Two giants in the promotion of the Message of Fatima and the restoration of the Catholic Church back to tradition! I attended both of their funerals and these men were richly blessed by God. Father Gruner was a persecuted priest for his fidelity to the Fatima message by wolves in sheep's clothing in his own church. If it weren't for these two people, I don't know where I would be spiritually today. By their writings and talks, they led me to the traditional Catholic movement where I have learned my faith, which had been malformed in the Novus Ordo schools and churches which were changed following Vatican II council.
As time goes by each of us need to be theologians? Each of us on our journey must trust in Our Lord. With these days so many advising us they have the truth or we have the truth. I believe in the True Latin Mass as a ex Protestant, I know God is all merciful , we all need to be like St Francis Of Assisi. Perseverance is the Way , praying and fasting conquers the darkness. God bless all of His Created.
Thank God for the Fatima Center. I stumbled across a video by some sedevacantist which made me question my entire faith. Needless to say I knew where to find the true Catholic answer
Yes, the Catholic faith is still held by groups like the SSPX. It is better to steer away from Sedevecantist groups, because it seems like an easy answer to the crisis in the Church. But our Blessed Mother wants us to stay in the Church and fight for her.
Michael Stefan it’s due to the Holy Spirit. I recently learned that Bishop LeFevre visited Padre Pio for advise because Padre Pio had received dispensation from celebrating The New Mass. Lefeve was not wrong in what he did and we are now seeing why. The Holy Spirit. 💪🏻💜☦️
It's hard to believe that God took father away we all know the message of Fatima father promoted the message it's up to us now from our lady of Fatima to obey it
MICHAEL VORIS SAYS TO LEAVE THE "CHURCH OF NICE"..TO GET OUT. I CAN'T GET TO A LATIN MASS WHICH I DO LOVE. I AM A CONVERT FROM THE ANGLICAN FAITH WITH I WAS 20..AM 71 NOW. DO I NOT GO TO MASS? THAT DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT EITHER. BUT YOU SAY IT IS VALID...I HAVE HEARD SOOOO MANY DIFFERENT IDEAS ON THE NEW MASS! DEAR GOD HAVE MERCY! GOD BLESS...
I know how you feel Patricia. I am in a similar dilemma. I think like James Seary, that we should still go to a post conciliar Mass if we cannot get to a TLM…. However, there are “better” and “worse” post conciliar liturgies. So, I guess we should try to find one which is less Protestant and more”traditional”…. Hard to find, I know. If you are in the UK, there is a lovely Mass said in English at St Gregory and St Augustine in Oxford. It is live-streamed on their website.
I have a question regarding the Sunday Mass obligation. Many followers of the SSPX and SSPV have said that, if the Novus Ordo mass is our only option (no access to either the Latin Mass or Eastern Rite Masses), we cannot attend the Novus Ordo and must keep the Sabbath holy on our own. On the other hand, I have been told by followers of the FSSP and Novus Ordo that to miss Mass simply because it is the New Mass is still a mortal sin. I am afraid to advise anyone to stay home from Mass when this could possibly endanger their souls. I myself would fear for my soul if I missed my Sunday Mass obligation. Any words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration!
Thank you for your question. It is our obligation as Catholics to assist at Holy Mass on Sundays and holy days, but the saying is true, that if there is no (suitable) Mass to miss, one has not missed Mass. Thus although the Blessed Sacrament is presumed to be validly confected in the Liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox churches, it would be a great sin against the First Commandment for us to assist at such rites, the sin of false worship -- not the worship of false gods, but a falsified worship of the true God. We know by divine law, as well as by a defined dogma of Catholic Faith, that the traditional Roman Rite cannot lawfully be supplanted by a new rite by any authority whatsoever, including a Pope's authority. We are bound in conscience to the traditional rites. We encourage you to assist exclusively at traditional Masses. God bless you. ua-cam.com/video/rvqWbxsQ748/v-deo.html
This is an interesting coincidence. I posted information about this on the ChurchMilitantTV forum on Wednesday. The only thing that I quoted was the Council of Trent and Quo Primum. I knew these as the proper references by watching Fr. Grunner and Mr. Venarri on this Channel. I thank you for this. Interestingly, I was slapped on the wrist by the moderator there. He posted something to the effect (it's been deleted now, so I can't copy and paste it) "Wrong. You need to stop listening to spiritual pornography from schismatics and sedevacantists and start listening to real Catholics." Keep in mind that the only thing I referenced was Trent and Quo Primum. Evidently they are now considered spiritual pornography.
CMTV may eventually realize their error, as they have with their former blind defense of Pope Francis (now swinging to the other extreme in calling for his resignation, which laity can not do). Per actual canon law (via experts, priests and bishops knowledgeable in this specific case), the SSPX was never in schism, but CM unfortunately failed to do their research and bought into the false "schismatic" commentary from modernists determined to eliminate the Latin Mass and true faith forever.
Thank you for this important question. For validity (strictly speaking, as opposed to lawfulness, and assuming a proper matter, form, and intention), most of the Sacraments require only the power of Orders -- in other words, a validly ordained priest or bishop. The Sacrament of Penance, however, depends for its validity on the minister having jurisdiction, but this is supplied by the Church in cases of emergency or error. So, yes, the presumption should be that such Sacraments are valid. God bless you.
Am I right or wrong in thinking that if you know that the priest who celebrates Mass does not believe in the real presence you should not go to Holy Communion? This happened to me when I was attending a Catholic Teachers’ Certificate course in the 80s. I did not go to Holy Communion on that occasion.
Thank you for your question. Given our need for the Sacraments and for trustworthy moral and doctrinal guidance, the question of finding good pastors arises long before that of whether to receive at such a Mass. God bless you. sspx.org/en/mass-locator fssp.com/locations/ www.latinmassdir.org/
***** Dear Mr. MacDonald, This is not the sort of question that one would expect to find directly addressed in a dogmatic definition, but many indirect allusions to this fact can be found. Pope Innocent XI in a decree of March 4, 1679 declared that it in the administration of the Sacraments it is not licit to follow a merely probable opinion in preference to a safer opinion. (Denzinger 1151) In this decree the Pope speaks only of the lawfulness of the administration, without any suggestion that the Sacrament would be invalidated. A popular catechism written in 1949 by Bishop Louis Morrow called "My Catholic Faith" includes a discussion of the Church's laws on marriage. Distinguishing diriment (nullifying) impediments to marriage from merely prohibitive impediments, Bishop Morrow says: "Prohibitive impediments render a marriage unlawful, illicit, but valid. In this case, the couple are married, though unlawfully. The marriage cannot be dissolved." (Page 347) A highly regarded moral theology text published in 1958 called "Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities" by John a McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., also makes reference to the fact that the Sacraments are not necessarily invalidated by an unlawful administration: "2669. Lawful Administration of Sacraments.--Lawful administration of a Sacrament demands, in addition to the conditions for validity (2665-2668), that the minister and his ministry be worthy, for even in the Old Law it was strictly commanded that holy things be treated in a holy manner (Isa., lii. 11; Lev., xxi. xxii). Hence, a person who fulfilled the conditions for validity but who lacked one or other of the qualities mentioned below would perform and confer a true Sacrament, but he would sin more or less seriously on account of the unworthy administration, unless good faith excused him." (See archive.org/stream/moraltheologyaco35354gut/pg35354.txt)
Thanks. I think the question should be: Is the New Mass substantially the same as the Tridentine Mass, or is it substantially different? If the New mass is substantially the same as the Tridentine Mass, then I can and should attend it. If the New Mass is substantially different from the Tridentine Mass I should not attend it. In other words, rather than dealing with the concepts/terms "valid" and "licit" we should be dealing with the terms "substance" and "accident". If the New Mass is the same in substance but different accidentally from the Tridentine Mass then I can and should attend it. If the New Mass is substantially different from the Tridentine Mass then I should reject and avoid it as I reject and avoid heresy.
