Was the New Mass ever promulgated?

[RSiscoe]

St. Basil (during the Arian crisis): " Has the Lord completely abandoned His Church? Has the hour then come and is the fall beginning in this way so that now the man of sin is clearly revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God or that is worshipped? --Epistulae (373)

St. Basil: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer and assembled in the deserts, – a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise inform, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and fosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit because they will have no part of the wicked Arian leaven. --Epistulae 242 (376)

They would have “not part of the wicked Arian leaven”. Similarly today, some “will have no part with the wicked liberal leaven”. Like it or not, what is taking place today is what took place 1600 years ago, only today is much, much worse.

**Msgr Graber, Bishop of Regensburg: “What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria today is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transformed to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character.” – Msgr. R. Graber, Bishop of Regensburg, 1974, “Athanasius and the Church of Our Time,” p. 23 **

continue…

 

[CrusaderNY]

Well, do the “Wacky” Protestants have these kinds of facts to back up any of their claims?

---

**Effects of the Council in the United States of America **
Kenneth C. Jones’s “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:

**Priests in USA:
**1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70

Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%

**Ordinations in USA:
**1965: 1,575
2002: 450

**Seminarians:
**1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)

**Seminaries:
**1965: 600
2002: 200

**Sisters:
**1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68

**Teaching nuns:
**1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)

Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7

**Franciscans:
**1965: 3,379
2000: 84

Catholic High Schools: -50%
Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000

Catholic marriages: -33%

**Annulments:
**1968: 338
2002: 50,000

Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4

**Lay religious teachers who agree with:
**contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%
Catholics aged 18-44 who don’t believe in transubstantiation: 70%

itsjustdave1988:

For the record, I don’t hate the SSPX or sedevacantists who reject Vatican II, or the “Old Catholics” who rejected Vatican I, or any other wacky group that rejected every other Ecumenical Council. I simply believe their protestations are just as protestant and illogical as the Protestants.

 

[RSiscoe]

St. Athanasius: " May God console you!.. What saddens you … is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises – but you have the apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the faith dwells within you. [they were in objective schism] Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the buildings or the one who keeps the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now may not be lost in our days,… rouse yourselves, brethren,… seeing them now seized upon by aliens. True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way. You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, Beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day. Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. --Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Despite any new boogeymen in the Church, real or imagined, whether they are called “traditors” as in the days of Donatism, or whether they are called “modernists” as in current times, the following is now and will forever be true…

St. Irenaeus: With [the Church of Rome] … all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies, 3,2,2)

Modernists are just as real as were the traditors in Donatists day. Yet, back then as it is today, the solemn doctrines as well as the universal ordinary doctrines of the Roman Pontiff are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. And so, I say with Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman and St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine:

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
[John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html”]http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CrusaderNY,

I’m sorry, but my theology is not governed by statistics, but by Christ in union with his Vicar. Modernism is real, but was in full force well before Vatican II and the Pauline Mass. What you see as the fruits of Vatican II I see as the fruits of modernism, contrary to Vatican II and the doctrines and laws of the Pope John Paul II.

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave,

Would you follow an antipope?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe:

Dave,

Would you follow an antipope?

That’s where probabiliorism or the legitamite use of other such systems of moral casuistry ought to come into play.

I presume that in the scenario above, there would be sufficient reason to have a true doubt (not dissent or assent, but a position between the two) as to who the lawfully elected pope is. Given that this presumption is valid …

The traditional position [emphasis added], valid moreover in every field, was to tip doubt toward the solution having the best reasons in its favor.

(Servais Pinckaers, O.P., *The Sources of Christian Ethics, *Translated from the third edition by Sr. Mary Thomas Noble, O.P., Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 1995, pg. 274-275)

On the contrary, the rather un-traditional position, yet held by the majority of moral theologians today is that of probabilism, which seems to have originated with Spanish Dominican, Bartholomew of Medina, who wrote in 1580:

“It seems to me that if an opinion is probable, it is lawful to follow it, even if the opposite opinion is more probable.” (ibid)

Probabilism seems to me to be an offense against reason. Rather non-Thomistic in my opinion.

So, when faced with the doubtful matter as to who the lawfully elected pope is, I would assent to the *more probable opinion. *

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

CrusaderNY,

I’m sorry, but my theology is not governed by statistics, but by Christ in union with his Vicar. Modernism is real, but was in full force well before Vatican II and the Pauline Mass. What you see as the fruits of Vatican II I see as the fruits of modernism, contrary to Vatican II and the doctrines and laws of the Pope John Paul II.

I agree that modernism was active before Vatican II. I don’t think anyone will deny that. I believe it was simmering “under the surface”. And I agree that the evil “fruits” we see today are a result of modernism and liberalism. What was once under the surface has spewed forth. But, can anyone deny that the documents of Vatican II were influenced by the liberals in the Church? Pope John 23 had been removed from his teaching post for teaching modernism; Hans Kung, Kark Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Edward Schillebeeckx and Gregory Baum, had been suspected, or sanctioned by Rome, for modernism, yet they were the leader at Vatican II.

In his book “Vatican II Revisited”, Bishop Aloysius J. Wycislo (a great advocate of the Vatican II) said: “theologians and biblical scholars who had been ‘under a cloud’ for years surfaced as periti (theological experts advising the bishops at the Council), and their post-Vatican II books and commentaries became popular reading.” (Vatican II Revisted, Reflections By One Who Was There).

On page 33 he wrote: “Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis had … a devastating effect on the work of a number of pre-conciliar theologians”… "During the early preparation of the Council, those theologians (mainly French, with some Germans) whose activities had been restricted by Pope Pius XII, were still under a cloud. Pope John quietly lifted the ban affecting some of the most influential ones. Yet a number remained suspect to the officials of the Holy Office.”(ibid. pg. 27).

Is it possible that these were the very liberals who hijacked the council, and purposefully worded the documents with great ambiguity? Father Edward Schillebeeckx admitted “we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards” ( Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 106).

Could it be that Vatican II itself ws hijacked by the liberal modernists, who were active before the council?

Marcel Prelot said: "We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail with the Church and had not succeeded. Finally, there came Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church.”

Pope Pius X said that the modernists operated through ambituity. Ambiguity is one word that certainly describes the Vatican II documents, which is why there are so many differing “interpretations” of them. Do forget what Father Edward Schillebeeckx said: “we have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fr. Pinckaers adds, from the same source cited above:

"In weighing reasons in favor of freedom or of law in doubtful cases, it was permissible [under *probabilism]to follow the opinion in favor of freedom if it was probable and was supported by good reasons, even if the opposite opinion, maintaining a legal obligation, was based on better reasons.

Without fully realizing it, Bartholomew of Medina and his followers had passed the frontier of reason, which naturally favors the opinion with the best reasons behind it. Conscience, as a result, lost its balance; a long time was required to restore it to normalcy." (ibid)

I gotta agree with the above assertion by Fr. Pinckaers. However, given the resurrection and misuse of probabilism by all kinds of dissenting Catholics in matters far from having legitamite doubt, “normalcy” is far from being restored.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

can anyone deny that the documents of Vatican II were influenced by the liberals in the Church?

Let me repeat my traditional Catholic view …

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience. (Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well, do the “Wacky” Protestants have these kinds of facts to back up any of their claims?

---

**Effects of the Council in the United States of America **
Kenneth C. Jones’s “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II” cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:

**Priests in USA:
**1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70

Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%

**Ordinations in USA:
**1965: 1,575
2002: 450

**Seminarians:
**1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)

**Seminaries:
**1965: 600
2002: 200

**Sisters:
**1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68

**Teaching nuns:
**1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)

Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7

**Franciscans:
**1965: 3,379
2000: 84

Catholic High Schools: -50%
Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000

Catholic marriages: -33%

**Annulments:
**1968: 338
2002: 50,000

Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4

**Lay religious teachers who agree with:
**contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%
Catholics aged 18-44 who don’t believe in transubstantiation: 70%

This nonsense claim again.

Did you read the title? “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II”

Since Vatican II, not because of Vatican II. If all that has happened in society was Vatican II then maybe your claim that all of this “decline” is because of Vatican II might be valid, but Vatican II is not the only thing that has happened in society.

The break down of the family, the growth and acceptance of abortion and contraception. The general atmosphere of the sixties. There are many factors that have gone into this and to react with such tunnel vision is wrong.

How do you explain the growth that is occuring in orthodox Dioceses? Of the Legion of Christ and other orthodox Religious Orders?

Just the same old arguments. Maybe its time for the rad-Trads to develop a new tune.

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave,

But what if a Pope seems to fall into error? Would you be bound to follow him? Or do you consider such a thing impossible?

I’m going to quote a few portions of an encyclical that was issued during the crisis of the Protestant reformation.

“1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God* and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandmen and be compared with the hireling.”

Do you find it strange the present Pope has seen fit to praise Martin Luther, probably the worst heretic in the history of the Church? Do you find it strange that the present Pope signed a declaration with the Lutheran heretics, in which he agreed that we are saved by “faith alone”? Do you find it strange that the present Pope questions whether or not anyone goes to hell - and when teaching about salvation often uses the term “universal salvation”, a term used by ultra liberals to describe the error of "universal salvation? Do you find it strange that obvious heretics, such as Walter Kasper have risen to such a prominent position under the leadership of the present Pope? Do you find it a little strange that the new mass has employed the same changes that Luther did in order to destroy the mass?

"6. In addition, that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his pro-motion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:
(i) The promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and ~ the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless "stthomasaquinas.net/encyclicals/Paul04/cumex.html

If a Pope fell from his office through heresy - or, unbeknown to us, was never validly elected due to heresy (although it appeared that he was due to the “unanimous assent of all the Cardinals”) - would you follow him? Since you are not allowed to judge the Pope, how would you determine if he fell into heresy?

With this in mind should we blindly follow a Pope who promotes some of the worst heretics to Cardinal; praises some of the worst heretics in the history of the Church; signs a document with a heretical sect (Lutherans) in which he confirms one of their principal errors (sola fide), which had been condemned by a dogmatic Council; questions whether anyone is in hell; uses the heretical phrase of “universal salvation” when teaching about salvation? Should such a Pope be blindly followed?

"the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms… may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted…"

 

[bear06]

TNT:

All I addressed was:
Mama Bear’s:
ps. You know by now that I am not picky about what thread I rant on.
Oh, yea……almost forgot my plenary indulgence.

You’ve only pointed out one contemporary who wouldn’t fall into the rad-Trad category.

How about this? Just another myth perpetuated by one guy who doesn’t have the historical documentation to back it up and the rad-Trads.

 

[bear06]

But what if a Pope seems to fall into error? Would you be bound to follow him? Or do you consider such a thing impossible?

Has anybody read Pastor Aeternus yet?

Just another little question? When has a Pope ever bound us to error?

This is all so much simpler that people make it. We are to submit to the Pope in all matters of Faith and Morals and disciplines unless we know for a fact it is a sin. Countless saints have said it. So, can the Pope err? Of course, if you know it’s a sin then don’t follow. However, if you choose this course and you are wrong well then the sin is yours. If you follow the Pope in something that you suspect is wrong then the sin is not yours, it’s his. Maybe someone can provide me with a time when the Pope was binding people to an error and a saint refused to follow. I’m not talking about a time when a Pope was in error and a saint told him so. So don’t bother to bring up St. Paul, St. Catherine, etc. We were not bound to their errors.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

But what if a Pope seems to fall into error? Would you be bound to follow him? Or do you consider such a thing impossible?

I’m of the same opinion as St. Catherine of Sienna: “*** Divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father***: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him MIGHT SEEM, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil*” *[St. Catherine of Sienna, Letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza]

Could I be wrong? Sure. However…

By what objective criteria could I conclude that the pope has fallen into error? Surely, if I were to rely upon my own private lights, then I would be no different than a protestant, no? I reject *sola traditio *just as adamantly as I reject *sola scriptura. *The competency to authentically interpret both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition rests solely with the living magisterium of the Catholic Church. The authentic magisterium is vested in the present Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in communion with him. My criteria for discerning doctrinal, liturgical, judicial and canonical truth in matters of morality and religion is determined by what the present Roman Pontiff and college of bishops formally and authoritatively decree. No matter how awful the Church may stumble, and she has certainly stumbled an awful lot in her history, I am certain that Christ is always holding his Bride by the hand and will never let her fall.

The pope as a person may certainly be off course, objectively speaking, as the captain of the Ark of Salvation. However, is it my competence to steer the ship better than he? I don’t think so. It is likely that the captain has a better grasp than I as to where he is taking us, and it may only seem to me to be off course, when in truth, it’s exactly where the Holy Spirit is telling him to go. I’m of the same mind as St. Catherine of Sienna and will leave it to God to do the course corrections. I humbly accept my place among the governed within the Church, not among those that govern.

And when at times, I get a big 'ole chip on my shoulder, and I think I know better than my pastor or deacon, or my bishop or pope, I’m reminded of Heb 13:17, which states: “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.”

But what if I’m wrong in assenting to St. Catherine of Sienna’s understanding of Divine obedience? If I error in good faith, is my soul at risk of eternal damnation? I don’t think so. Such a notion is certainly not in accord with Catholic theology.

to be continued …

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

I understand the theoretical opinion that the pope can, as a private Catholic citizen either before or after taking office, become a “manifest heretic.” But, what I don’t believe theologians have pieced together is what, exactly, does “manifest” mean, and HOW one could know that he is a manifest heretic, since the Vicar has no earthly judge in matters religious.

Furthermore, I’ve noticed in my religious studies that in the history of Christian heresy and schism, the culprit, the “bad guy” is virtually never a humble servant who submits to the will of his superior. On the contrary, the culprit is always those who stubbornly insist on placing their own will above that of their superior.

So, I guess it depends upon what you meant by the pope “falling” into error. The person who holds the office of the papacy can certainly assert erroneous opinions and draw faulty conclusions. So, in this way, he can surely be erroneous. He can make bad policy decisions concerning the governance of the Church. He can appoint Raymond Brown to the PBC, or fail to excommunicate Hans Kung or Charles Curran, for example. Yet, I’ll continue to hold to the traditional Catholic view that “**when [the Pope] speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak,” **as it seems to me to be the safest path for my soul.

 

[bear06]

I don’t think so. It is likely that the captain has a better grasp than I as to where he is taking us, and it may only seem to me to be off course, when in truth, it’s exactly where the Holy Spirit is telling him to go.

This is a very important point. I once posted a link to a great article on this but I doubt I could find it now. Feel free to look.

I think it was somewhere in this thread that Katolik pointed out that God let us wander in the desert for 40 years. When I saw that I first thought not only did God let us wander, he commanded us to do it. Would we dare say that he was in error for doing this?

Many assume that they know that the Pope is just sitting on his duff and letting all of the baddens get away with everything. The fact it that you have nooooooooo idea what the Holy Spirit is or is not directing the Holy Father to do or not do. People just assume that because things don’t appear the way they want them to that the Holy Father must be doing something wrong. I think this shows an omnipotence that does not exist. This is why documents like Pastor Aeternus are so important.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

bear06,

Good point. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

I have no doubt that there were some who thought Moses had gone bonkers taking them from one pile of sand to another for so long. In fact, I believe it was Korah and his friends who failed to submit humbly to the will of Moses on matters religious (cf. Num 16, Jude 11). That didn’t go so well for them.

I’m of the opinion that Lefebvrism/sedevacantism, like Protestantism and every heresy and schism in the history of the Church is the sin of Korah’s rebellion which was warned against in the Epistle of Jude.

 

[TNT]

bear06:

…This is why documents like Pastor Aeternus are so important.

I’m trying to get you re-christened: 1EncyclicalBear
2nd choice is** PABear**
I’m gonna search for an encyclical I can glue to, maybe this weekend.
……safe.

 

[RSiscoe]

Dave and bear06,

I agree with much of what you both wrote. For one, I agree that we must submit to all dogmatic statements of the Pope, and I do. I also agree with this:

Many assume that they know that the Pope is just sitting on his duff and letting all of the baddens get away with everything. The fact it that you have nooooooooo idea what the Holy Spirit is or is not directing the Holy Father to do or not do. People just assume that because things don’t appear the way they want them to that the Holy Father must be doing something wrong. I think this shows an omnipotence that does not exist. This is why documents like Pastor Aeternus are so important.

I actually do not claim to know what the Pope is doing. Anything is possible and I am not saying I understand why the Pope is allowing the wolves to run the show. What I am saying is that, since the wolves are in the highest places, and the Pope allows it (for whatever reason), we need to be on our guard. I also say that, given the fact that the wolves are devouring the flock (and the Pope is not stopping them, for whatever reason), we are allowed to act out of necessity (incert St. Thomas quote here ).

Why has the Pope made Kapser and Mahony a Cardinal? I have no idea. Why does the Pope invite snake worshipers to the Vatican to break the first commandment by praying to their false God (the devil) for world peace? I have no idea. I cannot judge subjectively why the Pope does what he does, or fails to do what he “seems” to fail to do. I can’t judge that; I am not allowed to, neither do I want to.

But, as I have said, when heretics are allowed to run the show (for whatever reason) - and when the faith is under attack like it is today, a person must take extraordinary measures to protect their faith. That is what I do. Obedience is a very high moral virtue; but Faith is a supernatural, theological virtue which is much higher than obedience. Obedience is great, but faith is greater than obedience.

If it should ever happen, that obedience places my faith in danger, I am obliged not to obey. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural life, and it is, as Pope Leo XIII said “the first bond which unites man to God”. It would be wrong to obey that which places our faith in danger. In this we are not dealing with Papal Infallibility. Believing a truth revealed by God will never place our faith in danger (just the opposite). But following opinions of the Pope, which are contrary to what the Church has always taught, may. It is possible (and even likely) that attendence at an irreverent Mass - or listening to a heretical sermon - will place our faith in jeopardy. That is why I believe, given the extraordinary situation today, it is acceptable to attend Mass a Church “not in union with the local Bishop” (who is probably a heretic). For this I am called a “schismatic”. I can handle it. I would rather be called names and keep the faith, than be “in union with my local Bishop” and end by “believing like my local Bishop”. Certainly, I would prefer to attend a reverent Church that is not outside the diocese, but that is not always possible. Therefore, I do what I think is best. What else can we do in a situation like this?

Regarding “sola traditio”. That is a very poor claim. Traditional Catholics do not base their faith on “tradition alone”. They base their faith on what has been defined by the Church - they accept every single dogmatic statement of the Church, and they learn their faith from the Catechism (older catechisms). Traditional Catholics still believe what your grandparents beleived; and they still detest what the past Popes condemned.

In addition to believing all of the dogmas of tha faith, and detesting the errors condemned by the past Popes, they also accept Scripture. In fact, they even accept the scriptures that are politically incorrect. I know that is hard to beleive, but it is true. For example, Traditional Catholic even believe 1 Thes 2:14,15, which says “the Jews killed… Our Lord Jesus Christ”. They get called a lot of names for beleiving that teaching from the Bible, but they still do.

So it is a very poor argument to claim that Traditional Catholics follow “tradition alone”. Traditional Catholics believe every dogma of the faith; teach their children out of the catechism, and probably quote saints, past councils, and past popes in defence of their positions more than any other group. I find it very interesting that the Protestants are loved (with great affection) while Traditional Catholicse despised (with bitter hatred).

“If you had been of the world [liberal], the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world… therefore the world hateth you… if they have persecuted me, they will persecute you” (John 15:19-20).