I Can Not Support The Idea Of The SSPX Signing Anything

[Stubborn]

Erm. I get them from the things that you say, Jayne.

How could you possibly have gotten that I disapprove of Latin when I have never said anything remotely resembling that (and it is not the least bit true)?  Have I ever said anything that even slightly suggests that I do not accept pre-Vatican II teaching?  And you accused me of not replying to a post that I did, in fact, reply to.

You are not arguing with me and my opinions.  You have some imaginary opponent whom you have given my name.

He said he got that based on your posts.

Typically, NOer supporters do not care for Latin. 

[ggreg]

I am just going to wait for God to destroy Rome and most of the hierarchy and then gloat.

I don't believe the SSPX are going to sign any agreement before that.
I want nothing to do with the modern church so it makes no difference. I would lapse sooner than make the sign of peace with those limp wristed paedos. Different religion so I am not interested. I don't believe the modern church has the truth.

[JayneK]

Erm. I get them from the things that you say, Jayne.

How could you possibly have gotten that I disapprove of Latin when I have never said anything remotely resembling that (and it is not the least bit true)?  Have I ever said anything that even slightly suggests that I do not accept pre-Vatican II teaching?  And you accused me of not replying to a post that I did, in fact, reply to.

You are not arguing with me and my opinions.  You have some imaginary opponent whom you have given my name.

He said he got that based on your posts.

Typically, NOer supporters do not care for Latin. 

If that was his reasoning then he got it from your posts, not mine.  You are the one who calls me a NO supporter.  I have repeatedly said that I hope for the NO to be abrogated.  Few people consider that being a NO supporter.  My "support" of the NO consists in saying that it is often appropriate for people to attend the NO, such as when the TLM is not available, and that they should prayerfully decide based on their individual circumstances.  I personally attend a TLM most Sundays (with rare exceptions).  It is not at all reasonable to deduce from what I have said that I am opposed to Latin, especially since I have written many posts on the subject of Latin.  I even sang in Latin when I contributed to the "post your video" thread.

And, although I am sure accusing me of not replying to a post I actually replied to was an honest mistake, it might be appropriate for him to acknowledge he made a mistake and didn't see it. 

[Old Salt]

There is no use in using right reason with some.
We must pray for them rather.

[Stubborn]

Erm. I get them from the things that you say, Jayne.

How could you possibly have gotten that I disapprove of Latin when I have never said anything remotely resembling that (and it is not the least bit true)?  Have I ever said anything that even slightly suggests that I do not accept pre-Vatican II teaching?  And you accused me of not replying to a post that I did, in fact, reply to.

You are not arguing with me and my opinions.  You have some imaginary opponent whom you have given my name.

He said he got that based on your posts.

Typically, NOer supporters do not care for Latin. 

If that was his reasoning then he got it from your posts, not mine.  You are the one who calls me a NO supporter.

Sorry JayneK, you asked, he replied -  he gets it from *your* posts - "the things *you* say".......not the things I say. Accept it for what it is, or change - whatever.

Since you did not understand it, I simply pointed it out for you, perhaps one day you'll believe it yourself. I hope and pray that one day soon, you'll come to realize that by defending and attending the NO, you are supporting it - in the mean time, that  comes out when you speak among trads. It can be pretty obvious at times no matter who is doing the speaking actually.

 

[JMartyr]

Notice how in the other thread I posted a quote from St Pius V in which he stated that the Mass was the Mass - nothing was to be added to, taken away from &c.

Using QUO PRIMUM to argue that the TLM can never be altered or even abolished is a pretty lousy argument and makes traditionalists look like they have no arguments against the NO, when in fact they have many good critiques, which is why you find very few traditional priests making this argument.  The Pope does not have the power the make binding on all his successors a specific liturgy.  The reason why the NO is bad liturgy isn't because it violates QUO PRIMUM, which doesn't.  It's a bad liturgy because it has a different theology behind it that obscures traditional views of the Mass.  

I dunno. You're the only person that has responded to it in two separate threads...

Father Cekeda has written the following.  Although he is advocating a sedevacantist argument, he is correct here:

      Father Laisney trots out yet another old canard: the tale that Paul VI did not abrogate (revoke) St. Pius V’s Bull Quo Primum.

      Advocates of this position sometimes cite a passage in the Code which states that “a more recent law given by competent authority, abrogates a former law, if it expressly orders abrogation.”

      Paul VI, the argument goes, did not mention Quo Primum by name, so he did not expressly abrogate it. Quo Primum, then, never lost its force, and we are all still free to celebrate the old Mass.