***** Dear Mr. MacDonald, With all respect, your suggestion for simply distinguishing substances and accidents in liturgies would be a dangerous and false solution to the issue. We must remember that false worship is forbidden by the First Commandment, and is grievously sinful. Asking you patience in a lengthy reply, we'll offer a couple of Old Testament examples which emphasize this point very well and show how ill-pleased God is by those who would set aside the laws governing divine worship: "The Philistines...were assembled to fight against Israel, [with] thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and a multitude of people besides, like the sand on the seashore for number. ... And when the men of Israel saw that they were straitened..., they hid themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in dens, and in pits. ... And all the people...were greatly afraid. And [Saul] waited seven days according to the appointment of Samuel, [but] Samuel came not..., and the people slipped away from him [i.e., his soldiers began to desert]. Then Saul said: Bring me the holocaust, and the peace offerings. And he [unlawfully] offered the holocaust. And when he had made an end of offering the holocaust, behold Samuel came: and Saul went forth to meet him and salute him. And Samuel said to him: What hast thou done? Saul answered: Because I...[was] forced by necessity, I offered the holocaust. And Samuel said to Saul: Thou hast done foolishly, and hast not kept the commandments of the Lord...." (1 Kings 13: 5-13) "Ozias...reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem, ...and as long as he sought the Lord, He directed him in all things. ... [A]nd his name went forth far abroad, for the Lord helped him, and had strengthened him. But when he was made strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction, and he neglected the Lord his God: and going into the temple of the Lord, he had a mind to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And immediately Azarias the priest going in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, most valiant men, withstood the king and said: It doth not belong to thee, Ozias, to burn incense to the Lord, but to the priests, that is, to the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated for this ministry: Go out of the sanctuary. Do not despise: for this thing shall not be accounted to thy glory by the Lord God. And Ozias was angry, and holding in his hand the censer to burn incense, he threatened the priests. And presently there arose a leprosy in his forehead.... And Azarias the high priest, and all the rest of the priests looked upon him, and saw the leprosy in his forehead, and they made haste to thrust him out. Yea himself also being frightened, hasted to go out, because he had quickly felt the stroke of the Lord. And Ozias the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and he dwelt in a house apart being full of the leprosy, for which he had been cast out of the house of the Lord." (2 Par 26: 3-5, 15-21) St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this question in his Summa Theologica (II-II q.93 a.1) under the heading of whether there can be anything pernicious in the worship of the true God. He answers: "[I]f anything false is signified by outward worship, this worship will be pernicious. ... [F]alsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshiper ... who, on the part of the Church, gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom."
Daniel Pan Dear Mr. Pan, The promulgation itself of the New Rite is not without question (see for instance sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit). But regardless of the fullness or lack of due form in Pope Paul VI's Constitution, Missale Romanum, no such attempt at legislation can have any effect on this dogma of Faith, that the rites of the Church are traditional. There is no authority in the Church that can authorize the supplanting of the Church's traditional rites by any new rite. References to this teaching: 1) The Council of Constance under Pope Martin V (1417, Session 39, “On the Profession To Be Made by the Pope”) affirmed that even the Pope is bound no less than others of the faithful to the traditional rites of the Sacraments: “Since the Roman pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by THE RITES THAT ARE TO BE OBSERVED REGARDING THE CHURCH’S SACRAMENTS. We therefore decree and ordain, in order that the fullness of the faith may shine in a future Roman pontiff with singular splendor from the earliest moments of his becoming pope, that henceforth whoever is to be elected Roman pontiff shall make the following confession and profession in public, in front of his electors, before his election is published: ‘... I will firmly believe and hold the Catholic Faith, according to the traditions of the apostles, of the general Councils and of other holy fathers, ... and I will preserve this faith unchanged to the last dot ..., and likewise I will follow and observe in every way THE RITE HANDED DOWN OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SACRAMENTS of the Catholic Church. ...’” 2) The Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius IV (1439, Decree for the Greeks, Dz. 692) solemnly defined the teaching that the Sacraments must be confected according to the traditions of the various ritual churches (e.g., Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean) - i.e., according to the received and approved rites proper to each of the Church’s liturgical traditions: “We have likewise defined that the Body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and that priests must effect the Body of Our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM OF HIS CHURCH, whether of the West or of the East.” 3) The Council of Trent under Pope Paul III (1547, Session VII, Canon 13, Dz. 856) further defined that we are bound in conscience to adhere to these liturgical “customs” - i.e., the traditional or “received and approved” liturgical rites. Thus no one in the Church, including the Pope, has the authority to change or displace these received and approved rites for a new rite: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be despised, or may be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or may be CHANGED INTO OTHER NEW RITES BY ANY CHURCH PASTOR WHOSOEVER, let him be anathema.” 4) Pope St. Pius V likewise confirmed in his 1570 Bull, Quo Primum, that the Tridentine Rite is the received and approved rite of Mass to which all Roman-rite Catholics are bound. Regarding your second question, we do not know Father's source for what he wrote about St. Gregory. We will research this point.
