Why I believe that the new rites are valid

[Michael Wilson]

You and Fr. Ripperger disagree.

Fr. R. & the Popes and theologians before VII disagree.

[Michael Wilson]

LTB

Can you explain to me how SVism is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

I thought I have been doing this for the last 11 years that I have been on this forum! 

NO ONE on the election of John XXIII was a sede (except that retard who thinks Innocent III was the last Pope).

Correct; and even though I'm a retard, I don't think that I-3 was the last Pope

Given that V2 happened so close to VI, It boggles the mind to believe that VI could solidify the powers of the Papacy so clearly and forcefully, then a century or so later the validly elected Pope goes ahead and does what would be considered unthinkable. What, then, was the point of Vatican I?

Vatican I didn't innovate or teach something that wasn't already Catholic doctrine; one of the main opponents of the proclamation of the dogma, Bishop Dupanloup, wrote his doctoral thesis on this very doctrine. He didn't oppose it in itself, only on its "opportunity" or timeliness, here is a small snippet from an article on this view:

While many within the Church saw this as simply reaffirming what was already true, many outside the Church saw it as a threat by the papacy. In a pastoral letter, Bishop Domenec of Pittsburgh, stated he opposed a definition of infallibility as he feared "the enemies of the Catholic Church would give a wrong interpretation to its meaning," and 'dissenting brethren would make use of this definition to oppose the Catholic Church."[6] One wrong interpretation that Bishop Domenec had to address was that infallibility did not mean impeccability, which claimed that the pope could never sin in his individual capacity or err as pope when not speaking ex cathedra.[7]

What gives a layman the right to throw out Vatican II and not Vatican I, since Vatican I clearly laid the groundwork for Vatican II to occur? By every metric (as you yourself pointed out in my thread about what makes a Council a Council) Vatican II was called licitly, by a validly elected Pope, in union with the Bishops.

Right, Council VII should have been infallible or minimally should not have taught any errors contrary to faith or morals, such as "religious liberty" or that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church were not one and the same; or recommended immoral practices such as "cummunicatio in sacris".
So we have ultimately two choices (with apologies to our R&R contingent);A. either the Church in her universal magisterium can teach error and lead the faithful into sin, or B. she cannot.
If "A", then the Catholic Church is no different than any of the other man made organizations that claim to be a "religion" yet teach many errors in doctrine and immoral practices; which means that there is not true religion on earth; so practice any of them that you want or none at all, its all the same.
If "B" Then VII cannot be a Council of the Catholic Church, despite all claims to the contrary; then we are left with the question of how can VII not be a true Church Council?
2 answers: A. The Church is only infallible in her solemn magisterium; and since VII belongs to her ordinary magisterium, then dangerous errors can be present therefore it is a true but "fallible" Council or B. It is not; that only would leave the sede option open (As far as my limited intellect can discern).
Finally, on J23; Everyone accepted him as Pope and therefore the seds are going back and as it were changing the "rules" of the game to make it fit with their theory. I would respond: There were Churchmen who were privi to Roncalli's confidences, such as Dom Beauduin OSB that predicted that if Cardinal Roncalli was elected (which he was) he would call a Council and set a new and different course for the Church especially in Ecumenism. For the people in the know, Roncalli was one of theirs.

And I don't mean to be rude but please don't quote mine. Anyone can do that. The Orthodox are completely capable of quote mining their position using the Fathers and theologians. There's a dude on Twitter who very capably discredits the filioque by quote mining Augustine

I am aware of that and the controversies; but here is the thing; if a Church claims to be the true Church, then it will only teach true doctrine and moral practices that are in accord with the 10 Commandments.
Let us just take one instance of many, Birth Control: Up to the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1929, all "religions" condemned birth control; afterwards all caved save for the Catholic Church. So that eliminates all the other religions as being true.
We could do the same for divorce; for the unity of the Blessed Trinity; or even the necessity of a single infallible teaching authority that would oblige all the faithful in an infallible manner on faith and morals; not just every 500 years or so in a rare Church Council, but daily. etc. etc. The Orthos fail all these tests. They are not even one Church, but a collection of  "auto-Cephalus" groups which have no authority to bind each other. Which destroys the "note"  of "Unity" which the true Church of Christ must have.
And another note: I bet that even if I could find a Church Father that taught a word for word duplicate of Pastor Aeternus and quoted it to an Ortho, they would not believe or accept it. They have their hearts closed to the truth.

[Maximilian]

We must consider that a small faction of dogmatic sedevacantists believe +Lefebvre and +Thuc line bishops are invalid. Why are they right and CMRI, SSPV, etc. wrong?

This is a valid point that should not be dismissed lightly. Here is one vision of the current situation:

"At Vatican II the mainstream hierarchy accepted false teachings and created a false "Conciliar Church." However, ordinary lay Catholic faithful can still save their souls because there are groups of dedicated true Catholic priests and bishops who continue to provide valid Catholic sacraments and authentic Catholic doctrine."

Many if not most of the people participating here on SD probably believe a version of this. However, what if this small number of true Catholic faithful groups all declare each other heretics? "Everyone to the left of me is a hertic, and everyone to the right of me is a schismatic," seems to be the position of nearly every group. Often they seem to spend more energy condemning their fellow traditional Catholics than they do defending the Catholic Faith.

This is a problem for each of us on a practical level. Probably we have all encountered it while exploring which traditional Catholic group to join. For example, Heinrich's post at the top should be corrected slightly because the SSPV does not accept the Thuc ordinations, and they will not allow you to receive communion at their chapels if you also attend St. Gertrude the Great (Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan, R.I.P.).

But in addition to the practical issue, there is a larger theological issue. If one says that God allowed the mainstream church to fall into apostasy, but he provided us with remnant groups that allow us to save our souls, how can that be squared with the fact that all the various remnant groups condemn each other?

[Miriam_M]

@Michael Wilson you are a sede, if I am not mistaken. (If you're not please ignore the below lol)

Can you explain to me how SVism is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

NO ONE on the election of John XXIII was a sede (except that retard who thinks Innocent III was the last Pope).

Given that V2 happened so close to VI, It boggles the mind to believe that VI could solidify the powers of the Papacy so clearly and forcefully, then a century or so later the validly elected Pope goes ahead and does what would be considered unthinkable. What, then, was the point of Vatican I?

What gives a layman the right to throw out Vatican II and not Vatican I, since Vatican I clearly laid the groundwork for Vatican II to occur? By every metric (as you yourself pointed out in my thread about what makes a Council a Council) Vatican II was called licitly, by a validly elected Pope, in union with the Bishops.


And I don't mean to be rude but please don't quote mine. Anyone can do that. The Orthodox are completely capable of quote mining their position using the Fathers and theologians. There's a dude on Twitter who very capably discredits the filioque by quote mining Augustine

Some or these discussion points (V1, V2) are also brought up by Fr. R.  One of several things he says is this:  V2 cannot be wholesale discarded by trads because there are some abiding elements of Tradition that are contained in some of the documents.  Those are the features of the Council that are in fact infallible, according to him -- not because V2 as a whole was infallible (something Fr. R denies because Paul VI denied it) but because the deposit of faith is inerrant, and some of that deposit made its way, miraculously perhaps, into the Council documents.

Regarding V1, Fr. R brings that up as a reminder to his listeners that V1 explicitly limited the circumstances in which a Pope is to be considered infallible. 

[Gardener]

@Michael Wilson you are a sede, if I am not mistaken. (If you're not please ignore the below lol)

Can you explain to me how SVism is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

NO ONE on the election of John XXIII was a sede (except that retard who thinks Innocent III was the last Pope).

Given that V2 happened so close to VI, It boggles the mind to believe that VI could solidify the powers of the Papacy so clearly and forcefully, then a century or so later the validly elected Pope goes ahead and does what would be considered unthinkable. What, then, was the point of Vatican I?

What gives a layman the right to throw out Vatican II and not Vatican I, since Vatican I clearly laid the groundwork for Vatican II to occur? By every metric (as you yourself pointed out in my thread about what makes a Council a Council) Vatican II was called licitly, by a validly elected Pope, in union with the Bishops.


And I don't mean to be rude but please don't quote mine. Anyone can do that. The Orthodox are completely capable of quote mining their position using the Fathers and theologians. There's a dude on Twitter who very capably discredits the filioque by quote mining Augustine

Some or these discussion points (V1, V2) are also brought up by Fr. R.  One of several things he says is this:  V2 cannot be wholesale discarded by trads because there are some abiding elements of Tradition that are contained in some of the documents.  Those are the features of the Council that are in fact infallible, according to him -- not because V2 as a whole was infallible (something Fr. R denies because Paul VI denied it) but because the deposit of faith is inerrant, and some of that deposit made its way, miraculously perhaps, into the Council documents.

Regarding V1, Fr. R brings that up as a reminder to his listeners that V1 explicitly limited the circumstances in which a Pope is to be considered infallible. 

Pardon my Quebecois, but the bolded makes no damn sense in light of the catechism of St. Pius X.

32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

I can assure you that the Protestant KJV absolutely contains "some abiding elements of Tradition". I read my way into the Church precisely by reading my dad's own KJV.

But Pius X seems to say it should be burned despite that.

How, then, can Sacred Scripture, malformed as it was by Protestants, the most famous and enduring of which is the KJV,  be considered something that "cannot be wholesale discarded by trads because there are some abiding elements of Tradition that are contained in some of the" pages?

I think it's high time we stop listening to Fr. Ripperger except where he has impeccable sources. The man makes doctrine out of thin air.

[LausTibiChriste]

Fr Ripperger also says that one corrupt element ruins the whole. One single heresy, even held in complete ignorance, corrupts the virtue of Faith and ultimately what you have is an opinion.

So in light of that, how can we not wholesale throw out V2 when it contains heresy such as the Muslims worship the same God we do?

I'm with @Gardener on this one. I jumped off the Fr Ripperger bandwagon a while ago and as G said, it's high time we stop listening to him. He also sets up a catch-22 so that you cannot possibly criticize what he says without automatically being wrong "people will criticize me for saying X but ultimately they're wrong, I'm right [provides no sources]". Pretty easy to say anything when the cards are in your favour like that.

His talk about what to do when the sacraments aren't available was the nail in the coffin for me. Fr Wolfe came out with a similar talk around the same time and on almost every point they disagree. Fr Ripperger was just flat out wrong in some of the talk, ie. when he says you cannot get married without a priest (what are we, Orthodox?)

[Miriam_M]

@Michael Wilson you are a sede, if I am not mistaken. (If you're not please ignore the below lol)

Can you explain to me how SVism is not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

NO ONE on the election of John XXIII was a sede (except that retard who thinks Innocent III was the last Pope).

Given that V2 happened so close to VI, It boggles the mind to believe that VI could solidify the powers of the Papacy so clearly and forcefully, then a century or so later the validly elected Pope goes ahead and does what would be considered unthinkable. What, then, was the point of Vatican I?

What gives a layman the right to throw out Vatican II and not Vatican I, since Vatican I clearly laid the groundwork for Vatican II to occur? By every metric (as you yourself pointed out in my thread about what makes a Council a Council) Vatican II was called licitly, by a validly elected Pope, in union with the Bishops.


And I don't mean to be rude but please don't quote mine. Anyone can do that. The Orthodox are completely capable of quote mining their position using the Fathers and theologians. There's a dude on Twitter who very capably discredits the filioque by quote mining Augustine

Some or these discussion points (V1, V2) are also brought up by Fr. R.  One of several things he says is this:  V2 cannot be wholesale discarded by trads because there are some abiding elements of Tradition that are contained in some of the documents.  Those are the features of the Council that are in fact infallible, according to him -- not because V2 as a whole was infallible (something Fr. R denies because Paul VI denied it) but because the deposit of faith is inerrant, and some of that deposit made its way, miraculously perhaps, into the Council documents.

Regarding V1, Fr. R brings that up as a reminder to his listeners that V1 explicitly limited the circumstances in which a Pope is to be considered infallible. 

Pardon my Quebecois, but the bolded makes no damn sense in light of the catechism of St. Pius X.

32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?
A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

I can assure you that the Protestant KJV absolutely contains "some abiding elements of Tradition". I read my way into the Church precisely by reading my dad's own KJV.

But Pius X seems to say it should be burned despite that.

How, then, can Sacred Scripture, malformed as it was by Protestants, the most famous and enduring of which is the KJV,  be considered something that "cannot be wholesale discarded by trads because there are some abiding elements of Tradition that are contained in some of the" pages?

I think it's high time we stop listening to Fr. Ripperger except where he has impeccable sources. The man makes doctrine out of thin air.

You attributed to Fr. R statements and quotes he did not make, nor am I his publicist or spokesperson. He said selected sections of the documents (without naming those), although I would agree with anyone, including you, who would fine few elements of Sacred Tradition within the documents. I'm sure he can back up his own statements with sources, because in fact elsewhere -- including in this series of 10 talks -- he does do so. 

This particular series did not focus on V2.  I think it would the valuable to the Catholic faithful to hear and read such a (different) series, however -- from anyone with theological knowledge, including but not limited to him, but holding me responsible for his words will not get you there.
 

[KreKre]

I make no judgement about the validity of the new rite. Maybe the conditions for the Sacrament are fulfilled, maybe they aren't. I don't know.

What I do know, because it is plainly obvious, is that this new rite is so irreverent, and so watered down, to the point of being almost indistinguishable from a protestant "liturgy," and thus surely damaging to the faith (lex orandi, lex credendi). It is also ripe with abuses, often quite scandalous: priests sometimes improvise and invite laity to participate in ways they shouldn't be allowed to participate. It's all very improper.

