People who do not like traditional Catholicism

[GemmaRose]

I’ve read through some of the posts on this thread and there is something that no one seems to understand.

Traditioanal Catholicism is not simply a preference for the Traditional Mass, and (for most of us) a dislike for the Novus Ordo. It goes much deeper.

The truth is, the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass are simply the visible expression of two different forms of Catholicism.

The Traditional Mass is the visible expression of Catholicism as it was tauth by the Popes from day one, right up to Vatican II.

The Novus Ordo Mass is the visible expression of a liberalised and modernized form of Catholicism, whcih could be called “Catholicism light”.

For those who are willing to accept the truth, and I don’t expect that there will be many, this is what has happened.

For about 200 years, the Church began to condemn a new error that emerged. This new error was not simply one heresy (the denial of this or that doctrine), but was, as Pope Pius X said “the synthesis of all heresies”. This heresy, which is known by the names of liberalism and modernism, undermined, not only the nature of the Church itself, but virtually all dogmas, by introduce an error known as “evolution of doctrine” - the belief that the dogmas are not fixed, but change and evolve with the times. It also teaches that the Church itself must evolve with the times.

This erroneous and destructive way of thinking was condemned very clearly by the Pope in many encyclicals. Pope Pius X went further and excommunicated all those infected with this intellectual and heretical disease, and removed anyone even slightly tainted with it from positions of authority. When he was later congradulated for taking such measures to defendt he faith, he replied “I have not killed the beast, but only driven it underground”.

The numders of the beast grew and spread until Vatican II when they again rose to the surface and took over the Church.

For the past 40 + years they (the beast) have been remaking the Church in their own image and likeness. They have also been distorting the faith through their error of “evolution of doctrine”, which they call by the name doctrinal developement in order to deceive the unwary. The truth is evolution of doctrine is not doctrinal developement.

In one of the 40 times that Pope Pius IX condemned liberal Catholicism, he said this “Liberal Catholicism is the worst enemy of the Catholic Church”, ane he was correct. It has just about detroyed the Church in the past 40 years. We are now living in the great apostasy predicted in the Bible and by the saints. Interestingly, some of the saints actually gave the date that it woudl take place. The date was “teh second half of the 20th century”.

The New Mass is the visible expression of this liberal and ever evolving form of “Catholicism”, which is not true Catholicism.

That is the reality that many do not realize. They know that something is wrong, but have no idea what it is. However, it will become perfectly clear to those who read the encyclical letters of the Pope in which they condemn this beast.

If anyone is interested, I’ll provide them with a list of the encyclicals.

One final point: The Syllabus of Pius IX was a condemnation of the errors of the Liberals. Wtih this in mind, consider the following quote from Cardinal Ratzinger:

In other words, what was officially condemned as an error by the Popes on the late 19th and early 20th cneturies, was taught by Vatican II. Why? Because those whose ideology was condemned by the earlier Popes took over the Church at Vatican II. Thus we have the great apostasy that we are now living through.

“Those who have ears to hear, let them hear”.

**Matthew 16:18

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.**

***So… Jesus lied ?

---

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

***So… Jesus lied ?

---

Of course not. The Papacy is a Divine Institution, and has existed for nearly 2000 years…

It existed when Pope John XXII was publicly teaching the error that the souls of the faithful departed would not possess the beatific vision until after the Final Judgment - an error that he renounced on his death bed, thanks for the Cardinals who had the courage to courrect him. The Papacy also existed when Pope Honorious reigned, and sent a heretical letter to a heretic whereby he agreed that Jesus had only one will (Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II)… And the Papacy also exists today. And the Papacy existed when John Paul II taugth that the old Covenant “has never been revoked by God”, and when the USCCB issued a document interpreting that statement to mean that we should not longer try to convert the Jews.

The Divine Instution on the Papacy does not mean that the Church will not become infected at all levels with a heresy (as it was during the Arian crisis when, it is said, between 97 and 99% of the Bishops were Arians).

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The truth is, the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass are simply the visible expression of two different forms of Catholicism.

The Traditional Mass is the visible expression of Catholicism as it was tauth by the Popes from day one, right up to Vatican II.

The Novus Ordo Mass is the visible expression of a liberalised and modernized form of Catholicism, whcih could be called “Catholicism light”.

The numders of the beast grew and spread until Vatican II when they again rose to the surface and took over the Church.

For the past 40 + years they (the beast) have been remaking the Church in their own image and likeness. They have also been distorting the faith through their error of “evolution of doctrine”, which they call by the name doctrinal developement in order to deceive the unwary. The truth is evolution of doctrine is not doctrinal developement.

We are now living in the great apostasy predicted in the Bible and by the saints. Interestingly, some of the saints actually gave the date that it woudl take place. The date was “teh second half of the 20th century”.

The New Mass is the visible expression of this liberal and ever evolving form of “Catholicism”, which is not true Catholicism.

That is the reality that many do not realize. They know that something is wrong, but have no idea what it is. However, it will become perfectly clear to those who read the encyclical letters of the Pope in which they condemn this beast.

In other words, what was officially condemned as an error by the Popes on the late 19th and early 20th cneturies, was taught by Vatican II. .

The very name by which you identify yourself, “Pax et Caritas”, certainly is a contradiction, based on the above excerpts from your post. To come on a thread such as this, and have the unmitigated gall to say that those of us who prefer the Novus Ordo are practicing Catholicism light, is not only an affront to every traditional Catholic, but to every Catholic who loves their one, true faith.

Your very words identify you as a Sedevaconist, who believes that the Popes since Pius XII are not true popes. You claim to follow encyclicals of popes, but then by your own words deny the presence of and guidance of the Holy Spirit to and for every pope from Blessed John XXIII to the present. Please tell us when the Holy Spirit abandoned the Holy Roman Catholic Church and came to you.

I would classify one such as you in the true sense of the words, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, who misleads others under the guise of truth. You fail to correlate the Encyclicals you mentioned with those of the Popes after Pius XII, and fail to recognize that the Church can give a deeper and clearer understanding to the teachings of Popes of the past.

For your information, the Holy Spirit is still with the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Rome, under the guidance, at present, of Pope Benedict XVI. It is a Church looking into the deeper meaning, ironically enough, of what you claim as your very name, Pax et Caritas. It is a Church reaching out to bring others into the one true faith, with an understanding of what “peace and love” really mean. It does not seek condemnation and anathemas, but is seeking unity of all Christians. In that quest, no Dogma or teaching has been watered down or changed, and none will be.

My best advise to any reading this post would be to disregard anything you have to say and post, and to not respond to any of your postings as that would only give you a forum to spread misinformation and error that comes from a misguided mind. You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[ethelzguy]

For those who are willing to accept the truth, and I don’t expect that there will be many, this is what has happened. snip

…“Those who have ears to hear, let them hear”.

So now you are an expert on the scriptural interpretation of “The Beast”?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The very name by which you identify yourself, “Pax et Caritas”, certainly is a contradiction, based on the above excerpts from your post. , but to every Catholic who loves their one, true faith.

It is not uncharitable to speak the truth.

Your very words identify you as a Sedevaconist, who believes that the Popes since Pius XII are not true popes.

I’m sure you would like for me to be a Sedavacantist, but I am not. I recognize Pope Benedict as the Pope.

You claim to follow encyclicals of popes, but then by your own words deny the presence of and guidance of the Holy Spirit to and for every pope since Blessed John XXIII. Please tell us when the Holy Spirit abandoned the Holy Roman Catholic Church and came to you.

The Holy Ghost has not abandoned the Church today, any more than he did when Pope John XXII was publicly preaching heresy, or when almost all of the Bishops were Arian heretics, or when Pope Honorious was agreeing with the heretics of the day who taugth that Jesus had only one will.

I would classify one such as you in the true sense of the words, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”

Now, now, isn’t that being uncharitable?

, who misleads others under the guise of truth. You fail to correlate the Encyclicals you mentioned with those of the Popes after Pius XII, and fail to recognize that the Church can give a deeper and clearer understanding to the teachings of Popes of the past.

Clearer understanding? Is Gaudium et spes of Vatican II, which Cardinal Ratzinger called “a counter Syllabus”, simply making more clear what the Syllabus condemned? Or is it teaching as true what the Syllabus condemned? The answer is obvious.

It is a Church reaching out to bring others into the one true faith, with an understanding of what “peace and love” really mean. It does not seek condemnation and anathemas, but is seeking unity of all Christians. In that quest, no Dogma or teaching has been watered down or changed, and none will be.

Regrding the underlined part: If that is true, why did John Paul II accept hte Bellamand agreement that says we should not try to convert the heretical and schismatic Orthodox, who reject the Primacy of the Pope, the past 13 councils of the Church, and allow birth control and remarriage? John Paul II taught that these heretics were a “sister Church” to the Catholic Church and equally a part of the true Church.

And you thought he was trying to convert them.

I’ll tell you what. I will be willing to start a new thread and debate this topic with you for all to see. Mabye we can start with you trying to defend the heretical Bellamad Agreement whcih teaches that we should not attempt to convert heretics to the ond true Church, since, it claims, heretics are actually alredy a part of the true Church.

