Is the NEW Ecclesiology NEO-MODERNIST?!?

[@Jesus_Christ_is_King12]

Once again Nicholas, another great video! Archbishop Lefevbre, ora pro nobis!

[@aleksandrablaszczyk5971]

Nick thank you kindly for all of your efforts in explaining this for us. You have made this teaching very clear and this channel/ministry strengthens my Faith. Keep up the good work and study. ❤️🙏greatly saddens me that this from a Polish Pope JP 2. Sad stuff indeed. Here we are…

[@levipingleton-cv1fg]

Nick you are doing great work...keep it up! You rock brother!

[@danielkilpatrick3525]

This is awesome. I'm learning so much from following your show.
Thank God for Our Catholic Faith.
The foundations of Tradition, Magisterium and Holy scripture .
Pax

[@ejcrispin]

Really picking up a lot of good soul food from you here and in other episodes.
Q: I loved the 1st episode but can not find the others.

[@christineOfs]

GRATEFUL TO GOD for you Nick! God is always at work with men of TRUTH. Please, we must share this information with other because it is our brithrite to know TRUTH. I share many videos to new mass parishioners & new TLM of ONEPETERFIVE, MASS OF THE AGES, ETC., CHRISTUS VINCIT!

[@thetraditionalthomist]

Thank you very much!

[@vinnyv949]

No one can claim invincible ignorance if they live in a country with the Catholic Church or have access to the Internet. If you’re still not a member of the Church or fully believe/accept the Church even with those conditions present then you haven’t cooperated with the grace of God who is present during every step of salvation and guides everyone to Him and His Church (He wouldn’t guide them to any other church). Invincible ignorance only applies to people in locations where the Church doesn’t exist and/or have no way of knowing about the Church. Even then they’re still required to believe in Christ and the gospel without positively rejecting the Catholic Church.
Too many people currently want to say people who grow up in heretical Christian sects or other religions are invincibly ignorant. No. They didn’t prioritize God and truly seek Him and His Church out if they never made it to the Catholic Church. They were complacent and spiritually laze. It just makes zero sense to say otherwise.

[@SergioBriMa]

What did you do to discern the catholic church’s claims? How was the Truth made manifest to you?

[@marygr8064]

Please watch today’s podcast with Dr Moniyhan and Father Charles Murr about Archbishop Vigano. It will blow your mind!!!

[@StipeKulas]

Yes I totally agree with you, Father Muir knows a lot about the past history of “what” has happened in the Vatican. Very good podcast!!

[@markdaddy2089]

Unfortunately, the sedes..seem less and less CRAZY everyday!!!

[@palermotrapani9067]

Which Sedes? The ones who say Pope Pius XII who died in October 1958 was the last Pope. For example the 1) SSPV, who broke from the SSPX. 2) The Palamarian Church in Spain, which claims that Pope Paul VI after issueing Humanae Vitae in 1968 went into hiding do to backlash and was murdered by Communist and Masons in 1978. 3) The Pope Benedict (Ratzinger), ie. Benedectine-Sedes who claimed that Pope Benedict was forced to resign and when He died, the seat of Rome is now vacant. A leading guy at Catholic Answers, very good at Hosting some of their programs, embraced this for example. 4) Vigano is now going the same route and it appears he is in association with the former SSPX Bishop Wiliamson, who along with the 3 other SSPX Bishops that Abp Lefebvre consecrated had their excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict, but Williamsons was reinstated. Williamson broke from the SSPX, or more accurately, the SSPX expelled him, and now has formed his own Group and embraced sedevacantism as well.

[@palermotrapani9067]

Which Sedes?

[@ejcrispin]

Sedes r sedes no matter the century and some were right.
Point is a bad guy can be elected by other bad and influenced guys, but that election is valid like Bergolio seems to be. Thives out to sack Catholic wealth The poor and/or the weather are fake goals, just power. .

