actually consecrate the Host. However, validity would not justify the actions of the priest or the attendance of a Catholic; and participation thereof would certainly be illicit, but not invalid.

Edit: Typos

[CyberSaint]

If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?

The writer of that article is therefore stating that the Pope and Magesterium are invalid.

How is this any different from what Martin Luther was saying in 1521?

I don't remember him ever saying that the Mass was de facto invalid. Does he say this? If so, on what page?

I was making a logical deduction from his assertions. Are you stating that the logic is flawed, or that my claims of his assertions are false?

I'm stating, very fallibly of course, that your claims of his assertions are false as he does not say the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. He may claim it is illicit, but not necessarily invalid. Validity is not the only concern here. A valid priest could validly consecrate a Host to be desecrated at a black mass considering he employs the proper form, matter, and intention to actually consecrate the Host. However, validity would not justify the actions of the priest or the attendance of a Catholic; and participation thereof would certainly be illicit, but not invalid.

Edit: Typos

Page 12, top, he states Paul VI removed the Sacrifice of the Mass. By doing this, Paul VI would be promulgating an invalid Mass, an inherently evil act. And the fact that 2499 bishops signed off on this would imply their complicity. Furthermore, he states on p. 13, right hand side, that the Council promulgated religious errors, further damning the Magesterium. On p. 23, right hand side, he states it is the Remnant Church (non Conciliar, non-NOM church) that is selected out of grace.

If my assertions of his statements are true, and if my logic is valid, then this writer is a Sede Vacantist.

Let me present an alternate theory, a counter-argument agains the writer of that article.

Many bishops failed to exercise their God-given authority at Vatican II, allowing lay theologians to write their documents, which the bishops basically rubber-stamped. Many bishops failed to exercise their God given authority after the Council, when countless documents were written by lay theologicans interpreting the conciliar documents and teachings. Many priests likewise failed to exercise their God-given authority when they turned their backs on their sheep and imposed novelties and abuses for the next 40+ years. Bishops and popes failed to exercise their God-given authority to put a halt to this.

A lot of our shepherds were asleep when they should have been on-watch.

This is starting to change now, as the Pope and increasing numbers of bishops and priests are being awakened and are exercising their God-given authority once more.

She is, and always has been valid. Her NO Mass, while inferior to the TLM, is nonetheless valid, and though the Enemy may get in jabs and hits from time to time, the Church will always perdure and will ultimately be victorious over Satan and his servants.

My $.02.

[INPEFESS]

If the NO Mass is promulgated by the Pope and the Magesterium, then if the NO Mass is invalid, so are the Pope and the Magesterium, correct?

The writer of that article is therefore stating that the Pope and Magesterium are invalid.

How is this any different from what Martin Luther was saying in 1521?

I don't remember him ever saying that the Mass was de facto invalid. Does he say this? If so, on what page?

I was making a logical deduction from his assertions. Are you stating that the logic is flawed, or that my claims of his assertions are false?

I'm stating, very fallibly of course, that your claims of his assertions are false as he does not say the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. He may claim it is illicit, but not necessarily invalid. Validity is not the only concern here. A valid priest could validly consecrate a Host to be desecrated at a black mass considering he employs the proper form, matter, and intention to actually consecrate the Host. However, validity would not justify the actions of the priest or the attendance of a Catholic; and participation thereof would certainly be illicit, but not invalid.

Edit: Typos

Page 12, top, he states Paul VI removed the Sacrifice of the Mass. By doing this, Paul VI would be promulgating an invalid Mass, an inherently evil act. And the fact that 2499 bishops signed off on this would imply their complicity. Furthermore, he states on p. 13, right hand side, that the Council promulgated religious errors, further damning the Magesterium. On p. 23, right hand side, he states it is the Remnant Church (non Conciliar, non-NOM church) that is selected out of grace.

My fallibility is evidenced once again. Thank you for showing me where he implies this.

God be with you...

[CyberSaint]

Et cum spiritu tuo.

[INPEFESS]

As it pertains to the topic of sacrifice, (for those who attend the NOM), where are the references to the Sacrifice of Calvary in the Novus Ordo Missae?

[tornpage]

A valid priest could validly consecrate a Host to be desecrated at a black mass considering he employs the proper form, matter, and intention to actually consecrate the Host

I've seen this argument floated out there, and I don't think it has a leg to stand on. What does the Church intend, and a priest saying Mass with the proper intent? Let's look, for example, at the Profession of Faith from the Counsel of Trent:

[Denzinger 997] I also profess that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper sacrifice of propitiation for the living and the dead, and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially present the body and blood together with the soul and the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood; and this conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I also acknowledge that under one species alone the whole and entire Christ and the true sacrament are taken.

A priest at a black mass would not have the proper intent, and Our Lord is not on the altar offering Himself for the "propitiation of our sins" at a black mass. A black mass is invalid; Christ isn't there.

 

[lumine]

As it pertains to the topic of sacrifice, (for those who attend the NOM), where are the references to the Sacrifice of Calvary in the Novus Ordo Missae?

out of memory......"May the Lord accept the Sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of His Name, for our good and the good of all His Church"

I would have to look up more.......

[lumine]

As it pertains to the topic of sacrifice, (for those who attend the NOM), where are the references to the Sacrifice of Calvary in the Novus Ordo Missae?

It is alluded to in this exhortation at the beginning of Mass:

My brothers and sisters, to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins.

It is refered to in the Preface of the Holy Eucharist I:
.....He (Jesus Christ) is the true and eternal priest who established this unending sacrifice.  He offered himself as a victim for our deliverance and taught us to make this offering in his memory.

and in part of Eucharistic Prayer I:
....from the many gifts you have given us we offer you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice ......

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven.  Then as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing..."

There is more, but later............

[Joan of Arc]

As it pertains to the topic of sacrifice, (for those who attend the NOM), where are the references to the Sacrifice of Calvary in the Novus Ordo Missae?

It is alluded to in this exhortation at the beginning of Mass:

My brothers and sisters, to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins.

It is refered to in the Preface of the Holy Eucharist I:
.....He (Jesus Christ) is the true and eternal priest who established this unending sacrifice.  He offered himself as a victim for our deliverance and taught us to make this offering in his memory.

and in part of Eucharistic Prayer I:
....from the many gifts you have given us we offer you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice ......

Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven.  Then as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing..."

There is more, but later............

I love your avatar, Lumine