Lefevbre exaggerates regarding new offetory prayers

[tcm22]

;5556291:

Exactly Tim … you’ve precisely hit the point. They look exactly the same but no Sacrament was confected. Therein lies the critical danger to the faith of changing our Mass, as the Novus Ordo meant to do, to be in line with every other mainstream heretical Protestant service. The amount of catechism a typical adult Catholic has today is close to none. The church has become very lax about inter-communion with Protestants and inter-faith services with non-Catholics is very prevalent throughout the church.

So you now have the services indistinguishable (except for those who know their theology) and an overriding Post-vatican II aura of acceptance and equality and you end up with religious indifference. They look the same, they are holy, therefore, they must be the same.

To you and I discussing this, it may seem absurd, but it is the reality of the situation. The Novus Ordo is helping to dumb us all down to the one world religion - a Masonic concept, where we all believe in the same God and can all worship together under the same roof with the same ceremony.

I think your opinions regarding the OF Mass and the state of the Church reflect your own perspective vs reality.

I am a convert and have never known anything but the OF Mass. What brought me home was the miracle and gift of the Eucharist enabled by a valid Priesthood obedient to the Vicar of Christ.

Our Church is run by fallible men who make mistakes. History is replete with examples of that. I pray daily for the success of our Church and Christ’s message. Rejecting our fundamental form of worship and accusing the leaders of the Church of pursuing a Masonic agenda starts pushing into “tinoil hat” territory."

Believe me, I have nothing for respect for those who prefer the traditional Mass and the beauty and reverence of some of the historical forms. In my mind, none of that justifies defiance of the Church.

Serious question giuseppeTO, what makes you certain you know what’s better for the Church than the Pope and the rest of the Bishops? How is your position any different from that of any other Protestant when it comes to acceptance of Church teaching? Why do you get to choose what’s valid and what’s not? What’s your authority? Are you personally guided by the Holy Spirit? There’s lots of Pentecostal Churches out there who would welcome you.

 

[Timothysis]

Exactly Tim … you’ve precisely hit the point. They look exactly the same but no Sacrament was confected. Therein lies the critical danger to the faith of changing our Mass, as the Novus Ordo meant to do, to be in line with every other mainstream heretical Protestant service. The amount of catechism a typical adult Catholic has today is close to none. The church has become very lax about inter-communion with Protestants and inter-faith services with non-Catholics is very prevalent throughout the church.

So you now have the services indistinguishable (except for those who know their theology) and an overriding Post-vatican II aura of acceptance and equality and you end up with religious indifference. They look the same, they are holy, therefore, they must be the same.

To you and I discussing this, it may seem absurd, but it is the reality of the situation. The Novus Ordo is helping to dumb us all down to the one world religion - a Masonic concept, where we all believe in the same God and can all worship together under the same roof with the same ceremony.

I am afraid that I just cannot agree with you assessment. While I do acknowledge that Catholics of today do not know their faith, I think it has more to do with the culture we live in than with anything else, though I do agree that the Church should do more about it. I also do not believe that it was the ambition of the Church that the Pauline Mass become “indistinguishable” from protestant services. You cannot blame the similarities of the Lutheran and Episcopalian services on the Pauline Missal, since it was the Lutherans and Episcopalians who copied the missal in the first place. For those who think along the lines that "they look the same, they are holy, therefore, they must be the same" I can only say that Christ will determine the degree of culpability that these people possess. I still maintain that Mass according to the Pauline Missal is “distinctly Catholic.” I do agree with you that there may sometimes be too much of a hazed relationship between the Church and other protestant churches but I think that can be attributed to the state of politics of today.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Serious question giuseppeTO, what makes you certain you know what’s better for the Church than the Pope and the rest of the Bishops? How is your position any different from that of any other Protestant when it comes to acceptance of Church teaching? Why do you get to choose what’s valid and what’s not? What’s your authority? Are you personally guided by the Holy Spirit? There’s lots of Pentecostal Churches out there who would welcome you.

I’ll try and answer … but there is more than 1 question here.