***** Dear Mr. Pan, We found a reference supporting Father Gruner's discussion in "Crucial Truths" in "Gregory the Great and His World" by R. A. Markus. Citing Epistula IV, line 37 of the Registrum Epistularum (a collection of Pope Gregory's letters), Professor Markus writes: "The tensions which existed under bishop Laurence were inherited by his successor, Constantius. It is clear that Constantius's position as bishop depended on carefully maintained ambiguity on this subject; an ambiguity which Gregory's advice recommended him to adhere to. He told Constantius to stick to affirming his unwavering adherence to Chalcedon, saying nothing about the Fifth Council...." (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997, p 136) The Second Council of Constantinople is here referred to as the Fifth Council since it was the 5th Ecumenical Council of the Church. "Chalcedon" refers to the Council of Chalcedon -- the Church's 4th Ecumenical Council -- in which Our Lord's two distinct natures being united in His one divine Person was solemnly defined. Pope Vigilius had refused to attend the Second Council of Constantinople but later was persuaded to accept its acts, including a condemnation of certain writings called the Three Chapters which eastern heretics found particularly odious. Pope Vigilius' condescension to this erroneous condemnation caused great scandal and confusion, and Gregory's advice to make no advertence to the scandalous decrees of the Second Council of Constantinople pointed to the fact that the solemn definition of Chalcedon was unaffected by those decrees. Professor Markus also points out that Pope Gregory's predecessors Pelagius I and Pelagius II had taken the same position: "Soon after an armistice arranged with the Lombards in 585 pope Pelagius II resumed attempts to heal the schism. He wrote to Elias and the Istrian bishops reaffirming the papacy's duty of care (citing Matt. 16:18) for all the churches, summoning them tearfully to return to the 'bowels of mother Church,' reassuring them of the integrity of its faith. Like Pelagius I before him, he passed in silence over the Second Council of Constantinople and reaffirmed the faith of the four Councils and especially of Chalcedon. They had no reason, therefore, he urged, to persist in their separation. A second letter shows how embittered the schism had become. It was written in reply to their rejoinder (which has not survived), which the pope described as 'a list of indictments or rather anathemas ... indeed a judgement.' The pope added a compilation of testimonies taken from the papal archive to substantiate the claim that the Fifth Council had decreed 'nothing about the Council of Chalcedon but that the definition of its faith be inviolably upheld.'" (pp 127-128)
Captain Shamrock Yes he did. I think they have about a dozen new ones that had already been recorded, but they are also going to re release the old ones two. This has been my favorite UA-cam program.
Father Gruner died in 2015 and John Vennari died in 2017. These men were true champions for the traditional Catholic faith and the message of Fatima. They were both humble men. Father Gruner was mercilessly persecuted by evil men in the Church. Yet, at his funeral Mass, 150 roses were donated on the morning of his funeral. Our Lady blessed this priest for all of the good work he did for her and her message. John Vennari had the most beautiful funeral Mass as well. Both had traditional requiem Masses with beautiful scholas and choir. They may have suffered in life but I trust that they have been richly rewarded in death.
I go to new mass but am in pain about it. I respond to know lay person except usher. When deacon signals us to rise, I remain in seat. I kneel both knees, receive on tongue then get up. Remain kneeling thru sign of peace....anything I can do more traditional, more respectful. And go to Catholic song to read if Protestant song. Can we make list and put in foyer or hand out!!!!! And finally they don't do well financially because of this garbage
"I kneel both knees, receive on tongue then get up." You're lucky. Some parishioners I have heard were ridiculed and told to stand up or else go elsewhere.
I tried suffering through the new mass, until the priest started chanting prayers to Hindu gods during his homily. I never went back. I travel and stay in a motorhome in border to attend SSPX Masses. I thank God for these good Priests!
What if a priest doesn't believe that the bread and wine do/can become the Body and Blood of Christ? If he doesn't believe, he can't have the proper intention. Without the intention, can transubstantiation take place?
The Eucharist is still valid even if the priest doesn't believe. It's not the priests faith that makes the Eucharist the real presence. It's the ritual and repeating of the words of Christ "this IS my body" etc. Also the priests consecrated hands. So the Eucharist is still valid. I think the first Eucharistic miracle recorded Happened through a priest who didn't believe. Of course after the host began to bleed into his hands , sure enough he believed
New mass old mass when on the day of reckoning the King will divide us in two then he will say to those in his left depart from me because they fail to love and those in the right come to the blessings kept for you. No new mass no old mass mentioned. The one who loves is known by God.
The new Mass retains only about 13% of the prayers in the Traditional Latin Mass. It can be valid but it is also possible in many cases it is not. In the ultimate analysis, the new Mass is not Catholic. Pope Paul VI asked about 7 Protestant ministers what should be included in the new Mass. And many Protestant ministers have said they would have no problem using the new Mass liturgy.
So that's all great, but I don't have a latin mass to go to. The only thing other than the Novus Ordo around where I live is the maronite liturgy, but that's even worse than the Novus Ordo!
With all respect to your judgment in the matter, we offer some avenues for your further investigation of the question. In our view, the issue of the SSPX's present licit standing hinges on the highly questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975. (See sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx) As the members of the Society seem rightly to maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." (sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3) God bless you.
TheFatimaCenter Thanks for that, but it isn't my judgment; it's the judgment of the Pope Benedict XVI as spelled out in his letter to the bishops of the world concerning the matter. God bless you as well!
Thank you for your question. Do you refer to Eastern Orthodoxy? We find no reference to it in this video, but perhaps you mean to ask about it in a context unrelated to this video presentation? God bless you.
The Novus Ordo Mass is invalid and an apostate act of the fallen Church. This is not so because some laymen such as myself may have opinions on the matter which define it to be invalid. Neither is this so because of the change of words in the form of consecration from many to all although that is a factor of changing the form of Scripture and the Mass. It is not invalid because of a sedevacantist position that Paul VI was not a valid Pope although that also is a factor. It is invalid because the Latin Mass was codified and infallibly declared, defined and decreed to be "absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used" (Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V). This means you cannot use any other form. Furthermore in the Council of Trent is defined, declared, decreed infallibly: "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, OR BE CHANGED, by whomsoever pastor of the churches, into other new ones; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA (Sess. 7, Cannon 13 of Trent). When a Pope or Council solumly defines, declares or decrees a particular matter to be held by all the church for all time no one can change or undermine such a infallibly doctrine. It remains for all eternity in continuity with the eternal word part of the deposit of the faith that all Catholics are bound. Paul VI and the Vatican since in creating the new mas have deliberately disobeyed these solemn declarations on the matter of the liturgy. The Mass is the one same sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Imagine directing your attention to one another as the focal point instead of Christ in his one same sacrifice which transcends time and space every time a Priest says in in the same way Christ did with his apostles on holy Thursday. The new mass created was a direct act of disobedience and apostasy on the part of the hierarchy. Acts of disobedience and apostasy hold no value in matters of the infallible Catholic faith. The Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V have made this very clear.
Bud V You're being pedantic. If you believe in papal infallibility than they can infallibly change the rules. To deny that is to deny papal infallibility and to depart from the path of Catholicism. You have, in effect, appointed yourself pope of your own religion. Congratulations, Your holiness.
Tin Man the doctrine of papal infallibility defined in Vatican I declares that when the Pope defines, declares, decrees something in matters of faith and morals to be held by all the church of all time it becomes an infallible clarification of divine revelation revealed in the word through his Church in apostolic authority. In the case of the traditional Latin mass it was codified and declared in such an infallible way by Pope St. Pius V that it remains from that point in the clearest possible way what was already revealed by Christ through the apostles as the deposit of faith. Such an infallible doctrine also confirmed by the council of Trent by the infallible magisterium in an extraordinary manner of the Church is binding on all the faithful including future pontiffs. For anyone from that point on to reject this clear definition and accept or change it to another form is to loose the faith or reject it. In this case it was an attempt to change the form that could not be changed without the penalty of cutting oneself off by rejecting the one same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that cannot ever change. Therefore if a doctrine has been proclaimed by the infallible magisterium or by a Pope in such an extraordinary way as has the Latin Mass in Quo Primum and Trent has, it then becomes an infallible declaration to be held by all for all time. If another future Pope or member of the Church of whatever rank changes such an infallible doctrine in matter or form and supposedly it is to be believed as valid then the doctrine of papal infallibility has already failed. Because what was previously declared to be binding on all infallibly by a Pope and Council was supposedly wrong and by changing it would prove its fallacy. A future pope or any member whomever they may be cannot infallibly change what has already been infallibly declared by the infallible word of God through his Church. No Pope or anyone whomever they may be has the authority to contradict any article of divine revelation as has been revealed and handed down in the same meaning and sense the Catholic Church has always held. As far as their free will they may choose freely to contradict the faith and still call it the faith but being that divine revelation and the mystical body itself is infallible it cannot error. They will as declared by the Church inherit the wrath of almighty God. What Christ offered up to the eternal Father remains as declared by the infallible declaration of the infallible magisterium faithful to Tradition (the deposit of the faith) in Quo Primum and Trent the deposit of the infallible declared Catholic faith concerning how the Sacrifice is to be made in form.
Bud V I take your point but have you considered how you'd have reacted to the council of Trent had you been there? In those days what we call the "traditional" mass was the new mass, presumably superseding older forms. Don't you suppose there were folks at Trent who objected to the change on the same grounds on which you object to Novus Ordo? Seems to me that you invoke papal infallibility and deny it in the same breath. Thus you put your finger on the reason that there's hundreds & hundreds of denominations and sects, all of them changing over time and all claiming to be more valid than the rest.
Tin Man When a heretic like Martin Luther rejects the Catholic faith and seeks to change the form of the faith by changing the Mass it was necessary for the Church to declare in a clear manner what consists of the faith and the proper form to be used by all for all time that no other future heritics do not deceive any of the faithful. This is what Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent did. They obviously had the authority to do so by Christ through apostolic succession. In any changes made they did not change the essence of what was held and passed on through sacred Tradition in the same meaning and sense the Catholic Church has always held. Therefore they acted in their proper authority, right or obligation to do so. The small changes made in Trent were not changes but clarifications to what was already of the faith. As was all the doctrine declared to all in opposition to the heresies out there proclaimed by people like Martin Luther. The Church has a right to clarify what consists of Divine Revelation in the deposit of the faith. Anti pope Paul VI on the other hand was seeking to adapt to the modern world not defend the faith from it. In his changes made creating a new order "Novus Ordo" of the mass he changed it to conform to center all towards man in stead of Christ. This was an act of apostasy not a matter of clarification of the faith on the mass. The small changes in Trent in union with the faith do not compare to the direct disobedience of Paul VI in his "New Order" of the mass. One is clarification of the faith the other is changing the faith to something else that was never held and forbidden to hold. What was infallibly declared in Trent concerning anyone who seeks to change the mass as did Paul VI did I just simply observer him for such an act to be cut off from the mystical body of Christ. I observe the declared proclamation of Trent that said "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, OR BE CHANGED, by whomsoever pastors of the churches, into other NEW ones; (I like this part right here) LET HIM BE ANATHEMA." That was from Trent which I would not disagree even if I had been there at the time. By recognizing the declared infallible doctrine of the Catholic faith and seeking to keep and adhere to this faith while the false leadership of the fallen Church seeks otherwise I do not make myself the pope. I simply keep the faith observing others who were in positions of authority excommunicating themselves. "The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy" (Second Council of Constantinople 553 A.D.). It's like the they are committing spiritual suicide. I see how sad it truly is but how it does not effect those who stand fast in the faith in a time of the greatest apostasy the church has ever had. Besides all of this is part of Scripture and must come to pass. When St. John the Baptist stood up before king Herod and told him he was wrong for sleeping with his brothers wife he didn't make himself king. He simply spoke the truth.
Bud V If I'm not mistaken Luther's position had a close parallel to your own in the sense that he did not feel that he'd departed from the true faith, he thought it was the magisterium that went astray. For my part I think we paint ourselves into a corner when we hang our hats on infallible, ex cathedra proclamations. No matter how we interpret them we must perform adept mental gymnastics to reconcile the contradictions. For example: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." --Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of Boniface VIII "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." --Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council I think you'll agree that modern Roman Catholic teaching contradicts those "infallible" statements. And yet, to consequently declare such teachings invalid is to deny the infallible statements one seeks to defend. Catch-22.
@6:25 - This is the support he gives to support his claim that "They cannot make a new mass" Canon 7 of Session 13: "CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema." www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch13.htm So I'm done with video, and after this and also reading the comments, where Fatima Center suggests going to SSPX and not Ordinary Form masses, I'm probably done with this channel now, too.
Thank you for your comment with citation drawn from Session 13. The text in question, however, is Session 7's treatment of the Sacraments in General, Canon 13. The translation given on the site which you referenced is not the best, but it is clear enough: CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema. www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm God bless you.
Two giants in the promotion of the Message of Fatima and the restoration of the Catholic Church back to tradition! I attended both of their funerals and these men were richly blessed by God. Father Gruner was a persecuted priest for his fidelity to the Fatima message by wolves in sheep's clothing in his own church. If it weren't for these two people, I don't know where I would be spiritually today. By their writings and talks, they led me to the traditional Catholic movement where I have learned my faith, which had been malformed in the Novus Ordo schools and churches which were changed following Vatican II council.
Hi Monique
And now they're both dead and they know everything...
RIP
James B They are LIVING in the Father’s presence in Heaven. They are both with Jesus of Nazareth ✝️♥️
very sad. great men.
God bless them
You know everything in purgatory? 🤔
Rosary is needed more than ever.Pray it whenever you can including during Mass
As time goes by each of us need to be theologians? Each of us on our journey must trust in Our Lord. With these days so many advising us they have the truth or we have the truth. I believe in the True Latin Mass as a ex Protestant, I know God is all merciful , we all need to be like St Francis Of Assisi. Perseverance is the Way , praying and fasting conquers the darkness. God bless all of His Created.
Thank God for the Fatima Center. I stumbled across a video by some sedevacantist which made me question my entire faith. Needless to say I knew where to find the true Catholic answer
Yes, the Catholic faith is still held by groups like the SSPX. It is better to steer away from Sedevecantist groups, because it seems like an easy answer to the crisis in the Church. But our Blessed Mother wants us to stay in the Church and fight for her.
St. Pius X was way ahead of this curve....
