Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


"Pro Multis"

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  columba on Mon May 14, 2012 4:37 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Still your friend after all these posts,

Yes my friend. We shall agree to differ.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  MRyan on Mon May 14, 2012 6:23 pm

Since my last post on this subject, I’ve been re-acquainting myself with Mr. Omlor’s “The Robber Church”, to include “The Collected Writings 1968-1997" (400 pages).

Needless to say the work is extensive and responds to specific objections that came to the author’s attention through those many years. It’ll take me some time to peruse it and find all of the responses to my specific objections.

An initial review reveals that Mr. Omlor appears to have answered the majority, if not all, of my objections, so I may, time withstanding, respond to some of those responses so we don’t have to drag this out. This (as it always does) boils down to some very fundamental principles, the primary one, of course, being the authority of the Church over her own sacramental rites and forms.

Here you go columba, this is what your “angel sent from heaven to teach [me] some humility for which you will one day be eternally thankful”, supports:

NO "MYSTERY OF FAITH": NO MASS

XII. Paul VI Lacked Both The Power And The Right

XIII. The Indefectibility Of The Church

89. The Jan.-Feb. 1994 issue of the Australian journal Catholic carried a letter from Michael Davies. "What is known as the Latin Typical edition [of the Novus Ordo Missae]," wrote Mr. Davies, "is protected by the Church's indefectibility and cannot he invalid and cannot contain anything heretical or harmful to the faith. The indefectibility of the Church protects only what is mandated or authorised for the universal Church (legislation for the Roman Rite alone is considered as coming into this category)."

90. Mr. Davies reasons that the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church is totally incompatible with the promulgation by a Sovereign Pontiff of a Mass that is per se invalid. This reasoning is absolutely sound. For if the true Church of Jesus Christ were to foist upon the faithful of the Roman Rite a Mass that is invalid, She would thus deprive them of the primary source of grace for their sanctification. In such a case we would be bound to admit that the Church had indeed failed in its mission on earth; it would be defectible, which is impossible.

91. Let us consider from a different viewpoint Mr.Davies' argument based on the indefectibility of the Church. Let us deny his premise that Paul VI was truly Christ's Vicar and that he represented the true and indefectible Roman Catholic Church.

92. A true Vicar of Christ does not invalidate the Mass, or even place its validity in jeopardy, by expunging from the most sacred of settings the words handed down by Christ Himself; namely, "mysterium fidei" in the Consecration of the Mass. He is aware of and heeds the warning: "In adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential." (From Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae').

93. Paul VI expunged these words without explaining (as did Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis) the background for such a momentous and unprecedented decision; nor did he give any compelling and salutary reasons for his action -- for indeed there are none. Relying solely upon his supposed power and right and supreme authority as the supposed genuine sovereign pontiff, he simply presented his fait accompli to the Catholic Church, that Catholic Church of which he was ostensibly the head, but whose teachings and warnings he had abandoned and which he now clearly in no way represented.

94. The true Church does not and cannot contradict Herself. Therefore a true Vicar of Christ does not by his mere fait accompli act in contradiction to and disobey the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent and the teachings of three earlier Vicars of Christ, all four of which dicta (which we reproduced above in Part XII, par. 85) specifically deny him -- or indeed anyone -- the power and the right to touch the substance of a sacrament instituted in specie.

95. A true Vicar of Christ does not lightly disregard the teaching of St.Thomas and many other esteemed theologians regarding which words of the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist are essential for validity. He does not guess that perhaps the Angelic Doctor and these other authorities all erred on this matter and maybe those words "the Mystery at faith" are not essential after all.

96. A true Vicar of Christ does not ignore a Monitum issued by the Holy Office a mere ten years earlier, which specifically warned against the omission of these very words "the mystery of faith," remarking that "it is nefarious to introduce changes into so holy a thing," and, moreover, instructing the bishops to "be diligently vigilant lest anyone dare to introduce even the minutest change into the matter and form of the Sacraments."

97. A true Vicar of Christ does not have the temerity to risk, by fait accompli and the mere "stroke of a pen," the terrible consequence of invalidity which De Defectibus warns would ensue ipso facto from the deletion of anything from the Consecration Form laid down in the Roman Missal.

98. Finally, no Catholic, let alone a true Vicar of Christ, defies and contemns Divine Revelation, as did Paul VI in subtracting from that which Christ gave to the Apostles to be handed down: "Therefore We believe that the form of words as is found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them." (Pope Innocent 111, as cited earlier.)

99. Paul VI himself could not have denied that these words he expunged from the consecration form, "the mystery of faith," are words said by Our Lord without at the same time tacitly admitting that for years he daily uttered a lie. Because when he did at one time celebrate the true Mass he would say: "In like manner ... taking also this excellent chalice... He blessed and gave it to His disciples saying: ... 'For this is the Chalice of My blood ... the mystery of faith...'".

