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

No comments: