A definition of a 'Conservative' Catholic ......
Taurus UK
One who accepts Ecclesia Dei conditions and implications:
1) Acceptance of Novus Ordo
2) Acceptance of Vatican II and its errors
3) Attendance in alien conciliar churches
and association with liberals and radicals
4) Use of half-hearted and badly trained priests
5) Constant and reluctant approval of territorial
bishops so imbued with Modernism
6) Withdrawal of the indult at any time.
In effect, a clever exercise in traditionalist
containment!
Exceptional times require exceptional measures.
Mark Hartman
In article <19980103204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
taur...@aol.com (Taurus UK) wrote:
>One who accepts Ecclesia Dei conditions and implications:
>
>1) Acceptance of Novus Ordo
>2) Acceptance of Vatican II and its errors
>3) Attendance in alien conciliar churches
> and association with liberals and radicals
>4) Use of half-hearted and badly trained priests
>5) Constant and reluctant approval of territorial
> bishops so imbued with Modernism
>6) Withdrawal of the indult at any time.
And one who doesn't?
1) Denial of the validity of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, with implicit
(or sometimes explicit) denial that the authority of the Magisterium
rests primarily with the currently-seated Pope (sometimes under the
claim that no Pope since Pius XII has been validly elected)
2) Denial (due to the latter "sede vacante" claim above) that Vatican II
was a valid council, despite the misinterpretations and outright abuses
that go against the Council's explicit teachings
3) Disassociation from those who disagree, to the point of refusing to
attend Mass or receive any other sacraments in their home parish
4) Denial that a priest, validly ordained, is a priest, no matter his
faults and errors
5) Refusal to trust in the Holy Spirit when faced with a Modernist bishop
(or, in our case, Cardinal)
6) Expectation that an indult is somehow equivalent to a Commandment
>In effect, a clever exercise in traditionalist
>containment!
"Traditionalists" SHOULD be contained. Those who wish to keep the riches
of the traditions of the Church alive in the ENTIRE Church, however, fulfill
what it means to be Catholic. Those who want to simply live in the past
do not.
>Exceptional times require exceptional measures.
So tell us, Rev. Luther, what is it that you mean by this?
==============================================================================
Mark Hartman |Consultants to business, industry and education since 1977
C O M P U T E R | Database design * User interface * Troubleshooting
S O L U T I O N S| Networking * Client/server systems * Macintosh * Oracle
==== tel 714/758-0640 ===============<*>================ fax 714/999-5030 ====
Save-the-world movies: with Macs, science fiction; with Windows, pure fantasy
Padraic42
In article <mh-040198...@192.168.1.5>, m...@harthaven.com (Mark Hartman)
writes:
The 'conservative' Catholic rejects the Church and holds to the misconception
that Vatican II changed something. It didn't.
The 'liberal' Catholic rejects the Church because, instead of following
Vatican II, they follow an ambigious 'spirit of Vatican II' which rejects
'everything' prior to Vatican II, as well as Vatican II itself.
The Roman Catholic knows and understands that Vatican II changed nothing in
the teaching and worship of the Church. They retain and cherish our history
and the basis for our faith, as well as adhere to the authentic teaching of
Vatican II.
For example. It isn't that the Novus Ordo (New Mass) is invalid, it isn't.
This is not, however, to say that abuses have not been introduce dto the Novus
Ordo (by the 'spirit of Vatican II') which may well invalidate those particular
Masses.
"This Sacred Congregation notes with great joy the many positive results of
the liturgical reform: a more active and conscious participation by the
faithful in the liturgical mysteries, doctrinal and catechetical enrichment
through the use of the vernacular, and the wealth of readings from the Bible, a
growth in the community sense of liturgical life, and successful efforts to
close the gap between life and worship, between Liturgical piety and personal
piety, and between Liturgy and popular piety.
But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the
varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic
world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and
the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic
Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Communion while
the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the
sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside
church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed
Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the Liturgy
(the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers,
the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends). In
these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic
Liturgy: "One who offers worship to God on the Church's behalf in a way
contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and
which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification.(St. Thomas, Summa
Theologiae, 2-2, Q.93, A.1)" (INSTRUCTION CONCERNING WORSHIP
OF THE EUCHARISTIC MYSTERY
Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness POPE JOHN PAUL II
INAESTIMABILE DONUM)
In the same vien as the 'liberal' Catholic, the 'conservative' Catholic
likewise rejects the 'authority' of the Church. In short, they are opposite
sides of the same coin.
Pax Christi, Pat
"For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but,
following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle
their ears." (1 Tim. 4:3)
Mark Johnson
m...@harthaven.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>1) Denial of the validity of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, with implicit
> (or sometimes explicit) denial that the authority of the Magisterium
But it _is_ The Magisterium which holds against 'new order'.