He saw the future i guess
Michael Stefan it’s due to the Holy Spirit. I recently learned that Bishop LeFevre visited Padre Pio for advise because Padre Pio had received dispensation from celebrating The New Mass. Lefeve was not wrong in what he did and we are now seeing why. The Holy Spirit. 💪🏻💜☦️
It's hard to believe that God took father away we all know the message of Fatima father promoted the message it's up to us now from our lady of Fatima to obey it
MICHAEL VORIS SAYS TO LEAVE THE "CHURCH OF NICE"..TO GET OUT. I CAN'T GET TO A LATIN MASS WHICH I DO LOVE. I AM A CONVERT FROM THE ANGLICAN FAITH WITH I WAS 20..AM 71 NOW. DO I NOT GO TO MASS? THAT DOES NOT SEEM RIGHT EITHER. BUT YOU SAY IT IS VALID...I HAVE HEARD SOOOO MANY DIFFERENT IDEAS ON THE NEW MASS! DEAR GOD HAVE MERCY! GOD BLESS...
Michael Voris doesn't say not to go to mass even if it's the church of nice. You must keep going especially if that's the only one near you.
I know how you feel Patricia. I am in a similar dilemma. I think like James Seary, that we should still go to a post conciliar Mass if we cannot get to a TLM…. However, there are “better” and “worse” post conciliar liturgies. So, I guess we should try to find one which is less Protestant and more”traditional”…. Hard to find, I know. If you are in the UK, there is a lovely Mass said in English at St Gregory and St Augustine in Oxford. It is live-streamed on their website.
Best episode ever!
I think in late summer of 2021 we can answer the question of validity
I have a question regarding the Sunday Mass obligation. Many followers of the SSPX and SSPV have said that, if the Novus Ordo mass is our only option (no access to either the Latin Mass or Eastern Rite Masses), we cannot attend the Novus Ordo and must keep the Sabbath holy on our own. On the other hand, I have been told by followers of the FSSP and Novus Ordo that to miss Mass simply because it is the New Mass is still a mortal sin. I am afraid to advise anyone to stay home from Mass when this could possibly endanger their souls. I myself would fear for my soul if I missed my Sunday Mass obligation.
Any words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Thank you for your question. It is our obligation as Catholics to assist at Holy Mass on Sundays and holy days, but the saying is true, that if there is no (suitable) Mass to miss, one has not missed Mass. Thus although the Blessed Sacrament is presumed to be validly confected in the Liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox churches, it would be a great sin against the First Commandment for us to assist at such rites, the sin of false worship -- not the worship of false gods, but a falsified worship of the true God.
We know by divine law, as well as by a defined dogma of Catholic Faith, that the traditional Roman Rite cannot lawfully be supplanted by a new rite by any authority whatsoever, including a Pope's authority. We are bound in conscience to the traditional rites. We encourage you to assist exclusively at traditional Masses. God bless you.
ua-cam.com/video/rvqWbxsQ748/v-deo.html
@@TheFatimaCenter THANK YOU!!!
This is an interesting coincidence. I posted information about this on the ChurchMilitantTV forum on Wednesday. The only thing that I quoted was the Council of Trent and Quo Primum. I knew these as the proper references by watching Fr. Grunner and Mr. Venarri on this Channel. I thank you for this. Interestingly, I was slapped on the wrist by the moderator there. He posted something to the effect (it's been deleted now, so I can't copy and paste it) "Wrong. You need to stop listening to spiritual pornography from schismatics and sedevacantists and start listening to real Catholics." Keep in mind that the only thing I referenced was Trent and Quo Primum. Evidently they are now considered spiritual pornography.
Magickirk1 -:
Quite a number of Catholics became disillusioned with CMTV. A big part of it came when CMTV started attacking Archbishop Levebvre.
I became disillusioned with Church Militant during Lent
Perhaps anything prior to Vatican II is "spiritual pornography".
CMTV may eventually realize their error, as they have with their former blind defense of Pope Francis (now swinging to the other extreme in calling for his resignation, which laity can not do). Per actual canon law (via experts, priests and bishops knowledgeable in this specific case), the SSPX was never in schism, but CM unfortunately failed to do their research and bought into the false "schismatic" commentary from modernists determined to eliminate the Latin Mass and true faith forever.
Yes, thank you. Jeremiah 9:5, freemasons, it’s everywhere.
What about the opposite. Are sacraments like confirmation and reconciliation valid when performed by a Sedevacantis priest and bishop?
Thank you for this important question. For validity (strictly speaking, as opposed to lawfulness, and assuming a proper matter, form, and intention), most of the Sacraments require only the power of Orders -- in other words, a validly ordained priest or bishop. The Sacrament of Penance, however, depends for its validity on the minister having jurisdiction, but this is supplied by the Church in cases of emergency or error. So, yes, the presumption should be that such Sacraments are valid. God bless you.
Am I right or wrong in thinking that if you know that the priest who celebrates Mass does not believe in the real presence you should not go to Holy Communion? This happened to me when I was attending a Catholic Teachers’ Certificate course in the 80s. I did not go to Holy Communion on that occasion.
Thank you for your question. Given our need for the Sacraments and for trustworthy moral and doctrinal guidance, the question of finding good pastors arises long before that of whether to receive at such a Mass. God bless you.
sspx.org/en/mass-locator
fssp.com/locations/
www.latinmassdir.org/
@@TheFatimaCenter Thank you very much for your clear answer.
What Catholic dogma states the mass can be both valid and illicit? Is that in a dogmatics book somewhere I can read? A reference would be appreciated.
***** Dear Mr. MacDonald, This is not the sort of question that one would expect to find directly addressed in a dogmatic definition, but many indirect allusions to this fact can be found. Pope Innocent XI in a decree of March 4, 1679 declared that it in the administration of the Sacraments it is not licit to follow a merely probable opinion in preference to a safer opinion. (Denzinger 1151) In this decree the Pope speaks only of the lawfulness of the administration, without any suggestion that the Sacrament would be invalidated.
A popular catechism written in 1949 by Bishop Louis Morrow called "My Catholic Faith" includes a discussion of the Church's laws on marriage. Distinguishing diriment (nullifying) impediments to marriage from merely prohibitive impediments, Bishop Morrow says: "Prohibitive impediments render a marriage unlawful, illicit, but valid. In this case, the couple are married, though unlawfully. The marriage cannot be dissolved." (Page 347)
A highly regarded moral theology text published in 1958 called "Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities" by John a McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., also makes reference to the fact that the Sacraments are not necessarily invalidated by an unlawful administration:
"2669. Lawful Administration of Sacraments.--Lawful administration of a Sacrament demands, in addition to the conditions for validity (2665-2668), that the minister and his ministry be worthy, for even in the Old Law it was strictly commanded that holy things be treated in a holy manner (Isa., lii. 11; Lev., xxi. xxii). Hence, a person who
fulfilled the conditions for validity but who lacked one or other of the qualities mentioned below would perform and confer a true Sacrament, but he would sin more or less seriously on account of the unworthy administration, unless good faith excused him." (See archive.org/stream/moraltheologyaco35354gut/pg35354.txt)
Thanks. I think the question should be: Is the New Mass substantially the same as the Tridentine Mass, or is it substantially different? If the New mass is substantially the same as the Tridentine Mass, then I can and should attend it. If the New Mass is substantially different from the Tridentine Mass I should not attend it. In other words, rather than dealing with the concepts/terms "valid" and "licit" we should be dealing with the terms "substance" and "accident". If the New Mass is the same in substance but different accidentally from the Tridentine Mass then I can and should attend it. If the New Mass is substantially different from the Tridentine Mass then I should reject and avoid it as I reject and avoid heresy.
