Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on March 04, 2014, 02:19:50 PM
-
Because the Novus Ordo, Indultarians, etc. have abused this point, many trads knee-jerk the opposite direction and care nothing at all for unity.
Everyone does his own thing, even if it doesn't matter.
Whether it's the version of Bible they use, the translations of prayers that they use, the Holy Week they prefer, the Missal they prefer, or anything else.
Do you not see how the Devil is behind this, and he's laughing all the way to Hell?
We've reduced unity to something less than useless, when it's actually quite important. Not as important as the Faith, but it's still important.
How scandalous is it when a non-Catholic observes that Trad A and Trad B don't agree on anything?
What if he were considering becoming a Catholic? He'd never do so, observing how they can't even agree on a Bible translation. He observes that Trad A has the "mainstream" Douay Rheims Challoner revision, Trad B has a Lulu.com paperback of the 1500's Douay Rheims, and Trad C reads only the Vulgate and wears a monocle.
It's a miracle ANYONE is converting to the Faith. The divisions are downright scandalous!
Think about it: You could have 2 serious-minded Trads living 30 minutes apart, and fully compatible personality-wise to be friends. But then you'd have certain things coming between them, basically keeping them from being closer friends. They can't read Scripture together, talk about the Pope, go to Mass together, etc. because one thinks that attending an "Una cuм" Mass is sinful, one of them thinks only the 1500's (non-Challoner) Douay Rheims will do, etc.
There's only one beneficiary of this, and he's red, has two horns, and a pitchfork.
-
because one thinks that attending an "Una cuм" Mass is sinful
what is "Una cuм" Mass?
-
because one thinks that attending an "Una cuм" Mass is sinful
what is "Una cuм" Mass?
A non-Sedevacantist Mass, where the priest says the line during the Canon, "Una cuм Papa nostro Francisco..." which translates to "One with our Pope, Francis..."
It's a routine line in the Canon, but some interpret that as becoming one with his heresies/sins/choices of decor/etc. of the current Pope, which according to them God will impute as sin -- even for those merely attending such a Mass! Which of course is ridiculous.
But a small minority of extreme, fringe sedevacantists actually hold this position.
I know a young man who *needs* the sacraments, yet he hasn't been to Mass since Christmas -- all because he holds this ludicrous position!
Whoever wrote/posted the garbage online that "convinced" him will have to answer to God for it.
-
I totally agree with you on this Matthew. It is very sad indeed. Satan is sucessfully implementing the ' divide and conquer' strategy against us Catholics.
-
I think that if we had a true Pope (for the sedevacantists) or a good traditional pope (for those who accept Francis) then he would unite us.
-
We just recently have decided NOT to attend SSPX Masses.
Is this a big problem amongst other Trads?
Or is it a non-issue?
-
I know a young man who *needs* the sacraments, yet he hasn't been to Mass since Christmas -- all because he holds this ludicrous position!
Whoever wrote/posted the garbage online that "convinced" him will have to answer to God for it.
I'd like to add --
"By their fruits you shall know them."
If refraining from such Masses were so critical, to have "100% truth" or whatever, then it would bear more good fruit in the lives of those who practice it. God would give them extra graces to survive without the Sacraments, etc.
But if they're objectively wrong, or they're just doing something rash, then this wouldn't be the case.
But it looks like this isn't the case. I know it's only one case, but this particular young man's spiritual life needs serious help. Ergo.
-
Matthew is absolutely right, but the fault rests with ourselves:
Philippians 2:2
"Fulfill ye my joy, that you may be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment."
Unity is in love which is anchored in humility. We need to grow in love for one another and the Holy Ghost will give us the unity:
Romans 12:16
"Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits."
-
I guess what I'm saying is, we should try our best not to be singular. The (pre-Vatican II) spiritual authors talk a lot about being singular and how that's a bad thing.
It springs from pride, to want to stand out and be noticed. Whether you stand up too soon at a High Mass, insist on a different translation of the "St. Michael Prayer", insist on saying "Amen" different from everyone else, make a unique and noticeable kind of thanksgiving after Mass, or anything else.
It's bad. It's the fruit of pride to allow yourself to be singular.
It's not about truth -- we attend the Tridentine Mass for our souls sake, even if we're the only one in our family that does so. We have a good reason.
But standing out for something minor is a different story.
We should want to blend in with our fellow Catholics as much as possible, as long as it doesn't affect our Faith.
Like St. Paul said:
[16] Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits. [17] To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men. [18] If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men.
And I'm sorry, but the Challoner revision of the D-R Bible is NOT going to affect anyone's Faith -- not even a little bit. It's the Bible most Trad Catholics cherish and revere. Why eliminate "fellow Trad Catholic Bible unity" for the sake of a few turns of phrase? How can people not see this?
When I'm with a group of Indult (or Novus Ordo) Catholics and they say "Holy Spirit" I either say "Ghost" very quietly to myself, or I'll say "Spirit". It's just not that important. Ghost is from the German Geist, Spirit is from the Latin Spiritus. The meaning is exactly the same. It doesn't matter. There's nothing heretical about "Holy Spirit". It was part of the "everything" that they changed, yes, but if that was all they changed at Vatican II we wouldn't have a Trad movement today.
-
To Holysoulsacademy;
If you can go to a Resistance Mass than that must be the preference, but despite the manoeuvres of the SSPX hierarchy towards the conciliar church, nothing has been formalised yet. Therefore, why can't you go to the SSPX to worship Christ, fullfil your Sunday obligation and receive valid sacraments?
God bless!
-
Prophecy of St Francis of Assisi:
"There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God."
See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2748949/posts
-
Prophecy of St Francis of Assisi:
"There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God."
See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2748949/posts
St. Francis was indeed a prophet. Such has come to pass!
-
...and the need to unite in love is all the more urgent given this prophecy:
"Woe ! Woe ! Woe to the last century !
Here is what God wanted to show me in his Light. I began looking in the light of God, the century which must begin in 1800; I saw by this light that judgement wasn't there, and that it wouldn't be the last century. I considered, thanks to the same light, the century of 1900, until the end, to see positively if it would be the last. Our Lord made me know, and at the same time made me doubt, if it would be at the end of the century of 1900, or in that of 2000. But what I saw, it is that if the judgment arrived in the century of 1900, it would come only towards the end, and that if the world exceeds this century, the first two decades of the century of 2000 will not pass without the judgment intervening, as I saw it in the light of God."
(Vie et Révélations de Sœur de la Nativité, Charles Genet, book IV, pp. 125-126)
In fact Matthew, at some stage, you might consider adding some facility on CI in anticipation of the following scenario and our need to mutually support each other:
“In those days, Faith will fall very low, and it will be preserved in some places only, in a few cottages and in a few families which God has protected from disasters and wars.” - St Anne Catherine Emmerich
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90
God bless!
-
....and part of the same prophecy of St Francis:
"At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death..... in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer."
-
:dancing-banana:
Basically, I agree with Matthew. Refusing to hear Mass at a certain chapel or to associate with other Catholics based upon Church dogma is keeping the Faith. Becoming a hermit because some weird guy wears a monocle is ridiculous! I don't care if the priest wears a monocle! (Are there any?). Nasty, mean-spirited, judgmental people, unpleasant as they may be, don't harm my spiritual health. A grumpy, cantankerous, short-tempered priest has no power to destroy my Faith. I do not care if someone is a sedevacantist, sedeplenist, prays only in Latin, says Holy Spirit, etc. My Faith is not based upon others' opinions of non-doctrinal matters. There are some questions for which the correct answers are hidden in this life. To dissociate myself from fellow Catholics based upon MY answers is nothing but pride masquerading as piety. It is exactly as the incalcuable number of Protestants who reject fellow heretics based upon holding to the "correct" version of the "end times." Some are staunchly amillenialists, others believe in "the Rapture," still others, a pretribulational Rapture, post-tribulational Rapture, 1000 year earthly reign of Christ, no earthly reign, and so on...The fact is, they're ALL wrong! I'm afraid we trads are the Catholic equivalent.
My guideline is simply this. I separate myself when it comes down to principles and dogma as determined by God and the Church of Tradition. Abberation from the Faith by those under whose authority I am places my faith in danger. All else is extranneous.
Conclusion, if a priest announces it's "okay to be gαy," I'm gone. If the priest is a Feenyite, I disagree, but I stay if he'll have me. If the priest wears a monocle, he's just wierd. If a fellow trad holds to any of these, again, the only deal-breaker is the first.
-
I think that better manners would bring about more unity among trads(a tough proposition).
-
Just for the record, I would love to wear a monocle but they're almost impossible to get these days. One would have to go to some sort of boutique optometrist for a custom job to fit the prescription and the eyepiece. Now there's a niche industry for some Trad eye doctor to explore!
:detective:
-
Did you hear about the two monocles that got together and made a spectacle of themselves?
Apologies. This is an excellent topic. Please carry on.
-
We are quite comfortable with our decision, mainly because we have seen the destruction of the Faith from being in a parish that is compromising with Vat2.
Not that it wasn't agonizing, but it was necessary.
Actually, it is from the children that much truth has come forth.
When we were at the Indult it was my 12yo son, who served at the Altar, who first put the brakes on.
He got so upset at the deviations from the rubrics at the Altar that he refused to serve Mass (deviations we were seeing from our side of the altar yet were too fearful to mention anything about, lest they pull the permissions we have and then - no more Mass!).
We would insist that he just "go along" with the changes just to avoid any controversy.
After all what is he supposed to say?
"You are doing it wrong Father."
(After many years we finally had the courage to tell the Pastor - who did not serve the TLM - about what was going on and he basically could care less and told us to talk to the priests and altar servers about all the shenanigans going on).
So we end up at the FSSP because you "supposedly" couldn't get anymore Traditional than that.
But many other issues arose out of that Chapel, mostly confusion about reconciling both Vat2 and Trad.
Again, it was the children who were having problems reconciling one with the other, and me having a difficult and more difficult time explaining how we can believe one thing on one hand and another thing on the other.
So we came back to the Society (which we avoided mainly because we were scared of becoming schismatic, which of course now we understand differently).
Only to find ourselves back in the same boat.
We attended Fr. Pfeiffer's Mass and for the first time in a long time we heard sound Doctrine.
His sermon was inspiring and moving even to the children.
We all went home wishing Fr. Pfeiffer was our Pastor.
Then comes Sunday and I wake up weeping, because deep inside I knew we could not put ourselves in a position where the priests who are offering the Mass are compromising and accepting of Vat2. Again!
Some will say we are depriving our children of graces and the Sacraments, but we say it is the priest who deprive our children ~ it is our baptismal Right to Receive from those ordained by God the True Faith as manifested in their teaching of Doctrine.
The SSPX is not in the same position as the NO priests who accept Vat2.
The Vat2 priests who are from the NO sort of got tricked, duped, entranced with the Council.
The SSPX already know the errors, were established to combat these errors, and yet they choose to adhere to Vat2.
Maybe some not personally, but objectively, and on those grounds we cannot continue to attend.
A single person like my 3rd Order Friend, they are in a totally different situation.
We have children to think of.
For the girls there are the added social pressures.
Once they foster friendships with others and see them accept NO mindsets and attitudes the desire to be like them increases.
They see it as "Friend A is so nice, and they come from a Trad Family, and they let her ...(feel free to fill in the blanks), why can't we?"
We have actually seen for ourselves a strengthening and fervency in the Faith with the children when we stayed away and sought to discern where it was we would go to Mass.
I truly believed they have come to value the Mass more since then.
The resistance to compromise I believe made our position of teaching the Faith more credible, and actually brought about a new respect and honor that was not present before.
-
:applause:
A single person like my 3rd Order Friend, they are in a totally different situation.
We have children to think of.
