TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[Peace]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Are you still telling me you're changing your position without telling you're changing your position?

Friend, go back read through my initial conversation with @fides' Jack I made it perfectly clear in my earlier conversation with him that one's conscience is a factor and that one may object to things that one cannot conscience, and we have had that conversation many times. You think that I am "changing my position" because you only the read the later post without having noticed the earlier posts, apparently.

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

"St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed", i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: "If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me." - Saint Athanasius, Source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

"A great debate existed over the question of whether Liberius capitulated during his exile. However, several orthodox sources admit that he did consent to condemn Athanasius and/or sign a semi-Arian creed. After the death of Constantius II in 361, Liberius appears more orthodox again. He died on September 24, 366. Though not canonized in his own Roman Catholic tradition, he is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church." - New World Encyclopedia, Source: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Liberius#Liberius.27_lapse_into_semi-Arianism

"It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy, at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. Though Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors, he refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense." - Warren H Carroll, EWTN Source: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118

"Liberius eventually signed, possibly under duress, a document repudiating Nicene Christianity in favor of Arianism and supporting the ousting of Athanasius." - Catholic.org, Source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1010

SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? I can find more...

"Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325)." - Britannica, Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism

"It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family." - Wikipedia, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHanson2005127–128-14

“The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.” - Saint Jerome, The dialogue against the Luciferians, Source: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1305/_PG.HTM

Again, SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? Again, I can find more but I've not the time I once had to devote to long discussions on Phatmass.

Yes. SSPX fan-fiction.

As for this supposed "semi-arian" creed that Liberius signed. No copy or record of its contents exist. Some people say that it "could have been interpreted to be Arian" and that "it could have been intepreted to be orthodox" which your own sources admit. So that means nothing.

As for a Wikipedia quote with no source, that also means also nothing.

As for him supposedly having giving in after two years - there is no evidence whatsoever that a document, which may have been an outright forgery, was made under his own free-will, rather than coerced under torture, which your own sources admit (and in which my initial source already explained to you). I suppose you think that if I put a gun to your head, put a pen in your hand, and force your arm to write "KnightofChrist is an Arian" on a piece of paper that makes you an Arian?

And your own sources above also admit that Liberius is considered a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. That makes absolutely no sense if there is a shred of evidence that Liberius excommunicated Athanasius and became an Arian.

Is this really the lengths of twisting history to fit a narrative that people will go to in order to justify rejecting the authority of the living Magisterium?

And yes. I would like you to continue researching the matter. You will find that the very same arguments that you are making originated with Newman during his anti-Catholic period, and that Newman later recanted his position after his conversion to the Catholic Church. The arguments were then later picked up by other anti-Catholic Protestants, and then eventually picked up by SSPX fan-boy Michael Davies and repeated ad-naseum until they became part of trad-folklore never to be questioned again by folks such as yourself, in particular when convenient to denigrating the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

So yes, please continue making the same arguments against the Catholic Church and the authority of her Pope and bishops that your anti-Catholic brethren are so-fond of making. It seems that it floats your boat.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Peace

[Peace]

And from your very own source:

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118

I deny that any Pope was ever a heretic, have researched each case where that is claimed, and will be glad to answer and refute any claim that any Pope ever committed himself or called upon the faithful to hold any heretical belief.

[KnightofChrist]

As stated early I don't have the time for long conversation as much as I once had. I will reply in full when/if I'm able. Also my keyboard isn't working or rather it is poorly so I'm speaking as speech to text and copy pasting. I hope it works. 

The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't infallible. It is clearly very pro-Liberius, here is written like a commentary piece and makes various assumptions in favor of Liberius because of that. Catholics and historians who believe Liberius did fall and did condemn St Athanasius aren't SSPX fan-fiction writers. That's just an easy way to dismiss someone. After all no one wants to be a dirty little vile disobedient schismatic fantastical SSPX writer.

I do not know why you call me friend when you do not speak to as one. If you are confident in your positions there is no need to attack my person stating I am in brethren with anti-Catholics because we disagree on this topic of Liberius and Athanasius. I am only interested in addressing your position, not your person. But you know this , from our previous discussions, and discussions with others. Yet you continue to attack the person which at least subconsciously is an admission that you believe your positions to be weak. 

From the same page from New Advent we've both linked to previously.

"It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter." 

Edited August 17, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't infallible. It is clearly very pro-Liberius, here is written like a commentary piece and makes various assumptions in favor of Liberius because of that. Catholics and historians who believe Liberius did fall and did condemn St Athanasius aren't SSPX fan-fiction writers. That's just an easy way to dismiss someone. After all no one wants to be a dirty little vile disobedient schismatic fantastical SSPX writer.

I called it SSPX fan-fiction because 1) I believe that the general form of the argument as used by Catholics today originated with the SSPX and 2) I do not believe that the argument has any solid evidentiary basis.

Now certainly there is room for debate on the issue. We have been debating it obviously with both of us having support on our respective sides. But in particular what I find to be fictitious are blanket statements such as "Liberius excommunicated Athanasisus" and "Liberius was an Arian" while completely ignoring the context, to paint some narrative wherein Athanasius was the great defender of the faith against the heretic Pope dead-bent on making the Church Arian. Practically every one of your own sources indicates that Liberius was a defender of Athansius before he was thrown in prison and put under coercion.  And your own sources indicate Liberius as being orthodox immediately after the Arian Emperor's death, many years before the council at Constantinople:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

About 366 he received a deputation of the Semi-Arians led by Eustathius; he treated them first as Arians (which he could not have done had he ever joined them), and insisted on their accepting the Nicene formula before he would receive them to communion; he was unaware that many of them were to turn out later to be unsound on the question of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.

Yet all of that complicated history is narrowed down into a simple assertion of "Liberius excommunicated Athanasius and became an Arian" in order to further an argument justifying disagreement with the living Vicar of Christ.

I do think the narrative is quite fictitious and I think it originates with the SSPX, but if that offends your sensibilities, I will simply call it "horse-manure" instead of "SSPX fan-fiction" from now on.

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I do not know why you call me friend when you do not speak to as one. If you are confident in your positions there is no need to attack my person stating I am in brethren with anti-Catholics because we disagree on this topic of Liberius and Athanasius. I am only interested in addressing your position, not your person. But you know this , from our previous discussions, and discussions with others. Yet you continue to attack the person which at least subconsciously is an admission that you believe your positions to be weak. 

OK. I will admit that the personal attacks were unwarranted. I had gotten irritated because I answered your question multiple times only for you to glibly dismiss them with a "So you changed your answer again" and refusing to answer my question even though I went out of my way several times to try to answer yours.

Nevertheless, the insult was wrong. I apologize for that.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

In the spirit of Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Cupich has banned the Hail Mary and prayer to Saint Michael after Mass.

They may pray in silence as individuals but not in unity aloud as one body.

Source: https://wdtprs.com/2021/08/video-priest-announces-he-and-people-have-been-forbidden-to-say-st-michael-prayer-and-hail-mary-after-mass/

[Peace]

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

In the spirit of Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Cupich has banned the Hail Mary and prayer to Saint Michael after Mass.

They may pray in silence as individuals but not in unity aloud as one body.

Source: https://wdtprs.com/2021/08/video-priest-announces-he-and-people-have-been-forbidden-to-say-st-michael-prayer-and-hail-mary-after-mass/

That's not "in the spirit of Traditionis Custodes".

Traditionis Custodes says nothing about banning the Hail Mary and the St. Michael prayer.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

That's not "in the spirit of Traditionis Custodes".

Traditionis Custodes says nothing about banning the Hail Mary and the St. Michael prayer.

The spirit being both actions ban traditional forms of prayer. 

Lastly, thank you for your apology. However, I think it best that we not or rarely converse. It just gets too personal. 

[Peace]

50 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The spirit being both actions ban traditional forms of prayer. 

No, the spirit is not to ban traditional forms of prayer. Traditionis Custodes allows for the Hail Mary and the St. Michael prayer to be said after Mass. Those are "traditional" forms of prayer accordingly to you, so obviously the spirit of the document is not to ban traditional forms of prayer, since the document allows them.

And the NO Mass is just as "traditional" as the TLM. It ain't like the apostles and the early Christians were celebrating the TLM last time I checked.

50 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Lastly, thank you for your apology.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

50 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

However, I think it best that we not or rarely converse. It just gets too personal. 

Oh please. If you or anyone else writes something I disagree with I am going to say something about it.

You already know that.

[fides' Jack]

Satan is attacking the TLM because it is one of the only safeguards against him right now.  The only reason we still have the Novus Ordo is because of the spiritual protection afforded it by the TLM.

He first has to get rid of the TLM, then he can easily get rid of the NO.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Satan is attacking the TLM because it is one of the only safeguards against him right now. 

I'm pretty sure Satan is attacking all forms of the Mass, friend.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

The only reason we still have the Novus Ordo is because of the spiritual protection afforded it by the TLM.

It ain't like incense and Gregorian chant has some magical power that keeps away evil spirits. You gonna tell us about the exorcist who thinks that the devil hates Latin?

We have the Novus Ordo because God wills it. It seems that you are giving the devil way too much credit here.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

He first has to get rid of the TLM, then he can easily get rid of the NO.

Friend, are you worried about it? Satan can do absolutely nothing that God does not allow. The victory was already won 2000 years ago.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

I'm pretty sure Satan is attacking all forms of the Mass, friend.

