Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

[pnewton]

Fogny:

Thanks to FSSP and SPPX it will never disapear. There will always be a remnant selected out of grace.

The concept of a remnant should apply only when the whole is in apostasy. I refuse to believe this is the case, as it would violate my most basic belief as a Catholic, that of one holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Of course if I did believe this, I would be the first to claim that I was the true remnant, like every other sect before me.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Deacon Ed:

I’ve been asked to jump in here and address the issue of schism. The question, as I see it, is whether or not the SSPX and the Orthodox are in schism. According to the current definitions that the Catholic Church is using, the answer with regard to the Orthodox is that the individuals are not in schism because, canonically, the definition of schism is:This definition is found in canon 751. Since the Orthodox that are currently alive were, for the most part, never in submission to the Pope they cannot have a “withdrawal of submission” from the pope and, therefore, they are not canonically in schism.

In the common parlance, schism means “separation” and we are, indeed, separated – but this is not how the Church uses this term. In fact, this term is no longer applied to the Orthodox Church because it does not apply to the vast majority of its members. Remember that the Church does not use the plebian definitions of words but, rather, a very precise meaning.

With regard to the SSPX – this is a more complex issue. The SSPX is, specifically, a clerical society and, as a consequence, anything that applies to them applies only to the clergy *except *that individuals are always affected by their clergy. The SSPX has, in fact, withdrawn submission to the Supreme Pontiff. They are not in communion with him, and refused to obey his orders or to enter into communion with the bishops in communion with the pope. This meets the canonical definition of schism. Lay people who subscribe fully to the philosophies and teachings of the SSPX with regard to submission to the pope may, in fact, join in the schism.

The question was raised: if they are in schism, why is it treated as an “internal matter” rather than through the normal ecumenical bounds. There are two reasons for this. First, the Church is a solicitous mother who wants to call back her errant children. She still sees the SSPX as those who are wandering Catholics and is working to bring them back. The second reason is that the SSPX calls itself Catholic. Therefore, the Church honors this position.

I trust this helps to clarify things…

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

The SSPX has never been a clerical society. Nor a priestly fraternity. This is a very important issue that people continually gloss over. They were originally granted a 6 year experimental status of a “pious union of the faithful”, which was never granted by Rome, but by the local ordinary. At the end of the six year experimental period, no permissions were granted to continue. This group has been disobedient from it’s early days.

-Ted

 

[katolik]

EPISTLE
1 Corinthians 13: 1 - 13
Brethren, If I speak with the tongues of men and of Angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy, and should know all mysteries and all knowledge: and if I should have all faith so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity is patient, is kind: Charity envieth not, dealing not perversely, is not puffed up, is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth: beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never falleth away: whether prophecies shall be made void, or tongues shall cease, or knowledge shall be destroyed. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. And now there remain faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. Traditional Mass Epistle of Quinquagesima
Sunday

That above should be how we should talk to each other.
Traditionalists are following the Scriptural command given by St.Paul through whom the Holy Ghost spoke.
Simple as that.

---

2 Thessalonians Chapter 2
11 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. 12 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, 16 Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

 

[BulldogCath]

Deacon

I have seen their website and they state that they are in obedience or something like that to John Paul II, so it seems as if they are obedient-I understand that there was a meeting with the Pope and Archbishop Lefebvre that ended with SSPX not agreeing to some of the demands of the church, hence the Fraternity of St Peter was formed -from priest and laity who were promised by the Vatican that if they come back “in communion” with Rome they would be allow to worship in only the Traditional manner and doctrine using the 1962 missal and the like. So some of the priests left SSPX and went along with this offer from the Vatican and the rest left, Lefebve consecrated his Bishops, and hence excommunication-or something like that. It turns out that the promise made at the time in 1988 has been already broken as Cardinal Arinze and others are now forcing these priests to perform the Novus Ordo Mass among other Vatican II forms of worship, and there is a greater mistrust now on the part of the Traditionalist towards the vatican , and this only makes the rift worse and more persons drawn to the Traditionalists, on top of the mistrust from the sex abuse scandals, the corruption, and ecumenism and overtures to non-catholic faiths that are turning off the conservative catholics
Deacon Ed:

I’ve been asked to jump in here and address the issue of schism. The question, as I see it, is whether or not the SSPX and the Orthodox are in schism. According to the current definitions that the Catholic Church is using, the answer with regard to the Orthodox is that the individuals are not in schism because, canonically, the definition of schism is:This definition is found in canon 751. Since the Orthodox that are currently alive were, for the most part, never in submission to the Pope they cannot have a “withdrawal of submission” from the pope and, therefore, they are not canonically in schism.

In the common parlance, schism means “separation” and we are, indeed, separated – but this is not how the Church uses this term. In fact, this term is no longer applied to the Orthodox Church because it does not apply to the vast majority of its members. Remember that the Church does not use the plebian definitions of words but, rather, a very precise meaning.

With regard to the SSPX – this is a more complex issue. The SSPX is, specifically, a clerical society and, as a consequence, anything that applies to them applies only to the clergy *except *that individuals are always affected by their clergy. The SSPX has, in fact, withdrawn submission to the Supreme Pontiff. They are not in communion with him, and refused to obey his orders or to enter into communion with the bishops in communion with the pope. This meets the canonical definition of schism. Lay people who subscribe fully to the philosophies and teachings of the SSPX with regard to submission to the pope may, in fact, join in the schism.

The question was raised: if they are in schism, why is it treated as an “internal matter” rather than through the normal ecumenical bounds. There are two reasons for this. First, the Church is a solicitous mother who wants to call back her errant children. She still sees the SSPX as those who are wandering Catholics and is working to bring them back. The second reason is that the SSPX calls itself Catholic. Therefore, the Church honors this position.

I trust this helps to clarify things…

Deacon Ed

 

[Fogny]

"Nor do We want to discuss their errors concerning the new ritual written in the vernacular, which they want to have adapted more to the character of our times.

May We not fail in spirit! May We not stifle Our apostolic voice in so serious a Catholic necessity! May We not allow the Lord’s flock to be plundered and the sheep of Christ to be devoured by all the beasts of the field, while We put aside the strength, judgment, and virtue of the spirit of the Lord like dumb dogs unable to bark. Know therefore, venerable brothers, that We are prepared to endure anything which threatens Us. We shall not retreat until the Catholic Church is restored to the original freedom which totally belongs to its divine constitution and until the mouth of the slanderers is blocked up. We cannot do anything more than to arouse your constancy and virtue and to strongly exhort you to take up the cause of the Spirit of God and of the Church. You share in a part of the concern whose fulness is given to Us. It is your duty to protect the holy deposit of faith and sacred doctrine. It is your duty to drive every profane reform far away from the Church and to exert yourselves with your whole heart against those who try to infringe on the rights of this Holy See. Therefore, draw the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. Preach as the apostle Paul impresses upon you in the person of Timothy his disciple. Stand firm in good times and in bad. Denounce, beseech, rebuke in all patience and teaching. Nothing should deter you from throwing yourselves into every conflict for the glory of God, for the protection of the Church, and for the salvation of the souls entrusted to your care. Meditate on Him who endured a similar opposition from sinners. If you fear the daring of the wicked, remember that the decision is made concerning the strength of the episcopacy and the divine power of governing the Church. So it only remains for you to remember the serious duties of your office and the difficult judgment which hangs over everyone in authority. The overseers of the house of Israel should especially meditate for a while at the feet of the Lord. We trust then that you will be aroused with zeal to help the Catholic religion and to protect it from the impious snares of its enemies. In this zeal you may show even greater results than these of which We wrote. Fully resolute and refreshed in that faith, We lovingly impart the apostolic blessing to you and to the people entrusted to your faith, as a sign of every good thing. "

Given at Rome, at St. Mary Major, under the ring of the fisherman, 4 October 1833, in the third year of Our Pontificate. His Excellency Pope Gregory XVI.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

BulldogCath:

Deacon

I have seen their website and they state that they are in obedience or something like that to John Paul II, so it seems as if they are obedient-I understand that there was a meeting with the Pope and Archbishop Lefebvre that ended with SSPX not agreeing to some of the demands of the church, hence the Fraternity of St Peter was formed -from priest and laity who were promised by the Vatican that if they come back “in communion” with Rome they would be allow to worship in only the Traditional manner and doctrine using the 1962 missal and the like. So some of the priests left SSPX and went along with this offer from the Vatican and the rest left, Lefebve consecrated his Bishops, and hence excommunication-or something like that. It turns out that the promise made at the time in 1988 has been already broken as Cardinal Arinze and others are now forcing these priests to perform the Novus Ordo Mass among other Vatican II forms of worship, and there is a greater mistrust now on the part of the Traditionalist towards the vatican , and this only makes the rift worse and more persons drawn to the Traditionalists, on top of the mistrust from the sex abuse scandals, the corruption, and ecumenism and overtures to non-catholic faiths that are turning off the conservative catholics

Yes, they make the claim that they are obedient to the Holy Father – but they refuse to obey him in all that matters. The agreement signed by Abp. Lefebvre and the Holy Father (actually, Cdl,. Ratzinger in the pope’s name) was refuted by Abp. Lefebvre the next day. Abp. Lefebvre refused to obey the Holy Father and ordained men to the episcopacy illicitly.

The current head of the SSPX and his priests are not in communion with Rome nor with any bishop that is in communion with Rome.

It’s one thing to say one is obedient, but another thing entirely when that statement boils down to “we’ll obey the pope when we think he’s right and reject him when we think he’s wrong.” which is precisely the position they have taken.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Defensor Fidei:

Deacon Ed,

The SSPX has never been a clerical society. Nor a priestly fraternity. This is a very important issue that people continually gloss over. They were originally granted a 6 year experimental status of a “pious union of the faithful”, which was never granted by Rome, but by the local ordinary. At the end of the six year experimental period, no permissions were granted to continue. This group has been disobedient from it’s early days.

-Ted

Ted,

While it is true that the SSPX was established as a *pia unio *(pius union which is a lay association) the society itself as well as Rome recognize that the intent was to establish it as a *pia domus *which would have been first step in establishing a religious order.

You are also correct that regardless of their intention, the establishment was *ad experimentum *for six years. That six years has long since elapsed and has not been renewed.

In matters of schism, however, it’s important to note that only clerics belong to the SSPX. Lay person may attend an SSPX chapel, but they do not, thereby, become members of the SSPX. Thus, it is clear that the SSPX acts as a priestly society rather than a pius union of lay persons.

Deacon Ed

 

[Fogny]

pnewton:

The concept of a remnant should apply only when the whole is in apostasy. I refuse to believe this is the case, as it would violate my most basic belief as a Catholic, that of one holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Of course if I did believe this, I would be the first to claim that I was the true remnant, like every other sect before me.

Is this passage relevent, the great apostacy spoken here:

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

2Th 2:5 Remember you not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

2Th 2:6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh: only that he who now holdeth do hold, until he be taken out of the way.

2Th 2:8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed: whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: him

2Th 2:9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power and signs and lying wonders:

2Th 2:10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish: because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

2Th 2:11 (2:10) Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

2Th 2:12 (2:11) That all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have consented to iniquity.

Only through prayer can we discerne what is taking place, but surely the truth is deposited for us by the Holy Ghost.

Fogny

 

[kk1727]

Fogny:

I respectfully disagree. Your argument is flawed in a very specific way pro omnibus is infinite, pro multis is finite. Christ in instituting the new covenent no where uses the form of “all”.

This change spawns the heresies of indifferentism and rationalism. Both denounced by the Church in teaching and encyclicals by the Papacy. These heresies are all part of gnostiscism and all other non christian sects.
To make further point what better sacraficial form is there then Christ’s own which is perfect and pleasing to God. As a example of the possibility of right and wrong Cain vs Able.

