Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

[katolik]

pnewton:

There is no “as Catholics have always been.” The first Catholics were Jews who worshiped in Aramaic and Hellenist and Gentiles who were Greek-speaking. The Didache explains how the church worshiped and shows a different Mass than the Tridentine.

The idea of a static Church is a fallacy. As with all things, sometimes the changes are faster. Every generation is in one sense a “new Catholic.” We are nonetheless rooted in the same Church through the authority structure first started at Caeseria Philipi.

It’s not the ethnicity nor the Mass that the people, it’s the Faith.
Post Vatican II we are taught that no one goes to hell, the God of the Old Testament had changed into the God of the New Testament, the “Orthodox” ain’t in schism, the Lutherans aren’t heretics, et cetera and ad multum. Catholics have for centuries said what is above, but post VaticanII does the majority do?

Your fallacy is that you use the philosophy of man, which says everything must change. God doesn’t change but men do. God is not swayed by what men say, He remains constant, our Rock.

 

[buffalo]

Is Your Mass Valid? An eye-opening compendium revealing just how far the Mass has been decontructed in America

n this era of neo-pagan Modernism, experimentation with the rubrics (i.e. rules) of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass have resulted in many abuses. In addition to priestly experimentation, even some Archbishops and Cardinals promulgate pastoral letters directing parish priests to implement liturgical changes at odds with the official Church rubrics. Some of these abuses are so serious that they actually invalidate the Mass, which then greatly deprives the soul of Grace and the sacrificial benefit of Eucharistic Jesus. Such loss of Grace for both the faithful laity and priest may result in loss of the Catholic Faith and further descent of this world into pagan darkness. Strong words to be sure, so read The Power of the Mass article to appreciate how important the Mass truly is as evidenced from Church teachings and many great saints. Simply put, without the Mass all would be lost - literally. This article will explain the common liturgical abuses today and which of those invalidate the Mass.

more

 

[TNT]

Nota Bene:

McBrien is not necessarily “liberal.” He is however a misinformed, abrasive and bitter individual.

There is no question he has unkind thoughts for Pope JPII. The only problem with that (in his mind) is that few care what he thinks, and those that do are shrinking in numbers on a daily basis through attrition…

OK, then if he is “not necessarily” liberal, he would then have to be UNecessarily liberal. In either case he’s a liberal.
Lot’s of people have “unkind thoughts” of JPII. That does NOT make them liberal.

The US media and publishers propagate this man’s ideology. It will remain therefore, long after his :attrition", just as Chardin’s, Rahner’s et al do.

 

[TNT]

Nota Bene:

McBrien is not necessarily “liberal.” He is however a misinformed, abrasive and bitter individual.

There is no question he has unkind thoughts for Pope JPII. The only problem with that (in his mind) is that few care what he thinks, and those that do are shrinking in numbers on a daily basis through attrition…

OK, then if he is “not necessarily” liberal, he would then have to be UNecessarily liberal. In either case he’s a liberal.
Lot’s of people have “unkind thoughts” of JPII. That does NOT make them liberal.

The US media, dioceses universities and publishers propagate this man’s ideology. It will remain therefore, long after his :attrition", just as Chardin’s, Rahner’s et al do.

 

[Nota_Bene]

TNT:

OK, then if he is “not necessarily” liberal, he would then have to be UNecessarily liberal. In either case he’s a liberal.
Lot’s of people have “unkind thoughts” of JPII. That does NOT make them liberal.

The US media, dioceses universities and publishers propagate this man’s ideology. It will remain therefore, long after his :attrition", just as Chardin’s, Rahner’s et al do.

You don’t think logically and clearly. McBrien’s views, while often plain incorrect do not necessarily make him a “liberal.” He could well be a conservative, moderate or liberal…

 

[BulldogCath]

Please compare the following-the Declaration of Prinicipals from the Scottish Rite Masons, and Digniatis Humanae, from Vatican II. Are these two not similar in nature?

**DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

Proclaimed By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965.

---

1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man… To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church–the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.-
   … On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

gw820lodge.tripod.com/Freemasonry/Ceremonies/scottish_rites.htm#declaration
The following are the Declaration of Principles that the Scottish Rites adhere to:

This Supreme Council reaffirms its unswerving loyalty to the fundamental purpose of Freemasonry, which purpose from time immemorial has been to improve and strengthen the character of the individual man, and through the individual, the character of the community, thus under girding the community with those spiritual values which give it strength and stability.

This Supreme Council believes that this purpose is to be attained by laying a broad basis of principle upon which men of every race, country, sect, and opinion may unite -Ecumenism???

Believing that good and true men can be trusted to act well and wisely, this Supreme Council considers it the duty of the Fraternity to impress upon its members the principles of personal righteousness and personal responsibility, to enlighten them as to those things which make for human welfare, and to inspire them with that feeling of charity, or well-wishing, toward all mankind which will move them to translate principle and conviction into action.

To that end Freemasonry teaches a belief in God and faith in His divine purposes. It encourages the worship of God in conformity with the dictates of individual conscience. It stands for truth and justice, liberty and enlightenment, fraternity and philanthropy.
This Supreme Council expects of its members strict obedience to the laws of the land, and respect for their country’s flag.

Such principles unite men and encourage the pursuit by them, individually and collectively, of worthy endeavors and the attainment of the purposes inherent in them In that unity, human character achieves its highest unfolding and provides man’s best hope for peace on earth and goodwill among men.

To the furtherance of these principles, all our ritual is directed and all our efforts are aimed. To their furtherance, each Master Mason has pledged himself and at the portal of the Scottish Rite has renewed that pledge.

This Supreme Council discountenances and rejects any attempt by any international groups or confederations of Scottish Rite Supreme Councils to legislate for individual Supreme Councils.

Recognizing that principles unite men, that programs sometimes divide them, and that the preservation of unity of purpose and devotion to principle is essential to Freemasonry, the Supreme Council affirms its continued adherence to that ancient and approved rule of Freemasonry which forbids the discussion within tyled doors of creeds, politics, or other topics apt to excite personal animosities.

 

[Nota_Bene]

It’s not the ethnicity nor the Mass that the people, it’s the Faith.
Post Vatican II we are taught that no one goes to hell, the God of the Old Testament had changed into the God of the New Testament, the “Orthodox” ain’t in schism, the Lutherans aren’t heretics, et cetera and ad multum. Catholics have for centuries said what is above, but post VaticanII does the majority do?

Your fallacy is that you use the philosophy of man, which says everything must change. God doesn’t change but men do. God is not swayed by what men say, He remains constant, our Rock.

You are simply incorrect in your pronouncements…

(The Eastern Orthodox’s status was not schismatic well before V2.)

Still you come here and try the same tactics over and over. Nothing more than a waste of electrons…

 

[bear06]

You don’t think logically and clearly. McBrien’s views, while often plain incorrect do not necessarily make him a “liberal.” He could well be a conservative, moderate or liberal…

What are you sniffing today? McBrien is a VOTF darling who supports women priests as well as the good old seamless garment brigade. What is your evidence that makes you think that he could possibly be a conservative? I’m not sure how you could logically come to the conclusion that he is anything but a liberal. His views are not only incorrect but they are liberal in nature.

 

[TNT]

You don’t think logically and clearly. McBrien’s views, while often plain incorrect do not necessarily make him a “liberal.” He could well be a conservative, moderate or liberal…

And, that may well put you out of the “serious poster” business.

You are headed straight for the “sunny” shores of:
Liberalism :A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.

Enjoy the sunset.

 

[Nota_Bene]

TNT:

And, that may well put you out of the “serious poster” business.

A “business” you never tried to get into, aye?

 

[katolik]

Nota Bene:

You are simply incorrect in your pronouncements…

(The Eastern Orthodox’s status was not schismatic well before V2.)

Still you come here and try the same tactics over and over. Nothing more than a waste of electrons…

I have read a Polish Jesuit on another forum say that the God of the New Testament is no the same God as of the Old Testament. He said that God “changed”. Just a couple days ago, and he wears the SJ proudly.

The Eastern Orthodox weren’t schismatic before VII? What are you talking about? Is a chicken not a bird?

 

[katolik]

Nota Bene:

You are simply incorrect in your pronouncements…

(The Eastern Orthodox’s status was not schismatic well before V2.)

Still you come here and try the same tactics over and over. Nothing more than a waste of electrons…

I have read a Polish Jesuit on another forum say that the God of the New Testament is no the same God as of the Old Testament. He said that God “changed”. Just a couple days ago, and he wears the SJ proudly.

The Eastern Orthodox weren’t schismatic before VII? What are you talking about? Is a chicken not a bird?