I hope that transubstantiation does not take place where there are great abuses in liturgy. Being irreverent to a piece of bread and a cup of wine means nothing, but abusing the most precious Body and Blood our Lord is unthinkable evil. So I hope that, at least at some places, the Sacrament does not actually take place, and it really is just a common meal with prayer, like it is in protestant churches. Because if that is all that it is, it's not that bad, really, just a bunch of old ladies and a hippy priest praying over some snacks... I really hope it's only that.

[Stubborn]

I make no judgement about the validity of the new rite. Maybe the conditions for the Sacrament are fulfilled, maybe they aren't. I don't know.

What I do know, because it is plainly obvious, is that this new rite is so irreverent, and so watered down, to the point of being almost indistinguishable from a protestant "liturgy," and thus surely damaging to the faith (lex orandi, lex credendi). It is also ripe with abuses, often quite scandalous: priests sometimes improvise and invite laity to participate in ways they shouldn't be allowed to participate. It's all very improper.

I hope that transubstantiation does not take place where there are great abuses in liturgy. Being irreverent to a piece of bread and a cup of wine means nothing, but abusing the most precious Body and Blood our Lord is unthinkable evil. So I hope that, at least at some places, the Sacrament does not actually take place, and it really is just a common meal with prayer, like it is in protestant churches. Because if that is all that it is, it's not that bad, really, just a bunch of old ladies and a hippy priest praying over some snacks... I really hope it's only that.

While I agree with the above, changes to the sacraments, including the sacrament of Holy Orders, happened on purpose for a reason. The revolution of V2 needed to touch every single thing, the only exception was the hierarchical structure, everything else got the poison pen.

In yesterday's Gospel, Christ threw out the money changers..."you have made it a den of thieves" He said. What would he do if he walked into any NO church? They are no longer His house, nor are any of them even a house of prayer. What would He do?   I think it's safe to say as it is with all the blasphemies that goes on in there, the question of the validity of the new rites would be just another piece of wood on the pile of rubble. 

[Michael Wilson]

Max,

"At Vatican II the mainstream hierarchy accepted false teachings and created a false "Conciliar Church." However, ordinary lay Catholic faithful can still save their souls because there are groups of dedicated true Catholic priests and bishops who continue to provide valid Catholic sacraments and authentic Catholic doctrine."

True.

Many if not most of the people participating here on SD probably believe a version of this. However, what if this small number of true Catholic faithful groups all declare each other heretics? "Everyone to the left of me is a heretic, and everyone to the right of me is a schismatic," seems to be the position of nearly every group. Often they seem to spend more energy condemning their fellow traditional Catholics than they do defending the Catholic Faith.

There are groups like this and apart from excessive "rigorism" from some trad priests and bishops; most people accept that given the current situation of a lack of a working central authority (or at least of  an diengaged one); trad groups will come up with different solutions to the present crisis. There is also the human element of wanting to keep one's faithful from "leaking" over to the competing trad groups; the best way to do this is to paint a theological picture which would discourage one's faithful from even thinking of such a move.

This is a problem for each of us on a practical level. Probably we have all encountered it while exploring which traditional Catholic group to join. For example, Heinrich's post at the top should be corrected slightly because the SSPV does not accept the Thuc ordinations, and they will not allow you to receive communion at their chapels if you also attend St. Gertrude the Great (Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan, R.I.P.).

Case in point.

But in addition to the practical issue, there is a larger theological issue. If one says that God allowed the mainstream church to fall into apostasy, but he provided us with remnant groups that allow us to save our souls, how can that be squared with the fact that all the various remnant groups condemn each other?

The groups all profess the Catholic faith, and yet they mutually condemn or excommunicate each other, yet they posses no such authority to do any such thing.The honest trad leaders will admit this. I would say that among the sed groups, the CMRI is pretty open about letting non seds and non CMRI seds to go to Mass and receive communion in their chapels. In the R&R category, the SSPX is also pretty lenient, as it does not require the faithful to take an oath to adhere to their position, and welcomes N.O. Catholics to their Mass centers, without giving them the third degree.
On the opposite side was an old trad priest in N.Y.(R.I.P.) That told all his people that the only place that a Catholic could receive valid and licit sacraments, was at his chapel.

[Greg]

Ample proof where I go to Church that the New Rite is evil, as judged by its fruits,

Two masses 9.30am and 11pm.  Same priest, same economic area, posh London suburb of Chislehurst and Orpingtton.

First mass less than 6 children there.  Bunch of old foggies with an average age older than me.  Second mass Latin Rite teaming with children and better attended.  Like getting on for 40 children there every weeks and growing.  An every skin colour under the sun.  Nigerians, Indians, West Indians, you name it.

A night and day contrast.

[LausTibiChriste]

Nigerians, Indians, West Indians, you name it.

A night and day contrast.

Pun intended?