J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hello,
“A is Not A” and “2+2=5” - the kind of liberal or neo-conservative logic it takes to reconcile, for ex.: Mortalium Animos with the Assisi Events; Mediator Dei with the Novus Ordo Mass; Mirari Vos with the “spirit of Vatican II”; Testem Benevolentiae Nostra and Quas Primas with the typical post-conciliar view of government; Unam Sanctam with typical post-conciliar false ecumenism; and so forth.
They are saying that they think the Mass of Paul VI is irreconcilable with past Church teachings - specifically, Pope Pius XII’s encyclical on The Sacred Liturgy.
Again, in their “Primer on Traditional Catholicism” they write:
In their “Statement of Faith” they write:
We believe Vatican II was a valid, pastoral Ecumenical Council convoked and approbated by true Popes. We believe the documents from the Council were badly and ambiguously written and that said documents need to be interpreted only in light of tradition instead of – as is all too often the case now – by the media and those with a revolutionary agenda.
Now, I can certainly agree with the second half about the specious interpretations. The Holy Father has repeatedly condemned this.
But what is difficult to understand, is they claim the documents of the Council itself were badly written. Do they not know what an Ecumenical Council is. The Holy Spirit guides an Ecumenical Council and preserves it from error on faith and morals. Do they think other Councils were defective in this same way? Do they think the Nicene Creed was badly written?
Do they think the Letters of Paul were written badly? He was inspired by the same Spirit (albeit in a slightly different manner). His Letters have been subject to the same onslaught of specious interpretations (even moreso) as the Vatican II documents (i.e, Protestantism).
By the way, Vatican II was not merely Pastoral. Many of the Documents are very dogmatic (i.e., Lumen Gentium), even if they didn’t really say anything new.
I find this is probably the worst feature by far on their site!!!
Listen, if I had a website, and I wanted to provide a link to an informative article on Christology, I wouldn’t link to The Jesus Seminar. Why? Because I don’t believe what those people teach. I would link to a good article from maybe EWTN or Catholic Encyclopedia, etc.
Nor would I link to the writings of John Calvin - even if he got his Christology right. I would find a Catholic source - maybe a Church Father or document from a Council.
In their “Dictionary of Dissent” - which at least half of is just a thoughtless rant of stereotypical generalizations - they write:
“A is Not A” and “2+2=5” - the kind of liberal or neo-conservative logic it takes to reconcile, for ex.: Mortalium Animos with the Assisi Events; Mediator Dei with the Novus Ordo Mass; Mirari Vos with the “spirit of Vatican II”; Testem Benevolentiae Nostra and Quas Primas with the typical post-conciliar view of government; Unam Sanctam with typical post-conciliar false ecumenism; and so forth.
They are saying that they think the Mass of Paul VI is irreconcilable with past Church teachings - specifically, Pope Pius XII’s encyclical on The Sacred Liturgy.
Again, in their “Primer on Traditional Catholicism” they write:
The Error: A new “Paschal theology” which de-emphasizes the Sacrificial aspects of our salvation and which leads the faithful to believe that it is Christ’s Resurrection alone, and not the Blood shed by His Sacrifice on the Cross, that saves. The revision of the Mass liturgy under Pope Paul VI is a fruit of this “paschal theology,” a theology that contradicts Scripture and Encyclicals such as Pope Pius XII’s "Mediator Dei’’. This paschal theology also de-emphasizes the meaning of suffering, ignoring Christ’s admonition to Christians to “take up their crosses” (Matthew 10:38), and forgetting St. Paul’s admonitions to mortify the flesh (Galatians 5:18-25, Colossians 1:23-24).
They are saying the Mass of Paul VI is based on errors. They lambaste the Mass in other areas as well.In their “Statement of Faith” they write:
We believe Vatican II was a valid, pastoral Ecumenical Council convoked and approbated by true Popes. We believe the documents from the Council were badly and ambiguously written and that said documents need to be interpreted only in light of tradition instead of – as is all too often the case now – by the media and those with a revolutionary agenda.
Now, I can certainly agree with the second half about the specious interpretations. The Holy Father has repeatedly condemned this.
But what is difficult to understand, is they claim the documents of the Council itself were badly written. Do they not know what an Ecumenical Council is. The Holy Spirit guides an Ecumenical Council and preserves it from error on faith and morals. Do they think other Councils were defective in this same way? Do they think the Nicene Creed was badly written?
Do they think the Letters of Paul were written badly? He was inspired by the same Spirit (albeit in a slightly different manner). His Letters have been subject to the same onslaught of specious interpretations (even moreso) as the Vatican II documents (i.e, Protestantism).
By the way, Vatican II was not merely Pastoral. Many of the Documents are very dogmatic (i.e., Lumen Gentium), even if they didn’t really say anything new.
They have a section called the “John Paul II Random Speech Generator” that spews out random quotes that are made-up (they admit that). They say they aren’t mocking, only making a joke - but it is distasteful and showing of their true character and outlook. It is certainly not funny and it is mocking the Holy Father (I don’t care what they say).
I find this is probably the worst feature by far on their site!!!
What do you think schism is - an ice cream social! Schism is the direct result of being unfaithful to the Church and the Magisterium.
They do link directly to these sites for articles from them. That shows that they believe what these groups believe.
Listen, if I had a website, and I wanted to provide a link to an informative article on Christology, I wouldn’t link to The Jesus Seminar. Why? Because I don’t believe what those people teach. I would link to a good article from maybe EWTN or Catholic Encyclopedia, etc.
Nor would I link to the writings of John Calvin - even if he got his Christology right. I would find a Catholic source - maybe a Church Father or document from a Council.
I have checked out their site and it is totally accurate. I said it before and I’ll say it again, they have a lot of good resources, but you need to be aware of where they are coming from, especially when looking for certain topics (i.e., Liturgy).
