FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Roman Protestants - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Roman Protestants (/showthread.php?tid=27053)

Pages: 1 2


Roman Protestants - Vincentius - 04-17-2009

Quote:To assert that the conciliar Reform is not from the Holy Spirit, one only has to observe that, since 1965, two religions have been fighting it out in the very heart of the Church: that of Man who makes himself god against that of God who became man. You will know them by their fruits. --Abbé de Nantes

Roman Protestants

By Reverend Basil Wrighton

Whatever the new “ecumenism” may say or mean, the plain fact remains that there is fundamental antithesis between “Catholic” and “Protestant.”  One has only to reflect on the history of these two religions to see how they contradict and exclude one another.

While the one claims to expound a divine revelation with divinely conferred authority and to administer supernatural sacraments as a means of divine grace, the other professes only to comment on the Scriptures by the light of human reason, and fights shy of anything supernatural or miraculous.  While the one upholds the great Christian mysteries of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the redemption and the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the other has become very doubtful about these mysteries and inclined to reject some or all of them as outdated superstitions.  The same holds good concerning angels and devils, hell, purgatory and heaven: these are very real for Catholics, very
unreal for Protestants, at any rate for the contemporary type.

For the Protestant mentality is essentially skeptical and fragmentary.  Once it had broken away from the parent Christian stock and committed itself to the vagaries of private judgement, it went on changing, evolving and splitting up into ever new sects.  For a time it held on the main tenets of Christian faith, but with the sects becoming more and more liberal, they tended to drop them overboard and explain them away.

There have, of course, been reactions against this devolution. “Fundamentalist” minorities in various times and places have dug in their heels and refused to move with the times, hanging on to some semblance of the original faith.  A more intellectual and
more influential reaction was that of Newman, who reasoned their way back to a substantially Catholic theology, emerging as a “high-church” party within the Anglican establishment.  Newman was quick to perceive that they had no future there; he thereupon
made his submission to Rome, and many of his disciples followed him, to the great advantage of both the neophytes and their hosts.

Now, however, since Vatican II we have been faced with the hitherto incredible spectacle of a mass movement in reverse - a movement of Catholics toward Protestantism.  It began with a caucus of modernist prelates and their ‘experts’ who brought off a successful coup
d’etat at the first session of the Council, by tearing up the authorized agenda and substituting their own program.  The “pastoral” rather than dogmatic character of this Council made its texts all the more susceptible of tendentious interpretation.

It was of course the same progressive party which got the job of implementing the conciliar decrees, and that is where the trouble became most serious.  The Party’s first concern was with the liturgy, which of all the Church’s institutions stood in least need of reform, and which no responsible Catholic wanted to change.  The Council has made a few cautious, limited and reasonable concessions for the vernacular languages to be used in scriptural readings and prayers in which the people took a vocal part.  These apart, it insisted on the retention of Latin.  That is not what the Party wanted.  The Council text was defied, and the Holy Mass of all the Catholic ages, the Church’s most sacred
treasure, was cunningly demolished by installments and frequently replaced by a completely different rite, entirely vernacular and frequently vulgar, celebrated back to front and shorn of the traditional gestures of reverence and the verbal safeguards of
Catholic Eucharistic doctrine.

The sacrificial element was consigned to oblivion, and all the emphasis transferred to the “memorial” and “meal” elements, just as in the Protestant “Lord’s Supper.” The obvious purpose was to make the Eucharist so “ecumenical” that it could be shared by those who had no belief in either the Sacrifice of the Real Presence. Yet the modernists were allowed to get away with it and impose it on the whole Church of the West.  No such subversion has ever before been known in the Catholic Church.

Since the Novus Ordo Missae was designed as an “ecumenical’ liturgy, ambivalence was essential to it.  Hence the many alternative formulas left to the option of the celebrant, together with the studied ambiguity of the wording where any definite Catholic doctrine
is involved.  The result has been to stir up controversy among the faithful as to whether the new liturgy can be regarded as sacramentally valid.  All that used to protect and nourish this faith has been ruthlessly cut away in the interests of “ecumenism” and the
effect of the revolution can be plainly seen in the vast exodus from the Church which has followed it.

The Novus Ordo was only a first step.  The Party had many more changes up its sleeve. The revolution was to be “on-going,” the faithful were to have no respite from shocks and scandals.  It is a galloping process of “desacralization.”  Nothing is now to be held
sacred or inviolable.  All that is sacred in our religion from time immemorial is dragged down to a common and profane level, to adapt it to the abject spirit of this age.

But, the authority does nothing to correct them. There seems to be no limit to what the bishops will now tolerate - so long as the abuses are committed on the liberal, revolutionary side.  But if any poor deprived Catholic on the other side attempts to
revive the Holy Mass, them the fulminations begin!  The only capital offense that remains, it seems, is fidelity to Catholic tradition.

The Party, modernist and progressive, which seized power in the Church from the Council onwards and is constantly building it up by selective appointment, is moving in the same direction as the Protestant reformers whom it copied so closely in the new liturgy.  But
it is going much faster and further than they went. It is Liberal-Protestant.  St. Pius X remarked this in his encyclical Pascendi in 1907: historical Protestantism and Modernism are successive stages in the progress to Atheism.

The progressive ideology has taken over the Catholic schools, seminaries and universities, and bought up the Catholic press.  Even the expensive schools run by the religious orders themselves have joined the Modernist bandwagon.  Many faithful Catholics
have found themselves obliged to take their children away from “Catholic” schools in order to save their faith.

The majority of our once Catholic population, those who will not bestir themselves to resist and protest against what has been done to them, are daily and visibly more and more assimilated in manners, morals and beliefs to their Protestant neighbors, and will
soon be indistinguishable from them.  “Ecumenisim” will have attained its goal, not a return of the separated brethren to the one true fold, but as a massive apostasy from that fold, let by its own shepherds - a massive sell-out of Catholic truth.

What shall we call the multitudes of ex-Catholic shepherds and their sheep who have either defected or drifted into a new religion?  Perhaps we might call them “Roman Protestants.”  We older Catholics did not like being called Roman Catholics, for we did
not admit that there were any other kind of Catholic.  But there are various kinds of Romans, and many kinds of Protestants, and Rome is now the headquarters, not only of the Catholic Church, but of the Modernist Mafia which has invaded and subjected it.

When obedience to the constant tradition of the Church is so clearly in conflict with obedience to certain office-holders who have departed from that tradition, we rank-and-file Catholics must use our common sense and opt for the superior obedience. The simple faithful have always done this in time of epidemic heresy.  The gravest in the Church’s past history was the Arian Crisis of the fourth century.  It is in this situation
that faithful Catholics are finding themselves faced with the stark alternative of becoming either recusants or renegades.

Sixteen hundred years ago, when the bulk of the hierarchy had strayed from the faith of Nicaea and even the Pope faltered for a time, St. Athanasius headed the faithful few who stood out for Catholic truth against a world in the grip of heresy.  He had much to
suffer, and was even excommunicated, but eventually his cause prevailed and the faith was saved. In our day likewise, amid the ceaseless babble of post-conciliar Newspeak, one episcopal voice has been heard to observe, in plain French, that one religion is NOT as
good as another, that faith and morals are NOT variable with times and circumstances, and (with regard to "renewal") that the emperor has no clothes! For the audacity of these views, and for his fidelity to Catholic tradition, he is denounced and persecuted by the liberal establishment, but will NOT recant.  His witness and his work continues, and the day will come when a restored Church will bless his name.

Once again, magna est veritas et praevalebit.




Re: Roman Protestants - angryirishman - 04-17-2009

BRAVO!!! :clap:

"The majority of our once Catholic population, those who will not bestir themselves to resist and protest against what has been done to them, are daily and visibly more and more assimilated in manners, morals and beliefs to their Protestant neighbors, and will
soon be indistinguishable from them.  “Ecumenisim” will have attained its goal, not a return of the separated brethren to the one true fold, but as a massive apostasy from that fold, let by its own shepherds - a massive sell-out of Catholic truth."

This has got to be my most favorite line.


Re: Roman Protestants - Scipio_a - 04-18-2009

Wow! a whole thread dedicated to a term some here begged to have censored.  I love it!

Now lets hope we get the  Rosary Crusade going!


Re: Roman Protestants - Baskerville - 04-18-2009

Great article.


Re: Roman Protestants - iggyting - 04-18-2009

The Reverend says:-

"When obedience to the constant tradition of the Church is so clearly in conflict with obedience to certain office-holders who have departed from that tradition, we rank-and-file Catholics must use our common sense and opt for the superior obedience. The simple faithful have always done this in time of epidemic heresy.   The gravest in the Church’s past history was the Arian Crisis of the fourth century.   It is in this situation
that faithful Catholics are finding themselves faced with the stark alternative of becoming either recusants or renegades."

I empathise with most of what is said. However, I am unsure what is meant by "..the superior obedience". Is this another term for another human misguidance? Do we not believe that the Holy Spirit is with the Church till the end of time? That bothers me.

regards


Re: Roman Protestants - Historian - 04-18-2009

(04-18-2009, 01:52 AM)iggyting Wrote: The Reverend says:-

"When obedience to the constant tradition of the Church is so clearly in conflict with obedience to certain office-holders who have departed from that tradition, we rank-and-file Catholics must use our common sense and opt for the superior obedience. The simple faithful have always done this in time of epidemic heresy.   The gravest in the Church’s past history was the Arian Crisis of the fourth century.   It is in this situation
that faithful Catholics are finding themselves faced with the stark alternative of becoming either recusants or renegades."