[@mousakandah5188]

that's because the SSPX position logically entails sedevacantism

[@aleksandrablaszczyk5971]

Also I’m not on board with the Francis pontificate at all. I believe in the charitable anathema. I pray for Francis’ conversion. Please God. 🙏

[@mjrlunpersonal]

What does "necessity of means" require for the salvation of unbaptized infants? That the parents were able to confer the sacrament to them, assuming the child lived long enough?

[@billstrom351]

Good work but "Baptism" of Desire it the fundamental error. You assume that it is a doctrine it is not. It was invented by St. Augustine and he later ejected it as an error. This error was resurrected by the scholastics.

[@thetraditionalthomist]

I appreciate the support. However, would in all kindness disagree about Baptism of desire. It is a truth that has the theological note of " proximate to faith." A denial of that is the theological censor of "proximate to error or heresy."
Doctrine of the Church. Concerning the desire for baptism, when the bishop of Cremona asked about a presbyter who died without baptism, Innocent II replied that he should not be anxious because “he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of Christ’s name” (D 741); and for this he invokes the authority of Saints Ambrose and Augustine. Likewise Innocent III (D 788), concerning a Jew who baptized himself when he was in the danger of death, said that his baptism was surely invalid but if he died in good faith “he would have entered into his heavenly home without delay because of his faith in the sacrament, even if not because of the sacrament of faith.”
The Council of Trent deals with the desire of baptism on the occasion of justification, which, it says, after the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be obtained without baptism “or the desire for it” (D 1524).
St. Pius V condemned the propositions of de Bay mentioned above (D 1932L, 1969ffi), from which it follows that perfect charity in the non- baptized does not remit sins.
There are no church documents concerning martyrdom; and this is not surprising, since it concerns a matter that rarely happens. The Council of Trent said nothing about martyrdom either in the discussion about justification or in that of the sacraments, because the Council was treating the ordinary means of obtaining justification, not privileges. Indirectly there is value in the liturgical documents and in the praxis of the Church in praying to the martyrs.
Innocent III quotes the words of St. Augustine, which he applies to all canonized saints: “Since the authority of Holy Scripture says that one who prays for a martyr is inflicting an injury on the martyr, the same thing must be thought for a similar reason about the other saints who do not need our prayers...”
St. Ambrose perhaps was the first one to propose this thesis in express words, when he was talking about a catechumen, Valentinian II: “But I hear that you are weeping because he did not receive the sacrament of baptism. Tell me, what else is there in you except will, except petition. And not long ago he had the desire that, before he could come to Italy, he should be initiated, and then he said he wanted to be baptized by me, and therefore he thought that I would set aside other affairs and come to him. Therefore does he not have the grace he desired? Does he not have what he asked for? Certainly because he asked for it, he received it. And where do we find this: By whatever death a just man undergoes, his soul will be at rest? (Wis. 4:7). Grant, therefore, Holy Father, this favor to your servant... Grant therefore to your servant the favor of your grace, which he never denied; before the day of his death he rejected the privileges of the temples, at the request of those whom he could have revered. He stood before a crowd of gentiles-he appealed to the senate: he did not fear to displease men in order that he might please you alone in Christ. Since he had your Spirit, how could he not receive your grace?
St. Augustine10 11 says that a Catholic catechumen is to be preferred to a baptized heretic; indeed also to a bad Catholic; and that thereby no injury is done to baptism. And in confirmation of this assertion he cites the example of Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10:44-48).11 He also concludes that the desire of baptism supplies for actual baptism from the words of Christ to the thief dying on a cross: “Blessed Cyprian assumes that suffering at times can take the place of baptism, as in the case of that thief to whom, though he was not baptized, it was said: ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’ (Luke 23:43). Having considered this case again and again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for a lack of baptism, but also faith and a conversion of heart, if by chance in order to celebrate the mystery of baptism it cannot be administered in difficult situations. But then it is invisibly conferred, since it is not the contempt of religion but a condition of necessity that prevents the administration of baptism.12
Supported by the authority of Saints Ambrose and Augustine, St. Bernard said that baptism of desire could take the place of baptism of water, provided that “there is no contempt of the water, but only impossibility prevents it.”13
In order to clearly understand the doctrine of the Fathers, D’Ales rightly points out: “This question is very broad, since it concerns the way of salvation which alone was open and is open to innumerable men, who do not have the water of baptism and who are by far the greater part of the human race. The Fathers understood this very well. But since access to God requires two preparations-the first being of the intellect by faith and the second of the will by charity, many Fathers paid more attention to the preparation of the intellect, which naturally comes first, according to Hebrews 11. However they did not completely neglect the preparation of the will; already among the ancient Fathers the seeds of the doctrine are apparent, which was brought to maturity by Ambrose and Augustine.”

[@thehaloeffect1889]

Do you have a email which people can write to discuss theology?

[@thetraditionalthomist]

Yes. Email "[e-mail]" and in the header address it to me. Pax!

[@philipschaffer9414]

Bridget and Bernie

[@markdaddy2089]

Only caught last half of video.but🤦

[@janrudnicki6111]

Hi

[@ilovecatsijustlovecats3944]

In fact.... I DON'T WILL😂😂😂😂

[@KenDelloSandro7565]

+EXTRA ECCLESIAM NVLLA SALVS

[@philipschaffer9414]

Catholic means universal

[@aleksandrablaszczyk5971]

In the meaning that are all welcome because Jesus died for every person. It’s not universal in the sense do whatever you want…this comes straight from Satan.

[@philipschaffer9414]

@@aleksandrablaszczyk5971 I agree with your definition

[@SergioBriMa]

If you reject Vatican 2 how are you not a heretic? Honestly asking here. I like your content as much as I like any other intellectual Christian content, but I don’t consider your channel catholic the more I watch it.

[@thetraditionalthomist]

Hi there. I do not reject Vatican II. It was a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church. With that being said, a heretic is one who willingly and knowingly rejects a dogma of faith that is to be believed with divine and Catholic faith. I do not deny anything that has to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, therefore I am not a heretic.
Vatican II while a valid ecumenical council is not an infallible one. Pope's John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II etc admit this. It is a council on the level of a pastoral council (what is properly called the authentic magisterium). Therefore it is open to criticism. Does that makes sense? Question for you, did you watch the whole of this video? Pax!

[@mousakandah5188]

the traditional ecclesiology of the Church also says that it is impossible for the Novus Ordo to be harmful to souls
so even if you are correct in this video, your position is also modernist and an abandonment of traditional ecclesiology

[@thetraditionalthomist]

No. You seem to be using the term "Modernist" loosely, as well as have a misunderstanding of disciplinary infallibility. Firstly I and the SSPX agree with the thesis that the Church protected in her disciplinary rites. I will quote from the Sacrae Theologiae Summa, De Ecclesia (1955). "Regarding disciplinary decrees in general, which are purposefully connected with revealed truths. A. The end of the infallible Magisterium demands infallibility concerning decrees of this kind. For, the end of the infallible Magisterium demands those things that are necessary in order to obtain the end for the life of the faithful in the Church without error. But in order to obtain the end for the life of the faithful in the Church without error, infallibility concerning the disciplinary decrees purposefully connected with the truths of revelation is necessary. Therefore, the end of the infallible Magisterium demands infallibility concerning the disciplinary decrees in general, which are purposefully connected with revealed truths.The major is clear, because the end of the infallible Magisterium finally must be ordained to this-that the faithful are directed without error in attaining the end of the Church.The minor is certain from the definition itself of the disciplinary decrees in general, which are connected purposefully and necessarily with revealed truths, n.703.723. B. The Church claims for herself infallibility concerning these decrees.a) Concerning disciplinary decrees in general, what we said above is certain from Pius VI in the Constitution “Auctorum fidei, ” in 1794, whereby he condemned the errors of the Synod of Pistoia: D 2678.b) In particular, concerning liturgical decrees, that the Church claims for herself infallibility is certain from the law of Eucharistic Communion under just one species, which was solemnly mandated by the Councils of Constance and Trent: D 1200, 1258, 1728-1732. The same point can be abundantly confirmed from other decrees, by which the Council of Trent solemnly confirmed the rites and ceremonies, which must be used in the administration of the Sacraments and in the celebration of Masses: D 1613, 1645, 1657, 1745, 1746, 1757."The doctrine of the thesis is at least theologically certain and proximate to a definition from the same Vatican Council I.
Pope Paul VI published on April 3, 1969 the Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum that supposedly promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae; but was this a legitimate act?
Universae Ecclesiae is the name of a recent Instruction which provides some precious clarifications on the four-year-old Summorum Pontificum, which signaled the liberation of the Mass of All Time. The pope’s intention is that the Mass may receive “full citizenship” in the Church today, and not be ostracized as it has been in the last four years by the diktat of omnipotent episcopal conferences which reveal a rather loose conception of Catholic obedience. Time will tell whether they will toe the Roman line or do as they have done so far. Here we would like to expand only on #19 which states:
The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church."
By so doing, the Instruction attacks any group of faithful doctrinally attached to the Mass of All Time even if they recognize in principle that the New Mass is valid. There may be nothing new under the Roman sun, but this document affords us the chance to go over the reasons why Archbishop Lefebvre always contested the legitimacy of the liturgical revolution of 1969. We will show this in three ways, of increasing importance: the legal aspect, the historical context, and the dogmatic context.
A. The legality of the New Mass
A law is legitimate only when it is duly promulgated by the lawfully constituted authority. But to this condition must be added another of supreme importance and essential to make it a law: it must be for the common good. And precisely on this score, the Novus Ordo Missae (NOM) is most defective as was attested at the time of its promulgation by no less than Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci:
It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent… It 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. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the mystery.
The legal aspect here does not address so much the question of the suppression of the Old Mass, since its continuous existence was supported not only by the general norms of the new Code, (can. 20) but was openly admitted by Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum. Rather, the legal question we wish to study deals with the juridical validity of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae. Here, we are largely indebted to Itineraires, the magazine of Jean Madiran, which was the French voice of Tradition years before the liturgical changes.
We need to look at the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (April 3, 1969) which allegedly promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae. Most of the document describes the novelties and the final part never declares clearly what the pope commands, forbids, or concedes. As to the final “Nonobstant”, it is too generic to pretend to abrogate the perfectly clear legislative act of St. Pius V who promulgated the Mass of All Time. It appears that Paul VI never wanted to render his missal mandatory, with a truly juridical obligation. Why?
Itineraires could say as early as 1970 that the future was already present: a constant process of mutation. Changed were the “original” edition of the Institutio Generalis (see below regarding the theological aspect), and the editio typica [typical edition―Ed.] of the Novus Ordo rite within months. The Apostolic Constitution in its second Latin edition was enriched with a new paragraph drawn from the French/Italian version, as we are to explain presently.
The original Constitution concluded rather innocently with: “From all that has been said so far regarding the New Roman Missal, in the end, we are now pleased to draw a conclusion.” But, sensing that something was missing, the French and Italian translators (not to speak of other versions) boldly modified the text making it say: “We want (placet!) to give force of law (cogere et efficere!) to everything (quiddam!) which we have exposed above regarding the new Roman Missal.”
The same translators also completed the authentic Latin text of the Apostolic Constitution, adding: “We order that the prescriptions of this Constitution become effective on November 30th of this year, the First Sunday of Advent.” Both these modifications and additions objectively constitute a forgery. This alone manifests the essential problem of a Constitution which some wish to be mandatory, but which, in its authentic tenure, is not.
The question remains why Pope Paul VI seemed to substitute in fact another law to one which he did not abrogate by right. Worse is the other stunning question: why did he not say clearly that he did not want to abrogate the other? Why leave the minds of confused priests and laymen in the agonizing doubt that everything was taking place then as if the authors (which ones?) were imposing an obligation while letting you free to believe the opposite?

[@thetraditionalthomist]

Part 2:
B. The historical context
Cardinal Gut, the Prefect who presided over the liturgical reform, gave a revealing insight into the pressure which led the Pope to promote the New Mass:
We hope that, now, with the new dispositions, contained in the documents, this sickness of experimentation will come to a stop. Until now, the bishops had the right to authorize experiments but, sometimes, such limits have been trespassed and many priests simply did what they wanted. Then, what happened is that, sometimes, they imposed themselves. One could not, very often, stop these initiatives taken without authorization because they had gone too far. In his great goodness and in his wisdom the Holy Father yielded, often against his will."
As any decent legislator would do, Paul VI, in establishing his liturgical reform, elucidated the motives of such drastic changes. Here they are:
The reform is an act of fidelity to the “demands” of Vatican II.
It is meant to revive the languid and awaken the sleepy.
It wishes to supplant the “opaque glass” of the old Mass by another which will be a “transparent crystal” for “the children, the youth, the workers, and businessmen.”
It wishes to be “a resolute gymnastic of Christian sociology.”
What about the “ecumenical” motive? As strange as it appears, Paul VI never invoked this motive. This omission rightly raised the eyebrows of Protestants and Catholics alike who, unanimously, recognized it on every page of the Ordo. Said an intimate friend of the pope, Jean Guitton:
There was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic, in the traditional sense, in the Mass and, I repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist service..."
As to the motives given by the Holy Father, the most important would be the first, stating, in a democratic fashion, that this was the will of the conciliar bishops. He directs us to #50 of the liturgical decree [Sacrosanctum Concilium―Ed.]. But was it really so? The said paragraph recommends indeed in generic terms a certain revision of the Mass. Yet, when these 2000 bishops signed this paragraph, did they wish the suppression of the Offertory? Did they wish the addition of ad libitum new Canons to compete with the Roman Canon from the 3rd century? Did they want such ambiguous Ordinary texts of the Mass that these would immediately seem agreeable to men who have no faith in transsubstantiation, the sacrificial oblation, and the Catholic priesthood? No! Certainly, the Council never wanted such a revolution.
In the same context of the end of that fatal year, 1969, we need to add a letter addressed to the pope, utterly unnoticed by the press, signed by 6000 Spanish priests.
…We shall not speak of the doctrinal Catholic reasons; we could not expose them better than the document A Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, which Your Holiness has recently received, accompanied by a letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, and which one would need to refute in details according to the doctrine of the Council of Trent if one wished to prove the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo.
We shall not speak of this, but we shall bring up the Protestant reasons. Mr. Max Thurian affirms in La Croix of May 30, 1969 that, with the Novus Ordo “non-Catholic communities will be able to celebrate the Last Supper with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically this is possible.”
Thus, if the celebration by a Protestant is theologically possible, this means that the Novus Ordo expresses no dogma with which the Protestants are in disagreement. But the first of these dogmas is the Real Presence, essence and center of the Mass of St. Pius V. Could a Protestant pastor celebrate the Novus Ordo if he was to perform the consecration in the intention used by the Catholic Church? Lex orandi, lex credendi: the liturgy is the highest expression of our faith.
Where shall we go if, in the best of cases, the Mass silences the Catholic truths? If the good people, with no knowledge and against their will, are thrown into heresy, as long as they preserve the Christian morals (unfortunately, they do not), they will save their soul. But this will not be the case of those who will have pushed them into it. Most Holy Father, we do not want to endure this responsibility.
This is why we boldly address this letter to you, after we begged of you in a previous one (November 5, 1969) to allow the universal Church to preserve the Mass of St. Pius V together with that of the Novus Ordo."
In the name of the pope, some Roman authority (which one?) demanded total submission and blind obedience from all these most devoted priests. The strangest thing is that none of them reacted and nothing was heard anymore of this tyrannical act. Moreover, an Italian committee was gathering signatures to petition Paul VI to abrogate the Novus Ordo Missae. Behold the judgment proffered by Vatican Radio: “Do you wish to be sure of disobeying the pope: sign!” Hence, whoever dares to make a petition to the pope is in the state of disobedience! This idiotic idolatry to the goddess of false obedience, unheard of during twenty centuries of the Church, raised no protest.
This cowardly servility reigns almost universally: it is the sentiment of most cardinals who dare neither speak to the pope nor ask anything from him, not even to beg: they would be tagged disobedient to the pope, and they accept this slavish tyranny. Is it not true that where truth and justice cease to be upheld, arbitrary despotism reigns, with no basis and no limits? Does not the statement of Louis Veuillot [author of The Liberal Illusion―Ed.] express aptly the mindset of many a churchman: “there is no one more sectarian than a liberal.”

[@thetraditionalthomist]

Part 3: C. The theological context
We have already alluded to the underlying dogmatic truths which the New Mass has silenced or covered in ambiguous terms, so as to please heretical communities. These half-truths (and half-errors) were markedly expressed in what can only be called the definition of the Novus Ordo Missae: “The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” This text was found so offensive and raised such a worldwide uproar that Rome had to come up with something less heterodox. They revised the definition into something less heretical, but did not touch anything in the rite itself, the perfect expression of the early definition. Yet, this definition and this rite omits or denies the three doctrines which are at very heart of the Mass: the priest who, by his sacerdotal character, is alone capable of consecrating the Eucharist; the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass; and the real and substantial presence of the Victim of Calvary through transubstantiation.
The SSPX has presented a book to the attention of Rome, The Problem of the Liturgical Reform. It explains how the new Mass is the plain expression of underlying principles drawn from the theology of the Paschal Mystery [NB: this refers to the false interpretation of the Paschal Mystery as found in the Novus Ordo, as opposed to the correct one expressed in all of the traditional liturgical rites―Ed]. Here are the book’s conclusions:
The propitiatory aspect of the Mass has been effaced from the new missal because the Paschal Mystery holds that there is no debt to be paid in order to satisfy divine justice offended by sin. But, by refusing to see that the Redemption includes the act by which Christ paid to God the entire debt of pain incurred by our sins (the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction), the theology of the Paschal Mystery sets itself in opposition to a truth of the Catholic Faith.
The structure of the new missal is that of a memorial meal that celebrates and proclaims the divine Covenant and not that of a Sacrifice. But, by considering the Mass as a sacrifice only insofar as it is a memorial which contains “in mysterio” the sacrifice of the Cross, the theology of the Paschal Mystery weakens the visibility of the sacrifice as taught by the Church, and can no longer “vere et proprie”-truly and properly-designate the Mass as a sacrifice. This cannot do justice to a truth of Faith, and seems thereby to incur the condemnation pronounced by the Council of Trent as regards the “Nuda commemoratio”-mere commemoration.
The New Mass has displaced Christ the Priest and Victim, and replaced it with the Kyrios who communicates Himself to the assembly, making the Eucharist no longer a visible sacrifice but rather a mysterious symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection. Insofar as it rests upon philosophies of the symbolic type, this notion of sacrament cannot be reconciled with the Church’s doctrine on the sacraments. Because this notion corrupts the branches of theology where it is introduced, it is dangerous for the Faith.
Now, even if one wanted to contest the heretical elements of the New Mass, the sole refusal to profess Catholic dogmas quintessential to the Mass renders the new liturgy deficient. It is like a captain who refuses to provide his shipmen with a proper diet. They soon become sick with scurvy due, not so much to direct poison, as from vitamin deficiency. Such is the New Mass. At best, it provides a deficient spiritual diet to the faithful. The correct definition of evil-lack of a due good-clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood. This deficiency had already been denounced by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci months before the New Mass was promulgated:
The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment of the faithful, who already show an indubitable lessening of their faith. Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to our notice daily.

[@mousakandah5188]

@@thetraditionalthomist
Sadly you failed to address my main point, so let me explain it again
The Infallibile safety of Universal discipline is according to traditional Catholic Ecclesiology an Infallible teaching in virtue of the ordinary Universal Magisterium
So if you say that the Church has promulgated a Liturgy that is harmful to souls you are denying said doctrine
And you are saying that because of modern circumstances (Vatican II and what not) this Infallibile Catholic teaching must change and we should not believe in it anymore (Modernism)
This (among many other reasons) is why Fr. Cekada and others left the SSPX
They connected the dots

[@thetraditionalthomist]

@@mousakandah5188 No, did you read my response. My whole point is the Church did not promulgate the New Mass.