***** Dear Mr. MacDonald, With all respect, your suggestion for simply distinguishing substances and accidents in liturgies would be a dangerous and false solution to the issue. We must remember that false worship is forbidden by the First Commandment, and is grievously sinful. Asking you patience in a lengthy reply, we'll offer a couple of Old Testament examples which emphasize this point very well and show how ill-pleased God is by those who would set aside the laws governing divine worship:
"The Philistines...were assembled to fight against Israel, [with] thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and a multitude of people besides, like the sand on the seashore for number. ... And when the men of Israel saw that they were straitened..., they hid themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in dens, and in pits. ... And all the people...were greatly afraid. And [Saul] waited seven days according to the appointment of Samuel, [but] Samuel came not..., and the people slipped away from him [i.e., his soldiers began to desert]. Then Saul said: Bring me the holocaust, and the peace offerings. And he [unlawfully] offered the holocaust. And when he had made an end of offering the holocaust, behold Samuel came: and Saul went forth to meet him and salute him. And Samuel said to him: What hast thou done? Saul answered: Because I...[was] forced by necessity, I offered the holocaust. And Samuel said to Saul: Thou hast done foolishly, and hast not kept the commandments of the Lord...." (1 Kings 13: 5-13)
"Ozias...reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem, ...and as long as he sought the Lord, He directed him in all things. ... [A]nd his name went forth far abroad, for the Lord helped him, and had strengthened him. But when he was made strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction, and he neglected the Lord his God: and going into the temple of the Lord, he had a mind to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And immediately Azarias the priest going in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, most valiant men, withstood the king and said: It doth not belong to thee, Ozias, to burn incense to the Lord, but to the priests, that is, to the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated for this ministry: Go out of the sanctuary. Do not despise: for this thing shall not be accounted to thy glory by the Lord God. And Ozias was angry, and holding in his hand the censer to burn incense, he threatened the priests. And presently there arose a leprosy in his forehead.... And Azarias the high priest, and all the rest of the priests looked upon him, and saw the leprosy in his forehead, and they made haste to thrust him out. Yea himself also being frightened, hasted to go out, because he had quickly felt the stroke of the Lord. And Ozias the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and he dwelt in a house apart being full of the leprosy, for which he had been cast out of the house of the Lord." (2 Par 26: 3-5, 15-21)
St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this question in his Summa Theologica (II-II q.93 a.1) under the heading of whether there can be anything pernicious in the worship of the true God. He answers: "[I]f anything false is signified by outward worship, this worship will be pernicious. ... [F]alsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshiper ... who, on the part of the Church, gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom."
Daniel Pan Dear Mr. Pan, The promulgation itself of the New Rite is not without question (see for instance sspx.org/en/new-mass-legit). But regardless of the fullness or lack of due form in Pope Paul VI's Constitution, Missale Romanum, no such attempt at legislation can have any effect on this dogma of Faith, that the rites of the Church are traditional. There is no authority in the Church that can authorize the supplanting of the Church's traditional rites by any new rite.
References to this teaching:
1) The Council of Constance under Pope Martin V (1417, Session 39, “On the Profession To Be Made by the Pope”) affirmed that even the Pope is bound no less than others of the faithful to the traditional rites of the Sacraments:
“Since the Roman pontiff exercises such great power among mortals, it is right that he be bound all the more by the incontrovertible bonds of the faith and by THE RITES THAT ARE TO BE OBSERVED REGARDING THE CHURCH’S SACRAMENTS. We therefore decree and ordain, in order that the fullness of the faith may shine in a future Roman pontiff with singular splendor from the earliest moments of his becoming pope, that henceforth whoever is to be elected Roman pontiff shall make the following confession and profession in public, in front of his electors, before his election is published: ‘... I will firmly believe and hold the Catholic Faith, according to the traditions of the apostles, of the general Councils and of other holy fathers, ... and I will preserve this faith unchanged to the last dot ..., and likewise I will follow and observe in every way THE RITE HANDED DOWN OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SACRAMENTS of the Catholic Church. ...’”
2) The Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius IV (1439, Decree for the Greeks, Dz. 692) solemnly defined the teaching that the Sacraments must be confected according to the traditions of the various ritual churches (e.g., Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean) - i.e., according to the received and approved rites proper to each of the Church’s liturgical traditions:
“We have likewise defined that the Body of Christ is truly effected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and that priests must effect the Body of Our Lord in either one of these, and each one namely ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOM OF HIS CHURCH, whether of the West or of the East.”
3) The Council of Trent under Pope Paul III (1547, Session VII, Canon 13, Dz. 856) further defined that we are bound in conscience to adhere to these liturgical “customs” - i.e., the traditional or “received and approved” liturgical rites. Thus no one in the Church, including the Pope, has the authority to change or displace these received and approved rites for a new rite:
“If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church customarily used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be despised, or may be freely omitted by the ministers without sin, or may be CHANGED INTO OTHER NEW RITES BY ANY CHURCH PASTOR WHOSOEVER, let him be anathema.”
4) Pope St. Pius V likewise confirmed in his 1570 Bull, Quo Primum, that the Tridentine Rite is the received and approved rite of Mass to which all Roman-rite Catholics are bound.
Regarding your second question, we do not know Father's source for what he wrote about St. Gregory. We will research this point.
***** Dear Mr. Pan,
We found a reference supporting Father Gruner's discussion in "Crucial Truths" in "Gregory the Great and His World" by R. A. Markus.
Citing Epistula IV, line 37 of the Registrum Epistularum (a collection of Pope Gregory's letters), Professor Markus writes: "The tensions which existed under bishop Laurence were inherited by his successor, Constantius. It is clear that Constantius's position as bishop depended on carefully maintained ambiguity on this subject; an ambiguity which Gregory's advice recommended him to adhere to. He told Constantius to stick to affirming his unwavering adherence to Chalcedon, saying nothing about the Fifth Council...." (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997, p 136)
The Second Council of Constantinople is here referred to as the Fifth Council since it was the 5th Ecumenical Council of the Church. "Chalcedon" refers to the Council of Chalcedon -- the Church's 4th Ecumenical Council -- in which Our Lord's two distinct natures being united in His one divine Person was solemnly defined.
