I
Iohannes
Guest
What are the heresies of the SSPX?
- Status
M
misericordie
Guest
albert cipriani:
I agree, but I know CERTAIN people here, dance around issues and well, just don’t get it: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_122.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_116.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_120.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_117.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_121.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_119v.gif
T
TNT
Guest
Quote: BEAR06
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/913805/posts
Colette Oliver is one of the 200 who attend with her four children. Despite the Latin, she finds the old-rite Mass child- friendly. “In church my children are angelic, they are not immaculately behaved outside and used to be horrible in the new-rite Mass. People often say that the trappings and the incense are boring and too much for children. This isn’t true — they capture the kids’ imagination.”
Low Mass doesn’t have to be the issue.
Kids learn to imitate their peers. Put them near a well behaved family of say, 4 or more kids. They’ll get the idea in short order, especially if you encourage them. Let them meet the other kids before and esp. after Mass.
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
From:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/913805/posts
Colette Oliver is one of the 200 who attend with her four children. Despite the Latin, she finds the old-rite Mass child- friendly. “In church my children are angelic, they are not immaculately behaved outside and used to be horrible in the new-rite Mass. People often say that the trappings and the incense are boring and too much for children. This isn’t true — they capture the kids’ imagination.”
Low Mass doesn’t have to be the issue.
Kids learn to imitate their peers. Put them near a well behaved family of say, 4 or more kids. They’ll get the idea in short order, especially if you encourage them. Let them meet the other kids before and esp. after Mass.
Lex Orandi Lex Credendi
T
TNT
Guest
Actually, a Pontiff is obliged to defend the Apostolic Church at all times, especially in public. He is never to give public scandal, belittle the Faith, show indifferentism, that can be used by the enemies of the Church. Period.Hey TNT,(Grand Prairie: The city of CareFlite choppers #2 and & 7)
Numbers 1-4 are traditional doctrines of the Catholic Church. It must be stressed that the Pope is the leader of the Church to define Sacred Scripture, teach, and lead the faithful. So if the Pope kisses the Koran, it doesn’t really matter. The Church isn’t dead. Popes aren’t saints; they’re are simply the descendants of St. Peter
Go FSSP!.
Who is your Priest?
B
bear06
Guest
Actually, my 3 eldest are model children in mass, no matter what mass it is. However, this took time. At 3 they start being able to at least keep their voices down even if they are fidgety. If this lady’s got a 19 mos. old boy who behaves perfectly in mass, more power to her. For me it means staying on them and this is very distracting. Notice it doesn’t say how old her kids are?
The times I’ve gone to the TLM I’ve been outside with a bunch of other parents trying to keep their youngsters from disrupting the mass. We all must be doing it wrong.
B
bear06
Guest
How do you know that he didn’t go to confession the next chance he got? How do you know what was in his head at the time? Etc., etc., etc. Like I said, I think it was probably wrong of him to do this but he has NEVER taught that we should do this, so it’s one big straw argument. Lord help you if you should ever make a mistake! I’m sure many Popes have made mistakes. Thankfully the faithful of those days didn’t go around trumpeting it as their big “Ah hah!” every chance they got.
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
I’ve already enumerated the heresies of the Society of Saint Pius X. Allow me to repeat myself yet again:
The Church Fathers all regarded schism as being at least partly heretical, since it implicitly involves a denial of papal primacy and/or infallibility; or the divine institution and authority of the episcopacy. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:
They also believe that it is possible for the Pope to impose a Missal on the Church which is sinful and deffective, and even possibly invalid.
They also believe that it is possible for an Ecumenical Council to err when it teaches on matters of faith and morals, and in doing so have to convolute the idea of a “pastoral” Council, as if the bishops’ pastoral powers were somehow non-binding on the faithful.
This is heresy.
The Church Fathers all regarded schism as being at least partly heretical, since it implicitly involves a denial of papal primacy and/or infallibility; or the divine institution and authority of the episcopacy. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:
Lefebvrists are heretical in that they deny that the Pope has the right to revise the Roman Missal when this disagrees with their own private interpretation of Tradition and doctrinal development.
They also believe that it is possible for the Pope to impose a Missal on the Church which is sinful and deffective, and even possibly invalid.
They also believe that it is possible for an Ecumenical Council to err when it teaches on matters of faith and morals, and in doing so have to convolute the idea of a “pastoral” Council, as if the bishops’ pastoral powers were somehow non-binding on the faithful.
This is heresy.
T
TNT
Guest
Hockey is not the same BUT:
I have to be honest here about Pater Aeternus.
The only thing that the VAT II church has going for it is this encyclical that they use to demand suspension of all common sense, collectivism, (group think) and even the hibernation of members’ consciences. Not to mention 2000 yrs of Saints, and popes and councils and Catholic piety. Altar girl experiments is but a typical example.
The only way that the VAT II church continues to hang on and deny reality is, that all must obey the simon-says… no A-girls yesterday, but A-girls today, maybe only a few A-girls tomorrow.
They took a page from the Mormons and JW’s. Do what we say, believe whatever we tell you… no matter if it makes no sense to a pius person…or goes against 2000 years of tradition and wisdom…if not we’ll all criticize you, and make you feal like a condemned freak. And if we change our mind on the issue, just shut up and sing. Do not remind us that it was a empty headed emotion dominated idea.
You may have gone to some of the Out-of-(Mormonism or JW) sites. They give a testimonial to the insanity that grows with unquestioned blind obedience.Yes, they too insist that all they order is from their god or at least an unquestionable earthly authority… Islam is not far from this either…go blow yourself up. Allah must agree because the imam said it. BOOOOM. Yes, of course you will be rewarded in heaven… ok, 72 virgins it is. Now go.
No, the pope is not protected by the HS in matters of discipline, therefore he can abuse countless area by that means, and even bring down righteous ridicule on the Church and its members.
BUT he does have centuries of previous popes and a lengthy tradition to look back on. If he ignores that kind of wisdom, you really got to wonder what his agenda is. And therein lies the problem.
AP can be abused by a pope or bishop. When we had popes like Gregory,Leo, Pius IX, X XI XII etc. we could rely on them without question. They had proved their orthodoxy and wisdom before and all during their pontificates. That is not true today and hasn’t been for 40 years. When the catch words New Pentecost were proclaimed, we should have realized that there and then, it was a false gospel of modernism; the synthesis af all heresies, headed into the Church.
No, and no, AP is not to be used to abuse the traditions of the Church or insult the piety of its members.
My end of discussion on AP.
Love ya
WMI
Love ya
WMI
D
DominvsVobiscvm
Guest
TNT:
What would you have said to Saint Hippolyuts, or Novation, who claimed that their own contemporary Popes were lax, and that they were introducing novelties (like refusing to rebaptize heretics who became Catholic); and out of their consciences became anti-Popes?
What would you have told the Donatists, who in their consciences refused to receive the Sacraments from mortally sinful priests, or priests who were ex-apostates?
What would you tell the Orthodox who, according to their historical researches and conscieneces, claim that Catholicism is false, and that the modern papacy does not correspond to the papacy of the pre-schism Church, and is an innovation, and that no Pope has the right to change the wording of the Nicene Creed?
What would you have told the Hussites who, according to their consciences, could not refuse the chalice to laity and give obedience in this matter to the Pope?
What would you tell the Protestant who says that, according to his conscience, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, the Pope the AntiChrist, and the Bible is the sole rule of faith.
What would you tell the Jansenists who, out of conscience, held their heresies, on the grounds that it coincided with what they, in their heart of hearts, believed to be traditional Catholic doctrine?
What would you tell the Old Catholics who claimed that, according to their consciences, papal infallibility was a false doctrine?
And what would you tell modern sedevacandists who claim that they cannot, in good conscience celebrate the “bastardized Missal of 1962” or recognize the Papacy of any Pope after Pius XII?
I could go on, but you get the point.
Then again, you probably don’t . . .
What would you have said to Saint Hippolyuts, or Novation, who claimed that their own contemporary Popes were lax, and that they were introducing novelties (like refusing to rebaptize heretics who became Catholic); and out of their consciences became anti-Popes?
What would you have told the Donatists, who in their consciences refused to receive the Sacraments from mortally sinful priests, or priests who were ex-apostates?
What would you tell the Orthodox who, according to their historical researches and conscieneces, claim that Catholicism is false, and that the modern papacy does not correspond to the papacy of the pre-schism Church, and is an innovation, and that no Pope has the right to change the wording of the Nicene Creed?
What would you have told the Hussites who, according to their consciences, could not refuse the chalice to laity and give obedience in this matter to the Pope?
What would you tell the Protestant who says that, according to his conscience, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, the Pope the AntiChrist, and the Bible is the sole rule of faith.
What would you tell the Jansenists who, out of conscience, held their heresies, on the grounds that it coincided with what they, in their heart of hearts, believed to be traditional Catholic doctrine?
What would you tell the Old Catholics who claimed that, according to their consciences, papal infallibility was a false doctrine?
And what would you tell modern sedevacandists who claim that they cannot, in good conscience celebrate the “bastardized Missal of 1962” or recognize the Papacy of any Pope after Pius XII?
I could go on, but you get the point.
Then again, you probably don’t . . .
T
TNT
Guest
Hockey is not the same BUT:
I have to be honest here about *Pater Aeternus.
*The only thing that the VAT II church has going for it is this encyclical that they use to demand suspension of all common sense, collectivism, (group think) and even the hibernation of members’ consciences. Not to mention 2000 yrs of Saints, and popes and councils and Catholic piety. Altar girl experiments is but a typical example.
The only way that the VAT II church continues to hang on and deny reality is, that all must obey the simon-says… no A-girls yesterday, but A-girls today, maybe only a few A-girls tomorrow.
Tradition did see the attempt at Altar girls in the past, about 390AD Remember: Post 119:
So, yes it was tried before. JPII had a predecessor’s wisdom and decision, along with the constant magesterium for 1600 more years, but went against it anyway. But like a good revolutionary whose agenda overlooks consequences, he rebelled against them.
Pope St. Gelasius felt obliged to write to the bishops of those regions saying
We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt mépris] with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender.
They took a page from the Mormons and JW’s. Do what we say, believe whatever we tell you… no matter if it makes no sense to a pius person…or goes against 2000 years of tradition and wisdom…if not we’ll all criticize you, and make you feal like a condemned freak. And if we change our mind on the issue, just shut up and sing. Do not remind us that it was a empty headed emotion dominated idea, or to look back at the teaching of our predessors, we hate that stuff. This is a New Pentecost, a clean slate church.
Continued on next post…
T
TNT
Guest
You may have gone to some of the Out-of-(Mormonism or JW) sites. They give a testimonial to the insanity that grows with unquestioned blind obedience under an irresponsible leadership.
Yes, they too insist that all they order is from their god or at least an unquestionable earthly authority… Islam is not far from this either…go blow yourself up. Allah must agree because the imam said it. BOOOOM. Yes, of course you will be rewarded in heaven…but only for blind obedience… ok, 72 virgins it is. Now go.
No, the pope is not protected by the HS in matters of discipline, and any chrism he has he can ignore, therefore he can abuse countless areas by that means, and even bring down righteous ridicule on the Church and its members. (Saying public mass with bare breasted women… it’s never-ending)
BUT he does have centuries of previous popes and a lengthy tradition to look back on. If he ignores that kind of wisdom, you really got to wonder what his agenda is. And therein lies the problem.
AP can be abused by a pope or bishop. When we had popes like Gregory,Leo, Pius IX, X XI XII etc. we could rely on them without question. They had proved their orthodoxy and wisdom before and all during their pontificates. That is not true today and hasn’t been for 40 years. When the catch words New Pentecost were proclaimed, we should have realized that there and then, it was a false gospel of modernism; the synthesis af all heresies, headed into the Church. Many did. How they fought against it may not always have been the best. But then they did not have 2000 yrs of what to do when your own hierarchy turns into modernist wolves.
No, and no, AP is not to be used to abuse the traditions of the Church or insult the piety of its members.
My end of discussion on AP.
Love ya,
WMI
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
- The thread poses the question, Why is the Tridentine (rite of) Mass popular? How popular is it in fact?
1b. Those who attend the Tridentine rite today are those who strongly wish to be there, and are priests who strongly want to offer the sacrifice in that rite; this is a different situation from that existing when the Tridentine rite was the normative western rite and gives a false impression of the devotion of those who attend. Those who attend, indeed, have been reading a lot about the Church and now attend the Tridentine rite well-armed with missals and a determination to be at the “true mass”: but in this they are mistaken because it is not the true mass, it is a rite of mass.
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
- Some insist that the “novus ordo”, hereafter more correctly called the Pauline rite, is “valid, but.”
2b. Some express concern about “Mysterium fidei” but this is not essential to the consecration, and the Pauline rite is packed with necessary and beneficial teachings. In all cases, those who believe the Tridentine rite to be inherently superior to the Pauline rite are making one of several serious errors. In this case, the error is to assume that reasoning designed to suffuse a given liturgical or disciplinary pattern with symbolic and theological meaning thus demonstrates the necessity of the liturgical or disciplinary pattern. Traditionalists must re-square how they see all issues, and start with what is objectively true. To say “valid, but” is practically a blasphemy. Traditionalists try very hard to insist on the symbolism of the Tridentine rite, and to deny that the Pauline rite offers any symbolism. There is no rational basis for objecting to the Pauline placement of “mystery of faith”. It’s just different.
2c. Some say that sacrifice is de-emphasized in the Pauline rite, but this is at least irrelevant, as the mass is a sacrifice. The communal aspect may be more evident now. Another error common among traditionalists is to ascribe to the rite problems which cannot, theologically, reside in the rite. It is useful to recall at this juncture that throughout the same period as the Pauline rite has been normative, there has also been much experimentation with catechesis.
2d. Some say the Pauline rite is “easily bastardized”, and in so speaking they manifest the coarseness and schismatic tendency that are worrisome. As has been observed by others, the Tridentine rite, when it was normative, was easily said in a way that seemed excessively hurried and so on. And, it is unwise to ignore the push from decades back to do something new with the mass. People used to pray the rosary during the mass, for example. And today’s Tridentine enthusiasts follow their missals so attentively that it seems that perhaps it is a bit too rigorous, almost as if they are trying to make up for something (lost communion with Rome?). I think people wanted something they could follow more closely. I don’t think early masses were in a foreign language, and I think (!) we can trust the Church to guide us in our worship.
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
- Some say that it is objectively certain that the Tridentine rite is superior to the Pauline rite.
3b. Some specify that the Tridentine rite is superior because its liturgical actions require reverence. This is untrue, and is a weak argument owing to the problem mentioned above, that those in attendance actively seek it out and often prepare for it on an ongoing basis, steeling themselves in various propaganda sources that thwart a meaningful investigation of the beauty of the Pauline rite.
3c. Some believe that the obscurity of the Tridentine rite is a virtue, because it symbolizes that faith, after all, is not easy. This is another argument-by-suffusion or by infusion, in which the enthusiast ascribes value to a characteristic; in a way this makes a virtue of a necessity. Prayer in the vernacular is more plausible, it is what Jesus did with the apostles, and it is the nature of the mass from the beginning.
3d. Other arguments in favor of Latin include the notion that it is “unchanging”, but this is an invalid argument for several reasons. First, Latin does change, over the centuries. Second, translations of Latin change, reflecting scholarship: Latin is not immune to the efforts of exegetes to explore the Scriptures on either end: how Latin words mean and what the Scriptures actually say. Third, it may be stable in the words used in the canon, but as the sacrifice is a sacrifice in any case; it is of no great importance what language is used. Citing Islam and Judiasm is unconvincing, as we are not Muslims nor Jews; it is the Church that safeguards the true faith. Our Lord did not say ‘you have the keys as long as you speak in Latin’.
3e. Some discuss the offertory, eucharistic prayers, etc.: these are examples of arguments that are intended not to see the piety, beauty, and doctrinal soundness of the Pauline rite of mass.
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
- Some argue by association, and thus try to dissuade people from attending the Pauline rite.
4b. The Pope kissed the Koran, and other wild tales: The Church is exploring ways to evangelize. I think John Paul II may be trying to emphasize what is good in Islam, rather than focusing on what is bad. It may be worth a try. We’ll see. Lampooning the vicar of Christ puts one in bad company.
4c. Liturgical laxity (aka “innovation” and “novelty”) and behavior in the pews condemn the Pauline rite, forcing us to flee? To where? Isolation causes exaggeration in the person and in the body, and induces a schismatic mentality.
4d. Morals of Catholics who attend the Pauline rite condemn the Pauline rite? The mantram here is ‘by their fruits you shall know them’ but the rite is valid because it is a rite approved by the Church; furthermore it obeys the form and matter that are stipulated. While Catholics attending the Pauline rite may not agree with everything the Church teaches, we should observe that traditionalists freely set themselves up as a magisterium, and do so quite deliberately while the former are often poorly catechized.
4e. Problems with form, matter, and intent justify fleeing the Pauline rite? Some observe that one can find stories about invalid form or matter, but by and large they are stories. Consider how many churches there are in the world, and how many masses are offered in the Pauline rite per year. It must run into the millions. How many stories are there really, and of these how many are re-hashes? And how many of those situations come to light precisely because they are in the process of being rectified? The actual problem is miniscule. I personally have never seen an invalid Pauline rite of mass. “Intent” is the real linchpin of traditionalist argument, because it is an area about which the Church has not had as much to say: it is generally assumed that the priest intends to do what the Church does. Intent is virtually never a difficulty. Do a search using Google: “intent” in this context leads almost exclusively to traditionalist, and often hysterical, web sites.
4f. Altar girls are a matter of discipline, and the Church has the right to adjust disciplines to the needs of the faithful. Apparently some faithful absolutely insisted upon this experiment, and the Holy Father, to whom we are united in Faith, decided to permit the experiment. But the Church has made a stronger statement about the priesthood, and the trend appears to be against altar girls. We may think a discipline unwise but must give our assent or at least try to do so, and we must never believe that the dogmatic truths of our holy religion are undermined by the presence of an altar girl or by a change in a discipline. To flee from Our Lord because of an experiment with altar girls is short-sighted to say the least.
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
- Favoring the Tridentine rite is strongly associated with schismatic thought patterns: stating that the Pope is “changing the Gospel”, praying “not to be infected”, saying the Church “works like the devil”. Traditionalists usually start their career being disappointed at the celebration of a rite, and end up doubting the validity of the rite: they tend to look for ways to undermine the conception of its validity. From there they doubt the other rites. St. Thomas suggests that “the sin of schism would seem to be the greatest [sin], because it is opposed to the spiritual good of the multitude” (S. Theol, II II 39 2 ad 3). It is very much opposed to the spiritual good of the multitude to discourage fellow Catholics to receive the sacraments that are widely available: yet this is precisely what traditionalists do. Receiving communion themselves much less frequently than Pope St. Pius X wanted, and in many cases even as rarely as once a month, they actively dissuade other Catholics from the more frequent reception that is possible when we respect the local parish church. I would submit that it is the devil who wants to change the Gospel and thwart communion with Our Lord, and that we must pray not to be infected with the schismatic tendency of the late Twentieth Century.
- Some say that the SSPX is not in schism, and that it forced the Church to continue to offer the mass in the Tridentine rite. But ordaining bishops against papal objections is wrong, and to dissuade Catholics from attending the Pauline rite of mass is wrong. This and more the SSPX does. It is in schism and is actively schismatic. Check the work of Paul Vere.
- Some say, let there be an Indult! Indeed, let there be one. But note how those who avail themselves of the Indult vociferously reject the fact that their participation requires assent to the validity of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and of the Pauline rite of mass. The requirement, indeed, is a just and necessary one, and those who object to it show how necessary it truly is for their own good.
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
- Traditionalist propaganda is rapidly imploding. There are, particularly, three documents that do the most to encourage schism. They are the “101 Heresies” document, which the author has withdrawn from circulation, perhaps because he has realized he was mistaken; the Ottaviani Intervention, which traditionalists do not acknowledge to have been superseded by Card. Ottaviani’s own later statements that the Pauline rite is orthodox after which he lived many years and could easily have ‘set the record straight’ had he been misrepresented; and the “62 reasons” document, which was compiled by the priests of Campos, who are now back in union with Rome: the “reasons” are generally exaggerations and bald assertions which decay quickly, e.g. “Because by means of ambiguity, the New Mass pretends to please Catholics while pleasing Protestants” – The Pauline rite is not ambiguous, and there is furthermore nothing wrong in trying to worship in a way that may help Protestants to perceive that they are mistaken. The three primary documents of the traditionalist heresy of the late Twentieth Century have collapsed. The largest source of many smaller documents, the SSPX, actively discourages Catholics from attending the Pauline rite, which dissuasion is very harmful to the gulled faithful who then miss communing with Our Lord.
F
FrmrTrad
Guest
So indeed, traditionalists shouldn’t be “spat upon” but nor should they be coddled when they encourage schism. The rites of the Church are not defective. Furthermore, the daily masses are less involved liturgically than the Sunday liturgy, so that it is in some sense a bit more quiet. Those who absent themselves from the Pauline rite miss a tremendous outpouring of grace that is available from their local parish during the day, either in the morning or early afternoon, or sometimes in the evening. They are thus injured, as is the body of Christ. Imagine if 1,000,000 devout Catholics suddenly wanted to worship at their local parishes. Weekday masses would suddenly have an extra population, and everyone would be much better off. Our Lord would be honored and God the Father would be appeased all the more, from the sacrifice attended by more people: it’s the same sacrifice either way but God wants us to worship Him, and He wants all souls to be saved, which is what we should want (e.g. in the breviary we pray about the reach of the Church). A larger body of the faithful is more pleasing to Him than a smaller one, on some level.
My thesis is radical indifference: if you have a preference for a rite, you may be at risk of believing that the Church is defective in some way, and this is dangerous for you individually and for the body. When we embrace radical indifference, we cease fussing, we communicate more honestly, and we start seeing how things do mean in the Pauline rite of mass. Nobody is totally indifferent, of course, but I think we must believe, truly in our core, that any rite is as good as another that is approved by Rome. We must value the Real Presence of Our Lord a thousand times more than we dislike a rite, so that we’ll jump at the chance to attend a mass that is nearby rather than avoid it while failing also to attend one that is much further away.
My thesis is radical indifference: if you have a preference for a rite, you may be at risk of believing that the Church is defective in some way, and this is dangerous for you individually and for the body. When we embrace radical indifference, we cease fussing, we communicate more honestly, and we start seeing how things do mean in the Pauline rite of mass. Nobody is totally indifferent, of course, but I think we must believe, truly in our core, that any rite is as good as another that is approved by Rome. We must value the Real Presence of Our Lord a thousand times more than we dislike a rite, so that we’ll jump at the chance to attend a mass that is nearby rather than avoid it while failing also to attend one that is much further away.
M
misericordie
Guest
Fr. I suggest you read the PAPAL document: Motu Propio ecclesia dei" by JPII: also [www.ecclesiadei.org](http://www.ecclesiadei.org) [smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_6_5v.gif](http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYY87US)
M
misericordie
Guest
I strongly also suggest you study the real meaning of the word schism: I see that when on those rare occassions I attend a Novus Ordo mass and see as I have 7o year old nuns in leotards “liturgically dancing” smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_122.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_102.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_101.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_123v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_123v.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_1_115.gif Futhrmore I see that when priest do what I saw several years ago: consecrate in mass pizza, use grape juice for the precious blood, or consecrate regular what bread smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/904.gif I also see it when he says: “i am JUST your presider.” smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_5_1.gif Funny how you equate the Tridentine Latin Mass with schism when Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Stickler, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos etc have RECENTLY offered that Mass. Not to mention the great saints who only knew that mass. not to mention Quo Primus Papal Bull of Pope Saint Pius V.
Come on, we are smarter than that: smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_37.gif
- Status