100. Since Paul VI in fact did all those things that a true Vicar of Christ would never do, the conclusion at which one must logically and necessarily arrive is clear: at least at the time he promulgated his Novus Ordo Missae Paul VI was not the bona fide pope and the true Vicar of Christ on earth. As Michael Davies implied (and correctly so) the indefectibility of the Church is incompatible with the promulgation of an invalid Mass by its true Sovereign Pontiff.

101. For had he been the legitimate and infallible voice of the true Church of Jesus Christ while foisting upon Catholics his Novus Ordo Missae, which we have shown is certainly invalid, then this so-called "true Church" would be proved to be a sham, a defectible imposture.

102. Indefectibility does not guarantee that many Catholics, particularly those who are sometimes designated as "nominal Catholics," could not be deceived and be deprived of the graces of the true Holy Sacrifice and the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the primary sources of grace for their sanctification. Such a deprivation and such spiritual blindness could well be the result of God's punishment for the sinfulness and negligence of many, nay most, of us.

103. Indefectibility allows that terrestrial enemies of Christ and his Church, engulfed in the "smoke of Satan," to use the very words of Paul VI, would some day bring about the fulfillment of that which is foretold in the Holy Scriptures: "And they shall defile the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the continual sacrifice, and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation" (Dan. 11:31); and also: "And from the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred ninety days" (Dan. 12:11).

104. In this essay I have advanced two theses, the latter flowing necessarily from the former: [1] Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid; and [2] its corollary that he was not a bona fide pope -- the true Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of the West, the Vicar of Christ on earth. In refuting me an Adversarius must first disprove (or attempt to do so) my case that Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae is invalid. But he cannot argue circularly by building his case on the premise that Paul VI was a true pope, incapable of promulgating an invalid Mass.
Simple, the approved form containing “for all”, and the removal of “mysterium fidei” from the form does NOT invalidate the consecration.

Once again:

Insauratio Liturgica and Notitiae in Regard to the Novus Ordo

Insauratio Liturgica

Declaration on the meaning of translations of sacramental formulae S.C.D.F., insauratio Liturgica, 25 January 1974

The liturgical reform which has been carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the Second Vatican Council has made certain changes in the essential formulae of the sacramental rites. These new expressions, like the other ones, have had to be translated into modern languages in such a way that the original sense finds expression in the idiom proper to each language. This has given rise to certain difficulties, which have come to light now that the translations have been sent by Sacred episcopal conferences to the Holy See for approval. In these circumstances, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith again calls attention to the necessity that the essential formulae of the sacramental rites render faithfully the original sense of the Latin “typical text.” With that in mind it declares:

When a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula is submitted to the Holy See for approval, it examines it carefully. When it is satisfied that it expresses the meaning, intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.

Holiness, Pope Paul VI, in the audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect on the 25th day of January, 1974, gave his approval.


AAS 66-661; Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, declaration, 25 January, 1974. Annotations in Notitiae, 10 (1974), 396-397., 10 (1974), 396-397.
Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947:

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.
I fully understand that for a sedevacantist, there is NOTHING one can say about indefectibility, Primacy, infallibility and the authority of the Pope to change the accidents of the form without touching the substance that can move him when he has convinced himself that the substance has been changed.

He has also convinced himself there is no visible perpetual papal or apostolic succession; no valid episcopacy and no valid Mass. And of course, there is no visible Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

54 years .... and counting. Welcome to the sede world

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  columba on Mon May 14, 2012 7:52 pm

Michael Davies' arguments are quite sound. Leaving aside the validiy or not of the pontificate of Paul VI, my contention has never been that he promulgated an invald mass, but that he promulgated a Mass that could be potentially rendered invalid by the addition of a few minor novelties.

Even if we accept that the new Mass in its Latin form was without doubt valid (after all, this was the Mass that was promulgated and not the vernacular mass) but later when translated to vernacular was corrupted, we could not accuse the pope who promulgated the original of its later corruption. We could accuse him of not taking action against allowing a translation who's validity could only be guaranteed if offered in the same spirit of meaning and understanding as its original. It would appear that the original meaning was to be brought to the corrupted vernacular translation by the good will of the individual priest. Certitude, not doubt, is required for validity, for a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all.

The fact that the vernacular even more so than the Latin was not universally promulgated, excluded it from the ultimate guarantee of being an infallibly error free form. It also excludes the charge that the Church defected. If that is not the case then Michael Davies would be correct.

MRyan wrote:
Simple, the approved form containing “for all”, and the removal of “mysterium fidei” from the form does NOT invalidate the consecration.

And that's the way it must be in order to refute Davies, even if in fact those changes did invalidate the mass.