I give you Pope Leo XIII on the subject

“To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”

Fogny

I refer you to my previous post:

I refer the reader to check this

Zenit file, which addresses this particular issue from the linguistic and scriptural point of view. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has always taught the objective redemption of all as found in her liturgical rites: for our salvation and the salvation of all, that is on this day…(pro nostra omniumque salute pateretur, hoc est, hodie) is inserted into the Qui pridie on Holy Thursday.1 In addition to this text, the offertory prayer of the Chalice offers the Chalice with the express intention of being ‘for our salvation and that of the whole world’ (pro nostra et totius mundi salute). If these examples do not suffice to convince the inquirer to the truth that this is the constant teaching of the Church, perhaps the problem is not theological but attitudinal.

**1 **Missale Romanum editio princeps, pg. 238 Libreria Editrice Vatticana, Citta del Vaticano, 1998. Fr. Lasance, The New Roman Missal, pg 453.

And I give you Pope Pius IX:

“Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.”

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors

The Pope not only approved the vernacular translation as a sure formula for consecration but uses it himself. If this isn’t protected under papal infallibility, what is?

Pax,
Keith

 

[Fogny]

kk1727:

I refer you to my previous post:

And I give you Pope Pius IX:

“Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. – Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.”

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors

The Pope not only approved the vernacular translation as a sure formula for consecration but uses it himself. If this isn’t protected under papal infallibility, what is?

Pax,
Keith

This argument can not be solved by mere men, Popes are infallable, Christ is not nor can be infallable.

Fogny

 

[pnewton]

Fogny:

Only through prayer can we discerne what is taking place, but surely the truth is deposited for us by the Holy Ghost.

Fogny

I do not doubt that the Bible speaks of apostacy and the concept of a remnant is a valid OT type. None of the passages, however, mentioned the SSPX, though (nor any other group claiming to be the true remnant). Also, the concept of "discern through prayer and you will agree is not uncommon (e.g. the Mormons).

If you are claiming that the church is now experiencing this great apostacy, you would be the first to say such about the Catholic Church (over the centuries) and say,“Here is the antichrist.”

I do not buy the Church as the apostate and the SSPX as God’s standard bearer. I will stick with the man God chose to succeed Peter. If God would have wanted Lefebevre, we would be our pope.

 

[kk1727]

Fogny:

This argument can not be solved by mere men, Popes are infallable, Christ is not nor can be infallable.

Fogny

Surely you don’t mean what you’ve written. Either you meant to say that the Popes were fallible while Christ is not nor can be fallible. So that what you wrote is a typo. Either way without some qualifications both sentences are heresy.

If in your Catholic faith you believe that Christ established a Church which is indefectible and infallible, how do you square that with a belief that God left it up to mere fallible beings when it comes to the core of our faith: the Holy Eucharist?

 

[Exporter]

pnewton:

And speaking of Texas:

We have a small group that claims the Republic of Texas never legal dissolved. Therefore all federal laws do not apply to them. They claim they are following the proper legal defense of the true Republic of Texas by arming themselves and ignoring all other laws.

This always comes to my mind when I read discussions on the SSPX.

---

pnewton, whether you belive it or not, it is true that Texas was NEVER annexed by the Union. It is true because the congress never did have quorun needed for a vote to annex a state. In 1846, the petition was laid on the table very late one afternoon. Most Congress men left. Less than ten returned after supper and they signed it illegally. The next week it slipped through as having been voted on and approved. It was not. Texas WAS NEVER annexed by the U.S. That is a cold hard fact. Legally Texas is still a Republic!

But what we have today is a “Political” take over of Texas by the U.S. How do I know this? I attended quite a number of meetings of the Republic of Texas, That man who was said to be the new president of the Republic of Texas was president for one year only. There were two Washington based Lawyers, maybe 12 from Texas and several from various countries who checked out these facts. The World Court in the Hague accepted the R.of Texas claims. There were 4 countries from South America that had millions of dollars of gold ready to back up the new government when it came to power to pay the bills.

Why didn’t the Republic of Texas win the take over? It was political. Two hundred men were not enough to actually fight off the “Powers that were”. The man you saw on TV out West who had 400 armed Troopers after him. He was correct legeally but simply out numbered.

It would be similiar to a Black family who owned a farm just after the Civil War and were chased off that farm by neighbors. They had the deed. Then his great grand children come along with the deed and tried to regain the farm. There is no way (Politically) that can be done - even though they are legally correct.

 

[A_Chaoidh]

I was born and raised Roman Catholic under the Novus Ordo. I can attest in my post Vatican II Catechism lessons, there was much knowledge, tradition and Theology/Dogma grounding missing.

The rampant destruction of the TLM, to the point where many Catholics to this day think it is banned, in a rush to forms of rite more consistent with heretical, western schismatic protestant rites than the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church destabilized and shook the foundation of the Church. It is this reckless loss that I condemn; the wholesale abdonment of the form that existed for over 1500 years, known by a large number of Saints.

One may not condemn the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, which I do not. Throughout Church history variations of form of Mass have existed as had reform. I don’t atttend or support schism. FSSP fssp.org/ which celebrates our parish Mass is different than SSPX.

What is great is that the Church supports both TLM & Novus Ordo and we are free to celebrate in the form to which the Holy Ghost speaks to us and leads us. The foundation is the Holy Writ, Theology, Dogma and Catechism, Canon Law, etc. and the recognized authority of the Church. So long as that is followed and affirmed, it is your choice, no?

So, go Celebrate where the Holy Ghost leads you.

 

[bear06]

Fogny:

I respectfully disagree. Your argument is flawed in a very specific way pro omnibus is infinite, pro multis is finite. Christ in instituting the new covenent no where uses the form of “all”.
This change spawns the heresies of indifferentism and rationalism. Both denounced by the Church in teaching and encyclicals by the Papacy. These heresies are all part of gnostiscism and all other non christian sects.
To make further point what better sacraficial form is there then Christ’s own which is perfect and pleasing to God. As a example of the possibility of right and wrong Cain vs Able.

I give you Pope Leo XIII on the subject

“To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.”

Fogny

 

[bear06]

I respectfully disagree. Your argument is flawed in a very specific way pro omnibus is infinite, pro multis is finite. Christ in instituting the new covenent no where uses the form of “all”.

This change spawns the heresies of indifferentism and rationalism.

This always cracks me up. On one hand you have the libs who think everyone is going to heaven and on the other you have the rad-Trads who think that the Church is saying everyone is going to heaven. Once again, the folk in the middle of the Barque of Peter know exactly what the Church teaches.

Soooooooo much time wasted on this. Did Christ die for all? Yes. Can men reject him and lose salvation? Yes. Did people before and after Trent and Vatican II deny this? Yes. Does the Pope have the power to change matters of discipline? Yes (although I’m sure that some of you think Quo Primum can bind it’s successor which it can’t). Exactly what doctrine do you think has been changed here?

Why is it that you don’t have a problem with the Agnus Dei? Why isn’t this theologically unfounded and leading people into the heresy of indifferentism? Actually, my friend and I were just talking about this and she said that some probably would if they didn’t have anything else to pick on at the moment!

Here’s some good articles on the subject which I’m sure that as Catholic29 points out, you will probably won’t even read.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm
catholic-legate.com/qa/promultis.html

BTW, I have yet to hear one liberal whacko ever say that they reason they believe that everybody goes to heaven is because it says so in the Consecration. Can anyone point me to a link where somebody says this?

Here’s one quickie I’ll cut and paste here since some won’t read the links above.

Q: I was told that the Council of Trent and Summa Theologiae specifically include the words “for you and for many” in the formula for consecrating the Eucharist. Since the current rite of Mass says “for you and for all,” would this invalidate the consecration?

A: There are several misconceptions here. The words “for you and for many” only appear in translations of the current rite of Mass, not in the original Latin. The current Latin edition has the phrase pro vobis et pro multis, which means “for you and for many” or “for you and for the multitude.” The phrase pro vobis et pro multis is the same as it was previously; only the translation is different.

The Council of Trent did not specify the words. It was the so-called Catechism of the Council of Trent (actually written after the Council), or Roman Catechism, which dealt with the specific words of consecration. This work, while esteemed and venerable, is not infallible. No pope or council ever issued a dogmatic definition that the Roman Catechism is without error.

The same goes for Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologiae (III:78:3), Aquinas does include the phrase pro vobis et pro multis in the words of consecration, just as we do today. However, Aquinas is speaking to what the approved formula of consecration was in the Latin Rite and was not addressing other approved formulas of consecration.

Throughout the history of the Church, there have been at least 89 variations of the formula of consecration approved by the Church (see Likoudis and Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, 109). Many of these entirely exclude the phrase in question. For example, the canon of Hippolytus, which dates back to the beginning of the third century, gives the following as the words of consecration for the cup: “And likewise, taking the cup, he said: ‘This is my Blood, which is shed for you. When you do this, make memory of me.’” More to the point, St. Paul himself omits the phrase and gives the words of consecration as: “In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’” (1 Cor. 11:25).

Ultimately, when a matter has not been settled infallibly, prior writings and writers cannot be used to attack a later practice that has been approved by the Holy See. And the translation of the phrase pro vobis et pro multis as “for you and for all” has been approved. This principle is something that Aquinas specifically endorsed. In his Questiones Quodlibetales, he stated: “We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he [sic] may be in divine Scripture” (IX:8).

John Henry Newman adds: “Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey” (Letters of John Henry Newman, 236).

Jason Evert

 

[BulldogCath]

I disagree-the church does not support the TLM-It begrudgingly allows it, many many bishops refuse to allow it at all-leading those to SSPX, SSPV and other independent Traditional churches-and when they leave, they usually take others with them and have a deep deep resentment towards the church and the establishment, having felt shunned. And when a Parish allows a TLM, it is usually in a small little church in the far reaches of the diocese. Out of 100 parishs where I live, it is allowed in I think one church only, which I travel to with my family or go into another diocese, and admittedly have attended SSPV and SSPX masses for a while but always find my way back to my real church. So many people, including my uncles, go to SSPX and SSPV instead, as they feel that they are being treated like second class citizens and feel like they are being thrown a bone and penalized for wanting to worship and receive valid sacrements-as they feel that the sacrements of the Novus Ordo are doubtful due to the liberalized translations that took place by the ICEL.

A_Chaoidh:

I was born and raised Roman Catholic under the Novus Ordo. I can attest in my post Vatican II Catechism lessons, there was much knowledge, tradition and Theology/Dogma grounding missing.

The rampant destruction of the TLM, to the point where many Catholics to this day think it is banned, in a rush to forms of rite more consistent with heretical, western schismatic protestant rites than the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church destabilized and shook the foundation of the Church. It is this reckless loss that I condemn; the wholesale abdonment of the form that existed for over 1500 years, known by a large number of Saints.

One may not condemn the Novus Ordo or Vatican II, which I do not. Throughout Church history variations of form of Mass have existed as had reform. I don’t atttend or support schism. FSSP fssp.org/ which celebrates our parish Mass is different than SSPX.

What is great is that the Church supports both TLM & Novus Ordo and we are free to celebrate in the form to which the Holy Ghost speaks to us and leads us. The foundation is the Holy Writ, Theology, Dogma and Catechism, Canon Law, etc. and the recognized authority of the Church. So long as that is followed and affirmed, it is your choice, no?

So, go Celebrate where the Holy Ghost leads you.

 

[psalm90]

I consider myself as conservative as anybody, orthodox, faithful to Rome, etc.

If the Vatican allowed, I would see no problem with allowing lay people to give “witness” or “testimony” or even to “preach” during Mass, if they had some semblance of qualification for doing so.

I see no impediment except precedent why a lay person could not read the gospel passage at Mass.

When odd things happen at Mass, it’s only because it breaks the rules and my sense of order that bothers me. I dislike that every bishop can change x, y, and z, and they turn it over to the whim of the pastors to change x, y, and z, and Mass two weeks in a row is never the same. Even if somebody favored that, what is the point of it?

 

[BulldogCath]

Doing some research on salvation, from a consevative Catholic website Catholic Answers, I came across the following. It is exactly finds as such, which are somewhat contradictory to Vatican II and her teachings. What happens, like in the court of law, one you find that the most credible witness may have fibbed or something just is not right in your mind, you get suspicious that the whole package is flawed.

** I am devout and a follower, but it seems the more educated you become in the Catholic faith, as most traditionalist are, and unfortunatly most Novus Ordo attendees are not. When posed with situations as such, most Novus Ordo supporters final answer is always “well the Pope says so”. The more you read past church history and doctrine and compare it to the 16 Vatican II documents and the follow up teachings and catechisms, the more you start to gravitate towards holding traditionalist or conservative views**

Question: A person named Jacob asked this question at a RCIA class. *“Must I, as a Jew, convert and believe that Jesus is the Messiah and is God, or does the current Catholic church teach that I may be saved by my being a Jew?” *The person in charge of the class, replied to question by stating, “Would that you were given the grace to recognize Jesus as the Son of God and could join the Catholic Church. But if you honestly cannot accept Him as such, by living a life as a devout Jew, you can reach heaven.” What is the correct position on this matter? - David

Answer: Ignorance can be of two kinds: Culpable (guilty) or invincible (innocent). A person who is culpably ignorant cannot save his soul while he remains in that state. The Jewish person that asked this question cannot claim to be invincible ignorant. He has been presented with the truth about Jesus being the Messiah or he could not have asked such a question. “Who is the liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father…” (1 John 2:22-23) The person answering the question was clearly wrong. Here is a perfect example that will make it more clear. Do you think the Jews killed St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, because he said, “if you honestly cannot accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah, but live a life as a devout Jew, you can reach heaven” or maybe just maybe he told the Jews the uncompromising truth about Jesus and they stoned him to death for it ? Finally, the Council of Florence made this infallible statement which can never be expunged:“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

 

[Nota_Bene]

JKirkLVNV:

Look, I sympathize with Traditional Catholics…right up unitl the point that they become Rad Trads who disparge the Mass of Paul VI (no one here, at least in my recollection, does that to the Indult, for that matter, they don’t mock the TLM…can the Rad Trads say the same about how they treat the NO Mass?), and deny the authority of the Council and the Pope to legislate for the Church. Even then, I try to be patient with them. But they go on and on about Bugninni and the Protestants (an overt LIE), that poor old blind Cardinal, ad orientum, etc., and they are contemptuous, rude and arrogant about it, at least on these threads. I don’t know what sparked the original posters motive in starting this thread, but I’m sure something did. If you don’t like the Mass of Paul VI, attend the Indult. If one isn’t available, petition the Bishop. If he doesn’t respond or won’t grant it, go over his head (you have the right in Canon Law). Start a local Indult Society. If there are abuses in the Mass of Paul VI, report them. If nothing is done, report that, higher up the chain. Just stop badgering us. We’re only going to respond in the same way (ie, “SSPX is in schism, material aid to schism, Council good, abuses bad,” blah, blah, blah). We don’t have any power, or at least, we have just as much as you do. As I said, I sympathize, to a degree. If a Anglican Use parish existed in my diocese, I’d get myself there in short order. Cranmer, heretic and schismatic though he may have been, still wrote beautiful prose.

No, you don’t. The Church left the decision of whether of not to allow the indult with the local ordinaries.

The Anglican-Use Mass is GORGEOUS. Once Cranmer’s writings were corrected for orthodoxy, they make for a wonderful Mass.