Follow-up on N.O.M.

[Kaesekopf]

Miriam was the one who brought up defectibilty.
AC made a comment that she concluded meant the Catholic Church defected.

Miriam brought up the question of the validity of the NO.  AC brought up that of the Church. 

I've never heard someone use the wording "defectible" as applied to the Mass.  Have you? 

[Michael Wilson]

Let's keep this thread discussion limited to the topic noted:  the Novus Ordo Missae.  There's a sedevacantist subforum if you would like to discuss the (in)defectibility of the visible Church.

Kaese,
I'm curious: when you want to let your wife know that she has "messed up" do you leave her notes with green ink around the house so that she can improve her behavior?

[Kaesekopf]

Kaese,
I'm curious: when you want to let your wife know that she has "messed up" do you leave her notes with green ink around the house so that she can improve her behavior?

I'm smarter than that! 

[Michael Wilson]

I'm starting a new thread on the defectibility of the Mass, the Church, and the members of this forum, I just need to find the right section for it! 

[Baylee]

Miriam was the one who brought up defectibilty.
AC made a comment that she concluded meant the Catholic Church defected.

Miriam brought up the question of the validity of the NO.  AC brought up that of the Church. 

I've never heard someone use the wording "defectible" as applied to the Mass.  Have you? 

You're right that Miriam's OP discusses the validity of the NOM. 

Then AC brought up invalidity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration. She never said the Church defected.

Miriam was the one to say that if what AC wrote was true, then that would mean the Church defected.

At least that's how I read it. Hopefully you can atleast see where I'm coming from.

Now that there is a new thread in the SV forum we'll see how this one evolves......

[drummerboy]

Kaese,
I'm curious: when you want to let your wife know that she has "messed up" do you leave her notes with green ink around the house so that she can improve her behavior?

I'm smarter than that! 

Exactly!  He goes straight to banning her!   

[Stubborn]

To be clear about an important point:  there is no question of the validity of the Paul VI Missal. It is valid, it is worship, the Sacrifice is made present and the Sacrament is confected.

This is demonstrably false by the fact that some odd 90% of NOers, including many NO priests, do not care nor believe that the sacrament is confected at all, and this without regard as to whether or not the Paul VI Missal itself is a valid Missal - and this in spite of 60 years worth of destruction they haven't caught on yet, the above deceitful NO lie will go on being repeated ad nauseam by defenders of the evil thing.         

God does not abandon his Church because of the foolishness and pridefulness of those called by Him to lead his Church.  If the existence and reality of the Church were at the mercy of le trahison des clercs, then the gates of Hell would have indeed prevailed long ago against Her. Without any denigration of the role of the papacy in the Catholic Church, we must remember  St. Paul's words:  "He is the head of the body, the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything He might be preeminent." And that He--is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This is true because we know that Christ and the Church are one and the same - this is how we know the Church can never defect even though the hierarchy, by all appearances, has defected. This is also how we know the conciliar church, being a new man made innovation, is not the Catholic Church.   

[Miriam_M]

Miriam was the one who brought up defectibilty.
AC made a comment that she concluded meant the Catholic Church defected.

Miriam brought up the question of the validity of the NO.  AC brought up that of the Church. 

I've never heard someone use the wording "defectible" as applied to the Mass.  Have you? 

Thank you for that correction.  My point was that -- assuming that the Church's permanent requirements of essential form and matter are present -- if the sacraments cannot be said to be valid at all (all 7 or any of them), then I would have to conclude that the Church as a whole has defected.

I do understand that the sede position is "two churches," but I cannot find theological support for that.

If any of the sacraments are "no longer valid," then logically, one has to take one of two positions: 

(1) There's a "real" Catholic Church without universally acknowledged governance against a "false" Catholic Church with acknowledged governance.  (The 2-Church thesis)

or

(2) There remains a single Catholic Church which has become unreliable in all of its declarations.  (Why stop at sacraments?)  As we all know, indefectible does not mean perfect in its individual membership nor its leadership; it means ultimately incorruptible.  A Church which lacks credibility in its official declarations of binding dogma (not opinion and theories but binding dogma -- i.e., truths) has become corrupted.

[Maximilian]

Miriam, I have to say that it appears as if something miraculous has happened in your spiritual life recently. The noticeable improvement in your ability to be charitable is remarkable. I wonder if something good happened"

[Michael Wilson]

Thank you for that correction.  My point was that -- assuming that the Church's permanent requirements of essential form and matter are present -- if the sacraments cannot be said to be valid at all (all 7 or any of them), then I would have to conclude that the Church as a whole has defected.

That the "essential form and matter" is present in all the new sacramental rites (apart from their validity) is disputed outside of "sede-land"

I do understand that the sede position is "two churches," but I cannot find theological support for that.

This "explanation" is not the sede one it actually comes from Cardinal Villot, the Secretary of State of the Vatican under Paul VI in an official letter addressed to Msgr. Lefebvre, demanding his submission to the "Conciliar Church''; Msgr. L. Himself adopted this view in rejecting the Council and the authority of Paul VI and J.P. II, to shut down his seminary and to excommunicate him for consecrating 4 bishops without Papal permission (actually against the orders of the Pope). See Stubborn's (a non sed/anti sed)quote above. 