 

[bear06]

First of all, you didn’t correctly read Nota’s post. Nota said:

The Eastern Orthodox’s status was not schismatic well before V2.)

Secondly, this has been explained to you many times in this thread and previous threads. Here’s Deacon Ed’s explanation again:

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:
Quote:
Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

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

 

[pnewton]

It’s not the ethnicity nor the Mass that the people, it’s the Faith.
Post Vatican II we are taught that no one goes to hell, the God of the Old Testament had changed into the God of the New Testament, the “Orthodox” ain’t in schism, the Lutherans aren’t heretics, et cetera and ad multum. Catholics have for centuries said what is above, but post VaticanII does the majority do?

Your fallacy is that you use the philosophy of man, which says everything must change. God doesn’t change but men do. God is not swayed by what men say, He remains constant, our Rock.

Yes but we are not God. Do you deny the Immaculate Conception because it was not pronounced until later? Do you deny the authenticity of the TLM mass because it took 1500 years before it was codified? Of course not. The church has changed. Sometimes because God continues to work in it and sometimes as a response to the world.

This is not always a bad thing. I do not think the church fathers foresaw the Protestant reformation. Just as a man on walking down the road praying the rosary must change from contemplation to service if he stumbles across a brother in need, so much the church respond to those around as the light of Christ.

What the church can not do (and has not done) is deny the deposit of faith.

As far as specifics, I can only address the ones I know. Hell is still real and still taught (check out the catechism or attend my parish. Listen to Fr. Corapi)

The term schism is a legal term. The only reason the Orthodox are not considered in schism is because no one is still alive from that error. Language can and does change meanings over time (ask any linguist). They are still outside the church and yet have valid holy orders.

As far as what the majority of Catholics believe, check out some of the polls as they come up. The last one I remember was on women’s ordination. It was running at 100% against with 41 votes.

 

[Nota_Bene]

katolik:

I have read a Polish Jesuit on another forum say that the God of the New Testament is no the same God as of the Old Testament. He said that God “changed”. Just a couple days ago, and he wears the SJ proudly.

The Eastern Orthodox weren’t schismatic before VII? What are you talking about? Is a chicken not a bird?

Just another attempt at misdirection. Your pronouncements can be proven false by simply reviewing Church documents. Why not give that a try for a change?

 

[katolik]

bear06:

First of all, you didn’t correctly read Nota’s post. Nota said:

Secondly, this has been explained to you many times in this thread and previous threads. Here’s Deacon Ed’s explanation again:

Ma’am it is the traditional theology of the Church that every child baptized with the Trinitarian formula is a Catholic even if he was baptised by a Lutheran or Anglican or Orthodox. They become a heretic or schismatic when they full accept their false religion’s errors.

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.

I love the deacon’s explanation, basically before the Second Vatican Council the Church was peasant like and ergo stupid. With the IInd Vatican Council we became better and enlightened. And you tell me nothing changed? We became better and no longer use (name removed by moderator)recise things which are of “preVatican II”.

 

[Nota_Bene]

katolik:

Ma’am it is the traditional theology of the Church that every child baptized with the Trinitarian formula is a Catholic even if he was baptised by a Lutheran or Anglican or Orthodox. They become a heretic or schismatic when they full accept their false religion’s errors.

I love the deacon’s explanation, basically before the Second Vatican Council the Church was peasant like and ergo stupid.

With the IInd Vatican Council we became better and enlightened. And you tell me nothing changed? We became better and no longer use (name removed by moderator)recise things which are of “preVatican II”.
He never said that. He never even alluded to it. You owe him an apology…

 

[katolik]

Nota Bene:

He never said that. He never even alluded to it. You owe him an apology…

DeaconEd:
Remember that the Church does not use the plebian definitions of words but, rather, a very precise meaning.

What was preVatican II was not precise and plebian, according to him

 

[bear06]

DeaconEd:
Remember that the Church does not use the plebian definitions of words but, rather, a very precise meaning.

What was preVatican II was not precise and plebian, according to him

Uh, I don’t think the quote said anything about preVII or post VII. It said the Church.

You still don’t seem to understand the use of the word schism. You can’t remove what you never had.

 

[Nota_Bene]

bear06:

Uh, I don’t think the quote said anything about preVII or post VII. It said the Church.

You still don’t seem to understand the use of the word schism. You can’t remove what you never had.

“Schism” (or is is “heresey”?) is a good word to define the sspx. That, and “protestant.”