Pope Vigilius had refused to attend the Second Council of Constantinople but later was persuaded to accept its acts, including a condemnation of certain writings called the Three Chapters which eastern heretics found particularly odious. Pope Vigilius' condescension to this erroneous condemnation caused great scandal and confusion, and Gregory's advice to make no advertence to the scandalous decrees of the Second Council of Constantinople pointed to the fact that the solemn definition of Chalcedon was unaffected by those decrees.
Professor Markus also points out that Pope Gregory's predecessors Pelagius I and Pelagius II had taken the same position: "Soon after an armistice arranged with the Lombards in 585 pope Pelagius II resumed attempts to heal the schism. He wrote to Elias and the Istrian bishops reaffirming the papacy's duty of care (citing Matt. 16:18) for all the churches, summoning them tearfully to return to the 'bowels of mother Church,' reassuring them of the integrity of its faith. Like Pelagius I before him, he passed in silence over the Second Council of Constantinople and reaffirmed the faith of the four Councils and especially of Chalcedon. They had no reason, therefore, he urged, to persist in their separation. A second letter shows how embittered the schism had become. It was written in reply to their rejoinder (which has not survived), which the pope described as 'a list of indictments or rather anathemas ... indeed a judgement.' The pope added a compilation of testimonies taken from the papal archive to substantiate the claim that the Fifth Council had decreed 'nothing about the Council of Chalcedon but that the definition of its faith be inviolably upheld.'" (pp 127-128)
Is this an old video. Didnt Fr Gruner pass away recently?
Captain Shamrock Yes he did. I think they have about a dozen new ones that had already been recorded, but they are also going to re release the old ones two. This has been my favorite UA-cam program.
Father Gruner died in 2015 and John Vennari died in 2017. These men were true champions for the traditional Catholic faith and the message of Fatima. They were both humble men. Father Gruner was mercilessly persecuted by evil men in the Church. Yet, at his funeral Mass, 150 roses were donated on the morning of his funeral. Our Lady blessed this priest for all of the good work he did for her and her message. John Vennari had the most beautiful funeral Mass as well. Both had traditional requiem Masses with beautiful scholas and choir. They may have suffered in life but I trust that they have been richly rewarded in death.
I go to new mass but am in pain about it. I respond to know lay person except usher. When deacon signals us to rise, I remain in seat. I kneel both knees, receive on tongue then get up. Remain kneeling thru sign of peace....anything I can do more traditional, more respectful. And go to Catholic song to read if Protestant song. Can we make list and put in foyer or hand out!!!!! And finally they don't do well financially because of this garbage
"I kneel both knees, receive on tongue then get up."
You're lucky. Some parishioners I have heard were ridiculed and told to stand up or else go elsewhere.
There is no new mass in the Roman Rite. You must find a Mass, as celebrated before the 1960's.
I tried suffering through the new mass, until the priest started chanting prayers to Hindu gods during his homily. I never went back. I travel and stay in a motorhome in border to attend SSPX Masses. I thank God for these good Priests!
as we pray so we live and worship. latin is dead language so it can't be misinterpreted.
laguage is logos
Masonry sounds like the CDC
It's actually the same agenda, world government and one world religion. Artificial state of emergency for purpose of controlling masses.
What if a priest doesn't believe that the bread and wine do/can become the Body and Blood of Christ? If he doesn't believe, he can't have the proper intention. Without the intention, can transubstantiation take place?
The Eucharist is still valid even if the priest doesn't believe. It's not the priests faith that makes the Eucharist the real presence. It's the ritual and repeating of the words of Christ "this IS my body" etc. Also the priests consecrated hands. So the Eucharist is still valid. I think the first Eucharistic miracle recorded Happened through a priest who didn't believe. Of course after the host began to bleed into his hands , sure enough he believed
New mass old mass when on the day of reckoning the King will divide us in two then he will say to those in his left depart from me because they fail to love and those in the right come to the blessings kept for you. No new mass no old mass mentioned. The one who loves is known by God.
introducing a second """"form"""" of the Holy Roman Mass is so confusing and unnecessary
It's not a second form, but a non-Catholic replacement for the Mass. As Mr V said, it's a liturgy for a new religion.
The new Mass retains only about 13% of the prayers in the Traditional Latin Mass. It can be valid but it is also possible in many cases it is not. In the ultimate analysis, the new Mass is not Catholic. Pope Paul VI asked about 7 Protestant ministers what should be included in the new Mass. And many Protestant ministers have said they would have no problem using the new Mass liturgy.
So that's all great, but I don't have a latin mass to go to. The only thing other than the Novus Ordo around where I live is the maronite liturgy, but that's even worse than the Novus Ordo!
sspx.org/en/mass-locator
TheFatimaCenter well thank you, but I don't attend SSPX; they don't exercise legitimate ministry within the Church.
With all respect to your judgment in the matter, we offer some avenues for your further investigation of the question. In our view, the issue of the SSPX's present licit standing hinges on the highly questionable validity of the supposed suppression of the Society in 1975. (See sspx.org/en/legal-existence-sspx)
As the members of the Society seem rightly to maintain, "Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of common sense: whether one must observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the identity or authority of the judge is unsure." (sspx.org/en/faq-page/wasnt-the-sspx-suppressed-faq3)
God bless you.
TheFatimaCenter Thanks for that, but it isn't my judgment; it's the judgment of the Pope Benedict XVI as spelled out in his letter to the bishops of the world concerning the matter.
God bless you as well!
Gregory Vess Is there not a Latin mass finder that can locate one supported by the local diocese?
What's to discuss?
I don't rinse with the secular mouthwash.
Catholicism in it's recent dispensation is as wet-sheet of a religion as Anglicanism.
How is it possible for Catholics to deny Orthodoxy? Its beyond heresy. Please explain this evil position.
Thank you for your question. Do you refer to Eastern Orthodoxy? We find no reference to it in this video, but perhaps you mean to ask about it in a context unrelated to this video presentation? God bless you.
The Novus Ordo Mass is invalid and an apostate act of the fallen Church. This is not so because some laymen such as myself may have opinions on the matter which define it to be invalid. Neither is this so because of the change of words in the form of consecration from many to all although that is a factor of changing the form of Scripture and the Mass. It is not invalid because of a sedevacantist position that Paul VI was not a valid Pope although that also is a factor. It is invalid because the Latin Mass was codified and infallibly declared, defined and decreed to be "absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used" (Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V). This means you cannot use any other form. Furthermore in the Council of Trent is defined, declared, decreed infallibly: "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, OR BE CHANGED, by whomsoever pastor of the churches, into other new ones; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA (Sess. 7, Cannon 13 of Trent).
