Monday, August 31, 2015

Louie Verrecchio criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass to accomodate the SSPX ideology

Holy Mother Church
Louie Verrecchio:
Let’s pick up our discussion of the Novus Ordowith one of the most important points raised in the previous post; namely, the suggestion often put forth by its defenders maintaining that the new Mass can neither be offensive to God, nor threaten to lead those who participate therein away from the Catholic faith, because:

The Church would never give such a rite to the faithful...
The Roman Pontiff, of course, plays an important role in safeguarding and facilitating that handing on of that which has been received, as do the bishops in union with him, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
The pontiffs since Pius XII did not protect the ecclesiology 
associated with the Holy Mass.
With the identifying marks described above being what they are, anything that is given to the children of the Church that deviates from this high standard of impeccability and purity quite simply cannot be attributed to her with respect to its origins.
The ecclesiology of the Mass was changed since the
 magisterium from 1949 onwards clearly rejected the
 magisterium of the past, on the dogma extra
 ecclesiam nulla salus.The error was placed 
in Vatican Council II and now we have a 
case of the contemporary popes
 contradicting those from the past.
In the present case, the Supreme Pontiff has the solemn duty of passing along in all integrity that which has been handed down. The Mass is not his to craft according to his own desires, no matter how praiseworthy he believes them to be (e.g., placating heretics unto a false sense of unity)...
A defined dogma cannot be changed or discarded. 
The Nicene Creed cannot be changed. Yet this
 has been done. It is there before us.
How can you interpret Lumen Gentium 16 
with an irrationality. Yet this has been done.
This is why so many good bishops acquiesced to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, in spite of its “time bombs” as Michael Davies called them; they simply could not imagine that the pope would ever so neglect his duty as to unleash the tragedy that followed.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael 
Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and
 other traditionalists allowed the 
Church to continue on a wrong theological way
This group of traditionalists instead
 of correcting the factual error of
 1949 consolidated it and did not
 expose it
Michael Davis, Romano Amerio,
 Dietrich von Hildebrand were 
not aware of the irrational premise
 : Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, 
John Rao, James Bogle, 
Joseph Shaw agree?

Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, 
Dietrich von Hildebrand were not
 aware of the irrational premise
 which makes Vatican Council
 II a break with Tradition

Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao

 and James Bogle again spoke at

 a conference and did not mention

 that Vatican Council II

can be interpreted

 without an irrational premise

Did Michael Davis know ?

Book on Vatican Council II ignores
 the false premise

-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Paul Kramer like Cardinal Ratzinger has been offering Holy Mass by changing the Nicene Creed, rejecting a defined dogma and interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit

Immagine correlata

Fr.Paul Kramer is not sure what is the difference between me and other Feeneyites

Fr.Paul Kramer is not sure if implicit for us BOD and BOB can be accepted with EENS

Fr.Paul Kramer are you saying that the new ecclesiology contradicts Vatican Council II ?...not sure

Fr.Paul Kramer do you agree that Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? ... now he is not sure

Cardinal Ratzinger has been offering Holy Mass ( knowingly or unknowingly) by  changing  the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin), rejecting  a defined dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, calling a dogma an 'aphorism' in the Catechism(1995)  and interpreting Vatican Council II as  a break with the past, by using an irrational inference then something is differently wrong somewhere.

-Lionel Andrades

There is only one cause for the confusion. It has to be identified and corrected and then we have the old theology at Mass.

Father Themann: Deficiencies of the New Mass

Father Daniel Themann, SSPX • Angelus Press Conference, 2014
Deficiencies of the New Mass Father Themann at the Angelus Press Conference

By John Vennari

“There is nothing in the renewed Mass that can really bother the evangelical Protestant."
Since the ecclesiology excludes the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The SSPX does not mention this since the problem was there since the time of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. They all assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire referred to explicit cases, objectively seen and known. 
They accepted the confusion of the Baltimore Catechism (1808) which suggested that being saved with implicit desire excluded the baptism of water and that these cases were explicit like the baptism of water, which is visible and repeatable.
Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also assumed that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water, referred to objective instead of subjective for us  cases.So unknown people in Heaven were assumed to be known exceptions to the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the new doctrine. So at Mass the priest no more affirmed the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Ecclesiology was no more exclusivistic.Persons in other religions and Protestants no more needed to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.This was the new ecclesiology also with the Traditional Latin Mass,It was a break from pre-1808 times.
So said Protestant Minister Max Thurian, who was a member of the Consilium that drafted the New Mass, which is now in virtually every parish and religious house worldwide.

