J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Haha! I know you have and I’m grateful for that. I don’t plan on joining nor attending their Masses, but I do think that they raise a lot of good points with regards to ecumenism and the like.
- Status
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
You’re definitely right about that. The SSPV has a much more defensible stance than the SSPX’s awkward in-between one. That’s probably why discussion of sedevecantism isn’t allowed on these threads.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
I think they do have some good points, I certainly won’t deny that.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
But they’re still wrong.
J
Jasny
Guest
I don’t have the time to get involved but I wanted to give
to you, Lazerlike42, for deafending the Catholic position. (Though I have some minor reservations) Keep up the good work! 
F
Frank_Roman
Guest
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
The Arian heresy affected about 90% of the Church’s bishops, but it did not affect the Bishop of Rome. When the pope found out about the Arian heresy, he declared it a heresy.
F
Frank_Roman
Guest
Calling something a countersylabus is a big way of causing confusion- it is the Former Cardinals own words which have led me to doubt the council.
That’s ridiculous then-Cardinal Ratzinger said in his book Memoirs that the Tridentine Rite developed organically after almost 2millenia and that NEVER had a rite been pieced together like it was after Vatican II.
My grandfather gets very angry when people say this. He learned his scripture at Mass far better than most kids know anything today.
What?!?!? My nextdoor neighbor is one of twelve children who fell away from there faith to all sorts of protestant churches and cults in the post-VaticanII church.
How very insulting to older Catholics!
Double check your numbers buddy- and by the way that only means the parishioner-priest ratio is getting bigger in the midst of a vocations crisis.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Frank Roman:
People will always be drawn away from the Church, so in no age can we say that one example of a person being drawn away is indicative of the Church’s overall defense of this. That is like saying that it is ridiculous to say that we have made strides in cancer research just because many people still die of cancer.
In the past, many Catholics went to Mass merely out of an obligation and didn’t really get anything out of it that they could think about. They received Christ, an infinite grace and goodness. However, this grace often went to waste because people did not know how to apply it in their lives. Today, people hear God’s word and are able to reflect upon this and draw great things from it through the grace of the Most Holy Eucharist.
Above all, do not panic. The gates of hades shall not prevail against the Church. She has been through terrible difficulties before, many would argue far worse difficulties. Christ will lead us, He will guide us. The modernist crisis is passing. It resulted from liberal clergy whom entered the Church in the 50s and 60s. The vocation crisis is beginning to pass already. One of the reasons that there was a crisis is because of the liberal seminaries. Research shows that when a seminary becomes more orthodox, attendance skyrockets. Our seminaries are, fortunately, on their way up after the disaster of the 60s and 70s.
People who view things so grimly remind me of Peter as he sunk into the sea, as Jesus said to him, “Oh ye of little faith!”
I have provided an article which addresses the Syllabus of Errors, and a quote from it which explains Ratinger’s meaning. However, if you trust Ratzinger enough for his words to cause you to doubt the council, you must also trust him enough that when he more explicitly says you must give assent to it, and that it is upheld by the same authority as Trent, and that if you disagree with Vatican II you must also disagree with Trent.
In the early days of the Church, Latin was not used. The Mass was different. The Tridentine Mass was introduced hundreds of years after the death of St. John the Apostle.
Then he is an exception. It’s fantastic that he knew his scripture, it really is! That being said, the majority of Catholics did not even bother reading Scripture when he was growing up.
That may be true, but it doesn’t disprove my point. My point is that Bishop Sheen’s television program was about the only Catholic apologetics anyone ever got before Vatican II. Nowadays, the defense of the faith is much more accessible.
People will always be drawn away from the Church, so in no age can we say that one example of a person being drawn away is indicative of the Church’s overall defense of this. That is like saying that it is ridiculous to say that we have made strides in cancer research just because many people still die of cancer.
