What is the "Conciliar Church"?

Started by TerrorDæmonum, January 01, 2013, 09:42:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TerrorDæmonum

The forum rules include this:

QuoteThe primary binding power of this forum is the Catholic Faith as has been taught and professed for centuries. At the end of the day, we are united in our common belief, be we sedeplenist or sedevacantist, SSPX or FSSP. Keep this in mind while you post. Our enemies are NOT each other, but rather, the Conciliar Church.

Is this "Conciliar Church" something definitely seen as being "outside the Church", while sede*, canonically irregular, and canonically regular, priests and people are see as being "in the Church"?

Is it something inside the Church, which infects it, leading people to various "minority" groups within the Church?

What is this "common belief" which unites such a diverse group from ones who are under the Pope in spirit and law, and those who deny that Pope? Is this "common belief" merely a liturgical choice? Or are people who proclaim the Pope and those who deny him able to maintain being within the same Church somehow?

I find this particular part of the rules to be very ambiguous and difficult to understand.

tmw89

Quote from: Pæniteo on January 01, 2013, 09:42:15 PM
The forum rules include this:

QuoteThe primary binding power of this forum is the Catholic Faith as has been taught and professed for centuries. At the end of the day, we are united in our common belief, be we sedeplenist or sedevacantist, SSPX or FSSP. Keep this in mind while you post. Our enemies are NOT each other, but rather, the Conciliar Church.

Is this "Conciliar Church" something definitely seen as being "outside the Church"

Yes.

Quotewhile sede*, canonically irregular, and canonically regular, priests and people are see as being "in the Church"?

There are qualifiers for each one, but generally, yes.

QuoteIs it something inside the Church, which infects it, leading people to various "minority" groups within the Church?

The Church is a perfect entity.  As such, the Church cannot harbor within herself an evil entity which is "of" it.

QuoteWhat is this "common belief" which unites such a diverse group from ones who are under the Pope in spirit and law, and those who deny that Pope?

Very basically:  Vatican II is bad and the Novus Ordo is to be avoided.

QuoteIs this "common belief" merely a liturgical choice?

There is no choice, Summorum Pontificum be damned - TLM or bust for us in the Western Rites of the Church.

QuoteOr are people who proclaim the Pope and those who deny him able to maintain being within the same Church somehow?

Both sedeplenists and sedevacantists can be Catholic.  The pope issue is of secondary importance to living an holy life.  It is not a sin to be mistaken regarding whether the See is occupied, as it would be to pertinaciously deny the Resurrection or any other dogma.

QuoteI find this particular part of the rules to be very ambiguous and difficult to understand.

Have you messaged Kaese about it?
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonThe "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

http://tradblogs.blogspot.com

NOW OPEN:  A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!

TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: tmw89 on January 01, 2013, 10:02:32 PM
Have you messaged Kaese about it?

Since it seemed to be something which was expected to be common understanding, I thought it was fitting for a thread, but you are right, that particular statement would be better worded another way.

In other words, I do not think it is as common as one would think.




TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: tmw89 on January 01, 2013, 10:02:32 PM
There is no choice, Summorum Pontificum be damned - TLM or bust for us in the Western Rites of the Church.
By "TLM", do you refer to the Roman Rite?

What about the other Latin rites?

Do Eastern Catholics not have the same issues we have?


QuoteBoth sedeplenists and sedevacantists can be Catholic.  The pope issue is of secondary importance to living an holy life.  It is not a sin to be mistaken regarding whether the See is occupied, as it would be to pertinaciously deny the Resurrection or any other dogma.
The Pope's interior life is of secondary importance, however, acknowledge of the Pope is of primary importance.

Quote from: Catechism of Pius X

8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

10 Q. Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?
A. The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.

11 Q. Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church?
A. Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." And again: "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."

12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

And that is why I strongly oppose what I do, because souls are at stake.

ServusSpiritusSancti

I think the term "conciliar church" was made popular by Archbishop Lefebvre. Here is one of my favorite quotes from him:

Quote"What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: we are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship... The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976)

tmw89

Quote from: Pæniteo on January 01, 2013, 10:19:42 PM
Quote from: tmw89 on January 01, 2013, 10:02:32 PM
There is no choice, Summorum Pontificum be damned - TLM or bust for us in the Western Rites of the Church.
By "TLM", do you refer to the Roman Rite?

I referred to the "Western Rites" - meaning Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc.  But primarily Roman.

QuoteWhat about the other Latin rites?

The others - such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, among others - have also been superseded in the Conciliar Church by new versions.  But this applies to them as well, AND the forms of the other sacraments.

QuoteDo Eastern Catholics not have the same issues we have?

Being a Roman Catholic in North America, my knowledge of Eastern Catholicism would not account for much... had it not been for someone I met several years ago, who converted to Eastern Catholicism.  It's my understanding their Divine Liturgy was tampered with after V2 - not to the extent of Rites in the West, but tampered with nonetheless. 

Quote
QuoteBoth sedeplenists and sedevacantists can be Catholic.  The pope issue is of secondary importance to living an holy life.  It is not a sin to be mistaken regarding whether the See is occupied, as it would be to pertinaciously deny the Resurrection or any other dogma.
The Pope's interior life is of secondary importance, however, acknowledge of the Pope is of primary importance.

Quote from: Catechism of Pius X

8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

10 Q. Who are the lawful pastors of the Church?
A. The lawful pastors of the Church are the Roman Pontiff, that is, the Pope, who is Supreme Pastor, and the Bishops. Other priests, also, and especially Parish Priests, have a share in the pastoral office, subject to the Bishop and the Pope.

11 Q. Why do you say that the Roman Pontiff is supreme Pastor of the Church?
A. Because Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, the first Pope: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." And again: "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."

12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

And that is why I strongly oppose what I do, because souls are at stake.

Sedevacantists acknowledge the papacy, but dismiss the claimants since at least the 1960s as heresiarchs who have dedicated their "pontificates" to the destruction of the Church, particularly the Mass, the other sacraments, the priesthood, and the religion in general by attempting to transform the Church - which cannot be transformed - into the ultimate subjectivist engine.

That is, in a nutshell, my issue with accepting as pope the men who claimed such a title from the 1960s on.  What they have done a true pope is incapable of doing.
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonThe "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

http://tradblogs.blogspot.com

NOW OPEN:  A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!

TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: tmw89 on January 01, 2013, 10:56:29 PM
Being a Roman Catholic in North America, my knowledge of Eastern Catholicism would not account for much... had it not been for someone I met several years ago, who converted to Eastern Catholicism.  It's my understanding their Divine Liturgy was tampered with after V2 - not to the extent of Rites in the West, but tampered with nonetheless. 


Maybe the change in some externals, and the confusion given to the flock, was allowed so we may more appreciate the reality of the grace in the Sacraments. The Church has a store of great beauty in our eyes and ears for the glory of God, but perhaps we think it is for the glory of ourselves at times.

If the sacrament of the Divine Liturgy (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom most of the time) are valid, then the Novus Ordo must be too. If we are too attached to what we read or hear, then perhaps it should be taken away from us on occasion so we may see what is essential.

Just as Jesus plucked from the field on the Sabbath so he may teach us that the proper order of the Law, maybe accepting that the Blessed Sacrament and the priesthood are present when the building is dour, the words plain, and the priest unimpressive to us. 

Note, my words here are only a matter of essentials. When asked about going to the SSPX, or other groups or priests, instead of going to the NO, I cannot give an answer so soundly. When it comes to what one holds in one's heart, I can, not because of my intellect, but because of God.

tmw89

Quote from: Pæniteo on January 01, 2013, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: tmw89 on January 01, 2013, 10:56:29 PM
Being a Roman Catholic in North America, my knowledge of Eastern Catholicism would not account for much... had it not been for someone I met several years ago, who converted to Eastern Catholicism.  It's my understanding their Divine Liturgy was tampered with after V2 - not to the extent of Rites in the West, but tampered with nonetheless. 