The New Mass –
Novus Ordo Missae – is ecumenical in its construction and Protestant in its orientation. It is the most tangible expression of the Vatican II revolution, affecting every Catholic directly and deleteriously.

Thus the Angelus Press chose the “The Mass: the Heart of the Church” as the theme of its 5th Annual Conference, held in Kansas City, MO, the weekend of Oct. 10-12, 2014.

Twelve speakers dealt with the Mass according to various viewpoints (see photos on page 19). Here we present a detailed synopsis of the lecture given by Father Daniel Themann, SSPX, titled “What is Our Objection to the New Mass?”
“A Striking Departure …”

Father Themann delivered an objective, structured, well-reasoned critique of the Novus Ordo, primarily based on the General Instruction of the Roman Liturgy. This was the document that was used to unleash the New Mass onto the Catholic world.

Marking the Protestant nature of the New Mass, Father Themann explains that the true objections to the New Mass cannot be based on any personal preference, but rather on the deficiencies and anomalies inherent in the New Mass, both doctrinally and liturgically.
Why does he not specify it ?

 The doctrinal shortcomings are clearly laid out by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in their 1969 letter to Paul VI that accompanied the Critical study of the New Mass written by a group of Roman theologians, working under the direction of Archbishop Lefebvre (otherwise known as “The Ottaviani Intervention”).

Here Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci warned, “

The Novus Ordo Missae represents, both as a whole, and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.
Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci were interpreting Lumen Gentium 16  etc in Vatican Council II, as being explicit for us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I can interpret LG 16 as being implicit for us humans and explicit only for God. So LG 16 does not contradict the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since extra ecclesiam nulla salus is central to the exclusivist ecclesiology of pre-1808 times, the theology of the Mass has not changed for me.
For the cardinals it would be a departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as formulated by Trent, since they are using an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.This creates the New Theology. The New Theology is a break with the theology of Trent.

We will not report extensively on each of the points, but focus on Father Themann’s exposition of the General Instruction and related topics. Before this, however, it is important to relay a key point that explains how the New Mass itself constitutes a danger to the Faith.

“When looking at the new rite itself,” says Father Themann, “we must remember that liturgy can only express the faith in a liturgical way, i.e., through prayers, gestures, and other symbols. It does not express the faith by direct statements like, e.g., a catechism question or an ecumenical Council. A direct doctrinal statement might be sufficient to express the doctrine in question. But since a liturgical rite does not express the faith through precise dogmatic propositions but rather by a collection of signs, one prayer or one gesture is not sufficient to express the doctrine in question. It is the ensemble of prayers and gestures that come together, which coalesce into an expression of doctrine. Liturgy requires a certain multiplication of gestures and words – as well as consistency of expression – in order to make clear that
this is being signified rather than that.

“This is crucial to keep in mind,” he continues, “because we do not criticize the New Mass because it explicitly denies a point of doctrine.
We criticize it because the New Mass has so altered the ensemble of signs which constitute a liturgical rite that it could just as easily express non-Catholic doctrine
The priest can offer the Novus Ordo Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass with the exclusivist ecclesiology of pre-1808 times, before the Baltimore Catechism was issued.
So doctrine would still be the same.If the priest directly and clearly affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as did Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Church's traditional teachings on other religions and an ecumenism of return for example , are maintained.
This would not be possible for the SSPX since they would have to admit that they were wrong since the time of Archbishop Lefebvre.
– and not because of a haphazard sloppiness on the part of its creators but by a very deliberate intent and a skillfully devised execution which corresponds to an un-Catholic but consistent system of thought.”

