With all due respect…whether or not it is confusing you, it doesn’t erase the fact that there are modernist trying to tear the Church apart.
Agreed - and there are many people who call themselves Traditionalists who are doing exactly the same. I have met these people.
Lizanne has made a post that is completely way off target, because she is wrong in her statements towards traditionalists.
I do not agree - I think that her initial post is correct. You have an elitism which seeks to raise those who stick to a rite which has now been suplemented by the generally accepted one to a superior position. Bear in mind that the Indult for the TLM says it can only be granted if the NO is accepted as valid, and that the NO is celebrated as “standard”.
the whole premise of this thread is either a lie or a misunderstanding…only the OP knows this.
I have just deleted about five responses this, as they would betray a lack of charity. But suffice to say if you were in front of me right now I would have had to leave the room or I would have done something which would probably be illegal. Don’t ever dare even suggest my wife is a liar again. Keep a civil tongue in your head.
but ignoring facts doesn’t make it go away.
What facts are being ignored here? The only fact is that the Church is under attack from revisionist modernism. That the TLM is a form of defence against that is not a fact - it is an opinion expressed by a group who are (in my experience both on and off this board) acting as an elitist group who seem to consider themselves above the rest of the Church.
for example, look at how the Clinton administration handled the problem with Al-Qaeda, state sponsored terrorism, and Bin Laden…point proven.
Your point is not proven at all. You use the words “for example” and then give a completely unrelated example which contains the emotive subject of terrorism. This example is not connected in the slightest with the subject under discussion. It is not even worthy of a respose, save this dismissal. It proves nothing save the low quality of that as an example.
there are a certain group of people within The Catholic Church who are being attacked for holding on to Traditions
Who has attacked you? Really? And have you really been attacked for holding onto traditions which have been replaced by entirely legitimate Church Councils? Or have you been attacked for promoting an elitist and divisive attitude?
Speaking personally, I have attacked no-one. If I had attacked you, you would really know about it. I am not a subtle man. But my reasons for opposing you are not because you cling to traditions (which have now been legitimately replaced) but because your group is elitist and divisive.
then being slandered by post like this
“Slander” is the action of saying something which is untrue. Please, demonstrate what is demonstrably untrue about any of the statements made. All have been couched in terms of personal opinion inviting debate. Slander is a legal term - tell you what, PM me and then we can have our attorneys talk if you think this is really slander. That laughter you can hear is the pre-emptive humour of the courts.
Don’t use a term inacurrately, I really don’t admire it as a tactic. You are using the term in order to cause an emotive response.
even being told there is no more room for us within our own Church.
While this may be true, this has not been said on this thread or by anyone here. Hence, you are using an example from an external source and attempting to apply it here in order to gain sympathy and so forth. This is another very poor debate tactic and one which I have no admiration for.
…try to look past all this nonsense, because there truly is one true Church…you have found it…the individuals within it are flawed…that is what you are seeing…the Church herself, is perfect.
Finally, we agree. And that one true church held a Second Vatican Council, where she proscribed . . . what about the Novos Ordo?
That is is valid. Always, without exception. The TLM is valid under an indult.