MRyan wrote:
I fully understand that for a sedevacantist, there is NOTHING one can say about indefectibility, Primacy, infallibility and the authority of the Pope to change the accidents of the form without touching the substance that can move him when he has convinced himself that the substance has been changed.


Not just the sedevacantist but everyobody knows that there were radical changes made and there's not a hairs breadth between radical and substantial.

MRyan wrote:
He has also convinced himself there is no visible perpetual papal or apostolic succession; no valid episcopacy and no valid Mass. And of course, there is no visible Church against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

54 years .... and counting. Welcome to the sede world.

I don't think he has convinced himself of those things at all. He has convinced himself that the chair of Peter is temporarily illegally occupied but he still believes there are many valid Masses.
Even if it would ever appear that the Church be dead, the gates of hell would still not have prevailed against it for she would rise again triumphant like her glorious Spouse on the third day.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  columba on Mon May 14, 2012 8:00 pm

I posted links to two talks by Micheal Davies but discovered they can only be accessed through my own gmail account so I've removed the links.
I'll try and find another method of getting to them and repost.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  RememberGethsemane on Thu May 17, 2012 3:24 am

Ya know, I have read you guys post and they get boring after a while like watching two politicians battle it out on tv, neither one of you is going to give in to the other inspite of the myriad of books, saints, popes, and scholars you quote. While you are writing your zealous essays to each other I often wonder what other duties you are abandoning to do so, and where your passion could be put to other good uses? Neither of you are going to relent or concede so what is the point? When one reads the posts to acquire information all we get is the old tradition of 'I'm right, and you're wrong' and as a reader it just highlights everything that is wrong in the world today.. misdirected passion for the wrong cause. Just my opinion so take a swipe at me. Peace to you.

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  columba on Thu May 17, 2012 2:05 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Ya know, I have read you guys post and they get boring after a while like watching two politicians battle it out on tv, neither one of you is going to give in to the other inspite of the myriad of books, saints, popes, and scholars you quote. While you are writing your zealous essays to each other I often wonder what other duties you are abandoning to do so, and where your passion could be put to other good uses? Neither of you are going to relent or concede so what is the point? When one reads the posts to acquire information all we get is the old tradition of 'I'm right, and you're wrong' and as a reader it just highlights everything that is wrong in the world today.. misdirected passion for the wrong cause. Just my opinion so take a swipe at me. Peace to you.

RG, I don't intend to take swipes at anyone but I know how easy it is to confuse a swipe at certain beliefs with a swipe at the person who professes them.

As I don't know where you stand on the issues that Mike and I (and others) have been debating, I don't see how I can take a swipe at you.
You say the debating back and forth is futile and equate it with politicians battling it out on TV. The best answer I can give to that analogy is that the public cast their votes according to the merits (or not) of the points contained in such political debates, so they do in fact serve a purpose.

Nevertheless, I can take a swipe at your presumption that the time spent in such debates is stolen from time that should be spent on other issues. You see I could spend that time watching a few hours of TV but the fact that I choose to live without a TV rules that out and frees up that time for what I consider a worthwhile venture; that is; defending the faith against false doctrines. If you don't attach any importance or have opinions one way or the other concerning the topics debated here, what is one to say about the use of the extra free time you have at your disposal? I'm not insinuating that it is misspent but I'm wondering how you can insinuate that mine is.

Anyway. Welcome to the forum.



columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  RememberGethsemane on Thu May 17, 2012 4:01 pm

Hi Columba good to meet you. First of all I commend you on giving up that satanic propaganda device called tv, I still have one myself but thankfully it doesn't see the light of day much now. My only contention is that the amount of time required to post essays on here would be better directed at the conversion of non-believers through other means or charitable acts, as opposed to focussing all energy on the finer details of disagreements within the church... but that's just my opinion, everybody has them for better or worse. While I've got your attention I'd be sincerely grateful for any input you or MRyan could give on my post concerning Padre Pio and Salvation Outside the Church, I'm more interested in opinions other than the Dimonds on it and any evidence concerning the stories attributed to the padre on this issue. Peace and thanks again.

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  columba on Fri May 18, 2012 1:19 pm

Gethsemane,

I'm not too familiar with the alleged claims that St. Padre Pio believed in salvation outside the Catholic Church (all new to me) but I do know of the report of him having prayed for king George VI of England after miraculously receiving knowledge of the king's death even before the news had left England.

King George VI (AKA the "reluctant king") was by all accounts a very shy and humble man who never wished to be king and was handicapped in his role as king by a severe stammer which it's said made his reign a constant personal martyrdom.

I would have no doubt that Padre Pio's knowledge of the king's death was given through divine inspiration and that God wished those prayers be offered for the deceased king. I would also consider it more than probable that the prayers of such a great saint as Padre Pio brought God's mercy on this humble king and assured his deathbed conversion and ultimately his salvation.


columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: "Pro Multis"

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum