FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: So what do you think is the truth concerning this Crisis?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Who do you think has the truth in this period of heresy in the Church?
 
*edited for clarity*
There's good and bad in everything. The FSSPX makes some strong points, and some not so strong points. So does the FSSP. So do proponents of the new liturgy, so do those supporting the old liturgy. Times are complicated, and one has yet to find a Fraternity or Institute in our day that can answer all the points 100% correct.
Credo Wrote:There's good and bad in everything. The FSSPX makes some strong points, and some not so strong points. So does the FSSP. So do proponents of the new liturgy, so do those supporting the old liturgy. Times are complicated, and one has yet to find a Fraternity or Institute in our day that can answer all the points 100% correct.
That wasn't what I meant by my question. I was asking the question for personal opinion. Also I meant in the truth about the Church's discipline. I was not talking about Sacred Dogma if that's what you thought because I believe they all believe in the Sacred Catholic Dogmas and therefore are all Catholics and part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Actually...many who are in the Novus Ordo do NOT believe in all of the Dogmas of the Church - namely Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church).  Many will say that they do believe in this dogma of the Faith, but they come up with their own "new-age" meaning for the dogma, most notably that the Church only partially "subsists" in the Catholic Church and that many who are outside of her official "walls" are able to find salvation in their heretical sects - because they believe that the Church extends outward to nearly all Protestant denominations and even to other monotheistic religions like Judaism (Rabbinic Pharasaism) and Islam.

The reason that many believe in this false ideal is because of ecumenism.  The Church doesn't teach agaisnt and does not take a stand against the errors of Protestantism these days.  The bishops and even the Pope defend heretics like Martin Luther, probably the most notorious heretic in Church history.  They do not instruct the Faithful to convert Protestants these days, instead letting them remain complacent in their false religions.

This is only one example of a dogma that Novus Ordo "Catholics" do not fully accept.  Don't even get me started on Religious Liberty...
GodFirst Wrote:Also I meant in the truth about the Church's discipline.

That was the point being addressed.
Nic Wrote:Actually...many who are in the Novus Ordo do NOT believe in all of the Dogmas of the Church - namely Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church).  Many will say that they do believe in this dogma of the Faith, but they come up with their own "new-age" meaning for the dogma, most notably that the Church only partially "subsists" in the Catholic Church and that many who are outside of her official "walls" are able to find salvation in their heretical sects - because they believe that the Church extends outward to nearly all Protestant denominations and even to other monotheistic religions like Judaism (Rabbinic Pharasaism) and Islam.

The reason that many believe in this false ideal is because of ecumenism.  The Church doesn't teach agaisnt and does not take a stand against the errors of Protestantism these days.  The bishops and even the Pope defend heretics like Martin Luther, probably the most notorious heretic in Church history.  They do not instruct the Faithful to convert Protestants these days, instead letting them remain complacent in their false religions.

This is only one example of a dogma that Novus Ordo "Catholics" do not fully accept.  Don't even get me started on Religious Liberty...
But, Nic, who asked about the Novus Ordo? And how can anyone be "in" it, when it is not a church but only a missal or form, granted it's likely heretical but still it is just a missal or form. It is not the Church nor a Ritual Church of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our Holy Father has made that absolutely clear when he wrote in Summorum Pontificum that it was not a Rite but only a form of the one Roman Rite, that is, the Particular Ritual Catholic Church of Rome. Last time I checked a form was not infallible, unlike a Rite or Ritual Church which are all Apostolic unlike the missal of 1970 (even Vatican II implies they're infallible). So if it is in fact merely just a form then it is not infallible and therefore possible of being heretical, no? Why do you think the hierarchy calls it the "Novus Ordo Missal" and not the "Novus Ordo Church"?
Credo Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:Also I meant in the truth about the Church's discipline.
That was the point being addressed.
In a way, yes, you addressed it. But I disagree that "one has yet to find a Fraternity or Institute in our day that can answer all the points 100% correct". I find that in the SSPX. Though not to my likely in terminology but their discipline does fit in the truth 100% or as you called the truth "all the points". They answer all them well enough with reasonable evidence. The only thing I don't like is their jumping-the-gun presumption attitude in that they say not to going to any other Roman (Tridentine) Mass besides theirs or their associated priests. It makes it seems as if they think all other priests are Modernists or not to be trusted at all.
GodFirst Wrote:
Nic Wrote:Actually...many who are in the Novus Ordo do NOT believe in all of the Dogmas of the Church - namely Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Church).  Many will say that they do believe in this dogma of the Faith, but they come up with their own "new-age" meaning for the dogma, most notably that the Church only partially "subsists" in the Catholic Church and that many who are outside of her official "walls" are able to find salvation in their heretical sects - because they believe that the Church extends outward to nearly all Protestant denominations and even to other monotheistic religions like Judaism (Rabbinic Pharasaism) and Islam.