What makes you certain you know what’s better for the Church than the Pope and the rest of the Bishops?

I don’t believe I know what is better for the church. If you were to seriously study the Council, how it was manipulated, and how factions within the church manipulated the text after the fact to introduce practices and attitudes toward ecumenism and religious indifference that were soundly rejected by the church previously, then perhaps you too would be concerned. I lived through the change and it was VERY painful and many folks felt this way. What was sacrilegious and condemned prior to 1960 cannot become excepted and OK in 1970. If you did not experience it and do not study it, you will never understand it. I believe that Pope John XXIII would be scandalized if he lived to see what calamity his Council has wrought on the church in defections by religious and laity alike.

How is your position any different from that of any other Protestant when it comes to acceptance of Church teaching?

For you, the only teaching is that which has evolved from the admittedly ambiguous texts of the Second Vatican Council. For you, and for many in the modern Catholic Church, the church began in 1965 and everything may(even must) be discarded. We were (supposedly) so eager for change that we were willing to consign every papal encyclical and the Summa into the nearest dustbin. Protestants deny a dogmatic belief. My problem is with what has been implemented as a result of the Council and, by his writings, the Pope is equally disgusted with some of the same issues. By God’s grace, he will repair it.

Why do you get to choose what’s valid and what’s not?

Not sure what you mean by that. If you are talking about sacraments, the validity of a sacrament was codified by the Council of Trent and is contained in the catechism of that council. Any Roman Catholic sacrament that conforms (in matter, form, and intent) is valid. In general, the Novus Ordo sacraments are valid. However, polls tell us that a not insignificant number of modern priests do not believe in the True Presence. IF that is true, their sacrament is invalid. I would rather not take that chance. There is a Roman Catholic parish in Australia where the priest changed the words of Baptism to some corny new-age verse. Those sacraments are invalid. I don’t choose validity and I don’t pass judgement on what particular priest may or may not be offering a valid Mass.

What’s your authority? Are you personally guided by the Holy Spirit?

I ask for the Holy Ghost’s guidance continually during this crisis that is afflicting the Body of Christ. I am literally terrified by it. My authority is the Pope, as the teacher of faith and morals, and the ENTIRE magisterium of the church … even the writings of the Popes prior to 1965. There has been no Papal document since the Council that I have a problem accepting and even perhaps rejoicing in. When it comes to the Council texts of the Second Vatican council, where they are ambiguous, I accept them in light of the past 2000 years of the church.

There’s lots of Pentecostal Churches out there who would welcome you.

Well I seriously doubt that, my friend. They would probably consider me a raving lunatic.The Pentecostal Churches have accepted hordes of Novus Ordo Catholics, especially in South America, and there are dozens of Pentecostal Catholic churches in Southern California who are laughably considered “in Communion” by the “as-long-as-your-not-SSPX” litmus test. But I’d be surprised to find a former SSPX’er among their number.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I am afraid that I just cannot agree with you assessment. While I do acknowledge that Catholics of today do not know their faith, I think it has more to do with the culture we live in than with anything else, though I do agree that the Church should do more about it. I also do not believe that it was the ambition of the Church that the Pauline Mass become “indistinguishable” from protestant services. You cannot blame the similarities of the Lutheran and Episcopalian services on the Pauline Missal, since it was the Lutherans and Episcopalians who copied the missal in the first place. For those who think along the lines that "they look the same, they are holy, therefore, they must be the same" I can only say that Christ will determine the degree of culpability that these people possess. I still maintain that Mass according to the Pauline Missal is “distinctly Catholic.” I do agree with you that there may sometimes be too much of a hazed relationship between the Church and other protestant churches but I think that can be attributed to the state of politics of today.

Tim. Doesn’t it seem strange to you that they had 500 years to copy our Mass and suddenly decided to do it in 1970. Why do you think they didn’t copy us in 1960 or 1950? Could it be that elements of our Mass were incompatible with their heresies? Could it be that they only felt comfortable copying us when our Mass was no longer as “Catholic” as it was in the Pius V missal?

 

[tcm22]

I don’t believe I know what is better for the church. If you were to seriously study the Council, how it was manipulated, and how factions within the church manipulated the text after the fact to introduce practices and attitudes toward ecumenism and religious indifference that were soundly rejected by the church previously, then perhaps you too would be concerned. I lived through the change and it was VERY painful and many folks felt this way. What was sacrilegious and condemned prior to 1960 cannot become excepted and OK in 1970. If you did not experience it and do not study it, you will never understand it. I believe that Pope John XXIII would be scandalized if he lived to see what calamity his Council has wrought on the church in defections by religious and laity alike.

In this portion of your post, you have set yourself in judgment of the church. You describe factions and manipulation as if that’s something new. What I don’t seem to recognize in your perspective is:

1. Any acceptance of the idea that the Holy Spirit is there to guide the Church
2. Why your judgments regarding the Second Vatican Council, or those of AB Lefevbre should supersede those of the Bishops and Popes who have upheld and implemented many of the changes you seem to condemn.
3. Any sense of understanding that AB Lefevbre committed a grave act with his illicit consecration of the four Bishops.

You’re right, I’ve never experienced the pre-VII Church, but was raised Protestant and came to the Catholic Church out of a love of the Eucharist.

You’ve defined your faith in opposition to the current disciplines of the Catholic Church. Like any other Cafeteria Catholic, you seem to feel it’s okay to pick and choose what aspects of the faith you are willing to support. Maybe it’s you who needs to pray for understanding.

No, I’ve never experienced the pre-VII Church, however I’ve attended Mass around a dusty table in the Middle east that was conducted in 20 minutes while fighter jets screamed overhead to rain destruction on the enemy. It was distinctly Catholic. I’ve attended midnight Mass on Christmas Eve in a freezing cold, tiny Church in a small village in Germany lit only by candlelight. It was different from what I was used to, but I knew Jesus was with us. I’ve had Mass at small amphitheaters in the woods while leading Boy Scouts at camp. I’ve been offered the Eucharist by an EMHC while lying in the hospital doped up on morphine. I’ve attended an English language Mass at a normally Arabic speaking Church in Amman Jordan where the mostly Filipino worshippers where overjoyed to have a native-English speaker assist with the readings. I’ve attended Mass on nearly every continent and in countless languages.

I’ve seen why Catholic means Universal. I’ve seen the “Church Militant” in action around the globe. I’m incredibly humbled by what I see in our universal Church and the power and goodness that flows from it.

I guess that’s why I am so pained by what I see from the so-called “traditionalist” who seem to have made it their life’s work to tsk-tsk about the lack of support for a Tridentine Mass or the lack of kneelers in a poor Parish. It’s just such a shallow perspective.

It seems to me the SSPX and it’s supporters can’t see the forest for the trees. While there is certainly validity to some of the traditionalist critiques, the harm imposed on the the Body of Christ is out of proportion.

You have consistently dodged the question of whose authority you rely on to justify your critique of the Church. As I’ve said before, the intellectual basis of your protests regarding the implementation of VII is the intellectual offspring of Luther and his cronies. Once you convince yourself that you or some other individual knows better than the Church, the rest is just details.

As Catholics we are called to obedience. Certainly not blind or unthinking obedience, but obedience none the less.

 

[Timothysis]

Tim. Doesn’t it seem strange to you that they had 500 years to copy our Mass and suddenly decided to do it in 1970. Why do you think they didn’t copy us in 1960 or 1950? Could it be that elements of our Mass were incompatible with their heresies? Could it be that they only felt comfortable copying us when our Mass was no longer as “Catholic” as it was in the Pius V missal?

Please show me examples from the Missal of Pope Paul VI exactly what elements were “changed” that were once incompatible with protestantism that suddenly became compatible in 1970. How is the missal no longer as “Catholic” as Pope Pius V’s missal? The parallel to this question is the same as the question we see so much on CAF regarding validity; Mass is either valid or it is not. The same with the Pauline Missal; it is either Catholic or it is not. If it is your position that it is not Catholic, then please show some examples. The fact that it may bear a resemblance to something Martin Luther wanted 500 years ago does not mean that it IS what Luther wanted. The fact that the guy down the street looks like my brother does not mean he is my brother or possesses any of the qualities of my brother. It is a superficial comparison.