If any of the sacraments are "no longer valid," then logically, one has to take one of two positions:

(1) There's a "real" Catholic Church without universally acknowledged governance against a "false" Catholic Church with acknowledged governance.  (The 2-Church thesis)

i.e. The position of Msgr. Lefebvre up to the time of his death. 

or

(2) There remains a single Catholic Church which has become unreliable in all of its declarations.  (Why stop at sacraments?)  As we all know, indefectible does not mean perfect in its individual membership nor its leadership; it means ultimately incorruptible.  A Church which lacks credibility in its official declarations of binding dogma (not opinion and theories but binding dogma -- i.e., truths) has become corrupted.

Which would mean that our Lord's promises have failed as the Catholic Church has become indistinguishable from any of the multitude of false sects; leading souls into error, sin and perdition.

[awkward customer]

.

[Michael Wilson]

(2) There remains a single Catholic Church which has become unreliable in all of its declarations.  (Why stop at sacraments?)  As we all know, indefectible does not mean perfect in its individual membership nor its leadership; it means ultimately incorruptible. A Church which lacks credibility in its official declarations of binding dogma (not opinion and theories but binding dogma -- i.e., truths) has become corrupted.

This is the crux of the problem; if the Catholic Church is a divine institution, then it should be reliable in all of its declarations, not just in its rare solemn pronouncements on dogma. What good is having a Church that can lead its faithful into sin and perdition except every 100 years or so, when it makes such pronouncements? 

[Miriam_M]

Miriam, I have to say that it appears as if something miraculous has happened in your spiritual life recently. The noticeable improvement in your ability to be charitable is remarkable. I wonder if something good happened"

Has it been a 3+ year miracle or two separate ones? 

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=24882.msg520403#msg520403

(Just teasing. Thank you for the kind remark. I know it was sincerely offered.)

[Bonaventure]

(2) There remains a single Catholic Church which has become unreliable in all of its declarations.  (Why stop at sacraments?)  As we all know, indefectible does not mean perfect in its individual membership nor its leadership; it means ultimately incorruptible. A Church which lacks credibility in its official declarations of binding dogma (not opinion and theories but binding dogma -- i.e., truths) has become corrupted.

This is the crux of the problem; if the Catholic Church is a divine institution, then it should be reliable in all of its declarations, not just in its rare solemn pronouncements on dogma. What good is having a Church that can lead its faithful into sin and perdition except every 100 years or so, when it makes such pronouncements? 

Indeed, the "prop" papacy. Keep it tucked away in the little box, except for rare occasions. Reminds me of The Indian in the Cupboard.

[yt]H6AEYBcwsR8[/yt]

[Miriam_M]

(2) There remains a single Catholic Church which has become unreliable in all of its declarations.  (Why stop at sacraments?)  As we all know, indefectible does not mean perfect in its individual membership nor its leadership; it means ultimately incorruptible. A Church which lacks credibility in its official declarations of binding dogma (not opinion and theories but binding dogma -- i.e., truths) has become corrupted.

This is the crux of the problem; if the Catholic Church is a divine institution, then it should be reliable in all of its declarations, not just in its rare solemn pronouncements on dogma. What good is having a Church that can lead its faithful into sin and perdition except every 100 years or so, when it makes such pronouncements? 

(2) There remains a single Catholic Church which has become unreliable in all of its declarations.  (Why stop at sacraments?)  As we all know, indefectible does not mean perfect in its individual membership nor its leadership; it means ultimately incorruptible. A Church which lacks credibility in its official declarations of binding dogma (not opinion and theories but binding dogma -- i.e., truths) has become corrupted.

This is the crux of the problem; if the Catholic Church is a divine institution, then it should be reliable in all of its declarations, not just in its rare solemn pronouncements on dogma. What good is having a Church that can lead its faithful into sin and perdition except every 100 years or so, when it makes such pronouncements? 

I think Church historians might disagree with you, Michael, on the supposed enormity of the scandals of the modern age versus earlier periods.  Fr. Phil Wolfe would be one. To paraphrase him, the Church has lived through worse, yet survived. One of his talks describes a gruesome episode in which a pope's corpse was unearthed, put on trial for heresy, and dumped unceremoniously back into the ground. 

(No, everyone, spare me your fantasies.) 

The chaos of certain periods and episodes in previous times supersedes the present era.  It obviously doesn't feel like it to us because it has comprised most of our life span. Bayless brought up end times recently. Fr. Phil Wolfe has published dozens of talks on the progress of End Times apostasy and how we are in it right now.  In addition, he has a separate audio track on the Suspension of the Teaching Authority of the Church on the part of the episcopate: a refusal to teach.  Combine that with the subversiveness he explains, which is, as he puts it, an intention of the hierarchy not to explicitly change the doctrines of the church ("they're much too clever for that," he says) but to change behavior, particularly, he says, with regard to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

It's not believable to you that clergy can become wicked, surrendering to vices within themselves, influencing other clergy to similarly loosen resolve from the narrow path to the wide?  And that they can do so en masse?  I don't wish to bring up sordid subjects, but if clergy have proven themselves more than capable of engaging in long-term pedophilia and homosexual acts -- sins that cry out to Heaven -- why can't such clergy also refuse to do their duty to teach the true Catholic faith -- something reprehensible but not as diabolical as the other unspeakable acts? 

Jesus Christ did not quantify what portion/percentage of the Church could be guaranteed to be reliable until the end of time.  He only assured us that it would.