"…it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their [non-Catholic] assemblies..."

[latinmasslover]

Anyone who has interpreted what I’ve said to be schismatic, please read on and please, for the love of our God, (and in the spirit of Vatican II) keep an open mind. If you disagree, then disagree, but please back up your statements. (and the empasis is not to be read in a cocky, self righteous way.)

When in doubt, read, or reread the Vatican I doc. defining Papal Infallibility, and also keep in mind the betrayal of Judas, the triple denial of St. Peter, the first pope, and the fear of all the Apostles to speak out. Why do most Catholics seem to forget that and believe that every word out of the Pope’s mouth, or the mouths of the Cardinals, Bishops, etc is the Gospel Truth. We are not to follow into error, nomatter who is. “The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not.” Jesus Christ then goes on to strongly rebuke the scribes and Pharisees. St. Paul rebuked St. Peter, publicly, to his face. Read the writings of Pope SAINT Pius X and other condemnations on modern errors…read what they say, and what the result will be if practiced. Then read some documents (namely, concerning ecumenism and religious freedom) of Vatican II and tell me the results are not what was predicted by earlier popes, not to mention the Saints. Either the Church was wrong for the first 1960 years and is right now, or She was right then and is struggling now.
Pope Leo XIII said Satan was going to use this century to launch his strongest attack on the Church, Communists have fessed up to infiltrating the Church, as have the freemasons. Writings that were condemned before the Council were praised by the Council. The Freemasons and Commnunists can’t destroy the Church, so their goal is to take away the Church’s credibility. How? Read the above suggestions. Jesus forewarned of a great Apostasy (not “total” as the mormons teach). Let us not forget the warnings of Jesus as did our first dear Pope.

 

[latinmasslover]

I am confused. I thought that Catholics accepted guidance from the leaders of the Church. From the posts on this thread, it appears that if some Catholics don’t like the guidance, they feel free to criticize their leaders as being in error or misguided or pawns of evil.

Many of the comments on this thread use the same arguments that Protestants have used. The Church isn’t orthodox. It has or is on the edge of falling into error.

As a non Christian this is quite startling.

But no Christian in his right mind would follow Judas simply because he was one of the Chosen Disciples, or St. Peter in his denial. The situation in the Church is the same today. The only reason it’s not startling is because this was all forewarned. Peace.

 

[notself]

But no Christian in his right mind would follow Judas simply because he was one of the Chosen Disciples, or St. Peter in his denial. The situation in the Church is the same today. The only reason it’s not startling is because this was all forewarned. Peace.

Are you saying that the Pope and the Vatican are like Judas?

Surely not!

 

[nonsumd]

There was nothing wrong with the way the Church evangelized before the recent pastoral Council.

Do not get me wrong, latinmasslover. I would be the last to write off the entire pre-Vatican II missionary work of the Church as misguided.

We, however, should be honest with ourselves that, along with all the good they accomplished, missionaries did make mistakes in approaching potential converts and that the missionary enterprise was too often mixed up with the imperialist designs of so-called Christian states.

Moreover, the mindset that refuses to see how God’s grace works in non-Catholic religions, thus demonizing the non-Catholic, be he Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or pagan, has led to or permitted many evils, has it not?

A defensive, intolerant Catholicism is not Catholicism as it should be any more than an accommodating, indifferentist Catholicism is.

BTW, do you mean to imply that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have all been Judases?

 

[latinmasslover]

Are you saying that the Pope and the Vatican are like Judas?

Surely not!

I mentioned the other Apostles as suffering from temporary cowardice, not just the betrayal by Judas. I do not think that they are; as I said earlier (or maybe on another thread) I am not a sedevacantist. I believe that there were good intentions in what was done, but I think it did more harm than good. I believe, from the fruit of the Council, that it was the wrong approach. (I’m not meaning any of this in an argumentative spirit, just sharing my feelings) Earlier popes have condemned what Vatican II, pastorally, condones. They also explain why it cannot be practiced (I’m referring to the new ecumenism and “religious liberty”); the result they said would come about if practiced have happened, which is why I do not trust most Vatican officials now. Obedience in everything *except *sin or what leads to sin.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

latinmasslover;2672269:

It claims that the Catholic Church has had 40 anti-Popes throughout history with the latest being Paul VI and the Vatican II is a false teaching.

The figure is about 40. An incomplete list can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org - the CE can hardly be criticised for opposing V2, for the simple reason that it came out 40 years before V2 was opened. ​

 

[notself]

## The figure is about 40. An incomplete list can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org - the CE can hardly be criticised for opposing V2, for the simple reason that it came out 40 years before V2 was opened.