 

[giuseppeTO]

In this portion of your post, you have set yourself in judgment of the church. You describe factions and manipulation as if that’s something new. What I don’t seem to recognize in your perspective is:

1. Any acceptance of the idea that the Holy Spirit is there to guide the Church
2. Why your judgments regarding the Second Vatican Council, or those of AB Lefevbre should supersede those of the Bishops and Popes who have upheld and implemented many of the changes you seem to condemn.
3. Any sense of understanding that AB Lefevbre committed a grave act with his illicit consecration of the four Bishops.

You’re right, I’ve never experienced the pre-VII Church, but was raised Protestant and came to the Catholic Church out of a love of the Eucharist.

You’ve defined your faith in opposition to the current disciplines of the Catholic Church. Like any other Cafeteria Catholic, you seem to feel it’s okay to pick and choose what aspects of the faith you are willing to support. Maybe it’s you who needs to pray for understanding.

No, I’ve never experienced the pre-VII Church, however I’ve attended Mass around a dusty table in the Middle east that was conducted in 20 minutes while fighter jets screamed overhead to rain destruction on the enemy. It was distinctly Catholic. I’ve attended midnight Mass on Christmas Eve in a freezing cold, tiny Church in a small village in Germany lit only by candlelight. It was different from what I was used to, but I knew Jesus was with us. I’ve had Mass at small amphitheaters in the woods while leading Boy Scouts at camp. I’ve been offered the Eucharist by an EMHC while lying in the hospital doped up on morphine. I’ve attended an English language Mass at a normally Arabic speaking Church in Amman Jordan where the mostly Filipino worshippers where overjoyed to have a native-English speaker assist with the readings. I’ve attended Mass on nearly every continent and in countless languages.

I’ve seen why Catholic means Universal. I’ve seen the “Church Militant” in action around the globe. I’m incredibly humbled by what I see in our universal Church and the power and goodness that flows from it.

I guess that’s why I am so pained by what I see from the so-called “traditionalist” who seem to have made it their life’s work to tsk-tsk about the lack of support for a Tridentine Mass or the lack of kneelers in a poor Parish. It’s just such a shallow perspective.

It seems to me the SSPX and it’s supporters can’t see the forest for the trees. While there is certainly validity to some of the traditionalist critiques, the harm imposed on the the Body of Christ is out of proportion.

You have consistently dodged the question of whose authority you rely on to justify your critique of the Church. As I’ve said before, the intellectual basis of your protests regarding the implementation of VII is the intellectual offspring of Luther and his cronies. Once you convince yourself that you or some other individual knows better than the Church, the rest is just details.

As Catholics we are called to obedience. Certainly not blind or unthinking obedience, but obedience none the less.

I have answered your questions several times over … you refuse to read the previous posts. I will answer your Holy Spirit question one more time. The Holy Spirit provides guidance to the church, from the Pope on down and each may accept or reject His guidance. Do you understand that or are you proposing that every action the Pope and Bishops take is inspired by the Holy Ghost. I believe you do.

This is also the last time I’ll make this statement … My justification for critiquing what has become accepted Catholic beliefs is how any of the issues I have discussed including modernism, Religious indifference, and false ecumenism has been solidly condemned by previous Popes and Councils and has now become the new articles Catholic faith. I hope that finally clears it up for you.

I am impressed by your worldwide experiences in the military and I will not try and offer you examples from own experiences.

Why your judgments regarding the Second Vatican Council, or those of AB Lefevbre should supersede those of the Bishops and Popes who have upheld and implemented many of the changes you seem to condemn.

You may not realize this, as perhaps a convert, but no one, not Pope nor Bishop nor Council is allowed to change the faith. If they do, we are bound not to follow those new beliefs. Please see St. Paul.

Maybe it’s you who needs to pray for understanding.

Honestly, this is the best advice you have given me and I bless you for that.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Please show me examples from the Missal of Pope Paul VI exactly what elements were “changed” that were once incompatible with protestantism that suddenly became compatible in 1970. How is the missal no longer as “Catholic” as Pope Pius V’s missal? The parallel to this question is the same as the question we see so much on CAF regarding validity; Mass is either valid or it is not. The same with the Pauline Missal; it is either Catholic or it is not. If it is your position that it is not Catholic, then please show some examples. The fact that it may bear a resemblance to something Martin Luther wanted 500 years ago does not mean that it IS what Luther wanted. The fact that the guy down the street looks like my brother does not mean he is my brother or possesses any of the qualities of my brother. It is a superficial comparison.

T-

I really cant do your research for you but there are dozens of books written in this subject by men who are much wiser then I. If you need a reading list, PM me and I will gladly provide you with one. You might start off with the author Michael Davies.

Mass is either valid or it is not. The same with the Pauline Missal; it is either Catholic or it is not.

Dead wrong on that. Validity is defined by a canonical formula in the catechism. The relative catholicity of the Mass has no definition except perhaps by comparison to what preceded it. Read up on the issue, my friend.

 

[tcm22]

I have answered your questions several times over … you refuse to read the previous posts. I will answer your Holy Spirit question one more time. The Holy Spirit provides guidance to the church, from the Pope on down and each may accept or reject His guidance. Do you understand that or are you proposing that every action the Pope and Bishops take is inspired by the Holy Ghost. I believe you do.

This is also the last time I’ll make this statement … My justification for critiquing what has become accepted Catholic beliefs is how any of the issues I have discussed including modernism, Religious indifference, and false ecumenism has been solidly condemned by previous Popes and Councils and has now become the new articles Catholic faith. I hope that finally clears it up for you.

I am impressed by your worldwide experiences in the military and I will not try and offer you examples from own experiences.

You may not realize this, as perhaps a convert, but no one, not Pope nor Bishop nor Council is allowed to change the faith. If they do, we are bound not to follow those new beliefs. Please see St. Paul.

Honestly, this is the best advice you have given me and I bless you for that.

Unfortunately, you don’t seem to accept the infallibility of Christ’s Church. You imply the Pope, Bishops, and Councils have changed the faith. What I see is your opinion of the Church being used as justification to reject aspects of the Faith that you don’t like.

This comes down to the same question asked of all Protestants. On who’s authority do you reject or accept what the Church does or teaches. If you point to the specific acts of individuals, please demonstrate where they are in violation of basic tenets of the Church.

By that standard, the SSPX and many of it’s followers come up woefully short.

What you have are personal preferences, not enduring Truths. Those come from the Church. If you reject those Church, then you reject those Truths in favor of your own interpretation of the Faith.

The Popes and Bishops have been very clear on how we are to worship and what we are supposed to believe. You can reject that, just like millions of others. It doesn’t make you a better Catholic, it makes you a lessor one.

As far as I know, no Bishop has been excommunicated for supporting the OF. Your critique of “modernism” may certainly have merit, but does not justify the actions of a group of defiant clergy. The damage done by the SSPX is certainly as significant as anything done by those who mis-interpreted the outcome of VII.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Unfortunately, you don’t seem to accept the infallibility of Christ’s Church. You imply the Pope, Bishops, and Councils have changed the faith. What I see is your opinion of the Church being used as justification to reject aspects of the Faith that you don’t like.

This comes down to the same question asked of all Protestants. On who’s authority do you reject or accept what the Church does or teaches. If you point to the specific acts of individuals, please demonstrate where they are in violation of basic tenets of the Church.

By that standard, the SSPX and many of it’s followers come up woefully short.

What you have are personal preferences, not enduring Truths. Those come from the Church. If you reject those Church, then you reject those Truths in favor of your own interpretation of the Faith.

The Popes and Bishops have been very clear on how we are to worship and what we are supposed to believe. You can reject that, just like millions of others. It doesn’t make you a better Catholic, it makes you a lessor one.

As far as I know, no Bishop has been excommunicated for supporting the OF. Your critique of “modernism” may certainly have merit, but does not justify the actions of a group of defiant clergy. The damage done by the SSPX is certainly as significant as anything done by those who mis-interpreted the outcome of VII.

T-

You fall into the category of many folks on this board. You know very little about the faith, you have probably never read the encyclicals of the Popes and you have not read all of the texts of the Second Vatican Council. So it is impossible to have a discussion with you (this is a discussion board) on what was believed prior to the Council, what the Council texts actually said, what is believed now, and how that has changed. there are certainly other boards where these exchanges take place and it is a fruitful discussion as we continue to appreciate the perspective of those whom we may not totally agree with.

St. Paul teaches us that even if an Angel from Heaven would appear proposing a doctrine different from the Gospel, we should not follow him, but put him away (cf. Gal 1:8-9). This standpoint is not rhetorical. In Scripture an Angel is often the symbol of a Prelate, and the Apostle’s prudent advice has helped the faithful throughout History not to follow bad Bishops – either the heads of heresies or those complacent with them. That is not to say that I am particularly accusing any Bishop of Formal Heresy, but just to counter your perception that every bishop is guaranteed to follow the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Remember that the Arian heresy was approved by a majority of the Roman bishops. Do you think the Holy Ghost was on vacation, or could it possibly be that sometimes Bishops reject the Holy Ghosts guidance? That lasted for over 50 years.

I have no idea why the Church is being made to suffer the extreme crisis it finds itself in over the last forty years, losing most of its priests and a good portion of its faithful. Perhaps the Holy Ghost permitted it to spur a new awakening, and maybe that is happening now. I don’t know.

You are one of those of those folks parading the term “in communion” around, uninterested in anything but that term, and are happy to apply it to anyone who attends the Novus Ordo Mass. You look down the list of topics on this board with “SSPX” in the title, you hop in and blast the posters for choosing to attend Mass where we do and for holding on to the faith we were raised in. You are content to look at me and those who assist at an SSPX chapel and write us off as angry schismatics enflamed by a cranky old excommunicated dead French Archbishop. So be it, there is nothing much more that I think you and I can make progress on here.

 

[Timothysis]

T-

I really cant do your research for you but there are dozens of books written in this subject by men who are much wiser then I.

It doesn’t really take much research to point to something in the missal and say “this is a protestant concept.” You are doing what another poster did with the same subject. He maintained that the Pauline Missal was protestant. When I asked for examples of protestantism in the missal his response became “the way it is celebrated is protestant.” He could not point to anything protestant in it, and apparently, neither can you. You base your premise on the fact that, since the Lutherans based their liturgy on the missal, then it must have protestant elements. To that I can only say that the Bible itself is a Catholic creation that protestants have taken to as their own. If they can distort, ignore and misinterpret that which is not in line with their theology, then it seems to me that they can do the same with the Roman Missal. Again, I say, that if they would have based their liturgy on Pope Pius V’s missal, you would not maintain that there are “protestant elements” in it. You employ your standard on one side of the coin but not the other.

Dead wrong on that. Validity is defined by a canonical formula in the catechism. The relative catholicity of the Mass has no definition except perhaps by comparison to what preceded it. Read up on the issue, my friend.

And yet, you cannot point to me the relative uncatholicity in the Pauline Missal, except by trying to point me to the work of others. If it is so obvious, why can’t you say so in a few sentences?

 

[tcm22]

T-

You fall into the category of many folks on this board. You know very little about the faith, you have probably never read the encyclicals of the Popes and you have not read all of the texts of the Second Vatican Council. So it is impossible to have a discussion with you (this is a discussion board) on what was believed prior to the Council, what the Council texts actually said, what is believed now, and how that has changed. there are certainly other boards where these exchanges take place and it is a fruitful discussion as we continue to appreciate the perspective of those whom we may not totally agree with.

St. Paul teaches us that even if an Angel from Heaven would appear proposing a doctrine different from the Gospel, we should not follow him, but put him away (cf. Gal 1:8-9). This standpoint is not rhetorical. In Scripture an Angel is often the symbol of a Prelate, and the Apostle’s prudent advice has helped the faithful throughout History not to follow bad Bishops – either the heads of heresies or those complacent with them. That is not to say that I am particularly accusing any Bishop of Formal Heresy, but just to counter your perception that every bishop is guaranteed to follow the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Remember that the Arian heresy was approved by a majority of the Roman bishops. Do you think the Holy Ghost was on vacation, or could it possibly be that sometimes Bishops reject the Holy Ghosts guidance? That lasted for over 50 years.

I have no idea why the Church is being made to suffer the extreme crisis it finds itself in over the last forty years, losing most of its priests and a good portion of its faithful. Perhaps the Holy Ghost permitted it to spur a new awakening, and maybe that is happening now. I don’t know.

You are one of those of those folks parading the term “in communion” around, uninterested in anything but that term, and are happy to apply it to anyone who attends the Novus Ordo Mass. You look down the list of topics on this board with “SSPX” in the title, you hop in and blast the posters for choosing to attend Mass where we do and for holding on to the faith we were raised in. You are content to look at me and those who assist at an SSPX chapel and write us off as angry schismatics enflamed by a cranky old excommunicated dead French Archbishop. So be it, there is nothing much more that I think you and I can make progress on here.

You have now resorted to ad hominem attacks, which means I’m done. However I will depart this thread addressing several of your assertions. Your appeal to St Paul is a perfect example of your Protestant-like mindset. You clearly feel comfortable with your own interpretation of Truth in defiance of the Magisterium. That there were “factions” during and after VII is irrelevant, except for those factions that decided to openly defy the Pope and ordain Bishops without approval.

I have never argued that every Bishop is always right or that there can’t be evil men in positions of power in the Church, or as you stated “but just to counter your perception that every bishop is guaranteed to follow the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.” That is not what I said and not what I believe. Incidently I could certainly argue that AB Lefevbre fits that mold. I don’t think the Holy Father would have approved of his excommunication without lots of deliberation and prayer. The historical record bears that out.

I encourage you to attend whatever Mass you desire, as long as it is considered valid by the Church. If you think otherwise, then you are just plain wrong. For the record, I’ve never read anyone look down their nose at the EF Mass. I don’t think the SSPX faction can make the same claim regarding the OF.

It is your own opinion that the Church is in crisis. As I’ve said before, many of the SSPX critiques of the Church are spot on. That, however, doesn’t justify the actions or the wounds inflicted. The schismatic action of SSPX-affiliated clergy over the years certainly hasn’t helped to resolve the crisis. There are many traditionally minded Catholics out there (I’m one of them), who accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, accept the teaching of the Magisterium, and believe the Catholic Church was instituted by Christ as the one true Church to lead men to salvation.

You clearly can’t make those claims. Your whole approach is Protestantism in it’s most basic form. The only difference is in the specifics. You either accept the infallible Church (and its fallible leaders) or you don’t.

You mock the notion of communion. I would refer you to another thread on this board where a self-proclaimed SSPX seminarian will skip Mass if he can’t attend an EF. A seminarian!!! Yeah…us OF types are just being mean and cranky.

I apologize if I sound a little snarky, it’s just that there’s a difference between constructive criticism and destructive behavior. It gets my blood pressure up.

 

[malphono]

I would refer you to another thread on this board where a self-proclaimed SSPX seminarian will skip Mass if he can’t attend an EF. A seminarian!!! Yeah…us OF types are just being mean and cranky.

Now, I’ve never seen it, but I know that the OF does exist in its “reform of the reform” mode. Perhaps that seminarian might have thought twice if he had access to that, ever-elusive though it may be.

Contrary to the opinion of die-hard OF supporters, not everyone can garner spiritual fulfillment from the usual varieties (and there are, unfortunately, many of them) of the OF. Like it or not, spiritual fulfillment is a part of the equation for those who prefer a more traditional style of worship too. It’s not strictly the property of those die-hard supporters of the usual (as well as, for wont of a better word, “unusual” (and by that I do not mean the “reform of the reform”)) varieties of the OF.

My :twocents: