Poll: Would you support a new Inquisition?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
31
0%
0 0%
8
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
7
0%
0 0%
8
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

A New Inquisition?
#81
(10-27-2010, 01:35 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-27-2010, 01:14 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I used "victimization" regarding Credo's post but it could suit yours as well.

Credo has legitimate complaints concerning his treatment here.  They deserve more than being dismissed as "victimization". 

I can understand you being annoyed with Bakuryoskuso, since he has made personal attacks on you.  I think you have been rather restrained, considering the provocation.  I hope you continue.

Jayne, Vetus has encouraged others to forsake their Sunday obligation if there is no TLM present in their city. This is not a recognized interpretation of canon law. And you call this provocation?

Am I not allowed to stand up for Pope Benedict XVI's interpretation of canon law?

I think if someone really believes that a lack of a TLM absolves them from the infallible teaching of Sunday obligation then they should move to a city that does have a TLM. Otherwise, I think the SSPX's teaching is being misused.

Vetus compared attendance at the NO mass to poison. Am I not allowed to stand up for the body of my Lord that I receive in the valid sacrament of the Eucharist at an NO mass?

It's seems like up is down and down is up around here. It's completely ridiculous.
Reply
#82
(10-27-2010, 09:43 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Jayne, Vetus has encouraged others to forsake their Sunday obligation if there is no TLM present in their city. This is not a recognized interpretation of canon law. And you call this provocation?

Am I not allowed to stand up for Pope Benedict XVI's interpretation of canon law?

I think if someone really believes that a lack of a TLM absolves them from the infallible teaching of Sunday obligation then they should move to a city that does have a TLM. Otherwise, I think the SSPX's teaching is being misused.

Vetus compared attendance at the NO mass to poison. Am I not allowed to stand up for the body of my Lord that I receive in the valid sacrament of the Eucharist at an NO mass?

It's seems like up is down and down is up around here. It's completely ridiculous.

I have argued all the same points with him.  I did it without attacking him personally. 
Reply
#83
(10-27-2010, 09:50 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-27-2010, 09:43 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Jayne, Vetus has encouraged others to forsake their Sunday obligation if there is no TLM present in their city. This is not a recognized interpretation of canon law. And you call this provocation?

Am I not allowed to stand up for Pope Benedict XVI's interpretation of canon law?

I think if someone really believes that a lack of a TLM absolves them from the infallible teaching of Sunday obligation then they should move to a city that does have a TLM. Otherwise, I think the SSPX's teaching is being misused.

Vetus compared attendance at the NO mass to poison. Am I not allowed to stand up for the body of my Lord that I receive in the valid sacrament of the Eucharist at an NO mass?

It's seems like up is down and down is up around here. It's completely ridiculous.

I have argued all the same points with him.  I did it without attacking him personally. 

OK fair enough. You're a better Catholic than I!  :)
When I first brought up the issues, I was told to search the archives instead of asking questions and dismissed as a modernist. I just really feel there's a siege mentality and a clique mentality here that isn't truly open to any newcomers who would dare - gasp! - challenge any sacred viewpoints of the SSPX, which are held to be sacrosanct regardless of whether the Vicar of Christ disagrees with them - since he's just a modernist Protestant anyways.

Bottom line, I think many people here want this to be an SSPX board and are ready to bully others off the board... they don't view Traditionalism in a Catholic (universal) way that is open to all inquirers - but as something whose purity must be guarded at all costs by swatting away the flies.
Reply
#84
(10-27-2010, 09:59 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: OK fair enough. You're a better Catholic than I!  :)

I find that unlikely.
(10-27-2010, 09:59 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: When I first brought up the issues, I was told to search the archives instead of asking questions and dismissed as a modernist. I just really feel there's a siege mentality and a clique mentality here that isn't truly open to any newcomers who would dare - gasp! - challenge any sacred viewpoints of the SSPX, which are held to be sacrosanct regardless of whether the Vicar of Christ disagrees with them - since he's just a modernist Protestant anyways.

The Vicar of Christ seems to have been going to a great deal of effort to become reconciled with the SSPX.  I try to support this by being tactful and sympathetic in my dealings with the SSPX.
Reply
#85
The NO s is a prod  bastard mass. Its catholic in papperwork only. The othodox have  a better claim  to offering catholic  masses then what the new church  does wth it's bastard novus order.
Do not go to the NO. If u cannot get t a TLM then stay home and do a spiritual communion instead. Spend a good part of the day in prayer. Read the missal for that Sunday
just whatever u do don't go t the NO.
 
   
Reply
#86
Being a traditional catholic  forum the abve post is preet well is in the abcs and is a moderate position. It's n accepible to worship at a prod batard  mass. Taking issue wih those here who hold the above seems silly. Take a look around
sip sip
Reply
#87
(10-27-2010, 10:29 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The NO s is a prod  bastard mass. Its catholic in papperwork only. The othodox have  a better claim  to offering catholic  masses then what the new church  does wth it's bastard novus order.
Do not go to the NO. If u cannot get t a TLM then stay home and do a spiritual communion instead. Spend a good part of the day in prayer. Read the missal for that Sunday
just whatever u do don't go t the NO.
 

DK, Thanks for the input.  I can think of nothing more useful in helping Bakuryokuso to appreciate Vetus Ordo.  ;D
Reply
#88
(10-27-2010, 10:29 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: The NO s is a prod  *** mass. Its catholic in papperwork only. The othodox have  a better claim  to offering catholic  masses then what the new church  does wth it's *** novus order.
Do not go to the NO. If u cannot get t a TLM then stay home and do a spiritual communion instead. Spend a good part of the day in prayer. Read the missal for that Sunday
just whatever u do don't go t the NO.

If these claims were true:
"The NO is a Protestant mass."
"The Eastern orthodox mass is more Catholic than the NO mass."

Then I can understand that there would be grave cause according to Canon 1248 which would absolve from the Sunday obligation in Canon 1247
"If I can't go to a TLM, better to stay home."

But the SSPX admits that the NO can be valid. I know the NO I attend is valid because it has the correct form, matter and intention of the priest.

If it's valid and transubstantiation occurs, then it cannot be Protestant. The Protestants protests transubstantiation.

If the NO mass is validly offered by an ordained priest how could an Eastern Orthodox mass be preferable when they're in schism with Rome?

If you're an SSPX member and being shepherded by one of their priests, it's one thing. But to tell another non-SSPX Catholic not to attend the NO? I don't get it. If I eventually attend 100% TLM it won't be because of these overenthusiastic arguments and scare tactics.
Reply
#89
(10-27-2010, 10:36 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: Being a traditional catholic   forum the abve post is preet well is in the abcs and is a moderate position. It's n accepible to worship at a prod batard  mass. Taking issue wih those here who hold the above seems silly. Take a look around
sip sip

So if you had an audience with the Pope, you would tell him this? Really?

See, this is what I object to - to me, Traditional Catholicism should be Catholic - universal. To say "it's not acceptable to worship at a Protestant bastard mass" in reference to the NO is in contradiction of the Pope's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which is like saying those who attend indult masses aren't welcome on these boards. I don't think that's right.
Reply
#90
to those who think they can boycott their sunday obligation like this,  be real careful

k youv seen many despicable NO Masses (or rather, NO masses not celebrated according to the books - so they aren't really NO). so from then, you conclude, never in any circumstances go to an NO Mass? likewise all catholics are sinners, so, don't become catholic then. same logic. indulgences too; let's say there was abuse in the middle ages - would you then claim that indulgences are the doctrine of satan?

No as a prot bastard Mass? . thats a stretch by far, an emotional reaction to hearing and witnessing ''''' up abuses that go on. Sure, compare with a TLM side by side the TLM looks more explicit in some areas no doubt. and grant the TLM better explicates the catholic faith. but it does not follow the NO is protestant. despite the dubious intentions of those who helped formulate it. dubious intentions don't justify rejecting what the Church has officially proposed. (e.g.: even if the Pope used his ex cathedra power for dubious motives, you still can't dispute the infallibility of the pronouncement.  ) moroeover the NO contains nothing contrary to the faith - point out where it is clearly heretical; otherwise, by all means express reservations about it, but don't reject it wholesale.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)