      But proponents of this notion are engaging in wishful thinking. Expressly, in the canon quoted above, does not just mean “by name.” A legislator may “expressly” revoke a law in another way — and this is what occurred here, when Paul VI, after he gave his volumus to the New Mass, added the following clause:

      “Notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances of Our Predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those worthy of special mention and amendment.”

      This clause expressly abrogates Quo Primum.

      First, the Bull Quo Primum falls into the category of the most solemn type of pontifical legal Act — a Papal or Apostolic Constitution.[30] And in the passage quoted from Paul VI’s Apostolic Constitution, he specifically revokes the “Apostolic Constitutions” of his predecessors.

      Second, in order to revoke a law expressly, a pope is not required to mention it by name. Express revocation also takes place, says the canonist Cicognani, if the legislator inserts “abrogatory or derogatory clauses, as is common in decrees, rescripts, and other pontifical acts: notwithstanding anything to the contrary, notwithstanding  in any respect anything to the contrary, though worthy of special mention.”

      Paul VI, in other words, used the exact type of language required to expressly revoke a prior law.

      And in so doing, Paul VI again used some of the same phrases St. Pius V employed in Quo Primum to revoke liturgical laws of his predecessors:

      “Notwithstanding preceding Apostolic constitutions and ordinances… and whatever laws and customs there be to the contrary.”

      Again, if this language worked in 1570, it also worked in 1969.

      In light of all the foregoing, one cannot continue to promote the myth that Paul VI’s legislation did not expressly abrogate Quo Primum.

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

.

It seems that this just isn't true according to a commission of cardinals:
 In 1986, Cardinal Stickler, Ratzinger, Oddi, Casaroli, Palazzini, Tomko, Gantin, Innocenti and Mayer were formed into a Commission tasked by John Paul II to examine the following questions:
 
1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of the traditional Mass?
 
2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?
 
The Commission voted eight to one to declare that Pope Paul VI had not forbidden the Traditional Mass. The Commission voted unanimously to declare that every priest has the right to celebrate TLM in public and private without restriction, and that even the bishop cannot forbid him from celebrating the TLM. This was in 1986 — 21 years before Summorum Pontificum!

[JayneK]

Erm. I get them from the things that you say, Jayne.

How could you possibly have gotten that I disapprove of Latin when I have never said anything remotely resembling that (and it is not the least bit true)?  Have I ever said anything that even slightly suggests that I do not accept pre-Vatican II teaching?  And you accused me of not replying to a post that I did, in fact, reply to.

You are not arguing with me and my opinions.  You have some imaginary opponent whom you have given my name.

He said he got that based on your posts.

Typically, NOer supporters do not care for Latin. 

If that was his reasoning then he got it from your posts, not mine.  You are the one who calls me a NO supporter.

Sorry JayneK, you asked, he replied -  he gets it from *your* posts - "the things *you* say".......not the things I say. Accept it for what it is, or change - whatever.

The things I say have no logical relationship to the things he gets from them.  I do not need to change the things I say.  He needs to listen to what I am really saying instead of imagining things.

[tradne4163]

It would seem I have unleashed quite a mess. May I suggest we let this go for a while, seeing as it has somehow become about posters (except for Someone and JMartyr's exchange) instead of the SSPX reacting one way or the other to a deal? I know I'm partly to blame for the situation, but I'd personally like for it to stop.

[JayneK]

It would seem I have unleashed quite a mess. May I suggest we let this go for a while, seeing as it has somehow become about posters (except for Someone and JMartyr's exchange) instead of the SSPX reacting one way or the other to a deal? I know I'm partly to blame for the situation, but I'd personally like for it to stop.

You are not to blame for this.  Arun, out of the blue, started making up things about positions held by Old Salt and me.  His comments were neither true nor especially relevant to the thread.  I am tired of people making false claims about me.  That is what I would like to stop.

[Old Salt]

It would seem I have unleashed quite a mess. May I suggest we let this go for a while, seeing as it has somehow become about posters (except for Someone and JMartyr's exchange) instead of the SSPX reacting one way or the other to a deal? I know I'm partly to blame for the situation, but I'd personally like for it to stop.

You are not to blame for this.  Arun, out of the blue, started making up things about positions held by Old Salt and me.  His comments were neither true nor especially relevant to the thread.  I am tired of people making false claims about me.  That is what I would like to stop.

Jayne,
In their hearts they probably know you are right.
They just will not admit it here for whatever reason.
Yours is the voice of reason on FE, among some others.
Merry Christmas, good woman.