Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nota_Bene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm…IIRC, the indult is older than the SSPX consecrations. Do we have a hard number of indults in USA? How many diocese percentage wise offer one on weekdays? It’s worst than watching grass grow. But you know what? If my bishop wants an HIV/AIDS ministry, clown ministry, baking ministry, eccumenical ministry, women’s ministry, ministry for the sick, Hispanic ministry, Polish ministry, Portugese ministry, social justice ministry, immigrant minstry, lay ministry, tv ministry, radio ministry, etc. etc. etc. that sure well is more important than us “arrogant” and “hypocratic” lepers.

SSPX = bad arrogant :mad: . Call to Action nuns giving homilies, priests making offensive jokes during homilies, women handing out communion (even at the Cathedral with the bishop) priests not following the GIRM, churches not looking like churches, photo opps with John Kerry, liturgical dance, Lutherans ordaining bishops at our shrines = good. :rolleyes:
 
Here is the link to the letter from Msgr. Perl
Click to expand...
David,

This letter is from Msgr. Arthur Calkins of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” and is addressed to Una Voce America; the request was also apparently made that Una Voce post the letter on its public web site. The letter contains a copy of Msgr. Perl’s response to an individual’s questions about the S.S.P.X. I would submit that the publication of the answers to a wide audience may be reasonably inferred as an intent to establish general principles for anyone wishing to assist at Masses of the S.S.P.X. for reasons of devotion. Obviously you disagree, but in the absence of further clarification it does seem that the P.C.E.D. published these answers for a reason. If you believe that these answers were intended to apply only to the questioner, why did not Msgr. Calkins make this clear in his letter to Una Voce? In fact, Msgr. Perl says, “was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us,” which is in the past tense; whether that refers merely to the time the original letter was sent, or to whether the advice was only for a specific set of circumstances, is unclear.

What does seem clear is that reasonable people could infer wildly different things from such a communication and its method of distribution (the Una Voce web site). As I said previously, a simple note from the C.D.F. could eliminate all doubt on both sides.

–Paul
 
40.png
Fogny:
What follows is what I am saying that the church is entered a period of confusion and and will find the truth someday because it has lost it’s way for the old deception that all men can obtain the Kingdom of heaven no matter what faith they believe.
Christ’s Sacrafice was sufficient for all men But only through his grace will they obtain Heaven. This is the difference between pro multis and pro omnibus.
As for Heresy what is to say that this liturgical experminent, this abuse of the documents of Vatican 2 cannot be denounced by a future Pontiff. 36 years is not to long a time in Church history. The changes in the Church in areas of faith and Dogma have been shadowed and obscured as never before. Confusion is abundant is it not. I offer the following

Although it is true that God alone knows, it is also true
that He has given each of us an intellect with which to
reason. And not one scintilla of evidence or proof of the
validity of the changed, mutilated “form” has been thus far
advanced to oppose and counterbalance the mountain of still
unrefuted evidence that it is invalid. Finally, in all
honesty, since the “new words” are so patently contrary to the
words of Christ as found in Scripture, in 2000 years of
liturgical usage and in the solemnly defined Form; and since
the “new words” likewise delete a profound mystery (the
Mystical Body) so intimately bound up with and expressed in
the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice - HOW COULD THEY
CONCEIVABLY constitute the valid Form, and how, indeed, could
the Innovators and their accomplices escape “the wrath of
Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul,”
invoked by St. Pius V on anyone who would ever have the
audacity to change the Roman Missal or the Holy Mass, let
alone tamper with its very heart and essence, the Canon and
Consecration?
“Take away the Mass: take away the Church” (tolle missam,
tolle ecclesiam) has ever been the program of the Ancient
Enemy. As more and more clearly we recognize that the MASS is
the heart at which Christ’s present-day crucifiers aim, we
should likewise realize that the Heart of the solution is
MARY. In the midst of the present almost UNIVERSAL APOSTASY
foretold by Pope St. Pius X, the key to our perseverance
in the days ahead is the Ever Virgin MARY and in our living in
absolute consecration to her Immaculate Heart. Thus, finally,
my supplication is to her, our “sole refuge” and our last and
“final weapon!” REGNET JESUS PER REGNUM MARIAE!

Rev. Lawrence S. Brey
February 19, 1969
Ash Wednesday

Fogny
Click to expand...
I want to clarify my point on pro multis v pro omnibus and then I have nothing else to add.

I talk of the form used in Christ’s instituting the Holy Euchurist

Christ shed his blood so that all men could gain salvation this was sufficient period. Christ than addressed his Mystical Body the Church. " For you and for many" you is the Jews and many is the Gentiles who were his followers.The Efficacy of the Sacrament was for the Faithful of the true Church, Not all men. If Christ had used the word all he would contradict his intention to establish his Church on earth, the Mystical Body of Christ, those in total union with the Catholic Church

Fogny
 
Pro Multis isn’t the only problem. Father Sommerville (sp?), Gibson’s priest admitted that there are thousands of mistakes in the translation of the ICEL. How some of this basic stuff is still tolerated to this day I have no idea.

