Should We Turn Back The Clock?

[CWBetts]

Malleus: Thats is where you err. What YOU Say is the TRUTH is not the TRUTH for me. So if I dont follow what you percieve to be the TRUTH then you attempt to coerce me to follow what you say is the TRUTH by saying the things you say and using the Tactics you use here in the Traditional forum. This is not the OF forum. It is geared towards Catholics who gravitate towards TRADITION. And you just admitted that you are here to EVANGELIZE us havent you. Did it ever occur to you that we dont need to be evangelized - that we have already arrived at the TRUTH and that your inability to see the TRUTH is a problem you have to come to terms with? Now reread what it says in Dignitatis Humanae especially the part about what a persons RIGHTS ARE ONCE THEY ARRRIVE AT THE TRUTH. I have arrived at the TRUTH. So what exactly do you think - gives you the RIGHT to infringe on my right to cling to the TRUTH I have arrived at according to the very precepts of that which you say you hold as TRUE in Dignitatis Humanae? I say - you are in violation of its precepts not respecting my RIGHT to MY BELIEF which has been arrived at PRIOR to VATICAN II itself. My question to you , sir - is WHY do you infringe on that right . Do you pretend to give it and then take it away? Or dont you really hold to it. Which is it?

You are dangerously close to schism. Please return to the Catholic Church

 

[otjm]

Malleus: Vatican II was a Pastoral Council.

There is not a single anathema. Its language is ambiguous and it has been misinterpreted ad nauseum.

No one has yet shown that the vast majority of problems since Vatican 2 are misinterpretations of the documents. They appear to be simply willful disobedience and dissent. So blaming it on the documents is a useless exercise. Further, if there are ambiguities in the documents as is often claimned, the Magisterium has said that the documents need to be read in light of the 2000 year history of the Church. That lay people, untrained in theology can have problems doing so does not men that it cannot be done; only that they are not capable of it. We have had two popes who have strongly backed the documents, repeatedly said that they have not yet been fully implemented, and said that they need to be interpreted in light of Tradition. The issue of anthemas is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is fine to emphasize things, but switching between all caps and lower case is not the way to go about it, and makes it very difficult to read. Please use bold or italics or underlining. We can get the point.

I just love it when the modernists say how much they love the EF but then add the caveat about how they just cannot wait to change it. Change Change Change. Always with Change.

OK, now you need to take sides. Benedict 16 siad in his letter accompanying the document releasing the EF that he invisioned teh EF with some changes (go read the letter). Are you now accusing him of being a modernist/ If so, please speak up.

And why? Because they need to continue their search for the Truth. They remain unsatisfied. Their journey is not over.

The Pearl of great price remains elusive.

But we in Tradition - we simply go to Mass - partake of the Unchangeable Sacraments - keep our souls in a State of Grace as best we can and wait for Judgement day.

Why change.

Why try to fix it if it isnt broken.

Pax

On the contrary, there was a good deal broken before Vatican 2. That you may not have experienced it does not mean that it did not exist.

 

[otjm]

Vatican II is an ecumenical council and will never be abolished; it’s teachings and directives are here to stay; Vatican II has its place alongside the Council of Trent and the other councils of the Church.

However, I think the Church will eventually come to a true interpretation of the Council documents; the abuses and false interpretations will end, and the truth of the Council will stand for all to see. I believe the true value of the Council will not be known for at least another 45 years; by then, the Church should have killed the so-called Spirit of Vatican II and sorted through the mess.

The disorientation we have all experienced since Vatican II is coming to an end and I believe we will see the re-imergence of a more traditional and conservative Church; the main fruit of this renaissance will be more reverent liturgies and the growth of traditional customs and practices. The reform of the reform spearheaded by Benedict XVI will meet resistance, but in the end, the Church will be better off.

The EF Mass is a treasure that will impact the wider Church; it will definitely reshape the liturgical landscape, and in the process, strengthen the faith of many people.

We will not see a return to pre-Vatican II ways because a lot has happened since then; however, I believe we will take the fruits of that generation, add them to the fruits of this generation and the future of the Church will be bright. We will see the coming together of traditionalism with post Vatican II practices and a stronger more faithful Church will emerge from the ashes.