>2) Denial (due to the latter "sede vacante" claim above) that Vatican II
> was a valid council,
It was a valid council. It also was a pointless council, needless, and
very sloppy. Later historians and later councils, God willing, will
say just that. Vatican II was an abuse, waiting to happen. And a bunch
who thought they'd found the 'better way', in the reform of the 50s
era (the whole dialog, 'mass of the people' idea), took the name of
the council, but not much else, set up phony committees, produced a
phony liturgy, and embarked for many years on a path of heresies long
condemned by The Church. But The Church didn't lead. It sat back, and
seemed by that to endorse the very innovations proscribed by Vatican
II, itself. Simple.
>3) Disassociation from those who disagree, to the point of refusing to
> attend Mass or receive any other sacraments in their home parish
I was just following orders was not something allowed even to the
defendants at Nuremberg. It's a principle. And as a principle, and a
very Catholic one at that, if prayer, reason, conscience, and a
careful consideration of holy tradition and The Magisterium demand one
avoid 'new order', then one ought to avoid 'new order', until and
unless shown the error of that. No one in The Church is so above The
Magisterium, particularly the very words of Our Lord at the
consecration, that they can even dare to think of 'reforming' such,
much less actually trying such a stunt. Now_I've_ asked, repeatedly,
for people to wax eloquent over the new 'mass', and I've asked you,
particularly. And you've remained silent, preferring to offer up
papalotry and clericalism, even invective, instead - essentially
saying the Pope is never wrong. If you think that's a straw man, you
better say.
>4) Denial that a priest, validly ordained, is a priest, no matter his
> faults and errors
How do you _know_ if a priest is validly ordained?
>5) Refusal to trust in the Holy Spirit when faced with a Modernist bishop
> (or, in our case, Cardinal)
I doubt even the sede mistrusts The Holy Spirit. But he thinks he is
led by God to oppose the institution, racked by the present heresy, of
course, but particularly the Holy See, and stand instead for The
Church, itself, leaving off at Pius 12th, I would think; and same for
the Feeneyite? I think the sede prefers _not_ to make a systematic
case against the Popes, because it would be revealed for a lot of
guessing and hearsay. I think the Feeneyite is right to insist upon
the doubt of salvation for those outside communion with The Church
Militant, and to suggest the relative rarity of such. In that, _they_
are Catholic, and right about what The Church teaches - and those who
oppose them, on _that_, are preaching heresy. But the Feeneyite must
allow for God's mercy to those who haven't heard The Good News, to
allow for what I guess I've called the 'natural law' exception, and I
think not just _assume_ that springs, spring up, or that Baptism is
miraculously provided in every case.
>6) Expectation that an indult is somehow equivalent to a Commandment
It very much isn't. You're absolutely right. In fact, some say it was
a tactic used to thin the ranks of the underground, that the motives
_weren't_ so pure as JPII implied in his letters. But isn't it . . odd
. . or amazing, how much good God does on such a weak thread, and
tentative and problematic 'commandment'? By their fruits you will know
whom they serve? How does it appear with regard to the chartered
orders and the Catholics who seek out the 'indult' Mass? Compare it
with the trendy church down the block, with the bishops conferences,
with the trendy activist groups who always seem to have a satellite
office at the chancery, and 'approved' publishing houses. It seems one
is Catholic, certainly. By comparison, what does the other look like?
>"Traditionalists" SHOULD be contained.
Orthodox Catholic SHOULD be a redundancy. But not today. The very
phrase was stripped out of 'new order'. You _know_ this.
>Those who wish to keep the riches
>of the traditions of the Church alive in the ENTIRE Church, however, fulfill
>what it means to be Catholic. Those who want to simply live in the past
>do not.
But aren't the modernists the ones who wax eloquent about the
'primitive church'. Are the 'reforms' based on the ancient past, shorn
of intervening guidance by God and His tradition? Wasn't the rule for
Trent to find that ancient, truer sense, but in the light of
tradition? And weren't _they_ Catholic? And wasn't the rule of the
unholy 'spirit of Vatican II' to manipulate threads of the past in
order to contemn tradition and pursue a very old, and very tired
'modernist' course? How Catholic were, and are, they?
>>Exceptional times require exceptional measures.
>So tell us, Rev. Luther, what is it that you mean by this?
Is the Pope _always_ . . . right? When can he be wrong - on what? How
about the case of Paul VI?
Peace.
Mark Johnson
taur...@aol.com (Taurus UK) wrote:
>One who accepts Ecclesia Dei conditions and implications:
>1) Acceptance of Novus Ordo
They used to make 'em swear an oath, I believe. Someone correct me if
I'm wrong. But having been criticized, I would imagane, for the
implication and appearance of that, I think the _assumption_ is now
that the oath has been sworn. I doubt that it's formally required,
anymore.
>2) Acceptance of Vatican II and its errors
Well, _I_ accept Vatican II. And its errors are errors. It wasn't a
dogmatic council. And there seems to be a great deal of confusion over
how much the ordinary Magisterium means.
>3) Attendance in alien conciliar churches
> and association with liberals and radicals
Well, if you mean the ethnic churches, and various approved other
rites, like the Dominican, there's a long history for that. If you
suggest the false ecumenism that seems to be embarrassed by Catholic
teaching in the face of the Greek or Protestant, then I agree.
>4) Use of half-hearted and badly trained priests
Only the 'better way' crowd would insist all is well in The Church.
That's what the bishops reports seem to consistently say. That's
another reason I find the bishops, generally, rather unconvincing on
most anything having to do with - what Catholics believe. There has
been a severe formation problem, perhaps matched only by that
suspected following the Black Plague, in Europe, where the issue was
getting warm bodies. In recent times, it was due to a collapse of
'enlightenment' culture and society (which was only piggy-backed on
Christendom, and that truly high culture). Some might suggest that the
lack of priests is due to falling population in the 'western
democracries' - life styles, aversion to family, birth control,
whatever. But the history is more one of PC control at the trendy
parish seminaries, where if a young man inquires about a vocation, he
is considered only if he _approve_ homosexual behavior, for ex., not
if he stands by Church teaching (as once suggested by Malachi Martin).
It's a self-fulfilling kind of thing, a designed shortage, in the
west. Fortunately, they aren't such a utterly stupid bunch in the
'third world', where the new priests are coming from; and in the
traditionalist orders, which if the FSSP is an example, are always
looking for new seminaries to satisfy the demand of many men wanting
to become priests.
>5) Constant and reluctant approval of territorial
> bishops so imbued with Modernism
True. It's yet another of those mixed signals sent by His Holiness. He
just issued something of a slap on the wrist to the 'better way'
bishops, dealing with EM's and abuses. But . . . . whether anything
will _come_ of it, or whether the bishops will continue to behave in
what can fairly be called a de facto schism - if we're going to be
honest - time will tell.
>6) Withdrawal of the indult at any time.
True. The very idea of reducing The Mass to the status of 'indult' is
laughable. The Mass is guaranteed to Catholics in perpetuity, until
such time as Our Lord ushers in a new covenant and a new sacrifice for
it.
>In effect, a clever exercise in traditionalist containment!
That's what many say. And it may well be an effort to split people out
of the underground and into 'conciliar parishes', which occasionally
offer an 'indult' Mass. But you can't question the validity of _that_
Mass; unless they are mixing up the hosts from 'new order's in with
the hosts distributed at Communion (that could be a chilling
possibility). And if the 'indult' is quite real, and quite valid, if
everything is as it should be again, then to not attend would be to
not attend where God is. And no Catholic could stay away. If 'new
order' is an offense to God, the 'indult' isn't; save for it's _being_
an indult, but . . .
Peace.
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
> The 'conservative' Catholic rejects the Church
The conservative Catholic is the orthodox Catholic, that referred to
in the Canon of The Mass, if not 'new order'. You can't be serious.
Do you imagine that loyalty to 'new order' is a tenet of Catholicism,
that those who even criticize it, like the Adoremus folk, are opposing
The Church? What's the standard? Is it that of the 'spirit of Vatican
II', or is it The Magisterium? Who rules, by God? not with man, anyone
can rule over man, fallen nature making us all, in various ways, soooo
gullible.
>and holds to the misconception
>that Vatican II changed something. It didn't.
You're right, but only because it couldn't, could it? And the
innovations _they_ warned against were implemented by the silence,
indifference and even participation of superiors in the institution,
as I think even you have pointed out, but right up to Paul VI's
promulgation of 'new order' trying to replace The Mass. He failed. And
truly, thank God for it. You just don't appreciate the glory of this
gift, even if it's held out a little from us, what with all the 'new
order's takin up space where The Mass _SHOULD_ be offered. You know
and of course I know, 'new order' was NOT was the fathers of Vatican
II had in mind. That should tell _anyone_ something.
> The 'liberal' Catholic rejects the Church because, instead of following
>Vatican II, they follow an ambigious 'spirit of Vatican II' which rejects
>'everything' prior to Vatican II, as well as Vatican II itself.
Well they certainly consider the actual documents, the actual words,
to mean little, beyond what they can make of them to support the
latest agenda. But that manipulation, that dishonestly, extends to all
things of the past, as well, however _they_ can be removed from the
proper context and used to support some trendy heresy, instead.
> The Roman Catholic knows and understands that Vatican II changed nothing in
>the teaching and worship of the Church. They retain and cherish our history
>and the basis for our faith, as well as adhere to the authentic teaching of
>Vatican II.
Authentic dogma, you mean? Such as? What did Vatican II state as
binding on Catholics, infallibly, which had not been even explicitly
defined, before? And if you think it _is_ infallible, then as 'new
order' laughs at Vatican II, are you not defending outright heresy,
even by _that_ sense? It seems like heresy, no matter _how_ you look
at it - if you look at it head on.
> For example. It isn't that the Novus Ordo (New Mass) is invalid, it isn't.
Well . . .
> In the same vien as the 'liberal' Catholic, the 'conservative' Catholic
>likewise rejects the 'authority' of the Church. In short, they are opposite
>sides of the same coin.
Honestly. No conservative Catholic rejects The Church. He couldn't, or
he would no longer be a conservative Catholic. If one calls the sede
and Feeneyite conservative, and they are, then their complaint is
essentially one of being too rigorous, and too narrow, in their
opinion. But it's not as if they reject The Church, in their opinion,
as it was always understood. Nah, it's the libral. And the libral is
entirely different. He thinks he _is_ 'church', in true Protestant
fashion. What he thinks, right or wrong, is not what Catholics think,
and not what they used to think. The libral is on about private
interpretation, and then having casual Catholics buy into his nonsense
by the fraud of I-wuz-just-folwin-orders. He seizes control of the
institution and then makes out like nothing's changed. Well, it has.
And maybe his aren't the orders you wanna follow. Maybe The
Magisterium is better, instead.
As for His Holiness in particular, as against a whole bunch o bishops,
I _don't_ understand his failure to act, or the mixed messages he
sends. I've offered my speculation on this. But that's the best I can
do. I mean, I don't know . . . why. But 'new order' is a dead letter.
You would be amazed at the number of Catholics who have arrived at the
same opinion as myself about 'new order', getting there a number of
different ways. It's only a matter of time, decades maybe, I don't
know, before 'new order' is ruled the lynchpin of what was yet another
heresy to attack The Church. I really _doubt_, for the sedes out
there, that Paul VI will be deemed to have been a heretic, anymore
than various previous Popes (admittedly who didn't change The Mass,
itself - but . . .). But he sure was wrong about 'new order'. And,
again, thank God, Himself, that Paul VI . . . failed.
Peace.
Stephen Patten
Taurus UK <taur...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980103204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> One who accepts Ecclesia Dei conditions and implications:
>
> 1) Acceptance of Novus Ordo
> 2) Acceptance of Vatican II and its errors
> 3) Attendance in alien conciliar churches
> and association with liberals and radicals
> 4) Use of half-hearted and badly trained priests
> 5) Constant and reluctant approval of territorial
> bishops so imbued with Modernism
> 6) Withdrawal of the indult at any time.
>
> In effect, a clever exercise in traditionalist
> containment!
>
> Exceptional times require exceptional measures.
>
You forgot to add:
7) 'Uglification' of the churches.
Have you not noticed how ugly, despite the enormous cost, most modern
church buildings are - outside and in?
Where on earth did the hierarchy, particularly in the USA and UK, get the
idea that a bland building with the minimum of decoration (and that done in
the crudest way) would somehow encourage devotion to God?
Stephen Patten
Taurus UK
Subject: Re: A definition of a 'Conservative' Catholic ......
From: m...@harthaven.com (Mark Hartman)
Date: 4/1/98 16:33 GMT
Message-id: <mh-040198...@192.168.1.5>
In article <19980103204...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
taur...@aol.com (Taurus UK) wrote:
>One who accepts Ecclesia Dei conditions and implications:
>
>1) Acceptance of Novus Ordo
>2) Acceptance of Vatican II and its errors
>3) Attendance in alien conciliar churches
> and association with liberals and radicals
>4) Use of half-hearted and badly trained priests
>5) Constant and reluctant approval of territorial
> bishops so imbued with Modernism
>6) Withdrawal of the indult at any time.
And one who doesn't?
1) Denial of the validity of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, with implicit
(or sometimes explicit) denial that the authority of the Magisterium
rests primarily with the currently-seated Pope (sometimes under the
claim that no Pope since Pius XII has been validly elected)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Leaving aside the question of the validity of concilar popes and their
dreadful deeds, to accept and participate in parallel Masses with their
opposing philosophies is spiritually, psychologically and intellectually
harmful.
2) Denial (due to the latter "sede vacante" claim above) that Vatican II
was a valid council, despite the misinterpretations and outright abuses
that go against the Council's explicit teachings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Vatican II with help from non-Catholics was set up to usher in all manner
of novelty and Modernist tendency. Your reference to "misinterpretations
and outright abuses" which I would say are the norm in conciliar churches
surely must go against the spirit of Vatcan II which is a continuous liberal
process.
3) Disassociation from those who disagree, to the point of refusing to
attend Mass or receive any other sacraments in their home parish
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Effectively a conciliar church provides a Protestant environment which
is an alien place for the traditional Mass. The number of churches where
there are true Masses in true settings is expanding.
