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.

Quote from: Matthew

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 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.

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.

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.

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

...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!

 :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.