I learned something new about SSPX

[Phillipus Iacobus]

I am guilty of many things, but I am not guilty of ignorance of basic theology and logic.

You lack nothing in regards to NO theology - I'll grant you that.

It is not "NO theology".  You tell me what part of the NO Mass you think is heretical and I can show you with pre-Vatican II sources that it is not.

The Consecration of the Chalice for years - using for All instead of For many.

[JayneK]

I am guilty of many things, but I am not guilty of ignorance of basic theology and logic.

You lack nothing in regards to NO theology - I'll grant you that.

It is not "NO theology".  You tell me what part of the NO Mass you think is heretical and I can show you with pre-Vatican II sources that it is not.

The Consecration of the Chalice for years - using for All instead of For many.

This was not a problem with the NO as promulgated since that was in Latin.  This was a translation problem which has been corrected.  However, Scripture does speak of Christ dying for all and there is a perfectly orthodox meaning for this, so even the translation error was not heretical.

I don't really have time to look up all the references for this.  I was making this offer to Stubborn, not in general.  I am quite pressed for time lately and cannot address everyone's questions.

edit to add:  here is an article (pdf) that goes into this point: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_validity_of_the_New_Mass%27_vernacular_consecration.pdf

To anticipate the objection, we again acknowledge that Jesus shed His blood “for all,” and that “all” have a chance to receive the “forgiveness of sin.” That is Catholic dogma, and is not the issue. Thus, we do not say that “for all” is formally heretical, because Jesus did shed His blood for all men insofar as He wills to give them sufficient grace to be saved. This is how St. Paul can say that “Christ gave himself as a ransom for all” (1Tim 2:6). The issue, rather, is whether Jesus in instituting the Eucharist said “for many” or “for all,” and whether He was referring to the availability of His atoning work to “all” or the application of His atoning work to “many.” Using St. Thomas’ terminology, it is the difference between the grace which gives man the potency to act (sufficient grace) and the grace which applies man’s will to act (efficacious grace).

[Benno]

So Jayne, getting back to your husband having the right to tell you to stay off this site... 

Sorry, but the majority of this thread (I'm guessing) is just garbage, the last few pages included, and nothing to do with the original topic. People using the internet as a release etc. That's fine, but call it what it is. The majority of people who pretend to be knowledgeable/ concerned/ charitable on this site are just people with a need to get something out. It has been so for the nearly 10 years since I've checked it out under various names and will continue to be so while the need for such a thing among Catholics of a particular spectrum (good and bad) remains.

For what it's worth, your username was always one of the few that I thought wasn't completely batty or uncharitable, and I've noticed you being influenced at some stages toward very extreme Catholic poses, and at other times being more yourself - i.e. a good Catholic woman.

For what it's worth again, the SSPX is great, but they have their faults and they aren't the be-all and end-all of Catholicism. Many extreme trads of the SSPX and other groups are just as much a product of V2 as the modernists.

[Stubborn]

I am guilty of many things, but I am not guilty of ignorance of basic theology and logic.

You lack nothing in regards to NO theology - I'll grant you that.

It is not "NO theology".  You tell me what part of the NO Mass you think is heretical and I can show you with pre-Vatican II sources that it is not.

If it were that cut and dry, there'd most likely be no NO - but the modernist enemies, being diabolically  brilliant, knew better than to make it that easy.

Unfortunately, this particular heresy is, as Pope St. Pius X taught, most pernicious as it does not boldly and openly teach officially false belief, this particular heresy is implicit heresy that is prevalent in the NO.

For the heck of it,  using pre-V2 sources, show me where facing the people confirms the hermeneutic of continuity. I would like to see that.
   

 

[Benno]

Stubborn (and I hate to get into it  but here we go) there's no such thing as "NO theology" for goodness' sake. There should be no need for the "hermeneutic of continuity" for "real trads". There's no point being anti-post-modernist if you don't rate modernism or post-modernism. Many trad ideas are just as much a fruit of V2 as liberal stuff. "Basic theology and logic" ain't rocket science.

[JayneK]

It is not "NO theology".  You tell me what part of the NO Mass you think is heretical and I can show you with pre-Vatican II sources that it is not.

If it were that cut and dry, there'd most likely be no NO - but the modernist enemies, being diabolically  brilliant, knew better than to make it that easy.