The reason that many believe in this false ideal is because of ecumenism.  The Church doesn't teach agaisnt and does not take a stand against the errors of Protestantism these days.  The bishops and even the Pope defend heretics like Martin Luther, probably the most notorious heretic in Church history.  They do not instruct the Faithful to convert Protestants these days, instead letting them remain complacent in their false religions.

This is only one example of a dogma that Novus Ordo "Catholics" do not fully accept.  Don't even get me started on Religious Liberty...
But, Nic, who asked about the Novus Ordo? And how can anyone be "in" it, when it is not a church but only a missal or form, granted it's likely heretical but still it is just a missal or form. It is not the Church nor a Ritual Church of the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our Holy Father has made that absolutely clear when he wrote in Summorum Pontificum that it was not a Rite but only a form of the one Roman Rite, that is, the Particular Ritual Catholic Church of Rome. Last time I checked a form was not infallible, unlike a Rite or Ritual Church which are all Apostolic unlike the missal of 1970 (even Vatican II implies they're infallible). So if it is in fact merely just a form then it is not infallible and therefore possible of being heretical, no? Why do you think the hierarchy calls it the "Novus Ordo Missal" and not the "Novus Ordo Church"?

What?  Perhaps I'm just a little dense today, but that didn't make much sense.  Please clarify.

And a Pope can't promulgate a heretical discipline. 
In a sense, there is very much a separate "post-conciliar" Church.  The novelties of Vatican II allowed this in full, and the ones who promulgated the documents had full intention of what would happen to the Church.  So in essence, there is a Church within a Church.

The vast majority of "Catholics" who attend the Novus Ordo and fully accept the documents of the bunk Vatican II council are not truly Catholics at all.  This is due to the fact that they have broke with Tradition, which can neither deceive nor be deceived, for Tradition is truth which is revealed from God.  These so-called "Catholics" deny several fundamental Catholic doctrines due to the ambiguity of the Vatican II council and the liberal heterodox bishops that promote such error.  I am not being judgemental here, but we know as Catholics that if a Catholic denies just one fundamental doctrine of the Faith, then he/she is no longer Catholic at all. If people would just realize that Vatican II is NOT an infallible council then the road to healing would be all the more clear.  Vatican II did NOT announce any new doctrine nor re-define any old one - and NO errors of the times were condemned with anathemas as were with all other Church councils.  The council was pastoral, not dogmatic.  But the true kicker is that the Holy Ghost was not invoked in the traditional way at the advent of the council - therefore making Vatican II a wasted council that means absolutely nothing.

But, was the Holy Ghost with Vatican II?  I say for absolute certain.  He kept the "council fathers" from promulgating outright heresy as doctrine and from the ultimate error.  The Holy Ghost kept the "smoke of Satan" from fully taking charge of the Church.  Praise be to God.
Nic Wrote:In a sense, there is very much a separate "post-conciliar" Church.  The novelties of Vatican II allowed this in full, and the ones who promulgated the documents had full intention of what would happen to the Church.  So in essence, there is a Church within a Church.
What are those "novelties of Vatican II"? I hate you tell you this, but the Council NEVER called for any of what is going on today. At least not by it's strict letter. Oh sure, if you're already a heretic with heretical views and want to make the Council into something it was not, that is, namely, a Council that intented to be a break with Tradition, it would be easy to do so by manipulating the Council's ambiguous and rash wording. But the Council as it stands, namely, as something that is not meant to be a "Superdogma", as the Pope had said even he was still a Cardinal. The Council cannot be taken without the Church's past. To do so destroys the Council's Catholic interpretation. And this is because, as the Archbishop always had said, Vatican II can be read with a Catholic Mind or with Modernist mind. As well It was not convened to define any Dogma. It was to be pastoral in nature.

Quote:The vast majority of "Catholics" who attend the Novus Ordo and fully accept the documents of the bunk Vatican II council are not truly Catholics at all. 
Then they do not accept the documents according to the Church's own infallible interpretation of Her own words.

Quote:This is due to the fact that they have broke with Tradition, which can neither deceive nor be deceived, for Tradition is truth which is revealed from God.
God can neither deceive nor be deceived, so the Church of Rome cannot never fail the Divine Faith, that is, Sacred (intrinsic) Tradition. The extrinsic Sacred eccleiastical Traditions of the Particular Ritual Catholic Churches are not infallible (at least not defined so yet). There is a certain infallibility according them because the law of prayer must follow the law of faith. Sacred Tradition is not like how imply it is here though. The Church can change some of her practices and disciplines lawfully for the particular needs of evangelization. What you expect the Church to not preach the Epistles and Gospel in the verncular of a new race She were to find. No, you wouldn't.

Quote:These so-called "Catholics" deny several fundamental Catholic doctrines due to the ambiguity of the Vatican II council and the liberal heterodox bishops that promote such error. I am not being judgemental here, but we know as Catholics that if a Catholic denies just one fundamental doctrine of the Faith, then he/she is no longer Catholic at all.
Denying Sacred Dogma and being innocently ignorant of Dogma and it's necessity are two very different things. Most modern Catholics are sincere, I would say, though very much ignorant of their Divine Faith. Yes, many had been taught positive heresy from their priests, no doubt. But much of the Church is just deformed rather than positively and manfestly heretical.

Quote:If people would just realize that Vatican II is NOT an infallible council then the road to healing would be all the more clear.  Vatican II did NOT announce any new doctrine nor re-define any old one - and NO errors of the times were condemned with anathemas as were with all other Church councils.  The council was pastoral, not dogmatic.  But the true kicker is that the Holy Ghost was not invoked in the traditional way at the advent of the council - therefore making Vatican II a wasted council that means absolutely nothing.
You'll get little argument from me on this. But God allows everything, and I meant everything, even sin, for a greater good to be brought out of it.

Quote:But, was the Holy Ghost with Vatican II?  I say for absolute certain.  He kept the "council fathers" from promulgating outright heresy as doctrine and from the ultimate error.  The Holy Ghost kept the "smoke of Satan" from fully taking charge of the Church.  Praise be to God.
Exactly. But then why say that the Council was a wasted Council? The Council did establish some doctrines that weren't clear before. Like the fact that the Bishop is a real Order and Sacrament within Holy Orders, and not just a Office of Honor, and the subdeaconate is not really a Sacrament. Majors Orders (real Sacraments of Order) are now Deacon, Priest and Bishop. Such Catholic doctrine in the Council is good and needed. But what is bad is the pastoral imprudence, like that they thought that the Church didn't need the minor (non-sacrament) orders of the clergy anymore.

If we'd actually read the documents of Vatican II with the Holy Ghost's Gift of Understanding, we'd see how It really stands in reality. That it defined no new Dogma, but that it did develop some of the Church's doctrines on things.
Pages: 1 2 3 4