Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Computers, Technology, Websites => Topic started by: Matthew on August 18, 2018, 12:14:39 PM
-
JPaul has been banned for reasons similar to Wessex, but since these are individuals, I will address JPaul separately.
It would seem that JPaul's outlook on the Traditional Catholic world, especially the Resistance, in the past 6 years has been colored by a single experience (or series of experiences) he had while driving with Fr. Pfeiffer in the early days of the Resistance.
He can't seem to get over this one experience. It colors everything he sees, hears, or reads today. Everything is filtered through that one lens.
Like Wessex, he doesn't seem to have any heroes in the Traditional movement, or any "dog in this fight" as it were.
But most importantly, he seems to be downright damaged goods in this respect. He was mixed up with Fr. Pfeiffer for too long or something. To his credit he didn't follow Fr. Pfeiffer down a wicked path (he was no longer on board once Fr. Pfeiffer went off the deep end), but unfortunately he still holds some bad ideas (for example, about Bp. Williamson) dating back to his days with Fr. Pfeiffer. Such that he hasn't been able to completely heal or move on. He doesn't seem to have a favorite group, or a place he attends Traditional Mass anymore.
He seems to be another ex-Trad who was seduced by the siren song of perfection, and has now become a disaffected, disgruntled home aloner who doesn't like the Conciliar Church.
I won't tolerate Pfeifferite lies/propaganda being spewed on this forum, whether or not you're currently a Pfeifferite or not. Even recovering Pfeifferites and those who have never supported Fr. Pfeiffer have to guard their speech. This is not an anything-goes forum, nor are sins against the 8th commandment (detraction, slander, gossip, lies) ever tolerated here. You can try, but any offending posts will be deleted as soon as I read or hear about them. I don't care if the sins of the tongue target Fr. Pfeiffer or Bishop Williamson. Sins of the tongue are forbidden here.
And to any of you CathInfo-haters reading this, I defy you to produce any examples of sins of the tongue on this forum. Just send me a link in a quick e-mail: my address is matthew at cathinfo dot com. I will not only address the sin(s), but I'll issue a written apology for each post I failed to delete in a separate thread for EACH POST THAT YOU FIND. I will entitle the threads, "Matthew has failed as a moderator - #1", #2, etc. Within the thread, I will link to the thread, or give the old link if the whole thread had to be deleted.
This is a chance to humiliate Matthew on CathInfo! And such posts won't even be deleted or moderated! Come on, guys, CathInfo is a cesspool of filth as you always say -- it should be easy to find some "crap" in a cesspool or septic tank, right? Don't tell me you can't find any filth in a cesspool! In other words, it's time to put up or shut up.
Note: exposing truths for the public good is not even detraction, much less slander which involves untruths. Criticism (stating one's personal opinions) of public individuals is also morally licit.
P.S.
Bishop Williamson didn't throw anybody under the bus. Honorable men simply don't act this way.
-
These sins of the tongue you mention, are they only sins against the SSPX et al or also for sins of the tongue against
CMRI and Bishop Pivarunas of which I have read many times from people.
I have no intention of going back to find them, just want to know for future how your rules apply.
Just for your record, I have always enjoyed posting and reading on your forum, my only objection is I want the ad blocker on my computer because I realize you can't choose the ads but I really do try not to look or read many ads, not only here but all over the Internet. Every time I get on lately I get a screen encouraging me to disable my ad blocker. It didn't use to be that way!
Thanks in advance for your reply.
-
These sins of the tongue you mention, are they only sins against the SSPX et al or also for sins of the tongue against
CMRI and Bishop Pivarunas of which I have read many times from people.
Those were legitimate criticisms of the organization and some of their theological positions ... unless I missed something.
-
Thanks for admitting the evil deed was done, as I said I am not going back to retrieve anything.
"legitimate criticisms?" That could be the case for any sin against the tongue, according to the poster or just be parroting? Nevertheless, I am anxious to see what the rules are in more detail.
-
Thanks for admitting the evil deed was done, as I said I am not going back to retrieve anything.
"legitimate criticisms?" That could be the case for any sin against the tongue, according to the poster or just be parroting? Nevertheless, I am anxious to see what the rules are in more detail.
Matthew has already outlined that the criticism of public figures doesn't qualify for censure.
-
Note: exposing truths for the public good is not even detraction, much less slander which involves untruths. Criticism (stating one's personal opinions) of public individuals is also morally licit.
You were accusing me of "misleading" for stating the fact that the CMRI twice published a particular theological article.
-
Matthew has already outlined that the criticism of public figures doesn't qualify for censure.
I am sure Matthew can speak for himself.
You were accusing me of "misleading" for stating the fact that the CMRI twice published a particular theological article.
Not to worry, Lad, I have never since I registered here asked for anyone to be banned and I never will.
-
I shall miss him.
-
When the history of the Church is written about our time period, there will be 2 main themes:
1. The revolution in the Church due to V2/new mass, and the consequent apostasy of 90% of so-called catholics.
2. The disarray, in-fighting and chaos CAUSED and PROMOTED BY 95% of trad priests/bishops, who, in the face of no hierarchy, spent their time trying to grow a movement, instead of growing the Faith.
-
When the history of the Church is written about our time period, there will be 2 main themes:
1. The revolution in the Church due to V2/new mass, and the consequent apostasy of 90% of so-called catholics.
2. The disarray, in-fighting and chaos CAUSED and PROMOTED BY 95% of trad priests/bishops, who, in the face of no hierarchy, spent their time trying to grow a movement, instead of growing the Faith.
A consequence of having no True Pontiff and Pride from the remnant Bishops.
-
A lack of a true pope does not excuse the power-hungry, control-freak, movement-growing attitude of 95% of trad bishops/priests. It’s a pervasive problem which filters down to the laity, and destroys families, chapels and, for some, their souls. Blaming this on the lack of a good pope is overly simplistic.
-
A lack of a true pope does not excuse the power-hungry, control-freak, movement-growing attitude of 95% of trad bishops/priests. It’s a pervasive problem which filters down to the laity, and destroys families, chapels and, for some, their souls. Blaming this on the lack of a good pope is overly simplistic.
I didn't say it was an excuse, it is a fact when there is no earthly head, as you rightly say, that power-hungry, control-freak attitude comes into play and the devil dances.
Not overly simplistic just what happens, something like when the teacher leaves the room and the students have a "party." When the parents are gone and leave the kids at home alone, anything goes.
When we have a True Pontiff again, you will see Catholics will fall in line. There will be One Fold and One Shepherd, that is God's promise.
Don't worry, just pray, as the Bible says, "Watch and Pray."
-
There have been plenty of disputes, conflicts and uncharity in the history of the Church. The existance of a true pope can force people to agree on doctrine and the liturgy. There's still plenty of room for disagreement, discord and bickering.
-
There have been plenty of disputes, conflicts and uncharity in the history of the Church. The existance of a true pope can force people to agree on doctrine and the liturgy. There's still plenty of room for disagreement, discord and bickering.
Read the Papal Encyclicals and you will notice how during those times you described the Pope stepped in and had plenty to say.
Where is your pope today?
-
How many CENTURIES did it take for the Church to settle the debate on the immaculate conception? Debate started in the 1200s and the dogma was defined in the late 1800s, so that's 600 years. An orthodox hierarchy/pope does not mean that disputes/agendas will not exist.
-
How many CENTURIES did it take for the Church to settle the debate on the immaculate conception? Debate started in the 1200s and the dogma was defined in the late 1800s, so that's 600 years. An orthodox hierarchy/pope does not mean that disputes/agendas will not exist.
.
600 years --- during which time most countries had the Feast Day on December 8th, even though it wasn't dogmatically defined yet. A very telling point of history is that Our Lady waited until AFTER the Pope had defined it, before she appeared in Lourdes to tell St. Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
-
How many CENTURIES did it take for the Church to settle the debate on the immaculate conception? Debate started in the 1200s and the dogma was defined in the late 1800s, so that's 600 years. An orthodox hierarchy/pope does not mean that disputes/agendas will not exist.
Even St. Peter and St. Paul argued, something about circuмcision, I believe. There has and will always be "friendly" arguments within the Church even with a Pope.
You mentioned the Immaculate Conception during the time when St. Thomas Aquinas one of a few theological opponents; these debates did not split the Church, and perhaps God wanted those issues they brought up mentioned during that time, however in Gods perfect timing when things might have been getting "hotter" the Good Pope in happier days spoke out. St. Thomas et al. "Rome has spoken."
The only thing you hear these days from Rome is heresy instead of your pope coming out to solve any problems he keeps adding fuel to the fire.
That is not my idea of God's REPRESENTATIVE on earth, in fact, that is an insult to God.
The fruits of this are what God warned us about, the fruits of your guy are not good.
-
600 years --- during which time most countries had the Feast Day on December 8th, even though it wasn't dogmatically defined yet.
Right. The point is that the debate was over microscopic, theoretical details of the dogma, not the dogma itself.
Similar to today, the R&R and sedes argue over the microscopic details of dealing with a bad pope. Every trad today agrees that we've had bad popes for 50 years.
In the former example, at the least the debate was among educated and trained theologians. Nowadays, the debate is among the uneducated and ill-trained, making the effects of such a debate more choatic.
-
Even St. Peter and St. Paul argued, something about circuмcision, I believe. There has and will always be "friendly" arguments within the Church even with a Pope.
You mentioned the Immaculate Conception during the time when St. Thomas Aquinas one of a few theological opponents; these debates did not split the Church, and perhaps God wanted those issues they brought up mentioned during that time, however in Gods perfect timing when things might have been getting "hotter" the Good Pope in happier days spoke out. St. Thomas et al. "Rome has spoken."
Obviously you are unaware of the violence which notoriously existed between the Dominicans and the Franciscans on the subject of the immaculate conception "friendly debate". And yes, in some areas, a "split" did happen, after fist-fights and bloody brawls. And St Paul's correction of St Peter was anything but "friendly", though it was done with charity, these are not the same thing.
The only thing you hear these days from Rome is heresy instead of your pope coming out to solve any problems he keeps adding fuel to the fire.
That is not my idea of God's REPRESENTATIVE on earth, in fact, that is an insult to God. The fruits of this are what God warned us about, the fruits of your guy are not good.
It's ironic that you mention "friendly" debates within the Church and an avoidance of a "split in the Church" when your above comments are divisive, unfriendly and split-causing. Your dogmatism and obsessiveness over the papal question are a main reason why Trads will never get along.
-
It's ironic that you mention "friendly" debates within the Church and an avoidance of a "split in the Church" when your above comments are divisive, unfriendly and split-causing. Your dogmatism and obsessiveness over the papal question are a main reason why Trads will never get along.
Okay so now the ad hominem attack ... fine!
- (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
-
Hey Myrna,
YOU'RE the one who turned this debate into a sede-debate, which your obsessiveness propels you to do. When YOU use the terms "your pope" or "your guy" and "insult to God" together, YOU are necessarily causing division in tradition because of YOUR dogmatic thinking.
Secondly, I criticized your position (not you personally), which is the correct method of debating.
-
I merely mentioned the reason that you stated were a consequence of having no True Pontiff.
Sorry if I offended you.
To be truthful, most of the words I said don't even compare to the negative words those loyal to him have called him.
-
These two bans have me scratching my head. Telesphorus was invited back, and he was similarly dire about the state of the Church.
Wessex and JPaul were two members who were good on the Jews.
-
rum: These two bans have me scratching my head. Telesphorus was invited back, and he was similarly
dire about the state of the Church.
Me too. I don't understand the reasoning at all. Matthew talks about cursing the darkness, and too much negativity and failure to meet certain "Resistance" criteria. It's all gotten pretty much by me. I can be as negataive as anyone. What triggered these sudden bannings in short succession?
