Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians
(09-22-2011, 07:14 PM)ggreg Wrote:
(09-22-2011, 08:37 AM)Nic Wrote: In reality, it is the N.O. and Vatican II defending neo-cons that are the true "Cafeteria Catholics."  They now accept religious liberty and (false) ecumenism when the Tradition of the Church tells them not to.  They accept a Mass that clearly doesn't teach the traditional Catholic Faith and is based upon a rite that was previously condemned by the Church.  They choose to reject the sustaining nutrition of tradition and "feed" upon the novelty of the day - just because "Rome" says it tastes good.

What absolutely blows my mind is that these people, who call themselves "trads," thus showing that they have some knowledge of this current crisis, defend and attend a Mass that has done so much destruction to the Church.  This is absolutely ridiculous! Can they not see just what happened at its arrival?  Can they not see that the altars were stripped out of the churches and Protestant tables brought in when this rite usurped within the official structure of the Church?  Can they not see that the use of "for all" instead of "for many" goes strictly against what the Church has always taught?  Can they not see the countless abuses that are allowed and even encouraged by this rite? (altar girls, women wearing no veils, women speaking in church, Holy Communion under both forms, Holy Communion received in the hands) - these are all abuses ALLOWED by the N.O. to keep people away from true Catholicism and to make them believe that the Mass is nothing more than a symbolic community meal.  AND GUESS WHAT!?  That is EXACTLY what has happened?  Come on people, let's get real here!  The statistics don't lie - the state of the Church is plain to see for those who care to see it.  This isn't because of some "deficiencies" with the New rite of Mass - this is because the New rite of Mass itself is what is deficient.  Anything that allows such "deficiencies" is deficient itself.  The Latin Mass never allowed such things and still doesn't. 

Blind obedience simply doesn't cut it, folks.  Just because a rite of Mass is (falsely) called the "Ordinary Form" doesn't mean at all that it is a Catholic Mass that truly teaches the traditional Catholic Faith and that we should attend it no matter what, just because it is "all that is available."  It is absolutely NOT Catholic to just put up with all of the abuses and sacrileges just to receive a (possibly) valid sacrament.  When Arianism thoroughly infected the Church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, do you think that St. Athanasius and his followers just "put up with" the Arian abuses in the Mass just to get their Sunday Obligation "stamp" for the week?  Absolutely NOT! - they were "excommunicated" for their strict adherence to tradition.  When Protestantism was infecting England in the 16th century and many Masses were becoming Protestant or "Protestantized", do you think those Catholics just "put up with" those abuses to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  Absolutely NOT! - many died for their traditional stance.  This plague of blind obedience is a major factor in tearing down the Church.

Just how far does it go?  We have a rite of Mass that is so thoroughly Protestant (or "Protestantized), with so many abuses and sacrileges, yet people STILL attend it just to satisfy their Sunday Obligation.  How far does it go?  If a Mass that was said by a naked priest was "all that was available," would I be duty-bound to attend it?  If a Satanic Black Mass was all that was available, said by a validly ordained priest with a valid consecration, would I still be duty bound to attend it?  It is this same reasoning that keeps me away from the N.O. Mass.  If Catholics even 100 years ago were asked "Would you attend a Mass that is strictly based off of Thomas Cranmer's rite, a rite previously condemned by the Church, and this new rite was manufactured by 6 Protestants and a Freemason - would you attend this Mass if it was all that was available, even if Rome calls it the Ordinary Form."  I am sure that the overwhelming answer would be NO.  It is only because of the relatively slow pace that these abuses became prevalent that Catholics today are so blinded to them.  It is like the frog and the boiling water experiment.  Throw a frog into a pot of boiling water and he immediately jumps out.  Put a frog into cool water and bring it to a steady boil and he will boil himself to death.  The great thing is that many people, like Archbishop Lefebvre, began to notice the water getting hot.  They wouldn't let the errors, novelty and sacrileges boil them to death.  They got out and took a courageous stand.  God Bless them for that.  One day many of these people will be called saints by the Catholic Church, much like St. Athanasius is today - for taking the same stance that these folks did.

It comes down to this.

If a good tree cannot bear bad fruit then the tree that produced the fruits we have now must be utterly rotten to the core.

The last 50 years have been an utter disaster for souls, vocations, altar boys, you name it.

Whatever tree produced those fruits is a shit tree.  If you say otherwise then you're denying the black and white logic of the Gospel as well as common sense.


But when this argument has been used (arguing from most basic principles of the Faith to avoid the "these truths are too complex" response), the response is that such an argument as yours is "too simplistic; it is more complex than that."

When discussing this with those whose argument is effectively reduced to "this whole crisis is just one big misunderstanding", you can't win with theological complexity; neither can you win with theological simplicity.

I suppose the Holy Ghost is thought to have just accidentally steered the Church into an iceberg.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Tornielli: “Peace” agreement reached between Vatican and Lefebvrians - by INPEFESS - 09-23-2011, 08:32 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)