A Problem of Traditionalism
#71
(11-03-2009, 09:07 PM)Walty Wrote: People might not come out and say, "Pope Benedict is an anti-Pope!", but it's there all the same.
Many a Pope were evil wicked men...but they were the Vicar of Christ none the less...like Saul....like Ciaphas their offices are holy therefore they are owed the respect of that office....it is possible for a man to act the devils bidding while holding the office of Peter, there was an apostle named Judus Iscariot, and yet the office of apostle was still holy.
So walty I know of very few to no-one in this forum who holds hard as nails sede opinions.....but that being said...even the sedes will fall behind any Pope who clearly defends Tradition, because then they will wake up to their errors...furthermore as I stated above...I know of no sede group that shows the disrespect to the Host that the NO does
Reply
#72
Walty its against the rules for poeple to post sede views here
So
Yes your right. Some here hold them but none a part of this comminity who holds them posts sede views and breaks the rules
Sounds like u shoudld take it up with vox or quis
They made the rules. Which is the reason why sedes here dance allot
Sip
Reply
#73
(11-03-2009, 09:29 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Walty its against the rules for poeple to post sede views here
So
Yes your right. Some here hold them but none a part of this comminity who holds them posts sede views and breaks the rules
Sounds like u shoudld take it up with vox or quis
They made the rules. Which is the reason why sedes here dance allot
Sip

I don't even know where vox or quis are.  I don't know if anyone does.
Reply
#74
(11-03-2009, 09:14 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(11-03-2009, 09:07 PM)Walty Wrote: People might not come out and say, "Pope Benedict is an anti-Pope!", but it's there all the same.
I know of no sede group that shows the disrespect to the Host that the NO does
Good post. Generally speaking it is true that NO masses show a lack of respect for the host. However a trap can be made at looking at the exterior. Nowhere in the council or in the new rites is there any injunction to remove head coverings, receive standing and in the hand, replace altars with tables, turn the priest toward the people, have eucharistic ministers etc. These are all innovations of modernist bishops in various places in the world. However let us imagine that none of these outward displays of irreverence were allowed. Does this mean that the people are reverent toward the host? Not necessarily. Their outward actions might appear so but inwardly if their heart is in rebellion, they habitually sin and avoid confession, if their hearts and minds are darkened then they are just as guilty of irreverence as if they behaved outwardly as irreverent. By the same token an individual who according to the outward appearance may seem to us to be irreverent may have the purist heart of obedience, reverence and holiness. God alone judges the heart of men.

Having said that, if anybody believes in his heart that it is irreverent to receive in the hand or standing then he should pursue whatever avenue is open to him to guard his conscience. But at the end of the day, as catholics we must fulfill our sunday obligation and if that means that our only option is to go to the NO mass with our face looking at our shoes the whole time then we must do so. To seperate from the church on account of outward appearances is sin. In the letter to the churches in the Apocalypse there were countless examples of false doctrine and idolatry in the hallowed halls of the church. The christians were told to stand fast, endure, be patient and hold. They were not told to desert and start up new fellowships. The NO masses, bad as they may be, pale in comparison to the goings on in the first century. But it was the church then and it is still the church today. Stand fast soldiers of Christ. The Lord says "Occupy until I come". Do not desert your post and be found faithless in the last day. Stay and pray. Build up the walls of Jerusalem as did Nehemiah.

Come quickly Lord Jesus.
Reply
#75
Uh hu,
But what if the NO is not valid?
Reply
#76
(11-03-2009, 11:48 PM)Oldavid Wrote: Uh hu,
But what if the NO is not valid?

I just don't see how one could hold that view and not be a sede.
Reply
#77
(11-04-2009, 01:13 AM)Walty Wrote:
(11-03-2009, 11:48 PM)Oldavid Wrote: Uh hu,
But what if the NO is not valid?

I just don't see how one could hold that view and not be a sede.

I am pretty much with you here. Not only that but despite all the heresy of the last 4 Popes or so I dont think the Holy Ghost would allow an invalid Mass into the Church. If so wouldnt the gates of hell have prevailed? No I have no doubt that 97+% of NO Masses are celebrated invalidly but I dont think the Mass itself is.
Reply
#78
nsper7 Wrote:But I wasn't pointing Traditional arguments with Non-Traditionalists. The FSSP claim to be Traditionalist, as do the SSPX and the SSPV and the CMRI, but the FSSP (along with the ICK, Canons-Regular of St. John Cantius, etc.) are in good standing with Rome. The SSPX has no Canonical standing within the Church and is in a state of disobedience with Rome, but they recognize the current Pope as valid. The SSPV (which separated from the SSPX) is Sedeprivationist. The CMRI is Sedevacantist and Feeneyist (it should be noted that +Lefebvre of the SSPX did not espouse a Feeneyist position).