Or maybe you can't point to any heresy simply because there isn't any.

Unfortunately, this particular heresy is, as Pope St. Pius X taught, most pernicious as it does not boldly and openly teach officially false belief, this particular heresy is implicit heresy that is prevalent in the NO.

For the heck of it,  using pre-V2 sources, show me where facing the people confirms the hermeneutic of continuity. I would like to see that.

What heresy is implied and what about the Mass implies it? Make specific charges and I can refute them. 

Mass ad populum is not a statement at all and therefore it cannot be a heretical statement.  The concept of hermeneutic of continuity concerns doctrine and it does not really make sense to talk about it in this context.  As the pope has taught since before his papacy ad orientem is better,  but that does not make ad populum explicitly or implicitly heretical.

[Stubborn]

It is not "NO theology".  You tell me what part of the NO Mass you think is heretical and I can show you with pre-Vatican II sources that it is not.

If it were that cut and dry, there'd most likely be no NO - but the modernist enemies, being diabolically  brilliant, knew better than to make it that easy.

Or maybe you can't point to any heresy simply because there isn't any.

Nothing you couldn't rationalize away into having a double meaning.............which in itself is implicit heresy btw.

Unfortunately, this particular heresy is, as Pope St. Pius X taught, most pernicious as it does not boldly and openly teach officially false belief, this particular heresy is implicit heresy that is prevalent in the NO.

For the heck of it,  using pre-V2 sources, show me where facing the people confirms the hermeneutic of continuity. I would like to see that.

What heresy is implied and what about the Mass implies it? Make specific charges and I can refute them. 

Mass ad populum is not a statement at all and therefore it cannot be a heretical statement.  The concept of hermeneutic of continuity concerns doctrine and it does not really make sense to talk about it in this context.  As the pope has taught since before his papacy ad orientem is better,  but that does not make ad populum explicitly or implicitly heretical.

Where is the pre-V2 source for that opinion?

[Benno]

Where is the pre-V2 source for using "where is the pre-V2 source" in an argument?

You could call it the "post-V2- trad hermeneutic of discontinuity".

Ironically, it's a post-modern approach dressed up as "tradition." No wonder the whole "traditional movement" is dismissed so carelessly by modern theologians.

[JayneK]

It is not "NO theology".  You tell me what part of the NO Mass you think is heretical and I can show you with pre-Vatican II sources that it is not.

If it were that cut and dry, there'd most likely be no NO - but the modernist enemies, being diabolically  brilliant, knew better than to make it that easy.

Or maybe you can't point to any heresy simply because there isn't any.

Nothing you couldn't rationalize away into having a double meaning.............which in itself is implicit heresy btw.

Right.  Being able to show that it isn't a heresy proves that it is a heresy.   

Notard, I hope you are reading this.  How can you let such absurdity trouble you?

Unfortunately, this particular heresy is, as Pope St. Pius X taught, most pernicious as it does not boldly and openly teach officially false belief, this particular heresy is implicit heresy that is prevalent in the NO.

For the heck of it,  using pre-V2 sources, show me where facing the people confirms the hermeneutic of continuity. I would like to see that.

What heresy is implied and what about the Mass implies it? Make specific charges and I can refute them. 

Mass ad populum is not a statement at all and therefore it cannot be a heretical statement.  The concept of hermeneutic of continuity concerns doctrine and it does not really make sense to talk about it in this context.  As the pope has taught since before his papacy ad orientem is better,  but that does not make ad populum explicitly or implicitly heretical.

Where is the pre-V2 source for that opinion?

from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". "The right Christian faith consists in giving one's voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church.

Note that heresy is defined in terms of corruption of dogma, rejection of Church doctrine, adherence to false tenets.  It does not make sense to say that the placement of an altar is heretical because placing an altar is not a dogma, doctrine or tenet.

It is as if you were saying, "That shape is not a triangle because it is purple."  The definition of a triangle is concerned with sides and angles.  It makes no sense to discuss colour.

[Stubborn]

Where is the pre-V2 source for using "where is the pre-V2 source" in an argument?

You could call it the "post-V2- trad hermeneutic of discontinuity".

Ironically, it's a post-modern approach dressed up as "tradition." No wonder the whole "traditional movement" is dismissed so carelessly by modern theologians.

Just asking her to do what she said she would do.