When Faith is in danger, it's a deal breaker, especially with children. With many adolescent girls, social pressure can result in lost souls. It IS different for a single adult. I'm not going to be tempted by other women who live with one foot in the Church and the other in the world. If other women don't like it that I'm Catholic all week long, not just for Sunday Mass, oh well! It's their problem, not mine. A few adolescents take this attitude, but it is VERY FEW. How will they take a stand when their parents' lives contradict what they hear at Mass and in catechism? Or when the sermon and catechism give conflicting and ambiguous messages? The message they receive is that it is normal and right to be a hypocrite!
There are many excellent sermons on YouTube, Fr. Pfeiffer's included. The only drawback is that you'll be one Sunday behind the liturgical calendar. It is usually a few days before they get posted.
-
I agree wholeheartedly that we Trads cause many of our own problems. We want God to grant the pope the grace of conversion so he can consecrate Russia and do a 1,000 pro-Catholic things, yet we can't even be charitable to those who are of "the household of the Faith". It's truly sad. Charity covers a multitude of sins, and if we were more charitable (ESPECIALLY to those we disagree with), then maybe God would have mercy on our sinful world.
I mean, who cares if someone is a sedevecantist, or not one, or believe in 3 baptisms, or don't. Or is pro-Rome, or not. Do these things matter? Certainly. But the vast majority of us aren't in charge, we're not a priest, or a bishop, or an abbot. And we're certainly not God, so let it go. Discuss it if you must, debate if you like. But, for heaven's sake, DO IT WITH CHARITY.
When there were 3 popes back in the day, and saints were on all sides of the issue, is there any record of saint A condemning and screaming at saint B for being wrong? I think not.
So let us pray this lent for catholic charity, in all cases, in all circuмstances. For as St Paul said this past Sunday, "If I do all things, but I have not charity, it profits me nothing."
-
:roll-laugh1: :dancing-banana:
Did you hear about the two monocles that got together and made a spectacle of themselves?
Apologies. This is an excellent topic. Please carry on.
-
Just for the record, I would love to wear a monocle but they're almost impossible to get these days. One would have to go to some sort of boutique optometrist for a custom job to fit the prescription and the eyepiece. Now there's a niche industry for some Trad eye doctor to explore!
:detective:
:dancing-banana:
Looking to be singular, are you?!!! There IS an optician in the East Village (NYC) who has several monocles in his display window. Somehow, I very much doubt he is a traditional Catholic.
-
Being that we don't communicate in persona and that posts remain forever, I definitely check over my posts with the delete button to minimize or remove insults and the like.
-
Because the Novus Ordo, Indultarians, etc. have abused this point, many trads knee-jerk the opposite direction and care nothing at all for unity.
How has the Indult abused the "point of unity"?
Are they not in full communion with the church?
Is it not the fringe groups like SSPX who wilfully withhold full participation with the rest of the "Catholic" world on points of principle?
What does it come down to? Principles or "unity"?
Unfortunately you cannot have both completely.
Everyone must accept some compromise.
I hold the Sedevacantist position but I go to SSPX mass.
Do I discuss the antipope to those who go to the SSPX? No. I dont bother causing friction because I would like to be able to continue going to mass and getting support from traditional Catholics.
There is more that unites us than seporates us, and if anyone thinks that the Indult has nothing in common with them they deceive themselves. The Indult is very traditional, I know.
-
The unity of minds is a product of the unity of hearts that love each other in Christ:
James 3:13-18
"Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish.
For where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy, and every evil work. But the wisdom, that is from above, first indeed is chaste, then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation. And the fruit of justice is sown in peace, to them that make peace."
Summa Theologica - On Despair
"According to the Philosopher* (Ethic. vi, 2) affirmation and negation in the intellect correspond to search and avoidance in the appetite; while truth and falsehood in the intellect correspond to good and evil in the appetite. Consequently every appetitive movement which is conformed to a true intellect, is good in itself, while every appetitive movement which is conformed to a false intellect is evil in itself and sinful. "
* Aristotle
-
I agree wholeheartedly that we Trads cause many of our own problems. We want God to grant the pope the grace of conversion so he can consecrate Russia and do a 1,000 pro-Catholic things, yet we can't even be charitable to those who are of "the household of the Faith". It's truly sad. Charity covers a multitude of sins, and if we were more charitable (ESPECIALLY to those we disagree with), then maybe God would have mercy on our sinful world.
I mean, who cares if someone is a sedevecantist, or not one, or believe in 3 baptisms, or don't. Or is pro-Rome, or not. Do these things matter? Certainly. But the vast majority of us aren't in charge, we're not a priest, or a bishop, or an abbot. And we're certainly not God, so let it go. Discuss it if you must, debate if you like. But, for heaven's sake, DO IT WITH CHARITY.
When there were 3 popes back in the day, and saints were on all sides of the issue, is there any record of saint A condemning and screaming at saint B for being wrong? I think not.
So let us pray this lent for catholic charity, in all cases, in all circuмstances. For as St Paul said this past Sunday, "If I do all things, but I have not charity, it profits me nothing."
-
When the shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered.
-
When the shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered.
What shepherd would that be?
-
One concern I have had during the 43 years since my conversion is the prevalence of dislike of Jєωs in the trad movement, which I think spills over into dislike/distrust of Jєωιѕн converts. The argument is given that the dislike is not of those of Jєωιѕн ethnicity but the Jєωιѕн religion, but it doesn't always play out that way.
My dad was Jєωιѕн and despite that no one despises the modern (тαℓмυdic) religion more than me bc I got to see it in action. My dad was always Christian friendly and became a baptized Catholic a few days before his death. But my firsthand experience with many other Jєωs left me with a bad taste for the religion.
But if we want Jєωs to convert to the Catholic Faith, we should be welcoming. Back in the 70s when I converted I was 18 and don't remember hearing anything negative about Jєωs as people but over the last 40+ years I've seen/heard a lot. Its probably why I'm still the only convert I know of Jєωιѕн ancestry. If there are others, they're keeping quiet about it.
As for Holy Ghost vs Holy Spirit: I prefer Holy Ghost bc its trad and my Italian grandmother said it, but I pay attention to it mostly to see if someone is NO or trad.
-
How has the Indult abused the "point of unity"?
Are they not in full communion with the church?
Is it not the fringe groups like SSPX who wilfully withhold full participation with the rest of the "Catholic" world on points of principle?
What does it come down to? Principles or "unity"?
Unfortunately you cannot have both completely.
Everyone must accept some compromise.
I hold the Sedevacantist position but I go to SSPX mass.
Do I discuss the antipope to those who go to the SSPX? No. I dont bother causing friction because I would like to be able to continue going to mass and getting support from traditional Catholics.
There is more that unites us than seporates us, and if anyone thinks that the Indult has nothing in common with them they deceive themselves. The Indult is very traditional, I know.
I don't know that Matthew meant they hold *nothing* in common, but they do value unity to the point where they sought canonical regularization with Rome, affirm the NO as licit, etc. That doesn't mean (at least for me) that there are no good Catholics among them, but those groups, as groups, have gone too far in the pro unity direction over the pro truth direction. Trads *tend to* err towards the opposite.
-
Over the last 4 decades I've been to all types of trad Masses: started out with ORCM sede Masses, when they left our area I switched to the Eastern Rite for awhile, then the indult came into being but it was always odd hours/churches in bad neighborhoods. Then I was able to get to a SSPX chapel via a friend who started going there.
My biggest problem was an inability to drive so if I couldn't get a ride or if mass transit didn't go there, I was stuck. Now I am basically forced to be an internet Mass "attendee" due to chronic physical disabilities on top of still unable to drive.
-
What shepherd would that be?
The Pope is the Head Bishop; the first pope was known as a Rock.
I say it is the LAST TRUE Pope who has been struck, the last Shepherd, and since then, all the problems mentioned on this thread are the consequence of having no pope. Thus we have scattered as the thread proves.
Perhaps God will give us a little white pebble, (stone) someday soon I hope to bring us together.
-
The Pope is the Head Bishop; the first pope was known as a Rock.
