I learned something new about SSPX

[Stubborn]

If being vague is the equivalent of heresy then your vague definition of modernism makes you a heretic.  You have such a nebulous meaning for it that practically anything can be labelled as modernism.  I cannot imagine St. Thomas going on about heresies that are incapable of definition.

I did not attempt to define it. I simply outlined a few of its characteristics. If you want the definition of it, or if you want to know exactly what it proposes, then please consult the teachings of the Church, which have been defining it and condemning it in all of its various forms for centuries.

Yes, this!

JayneK, here is some reference material that may help you..............

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

[Meg]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds all kinds of them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. Modernism itself doesn't deny the articles of faith; instead, the individual uses Modernism as a heresy machine to generate his own personal denials. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they advanced the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what St. Pius X called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate with the most indifference "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endured so long is due to ignorance of Modernism: if Catholics heeded the advice of St. Pius X, they would not have made so many excuses for its fruit. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

If being vague is the equivalent of heresy then your vague definition of modernism makes you a heretic.  You have such a nebulous meaning for it that practically anything can be labelled as modernism.  I cannot imagine St. Thomas going on about heresies that are incapable of definition.

This is the best post I've seen all day. Excellent, Jayne. The nay-sayers will intellectualize everything to death, as if that's proof that their position is correct. Best  to keep it simple, as Our Lord did.

[JayneK]

If being vague is the equivalent of heresy then your vague definition of modernism makes you a heretic.  You have such a nebulous meaning for it that practically anything can be labelled as modernism.  I cannot imagine St. Thomas going on about heresies that are incapable of definition.

I did not attempt to define it. I simply outlined a few of its characteristics. If you want the definition of it, or if you want to know exactly what it proposes, then please consult the teachings of the Church, which have been defining it and condemning it in all of its various forms for centuries.

Yes, this!

JayneK, here is some reference material that may help you..............

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

Yes, Pius X gives a clear analysis of  modernism, identifies its component ideas and explains how they are a corruption of dogma.  Thanks to his teaching, if any of these heretical ideas really existed in the Novus Ordo Mass then we could see them there and discuss them. Of course, it would be possible to say how they were opposed to Church teaching.  This encyclical is proof that it is possible to discuss modernism even when it hides behind vagueness and is a model of how to do so.

It is nonsense to claim that the NO is heretical but, because the heresy is modernism, it is not possible to say exactly what the heresy is or what doctrines have been denied.  Consider Lamentabili Sane.  It is an extensive list of condemned tenets of modernism.  It would be a relatively straight-forward matter to compare this list against the NO Mass  and identify any such ideas that were expressed in the Mass.  If people cannot point to heresy in the Mass, it is because heresy does not exist, not because modernists are so sneaky that nobody can identify their heresies.

[JayneK]

I know you were born pre-V2 but I'm still waiting for the official pre-V2 teaching, not another unsubstantiated NO theologial opinion.

I explained this to you already and you obviously cannot understand.  I did not expect you to.  This discussion is not for your benefit but to demonstrate to Notard that your opinions are worthless and should be ignored.

[Stubborn]

If being vague is the equivalent of heresy then your vague definition of modernism makes you a heretic.  You have such a nebulous meaning for it that practically anything can be labelled as modernism.  I cannot imagine St. Thomas going on about heresies that are incapable of definition.

I did not attempt to define it. I simply outlined a few of its characteristics. If you want the definition of it, or if you want to know exactly what it proposes, then please consult the teachings of the Church, which have been defining it and condemning it in all of its various forms for centuries.

Yes, this!

JayneK, here is some reference material that may help you..............

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

Yes, Pius X gives a clear analysis of  modernism, identifies its component ideas and explains how they are a corruption of dogma.  Thanks to his teaching, if any of these heretical ideas really existed in the Novus Ordo Mass then we could see them there and discuss them. Of course, it would be possible to say how they were opposed to Church teaching.  This encyclical is proof that it is possible to discuss modernism even when it hides behind vagueness and is a model of how to do so.

It is nonsense to claim that the NO is heretical but, because the heresy is modernism, it is not possible to say exactly what the heresy is or what doctrines have been denied.  Consider Lamentabili Sane.  It is an extensive list of condemned tenets of modernism.  It would be a relatively straight-forward matter to compare this list against the NO Mass  and identify any such ideas that were expressed in the Mass.  If people cannot point to heresy in the Mass, it is because heresy does not exist, not because modernists are so sneaky that nobody can identify their heresies.

You were given a clear example of what I said initially - the heresy is implicit - when I asked you to show where pre-V2 taught facing the people was not heretical. Good lord! Rather than do what you said you were going to do, the claws came out! Not a good sign.

 

[Stubborn]

I know you were born pre-V2 but I'm still waiting for the official pre-V2 teaching, not another unsubstantiated NO theologial opinion.

I explained this to you already and you obviously cannot understand.  I did not expect you to.  This discussion is not for your benefit but to demonstrate to Notard that your opinions are worthless and should be ignored.

You gave no pre-V2 teaching on the matter as you said you were going to do, you only gave your NO biased opinion, which is wrong, which is not what you said you were going to do - well, having a wrong opinion is at least not as bad as a worthless opinion like mine.

BTW, I've held the opinion that CITH is sacrilegious since the time I was 6 or 7 years old - - - you could have listened to a little kid's "worthless opinion" -  and if you had, surely you would never have been an EMHC.

I can say that it is impossible for you to concede the reality that there is a grave crisis within the Church that starts at the top and permeates to Her veins.
Your ability to rationalize away every error as though there is no error - or it's only a little error (except when it comes to those of us who are trying to teach you what the Church has always taught - then the claws come out) is one of the tell tale signs that marks people who have been taught to reject truth in exchange for embracing compromise.
In your case, I believe this is due in large part, to your modernist catholic education combined with many years of NO protestant lex orandi lex credendi. How to undo the damage they did to you is the question. 
 
   

[JayneK]

It is nonsense to claim that the NO is heretical but, because the heresy is modernism, it is not possible to say exactly what the heresy is or what doctrines have been denied.  Consider Lamentabili Sane.  It is an extensive list of condemned tenets of modernism.  It would be a relatively straight-forward matter to compare this list against the NO Mass  and identify any such ideas that were expressed in the Mass.  If people cannot point to heresy in the Mass, it is because heresy does not exist, not because modernists are so sneaky that nobody can identify their heresies.

You were given a clear example of what I said initially - the heresy is implicit - when I asked you to show where pre-V2 taught facing the people was not heretical. Good lord! Rather than do what you said you were going to do, the claws came out! Not a good sign.

What heresy is implied by versus populum and how is it implied?  You make vague meaningless claims about modernism.  Pius X made many specific statements about the ideas that compose modernism.  Which of these ideas are you claiming is implied by versus populum?  You have to say things that make sense in order for me to refute them.  All I can say about what you have come up with so far is that it is nonsense.

Church teaching virtually never takes the form of saying things are not heretical.   It defines dogmas and identifies condemned propositions.  There is no doctrinal teaching about altar placement.  We can no more show a teaching that versus populum is not heretical than we can show one that ad orientem is not heretical.  Yet again, you display your ignorance of the subject.

I am not pointing out how poorly you understand these matters in order to be mean to you.  I am doing it because Notard, wanting to be fair and open-minded, has asked "what if Stubborn and those like him are right?"  and this has led him to question his faith.  He needs to see that you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about.

[JayneK]

You gave no pre-V2 teaching on the matter as you said you were going to do, you only gave your NO biased opinion, which is wrong, which is not what you said you were going to do - well, having a wrong opinion is at least not as bad as a worthless opinion like mine.

BTW, I've held the opinion that CITH is sacrilegious since the time I was 6 or 7 years old - - - you could have listened to a little kid's "worthless opinion" -  and if you had, surely you would never have been an EMHC.

I can say that it is impossible for you to concede the reality that there is a grave crisis within the Church that starts at the top and permeates to Her veins.
Your ability to rationalize away every error as though there is no error - or it's only a little error (except when it comes to those of us who are trying to teach you what the Church has always taught - then the claws come out) is one of the tell tale signs that marks people who have been taught to reject truth in exchange for embracing compromise.
In your case, I believe this is due in large part, to your modernist catholic education combined with many years of NO protestant lex orandi lex credendi. How to undo the damage they did to you is the question.     

I acknowledge many problems and errors in the Church and in the NO Mass.  I believe the problems with the Mass are so severe that it should be abrogated.  But I use the correct terminology and categories to discuss the problems.  Heresy is not the same as sacrilege is not the same lack of validity.  These words all have specific meanings.  You seem to have an emotional revulsion to the NO (which I actually understand and sympathize with) but are incompetent to discuss this at the level of intellect. 

[newyorkcatholic]

I should probably start a thread on this in the Cornfield, or perhaps there is one. But I've been reading this thread, and reading Fr. Cekada's book (which is excellent).

Anyway, this is my problem. If Stubborn is right and the NO is heretical, the faith has actually been corrupted. It seems from this you must conclude either that the faith is wrong (and leave the Church) or that the authority promulgating the NO wasn't true authority (and become a sedevacantist).

But Stubbirn goes to SSPX chapels, where Benedict XVI is acceptd as Pope. That would be like me hanging out at Pope Michael's place! 

Jayne's view seems consistent, because the Pope is the Popenand the Church is indefectible. Fr. Cekada's view is also consistent, because if the "Church" has taught error than it's not really the Church. Someone who left after V2 in disgust is also consistent.

Anyway, if I had Stubborn's views, no way I'd go to a chapel affiliated with a society recognizing Paul VI as a true pas Pope while I believed the rite he promulgated was heretical.

[TrentCath]

I should probably start a thread on this in the Cornfield, or perhaps there is one. But I've been reading this thread, and reading Fr. Cekada's book (which is excellent).

Anyway, this is my problem. If Stubborn is right and the NO is heretical, the faith has actually been corrupted. It seems from this you must conclude either that the faith is wrong (and leave the Church) or that the authority promulgating the NO wasn't true authority (and become a sedevacantist).

But Stubbirn goes to SSPX chapels, where Benedict XVI is acceptd as Pope. That would be like me hanging out at Pope Michael's place! 

Jayne's view seems consistent, because the Pope is the Popenand the Church is indefectible. Fr. Cekada's view is also consistent, because if the "Church" has taught error than it's not really the Church. Someone who left after V2 in disgust is also consistent.

Anyway, if I had Stubborn's views, no way I'd go to a chapel affiliated with a society recognizing Paul VI as a true pas Pope while I believed the rite he promulgated was heretical.

This paragraph pretty much sums up the problem, Catholics simply don't properly understand the limits of papal authority and infallibility, both 'NO' Catholics and sedes exagerrate papal authority with different results but these being the only possible consequences of their fundamental presupposition.