Yes, I know there is supposed to be a better translation coming out, but when, and will it be for better or worst?
 
40.png
EddieArent:
Pro Multis isn’t the only problem. Father Sommerville (sp?), Gibson’s priest admitted that there are thousands of mistakes in the translation of the ICEL. How some of this basic stuff is still tolerated to this day I have no idea.

Yes, I know there is supposed to be a better translation coming out, but when, and will it be for better or worst?
Click to expand...
The Eucharistic prayer of the “new liturgy” the words of consecration

For Christ took the bread and the chalice and gave thanks; he broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take, eat, and drink: this is my Body; this is the cup of my Blood. Do this in memory of me.” Accordingly, the Church has arranged the entire celebration of the Liturgy of the Eucharist in parts corresponding to precisely these words and actions of Christ.

Posted on the US Catholic Council of Bishops web page.

Fogny
 
For those who continue to degrade church leaders:

(1)
"Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language. " (forum rules)

(2)
2478To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

(3)
Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, 2 you whitewashed wall. Do you indeed sit in judgment upon me according to the law and yet in violation of the law order me to be struck?”
4 The attendants said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” 5 Paul answered, “Brothers, I did not realize he was the high priest. For it is written, ‘You shall not curse a ruler of your people.’”(Acts 23:3-5)

I think calling any individual a cancer qualifies on all three accounts.
 
Nota Bene:
It’s remarkable how you can defend a septic group like the SSPX while passing judgement 5 cardinals and a bishop of the Church.

Yup, I titled it correctly: Arrogance & Hypocrisy of Traditionalists.
Click to expand...
WOW!

Is English not your native language?

I did not defend the SSPX. I stated that they need to submit to the authority of the Holy Father.

Cardinal Mahoney’s various froms of dissent are well known.

Cardinal Law allowed boy hungry peophiles to prey upon the most innocent members of the flock he was to shepherd. Or, haven’t you heard anything about that?

Cardinal Keeler is responsible for a little thing called “Reflections on Covenant and Mission”. Obvioulsly you haven’t heard of that one either. Since you haven’t heard of it I’ll sumarize it for you - the good Cardinal says that the Jews are in a saving cvenant with God now and have no need to convert to the Church. Wasn’t that so nice of him?

Cardinal Kasper says that the miracles performed by Our Lord are not historical events. He has made statements very similar to the things Cardinal Keeler says in his document. And lets not forget that we should now “move beyond” our traditional understanding of the sacrament of Holy Orders so that we can consider Anglican clergy to be validly ordained.

Cardinal Danneels has very publicly stated his support for condom use.

Bishop Loverde. What can we say about him? Since you seem to be ignorant of the evil things done by the other bishops I mentioned then I have to assume that you are unaware his excellency’s doings as well. He has silenced the whistleblowing priest, Fr. Haley, for pointing out to the good bishop that another priest had impregnated a woman and fro pointing out that a majority of priests in the diocese were homosexual.

I did not pass any judgement on any of these bishops. It is not judgemental to denounce the evil done by others. How dare you accuse me of that!

God bless,

James
 
pnewton said:
For those who continue to degrade church leaders:

(1)
"Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language. " (forum rules)

(2)
2478To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

(3)
Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, 2 you whitewashed wall. Do you indeed sit in judgment upon me according to the law and yet in violation of the law order me to be struck?”
4 The attendants said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” 5 Paul answered, “Brothers, I did not realize he was the high priest. For it is written, ‘You shall not curse a ruler of your people.’”(Acts 23:3-5)

I think calling any individual a cancer qualifies on all three accounts.
Click to expand...
  1. It is not a personal attack to mention heresy spouted by bishops. As Catholics we have the right and the duty to fight against such things.
  2. Calumny is “A false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation.”
I have posted nothing false. These things are easily verifiable.
  1. Your verse does not apply. I have revile no one and I sit in judgement on no one.
God bless,

James
 
What is Cancer?

According to the American Cancer Society:

“Cancer develops when cells in a part of the body begin to grow out of control. Although there are many kinds of cancer, they all start because of out-of-control growth of abnormal cells.”

It is most definanately an appropriate comparison for any who work to destroy God’s Church from within be he bishop, priest, or layman in the pew.

God bless,

James
 
40.png
James0235:
It is most definanately an appropriate comparison for any who work to destroy God’s Church from within be he bishop, priest, or layman in the pew.
Click to expand...
SSPX has also been called a cancer and heretical for the same reasons by others not in authority to define heresy. I understand it is a very American belief to think one has the right to state anything one thinks, but it is not a Christian concept.

Do you think you interpret what these these leaders have done/said in a favorable light? Have you personally asked them to explain themsielves? Are you in a postition of the Church to make judgements?

You did not compare these people to cancer. You called them camcer (by the definition you posted, a lump of cells, etc.). This is reviling them and an offense against their dignity as persons.
 
40.png
pnewton:
SSPX has also been called a cancer and heretical for the same reasons by others not in authority to define heresy. I understand it is a very American belief to think one has the right to state anything one thinks, but it is not a Christian concept.
Click to expand...
First, I really don’t anyone understood what I was saying when I stated that the SSPX is not a cancer in the Church.

It has already been pointed out several times in this very thread by various people that the SSPX is in schism. Since they are in schism then that means that they are not in communion with the Church. And since cancer attacks the body from within the SSPX can not be called a cancer to the Catholic Church because they are not in the Catholic Church. Their attacks come from outside the body.

I do not need to define heresy. It has already been defined by the Church. I have called no one a heretic. I leave that for the Church to decide. But when someone (even a Cardinal) openly and publicly denies doctines or dogmas of the Catholic Church (as Cardinal Daneels has done with contraception or Cardinal Keeler has done with Salvation) then I do have the right and the duty to speak against what they are saying.
40.png
pnewton:
Do you think you interpret what these these leaders have done/said in a favorable light? Have you personally asked them to explain themsielves? Are you in a postition of the Church to make judgements?
Click to expand...
There is no interpreting to be done.

“When someone is seropositive and his partner says: I want to have sexual relations with you – he doesn’t have to do that, if you ask me – but when he does, he has to use a condom…,”
Godfried Cardinal Danneels
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=26963

That statement is heresy. As to whether or not that makes the Cardinal a heretic, that is up to the Church. But** I do not** have to accept what he says here just because he is a Cardinal. What he has said here is just plain wrong. It is not truth and therefor it is evil.
Again, I judged no one.
40.png
pnewton:
You did not compare these people to cancer. You called them camcer (by the definition you posted, a lump of cells, etc.). This is reviling them and an offense against their dignity as persons.
Click to expand...
Cancer attacks the body from within. The bishops I mentioned have at one time or another attacked the body of Christ from within (something the SSPX are incapable of since they are not within). The comparison was obvious.

It is not an offense against the dignity of a person to point out their error - especially a bishop who should (and proably does) know better.

God bless,

James
 
Eddie-Dont you know that they have to wait and get every liberal theologian and (name removed by moderator)ut before an interpretation can be once again-is this not like the 4th time since Vatican II-that a “New” translation can be sent forth? Then they of course must run it past the Jews, the Muslims, the Protestants, the Hindus, the Buddhists (did I leave anyone out) to make sure that there is nothing offensive in it.

You see, the church has forgot that they are in the business of teaching sound, solid catechism and teachings -leading to the saving of souls to keep them out of mortal sin and hell.

Heck-what is one more translation-see that is what disgusts people that are true to the faith, why the need to play with words? Why the need to change the words and meanings to the sacrments? Why did the Pope refuse to take the Papal Oath? Why Why Why??? Was the church and her traditions that bad and offensive for all of those years that it needed to be discarded?
40.png
EddieArent:
Pro Multis isn’t the only problem. Father Sommerville (sp?), Gibson’s priest admitted that there are thousands of mistakes in the translation of the ICEL. How some of this basic stuff is still tolerated to this day I have no idea.

Yes, I know there is supposed to be a better translation coming out, but when, and will it be for better or worst?
Click to expand...
 
True-Cancer attacks the body from within-and that is what the problem with the church for the first time in history-as the Masonic plan was for centuries other faiths have tried to attack the church from the outside and failed-so starting at the turn of the century, the Masons with Communist backing and money infiltrated the church from within, as it has been documented that Pope John XXIII and also Archbishop Bugnini, the author of the Novus Ordo-were registered Masons, Pope John XXIII in 1935 and documents released from the Masons in Italy have Cardinal Bugnini as a registered Mason before he died in the 1970’s. This is fact and not a twilight zone episode. (I know the next question is where did you get your facts, do a search for both names on google and I am sure you will get quite a number of hits). To this day the Vatican will not answer yes or no to these questions.

SSPX is not inside the church-but outside-so the analogy to cancer is false. It is the homosexual, masonic, and false ultra liberal teachings that are taking place at the seminary level up to the level of Bishop that is the real cancer-as those are already WITHIN the body of the church and need to be extracted for the body-Our church to survive
40.png
James0235:
First, I really don’t anyone understood what I was saying when I stated that the SSPX is not a cancer in the Church.