Maybe the change in some externals, and the confusion given to the flock, was allowed so we may more appreciate the reality of the grace in the Sacraments. The Church has a store of great beauty in our eyes and ears for the glory of God, but perhaps we think it is for the glory of ourselves at times.

The point of the NO is the glorification of man.  It's my understanding Trads flock to the TLM and not the NO because the TLM is for the glorification of God, not themselves.  Similar to the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  But I think I might have missed your point, I am not sure.  Please let me know.

QuoteIf the sacrament of the Divine Liturgy (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom most of the time) are valid, then the Novus Ordo must be too. If we are too attached to what we read or hear, then perhaps it should be taken away from us on occasion so we may see what is essential.

That the Divine Liturgy (DL) is valid, so the NO must be too - this simply does not follow.  However, what do you mean by "valid"?  Strictly, that the Eucharist is confected?  Or loosely, that the Rite is authentically Catholic?  If the former, it is possible to confect the Eucharist in a NO - as much as it is in an Orthodox Christian or Old Catholic liturgy.  But is the NO Catholic?  Its development is not obscure, we know the Protestant "observers" in the committee to revise the Mass did a lot more than "observe."  And we're only talking about the Roman Rite in this instance - how the DL was specifically changed, by whom, how... I am not clear on those details.

QuoteJust as Jesus plucked from the field on the Sabbath so he may teach us that the proper order of the Law, maybe accepting that the Blessed Sacrament and the priesthood are present when the building is dour, the words plain, and the priest unimpressive to us.

The building is the least of our concerns, although good architecture always helps.  The words... what do you mean by this?  The revised words of the sacraments of the NO leave most of those sacraments dubious.  Baptism, Matrimony and the Eucharist (isolated from the Mass) retain their integrity... but Confession, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction are sacraments most sedevacantists, myself included, would regard as corrupted and invalid due to changes in the words.  Finally, an unimpressive priest so long as he is orthodox is fine enough.

QuoteNote, my words here are only a matter of essentials. When asked about going to the SSPX, or other groups or priests, instead of going to the NO, I cannot give an answer so soundly. When it comes to what one holds in one's heart, I can, not because of my intellect, but because of God.

Essentially, how do you square the modern "popes" as being heads of the Church when they have tried to destroy it?  This is something I hope you will address.

Apologies for my wide-sweeping use of the term NO - both as Novus Ordo Missae and the establishment which promulgated it.
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonThe "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

http://tradblogs.blogspot.com

NOW OPEN:  A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!

TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: tmw89 on January 01, 2013, 11:22:20 PM
The point of the NO is the glorification of man.  It's my understanding Trads flock to the TLM and not the NO because the TLM is for the glorification of God, not themselves.  Similar to the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  But I think I might have missed your point, I am not sure.  Please let me know.
I think this is what people would like to think, but I think the TLM more clearly reflects the divine focus, and appeals to many facets of humanity.

Quote
That the Divine Liturgy (DL) is valid, so the NO must be too - this simply does not follow.  However, what do you mean by "valid"?  Strictly, that the Eucharist is confected?  Or loosely, that the Rite is authentically Catholic?  If the former, it is possible to confect the Eucharist in a NO - as much as it is in an Orthodox Christian or Old Catholic liturgy.  But is the NO Catholic?  Its development is not obscure, we know the Protestant "observers" in the committee to revise the Mass did a lot more than "observe."  And we're only talking about the Roman Rite in this instance - how the DL was specifically changed, by whom, how... I am not clear on those details.
The Sacrifice of the Mass as the Blessed Sacrament as its focus. It is the entire Sacrifice around which the liturgy is centred.

Looking for an "authentically Catholic" while overlooking the reality of the Sacrament is part of the problem, and I hope reflection on this helps.

Looking for some "authenticity" beyond the Sacrament is misguided. The focus is on the Sacrament.

The fact you separate a valid consecration with the Catholic nature of the Mass indicates you are looking for "something else" to satisfy you.

I was pointing out the Divine Liturgy is more different from the TLM than the NO is from the TLM and that the differences to our eyes and ears can be deceptive.

Quote
The building is the least of our concerns, although good architecture always helps.  The words... what do you mean by this?  The revised words of the sacraments of the NO leave most of those sacraments dubious.  Baptism, Matrimony and the Eucharist (isolated from the Mass) retain their integrity... but Confession, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction are sacraments most sedevacantists, myself included, would regard as corrupted and invalid due to changes in the words.  Finally, an unimpressive priest so long as he is orthodox is fine enough.
In confession, the words:

QuoteI absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

are used, and I do not see how Confession can be doubted.

I am not addressing Extreme Unction, Confirmation, and Holy Orders because I am confident of their validity according to the norms of Rome, and because I think the details don't matter given how Confession is doubted while the essentials are there and that you can read as well as myself.

Quote
Essentially, how do you square the modern "popes" as being heads of the Church when they have tried to destroy it?  This is something I hope you will address.
I do not think they tried to destroy it. I see the fullness of history more, including Popes which would have caused you to have even more doubt of their office. However, the saints in those times, even those who would have had the most cause, did not doubt.

It is easier to plant seeds of doubt than the seeds of faith.



Mithrandylan

Quote from: Baptism, Matrimony and the Eucharist (isolated from the Mass) retain their integrity...

Forgive me for interjecting, but I found this interesting.  Sedevacantists view marriages in the NO as sacramental marriages?  As Catholic marriages?  Even if the priest (whether the ceremony was the new rite or the old rite) was ordained according to the new rite? 
Ps 135

Quia in humilitáte nostra memor fuit nostri: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Et redémit nos ab inimícis nostris: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Qui dat escam omni carni: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Confitémini Deo cæli: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Confitémini Dómino dominórum: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.

For he was mindful of us in our affliction: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
And he redeemed us from our enemies: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who giveth food to all flesh: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the God of heaven: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the Lord of lords: * for his mercy endureth for ever.

-I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: Mithrandylan on January 01, 2013, 11:40:52 PM


Forgive me for interjecting, but I found this interesting.  Sedevacantists view marriages in the NO as sacramental marriages?  As Catholic marriages?  Even if the priest (whether the ceremony was the new rite or the old rite) was ordained according to the new rite?

The Minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony is not the priest, it is the two who are to be wed:

Quote from: Catechism of Pius X
9 Q. How is this sacrament administered?
A. This sacrament, preserving, as it does, the nature of a contract, is administered by the contracting parties. themselves, who declare, in the presence of the parish priest, or another priest delegated by him, and of two witnesses, that they take each other in marriage.


Mithrandylan

Right, right, but if the priest was ordained in the new rite, a sedevacantist would not believe him to actually be a priest, so the Church would not be a witness.  Doesn't a sacramental marriage require a witness of the Church? 
Ps 135

Quia in humilitáte nostra memor fuit nostri: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Et redémit nos ab inimícis nostris: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Qui dat escam omni carni: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Confitémini Deo cæli: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.
Confitémini Dómino dominórum: * quóniam in ætérnum misericórdia eius.

For he was mindful of us in our affliction: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
And he redeemed us from our enemies: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Who giveth food to all flesh: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the God of heaven: * for his mercy endureth for ever.
Give glory to the Lord of lords: * for his mercy endureth for ever.

-I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-

TerrorDæmonum

Quote from: Mithrandylan on January 01, 2013, 11:50:48 PM
Right, right, but if the priest was ordained in the new rite, a sedevacantist would not believe him to actually be a priest, so the Church would not be a witness.  Doesn't a sacramental marriage require a witness of the Church?

Sedevacantist lines of ordination have included a woman. Do not expect too much consistency.

Lyubov

Quote from: Pæniteo on January 01, 2013, 11:53:21 PM
Quote from: Mithrandylan on January 01, 2013, 11:50:48 PM
Right, right, but if the priest was ordained in the new rite, a sedevacantist would not believe him to actually be a priest, so the Church would not be a witness.  Doesn't a sacramental marriage require a witness of the Church?

Sedevacantist lines of ordination have included a woman. Do not expect too much consistency.

Which lines would those be?

(Honest question)
??? ?? ??? ????????
?? ??? ?????? ?????.

tmw89

Quote from: Pæniteo on January 01, 2013, 11:36:14 PM
Quote from: tmw89 on January 01, 2013, 11:22:20 PM
The point of the NO is the glorification of man.  It's my understanding Trads flock to the TLM and not the NO because the TLM is for the glorification of God, not themselves.  Similar to the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  But I think I might have missed your point, I am not sure.  Please let me know.
I think this is what people would like to think, but I think the TLM more clearly reflects the divine focus, and appeals to many facets of humanity.

But that the TLM "appeals to many facets of humanity" is beside the point - that it pleases God is the primary aim.

Quote
Quote
That the Divine Liturgy (DL) is valid, so the NO must be too - this simply does not follow.  However, what do you mean by "valid"?  Strictly, that the Eucharist is confected?  Or loosely, that the Rite is authentically Catholic?  If the former, it is possible to confect the Eucharist in a NO - as much as it is in an Orthodox Christian or Old Catholic liturgy.  But is the NO Catholic?  Its development is not obscure, we know the Protestant "observers" in the committee to revise the Mass did a lot more than "observe."  And we're only talking about the Roman Rite in this instance - how the DL was specifically changed, by whom, how... I am not clear on those details.
The Sacrifice of the Mass as the Blessed Sacrament as its focus. It is the entire Sacrifice around which the liturgy is centred.

Yes...

QuoteLooking for an "authentically Catholic" while overlooking the reality of the Sacrament is part of the problem, and I hope reflection on this helps.

Looking for some "authenticity" beyond the Sacrament is misguided. The focus is on the Sacrament.

So why not receive the Sacrament from a priest of the Orthodox?  Or an Old Catholic? 

QuoteThe fact you separate a valid consecration with the Catholic nature of the Mass indicates you are looking for "something else" to satisfy you.

All I'm looking for is a Mass that's Catholic - not Orthodox, not Old Catholic, and certainly not corrupted by the perverse ideas of Protestantism and Modernism.  If validity were the only concern, the Trad life would be a lot easier!

QuoteI was pointing out the Divine Liturgy is more different from the TLM than the NO is from the TLM and that the differences to our eyes and ears can be deceptive.

Look to the texts, and look to history.

Quote
Quote
The building is the least of our concerns, although good architecture always helps.  The words... what do you mean by this?  The revised words of the sacraments of the NO leave most of those sacraments dubious.  Baptism, Matrimony and the Eucharist (isolated from the Mass) retain their integrity... but Confession, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction are sacraments most sedevacantists, myself included, would regard as corrupted and invalid due to changes in the words.  Finally, an unimpressive priest so long as he is orthodox is fine enough.
In confession, the words:

QuoteI absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

are used, and I do not see how Confession can be doubted.

I am not addressing Extreme Unction, Confirmation, and Holy Orders because I am confident of their validity according to the norms of Rome, and because I think the details don't matter given how Confession is doubted while the essentials are there and that you can read as well as myself.

Au contraire!  The linchpin for five of the sacraments, Holy Orders, was particularly dismantled by the NO crowd in the alteration of the Rite of Episcopal Consecration, as Fr. Cekada has amply proven time and again against one "refutation" after another.

Quote
Quote
Essentially, how do you square the modern "popes" as being heads of the Church when they have tried to destroy it?  This is something I hope you will address.
I do not think they tried to destroy it. I see the fullness of history more, including Popes which would have caused you to have even more doubt of their office. However, the saints in those times, even those who would have had the most cause, did not doubt.

Just who are these popes that tampered with dogma moreso than those of the past five decades?

Quote
It is easier to plant seeds of doubt than the seeds of faith.

Just as it is easier to sidestep an obstacle to one's logic, rather than confront it.
Quote from: Bishop WilliamsonThe "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.

---

http://tradblogs.blogspot.com

NOW OPEN:  A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!