This heretical document is simply an exposition of the "new ecclesiology, which beleives that heretics and schismatics are part of the true Church, and therefore should not be converted. It was perfectly expressed by Cardianl Kasper who John Paul II appointed as the point man for “Christian Unity”.

Cardinal Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 )

I agree with Cardinal Kasper when he says that this was indeed the form of ecumenism taugth by John Paul II.

 

[GemmaRose]

The very name by which you identify yourself, “Pax et Caritas”, certainly is a contradiction, based on the above excerpts from your post. To come on a thread such as this, and have the unmitigated gall to say that those of us who prefer the Novus Ordo are practicing Catholicism light, is not only an affront to every traditional Catholic, but to every Catholic who loves their one, true faith.

Your very words identify you as a Sedevaconist, who believes that the Popes since Pius XII are not true popes. You claim to follow encyclicals of popes, but then by your own words deny the presence of and guidance of the Holy Spirit to and for every pope from Blessed John XXIII to the present. Please tell us when the Holy Spirit abandoned the Holy Roman Catholic Church and came to you.

I would classify one such as you in the true sense of the words, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, who misleads others under the guise of truth. You fail to correlate the Encyclicals you mentioned with those of the Popes after Pius XII, and fail to recognize that the Church can give a deeper and clearer understanding to the teachings of Popes of the past.

For your information, the Holy Spirit is still with the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Rome, under the guidance, at present, of Pope Benedict XVI. It is a Church looking into the deeper meaning, ironically enough, of what you claim as your very name, Pax et Caritas. It is a Church reaching out to bring others into the one true faith, with an understanding of what “peace and love” really mean. It does not seek condemnation and anathemas, but is seeking unity of all Christians. In that quest, no Dogma or teaching has been watered down or changed, and none will be.

My best advise to any reading this post would be to disregard anything you have to say and post, and to not respond to any of your postings as that would only give you a forum to spread misinformation and error that comes from a misguided mind. You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

:clapping: WAY TO GO DEACON ED !

 

[pnewton]

It is not uncharitable to speak the truth.

This is a true statement.

Now, now, isn’t that being uncharitable?

Again, your first statement is true.

 

[colormw]

The very name by which you identify yourself, “Pax et Caritas”, certainly is a contradiction, based on the above excerpts from your post. To come on a thread such as this, and have the unmitigated gall to say that those of us who prefer the Novus Ordo are practicing Catholicism light, is not only an affront to every traditional Catholic, but to every Catholic who loves their one, true faith.

Your very words identify you as a Sedevaconist, who believes that the Popes since Pius XII are not true popes. You claim to follow encyclicals of popes, but then by your own words deny the presence of and guidance of the Holy Spirit to and for every pope from Blessed John XXIII to the present. Please tell us when the Holy Spirit abandoned the Holy Roman Catholic Church and came to you.

I would classify one such as you in the true sense of the words, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, who misleads others under the guise of truth. You fail to correlate the Encyclicals you mentioned with those of the Popes after Pius XII, and fail to recognize that the Church can give a deeper and clearer understanding to the teachings of Popes of the past.

For your information, the Holy Spirit is still with the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Rome, under the guidance, at present, of Pope Benedict XVI. It is a Church looking into the deeper meaning, ironically enough, of what you claim as your very name, Pax et Caritas. It is a Church reaching out to bring others into the one true faith, with an understanding of what “peace and love” really mean. It does not seek condemnation and anathemas, but is seeking unity of all Christians. In that quest, no Dogma or teaching has been watered down or changed, and none will be.

My best advise to any reading this post would be to disregard anything you have to say and post, and to not respond to any of your postings as that would only give you a forum to spread misinformation and error that comes from a misguided mind. You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: Thank You!

 

[japhy]

PLEASE read this whole post. It’s long, but it’s truthful.

This heretical document is simply an exposition of the "new ecclesiology, which beleives that heretics and schismatics are part of the true Church, and therefore should not be converted. It was perfectly expressed by Cardianl Kasper who John Paul II appointed as the point man for “Christian Unity”.

Cardinal Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’ or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.” (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 )

I agree with Cardinal Kasper when he says that this was indeed the form of ecumenism taugth by John Paul II.

That’s not what I’ve read from the Church.

Mortalium Animos tells us: “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.” (n. 10)

Humani Generis warns us: “In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.” (n. 14)

Keeping that in mind…

Lumen Gentium says that “although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure, these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.” (n. 8)

Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio, tells us that “when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” (n. 4) By the “unity” continuing to increase can only mean that the unity of Christians in the Catholic Church will continue to occur and build up the Mystical Body of Christ. Furthermore: “The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand. Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.” (n. 11) That “hierarchy of truths” is not a hierarchy of what must be believed vs. what needn’t be believed, of course!

Ad Gentes exhorts us: “Insofar as religious conditions allow, ecumenical activity - should be furthered in such a way that, excluding any appearance of indifference or confusion on the one hand, or of unhealthy rivalry on the other, Catholics should cooperate in a brotherly spirit with their separated brethren, among to the norms of the Decree on Ecumenism, making before the nations a common profession of faith, insofar as their beliefs are common, in God and in Jesus Christ, and cooperating in social and in technical projects as well as in cultural and religious ones. Let them cooperate especially for the sake of Christ, their common Lord: let His Name be the bond that unites them!” (n. 15)

And Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II acknowledges that “the Catholic Church’s conviction that in the ministry of the Bishop of Rome she has preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the visible sign and guarantor of unity, constitutes a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections” (n. 88), but nevertheless says, in nn. 18, 36, and 97:
Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform. Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, “especially in what concerns God and his Church”, and adherence to truth’s demands. A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.

…

Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ’s disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile “agreement” must be absolutely avoided. Serious questions must be resolved, for if not, they will reappear at another time, either in the same terms or in a different guise.

…

The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God’s plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.
Despite the garbage spewed by Cardinal Kasper from time to time, “ecumenism of return” is the Catholic Church’s road to unity with all Christians.

 

[CradleCath]

Ghoti;3862847]OK, I’ll subject myself to the litmus of liberalism/conservatism:

I grew up with the vernacular Mass. I was born into (and have had all my Sacraments so far in) the post-Vatican II Church. I have never attended a Latin Mass because 1. it was never offered in my former Archdiocese and 2. I haven’t gotten around to going to other than my parish for Mass. Thus, I have no opinion on the Latin Mass, other than I would very much like to experience it. My only experiences with Traditional Catholicism before I joined these fora were:

1. 
   *]mailouts from Fr Gruner
   *]interviews with Mel Gibson

1. 
   

   I am Canadian (I know that makes me a dyed-in-the-wool pinko to many people right off the bat).
   I signed up as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada (I may very well still be, as I have not formally severed from them). I did so, however, to support the nomination of a staunchly pro-life candidate (as in it was a major plank in her platform).
   I was educated by laypeople in the Catholic school system until grade 6, except for a half-year I went to a Pentecostal school. For grades 7-9 it was the Christian Brothers; for 10-11, the Jesuits.
   I am pro-life. Abortion is murder. No ands, ifs, or buts.
   I believe that homosexuality is disordered.
   I believe that artificial contraception is sinful. I also believe that any “contraceptive” methods that affect a fertilized egg (such as preventing implantation etc) are in fact abortifacients, and use thereof constitutes murder.
   Although I have met a few women who I believe under other circumstances would have made good priests, I accept without reservation Pope John-Paul’s decree that the Church has no authority to ordain women.
   I do not reject out of hand the notion of married priests (provided they were married before ordination), as the matter is disciplinary and not dogmatic, and there is also the example of the Eastern Churches. I do, however, accept that, except in a few circumstances, the Latin Rite does not permit a married clergy (other than the permanent diaconate), and it is up to the Holy Father, not me, to decide otherwise.
   I do not believe that the Church is a democracy. I believe it to be a benevolent dictatorship, a theocracy, the truest example of Divine Right (if I am not misusing the term).
   I accept the Creeds – Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian.
   I accept His Holiness Benedict XVI as the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ. I believe that anyone who thinks there hasn’t been a pope since Pius XII wears a tinfoil mitre. Siriously.
   I believe in evolution and the Big Bang, so far. Whatever the scientific consensus is, or whatever the paradigm changes to next week. So if the scientific proof all of a sudden points to curved space or string theory or geocentricity or turtles all the way down, I go, “So that’s how it works?” and the scientists go, “More or less, as far as we can predict, yes,” and I go’ “OK. Way to go, God!”
   I would like to see the Legion of Decency return, or at least a decent (pardon the pun) orthodox equivalent. I would also like to see a return of the Index – but at lest along the line of a Roman “Cliff’s Notes” that gives the Church’s opinion on the moral acceptability of various media. Sort of like a moral “nutritional value” label.
   I don’t go to Mass and confession as often as I should. Not because I don’t believe in it, but because I’m a sinner.
   I used to receive Communion while not in a state of grace, but out of ignorance, not malice. I will not receive now if I am in need of the confessional.
   I think mantillas/veils are a good thing for whatever woman wants to wear them. If they don’t, that’s fine too.
   I believe that the standard of dress at Mass – modesty-wise – should be increased. My personal rule of thumb: cover up from collar to knee, elbow to elbow.
   I prefer gothic/Romanesque/baroque churches to the modernist/postmodernist/brutalist/whateverist ones. Fly them butresses!
   I think the Pope should dust off the Tiara and break it out on occasion (as appropriate).
   I do not believe that the Jews have a “collective guilt” for the death of Jesus any more than the Croats have one for inventing the necktie.
   I accept EENS – altho’ how the exact mechanics of this work out, I don’t know. That’s up to God, not me.
   I don’t believe in socialism or communism. That being said, I don’t believe in libertarianism, capitalism, or fascism either.
   I believe that man has dominion over the planet, and the animals and resources on it. I also think it’s a sin to squander those resources or treat the animals inhumanely.
   I don’t believe in population control or eugenics. I do believe in the right to die as God wills, but not through assisted suicide or euthanasia.
   I believe cloning a human is an abomination. I believe the cloning of a human with an animal is an act of such depravity that it beggars description.
   I like incense, Gregorian chant, bells, and candles. I like pipe organs and polyphony. I also like guitars and the MQP girls’ choir singing “When A Child Is Born”.
   I prefer to receive the Eucharist from the priest rather than an EMHC. But I won’t elbow my way into another line or avoid one.
   I still normally take Communion in the hand, but I’m slowly changing my mind on it.
   I think you can be friends with a priest.
   I bring my Rosary to Mass. I don’t pray it during Mass, but I do like holding it for some reason.
   I believe that from far off, God sends.
   I don’t believe there is necessarily anyone in Hell.
   I believe that of some people I know, if they ain’t in Heaven, ain’t no hope for me.
   I believe God’s capacity to forgive is greater than our ability to confound His will. I also believe that, oddly enough, those who deserve mercy the least are the ones who need it the most.

   So…did I leave anything out?

   ]
   
   Not a thing. In fact, you’re a bit more traditional than I about modesty in dress. I’d settle for no more jean shorts at Mass & haven’t worn a chapel veil since I graduated from Catholic high school, but am thinking about doing so again. I do believe that there are some in Hell, but don’t know who, of course.
   
   I hereby pronounce you a dyed in the wool member of Traditional Catholicism via the Catholic Answers forums. And you have a sence of humor, too…I like that.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The very name by which you identify yourself, “Pax et Caritas”, certainly is a contradiction, based on the above excerpts from your post. To come on a thread such as this, and have the unmitigated gall to say that those of us who prefer the Novus Ordo are practicing Catholicism light, is not only an affront to every traditional Catholic, but to every Catholic who loves their one, true faith.

Your very words identify you as a Sedevaconist, who believes that the Popes since Pius XII are not true popes. You claim to follow encyclicals of popes, but then by your own words deny the presence of and guidance of the Holy Spirit to and for every pope from Blessed John XXIII to the present. Please tell us when the Holy Spirit abandoned the Holy Roman Catholic Church and came to you.

I would classify one such as you in the true sense of the words, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, who misleads others under the guise of truth. You fail to correlate the Encyclicals you mentioned with those of the Popes after Pius XII, and fail to recognize that the Church can give a deeper and clearer understanding to the teachings of Popes of the past.

For your information, the Holy Spirit is still with the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Rome, under the guidance, at present, of Pope Benedict XVI. It is a Church looking into the deeper meaning, ironically enough, of what you claim as your very name, Pax et Caritas. It is a Church reaching out to bring others into the one true faith, with an understanding of what “peace and love” really mean. It does not seek condemnation and anathemas, but is seeking unity of all Christians. In that quest, no Dogma or teaching has been watered down or changed, and none will be.

My best advise to any reading this post would be to disregard anything you have to say and post, and to not respond to any of your postings as that would only give you a forum to spread misinformation and error that comes from a misguided mind. You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I could not help but post a comment on this.
i understand you must have reasons to feel this way.
but i must tell you that we know that the Church has been through many troubles before and she always come back. i dont loose hope that this time is no different.
we must admit that there is trouble. some times i get in trouble at the Church for speaking out.

i have seen CC that have abandoned many traditions like no kneelers, people dressed in small shorts coming to the Eucharist, clapping for the priest, glass chalices, music is worse than protestants churches, holding hands when praying.

my priest tells me that i must be open to changes. they even bring bands of modern rock christian music into the Church. i reject that.

i m sure you know all this. but i have no doubt that is a desecration of the House of God.

there is a place for everything. but the Church is sacred and it should be treated the way.

i feel that we have abandoned the sacredeness of worship for: lets all be nice to each other.

i seen protestants pastores accusing catholics of trying to imitate them to gain members. this all brings shame into the Church.

if we loose the respect of the world is not because we lost members of the Church but because we became just like them and just like any other church.

i will leave it to that for now.

Pray for our holy father BXVI. that he may have the wisdom and courage to follow the will of Our Lord, the Christ. Amen

 

[pnewton]

I could not help but post a comment on this.
i understand you must have reasons to feel this way.
but i must tell you that we know that the Church has been through many troubles before and she always come back. i dont loose hope that this time is no different…

Pray for our holy father BXVI. that he may have the wisdom and courage to follow the will of Our Lord, the Christ. Amen

With the problems some have brought to the Church, we should all be thankful to those Traditionalists, as well as other orthodox Catholics, especially priests, who have stemmed the tide of disobedience and innovation by those who take the Mass as their personal playground.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

PLEASE read this whole post. It’s long, but it’s truthful.

Despite the garbage spewed by Cardinal Kasper from time to time, “ecumenism of return” is the Catholic Church’s road to unity with all Christians.

Japhy - Thank you for your excellent post. Hopefully people will read your entire post and reflect, sincerely and carefully, upon what they have read. Well said and well documented.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I could not help but post a comment on this.
i understand you must have reasons to feel this way.
but i must tell you that we know that the Church has been through many troubles before and she always come back. i dont loose hope that this time is no different.
we must admit that there is trouble. some times i get in trouble at the Church for speaking out.

Wisdonseeker, the reasons I feel the way I do about the post I responded to was that it was nothing but false information. In common parlance lies, about the one true Church. Anytime I see someone spew out such misinformation, I will respond. Re-read the post to which I responded and see how it correlates to your feelings and belief in the Catholic Church.

That the Church has had problems is certainly not because of what it teaches or practices, but is because it is made up of sinful human beings, myself included. The very fact that we are still here after 2000 years is an attestation to the presence of the Holy Spirit and that the gates of hell shall not prevail.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

PLEASE read this whole post. It’s long, but it’s truthful.

That’s not what I’ve read from the Church.
Despite the garbage spewed by Cardinal Kasper from time to time, “ecumenism of return” is the Catholic Church’s road to unity with all Christians.

Let me start by saying that I agree with you when you say the Church does not teach what Cardinal Kasper taught, since what Cardinal Kasper taught is complete heresy and the Church does not teach heresy.

It is not the Church, but rather high ranking churchmen, who reject “ecumenism of return”. Unfortunately, these high ranking churchmen are, for the most part, in control of the Church today.

For example, have you read the Bellamand Agreement that John Paul II accepted? It rejects the idea of ecumenism of return with the Orthodox when it claims that they are our “sister Church”, and as such, there should be no attempts to convert them. This is an example of a leading churchman (John Paul II) teaching what the Church does not teach.

Here’s another example of a very high ranking churchman who rejects “ecumensim of return”.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not! “ vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting_en.html

So, while I agree with you when you say the Church does not reject “ecumenism is return”, some high ranking and very influential Churchment have.

Similarly, the Church officially teaches that the old Covenant was replaced by the New and no longer has an salvific power. In fact, the Church has infallibly taught that it is now a mortal sin to practice the old Covenant (see council of Florence). Yet, nevertheless, John Paul II tauth that “the old Covenant has never been revoked by God”, which was then “clarified” in a document issued by the USCCB in 2002 which says it is now theologically incorrect to attempt to convert the Jews, since their covenant is still in effect.

What we are faced with today is high ranking Churchmen teaching the contrary of what the Church actually teaches. Thus, we have the confusion that we have.

BTW, you should really read the Bellamand Agreement.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Let me start by saying that I agree with you when you say the Church does not teach what Cardinal Kasper taught, since what Cardinal Kasper taught is complete heresy and the Church does not teach heresy.

It is not the Church, but rather high ranking churchmen, who reject “ecumenism of return”. Unfortunately, these high ranking churchmen are, for the most part, in control of the Church today.

For example, have you read the Bellamand Agreement that John Paul II accepted? It rejects the idea of ecumenism of return with the Orthodox when it claims that they are our “sister Church”, and as such, there should be no attempts to convert them. This is an example of a leading churchman (John Paul II) teaching what the Church does not teach.

Here’s another example of a very high ranking churchman who rejects “ecumensim of return”.

Cardinal Ratzinger: “We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not! “

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting_en.html

So, while I agree with you when you say the Church does not officially reject “ecumenism is return”, some high ranking and very influential Churchment have.

Similarly, the Church officially teaches that the old Covenant was replaced by the New and no longer has an salvific power. In fact, the Church has infallibly taught that it is now a mortal sin to practice the old Covenant (see council of Florence). Yet, nevertheless, John Paul II tauth that “the old Covenant has never been revoked by God”, which was then “clarified” in a document issued by the USCCB in 2002 which says it is now theologically incorrect to attempt to convert the Jews, since their covenant is still in effect.

What we are faced with today is high ranking Churchmen teaching the contrary of what the Church actually teaches. Thus, we have the confusion that we have.

BTW, you should really read the Bellamand Agreement.

 

[japhy]

Here’s another example of a very high ranking churchman who rejects “ecumensim of return”.

Note that Pope Benedict clarified what he meant by “ecumenism of return”, and then narrowed that down further to four fields: “This unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not! It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in disciplines.”

Fr. Brian Harrison makes these observations:
The first impression here is that Pope Benedict is right in line with Cardinal Kasper and other ecumaniac luminaries. … But what, precisely, is Benedict ruling out when he rules out so categorically this dreaded, abhorrent, unthinkable ‘return’ of the separated brethren? He answers this question by proceeding to rule out any future requirement of ‘uniformity’ in four distinct and specific areas of the Church’s life: theology, spirituality, liturgical forms, and discipline. Note well that the Pope conspicuously fails to include doctrine among these areas in which uniformity will not be required.

Now I would suggest that this omission to the extent that it comes to be taken seriously and implemented at high levels, really amounts to a pulling the rug out from under the feet of heretical ecumenists. It’s the old Catholic orthodoxy creeping in again by the postconciliar back door. For what preconciliar pope ever insisted on uniformity in any of the four areas specified now by Benedict XVI?
He continues.

BTW, you should really read the Bellamand Agreement.

I have found it online and will do so.

 

[CradleCath]

Deacon Ed B;3863732]The very name by which you identify yourself, “Pax et Caritas”, certainly is a contradiction, based on the above excerpts from your post. To come on a thread such as this, and have the unmitigated gall to say that those of us who prefer the Novus Ordo are practicing Catholicism light, is not only an affront to every traditional Catholic, but to every Catholic who loves their one, true faith.

This is an awfully vitriolic message considering that you are a Deacon. Pax et Caritas said simply that the Novus Ordo Mass is a Mass that represents a new kind of Catholicism…liberal Catholicism, whereas the Tridentine Mass of the Ages represents a conservative Catholicism. This is the truth & why so many are afraid to admit that is perplexing.

I do not know whether you were Catholic before the council, but…as Pope Benedict has repleatly said, the “new Mass” was not “organic” development, iit was a complete disruption…not only of the Mass, but the Theology of the Mass & the Theology of the Catholic faith. Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge re the Catholic Church knows that the liturgy before the council had, indeed developed slowly over the centuries, with elements added and dropped and various rites celebrated in the West beside the Roman Rite UNTIL the second Vatican council which resulted in a liturgy designed by a committee.

I’m not sure why you are so virulent about the two different Masses, for as Pax said Traditional Catholicism goes so much deeper than the Mass. It goes deeper than the saying of the Rosary, than the use of incense & reaches into the actual communion between all of the saints living & dead…considering us one family of believers. It does not go begging after members at the expense of the Truth of Christ. It doesn’t concern itself with superficial LUV of our fellows as much as our repsonsibility to do what we can, in kindness with charity, to save their souls because of our first priority the love of God.

The council was hijacked by the “intellectuals”…some of them long dead before the opening remarks of John XXIII. Alfred Loisy & George Tyrell who believed that the Word of God should be applied differently for each age. Then of course, duing the 20th century, we had Leonardo Boff, Brazilian, ex-Franciscan, ex-priest, cofounder of Liberation theology.
Yves Congar,.Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin & we mustn’t forget the “father of the council” Karl Rahner & his “annonymus Christian”.

You raise such a fuss over today’s liberals & the title they seem to hate…that of “Catholic Lites”. Consider the 12 hour fasts that we who grew up before the council felt that God deserved, the family rosaries every evening, the faith we had that God would space our children if we learned to cooperate with the natural cycle that He gave to women…our own built in method of birth control. Consider the fact that when choosing a new home, the first thing that Catholic parents did was to locate the nearest parochial school & find a home within walking distance. If providing the tuition it took to put their children through Catholic schools meant they had to sacrifice, they did so & gladly. As a result Catholic neighborhoods were the norm. Compared to that life, today’s liberal Catholicism is, indeed, Catholic lite.

For your information, the Holy Spirit is still with the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Rome, under the guidance, at present, of Pope Benedict XVI.

The Holy Spirit is VERY MUCH guiding Pope Benedict & most of the liberal Catholics I know are not very happy about the path said Pope calls us to follow.

It is a Church looking into the deeper meaning, ironically enough, of what you claim as your very name, Pax et Caritas. It is a Church reaching out to bring others into the one true faith, with an understanding of what “peace and love” really mean. It does not seek condemnation and anathemas, but is seeking unity of all Christians. In that quest, no Dogma or teaching has been watered down or changed, and none will be.

For the last 40 years, the Church has been trying to bring others into a faith that they have watered down so that it will be palatable to “modern man”. IOW., they’ve not been bringing people into the Catholic Church that Christ preached.

My best advise to any reading this post would be to disregard anything you have to say and post, and to not respond to any of your postings as that would only give you a forum to spread misinformation and error that comes from a misguided mind. You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

MY best advice to Catholics reading this thread is to is to bring back the scholastism that had marked Catholics for centuries. Read the encyclicals, study your faith that has been handed down to you over the bodies of the martyrs.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

This is an awfully vitriolic message considering that you are a Deacon. Pax et Caritas said simply that the Novus Ordo Mass is a Mass that represents a new kind of Catholicism…liberal Catholicism, whereas the Tridentine Mass of the Ages represents a conservative Catholicism. This is the truth & why so many are afraid to admit that is perplexing.

You need to reread his post. To say those who prefer the Novus Ordo practice Catholicism lite is an insult to everyone who prefers that kind of mass, as if to insinuate that our Catholicism is less than yours

I do not know whether you were Catholic before the council, but…as Pope Benedict has repleatly said, the “new Mass” was not “organic” development, iit was a complete disruption…not only of the Mass, but the Theology of the Mass & the Theology of the Catholic faith. Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge re the Catholic Church knows that the liturgy before the council had, indeed developed slowly over the centuries, with elements added and dropped and various rites celebrated in the West beside the Roman Rite UNTIL the second Vatican council which resulted in a liturgy designed by a committee.

For your information I was in graduate theology in the Seminary.

I’m not sure why you are so virulent about the two different Masses, for as Pax said Traditional Catholicism goes so much deeper than the Mass. It goes deeper than the saying of the Rosary, than the use of incense & reaches into the actual communion between all of the saints living & dead…considering us one family of believers. It does not go begging after members at the expense of the Truth of Christ. It doesn’t concern itself with superficial LUV of our fellows as much as our repsonsibility to do what we can, in kindness with charity, to save their souls because of our first priority the love of God.

Most obviously then, you have not read my posts on this. For I have consistently said that both forms are equally holy , equally efficacious, equally meritorious and are equal in all things, as they are a reenactment of the holy sacrifice of Jesus on the cross at Calvary. Or did you miss that. obviously so. I don’t condemn you for that, you just did not see it. But sunny boy, don’t tell me that I* practice Catholicism lite. That is an insulting insinuation not born up in fact.

The Holy Spirit is VERY MUCH guiding Pope Benedict & most of the liberal Catholics I know are not very happy about the path said Pope calls us to follow.

Are you now calling me a liberal Catholic??? If you are, go back and read all of my posts. It can be done easily. Tell me where I am liberal. Please, educate yourself.

For the last 40 years, the Church has been trying to bring others into a faith that they have watered down so that it will be palatable to “modern man”. IOW., they’ve not been bringing people into the Catholic Church that Christ preached.

What you have seen in the last 40 is not what the Council did, but what misguided souls practicing what they called the Spirit of Vatican II did to the Church. It was neither the Spirit nor the Council, but misguided souls.

MY best advice to Catholics reading this thread is to is to bring back the scholastism that had marked Catholics for centuries. Read the encyclicals, study your faith that has been handed down to you over the bodies of the martyrs.

Praise the Lord. We can certainly agree on this. But you have some reading to do if you want to know what you are talking about.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[GemmaRose]

I am a “cradle Catholic” who prefers the N.O.

In my preference, I am no way at odds with HMC. Therefore, I do not appreciate anyone judging me as somehow being “less” of a Catholic.

I was all set to comment on CradleCath’s post (#572), but Deacon Ed B more than eloquently (as usual ) responded with his post (#573).

Let me just add that maybe Catholics such as myself, who are probably as “traditional” as you can get, don’t want to be labeled as “traditionalists” precisely because of posts such as those of CradleCath or Pax et Caritas!

Additionally, I am curious to know how posters such as CradleCath and Pax et Caritas reconcile their apparent disobedience to the words of Christ (Matthew 7: “1JUDGE not, that you may not be judged, 2For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? 4Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”), and apparent disbelief in His words (Matthew 16: “18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”), with being a “traditional” Catholic.