Difficulty with certain Catholics

[Usige]

Just curious why it is okay for some here to not love Pope Benedict (he makes mistakes, burns bridges, we’ve felt that way since JPII died), but if someone that loves the Mass of Pope St. Pius V says they don’t love Pope Francis they are automatically tared as a sedevacantist?

Isn’t the whole point of this thread that it is unjust to paint someone as X simply because of their preference for one form of the Mass or the other? I am sure everyone here knows all the basic prayers in Latin and hold Gregorian chant in high regard right? Both of those are things that the Second Vatican Council said all Catholics should do. If you don’t then are you disobedient to the teachings of the Church?

The point is some of the things said here on this thread are exactly what causes division. It sounds like the same type of thread is what drew the ire of those from Fish Eaters. Just as having someone that supports abortion that prefers the Mass of Pope Paul VI does not mean that all who prefer it hold the same opinion, neither does a sedevacantist attending an FSSP parish make all those there sedevacantist.

All I can say to some here is “Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.”

 

[Gliggle]

But not to the point of despairing of God’s mercy, which is just as damning a sin as presumption. I can see how dangerous this sermon can be for scrupulous persons who believe there is no chance for them to please God, and that everything they do is a sin of major proportions.

True, and there is reason to hope that all souls reach heaven, otherwise the holy mother would not have asked us to pray “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of hell. Bring all souls to heaven especially those who most need your mercy.”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Usige

Just curious why it is okay for some here to not love Pope Benedict (he makes mistakes, burns bridges, we’ve felt that way since JPII died), but if someone that loves the Mass of Pope St. Pius V says they don’t love Pope Francis they are automatically tared as a sedevacantist?

No one is saying we shouldn’t love Pope Benedict, nor any Pope. We can like or dislike how a Pope handled his office while he served, and that’s about where it ends.

Isn’t the whole point of this thread that it is unjust to paint someone as X simply because of their preference for one form of the Mass or the other? I am sure everyone here knows all the basic prayers in Latin and hold Gregorian chant in high regard right?

I barely know any prayers in Latin and I was raised in the Pre-Vaticvan II Church. Memorizing Prayers in Latin was what altar boys were mandated to do, not lay people.
It was nice if they learned a little, but most didn’t and when they did, they just mimicked the words they memorized by rote, like the altar boys did. Only priests were fairly fluent in Latin.

Both of those are things that the Second Vatican Council said all Catholics should do

.

No such thing was said at Vatican II.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

Preserved doesn’t mean exclude vernacular and the document also stated,

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

This means that the Bishops were to experiment and see what was working best. As it came to be, the vernacular in full use was accepted to the point of excluding Latin in most parishes throughout the world. The Vatican and the Pope will use Latin because the Mass is usually celebrated with clergy from different parts of the world. Latin use to make the language more common among them. However, in today’s world, more people understand English than Latin, and that includes Bishops.

The point is some of the things said here on this thread are exactly what causes division. It sounds like the same type of thread is what drew the ire of those from Fish Eaters. Just as having someone that supports abortion that prefers the Mass of Pope Paul VI does not mean that all who prefer it hold the same opinion, neither does a sedevacantist attending an FSSP parish make all those there sedevacantist.

Except that the reason why we have this forum and Fish Eaters is because of their separating from the main Church which celebrates the norm, i,e, the NO.

The reason why we have people driving for hours away from their home parishes, is because they choose separate themselves from the community where they live, because they reject the NO format in favor of the extraordinary.

The problem begins when those same people attack the rest of the Church for not being as Catholic as they are.

Jim

 

[Usige]

No one is saying we shouldn’t love Pope Benedict, nor any Pope. We can like or dislike how a Pope handled his office while he served, and that’s about where it ends.

I don’t like that Pope Francis washed women’s feet so I am automatically told I don’t love him. Why is that any different?

I barely know any prayers in Latin and I was raised in the Pre-Vaticvan II Church. Memorizing Prayers in Latin was what altar boys were mandated to do, not lay people.

It was nice if they learned a little, but most didn’t and when they did, they just mimicked the words they memorized by rote, like the altar boys did. Only priests were fairly fluent in Latin.

No such thing was said at Vatican II.

I never said Latin should be used exclusively or that we were to become fluent. From the Constitution on The Sacred Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council:

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithfu****l may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

So yes the vernacular can be used, but it is very clear that step are to be taken that the faithful (us in the pew) can sing or say our parts in Latin. Can you explain how never using Latin in the liturgy is preserving it’s use?

The reason why we have people driving for hours away from their home parishes, is because they choose separate themselves from the community where they live, because they reject the NO format in favor of the extraordinary.

Wrong, many are driven out of their parishes communities. I have been told numerous times on this very forum that if I prefer chant over the St. Louis Jesuits (Foley, Schutte, etc.) then I should go to a TLM parish. Want to hear Latin? Go somewhere else. You prefer to kneel and receive on the tongue? Not in my parish. You don’t want to see me in mini skirts and tube tops? Too bad. My wife was kicked out of her mom’s group for mentioning controversial topics like opposing abortion and contraception. Most go to a TLM because they get sick of a watered down faith. It’s not only about the form of Mass for many, but that they are ostracized for holding to traditional teachings of the Church. (BTW I do attend my local parish, but occasionally attend an FSSP parish when I want to reconnect to our liturgical roots)

All of us are flawed. They irk you? Fine, I’m sure you irk them. The solution isn’t to push them out. Do you think that a Latin Catholic that drives an hour to attend a Syro-Malabar Catholic parish has separated themselves from their community or might it be that that liturgical tradition provides them the most spiritual nourishment?

 

[Gliggle]

Usige and Jim, I think you are both speaking about different things. It is a wonderful thing if some people drive so far for the mass they love. This is a good thing. If they do it because they feel driven out of their communities that is a bad thing. Some definitely do it out of hatred for the OF, because this close family member told me that is the reason he does it. Probably all three reasons for driving far occur, so no need for either of you to disagree over the reasons because you are both right. You probably have both just seen different things.

 

[Kevin12]

Actually, I read that sermon as more of a statement how it doesn’t help anyone to believe that it is easy to avoid hell, and that such a belief is a danger. He was saying that we should all be terrified of hell, that it is a reality for each and every one of us and we are all gravely at risk. Take his point; If he had said “Only one of you will go to hell.” would you feel consoled? If he had said this, would you, as a sinner, go to confession and make every effort to stop sinning? Well, if not, in that scenario the one person who went to hell would be YOU. His point could not be more clear, and there is no one who needs to hear this sermon more than you, because you need to learn to be afraid of hell. You should be very afraid of saying the things you are saying about hoping hell isn’t so bad. What this sermon does tell us is that it is we who choose hell, it is our hearts that consign us there when we are unwilling to walk away from sin.

Also I will pray that St Leonard will tell you he was wrong about the numbers. Hopefully he will come to you and let you know soon! But God will only let him do that if it is helpful to your soul… and maybe you need to be a bit more frightened of hell right now than reassured.

Of course I am afraid, but it’s more like, if God sends that many souls to Hell, I don’t want to go to Heaven anyway, no matter how good it is. I have known a lot of people in my life, most of them good people, and if 99.9% of them go to Hell to suffer unimaginable torture forever, then God is simply incomprehensible to me.

 

[Kevin12]

Just curious why it is okay for some here to not love Pope Benedict (he makes mistakes, burns bridges, we’ve felt that way since JPII died), but if someone that loves the Mass of Pope St. Pius V says they don’t love Pope Francis they are automatically tared as a sedevacantist?

Isn’t the whole point of this thread that it is unjust to paint someone as X simply because of their preference for one form of the Mass or the other? I am sure everyone here knows all the basic prayers in Latin and hold Gregorian chant in high regard right? Both of those are things that the Second Vatican Council said all Catholics should do. If you don’t then are you disobedient to the teachings of the Church?

The point is some of the things said here on this thread are exactly what causes division. It sounds like the same type of thread is what drew the ire of those from Fish Eaters. Just as having someone that supports abortion that prefers the Mass of Pope Paul VI does not mean that all who prefer it hold the same opinion, neither does a sedevacantist attending an FSSP parish make all those there sedevacantist.

All I can say to some here is “Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.”

I’m sorry if I came off that way, and that was the reason I was so reluctant to make this thread. I know most traditionalists probably don’t even use the internet that much, so I am probably getting a very skewed picture. I think the breaking point was when I saw one of the creators of one of these sites link to another site that argued against “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” being a forgery. I know most traditionalists are probably not like that and aren’t sede either.

 

[Kevin12]

Wrong, many are driven out of their parishes communities. I have been told numerous times on this very forum that if I prefer chant over the St. Louis Jesuits (Foley, Schutte, etc.) then I should go to a TLM parish. Want to hear Latin? Go somewhere else. You prefer to kneel and receive on the tongue? Not in my parish. You don’t want to see me in mini skirts and tube tops? Too bad. My wife was kicked out of her mom’s group for mentioning controversial topics like opposing abortion and contraception. Most go to a TLM because they get sick of a watered down faith. It’s not only about the form of Mass for many, but that they are ostracized for holding to traditional teachings of the Church. (BTW I do attend my local parish, but occasionally attend an FSSP parish when I want to reconnect to our liturgical roots)

All of us are flawed. They irk you? Fine, I’m sure you irk them. The solution isn’t to push them out. Do you think that a Latin Catholic that drives an hour to attend a Syro-Malabar Catholic parish has separated themselves from their community or might it be that that liturgical tradition provides them the most spiritual nourishment?

I don’t object to anything that you are saying but the bold part, but that is the heart of the matter. Aren’t you implicitly saying that the rest of us are leading a watered-down faith life, and that your way is better? This kind of contradicts what you are saying about simply wanting options for those who prefer the EF.

 

[WildCatholic]

I don’t like that Pope Francis washed women’s feet so I am automatically told I don’t love him. Why is that any different?

I never said Latin should be used exclusively or that we were to become fluent. From the Constitution on The Sacred Liturgy from the Second Vatican Council:

So yes the vernacular can be used, but it is very clear that step are to be taken that the faithful (us in the pew) can sing or say our parts in Latin. Can you explain how never using Latin in the liturgy is preserving it’s use?

Wrong, many are driven out of their parishes communities. I have been told numerous times on this very forum that if I prefer chant over the St. Louis Jesuits (Foley, Schutte, etc.) then I should go to a TLM parish. Want to hear Latin? Go somewhere else. You prefer to kneel and receive on the tongue? Not in my parish. You don’t want to see me in mini skirts and tube tops? Too bad. My wife was kicked out of her mom’s group for mentioning controversial topics like opposing abortion and contraception. Most go to a TLM because they get sick of a watered down faith. It’s not only about the form of Mass for many, but that they are ostracized for holding to traditional teachings of the Church. (BTW I do attend my local parish, but occasionally attend an FSSP parish when I want to reconnect to our liturgical roots)

All of us are flawed. They irk you? Fine, I’m sure you irk them. The solution isn’t to push them out. Do you think that a Latin Catholic that drives an hour to attend a Syro-Malabar Catholic parish has separated themselves from their community or might it be that that liturgical tradition provides them the most spiritual nourishment?

Good for your wife, but why not bring up the issue with a pastor at your old parish rather than go to a TLM one. Honestly, if people want better parishes, it will come from the people. Yes Priests can do a lot, but only if the people are cooperative. If your old parish had pro death people in the moms group, bring it up with the pastor or the head of the group, or form your own group with the pro life moms. We need to make parishes better, not just leave and let parishes who struggle suffer even more.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Usige

I don’t like that Pope Francis washed women’s feet so I am automatically told I don’t love him. Why is that any different?

Who said you don’t love Pope Francis because he washed the feet of woman and you don’t like that ?

I think your wrong to react that way, but it doesn’t mean you don’t love the Pope, unless you actually degraded him for doing so.

Most go to a TLM because they get sick of a watered down faith.

This statement says a lot about your attitude.

You feel people who attend a TLM are better Catholics and others have a watered down faith.

ll of us are flawed. They irk you?

Your above statements betrays a hypocrisy in this statement.

I don’t get irked except when I see Catholics being told that their faith is watered down.

God Bless
Jim

 

[Usige]

I don’t object to anything that you are saying but the bold part, but that is the heart of the matter. Aren’t you implicitly saying that the rest of us are leading a watered-down faith life, and that your way is better? This kind of contradicts what you are saying about simply wanting options for those who prefer the EF.

My appologies, that was a poor choice of words. What I meant by watered down is when speaking the truth as taught by the Church and people are hushed. There are some parishes where being clear about Church teachings on gay marriage, premarital sex, abortion, etc. are actively discouraged in the name of not offending anyone. I was an EMHC and when I corrected someone about being a “wine minister” (it is never wine when an EMHC is handling it) I was told they call it that because calling it the precious blood “makes some people uncomfortable”. When you hear stuff like that week after week from those that are entrusted with the precious body and blood it is not unfathomable for someone to want to go somewhere where there is such overt love and reverence for the Mass. Its not that that level of love doesn’t exist in the OF, but I have never heard that type of disrespect at the EF.

If those charged with teaching the faith are too afraid to offend someone with the truth then isn’t that watering it down to make it more palatable? One of the reasons we stay in our local parish is to make sure that a traditional voice can still be heard. Just because someone subscribes to tradition does not mean that they reject anything new. We just think that all things new need to be seen through the lenses of tradition.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The Pope allowing full use of the TLM, was in fact a compromise with SSPX, according to Cardinal Sean O’Malley who served on the commission who worked with the Pope on the issue.

Pope Benedict XVI had no political sense, which is why nuns were killed over his statement which inflamed Muslims and why non-Catholics were appalled by the release of the document on no salvation outside the Church. Of course it had to be explained, but that’s part of having political sense, or doing what the other Popes before him did, have his assistants review the statements he wants to go public with.

Pope Benedict XVI is a highly intelligent intellectual and brilliant minds like his are rarely tidy when it comes to public relations. But a Pope must deal with the public for he is a public figure. What he says matters and the Pope has to keep in mind, not everyone lives in a palace with guards to protect him when he says something that is inflammatory, regardless how true it is.

Jim

I’m not saying it wasn’t a compromise*, I’m stating that implying it was a political move (which, after reading your above comment, I’m assuming you don’t think it was) instead of a shepherd looking out for his flock is incorrect.

*I don’t think compromise is the proper term to use for the former Holy Father’s actions since the word itself has a popular definition implying that both sides of an issue give up something they may or may not see as being correct in order to end the conflict (“I know this isn’t right, but for the sake of harmony I’ll go along with it”). I think it would be more accurate to state that the former Holy Father listened to his flock, saw that there was a real spiritual need for the use of the EF, and allowed it.

 

[Usige]

Good for your wife, but why not bring up the issue with a pastor at your old parish rather than go to a TLM one. Honestly, if people want better parishes, it will come from the people. Yes Priests can do a lot, but only if the people are cooperative. If your old parish had pro death people in the moms group, bring it up with the pastor or the head of the group, or form your own group with the pro life moms. We need to make parishes better, not just leave and let parishes who struggle suffer even more.

She and several others did talk to the pastor. Father said he was aware of it but since most groups are not directly sponsored by the parish he didn’t have a lot of control on how they were run. Since they didn’t directly support abortion bit only listed it as a band topic he didn’t feel like he could keep them from using the parish building. The main reason she went to the FSSP parish is because they have a large homeschooling group. We are still at our local parish, but “cross boundaries” for various reasons. To be honest I have liked the EF since before I became Catholic. I don’t hate the OF just the music they choose.

My whole point on this thread is that some have implied that those who chose the EF do so for some nefarious reason and that is very rarely the case based on my experiences. In some cases its preference and others it might be a self defense mechanism. Regardless of why we should never ascribe motives simply because of the form a person chooses.

 

[Usige]

Usige

Who said you don’t love Pope Francis because he washed the feet of woman and you don’t like that ?

This statement says a lot about your attitude. You feel people who attend a TLM are better Catholics and others have a watered down faith.

I don’t get irked except when I see Catholics being told that their faith is watered down.

Jim, please see my response to Kevin in #51 with regard to what I was talking about. I do not believe people who attend the TLM are better Catholics (hint I attend the OF 95% of the time), but it does irk me when people throw around words like Pharisee on a whole group and no one bats an eye. Those that attend the EF are no more Pharisees then those who attend the OF are heretics. Neither are correct and if we are going to call down one group then both should be called down.

I work with stastics all day. In statistics we have things called outliers. Those are things that don’t fit a pattern. We need to be careful in ascribing the characteristics of the outliers to the whole group. Just as there are some not faithful to the teachings in the EF so are there those that aren’t faithful in the OF. They are outliers and not representative of the whole.

As an aside about the washing of the feet. I have a friend who is… well let’s say lose in her interpretation of Catholic teachings. When Pope Francis washed the woman’s feet she gushes ecstatically about how it was time that women were recognized. I simply said that it threw me off because it was a break with tradition. She said “I don’t know how you can’t love this Pope.” Now given she had just talked about not being at Mass for a year and thought I was nuts to go to confession once a month (we don’t have to do that any more) I thought it was odd to be called to the mat form pointing out a break with tradition as not loving the Pope. It seems if you don’t see every thing he does as inspired you don’t love him.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I place the blame on Poe Benedict XVI.

He helped to fuel the division between trads and regular Catholics by allowing the full use of the TLM in an attempt to appease the SSPX members. It failed, but many trads first say the move to allow the TLM the first step in making it the norm.

Pope John Paul II refused to divide the Church by giving into the extremest of either side.

This is not true. It was JPII who established the FSSP, and the FSSP was made out of priests who left the SSPX. BXVI simply lifted all the restrictions to the EF mass in order to bring back what was our rightful, catholic heritage.

Check the facts Jim, your comment was quite ignorant.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Isn’t the whole point of this thread that it is unjust to paint someone as X simply because of their preference for one form of the Mass or the other? I am sure everyone here knows all the basic prayers in Latin and hold Gregorian chant in high regard right? Both of those are things that the Second Vatican Council said all Catholics should do. If you don’t then are you disobedient to the teachings of the Church?

The point is some of the things said here on this thread are exactly what causes division. It sounds like the same type of thread is what drew the ire of those from Fish Eaters.

All I can say to some here is “Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.”

This is spot on.

I always find it incredible how much hostility there is towards the EF mass. Incredible. I wonder if people are in their right mind. This is the holy mass we are talking about, the mass that the Catholic church had for centuries up until very recently. How can anything be wrong with it? How can anyone think it is OK to just get rid of it and forget about it, and attach some negative image to it?

I wonder if those who are so confident that they have no need for it have a clue what they are talking about here. But this attitude is prevalent and acceptable. No wonder that there are many angry and disappointed people out there who lash out on Fish Eaters and trad blogs.

Perhaps people should actually read the V2 council documents, including those about the new mass of Paul VI. I think they would be very surprised to learn that what we have today as the norm is not what that mass is supposed to look like. But most people don’t have a clue and thus they hold such negative views about our traditions.

 

[Kevin12]

My appologies, that was a poor choice of words. What I meant by watered down is when speaking the truth as taught by the Church and people are hushed. There are some parishes where being clear about Church teachings on gay marriage, premarital sex, abortion, etc. are actively discouraged in the name of not offending anyone. I was an EMHC and when I corrected someone about being a “wine minister” (it is never wine when an EMHC is handling it) I was told they call it that because calling it the precious blood “makes some people uncomfortable”. When you hear stuff like that week after week from those that are entrusted with the precious body and blood it is not unfathomable for someone to want to go somewhere where there is such overt love and reverence for the Mass. Its not that that level of love doesn’t exist in the OF, but I have never heard that type of disrespect at the EF.

If those charged with teaching the faith are too afraid to offend someone with the truth then isn’t that watering it down to make it more palatable? One of the reasons we stay in our local parish is to make sure that a traditional voice can still be heard. Just because someone subscribes to tradition does not mean that they reject anything new. We just think that all things new need to be seen through the lenses of tradition.

Who told you that it made people uncomfortable? A priest?

In any case, I don’t know why that has anything to do with tradition, since it obviously is blood, that is just doctrine. If it was a priest who said that they were wrong.

You say you object to miniskirts and tube tops, but if a woman is wearing pants, is that watering down tradition? I’ve even seen a traditionalist claim that children who are loud or have trouble sitting still in Mass are the result or their families not being traditional enough, and that traditionalists’ kids are all perfectly silent and reverent. It just bothers me when people say these things, just as much as miniskirts seem to bother you.

 

[Kevin12]

This is spot on.

I always find it incredible how much hostility there is towards the EF mass. Incredible. I wonder if people are in their right mind. This is the holy mass we are talking about, the mass that the Catholic church had for centuries up until very recently. How can anything be wrong with it? How can anyone think it is OK to just get rid of it and forget about it, and attach some negative image to it?

I wonder if those who are so confident that they have no need for it have a clue what they are talking about here. But this attitude is prevalent and acceptable. No wonder that there are many angry and disappointed people out there who lash out on Fish Eaters and trad blogs.

Perhaps people should actually read the V2 council documents, including those about the new mass of Paul VI. I think they would be very surprised to learn that what we have today as the norm is not what that mass is supposed to look like. But most people don’t have a clue and thus they hold such negative views about our traditions.

Maybe people would have a better opinion of these things and of Fish Eaters et al. if their love of the traditions of the Church and the TLM weren’t so often paired with virulent antisemitism and misogyny. I’ve even seen someone on Fish Eaters arguing for eugenics as “good breeding”

Here is an example of a post from the moderator of Fish Eaters Forum, QuisUtDeus:

Were the Jews cursed for deicide? Yes. Are they still cursed for deicide? Yes. That doesn’t mean they weren’t forgiven by Christ.

I look at it like this: God is just. So, when the Chosen People rejected the Messiah they should have accepted, justice required something. I.e., the curse upon the Chosen People.

But as Catholics we should see that as a temporal punishment - even though they are forgiven, justice demands a “price” just as we believe in purgatory for forgiven sins.

And Catholics should also see that means we don’t get to use this as an excuse to attack Jews. They will received the effects of the Curse from the hand of God. It is not our place to effect it. Instead, we pray for them that God is merciful to them and brings them back in - such as we see in the Good Friday prayers.

We need to be really careful we don’t usurp God’s authority. The Chosen People did not offend us, they offended God. Vengeance is His, especially in this case, and the option of forgiving them is also His, as He has already done. As Catholics, we pray that He is merciful to the Jews, we should help them when bad things happen to them just as we visit prisoners in jail who are guilty of their crimes. In a sense, God is the justice and we are the tools of His mercy towards His Chosen People.

It is also ridiculous, at least in my mind, that the Church can “forgive” the Jews. First, the Church forgives by Sacramental Absolution which is only effectual on Catholics. Second, the Jews were already forgiven by Christ, the curse is a punishment that as far as I can see, the Church does not have the authority to remit. When we feel guilty for our sins after they are absolved in Confession, that guilt is part of the temporal punishment - the Church doesn’t wave a wand and make us feel better. So, there is nothing for the Church to forgive in the first place, and in the second place, I don’t see how it could.

Also when a Jew converts, they are no longer cursed because they are no longer (theologically) Jews but Catholics. They have in a sense repented by accepting the Messiah that was granted to them 2000 years ago. Which also brings us to the point of the curse: God often effects punishment to bring people closer to Him just as the point of excommunication is to pull people back into the Church. In my mind, the point of the curse is also an act of mercy since it nudges people into accepting Christ.

It’s my opinion that we all crucified Christ by our sins, and the unique blame to the Jews is for rejecting their own Messiah, made completely manifest in deicide. You can’t reject a Messiah more effectively and completely than by having him executed, can you?

In a nutshell, I see it like this, and this is completely my opinion: the Jews are (were) the Chosen People. They completely rejected their Messiah and showed this by their act of deicide. The deicide, as well as the benefits of the Sacrifice are “pro multis” but the blame is “ad omnes”. What they are cursed for is not the deicide per se, but the deicide as a complete rejection of their own Messiah. That is what is unique to the Jews. Sin is universal.

This is the absolute worst. The Jews as an ethnicity are cursed with temporal misfortune because their ancestors killed Christ? And this person is the moderator of the forum. Your saying traditionalists are justified for running into the arms of these kind of people? I don’t get it - if a priest says the wrong words in a Mass its a huge abuse and the end of the world, but this kind of attitude is okay? You’ve just compounded all the doubts I have about the Church as a whole if this is what “tradition” really is. I

 

[Gliggle]

Of course I am afraid, but it’s more like, if God sends that many souls to Hell, I don’t want to go to Heaven anyway, no matter how good it is. I have known a lot of people in my life, most of them good people, and if 99.9% of them go to Hell to suffer unimaginable torture forever, then God is simply incomprehensible to me.

How would you feel if all these good people you speak of ended up in heaven while you end up in hell out of a misplaced sense of loyalty? Would you feel glad about your decision then? Because there is no reason to believe this is any less likely than the scenario where you all end up in hell. Actually, the only thing you can control is what happens to your soul, so this is what should be concerning you. This is St Leonard’s point. If you want to go to hell you will find an excuse to go there no matter how many graces God offers.

God isn’t asking you to comprehend him, he is asking you to love him. And to love him is to turn away from sin. If you are not ready to turn away from sin, you are not ready to love God, and you are certainly not ready to comprehend him. We are all living in the land of the blind, no one living knows who is in hell or how many will go to hell, including St Leonard when he was alive, which he fully acknowledged in this sermon.

If you find it hard to turn away from sin, and find God incomprehensible, I recommend meditating on the passion of Jesus. I think it will really help you. Jesus must have had the same concern you have for souls in order to give up his life for them. However he did not despair. Thankgoodness.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I don’t get it - if a priest says the wrong words in a Mass its a huge abuse and the end of the world, but this kind of attitude is okay? You’ve just compounded all the doubts I have about the Church as a whole if this is what “tradition” really is. I

But who says it’s ok on this thread? Are you saying that* I *think it’s OK? Have you read my first post on this thread? I don’t think traditionalists should run to these people. I am not with these people, and people from my FSSP parish were not. Why are you insisting that we are all mad anti-Semitic bigots?

What is the real problem that you have with the EF mass?