I say it is the LAST TRUE Pope who has been struck, the last Shepherd, and since then, all the problems mentioned on this thread are the consequence of having no pope. Thus we have scattered as the thread proves.
Perhaps God will give us a little white pebble, (stone) someday soon I hope to bring us together.
Okay, fair enough, but who was the last true pope in your view?
-
To me, the last true Pope was PopePius XII.
-
To me, the last true Pope was PopePius XII.
I agree!
After that Universal acceptance if it happened was null and void BECAUSE the solution to future elections happened a long time ago, according to our sense of time. God provided!
A general council was convened to solve the church's problems on the eve of the Reformation. It was summoned by pope Julius II by the bull Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae.
The bull reads: Sorry you will have to enlarge it or see this site: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0067/_P6.HTM
-
I am of the opinion that Pius X was the last true and holy pope. One must ask why, why, did not Pius XII consecrate Russia. This was asking for the conversion of Jєωs, all those of Bolshevik communism errors. I am of the opinion that our Lady, knew the hearts of these enemies, and Our Lady was given this command? and yet Pius XII did not do it. Why? I think Our Lady wanted us to know what she knew, that the consecration would not take place. And that is to tell us where his heart was.
-
We don't know what was in the mind of Pope Pius XII, his mind, he suffered and knew about what was coming; knew that there was a terrible crisis on its way from within and that many priests and bishops were already Modernism. Shortly before his death, he confided to a cardinal, “After me, comes the deluge.”
He was a True Pope (Pope Pius XII) because he did not change the Deposit of Faith, he kept the Faith, in spite of failings on what many traditionalists hear from those who always want perfection. Have Faith the reign of Mary, her Immaculate is on the way in God's time, not ours.
-
It is sad to see a thread on unity among those of us (who love the TLM and the Faith as it has been handed down to us) -- get sidetracked over who was the last Pope. That's just the kind of thing that allows the enemy to divide us. Let us focus on what we share: the TLM and the Faith as it has been handed down to us.
-
I am of the opinion that Pius X was the last true and holy pope. One must ask why, why, did not Pius XII consecrate Russia. This was asking for the conversion of Jєωs, all those of Bolshevik communism errors. I am of the opinion that our Lady, knew the hearts of these enemies, and Our Lady was given this command? and yet Pius XII did not do it. Why? I think Our Lady wanted us to know what she knew, that the consecration would not take place. And that is to tell us where his heart was.
Songbird. That Pope Pius XII, unwisely, for whatever personal or political reason, did not consecrate Russia, does not invalidate his papacy. You, nor I, are neither of us qualified to judge his heart.
-
Our Lady, ws given the gift, knowing the hearts of men. She knew where Pius XII heart was, not in the consecration.
-
Yes, Our Lady knows the hearts of men, but we don't.
Still that does not invalidate his papacy. As much as you think you know the heart of Pius XII you can't make up your own rules.
-
His outward actions speak louder than words.
-
It is sad to see a thread on unity among those of us (who love the TLM and the Faith as it has been handed down to us) -- get sidetracked over who was the last Pope. That's just the kind of thing that allows the enemy to divide us. Let us focus on what we share: the TLM and the Faith as it has been handed down to us.
I understand your sentiments, but remember that, aside from Christ, the pope is the center of unity in the Church.
-
In light of recent tensions on the forum I think we should all take a deep breath. Sometimes in the heat of a debate and/or argument things are said that have a more forceful expression than would otherwise normally be intended.
Here we have a thread extolling the need for unity in the Traditional Catholic community. Banning Traditional Catholics with a different perspective or view on the ecclesiological crisis on a Traditional Catholic forum, even if primarily pro Resistance/R&R, does not contribute to any unity and only serves to widen the rifts, create hostility, and foster divisiveness.
-
I appreciate your post above Hermes, however who are those starting the threads? Starting threads to divide us to belittle CMRI and or sedevacantism just a word, a position that explains.
If I see such a thread I will defend, just as those who deny sedevacantism BUT, YET, defend their pope with one side of their tongue and speak against him with the other side.
Doublespeak as in Vatican II.