Anglican more Catholic than Francis
#41
(06-16-2013, 09:53 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 08:42 PM)Vincentius Wrote: OldMan, then he is not a true SV whoever you are referring to.  There are a myriad of theological theories about  who is not Pope.  The "purist" sede states that the Chair of Peter is unoccupied because he has already determined the factors that make a true pope are lacking or defective.  Or he would not be an SV.  I don't hold John Lane a true sede, at least for now, as I have known him since at least more than a few dozen years,  and that he attends the SSPX speaks a lot.  At least before you judge what I really do know check first if you are clearly in the know.  Thanks.

Who cares what you think? I know John Lane too – and quite well at that! There is no such thing as a "purist" sede. Probably only exists in your mind.

Q. Do  you consider yourself a "purist" sede? If so, where does one go to get the "purist" seal of approval?

Seems you are the only one who cares what I think.  Typical of the mentality of those who cannot contain opposition to their temperament -- attack the messenger (because the message is unassailable or indefensible).  I am not a sede, never was, and if you cared to know I don't even have the TLM where I am now in "exile," so I go to the N.O.  Satisfied or have you more ammo in that cannon of yours to launch at me?  Novus ordite?  Neo Catholic?  Nope.  I am a Catholic, brought up and raised in the years before Vatican II was even conceived, the period of time which Catholics now refer to as "traditional." 
Reply
#42
(06-16-2013, 07:13 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 04:17 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 11:22 AM)John Lane Wrote: You're not a Catholic if you don't profess the Catholic faith.  This much is fundamental, and not disputable.  

Every Roman Catholic I know of who goes to Mass professes the Faith at every Mass at which the Creed is recited. Even the NO Mass flock does it. Same Creed(s) as in the pre VII days. Not a word changed.

So, when H.H. Francis recites the Creed at Mass he's not Catholic ?

Look, it's not a question of whether somebody ever says anything Catholic -

Ok, that's your reply. The rest was a side step of the question. Just pope bashing filler.

Reply
#43
Actually, Whitey, much of this is not really about Francis, but about principles and the New Church in general.  But I understand if you need to side-step it. 

(06-16-2013, 07:13 PM)John Lane Wrote: Look, it's not a question of whether somebody ever says anything Catholic - even the entire Creed.  The Greeks use the entire Creed and manage not to believe it, and they profess their refusal to believe quite publicly.  Likewise the Anglicans, yet they hold countless grave errors directly against the faith.  And actually, despite their profession fo the Creed (which has indeed changed, the "I believe" being replaced by "We believe"), in the Novus Ordo milieu there's plenty of manifest heresy.  When somebody takes a consecrated host and turns it over in his hand playfully, eventually pops it into his mouth as he wanders back to his pew whilst staring at the "talent," doesn't even check to see if any crumbs remain on his hands, and proceeds to chew with a half-open mouth whilst chatting to his neighbour, the only realistic judgement is that he has no belief in the Real Presence.  Surveys confirm this already clear impression.

Nor is it a matter of "catching somebody out" on an error here or there.  It's a question of the whole picture.  Stand back and ask whether that individual professes the Catholic Faith, or whether thre picture adds up to something else.  Francis is manifestly a neo-Modernist.  It's in everything he does - his dress, his associations (this is a man whose only published book was co-authored with a rabbi), his language, his liturgical practices, his words. 

His only serious concern is for the poor, not with any supernatural aspect either, in direct contrast to Our Lord's reply to the theology of Judas, "The poor you always have with you."

<< And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, There came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he was at table. And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always. >>

The dignity with which Our Lord Jesus Christ is treated in the liturgy is a direct parallel with this passage.  The Catholic Church has always taken the greatest pains to ensure that He is treated as King.  Catholics instinctively feel that this is their first duty.  Everything about the Novus Ordo milieu is a standing denial of this principle.  If you cannot see this, you're wrong-headed yourself and you need to take some remedial action on your own faith before you go the way of MOST of those who went along with the Novus Ordo programme - they lost their faith entirely as a result.  Yes, most.  The remnant is actually a minority of what was there in 1965, despite the increase in the absolute number (of nominal Catholics) through population growth.
Reply
#44
(06-16-2013, 11:08 PM)John Lane Wrote: Actually, Whitey, much of this is not really about Francis, but about principles and the New Church in general.  But I understand if you need to side-step it. 

Discard it unread is more like it. (the diatribe that has nothing to do with the question you didn't answer)

Edit to add : John let's just acknowledge everyone posting on the thread has a good undestanding of what we must believe to be considered orthodox. VII was a bad idea and many errors and much damage to the Faith is the result. We should all agree there.

Those of us who feel we have a pope just get tired of seeing him ragged on.





Reply
#45
(06-16-2013, 11:14 PM)Whitey Wrote: Discard it unread is more like it. (the diatribe that has nothing to do with the question you didn't answer) 

You are sure that something you didn't read has nothing to do with a question you asked, which you say, despite not having read my reply, that I did not answer?

What a very interesting mental world you would inhabit, if that were true!

I think that actually you are merely side-stepping what you did read and didn't like.  :)

Thanks for your time.

Reply
#46
John, you posted while I was editing my post.

I was in edit mode for a quite a few miutes.
Reply
#47
(06-16-2013, 11:14 PM)Whitey Wrote: Edit to add : John let's just acknowledge everyone posting on the thread has a good undestanding of what we must believe to be considered orthodox. VII was a bad idea and many errors and much damage to the Faith is the result. We should all agree there.

Yes, and thank you for saying it.

(06-16-2013, 11:14 PM)Whitey Wrote: Those of us who feel we have a pope just get tired of seeing him ragged on.

Not entirely sure I understand.  If you feel that he is unjustly treated, fine, I understand, and would expect to see the arguments to support that view.  But the emotional attachment to somebody you don't actually share the faith with: that just looks insane to me.  When I was last a sedeplenist, prior to 1989, JP2 was the claimant, and when he came to Australia in 1986 I was appalled, embarrassed, and disgusted by his naturalism and his aggressive sympathy with manifestly left-wing causes.  If somebody had criticised his orthodoxy I simply cannot imagine that I'd have been offended.  I can recall being edified by a Protestant gentleman I knew who explained Wojtyla's communism away with, "The Holy Father has been misinformed" (an elegant and generous, if unconvincing, excuse!).  But I simply cannot imagine being offended on his behalf.  He was manifestly a communist sympathiser, and was treated well by the communists as a result.  But of course I knew about Mindszenty and Slipyi, so I knew it was not possible to be loved by the communists whilst remaining a truly faithful Catholic.  If the world loves you, you're not beloved of Christ.

Anyway, I'm rambling now, but I'm sorry to tell you I don't understand you on this score.  Bergoglio was not a friend of Christ when in Argentina, and he is not a friend of Christ now.
Reply
#48
(06-16-2013, 10:37 PM)Vincentius Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 09:53 PM)OldMan Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 08:42 PM)Vincentius Wrote: OldMan, then he is not a true SV whoever you are referring to.  There are a myriad of theological theories about  who is not Pope.  The "purist" sede states that the Chair of Peter is unoccupied because he has already determined the factors that make a true pope are lacking or defective.  Or he would not be an SV.  I don't hold John Lane a true sede, at least for now, as I have known him since at least more than a few dozen years,  and that he attends the SSPX speaks a lot.  At least before you judge what I really do know check first if you are clearly in the know.  Thanks.

Who cares what you think? I know John Lane too – and quite well at that! There is no such thing as a "purist" sede. Probably only exists in your mind.

Q. Do  you consider yourself a "purist" sede? If so, where does one go to get the "purist" seal of approval?

Seems you are the only one who cares what I think.  Typical of the mentality of those who cannot contain opposition to their temperament -- attack the messenger (because the message is unassailable or indefensible).  I am not a sede, never was, and if you cared to know I don't even have the TLM where I am now in "exile," so I go to the N.O.  Satisfied or have you more ammo in that cannon of yours to launch at me?  Novus ordite?  Neo Catholic?  Nope.  I am a Catholic, brought up and raised in the years before Vatican II was even conceived, the period of time which Catholics now refer to as "traditional." 

What gives you the impression I wish to attack the messenger or care what  you think? You posted; I replied. Isn't that the point of a forum such as this? Exile?  Naughty? Frankly I don't care where you go or what you do. You sound a bit paranoid.

Happily we agree on one thing! I don't like the adjectives people place before Catholic either. So when someone asks the question, "Are you a traditionalist?" I simply answer, I am a Catholic. Adjectives, such as the term "purist", only tend to fragment Catholics of good faith. Pax.
Reply
#49
(06-17-2013, 07:03 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 11:14 PM)Whitey Wrote: Edit to add : John let's just acknowledge everyone posting on the thread has a good undestanding of what we must believe to be considered orthodox. VII was a bad idea and many errors and much damage to the Faith is the result. We should all agree there.

Yes, and thank you for saying it.

(06-16-2013, 11:14 PM)Whitey Wrote: Those of us who feel we have a pope just get tired of seeing him ragged on.

Not entirely sure I understand.  If you feel that he is unjustly treated, fine, I understand, and would expect to see the arguments to support that view.  But the emotional attachment to somebody you don't actually share the faith with: that just looks insane to me.  When I was last a sedeplenist, prior to 1989, JP2 was the claimant, and when he came to Australia in 1986 I was appalled, embarrassed, and disgusted by his naturalism and his aggressive sympathy with manifestly left-wing causes.  If somebody had criticised his orthodoxy I simply cannot imagine that I'd have been offended.  I can recall being edified by a Protestant gentleman I knew who explained Wojtyla's communism away with, "The Holy Father has been misinformed" (an elegant and generous, if unconvincing, excuse!).  But I simply cannot imagine being offended on his behalf.  He was manifestly a communist sympathiser, and was treated well by the communists as a result.  But of course I knew about Mindszenty and Slipyi, so I knew it was not possible to be loved by the communists whilst remaining a truly faithful Catholic.  If the world loves you, you're not beloved of Christ.

Anyway, I'm rambling now, but I'm sorry to tell you I don't understand you on this score.  Bergoglio was not a friend of Christ when in Argentina, and he is not a friend of Christ now.

I understand how you would feel as you do towards JPII and Francis, but I'm just not sure the perfect pope that would meet all traddies satisfaction will ever come our way.

Perhaps many of us who aren't so passionate in alerting others concerning the errors of post VII popes simply don't see all of this as part of the practice of the Faith. I myself have seen the koran kissing photo so many times it doesn't shock me anymore. I feel JPII was dead wrong to even hold the thing, but I'm tired of it. Same with the photos of bare breasted natives and the Indian dress he wore.

God will deal with all of this sort of thing in His way. Some of us just don't feel comfortable judging popes. We can be appalled and get angry at things they say and do, but again, some of us just can't bring ourselves to deny the Chair is occupied. For various reasons, I'm sure. Myself, I'm a miserable example of a Catholic. Who am I to judge ? I have to pray a lot in order to occupy my mind. I struggle with temptation all day every day.  My posts in this thread are an example. You are just trying to defend the Faith in a way you are good at doing and I enter the thread with a negative/hateful slur. I apologize for that.

And now I'm rambling, so I'll just end with the wish that all trads would focus on what we share and realize bickering over our differences never serve to accomplish much. These spats only result in division, much to the delight of the Enemy and his pals in the Hierarchy.

God bless

Reply
#50
Really, I have no idea why this schismatic is still posting on the board.  :eyeroll:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)