Stop mentioning the Sedevacantists and, heaven forbid, the Conclavists as if they are legitimate children of the traditional movement. They comprise such a minuscule presence that I think they could all fit in the ball room at the Holiday Inn Airport.

... again, what is the point of this thread? First you compare us to Protestants and then you lump us together with "Conclavists"? This is most certainly the variety of juvenile audacity that can only be typed and never spoken in person.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua
Reply
#79
(11-04-2009, 02:39 AM)Joshua Wrote:
nsper7 Wrote:But I wasn't pointing Traditional arguments with Non-Traditionalists. The FSSP claim to be Traditionalist, as do the SSPX and the SSPV and the CMRI, but the FSSP (along with the ICK, Canons-Regular of St. John Cantius, etc.) are in good standing with Rome. The SSPX has no Canonical standing within the Church and is in a state of disobedience with Rome, but they recognize the current Pope as valid. The SSPV (which separated from the SSPX) is Sedeprivationist. The CMRI is Sedevacantist and Feeneyist (it should be noted that +Lefebvre of the SSPX did not espouse a Feeneyist position).

Stop mentioning the Sedevacantists and, heaven forbid, the Conclavists as if they are legitimate children of the traditional movement. They comprise such a minuscule presence that I think they could all fit in the ball room at the Holiday Inn Airport.

... again, what is the point of this thread? First you compare us to Protestants and then you lump us together with "Conclavists"? This is most certainly the variety of juvenile audacity that can only be typed and never spoken in person.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

He's a NO Popeworshipping smells and bells troll.
Reply
#80
(11-04-2009, 02:39 AM)Joshua Wrote:
nsper7 Wrote:But I wasn't pointing Traditional arguments with Non-Traditionalists. The FSSP claim to be Traditionalist, as do the SSPX and the SSPV and the CMRI, but the FSSP (along with the ICK, Canons-Regular of St. John Cantius, etc.) are in good standing with Rome. The SSPX has no Canonical standing within the Church and is in a state of disobedience with Rome, but they recognize the current Pope as valid. The SSPV (which separated from the SSPX) is Sedeprivationist. The CMRI is Sedevacantist and Feeneyist (it should be noted that +Lefebvre of the SSPX did not espouse a Feeneyist position).

Stop mentioning the Sedevacantists and, heaven forbid, the Conclavists as if they are legitimate children of the traditional movement. They comprise such a minuscule presence that I think they could all fit in the ball room at the Holiday Inn Airport.

... again, what is the point of this thread? First you compare us to Protestants and then you lump us together with "Conclavists"? This is most certainly the variety of juvenile audacity that can only be typed and never spoken in person.

Remember, as a Neo-Conservative Catholic (one who believes Vatican 2 and the NO Mass are valid and even have positives, but also firmly believe that the rubrics and teachings of the Church should be followed), I am lumped in with the extremist liberal/modernist/progressive Catholics (i.e. those who flagrantly ignore/deny Church teaching, commit liturgical abuse and think nothing of it, have little reverence for the Mass, deny the Truth of the Catholic Church and have a 'kum-bay-yah-we're-all-good' meely-mouths), even though I have taken pains to explain my position on issues.

If you're going to lump me in with the wackjobs on the progressive end, why shouldn't I lump you all in with the wackjobs on your end? I think most people would agree that Sedevacantism and Conclavism are the extreme expression of the Traditional camp. Even Sedevacantist Fr. Cekada acknowledged that to try and argue that Paul VI was a valid Pope, but then deny that the New Mass was promulgated validly goes against logic and Church rules. If you acknowledge that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and II and Benedict XVI are valid Popes then you have to acknowledge that Vatican 2 was a valid Ecumenical Council and that, although it makes no dogmatic proclamations, its pastoral statements fall within the realm of the ordinary and universal Magesterium.

Until the Traditionalists stop lumping Neo-Conservative Catholics in with the "progressive"/"modernist"/"liberal" Catholics, I see little reason to stop lumping Traditionalists in with their Sedevacantist element.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)