In his critique, Father Themann does not focus on the validity of the New Mass. As he explains, “For a
of Mass to be considered good, it is not enough that it have the minimum elements necessary for validity. For a rite of Mass to be considered good, it must express the Catholic Faith.”
It must express the Catholic Faith.
With LG 16 being considered explicit instead of implicit, visible instead of invisible, the Catholic Faith has been changed.
The error can be corrected. If LG 16 is re-considered as being implicit instead of explicit, invisible instead of visible, it does not contradict the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which was central to the Catholic Faith.
Now at Mass we have Jesus without the necessity of the Church. We are asked to proclaim the Kingdom of God without the necessity of formally entering the Church for salvation.
And it is here – the proper expression of the Catholic Faith – where the New Mass fails.  
Agreed. Since an irrational premise and inference is used to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the old ecclesiology has been changed.
The fault is not with the Mass or Vatican Council II but with not making the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.
There is only one cause for the confusion. It has to be identified and corrected and then we have the old theology at Mass. 

“Mysterium Fidei” Another example of the Protestant spirit integral in the New Mass are the four “Eucharistic Prayers”. The first, which is called the Roman Canon, most closely resembles the Tridentine Mass, but it is actually quite different. We have a structure that obscures doctrine.
'Obscures doctrine'.
Sounds familiar?
Father Themann continues, “From what has been said, it should be clear that the New Mass was designed with a doctrinal agenda – an agenda that a Catholic in good conscience cannot espouse.
The 'doctrinal agenda' originated before 1960-1965. It was a doctrinal mistake, a new doctrine which was accepted into the Church.So it conditioned our idea of what makes Church and it changed what we believe as Catholics. It changed our belief in Catholic  salvation for those who attend the  the Novus Ordo or the Traditional Latin Mass.
 The goal of the Consilium was precisely to produce a liturgical rite that did not clearly express Catholic teaching on doctrines pertaining to the Mass.
The new doctrines were there in 1949 Boston. The seeds of the error were placed in the 1808 Baltimore Catechism.Instead of clarifying that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of blood were not explicit and so not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the confusion was placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14 etc).
 That it succeeded, with the help of six Protestant ministers who acted as consultants, requires no more proof than the word of Protestants themselves who have declared that the New Mass expresses nothing contrary to their own creeds and would be suited to their own worship: ‘There is nothing in this renewed Mass that can really bother evangelical Protestants’.” – (Max Thurian, Protestant Minister and Member of the Consilium).
Yes the old ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass was no more there since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus had been changed formally by the magisterium in 1949 in the Boston Case.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Paul Kramer is not sure what is the difference between me and other Feeneyites

I have posted amply on the topic on FB. No more debate with Feeneyite fundamentalist heretic hardheads.
Lionel Andrades28 ago
How do you know I am a Feeneyite? I do not use the apologetics of the SBC.
Lionel Andrades28 ago
I have responded to your reports on some of the trad forums but there was no reply from you.
Lionel Andrades28 ago
I have also expressed my views on my blog Eucharistandmission. Check your name on the tag line.
Lionel Andrades29 ago
Fr. Paul Kramer infers baptism of desire-cases are visible.So they are exceptions to the dogma for him
Lionel Andrades
I am not using the apologetics of the St.Benedict Centers. They also interpret LG 16 as being explicit, like you do.
Lionel Andrades30 ago
So if you refer to Feeneyites pl. clarify if you know the difference between them and me..

Fr.Paul Kramer is not sure if implicit for us BOD and BOB can be accepted with EENS

Paul Kramer
Are you a Feeneyite?
Lionel Andrades24 ago
Fr.Kramer if you have to asked this question you have not been reading or not understood so much of mail I have semt you.
Lionel Andrades24 ago
I affirm that the baptism of desire and blood are invisible for us humans so they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Lionel Andrades24 ago
I affirm that since BOD and BOB are not explicit they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Lionel Andrades24 ago
So I accept implicit for us BOD and BOB and also the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Lionel Andrades24 ago
For me this is the centuries old interpretation of EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II. LG 16 does not contradict EENS.
Lionel Andrades
So the ecclesiiology of Vatican Council II has not changed. It is Feeneyite. Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.