I empathise with most of what is said. However, I am unsure what is meant by "..the superior obedience". Is this another term for another human misguidance? Do we not believe that the Holy Spirit is with the Church till the end of time? That bothers me.

regards

The Holy Spirit is what inspired St. Athanasius to stand up when all the other bishops became heretics.  The "superior obedience" is to Christ and the Church immemorial, not to a current bishop who has nutty ideas, or even if most of the current bishops have nutty ideas.

The difference between St. Athanasius and Martin Luther, for example, is the Saint held fast to Tradition while the heretic tossed out the immemorial teachings of the Church.  One who neglects 2000 years of Church Tradition and tradition seems to me more in danger of human misguidance than someone who holds fast to it.

Of course, as you imply, one can certainly be misguided in holding to tradition for the sake of it and becoming disobedient to lawful orders.  It is often difficult to figure out when one is being obedient to a superior obedience vs. their own ideas.




Re: Roman Protestants - iggyting - 04-18-2009

QuisUtDeus says:-

"Of course, as you imply, one can certainly be misguided in holding to tradition for the sake of it and becoming disobedient to lawful orders.  It is often difficult to figure out when one is being obedient to a superior obedience vs. their own ideas."

So there is room for doubts. This is because the charism of 'infallability' is given to the Magisterium or the "Teaching Authority" of the Church, not to any individual, individual bishop or leader.  The Tradition of the Church is a living tradition; a mustard seed that has grown into a tree. It is natural (and not unhealthy) that the Tree should attract all sort of birds to it and that it grows branches in all directions. It may also be necessary for the purification of the Church from time to time. But, the Father shall prune those branches that produce no or bad fruits. Luther, among others, tried to uproot the Tree. We see the bad fruits of it. In the end, believing that the Church will not err is an act of faith which is certain of what we hope for: that even if we do not see the fruits of any reform in our lifetime , we are certain that they are good in the end. Lest we forget that today St Anthanasius is honored in the same Church which he initially tried to reform. No one is greater than the Master.


Re: Roman Protestants - Scipio_a - 04-19-2009

(04-18-2009, 07:29 AM)iggyting Wrote: So there is room for doubts. This is because the charism of 'infallability' is given to the Magisterium or the "Teaching Authority" of the Church, not to any individual, individual bishop or leader.  The Tradition of the Church is a living tradition; a mustard seed that has grown into a tree. It is natural (and not unhealthy) that the Tree should attract all sort of birds to it and that it grows branches in all directions. It may also be necessary for the purification of the Church from time to time. But, the Father shall prune those branches that produce no or bad fruits. Luther, among others, tried to uproot the Tree. We see the bad fruits of it. In the end, believing that the Church will not err is an act of faith which is certain of what we hope for: that even if we do not see the fruits of any reform in our lifetime , we are certain that they are good in the end. Lest we forget that today St Anthanasius is honored in the same Church which he initially tried to reform. No one is greater than the Master.

I can see it now, "I was just following orders, what did I do wrong?"

Doubt yes, but you take the path that makes the most sense (did you really need someone to tell you that?).  Following what some NO presbyter tells you is not likey to lead to the "Master" unless you mean the Master of Disaster.


Re: Roman Protestants - iggyting - 04-20-2009

Quote:- "I was just following orders, what did I do wrong?"

The Church is not a 'storm-trooper, jackbooted' organisation, made by human hands, and therefore the above phrase is inappropriately applied. The founder is Jesus Christ.: "Do you also want to leave?"  As I implied earlier, criticisms, counter-criticisms, reforms, counter-reforms, are necessary paths for the pilgrim Church, throughout the ages, until the end of time. Unfortunately for us, we are in the I-culture that subconsciously or consciously shares Descartes' idea :"I think, I am', which made the most sense to him then.


Re: Roman Protestants - Scipio_a - 04-20-2009

(04-20-2009, 02:35 AM)iggyting Wrote: Quote:- "I was just following orders, what did I do wrong?"

The Church is not a 'storm-trooper, jackbooted' organisation, made by human hands, and therefore the above phrase is inappropriately applied. The founder is Jesus Christ.: "Do you also want to leave?"  As I implied earlier, criticisms, counter-criticisms, reforms, counter-reforms, are necessary paths for the pilgrim Church, throughout the ages, until the end of time. Unfortunately for us, we are in the I-culture that subconsciously or consciously shares Descartes' idea :"I think, I am', which made the most sense to him then.

Hey genius, the quote was about you, not the  Church.