I miss Telesphorus. There are a few forum turkeys, whom I would be tempted to show the door, but not these guys.
-
2. The disarray, in-fighting and chaos CAUSED and PROMOTED BY 95% of trad priests/bishops, who, in the face of no hierarchy, spent their time trying to grow a movement, instead of growing the Faith.
It's an interesting theory, but can you give some actual examples? Most of the divisions I call to mind are clerics who, on both sides, are trying the keep the Faith as best they know it. (There are exceptions, certainly, but not amounting to 95%.) Can you give an example and how you think the situation should have been played out if the clerics involved were interested only in keeping the Faith?
-
Id say 95% of trad clerics are part of organized groups. All trad groups
1) are opposed to each other,
2) hold different views on the “speculative theology topics of the day” (NFP, BOD, Sedevactism, V2/new mass),
3) consider all other groups to be in error, and
4) rarely, if ever, work together, as evidenced by each having their own seminaries, chapels and schools.
All of the above facts cause division, promote discord and prohibit the growth of traditionalism. Most of the blame is on the leadership of the groups, and not on the individual priests, who can’t be blamed for the policies of said group. The leaders have a responsibility to preach the faith, spread the mass and teach families, not push agendas and grow their membership.
Most priests naturally care for the group they belong to and most perform many sacrifices for their flocks, but they will also naturally absorb their group’s mentality and thus, be an agent of division, even if indirectly. (Americans can’t help but “pick sides” and have a sports-minded “I win, you lose” attitude. This anti-catholic ideal has permeated American traditionalism unfortunately). But, again, most of the blame goes to the leadership of these groups (some are more guilty than others).
If simple priests of these groups were allowed to collaborate, I’ll bet many would. Why do some cities need 4-5 masses a Sunday (ie Cincinnati, St Mary’s, Post Falls), and each said by a different group, while people in other cities have only 1 mass a month? There are many examples like this. If providing the mass/sacraments were the main priority, then groups would work together. Instead they compete for laity, and for the # of chapels on their websites. The laity will never get along unless the leaders at the top do so first.
We all need to pray for unity.
-
Id say 95% of trad clerics are part of organized groups. All trad groups
1) are opposed to each other,
2) hold different views on the “speculative theology topics of the day” (NFP, BOD, Sedevactism, V2/new mass),
3) consider all other groups to be in error, and
4) rarely, if ever, work together, as evidenced by each having their own seminaries, chapels and schools.
All of the above facts cause division, promote discord and prohibit the growth of traditionalism. Most of the blame is on the leadership of the groups, and not on the individual priests, who can’t be blamed for the policies of said group. The leaders have a responsibility to preach the faith, spread the mass and teach families, not push agendas and grow their membership.
Most priests naturally care for the group they belong to and most perform many sacrifices for their flocks, but they will also naturally absorb their group’s mentality and thus, be an agent of division, even if indirectly. (Americans can’t help but “pick sides” and have a sports-minded “I win, you lose” attitude. This anti-catholic ideal has permeated American traditionalism unfortunately). But, again, most of the blame goes to the leadership of these groups (some are more guilty than others).
If simple priests of these groups were allowed to collaborate, I’ll bet many would. Why do some cities need 4-5 masses a Sunday (ie Cincinnati, St Mary’s, Post Falls), and each said by a different group, while people in other cities have only 1 mass a month? There are many examples like this. If providing the mass/sacraments were the main priority, then groups would work together. Instead they compete for laity, and for the # of chapels on their websites. The laity will never get along unless the leaders at the top do so first.
We all need to pray for unity.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't understand how this is avoidable. What Catholic doesn't believe that Truth is one and error is many? Most of us believe certain errors to be understandable given the Crisis, but still think they're errors and don't wish to "promote" them, only to "tolerate" those who hold to these errors given the unusual state of the Church. Sure, I can befriend someone who holds such "tolerable" error, but should a cleric work with another cleric whom they believe to be teaching error?
-
.
I recall a time, before, during and after Vat.II, when Catholics had just one question about a seminary:
.
Is it a diocesan seminary or a religious order's seminary?
.
I recall Catholics, especially men but some women too, very concerned about the answer.
.
They believed it was a matter of dire concern for anyone entering a seminary to be totally sure they were choosing correctly.
.
This concern over diocese/order had nothing to do with heresy.
.
Catholics were not worried that diocese seminaries were teaching heresy or certain Orders were teaching heresy.
.
Actually, come to think of it, I believe they would have been scandalized by any mention of a seminary teaching heresy.
.
For in the perception of everyday Catholics of that time, seminaries were the bastion of purity regarding dogma.
.
But nonetheless, the distinction between dioceses and religious orders regarding seminaries was a big concern for Catholics.
-
We all need to pray for unity.
.
Here, here!
-
The problem is, as always, pride. 100% of trad clerics (bishops included) are NOT trained theologians, and EVERY major disagreement is over some theological gray area, that, over time, was made into a mountain, when in reality, it is a molehill.
Early traditionalism in the 60s/70s was more concerned with staying alive and avoiding spiritual starvation, so disagreements over the menu didn’t happen. Now that Trads are “fat and happy” with many priests and masses, we have time to argue about what should be served for dessert.
These arguments ARE avoidable if clerics would keep the Faith as the priority, if they would put aside their theological ambitions and if they would focus on devotions over explaining the minute details of dogma, then there would be peace because charity and love of God would be the goal instead of “being right” or being educated on a certain topic.
IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 (https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-2.htm)And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 (https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-3.htm)And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
-
The problem is, as always, pride. 100% of trad clerics (bishops included) are NOT trained theologians, and EVERY major disagreement is over some theological gray area, that, over time, was made into a mountain, when in reality, it is a molehill.
Early traditionalism in the 60s/70s was more concerned with staying alive and avoiding spiritual starvation, so disagreements over the menu didn’t happen. Now that Trads are “fat and happy” with many priests and masses, we have time to argue about what should be served for dessert.
These arguments ARE avoidable if clerics would keep the Faith as the priority, if they would put aside their theological ambitions and if they would focus on devotions over explaining the minute details of dogma, then there would be peace because charity and love of God would be the goal instead of “being right” or being educated on a certain topic.
IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 (https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-2.htm)And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 (https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-3.htm)And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
I think you have a worthy point, but even if clerics should be willing to work across the divide of how to handle the Pope, I can't place all the blame on the priests. I see the laity operate in the same manner and know that MANY lay people are not content with any priest who won't make a dogmatic "mountain" out of the issue.
-
These two bans have me scratching my head. Telesphorus was invited back, and he was similarly dire about the state of the Church.
Wessex and JPaul were two members who were good on the Jews.
Just wait,
There's a special feast day, I forget which day it is?...
when Emperor Matthew declares a day of reconciliation for all souls banned from Cathinfo.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9398f75ecc283997a73d59a3d7bf7707-c?convert_to_webp=true)
But usually these folks are so bitter, they don't come back :farmer:
-
Again, reading here and all the back and forths, good people with complaints without any solutions, which will never come till we have a True Pontiff sitting in the Chair of Peter.
I honestly believe you all know that!
Yes, pray for Unity with all your heart, pray for the souls in Purgatory, to help them; and ask them to help us.
-
I can't place all the blame on the priests. I see the laity operate in the same manner and know that MANY lay people are not content with any priest who won't make a dogmatic "mountain" out of the issue.
Not all Bishops and not all priests are 100% guilty. Some enjoy controversy and drama more than others. However, it is a FACT that these types of disagreements didn't exist in the 60s/70s. Yes, the laity nowadays are just as rabid and divisive as many of the poor-exampled priests they learned it from. But if priests started clamping down on this childish bickering, it would stop very quickly.
Imagine if most priests started preaching: "Hey, quit worrying about the pope and say your rosary. The pope question isn't getting you to heaven, but the rosary will."
Or, "Stop spending time arguing about 3 Baptisms and go help your family or volunteer for the poor or help out at your chapel. This is what will get you to heaven. You aren't responsible for the ignorant indian or the good-willed muslim living in Syria. Only God is."
Or, "Hey everyone, V2 and the new mass happened. They aren't good for your soul. So, make your life simple, and don't go. Don't worry about your family/friends that go, just pray for them. Spend your time on more important things than trying to figure it all out. You have the True Mass and God will judge you based on what you do with this grace. It's not your job to save the Church."
Imagine if priests go the laity to just CALM DOWN on these issues. How much more peace could there be? How much less emotional turmoil? Peace comes from the top. Has to start with the priests/bishops.
-
Or, "Stop spending time arguing about 3 Baptisms and go help your family or volunteer for the poor or help out at your chapel. This is what will get you to heaven. You aren't responsible for the ignorant indian or the good-willed muslim living in Syria. Only God is."
Or, "Hey everyone, V2 and the new mass happened. They aren't good for your soul. So, make your life simple, and don't go. Don't worry about your family/friends that go, just pray for them. Spend your time on more important things than trying to figure it all out. You have the True Mass and God will judge you based on what you do with this grace. It's not your job to save the Church."
Imagine if priests go the laity to just CALM DOWN on these issues. How much more peace could there be? How much less emotional turmoil? Peace comes from the top. Has to start with the priests/bishops.
EXCELLENT ADVICE = Thumb up from me!
-
Not all Bishops and not all priests are 100% guilty. Some enjoy controversy and drama more than others. However, it is a FACT that these types of disagreements didn't exist in the 60s/70s. Yes, the laity nowadays are just as rabid and divisive as many of the poor-exampled priests they learned it from. But if priests started clamping down on this childish bickering, it would stop very quickly.
Imagine if most priests started preaching: "Hey, quit worrying about the pope and say your rosary. The pope question isn't getting you to heaven, but the rosary will."
Or, "Stop spending time arguing about 3 Baptisms and go help your family or volunteer for the poor or help out at your chapel. This is what will get you to heaven. You aren't responsible for the ignorant indian or the good-willed muslim living in Syria. Only God is."
Or, "Hey everyone, V2 and the new mass happened. They aren't good for your soul. So, make your life simple, and don't go. Don't worry about your family/friends that go, just pray for them. Spend your time on more important things than trying to figure it all out. You have the True Mass and God will judge you based on what you do with this grace. It's not your job to save the Church."
Imagine if priests go the laity to just CALM DOWN on these issues. How much more peace could there be? How much less emotional turmoil? Peace comes from the top. Has to start with the priests/bishops.
In the end, unless you are the one in a billion who becomes Roman Pontiff, it is out of your control. It is out of the control of EVERYONE else.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. This should be posted on the door of every Trad chapel in the nation.
-
I think you have a worthy point, but even if clerics should be willing to work across the divide of how to handle the Pope, I can't place all the blame on the priests. I see the laity operate in the same manner and know that MANY lay people are not content with any priest who won't make a dogmatic "mountain" out of the issue.
I agree.
IMO, the laity want to control the traditional priests. They believe that traditional priests and bishops are subject to the whims of the laity. That's so very American, at least to me.
It reminds me of the Congregationalist Principle. The Congregationalists started out as a Puritan sect - I think in the 1700's. They had this tenet which said that whatever the congregation wanted, as a majority, that's what the preacher or minister was going to expound on. In other words, the people in the congregation decided what the individual churches believed. It seems that this principle is common to traditional Catholicism too.
-
"Or, "Stop spending time arguing, ..."
EXCELLENT ADVICE = Thumb up from me!
I would have used this excerpt instead:
"Hey, quit worrying about the pope and say your rosary. The pope question isn't getting you to heaven, but the rosary will."
Or, "Stop spending time arguing about 3 Baptisms and go help your family or volunteer for the poor or help out at your chapel. This is what will get you to heaven. You aren't responsible for the ignorant indian or the good-willed muslim living in Syria. Only God is."
Or, "Hey everyone, V2 and the new mass happened. They aren't good for your soul. So, make your life simple, and don't go. Don't worry about your family/friends that go, just pray for them. Spend your time on more important things than trying to figure it all out. You have the True Mass and God will judge you based on what you do with this grace. It's not your job to save the Church."
-
I agree.
IMO, the laity want to control the traditional priests. They believe that traditional priests and bishops are subject to the whims of the laity. That's so very American, at least to me.
It reminds me of the Congregationalist Principle. The Congregationalists started out as a Puritan sect - I think in the 1700's. They had this tenet which said that whatever the congregation wanted, as a majority, that's what the preacher or minister was going to expound on. In other words, the people in the congregation decided what the individual churches believed. It seems that this principle is common to traditional Catholicism too.
They (meaning the Congregationalists) eventually became the United Church of Christ, one of the most liberal and barely Christian Protestant denominations. Clearly letting the laity control the clergy worked out REAL well.
-
B from A liked this quote from Pax ... ""Hey, quit worrying about the pope and say your rosary. The pope question isn't getting you to heaven, but the rosary will."
I left that out because I believe we are all praying the rosary, and I have said on this forum several times, when we stand before God He will not ask us what we think of whoever is sitting in the Chair, I believe He will ask, "HOW DID YOU KEEP THE FAITH."
Thanks, B from A for repeating the advice from Pax.
-
I'll admit I'm having a very hard time picturing Trads operating across the "pope question" lines. Perhaps I've been in the CathInfo war zone too long to think that's even possible.
I'll pick on Myrna for a bit since she's been around here the longest... A question for you ... Say all Trad priests are working together and your priest is transferred out and a non-sede is transferred in. Would you have a problem with that or would you consider Sedevacantism to be a personal opinion that, while preferable, isn't necessary in the priest providing Sacraments to you and your family? Additionally, would you be attending only reluctantly or continue to support the parish with full enthusiasm? (I've seen plenty of "Sacrament-only" Mass attendees.)
(Anyone else is free to answer, just switch the sede / non-sede around as necessary.)
-
I have already attended SSPX Mass and received the Sacraments there several times, on vacations in the past. My thinking was the Blessed Sacrament was so much more important to me than my issues with who is sitting in the Chair of Peter.
Also where I live in Spokane is 30 minutes away from Post Falls, SSPX and have also attended Mass, and Sacraments there.
You see what is happening because of the closeness in miles the young adults from each parish, SSPX and CMRI are uniting in marriage, therefore, the parents and relatives are coming together. It is to the point already that Post Falls parish are sending their children to Mount St. Michael school for reasons of their own. Not saying all of them are doing that but here and there and every year we receive a few more. Our Bishop and parish priest nuns also know their beliefs about the pope issue, but so far at least as I know it hasn't been a problem. Perhaps it isn't a problem because from the pulpit the priest during the sermon never speaks about Vatican II and the crisis with the pope. Our sermons are about the catechism, feast days, monthly dedications, stories of Saints. If one did come to the Fatima Conference always in October, that is when we hear about the heresies and evil thinkings of Francis.
When my granddaughter married a young man from SSPX, Post Falls almost 5 years ago, they married in the SSPX Church with permission of Bishop Pivarunas, but their children when they come of age, the plan is to send them to the Mount. They themselves go back and forth on Sunday for Mass, sometimes they are at Post Falls, and other weeks at the Mount.
I do not know if the priests converse with each other or not it seems Post Falls priests get transferred out more, where we have had the same Pastor now for decades.
I will add it is not a Paradise yet, there are some members that refuse to attend either or depending on this or that. Just saying that because I don't want to give the impression that it is all good.
I hope that helps.
-
In this day and age all I want is for the priest to say mass, preach the gospel, and stay out of my life. I am tri-ritual. Prefer the Latin mass, go to Byzantine, and go to NO if I have to fulfill Sunday obligation.
Please no return to the 1950's for me. Pray, pay, and obey is not working for me anymore. Tried that once and it almost destroyed me. Man that was tough. Still digging out of it.