I think it might occur sooner than 45 years for a simple reason: the dissidents were adults before the end of Vatican 2. If we were to take anyone 20 years old at the end of it they are now 65; that puts the serious dissenters into their 80’s and 90’s. And interestingly, that age group had its own issues; but the next generation and the one after that have had different issues and the leaders of those generations have not taken up the banners of the dissenters in any significant number. The net result is the leadersof dissent are dying off and not being replaced. The whole series of dissents will eventually die for lack of viable leadership, and it won’t take 45 years to accomplish. Already we have seen the fruits of the John Paul ordinations, priests with far different issues and agendas than their predecessors. Change is slow, but has been occuring for some time.

 

[Malleus_01]

You are dangerously close to schism. Please return to the Catholic Church

Malleus: Do you even know me? Do you know what I do on a Daily basis?

I find it interesting that a self professed “convert” who obviously doesnt know his own faith as proven on here - still feels compelled to pass judgement on mine sight unseen.

Not to mention the fact that the CHURCH MAGISTERIUM or EPISCOPATE ALONE is the only entities that can DECLARE FORMAL SCHISM. In fact - you are dangerously close if not over the line in the Mortal sin of CALUMNY.

Now as for your edification - if you had any real evidence of TRUE FORMAL Schism and published it here in the forum - then you would likewise be Guilty of the Mortal Sin of DETRACTION because the CHARITABLE Thing to do would be to inform the Church out of a Catholic Charity (Love of Neighbor) But then I wouldnt expect out of your proven ignorance - you would know these things so perhaps it remains venial due to implied intent. But in either regard - you must now both cease and desist because you can no longer claim invincible ignorance having been admonished by me utilizing the Second Spiritual Work of Mercy (Instructing the Ignorant)

And go ahead and look these things up , you will find I am correct about them

And no need to apologize - I already turned the other cheek and unlike you have let you know how you vilolated the very Faith you claim to hold out of Charity for your own soul

You are welcome ( and by all means look these things up because i am fairly certain this is the first time you have probably heard of Calumny Detraction and the Spiritual Works of Mercy.)

Not to mention that even if true thanks to Canon Law of 1983 - even if I were in Schism I could petition the Churrch for the Last Rites

Pax

 

[otjm]

Malleus: Do you even know me? Do you know what I do on a Daily basis?

I find it interesting that a self professed “convert” who obviously doesnt know his own faith as proven on here - still feels compelled to pass judgement on mine sight unseen.

Not to mention the fact that the CHURCH MAGISTERIUM or EPISCOPATE ALONE is the only entities that can DECLARE FORMAL SCHISM. In fact - you are dangerously close if not over the line in the Mortal sin of CALUMNY.

Now as for your edification - if you had any real evidence of TRUE FORMAL Schism and published it here in the forum - then you would likewise be Guilty of the Mortal Sin of DETRACTION because the CHARITABLE Thing to do would be to inform the Church out of a Catholic Charity (Love of Neighbor) But then I wouldnt expect out of your proven ignorance - you would know these things so perhaps it remains venial due to implied intent. But in either regard - you must now both cease and desist because you can no longer claim invincible ignorance having been admonished by me utilizing the Second Spiritual Work of Mercy (Instructing the Ignorant)

And go ahead and look these things up , you will find I am correct about them

And no need to apologize - I already turned the other cheek and unlike you have let you know how you vilolated the very Faith you claim to hold out of Charity for your own soul

You are welcome ( and by all means look these things up because i am fairly certain this is the first time you have probably heard of Calumny Detraction and the Spiritual Works of Mercy.)

Not to mention that even if true thanks to Canon Law of 1983 - even if I were in Schism I could petition the Churrch for the Last Rites

Pax

Calm down. If you don’t like a post, you can always ignore it. And no, I don’t think any of us know what you do on a daily basis. However, you are welcome to explain.

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: Do you even know me? Do you know what I do on a Daily basis?

I find it interesting that a self professed “convert” who obviously doesnt know his own faith as proven on here - still feels compelled to pass judgement on mine sight unseen.

Not to mention the fact that the CHURCH MAGISTERIUM or EPISCOPATE ALONE is the only entities that can DECLARE FORMAL SCHISM. In fact - you are dangerously close if not over the line in the Mortal sin of CALUMNY.

Now as for your edification - if you had any real evidence of TRUE FORMAL Schism and published it here in the forum - then you would likewise be Guilty of the Mortal Sin of DETRACTION because the CHARITABLE Thing to do would be to inform the Church out of a Catholic Charity (Love of Neighbor) But then I wouldnt expect out of your proven ignorance - you would know these things so perhaps it remains venial due to implied intent. But in either regard - you must now both cease and desist because you can no longer claim invincible ignorance having been admonished by me utilizing the Second Spiritual Work of Mercy (Instructing the Ignorant)

And go ahead and look these things up , you will find I am correct about them

And no need to apologize - I already turned the other cheek and unlike you have let you know how you vilolated the very Faith you claim to hold out of Charity for your own soul

You are welcome ( and by all means look these things up because i am fairly certain this is the first time you have probably heard of Calumny Detraction and the Spiritual Works of Mercy.)

Not to mention that even if true thanks to Canon Law of 1983 - even if I were in Schism I could petition the Churrch for the Last Rites

Pax

I did not “formally declare you in schism”…I said you were dangerously close to actions that could be considered schismatic. “Convert” does not mean “stupid”. I know converts who know much more about the faith than you claim to. No I have heard of the sins you mention…I just had a course in Moral Theology last semester taught by a Marianite Priest). I fully admit I do need to learn more about the Fath, which I am doing. I do not do as you do, and act as if I already know all that there is to know about the Faith. Instead of lecturing others about charity, you should first be charitable yourself. YOu can read about the characteristics of true Charity in 1 Corinthians 13.

 

[Malleus_01]

No one has yet shown that the vast majority of problems since Vatican 2 are misinterpretations of the documents. They appear to be simply willful disobedience and dissent. So blaming it on the documents is a useless exercise. Further, if there are ambiguities in the documents as is often claimned, the Magisterium has said that the documents need to be read in light of the 2000 year history of the Church. That lay people, untrained in theology can have problems doing so does not men that it cannot be done; only that they are not capable of it. We have had two popes who have strongly backed the documents, repeatedly said that they have not yet been fully implemented, and said that they need to be interpreted in light of Tradition. The issue of anthemas is irrelevant to the discussion.

Malleus: Ah - but where you stop short is to formally declare any of the aspects of Vatican II as DOGMATIC. Feel free to cite specific examples of same whether in light of the 2000 year history or not. I can have this debate with you. Thus far you have submitted opinion and nothing more.

It is fine to emphasize things, but switching between all caps and lower case is not the way to go about it, and makes it very difficult to read. Please use bold or italics or underlining. We can get the point.

Malleus: I dont tell you how to type so dont tell me how to type. I am 53 years old and thus set in my ways. You are not my boss - my Parent or the Pope and thus in no position to dictate to me. If you cannot read what is written as typed - then slow down and or reread as many times as necessary. I often capitalize so as to emphasize words as it has been the custom of people like you to twist them. Thus when you readn my posts - if a word is capitalized - it is emphasized for effect.

OK, now you need to take sides. Benedict 16 siad in his letter accompanying the document releasing the EF that he invisioned teh EF with some changes (go read the letter). Are you now accusing him of being a modernist/ If so, please speak up.

Malleus: I dont accuse anyone of anything. If I did - I would be like you , wouldnt I.

On the contrary, there was a good deal broken before Vatican 2. That you may not have experienced it does not mean that it did not exist.

Malleus: Sorry - But Modernism in various forms has been around for Three Hundred Years more or less. I never made the statement that it didnt exist prior , thats an assumption on your part - the ambiguities present in Vatican II merely brought about its fruition to a greater extent by Modernist Heretics. Why do you think Pope St Pius the X wrote “Pacendi Domenici Gregis” prior to the turn of the Century or Pope Leo the XIII “Libertas” and “Immortale Deus” prior to that. (And others) You want to champion them - go ahead prove your case.

 

[cecilia97]

The net result is the leadersof dissent are dying off and not being replaced. The whole series of dissents will eventually die for lack of viable leadership, and it won’t take 45 years to accomplish. Already we have seen the fruits of the John Paul ordinations, priests with far different issues and agendas than their predecessors. Change is slow, but has been occuring for some time.

I agree…another current thread is examining the (albeit anecdotal) trend of more orthodox, younger priests. The people I know who are actively seeking orthodoxy in parishes are in the range of 25-40 years. The priests I know who exhibit the greatest respect for the Eucharist are 50 and under. The seminarians I have bumped into seem interested in Benedict’s “reform of the reform” ideas and a return to traditional spiritualities and devotions, if not always the EF.

 

[Malleus_01]

Calm down. If you don’t like a post, you can always ignore it. And no, I don’t think any of us know what you do on a daily basis. However, you are welcome to explain.

Malleus: It wasnt directed at you. So you calm down. If you are admonishing ME for objecting to being insulted and setting the record straight - then perhaps you should butt out.

 

[Malleus_01]

I did not “formally declare you in schism”…I said you were dangerously close to actions that could be considered schismatic.

Malleus: When you made the STATEMENT to return to the CATHOLIC Faith you so declared.

“Convert” does not mean “stupid”. I know converts who know much more about the faith than you claim to.

Malleus: Then bring them here to speak for you. It would be a welcome change to speak to them rather than you in light of your content.

No I have heard of the sins you mention…I just had a course in Moral Theology last semester taught by a Marianite Priest).

Malleus: Assuming Maronite. I have several Maronite friends. They often ask me to speak to their classes. Your point?

I fully admit I do need to learn more about the Fath, which I am doing. I do not do as you do, and act as if I already know all that there is to know about the Faith. Instead of lecturing others about charity, you should first be charitable yourself.

Malleus: As in - going to the Threads where people like you congregate and post demanding that they tow the line in TRADITION as you do here? Is that your definition of CHARITY? Perhaps you might want to take a refresher course. It obviously didnt sink in the first time.

YOu can read about the characteristics of true Charity in 1 Corinthians 13.

Malleus: Perhaps you might want to include the Catrholic EXEGESIS for same. We dont self interpret Scripture as Catholics. After all - we arent Protestant you know. So tell me , Which Cattholic Exegesis do you recommend for 1 Corinthians 13? Feel free to list them for me and which viewpoint you gravitate towards.

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: Perhaps you might want to include the Catrholic EXEGESIS for same. We dont self interpret Scripture as Catholics. After all - we arent Protestant you know. So tell me , Which Cattholic Exegesis do you recommend for 1 Corinthians 13? Feel free to list them for me and which viewpoint you gravitate towards.

Catholics are actually free to interpret Scripture provided that it does not contradict Magisterial teaching. In other words, we do not need the have the Church to tell us exactly what each verse means. We should make a practice out of personal Scripture study.

 

[Malleus_01]

I agree…another current thread is examining the (albeit anecdotal) trend of more orthodox, younger priests. The people I know who are actively seeking orthodoxy in parishes are in the range of 25-40 years. The priests I know who exhibit the greatest respect for the Eucharist are 50 and under. The seminarians I have bumped into seem interested in Benedict’s “reform of the reform” ideas and a return to traditional spiritualities and devotions, if not always the EF.

Malleus: Well if some Modernist change merchants wish to embark on a slow change methodology wherein over a period of time they objectively return to the Tridentine Latin Rites and Valid Scripture and Traditional Sacraments and belief - we are not in opposition to same.

pax

 

[cecilia97]

Catholics are actually free to interpret Scripture provided that it does not contradict Magisterial teaching. In other words, we do not need the have the Church to tell us exactly what each verse means. We should make a practice out of personal Scripture study.

God bless you, Carl. We are blessed when the Church gains converts like you.

 

[cecilia97]

Malleus: Well if some Modernist change merchants wish to embark on a slow change methodology wherein over a period of time they objectively return to the Tridentine Latin Rites and Valid Scripture and Traditional Sacraments and belief - we are not in opposition to same.

pax

You’re in my prayers, Malleus.

 

[Lujack]

1.-Like they’re really going to put down “We want to remove the altars”. An “altar” is connected to the wall basically, not a separate table. The Vatican II Council simply brain-washed people into thinking that tables and altars were the same thing so nobody would notice a difference. Look at pictures of the “altars” at Novus Ordos and TLMs and then tell me they are the same.

1. It is perfectly permissible to celebrate the Ordinary Form ad orientatem.
2. Since when is an altar by definition connected to the wall? I’m sure that Bernini and the other architects at St. Peter’s would be rather surprised to hear that one.

2.-Again, CITH was only used in earlier practices for a short period of time and then was thrown back in at the Vatican II Council. Wherever you learned that is has been a practice since the beginning, that source was wrong.

Considering that Vatican II didn’t mention communion in the hand at all, your credibility here is a little bit iffy.

 

[Malleus_01]

Catholics are actually free to interpret Scripture provided that it does not contradict Magisterial teaching. In other words, we do not need the have the Church to tell us exactly what each verse means. We should make a practice out of personal Scripture study.

Malleus: I wasnt the One who made the Statement " YOu can read about the characteristics of true Charity in 1 Corinthians 13." you were. Perhaps if you meant something by it - you might go ahead and come out and say. Or is the extent of that Charity only to point out the fact that I can read Scripture and self interpret it? that being so - you can likewise read 1 Peter 1:20 out of Charity for you in turn

 

[CWBetts]

Malleus: I wasnt the One who made the Statement " YOu can read about the characteristics of true Charity in 1 Corinthians 13." you were. Perhaps if you meant something by it - you might go ahead and come out and say. Or is the extent of that Charity only to point out the fact that I can read Scripture and self interpret it? that being so - you can likewise read 1 Peter 1:20 out of Charity for you in turn

It is true, but this does not mean we are not to study the Scriptures on our own

 

[RockyRoad]

Malleus: Well if some Modernist change merchants wish to embark on a slow change methodology wherein over a period of time they objectively return to the Tridentine Latin Rites and Valid Scripture and Traditional Sacraments and belief - we are not in opposition to same.

pax

Now see…there you go again. Valid Scripture and Traditional Sacraments I was starting to think of what you are implying…but there is no implication here. It is a direct attack. As I’ve said. I would love to see more TLM. I’d love to have one near by. But the OF is valid…sacred…and a true Sacrifice. No less than TLM. Yet you say people are attacking the TLM…then you post what you just posted. I’m so glad to see you are superior to the magisterium and that your Christ is superior in the Eucharist than Christ in the OF. That’s a sad comment. Borders on blasphemy.

 

[Malleus_01]

Now see…there you go again. Valid Scripture and Traditional Sacraments I was starting to think of what you are implying…but there is no implication here. It is a direct attack. As I’ve said. I would love to see more TLM. I’d love to have one near by. But the OF is valid…sacred…and a true Sacrifice. No less than TLM. Yet you say people are attacking the TLM…then you post what you just posted. I’m so glad to see you are superior to the magisterium and that your Christ is superior in the Eucharist than Christ in the OF. That’s a sad comment. Borders on blasphemy.

Malleus: Opinion is opinion. Its not a direct attack. I know Catholics who go to the OF. Show me where I ever said you personally were a Heretic for going to it. Feel free to point it out. And further - you show me the difference between you supporting what you prefer as superior over what I MAY feel is superior. Believe me - I am the one under attack here not you and the sad part is - where this atttack is taking place. I might give you the benefit of the doubt if we were having this conversation on another thread. I never said a word about the Eucharist - those are your words not mine. As for Scripture - yes the NAB is Protestantized. If you dont like that - well then thats a “you” problem. I’ll gladly debate that with you. And as for BLASPHEMY - before you make an idiotic comment like that - perhaps you might want to take the time to learn what blasphemy is.

After that - I CHALLENGE YOU DIRECTLY to SPECIFICALLY POINT IT OUT.

Or retract and apologize for the idiocy

Pax

 

[Malleus_01]

It is true, but this does not mean we are not to study the Scriptures on our own

Malleus: Thats better. And BTW congratulations for converting to the One True Faith. I like your spirit and I enjoyed how you face up to challenges. And yes - we get indulgences for Scripture Study. As you advance in your faith you will be challenged.

Always be ready to learn more about your faith. This will come not only through knowledge but through Spiritual means as well and the Seven gifts of the Holy Ghost.

So keep up your prrayer life - it is as important if not more important than apologetics.

And BTW - no one ever Masters Catholicism. It is a lifetime pursuit.

Pax