Sir, Jesus did not refrain from speaking truth when it may insult people, and neither will I. One of the main reasons that Vatican II addressed the Liturgy in the first place was to correct the ridiculous manner in which the majority of priests celebrated the Mass. It is also true that many Catholics simply did not pay attention in the past. I do not claim that all behaved this way, and do not intend this as an insult to those whom were faithful and did give their attention. However, the fact is that many Catholics behaved in the ways I mentioned in my previous post because they simply did not understand the words or know what was going on.
In the past, many Catholics went to Mass merely out of an obligation and didn’t really get anything out of it that they could think about. They received Christ, an infinite grace and goodness. However, this grace often went to waste because people did not know how to apply it in their lives. Today, people hear God’s word and are able to reflect upon this and draw great things from it through the grace of the Most Holy Eucharist.
250,000 persons in the United States convert to Catholicism each year. This number was unheard of in the pre-concilliar era. It is true that we have a vocation crisis right now, but would you rather have more people enter the Church, or would you rather have the priests’ jobs be easier? As a person considering the priesthood, I can tell you that I would gladly make the sacrifices necessary to accomodate more Catholics than would be ideal.
Above all, do not panic. The gates of hades shall not prevail against the Church. She has been through terrible difficulties before, many would argue far worse difficulties. Christ will lead us, He will guide us. The modernist crisis is passing. It resulted from liberal clergy whom entered the Church in the 50s and 60s. The vocation crisis is beginning to pass already. One of the reasons that there was a crisis is because of the liberal seminaries. Research shows that when a seminary becomes more orthodox, attendance skyrockets. Our seminaries are, fortunately, on their way up after the disaster of the 60s and 70s.
People who view things so grimly remind me of Peter as he sunk into the sea, as Jesus said to him, “Oh ye of little faith!”
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Lazerlike42 said:
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Protestantism has only been around for 500 years or so, yet there are more Protestants than Catholics. How do you think this happened? It is from Catholics leaving the Church.
I may not disagree with you there. That being said, in the past many people weren’t meditating on the Liturgy, they were letting their minds wander for the very fact that they often could not understand the Liturgy. In fact, the traditional practice of ringing bells at the consecration was instituted for the purpose of alerting people to when Christ was present, because so many people just weren’t paying enough attention to notice on their own.
I think both of us would have to cite numbers. I’ll check.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
There are not! We are a billion strong. They don’t even come close. And if you’re talking only in America, it’s because America was a country founded by Protestants.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
You are correct, I was referencing a survey I had read but I was in a rush and did not think straight.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
That shouln’t be a sad face! That’s something good to be wrong about.You are correct, I was referencing a survey I had read but I was in a rush and did not think straight.
O
otm
Guest
The confusion in the Church didn’t really get off to a start until the issuance of Humanae Vitae, which lead to an explosion of dissent from theoologians, bishops, priests and laity, all at about the same time; the pill had been around since the 50’s, and we had a whole lot of people already using it. That lead, along with a fair dose of liberal ideas about catechesis, to about a 20 to 25 year period of flat out goofiness in catechetical instructions and process. It started to turn around in the mid to late 90’s, but, like turning around a battleship, is not a fast process.
It is the goofy catechesis, rather than the documents themselves, which are the source of so much misinformation among people - laity, and too often, priests also. and much of that is not sourced to Catholic documents, but to a “he said she said” repetition that never seems to have a clear source. Much of it is in good faith, but extremely poor factual base; people believe what they hear, and a lot of what they hear is about the level of urban myths.
.
Too many people equate True Catholicism with smells and bells, a rigid authoritarian structure coupled with a legalistic approach to morality, and what borders on a belief that if one just has all the doctrines memorized and prttey much doesn’t commit a mortal sin, one is a very good Catholic.I’ve been to fundamentalist, methodist, and lutheran services. So, you’re right…not too many. But I do remember explicitly asking my parents why we weren’t Lutheran or why Lutherans weren’t Catholic b/c it was almost exactly the same. However, this similarity, as well as my traditionalist leanings, may be a result of having been raised in a very liberal parish. I underwent a conversion and recognized that Catholicism is True Christianity. But once I had that realization, I then sought True Catholicism and it seems hard to come by in the New Church
If you want to find the True Catholic Church, it isn’t going to be with the SSPX. You need to look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, read of the saints, and realize that the True Catholic Church subsists in Christ. It doesn’t subsist in Latin, or the TLM, or the Maronite rite or the Byzantine Catholic rite. It is a bit broader than most people’s experience.
Nice urban myth, but just because the information contained therein makes the rounds is not proof of the truth supposedly contained therein. This has been the cry of those who populate the area somewhere between the Right and the Far Right. It becomes sincerely tiresome to listen to.
One of the tennats of the Catholic Church is that the Holy Spirit will preserve the Church from error. Be careful of crossing the line to the point of suggesting that the Pauline rite is something which is bereft of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That borders on that old word - heresy.
There is a difference between the rite itself, and how any individual priest celebrates it. some will be sloppy, some will be reverent. Don’t make the mistake of looking back in history with rose colored glasses; the TLM before Vatican 2 was not without its problems and occasional lack of reverence.
Again, many who do not like the Pauline rite will blame it for lack of reverence; but the lack is on the part of the training of the priest, not the rite itself, I would submit. Otherwise, why would we have Masses in the Pauline rite which are reverent? And as a fact, we do.
O
otm
Guest
O
otm
Guest
Frank Roman:
otm:
I would agree that there may be an impression of mysticism in the TLM, but that does not mean that the pauline rite was made to look Protestant, or that it was copied from the Episcopal/anglican service, or for that matter, the Luteran service. Unless there is a historical showing that they looked the same before Vatican 2 as they do now, it is more likely that they have evolved over time too. In fact, I went to a wedding at a Lutheran church, and it looked more like the TLM than it did the Pauline rite.
O
otm
Guest
Frank Roman:
Another example which has caused untold grief is the use of the word “myth”. A layman takes that word to mean that it is simply a story, such as a legend, not based on truth, and is something handed down from generation to generation to make a point. When a scripture scholar uses the term, they are not using it to mean that there is no truth to the facts stated (or rather, they make no comment as to the actual even actually occuring) but are rather using it as a term of art within scripture scholarship to mean a story that has greater meaning than just the sum of the facts.
The Cardinal, I am sure, had no intent in making a statement that would be misread; I suspect he didn’t even consdier it. He was writing at least in part to those who would understand his use of the word “countersyllabus”.
Frank Roman:
Frank Roman:
No, simply factual. Most people then did not understand Latin; the use of a personal missal was not by any means universal. It was not meant to bed insulting, but to simply state a fact.
Part of the problem was that you were reading a document written by a very intelligent and careful theologian. Too often when they write, they use words which within theological circles have a specific meaning, which may not be the meaning or understanding of the word that a layman would have. He was not writing so much for general public consumption as he was for a specific audience. When others read such writing, they have to read it with a clear understanding of the terms used.
Another example which has caused untold grief is the use of the word “myth”. A layman takes that word to mean that it is simply a story, such as a legend, not based on truth, and is something handed down from generation to generation to make a point. When a scripture scholar uses the term, they are not using it to mean that there is no truth to the facts stated (or rather, they make no comment as to the actual even actually occuring) but are rather using it as a term of art within scripture scholarship to mean a story that has greater meaning than just the sum of the facts.
The Cardinal, I am sure, had no intent in making a statement that would be misread; I suspect he didn’t even consdier it. He was writing at least in part to those who would understand his use of the word “countersyllabus”.
Frank Roman:
I am not sure that your grandfather can sustain his proof. To begin with, most Catholics, even now, hear and read most of the scripture they come across during Mass. Geiven the fact that the Pauline rite gave us more scripture readings over a longer cycle, and now include the Old Testament readins that he did not have when he was young, I believe that Catholics do know more scripture than they did before, if for no other fact than that they are exposed to more.
Frank Roman:
Which in no way proves anything. The general statement was that there is much more in the way of apologetics than there was before. The fact that certain kids fell away from the faith does not disprove that. The world is also much more secular today than it was back then; there is way more information available now than there was then; there is way more in the way of information hitting us through television and the internet than there was before.
Frank Roman said:
No, simply factual. Most people then did not understand Latin; the use of a personal missal was not by any means universal. It was not meant to bed insulting, but to simply state a fact.
M
MichellemyBelle
Guest
So your saying that Christ and His salvation is in other places other than in the Roman Catholic church by stating: Christ subsists in the Catholic church…? That is outright heresy…that ‘old’ term that you say. Christ and His salvation is found ONLY in the Catholic church. To say anything otherwise is a complete fallacy. Your supposed sanguine attitude to where Christ is found is appalling. He is indeed found in the TLM, in Eastern Catholic religions (note I am not speaking of “Eastern Orthodox”) and when done correctly even “Norvus Ordo” Mass.
The Pauline right, can be valid. However it at many times IS NOT. How do you know when it is valid? Simple. You must ask the priest this simple question: “What is the Body and Blood mean to you?” You may get the answer: “It’s symbolic”. If you do, run as far away as possible. However, if you do get one that states: It is the true Body and Blood of Christ, in transubstantiation" then you can feel comforted that it is ‘valid’. The reason to ask, is the the intention must be there. In this day and age where priests do not seem to care for the reverancy of their posts, it is you, your families souls that is in peril.
I am reading the posts on this thread and am finding that alot of the posters are quoting sources that are new, which is fine. But what happened to the Church before 1965? Is it dead or has a new religion been spawned as a result of Vatican II and it’s misintrepretation? The Holy Spirit was NOT invoked for the Vatican Council II. Read up on John XXIII opening address. He asks for guidance from God, Mary, the Apostles, and Christ, but completely negates the Holy Spirit. Why is this important? Because if the Holy Spirit WAS invoked, this Council would be free of errors, ambigiouities and the like. Several of the errors of Vatican II are as follows (by the way, I am quoting only a few of each error, but if anyone is truly interested in all of the correct teachings, I will write it out for you in email):
“This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, continues to exist (subsists) in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines.” **Lumen Gentium. **
The correct and dogmatic teachings:
“We must mention another fruitful cause of evil by which the Church is afflicted at present *, namely: Indifferentism, that vicious “vice-filled”] manner of thinking which holds that eternal salvation can be obtained by the profession of any faith, provided that a man’s morals are good and decent. Seriously consider the testimony of the Savior that some are against Christ because they are not with Christ, that they scatter who do not gather with Him, and therefore without doubt they will perish in eternity unless they hold to the Catholic faith and observe it WHOLE and INVIOLATE.” Pope Gregory XVI
“If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and that of those who have not yet come to the true faith is equal: let him be anathema.” Vatican Council I
“All graces given to those outside the Church are given them for the purpose of bringing them inside the Church.” St. Augustine
Error #2
"All men are called to this Catholic unity which prefigures and promotes universal peace, and in different ways belong to it, or are related to it: The Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation. **Lumen Gentium **
Correct teaching and dogmatic teaching:
“It is an error in a matter of divine truth to imagine the Church as invisible, by which many Christian communities, although they differ from each other in theirfaith, are united by a bond that is invisible to the senses” **Pope Pius XII **
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all can be saved.” Lateran Council IV **Pope Innocent III **
“Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted.” **Catechism of Trent ***
M
MichellemyBelle
Guest
Error #4:
“The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God.” **Lumen Gentium **
Correct Dogmatic Teaching:
“The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold.” **Pope St. Gregory the Great **
“A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief.” **Pope St. Leo the Great **
No man can worship the one true God “together with us” if they do not share our one true faith. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God and that there is only one person in God; hence, they do not believe in the God we worship. Thus, they can in no way worship “with us” our God. A man cannot worship in any way that which he does not believe in, for the Law of Praying is the Law of Believing, and vice-versa. If they believe in a one-person deity, THAT is what they worship, and in no way “with us” can they worship the Holy Trinity, the Second Person of Which is a human being like us in all things but sin. No one can adore “together with us” a God they do not believe in (the Trinity). We cannot adore “together with” them a deity we do not believe in (one who permits four wives, as does the Koran).
Error #5
“Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at any explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life”. **Lumen Gentium **
"Belief in God alone seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, explicit faith in a Rewarder. ERROR CONDEMNED. **Pope St. Innocent XI **
“It would seem that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly, for no man is bound to do what is not in his power. On the contrary, it is written “He who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that he is a Rewarder to those who seek Him” (Heb.11:6). Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them just as he is bound to have the Faith. Both learned men and simple men are bound to EXPLICIT Faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly those publicly proclaimed and observed throughout the whole Church.” **St. Thomas Aquinas **
But hey! Don’t take MY word for anything as it is apparent you read up on things and accept things at face value. Beware of your teachers for they may be passing down an error that they may not know, but again; it is your responsibility to have care for your soul, read and learn and stop bemoaning that I don’t understand, ‘get’ it , or care. Furthermore, do not disgrace the Traditonal Latin Mass. Apparently it was good enough for granny, why can’t it be good enough now?
To state that I can not nor do not thing that a Mass can not grow is an gross misrepresentation and shows you all are making fallacious conclusions on what? Your opinion. The Mass can grow in what is called a ‘germaine’ way, the administrative functions, the celebratory way that Mass is participated in can change. That is the right and correct function of the Papacy. However to change it in its matter, form is outright heresy. Don’t like what I am saying? Complain to God. He is the Authority here. And He is to whom you Obey always when in doubt. Read on people, don’t take MY word for it or others, delve deeply into your faith. You will find beauty, fulfillment, love, honor, justice and mercy.
“The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God.” **Lumen Gentium **
Correct Dogmatic Teaching:
“The Holy Catholic Church teaches that God cannot truly be adored except within its fold.” **Pope St. Gregory the Great **
“A true worshipper is one whose mind has not been defiled with any false belief.” **Pope St. Leo the Great **
No man can worship the one true God “together with us” if they do not share our one true faith. Islam teaches that Jesus is not God and that there is only one person in God; hence, they do not believe in the God we worship. Thus, they can in no way worship “with us” our God. A man cannot worship in any way that which he does not believe in, for the Law of Praying is the Law of Believing, and vice-versa. If they believe in a one-person deity, THAT is what they worship, and in no way “with us” can they worship the Holy Trinity, the Second Person of Which is a human being like us in all things but sin. No one can adore “together with us” a God they do not believe in (the Trinity). We cannot adore “together with” them a deity we do not believe in (one who permits four wives, as does the Koran).
Error #5
“Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at any explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life”. **Lumen Gentium **
"Belief in God alone seems necessary by a necessity of means, not, however, explicit faith in a Rewarder. ERROR CONDEMNED. **Pope St. Innocent XI **
“It would seem that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly, for no man is bound to do what is not in his power. On the contrary, it is written “He who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that he is a Rewarder to those who seek Him” (Heb.11:6). Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them just as he is bound to have the Faith. Both learned men and simple men are bound to EXPLICIT Faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly those publicly proclaimed and observed throughout the whole Church.” **St. Thomas Aquinas **
But hey! Don’t take MY word for anything as it is apparent you read up on things and accept things at face value. Beware of your teachers for they may be passing down an error that they may not know, but again; it is your responsibility to have care for your soul, read and learn and stop bemoaning that I don’t understand, ‘get’ it , or care. Furthermore, do not disgrace the Traditonal Latin Mass. Apparently it was good enough for granny, why can’t it be good enough now?
To state that I can not nor do not thing that a Mass can not grow is an gross misrepresentation and shows you all are making fallacious conclusions on what? Your opinion. The Mass can grow in what is called a ‘germaine’ way, the administrative functions, the celebratory way that Mass is participated in can change. That is the right and correct function of the Papacy. However to change it in its matter, form is outright heresy. Don’t like what I am saying? Complain to God. He is the Authority here. And He is to whom you Obey always when in doubt. Read on people, don’t take MY word for it or others, delve deeply into your faith. You will find beauty, fulfillment, love, honor, justice and mercy.
- Status