Yes, I gave one of the reasons why he is focused on the TLM.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

It ain't like incense and Gregorian chant has some magical power that keeps away evil spirits.

We have the Novus Ordo because God wills it. It seems that you are giving the devil way too much credit here.

I didn't say the devil brought us the NO, but you seem to be implying that I did say that...?

Yes, the Church teaches that incense, as a sacramental, does ward off demons.  Not that it matters, they have incense in the NO as well.

But if you want to go there, watch this, it's not too long:

 

4 minutes ago, Peace said:

Friend, are you worried about it? Satan can do absolutely nothing that God does not allow. The victory was already won 2000 years ago.

On the contrary, what worries me is that people don't see that's what's going on now, and they may end up losing their souls.  I'm excited that we will soon get to see God's answer to our prayers, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done".  I just hope and pray that whatever comes, it happens when I'm in a state of grace.

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Yes, I gave one of the reasons why he is focused on the TLM.

I didn't say the devil brought us the NO, but you seem to be implying that I did say that...?

No, that's definitely not what I meant.

5 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Yes, the Church teaches that incense, as a sacramental, does ward off demons.  Not that it matters, they have incense in the NO as well.

Perhaps. Can you provide an official Catholic document that teaches that? I just googled the topic a minute ago and the only things I saw suggesting that were on witchcraft websites.

5 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

But if you want to go there, watch this, it's not too long:

LOL I had a feeling that you were gonna pull up something stuff about why Latin is so special. Look, the bottom line is that our Lord did not speak or write Latin. Not a single book of Sacred Scripture was written in this supposedly magical language.

5 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

 I just hope and pray that whatever comes, it happens when I'm in a state of grace.

Well here is something we can agree on.

 

[fides' Jack]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

LOL I had a feeling that you were gonna pull up something stuff about why Latin is so special. Look, the bottom line is that our Lord did not speak or write Latin. Not a single book of Sacred Scripture was written in this supposedly magical language.

Did you watch the video?  You might learn something.

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

Perhaps. Can you provide an official Catholic document that teaches that? I just googled the topic a minute ago and the only things I saw suggesting that were on witchcraft websites.

First thing I found:

https://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson36.html

Quote

471. What are the chief benefits obtained by the use of the sacramentals?

The chief benefits obtained by the use of the sacramentals are:

actual graces;

the forgiveness of venial sins;

the remission of temporal punishment;

health of body and material blessings;

protection from evil spirits.

Emphasis mine.

[Peace]

51 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Did you watch the video?  You might learn something.

I watched it.

51 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

First thing I found:

https://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson36.html

Emphasis mine.

Yeah I need to see something more specific than that. The incense at Mass is not mentioned there, and it's doubtful that the document is meant to indicate that every single sacrament has each of the specific benefits listed there (unless you wanna argue that the incense forgives venial sins too).

During RCIA the priest told me that the incense at Mass is generally to symbolize the "Mystery" of the celebration, by the clouding of vision that is caused by the smoke and to symbolize the prayers of the faithful rising into heaven. He didn't say nary a thing about warding off evil spirits and I have never seen that in any explanation of the Mass, and I've got a few books on the Mass.

It doesn't even make sense if you think about it. If the incense at Mass wards off evil spirits, then Satan was just relaxing willy-nilly at the altar, feet away from our Lord in the Eucharist, having a nice cup of tea and enjoying himself before the start of Mass, until the priest came along and shooed him away with incense? Does that really make sense to you?

But look. I can still be convinced here if you have anything specifically on point that discusses the use of incense during Mass to ward off evil spirits. I have trouble believing that the incense is somehow gonna accomplish something that the very presence of our Lord himself apparently did not. . .

[fides' Jack]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

It doesn't even make sense if you think about it. If the incense at Mass wards off evil spirits, then Satan was just relaxing willy-nilly at the altar, feet away from our Lord in the Eucharist, having a nice cup of tea and enjoying himself before the start of Mass, until the priest came along and shooed him away with incense? Does that really make sense to you?

I'm not claiming that's how it works.

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

But look. I can still be convinced here if you have anything specifically on point that discusses the use of incense during Mass to ward off evil spirits. I have trouble believing that the incense is somehow gonna accomplish something that the very presence of our Lord himself apparently did not. . .

I don't know why we got this far into incense, specifically.  You brought up incense, I didn't.  I made the point that it doesn't matter because incense is used in the NO.  I also claimed that incense is a sacramental, and sacramentals are used to ward off evil spirits (after you claimed that it's not like incense wards off evil spirits).  

It's just like a crucifix or holy water.  If you want to believe it, fine.  If you don't, fine.  Of course it also does other things, and it symbolizes even more.  Agreed.  

And it's not the only thing in the Mass that wards off demons.  Agreed.