When a Pope or Council solumly defines, declares or decrees a particular matter to be held by all the church for all time no one can change or undermine such a infallibly doctrine. It remains for all eternity in continuity with the eternal word part of the deposit of the faith that all Catholics are bound. Paul VI and the Vatican since in creating the new mas have deliberately disobeyed these solemn declarations on the matter of the liturgy. The Mass is the one same sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Imagine directing your attention to one another as the focal point instead of Christ in his one same sacrifice which transcends time and space every time a Priest says in in the same way Christ did with his apostles on holy Thursday. The new mass created was a direct act of disobedience and apostasy on the part of the hierarchy. Acts of disobedience and apostasy hold no value in matters of the infallible Catholic faith. The Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V have made this very clear.
Bud V You're being pedantic. If you believe in papal infallibility than they can infallibly change the rules. To deny that is to deny papal infallibility and to depart from the path of Catholicism. You have, in effect, appointed yourself pope of your own religion. Congratulations, Your holiness.
Tin Man the doctrine of papal infallibility defined in Vatican I declares that when the Pope defines, declares, decrees something in matters of faith and morals to be held by all the church of all time it becomes an infallible clarification of divine revelation revealed in the word through his Church in apostolic authority.
In the case of the traditional Latin mass it was codified and declared in such an infallible way by Pope St. Pius V that it remains from that point in the clearest possible way what was already revealed by Christ through the apostles as the deposit of faith. Such an infallible doctrine also confirmed by the council of Trent by the infallible magisterium in an extraordinary manner of the Church is binding on all the faithful including future pontiffs. For anyone from that point on to reject this clear definition and accept or change it to another form is to loose the faith or reject it. In this case it was an attempt to change the form that could not be changed without the penalty of cutting oneself off by rejecting the one same sacrifice of Christ on Calvary in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that cannot ever change.
Therefore if a doctrine has been proclaimed by the infallible magisterium or by a Pope in such an extraordinary way as has the Latin Mass in Quo Primum and Trent has, it then becomes an infallible declaration to be held by all for all time. If another future Pope or member of the Church of whatever rank changes such an infallible doctrine in matter or form and supposedly it is to be believed as valid then the doctrine of papal infallibility has already failed. Because what was previously declared to be binding on all infallibly by a Pope and Council was supposedly wrong and by changing it would prove its fallacy. A future pope or any member whomever they may be cannot infallibly change what has already been infallibly declared by the infallible word of God through his Church.
No Pope or anyone whomever they may be has the authority to contradict any article of divine revelation as has been revealed and handed down in the same meaning and sense the Catholic Church has always held. As far as their free will they may choose freely to contradict the faith and still call it the faith but being that divine revelation and the mystical body itself is infallible it cannot error. They will as declared by the Church inherit the wrath of almighty God. What Christ offered up to the eternal Father remains as declared by the infallible declaration of the infallible magisterium faithful to Tradition (the deposit of the faith) in Quo Primum and Trent the deposit of the infallible declared Catholic faith concerning how the Sacrifice is to be made in form.
Bud V I take your point but have you considered how you'd have reacted to the council of Trent had you been there? In those days what we call the "traditional" mass was the new mass, presumably superseding older forms. Don't you suppose there were folks at Trent who objected to the change on the same grounds on which you object to Novus Ordo? Seems to me that you invoke papal infallibility and deny it in the same breath. Thus you put your finger on the reason that there's hundreds & hundreds of denominations and sects, all of them changing over time and all claiming to be more valid than the rest.
Tin Man When a heretic like Martin Luther rejects the Catholic faith and seeks to change the form of the faith by changing the Mass it was necessary for the Church to declare in a clear manner what consists of the faith and the proper form to be used by all for all time that no other future heritics do not deceive any of the faithful. This is what Pope St. Pius V and the Council of Trent did. They obviously had the authority to do so by Christ through apostolic succession. In any changes made they did not change the essence of what was held and passed on through sacred Tradition in the same meaning and sense the Catholic Church has always held. Therefore they acted in their proper authority, right or obligation to do so. The small changes made in Trent were not changes but clarifications to what was already of the faith. As was all the doctrine declared to all in opposition to the heresies out there proclaimed by people like Martin Luther. The Church has a right to clarify what consists of Divine Revelation in the deposit of the faith.
Anti pope Paul VI on the other hand was seeking to adapt to the modern world not defend the faith from it. In his changes made creating a new order "Novus Ordo" of the mass he changed it to conform to center all towards man in stead of Christ. This was an act of apostasy not a matter of clarification of the faith on the mass. The small changes in Trent in union with the faith do not compare to the direct disobedience of Paul VI in his "New Order" of the mass. One is clarification of the faith the other is changing the faith to something else that was never held and forbidden to hold. What was infallibly declared in Trent concerning anyone who seeks to change the mass as did Paul VI did I just simply observer him for such an act to be cut off from the mystical body of Christ. I observe the declared proclamation of Trent that said "If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, OR BE CHANGED, by whomsoever pastors of the churches, into other NEW ones; (I like this part right here) LET HIM BE ANATHEMA." That was from Trent which I would not disagree even if I had been there at the time.
By recognizing the declared infallible doctrine of the Catholic faith and seeking to keep and adhere to this faith while the false leadership of the fallen Church seeks otherwise I do not make myself the pope. I simply keep the faith observing others who were in positions of authority excommunicating themselves. "The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy" (Second Council of Constantinople 553 A.D.). It's like the they are committing spiritual suicide. I see how sad it truly is but how it does not effect those who stand fast in the faith in a time of the greatest apostasy the church has ever had. Besides all of this is part of Scripture and must come to pass. When St. John the Baptist stood up before king Herod and told him he was wrong for sleeping with his brothers wife he didn't make himself king. He simply spoke the truth.
Bud V If I'm not mistaken Luther's position had a close parallel to your own in the sense that he did not feel that he'd departed from the true faith, he thought it was the magisterium that went astray.
For my part I think we paint ourselves into a corner when we hang our hats on infallible, ex cathedra proclamations. No matter how we interpret them we must perform adept mental gymnastics to reconcile the contradictions. For example:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
--Unam Sanctam, Papal Bull of Boniface VIII
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."
--Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council
I think you'll agree that modern Roman Catholic teaching contradicts those "infallible" statements. And yet, to consequently declare such teachings invalid is to deny the infallible statements one seeks to defend. Catch-22.
Haha, this guy is so worried about mass being like calvinist liturgy when this priest is promoting calvinist theology! 😂
@6:25 - This is the support he gives to support his claim that "They cannot make a new mass"
Canon 7 of Session 13:
"CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema."
www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch13.htm
So I'm done with video, and after this and also reading the comments, where Fatima Center suggests going to SSPX and not Ordinary Form masses, I'm probably done with this channel now, too.
Thank you for your comment with citation drawn from Session 13. The text in question, however, is Session 7's treatment of the Sacraments in General, Canon 13. The translation given on the site which you referenced is not the best, but it is clear enough:
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.
www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch7.htm
God bless you.