4) Denial that a priest, validly ordained, is a priest, no matter his
faults and errors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Ordination in the conciliar church does create a problem. Better to use
traditional priests free of Novus Ordo contamination.
5) Refusal to trust in the Holy Spirit when faced with a Modernist bishop
(or, in our case, Cardinal)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Within a Modernist bishopric the sins of Vatican II are writ large. You are
duty bound to refuse authority where there is heresy.
6) Expectation that an indult is somehow equivalent to a Commandment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
The indult was granted deviously and begrudgingly to capture the support
of half-hearted traditionalists. True Catholics are not so easily beguiled;
without their efforts over the last few decades, the general indult would not
exist.
>In effect, a clever exercise in traditionalist
>containment!
"Traditionalists" SHOULD be contained. Those who wish to keep the riches
of the traditions of the Church alive in the ENTIRE Church, however, fulfill
what it means to be Catholic. Those who want to simply live in the past
do not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
Traditionalists belong to the Church; they know no other. The Vatican
since Pius XII has been engaged in the rejection of tradition and acceptance
of humanist and relativist positions which is Newchurch. I prefer to "live in
the past" where Truth resides.
>Exceptional times require exceptional measures.
So tell us, Rev. Luther, what is it that you mean by this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
In the history of the Church there have been bad popes and the Church
has managed to deal with them. The current crisis could run for a very long
time and the faithful will surely be tested.
Your conciliar friends are in communion with Lutherans, so perhaps you
could ask them.
Mark Johnson
taur...@aol.com (Taurus UK) wrote:
>Leaving aside the question of the validity of concilar popes and their
>dreadful deeds, to accept and participate in parallel Masses with their
>opposing philosophies is spiritually, psychologically and intellectually
>harmful.
Are you referring to 'new order', or the 'indult'?
>Effectively a conciliar church provides a Protestant environment which
>is an alien place for the traditional Mass. The number of churches where
>there are true Masses in true settings is expanding.
>Within a Modernist bishopric the sins of Vatican II are writ large. You are
>duty bound to refuse authority where there is heresy.
I agree. It's always been the Catholic way. But it's often difficult
to know. There's the risk of seeing it all wrong.
>The indult was granted deviously and begrudgingly to capture the support
>of half-hearted traditionalists. True Catholics are not so easily beguiled;
>without their efforts over the last few decades, the general indult would not
>exist.
That etiology might well be true. But does that mean you consider
'indult' Masses to be tainted, in some way, and displeasing to God?
>Traditionalists belong to the Church; they know no other. The Vatican
>since Pius XII has been engaged in the rejection of tradition and acceptance
>of humanist and relativist positions which is Newchurch. I prefer to "live in
>the past" where Truth resides.
Do you think John 23rd was a legitimate Pope?
>Your conciliar friends are in communion with Lutherans, so perhaps you
>could ask them.
The PC 'changing church' is in league with far more than Lutherans.
They've got everyone but the atheists and faithful Catholics on board,
it seems. They are of the world, of temporized law and temporized
reality, reductionist to a fault, violent and intemperate, cunning and
cruel. They are a church within The Church, controlling it now for
decades, bringing it low, trying to conform it to their image, while
those in authority, as you've said, either sat by and watched or,
worse, participated. But within the institution remain faithful
Catholics. And the authority of The Church resides with various of the
faithful bishops and His Holiness, even with heretics where they
preach what The Church teaches, if just to keep from crossing whatever
line there _is_ to formal excommunication and removal from their
comfortable office.
For those who think they must rebuff His Holiness, who sends only
mixed messages, and even impotently it seems ushers directives aimed
at curbing abuse (but time will tell), and who does not speak against
and suppress 'new order' as _he_ should, for fear of open schism
(which is how it already is, frankly, in my opinion, and nothing to
fear) but nonetheless as will eventually be done, I would hope you, or
someone would make the case against John 23rd to begin with, saying in
particular just why you think he was never Pope for issuing a decree
which was not infallible?
Peace.
Mark Johnson
padr...@aol.com (Padraic42) wrote:
> The 'conservative' Catholic rejects the Church
The conservative Catholic is the orthodox Catholic, that referred to
in the Canon of The Mass, if not 'new order'. You can't be serious.
Do you imagine that loyalty to 'new order' is a tenet of Catholicism,
that those who even criticize it, like the Adoremus folk, are opposing
The Church? What's the standard? Is it that of the 'spirit of Vatican
II', or is it The Magisterium? Who rules, by God? not with man, anyone
can rule over man, fallen nature making us all, in various ways, soooo
gullible.
>and holds to the misconception
>that Vatican II changed something. It didn't.
You're right, but only because it couldn't, could it? And the
innovations _they_ warned against were implemented by the silence,
indifference and even participation of superiors in the institution,
as I think even you have pointed out, but right up to Paul VI's
promulgation of 'new order' trying to replace The Mass. He failed. And
truly, thank God for it. You just don't appreciate the glory of this
gift, even if it's held out a little from us, what with all the 'new
order's takin up space where The Mass _SHOULD_ be offered. You know
and of course I know, 'new order' was NOT was the fathers of Vatican
II had in mind. That should tell _anyone_ something.
> The 'liberal' Catholic rejects the Church because, instead of following
>Vatican II, they follow an ambigious 'spirit of Vatican II' which rejects
>'everything' prior to Vatican II, as well as Vatican II itself.
Well they certainly consider the actual documents, the actual words,
to mean little, beyond what they can make of them to support the
latest agenda. But that manipulation, that dishonestly, extends to all
things of the past, as well, however _they_ can be removed from the
proper context and used to support some trendy heresy, instead.
> The Roman Catholic knows and understands that Vatican II changed nothing in
>the teaching and worship of the Church. They retain and cherish our history
>and the basis for our faith, as well as adhere to the authentic teaching of
>Vatican II.
Authentic dogma, you mean? Such as? What did Vatican II state as
binding on Catholics, infallibly, which had not been even explicitly
defined, before? And if you think it _is_ infallible, then as 'new
order' laughs at Vatican II, are you not defending outright heresy,
even by _that_ sense? It seems like heresy, no matter _how_ you look
at it - if you look at it head on.
> For example. It isn't that the Novus Ordo (New Mass) is invalid, it isn't.
Well . . .
> In the same vien as the 'liberal' Catholic, the 'conservative' Catholic
>likewise rejects the 'authority' of the Church. In short, they are opposite
>sides of the same coin.
Honestly. No conservative Catholic rejects The Church. He couldn't, or
Mark Johnson
m...@harthaven.com (Mark Hartman) wrote:
>1) Denial of the validity of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, with implicit
> (or sometimes explicit) denial that the authority of the Magisterium
But it _is_ The Magisterium which holds against 'new order'.
>2) Denial (due to the latter "sede vacante" claim above) that Vatican II
> was a valid council,
It was a valid council. It also was a pointless council, needless, and
very sloppy. Later historians and later councils, God willing, will
say just that. Vatican II was an abuse, waiting to happen. And a bunch
who thought they'd found the 'better way', in the reform of the 50s
era (the whole dialog, 'mass of the people' idea), took the name of
the council, but not much else, set up phony committees, produced a
phony liturgy, and embarked for many years on a path of heresies long
condemned by The Church. But The Church didn't lead. It sat back, and
seemed by that to endorse the very innovations proscribed by Vatican
II, itself. Simple.
>3) Disassociation from those who disagree, to the point of refusing to
> attend Mass or receive any other sacraments in their home parish
I was just following orders was not something allowed even to the
defendants at Nuremberg. It's a principle. And as a principle, and a
very Catholic one at that, if prayer, reason, conscience, and a
careful consideration of holy tradition and The Magisterium demand one
avoid 'new order', then one ought to avoid 'new order', until and
unless shown the error of that. No one in The Church is so above The
Magisterium, particularly the very words of Our Lord at the
consecration, that they can even dare to think of 'reforming' such,
much less actually trying such a stunt. Now_I've_ asked, repeatedly,
for people to wax eloquent over the new 'mass', and I've asked you,
particularly. And you've remained silent, preferring to offer up
papalotry and clericalism, even invective, instead - essentially
saying the Pope is never wrong. If you think that's a straw man, you
better say.
>4) Denial that a priest, validly ordained, is a priest, no matter his
> faults and errors
How do you _know_ if a priest is validly ordained?
>5) Refusal to trust in the Holy Spirit when faced with a Modernist bishop
> (or, in our case, Cardinal)
I doubt even the sede mistrusts The Holy Spirit. But he thinks he is
led by God to oppose the institution, racked by the present heresy, of
course, but particularly the Holy See, and stand instead for The
Church, itself, leaving off at Pius 12th, I would think; and same for
the Feeneyite? I think the sede prefers _not_ to make a systematic
case against the Popes, because it would be revealed for a lot of
guessing and hearsay. I think the Feeneyite is right to insist upon
the doubt of salvation for those outside communion with The Church
Militant, and to suggest the relative rarity of such. In that, _they_
are Catholic, and right about what The Church teaches - and those who
oppose them, on _that_, are preaching heresy. But the Feeneyite must
allow for God's mercy to those who haven't heard The Good News, to
allow for what I guess I've called the 'natural law' exception, and I
think not just _assume_ that springs, spring up, or that Baptism is
miraculously provided in every case.
>6) Expectation that an indult is somehow equivalent to a Commandment
It very much isn't. You're absolutely right. In fact, some say it was
a tactic used to thin the ranks of the underground, that the motives
_weren't_ so pure as JPII implied in his letters. But isn't it . . odd
. . or amazing, how much good God does on such a weak thread, and
tentative and problematic 'commandment'? By their fruits you will know
whom they serve? How does it appear with regard to the chartered
orders and the Catholics who seek out the 'indult' Mass? Compare it
with the trendy church down the block, with the bishops conferences,
with the trendy activist groups who always seem to have a satellite
office at the chancery, and 'approved' publishing houses. It seems one
is Catholic, certainly. By comparison, what does the other look like?
>"Traditionalists" SHOULD be contained.
Orthodox Catholic SHOULD be a redundancy. But not today. The very
phrase was stripped out of 'new order'. You _know_ this.
>Those who wish to keep the riches
>of the traditions of the Church alive in the ENTIRE Church, however, fulfill
>what it means to be Catholic. Those who want to simply live in the past
>do not.
But aren't the modernists the ones who wax eloquent about the
'primitive church'. Are the 'reforms' based on the ancient past, shorn
of intervening guidance by God and His tradition? Wasn't the rule for
Trent to find that ancient, truer sense, but in the light of
tradition? And weren't _they_ Catholic? And wasn't the rule of the
unholy 'spirit of Vatican II' to manipulate threads of the past in
order to contemn tradition and pursue a very old, and very tired
'modernist' course? How Catholic were, and are, they?
>>Exceptional times require exceptional measures.
>So tell us, Rev. Luther, what is it that you mean by this?
Is the Pope _always_ . . . right? When can he be wrong - on what? How
Theodore M. Seeber
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Do you imagine that loyalty to 'new order' is a tenet of Catholicism,
> that those who even criticize it, like the Adoremus folk, are opposing
> The Church? What's the standard? Is it that of the 'spirit of Vatican
> II', or is it The Magisterium? Who rules, by God? not with man, anyone
> can rule over man, fallen nature making us all, in various ways, soooo
> gullible.
Actually, with the publication of the new Catechism, both The Magisterium
and Vatican II hold that mass in the local language is to be done by any
priest less than a Bishop, and that only the high mass can be in Latin.
> You're right, but only because it couldn't, could it? And the
> innovations _they_ warned against were implemented by the silence,
> indifference and even participation of superiors in the institution,
> as I think even you have pointed out, but right up to Paul VI's
> promulgation of 'new order' trying to replace The Mass. He failed. And
> truly, thank God for it. You just don't appreciate the glory of this
> gift, even if it's held out a little from us, what with all the 'new
> order's takin up space where The Mass _SHOULD_ be offered. You know
> and of course I know, 'new order' was NOT was the fathers of Vatican
> II had in mind. That should tell _anyone_ something.
Maybe we're talking about two different things here. For some reason I
thought we were talking about daily and Sunday mass, not high mass, which
of course has not been replaced. But to do a high mass you need a Bishop
or above (I feel like I'm playing chess for some reason).
> Well they certainly consider the actual documents, the actual words,
> to mean little, beyond what they can make of them to support the
> latest agenda. But that manipulation, that dishonestly, extends to all
> things of the past, as well, however _they_ can be removed from the
> proper context and used to support some trendy heresy, instead.
So can Augustine of Hippo. Your point?
> Authentic dogma, you mean? Such as? What did Vatican II state as
> binding on Catholics, infallibly, which had not been even explicitly
> defined, before? And if you think it _is_ infallible, then as 'new
> order' laughs at Vatican II, are you not defending outright heresy,
> even by _that_ sense? It seems like heresy, no matter _how_ you look
> at it - if you look at it head on.
Vatican II didn't, the 1983 revision of Canon Law did. And that, by all
the definitions I've heard of as being infallibly binding on Catholics,
did. Vatican II was just the eccumunical council that made the
recomendations, the rewriting of Canon Law is what changed things.
And even that took two decades.
> The libral is on about private
> interpretation, and then having casual Catholics buy into his nonsense
> by the fraud of I-wuz-just-folwin-orders. He seizes control of the
> institution and then makes out like nothing's changed. Well, it has.
> And maybe his aren't the orders you wanna follow. Maybe The
> Magisterium is better, instead.
There has always been private interpretation under the Magiserium, it's
called the rule of the Internal Forum. And it's been in canon law since
LONG before Vatican II.
> You would be amazed at the number of Catholics who have arrived at the
> same opinion as myself about 'new order', getting there a number of
> different ways. It's only a matter of time, decades maybe, I don't
> know, before 'new order' is ruled the lynchpin of what was yet another
> heresy to attack The Church. I really _doubt_, for the sedes out
> there, that Paul VI will be deemed to have been a heretic, anymore
> than various previous Popes (admittedly who didn't change The Mass,
> itself - but . . .). But he sure was wrong about 'new order'. And,
> again, thank God, Himself, that Paul VI . . . failed.
Actually, there have been other Popes who have changed the mass. Just not
many in the last 500 years. Leo V changed the mass greatly when he added
the Liturgy of the Word. (made it twice as long and allowed the priest to
explain their own "private interpretation").
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Mark Johnson
"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Actually, with the publication of the new Catechism, both The Magisterium
>and Vatican II hold that mass in the local language is to be done by any
>priest less than a Bishop, and that only the high mass can be in Latin.
Vatican II, you say? The Magisterium, you say?
>> Authentic dogma, you mean? Such as? What did Vatican II state as
>> binding on Catholics, infallibly, which had not been even explicitly
>> defined, before? And if you think it _is_ infallible, then as 'new
>> order' laughs at Vatican II, are you not defending outright heresy,
>> even by _that_ sense? It seems like heresy, no matter _how_ you look
>> at it - if you look at it head on.
>Vatican II didn't, the 1983 revision of Canon Law did. And that, by all
>the definitions I've heard of as being infallibly binding on Catholics,
Canon Law is . . . what? Infallible, or binding of faithful Catholics?
Those are two different things. If it is infallible, it is binding on
Catholics, as a matter of doctrine. Not only does Canon Law deal with
other matters, but it can be amended, changed, even reversed, by later
Canon Law, by the standard of The Magisterium. If such comes into
dispute, and such things do, it isn't binding. Catholics obey . . .
The Magisterium, and that which falls in line with it, because it
does.
>Vatican II was just the eccumunical council that made the
>recomendations, the rewriting of Canon Law is what changed things.
No. There are some who say Paul VI, by ratifying various conciliar
decrees made them infallible, by _that_. I could see _that_ argument,
if one find these to be doctrinal matters from a council not formed to
rule on doctrinal matters. But Canon Law? Remember, The Magisterium
goes to doctrine, not to just all sort of administrative matters.
>There has always been private interpretation under the Magiserium, it's
>called the rule of the Internal Forum. And it's been in canon law since
>LONG before Vatican II.
Maybe you could elaborate on this "rule of the Internl Forum"? Rule of
Internal Forum?
>> You would be amazed at the number of Catholics who have arrived at the
>> same opinion as myself about 'new order', getting there a number of
>> different ways. It's only a matter of time, decades maybe, I don't
>> know, before 'new order' is ruled the lynchpin of what was yet another
>> heresy to attack The Church. I really _doubt_, for the sedes out
>> there, that Paul VI will be deemed to have been a heretic, anymore
>> than various previous Popes (admittedly who didn't change The Mass,
>> itself - but . . .). But he sure was wrong about 'new order'. And,
>> again, thank God, Himself, that Paul VI . . . failed.
>Actually, there have been other Popes who have changed the mass. Just not
>many in the last 500 years. Leo V changed the mass greatly when he added
>the Liturgy of the Word. (made it twice as long and allowed the priest to
>explain their own "private interpretation").
Leo V? Twice as long? "private interpretation"? Care to elaborate - if
you dare?
Peace.
janet
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980106134323.21331A-
100...@user2.teleport.com>, "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@teleport.com>
writes
>> Authentic dogma, you mean? Such as? What did Vatican II state as
>> binding on Catholics, infallibly, which had not been even explicitly
>> defined, before? And if you think it _is_ infallible, then as 'new
>> order' laughs at Vatican II, are you not defending outright heresy,
>> even by _that_ sense? It seems like heresy, no matter _how_ you look
>> at it - if you look at it head on.
>
>Vatican II didn't, the 1983 revision of Canon Law did. And that, by all
>the definitions I've heard of as being infallibly binding on Catholics,
>recomendations, the rewriting of Canon Law is what changed things.
>
Well, a lot of the law got changed earlier than the publication of the
new code, (which you are right, was published in 83, apologies to
everyone, cause I kept saying 82...). But yes, the changes suggested by
the Council came INTO EFFECT when the laws concerning them were
promulgated...
Laws can be changed by other documents, for example, the laws about
mixed marriages were changed in 1971 (1972?), but were actually
coallated with the rest of the code in 83...
What the new code did was make everything a lot simpler to find! :)
(Although a jurist friend tells me we should not say "new code", cause
there only ever IS *one* code: the old one ceases to be authroitative
the minute the new one is promulgated. However, *we* know what we mean,
right?) :)
The new code (so there!) also dropped a number of laws which had made
sense at the time the "old" code was put in place, but weren't needed
quite so much anymore... (Question: are they still in force, should
those situations arise again...?).
--
janet
Whether the angels play only Bach in praising God I am not quite sure;
I am sure, however, that 'en famille', they play Mozart
Karl Barth