It has already been pointed out several times in this very thread by various people that the SSPX is in schism. Since they are in schism then that means that they are not in communion with the Church. And since cancer attacks the body from within the SSPX can not be called a cancer to the Catholic Church because they are not in the Catholic Church. Their attacks come from outside the body.

I do not need to define heresy. It has already been defined by the Church. I have called no one a heretic. I leave that for the Church to decide. But when someone (even a Cardinal) openly and publicly denies doctines or dogmas of the Catholic Church (as Cardinal Daneels has done with contraception or Cardinal Keeler has done with Salvation) then I do have the right and the duty to speak against what they are saying.

There is no interpreting to be done.

“When someone is seropositive and his partner says: I want to have sexual relations with you – he doesn’t have to do that, if you ask me – but when he does, he has to use a condom…,”
Godfried Cardinal Danneels
cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=26963

That statement is heresy. As to whether or not that makes the Cardinal a heretic, that is up to the Church. But** I do not** have to accept what he says here just because he is a Cardinal. What he has said here is just plain wrong. It is not truth and therefor it is evil.
Again, I judged no one.

Cancer attacks the body from within. The bishops I mentioned have at one time or another attacked the body of Christ from within (something the SSPX are incapable of since they are not within). The comparison was obvious.

It is not an offense against the dignity of a person to point out their error - especially a bishop who should (and proably does) know better.

God bless,

James
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Nota Bene
*It’s remarkable how you can defend a septic group like the SSPX while passing judgement 5 cardinals and a bishop of the Church.

Yup, I titled it correctly: Arrogance & Hypocrisy of Traditionalists.*
Nota Bene, you use of the word “septic” in your sentance, " a septic group like the SSPX" raises a question of “veracity”. (veracity = accuracy, truthfulness.
L. verax, truthful)
*Septic refers to presence of bacteria, usually harmful. *
Perhaps you can modify that sentance to make it meaningful. If left as it is it is nonsence.
 
40.png
James0235:
It is not an offense against the dignity of a person to point out their error - especially a bishop who should (and proably does) know better.
Click to expand...
Correct, but name-calling is. In your initial post you pointed to no error, you just called them a cancer.

If you think the scripture, catechism and rule I posted above do not apply to you, that is between you and God (or the moderators, which ever come first). I think some of the stuff said was getting out of hand.

BTW - My initial post refers to peolpe on both sides.
 
40.png
Fogny:
Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles Changes “Ash Wednesday”
to resolve conflict with the "Chinese New Year & see below.

Do you feel these actions clash with Tradition or benefit lay people
in a groundbreaking way? Modernist or “Catholic”.?

The link above is wrong concerning Ash Wednesday, that story was reported in the Ventura newspaper, sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
TNT:
Ok, then:
“If your intention (but no one else’s) is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin (only for you, and no one else…they would sin having the very same simple devotion).”
Of this is logical to you, then I quit. There’s more logic in the cages of the zoo.
Click to expand...
Yes, what I am saying is logical.

It is illogical to say that a private response to a single individual (in a certain circumstance) has universal application.

For example, my birthday is on St Patrick’s Day (March 17th). Sometimes this falls on a Friday during Great Lent. I have in the past recieved a dispensation to eat meat (explicitly corned beef, as in corned beef and cabage) for dinner on that Friday.

Now according to your “logic” this should apply to everyone, or maybe just to those whose birthdays fall on that day. You would be wrong though as that dispensation only applies to me. The only way for it to have universal application is if it was granted universally.

This letter rad-Trads love to think applies to them does not, it only applies to the individual that it was addressed to.
 
I shall ask again-as a Conservative Catholic-why is there so much dislike for people like myself, I guess I can fall into a traditionalist category-when the church has so many other enemies- and lets call it like it is-I see much on the other threads about ecumenism-but the non-Christian faiths have been trying to destroy us for centuries- and they have infiltrated the church and especially at the Bishop level where you can go from state to state and have a completly different teaching and interpretation of the cathechism than those of us who live on the East coast would, which is obviously if you watched the last election-one of those blue states. To call those who hold tradition dear arrogant is mean spirited-It is actually the liberals who can be defined as schismatics as they are the ones who are continuously pushing for changes in church teachings and the easing of the rules-but for some reason it is the traditional Catholics who get SUSPENDED under their name on Catholic forums like this and are called schimsatic or dinosaurs or whatever mean name that gets thrown our way.
 
Bulldog,

I do not dis-like you. Nor do I have a dislike to tradtionalism.

As an altarboy in the mid seventies, I can tell you (as an eyewitness) how much the Mass has changed and how sad it is to see what they have done to our Churches. Mass in the venacular is a good thing, however the way it has been handled is not.

What I dis-like is false tradtionalism. There are plenty of people who run around and make up facts and figures about what the Church used to be and what it should be like. This false tradtionalism is what is causing all the problems.

-Ted
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top