I always thought the Popes were in an unbroken line from St. Peter. Are you saying that this “line” has been broke at least 40 times?

I find this fascinating.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

No, it hasn’t been broken. Sometimes 2 people claim to be the Pope at the same time because of political problems and such, but only one is real.

As a new Catholic, this is all pretty startling and confusing to me as well. Only it is not fascinating to me, it is quite upsetting. I love the Church, and even the people in it have a laundry list of complaints against it

 

[notself]

No, it hasn’t been broken. Sometimes 2 people claim to be the Pope at the same time because of political problems and such, but only one is real.

As a new Catholic, this is all pretty startling and confusing to me as well. Only it is not fascinating to me, it is quite upsetting. I love the Church, and even the people in it have a laundry list of complaints against it

I am also surprised by the number of Catholics who are critical of the last 6 or 7 Popes. Before I came to this board I thought they were just a fringe group, but the differences run very deep between those who accept Vatican II and those who don’t.

As a non Catholic (former), I was mystified by it all until I realized that it is just people being people. Everyone has an opinion! I just wish some of them were more respectful of others.

 

[Genesis315]

Popes can change policies. What Pius XI was warning about were assemblies that promoted religious indiffentism–that is, waterning down the faith to the lowest common denominator and finding a false unity that way.

Some Popes allowed common prayer and others have not–it’s a matter of discipline. The most recent Popes and Councils have allowed it.

Another example of this poicy changing is this: Pope Leo XIII founded the Confraternity of Compassion for Catholics and non-Catholics to pray together for unity. On the other hand, the Church absolutely forbade it in the 4th and 5th centuries.

 

[Genesis315]

As a new Catholic, this is all pretty startling and confusing to me as well. Only it is not fascinating to me, it is quite upsetting. I love the Church, and even the people in it have a laundry list of complaints against it

I am sorry this has startled and confused you. I have seen multiple new or potential Catholics have their faith shaken by certain ignorant individuals who claim to be defenders of tradition (when in reality they have little knowledge of it at all). Glory to God they were strengthened by others and came out all the better for it.

This happened in St. Basil the Great’s time (4th century) as well. He writes (Letter 92):

“And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth…All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; and souls are drenched in ignorance.”

 

[nonsumd]

They also explain why it cannot be practiced (I’m referring to the new ecumenism and “religious liberty”)

Since, as far as I have ever heard, Protestants have never seen the Catholic Church as making any significant concession to their beliefs, I do not see how the “new ecumenism” coming out of Vatican II can be seen as “indifferentist” – particularly when John Paul II and Benedict XVI have explicitly warned against the seductions of indifferentism.

 

[latinmasslover]

I am also surprised by the number of Catholics who are critical of the last 6 or 7 Popes. Before I came to this board I thought they were just a fringe group, but the differences run very deep between those who accept Vatican II and those who don’t.

As a non Catholic (former), I was mystified by it all until I realized that it is just people being people. Everyone has an opinion! I just wish some of them were more respectful of others.

(FYI all: my tone is not critical here!)

What’s wrong with Pope Pius XII? He was awesome! Most people who accept Vatican II don’t understand it (as Pope Benedict says) which he intends to remedy…when that happens, I honestly think that many who support it now, will protest it when it’s explained. The intent of the Council, at least of the Pope John XXIII, is still to bring the straying sheep back into the fold. A different approach was encouraged, which is what the Council was all about, and that approach, was condemned by earlier popes simply because they don’t work, as we see all around us.

 

[latinmasslover]

I am sorry this has startled and confused you. I have seen multiple new or potential Catholics have their faith shaken by certain ignorant individuals who claim to be defenders of tradition (when in reality they have little knowledge of it at all). Glory to God they were strengthened by others and came out all the better for it.

This happened in St. Basil the Great’s time (4th century) as well. He writes (Letter 92):

“And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth…All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; and souls are drenched in ignorance.”

The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries or innovators [anyone supporting a false unity] but men of tradition.
Pope St. Pius X

They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle—the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?
True, the premises are good when the apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way…
You are the ones who are happy: you who remain within the church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from apostolic Tradition…
No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day…
They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition [seen today, FYI] are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.
St. Athanasius

Pope John Paul II freed the Latin Mass a little, and Pope Benedict has freed it completely (as of Sept. 14). They have both said that the Council has been abused, it’s teachings not properly taught, and Pope Benedict intends to remedy that situation. The “traditionalists” as we’re often called, never strayed, as the Pope, by his words and actions, has shown. He is restoring tradition, slowly, but surely.

If anyone is to be blamed for confusion in the Church, it is not the traditionalist (who sometimes overdo it for the love of God and His Church) any more than it is the liberals (who go overboard for the love of man and friendship).

The liberals refuse to listen to the words of the Pope a heck of a lot more than the traditionalists ever would. We’re holding on to what the Church has always said, as the Pope is reiterating, while the liberals (not all) are trying to make the Church look like one among many. Before pointing fingers, let us all consider which is truly the more scandelous view?

 

[latinmasslover]

Since, as far as I have ever heard, Protestants have never seen the Catholic Church as making any significant concession to their beliefs, I do not see how the “new ecumenism” coming out of Vatican II can be seen as “indifferentist” – particularly when John Paul II and Benedict XVI have explicitly warned against the seductions of indifferentism.

Funnily enough, well, I guess *sadly *might be the better word, my experience has been the exact opposite. I’ve been dogged by Catholics and nonCatholics alike simply for not being indifferent, for not having the “to each his own” motto. Glad your experiences haven’t been as harsh, you must have good priests at you parish, Deo Gratias! I do tend to have a harsh view, I admit, mostly because the priest and CCD instructors, etc, have all been pretty liberal. I do apologize if anyone misread my tone. It’s hard to convey feelings and tone of voice through a screen. I am honestly trying to find that balance of not compromising the Faith while remaining charitable, to know when true Christian charity means being harsh and when it calls for being soft. Again, my sincerest apologies for offence that may have been given. Please know that my harshness really does come from a love of God and His Church and not wanting Him or His Bride to be seen in the wrong way. Prayers for wisdom in this area are much appreciated.

 

[notself]

Passionate belief often results in strident speech.

Right Speech is by far the most difficult precept for most Buddhists because when one feels deeply about something, one can lose control over emotion and then lose control over thought and speech. Here is a quote of an American monk, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff).

As my teacher once said, "If you can’t control your mouth, there’s no way you can hope to control your mind.’ This is why right speech is so important in day-to-day practice.

Right speech, explained in negative terms, means avoiding four types of harmful speech: lies (words spoken with the intent of misrepresenting the truth); divisive speech (spoken with the intent of creating rifts between people); harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person’s feelings); and idle chatter (spoken with no purposeful intent at all).

Notice the focus on intent: this is where the practice of right speech intersects with the training of the mind. Before you speak, you focus on why you want to speak. This helps get you in touch with all the machinations taking place in the committee of voices running your mind. If you see any unskillful motives lurking behind the committee’s decisions, you veto them. As a result, you become more aware of yourself, more honest with yourself, more firm with yourself. You also save yourself from saying things that you’ll later regret. In this way you strengthen qualities of mind that will be helpful in meditation, at the same time avoiding any potentially painful memories that would get in the way of being attentive to the present moment when the time comes to meditate.

In positive terms, right speech means speaking in ways that are trustworthy, harmonious, comforting, and worth taking to heart. When you make a practice of these positive forms of right speech, your words become a gift to others. In response, other people will start listening more to what you say, and will be more likely to respond in kind. This gives you a sense of the power of your actions: the way you act in the present moment does shape the world of your experience. You don’t need to be a victim of past events.

All I can say is that Right Speech is difficult.

 

[latinmasslover]

Passionate belief often results in strident speech.

Right Speech is by far the most difficult precept for most Buddhists because when one feels deeply about something, one can lose control over emotion and then lose control over thought and speech. Here is a quote of an American monk, Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff).

All I can say is that Right Speech is difficult.

Amen to that!

 

[OneAugustKnight]

I am sorry this has startled and confused you. I have seen multiple new or potential Catholics have their faith shaken by certain ignorant individuals who claim to be defenders of tradition (when in reality they have little knowledge of it at all). Glory to God they were strengthened by others and came out all the better for it.

This happened in St. Basil the Great’s time (4th century) as well. He writes (Letter 92):

“And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth…All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; and souls are drenched in ignorance.”

Thank you, that it is what I shy away from, the hostility. I knew there were Catholics who didn’t believe what the Church teaches when I was baptized, I was just blind-sided by the number of people that delve so deeply into the knowledge and traditions of the Church and end up so hostile toward everyone else.

It doesn’t harm my faith, I am not scandalized by them or progressive Catholics or anyone else. It’s just so sad. We have this awesome Church where our sins our forgiven and we receive the actual Body and Blood of Christ, so why is everyone so angry all the time? I feel kind of lonely in Church, like I would fit in better if I was unsatisfied with it in some manner, since everyone else is.

 

[highlander]

Pope Leo XIII founded the Confraternity of Compassion for Catholics and non-Catholics to pray together for unity. On the other hand, the Church absolutely forbade it in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Do you have a specific website about Pope Leo XIII’s Confraternity of Compassion?