I do not plan on using forums much. They are generally not useful for me.
But, there is an issue I would like to address in part. That is of
Morality, the the goodness or evil of acts which are from our reason and will ("human acts"). Immoral acts are sins, and sins separate one from God, and that is something which I usually focus on.
Rosarium,
If I remember correctly, you accept the New Mass, quite vigorously defend the indult, and accept that Vat. 2 was a good council who's docuмents have been misinterpreted, these positions belie an implicit Modernism.
Rosarium's response does not deny this.
It's important to see where this person is coming from.
For the record, for those who care, the exchange was a lot longer than that, and it ended with this:
Rosarium,
I have my suspicions, but I should not have publicly labeled you a Modernist.
You have my apologies.
The (long and probably boring) thread is here (read it backwards for best results I think):
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21541For the record, I wrote this earlier about my background:
For the record, I was born into an SSPX parish, baptized there, was held by Bishop Williamson himself while I was an infant (before he was a bishop), and I grew up only in the TLM and I did not even know of the NO until I was a teenager. I exclusively attend the TLM by choice. All the materials I learned doctrine and morals from are pre-Vatican II and I do not think I have ever owned a book on Faith or morals from after that time.
But, I have also written a lot on the public Internet on morality and doctrine and any errors I have should be evident in them.
While I accept the authority of the Church, I also accept:
* Vatican II did not define any new doctrines nor did add anything to them. Vatican II is not a source of doctrine.* Vatican II did not set any new moral guidelines.* Certain things which were changed because of Vatican II (developments after, for the most part) like rules on fasting and abstinence, holy days of obligation, etc are within the authority of the Church to change. We are usually free to do more if we choose (I for one usually fast from midnight before communion intentionally, because fasting three hours (and one hour) is something which would happen by accident as my habits would usually be consistent with that). * I am not a bishop, priest, a parent, or a superior over anyone, and my obligations are different from those with authority.The fact I do not spend time condemning and detracting others is not indicative of support of anyone. The world is full of sinners and evil acts, and I am well aware of that, and failure to make a condemnation of Vatican II, a particular Pope, and the like is not support of everything which can be linked to it. Vatican II was a disaster for the Church, what was written is not followed, its "spirit" is infectious and heretical most of the time, and the seemingly whole rejection of doctrine and moral teachings by so many indicates that there was something else at work.
However, it is not really my role to address this. How can I make statements about Vatican II with greater authority than Vatican II has? Since it does not address morality or doctrine, strict and total adherence to all moral and doctrines of the Church is seemingly the best and first (and maybe only) response necessary. If one gets caught up in politics and the sins of others, one will be distracted from what matters.
I do not create new doctrines or hold others to my opinions. If one claims the Pope is not the Pope, that Canon Law of the most recent revision is not binding, or that the rite promulgated by Rome is not a valid Mass, one cannot hold others to this. All the people in the past who felt that Rome has defected from the true Faith, and who separated themselves, are clearly shown to be in error, no matter how corrupt Rome was at the time. But even so, those who hold all the articles of Faith, and who are driven in good faith to believe certain material things are still Catholic and probably not guilty of sin for that so I cannot condemn others who may be in good faith holding positions that they do even if I hold them to be in error.
Any error in this regard would be only be sinful if I went against what I truly believed, and I do not act in that manner. It would be sinful to make imprudent and unjust accusations against me. If any doctrine I espouse is against the Faith, let it be demonstrated clearly.
And the moral of this post is a warning against
calumny and using suspicions of error or influence of error as a basis for acting and accusation is
imprudent. Those are sins, and those are more important for us than speculating on the dealings of the bishops and the disciplines prescribed by them. The bishops should do many things better, but for our own salvation, it is our acts which matter, not theirs.
People can think I may be unduly influenced by errors if they want. I can think others are probably unduly influenced by the passions of the flesh if I want (nearly everybody is). However, to make specific accusations and condemnations of individuals is not moral.
So, for those who accuse me of Modernism, or take a weird turn into attack trad-cred, keep in mind this moral warning, and of course, any standard which excludes the saints cannot be good and should be rejected. Any errors found will happily be corrected if they are identified and I am informed of them. Condemnation without such evidence and rationality will be treated as sinful behavior, and I normally do not concern myself with the sins of others specifically like that.
The just shall correct me in mercy, and shall reprove me: but let not the oil of the sinner fatten my head. For my prayer also shall still be against the things with which they are well pleased: