That means I should be banned? I don't pick any group. I am simply Catholic.
CathInfo is a forum for Traditional Catholics. That is to say, those who support the Traditional Catholic movement. There are several groups that are considered "Traditional Catholic", and you are free to pick one, but you must pick one.
If this is a forum for traditional Catholics who support the traditional Catholic movement and you're banning those you believe don't fit the bill, then why are these men banned and not Poche? He's not even traditional Catholic.For those who are still looking into Traditional Catholicism but who have not yet found a chapel or priest whom they can trust, this new rule can be a problem. People who have been severely traumatized by Novus Ordo modernistic and/or perverted priests need more time to discern, to find a priest, and to feel at home.
For those who are still looking into Traditional Catholicism but who have not yet found a chapel or priest whom they can trust, this new rule can be a problem. People who have been severely traumatized by Novus Ordo modernistic and/or perverted priests need more time to discern, to find a priest, and to feel at home.Matthew, I ran out of time to edit. Is ICK a valid traditional movement or was this just an awful accidental misspelling?
Perhaps there can be a category called inquirers.
By the way, I was confirmed in 1960 before the new rite was introduced. However, for those confirmed with yucca oil in 1996 instead of Holy Chrism, are they given the opportunity to be confirmed anew according to the apostolic traditional rite? Does CMRI, SSPX, or the Resistance Priests offer this sacrament for those transferring from Novus Ordo parishes?
And what is ICK?
Matthew, I ran out of time to edit. Is ICK a valid traditional movement or was this just an awful accidental misspelling?It stands for Institute of Christ the King- Sovereign Priest
It stands for Institute of Christ the King- Sovereign PriestThank you. I prefer to spell out the name.
Abbreviated ICKSP
Or ICK for even shorter colloquial language.
That Wessex is critical of sspx, and the traditional Catholic movement in general is pretty clear from much of his own commentary. Alas many of us feel similarly. But has he ever indicated that he is not a traditional Catholic? I don't recall that he has admitted to having abandoned Catholicism altogether, specifically traditional Catholicism. Nor do I recall that he has ever said that he no longer attends a traditional Mass center, or that he does not recognize any of these "several groups." We ourselves attend an independent traditional venue under the auspices of an old diocesan priest. Would Matthew include such an arrangement as legitimately included among his "several groups?"Agreed. Given I am a sedevacantist, I recognize that my opinion doesn't mean all that much when it comes to Matthew's ban of non-R&R posters such as Wessex and JPaul, but I am going on record here that I am totally against the ban of these two posters as well as what appears to be a new rule (although I can't remember the last time official rules were posted on this forum...perhaps it is high time for that, so we all know our boundaries).
This new ban rather troubles me.
Both Wessex and JPaul were overly negative when it comes to the future of Catholicism - but there’s no sin in being cynical. It’s part of being human. They were also critical of +ABL and +W, moreso as of late, which is why I suspect they were banned. But there are PLENTY of other posters who also criticize these bishops, just indirectly, and way more regularly, basically calling them heretics, which Wessex and JPaul never did.
Regardless of one's opinion of their views, Wessex and JPaul (plus, in a sense, the poster named Croix) all were good members of this site, who may have been overbearing at times, but who brought a lot of intelligence and a different perspective to a variety of topics. Contrast that to a good portion of the posters here - who argue about petty things, or who don’t post much, or who only concentrate on 1 or 2 topics. ...I think this site will take some time (and new members) to recover from their absence.
2vermont:Agreed. Given I am a sedevacantist, I recognize that my opinion doesn't mean all that much when it comes to Matthew's ban of non-R&R posters such as Wessex and JPaul, but I am going on record here that I am totally against the ban of these two posters as well as what appears to be a new rule (although I can't remember the last time official rules were posted on this forum...perhaps it is high time for that, so we all know our boundaries).
But has he ever indicated that he is not a traditional Catholic? I don't recall that he has admitted to having abandoned Catholicism altogether, specifically traditional Catholicism.When was the last time he indicated that he IS a Traditional Catholic? He might be Catholic, but I don't recall the last time he said anything affirming himself as a Traditional Catholic. Rejecting the Conciliar Church is not the same as supporting Traditional Catholicism.
Finally. It is not because he is non-R&R. There is something else going on there and that something else is very unhealthy. Hard to describe and put a finger on, nevertheless, noxious.I agree.
Lol!
The forum’s “recovery” was facilitated by the banning of those two complainers, who never (ever) had anything positive to contribute.
If Matthew could only lower the boom on that lippy woman (and 2-3 others), the forum could move back away from being the world’s largest ecuмenical gathering site to recovering its identity as the “de facto headquarters of the Resistance.”
Waiting endlessly for the REAL Traditional Catholic movement to begin, after these 50 years, means that you are NOT a Traditional Catholic. Do you see the blasphemy in this position?
The Traditional movement isn't perfect (being made up of human beings) but it's all God in His providence has given us to deal with this crisis over the past 50 years.:cheers:
It's God's providence for Catholics who might actually want to stay Catholic or *gasp* get married and start a family during this crisis (and/or Papal interregnum, for those of the sedevacantist persuasion) which has been going on for 53 years and counting (from 1965 - present).
It may not be pretty, it may be far from perfect, but hey, it's all we've got!
How can a person spew nothing but negativity at ALL -- I can't over-emphasize this point enough -- ALL the options out there for Traditional Catholics over the past 50 years. I understand that some like this or that group, some might disagree with the particular group I favor and vice versa. But to claim to want to keep the Faith, while remaining aloof from ANYONE and EVERY GROUP trying to actually do something constructive in the here-and-now?
Just think of all the heroic and saintly priests in ALL of the various groups, who tried to do something, tried to help, tried to save souls, and were faithful until death. Think of all the heroes who rose up and did what they could to help souls during this Crisis. Think of all the good men -- both cleric and lay -- who have graced the movement, all the faithful Bishops in the entire world of Tradition over the past 50 years -- all being ignored as "not good enough. God, when are You going to do something? Come on, it's been 50 years."
Doesn't that seem a tad presumptuous, a tad foolish, perhaps even blasphemous?
It's like they say, "Tradition, as it exists in the real world today, might be good enough for everyone else, but not for me."
You say Wessex is an intellectual? You can have that kind of sterile, ivory tower, academic intellectualism. There are plenty of atheists who are so-called intellectuals. Even the greatest and most educated intellect is useless unless it is paired with a correctly formed Will that is able to choose the good. The will must seek out the good, especially the Supreme Good, which today means the salvation of souls. If a man's Free Will is paralyzed for whatever, that man is pretty much useless. The whole point of the Intellect is so that we can KNOW the good, and then our Will should be inclined to desire and seek after it.
Sitting up in an ivory tower trying to come up with an "ideal" Traditional Movement for years, while ignoring countless chances to do real good in the real world today is a demonic delusion at best and diabolical malice at worst. Real good is talking to other Catholics, encouraging them to keep the Faith, practicing the corporal AND SPIRITUAL works of mercy, spreading knowledge of the Faith, receiving the Sacraments and attending Mass, practicing the Catholic Faith, passing it on to your children or even complete strangers, volunteering at your church, and in general doing whatever you can to build up the Church and help the Lord in some small way in the work of saving souls.
The reality of this life is an epic battle between God and Satan. If you choose to stay in a tent during the whole war and work out strategies in your head, you aren't helping the cause at all. You need to be doing SOMETHING to help the cause.
Any "intellect" which looks at all of Catholic Tradition and says, "meh." is garbage in my book. What is this person doing with his life instead, while he stands aloof from the only movement that matters today -- the only movement that has eternal ramifications? How does he spend his days, in contrast with all the thousands of Catholics who do their best to keep and spread the Faith on a daily basis?
PV: I can't blame either Wessex or JPaul for being cynical. Nor can I blame them for being angry or hyper-critical. These are normal human reactions to our dire catholic situation. Traditionalism is slowly dying because the vast majority of so-called Trads are trading the Faith for the mass. They are compromising their Faith (joining new-rome, accepting the indult/new mas, accepting "most" of V2, accepting NFP, accepting that new-rome should "bless" their marriages and "ok" their confessions, etc, etc). And all they are getting in return are the "smells and bells" of catholicity, for 1-2 hours a week, in the form of the mass. Yet, keeping the Faith is greater and more necessary than going to mass. One can get to heaven with the Faith only, even if they have no mass; the mass is PART OF living one's faith. ...Yet most trads today wrongly think the mass = the faith.
Perhaps, Matthew ought to ban me.
PV:
Wessex and JPaul were fans of the independent priests like Fr DePauw, Fr Wathen, etc who were early pioneers of Traditionalism in the 60s/70s. They were definitely not fans of the groups that formed in the 80s/90s (or at least, what these groups have become now). Wessex made some really good points that the 80s/90s leaders of traditionalism were different from the early pioneers. This fact is beyond question.
CathInfo is a forum for Traditional Catholics. That is to say, those who support the Traditional Catholic movement. There are several groups that are considered "Traditional Catholic", and you are free to pick one, but you must pick one.
Wessex and JPaul were fans of the independent priests like Fr DePauw, Fr Wathen, etc who were early pioneers of Traditionalism in the 60s/70s. They were definitely not fans of the groups that formed in the 80s/90s (or at least, what these groups have become now). Wessex made some really good points that the 80s/90s leaders of traditionalism were different from the early pioneers. This fact is beyond question.I'd like to see someone who knows and can articulate more detail spend some time explaining the "formula" for how these priests operated that purportedly not a single cleric is able to get right today. I'm hearing that the biggest difference is a focus on the Faith and an avoidance of the "hot topics" of sedevacantism, BOD, etc, but is this true? Did they not discuss these topics? Or, is the "formula" to discuss them but not hold a strong opinion one way or other? I know very little about these priests. Did they work with others or were they entirely independent?
Did they not discuss these topics? Or, is the "formula" to discuss them but not hold a strong opinion one way or other? I know very little about these priests. Did they work with others or were they entirely independent?Most priests were independent because once rome left the faith, these priests left rome. Before V2, every priest was either diocesan or religious. When they left Rome, they were automatically independent, because there were no diocese or religious orders. Trad land was the wild west (but in a good way). So priests were contacted by the laity, who wanted the True Mass and Faith. And more laity heard about such priests, and they asked for the Mass, etc, etc.
What Pax Vobis explained about not changing and compromising with the times I think only really applies to the SSPX.It certainly applies to the sspx. It also applies to the FSSP, ICK, (who were born under rome) and any other former trad group that went with rome in the last 20 years (i.e. St Benedict Center, Benedictines from Alabama under Fr Leonard (+RIP), and a number of smaller religious groups).
That means I should be banned? I don't pick any group. I am simply Catholic..
.
However, for those confirmed with yucca oil in 1996 instead of Holy Chrism,....
And what is ICK? What an awful initial?
Both Wessex and JPaul were overly negative when it comes to the future of Catholicism - but there’s no sin in being cynical. It’s part of being human. They were also critical of +ABL and +W, moreso as of late, which is why I suspect they were banned. But there are PLENTY of other posters who also criticize these bishops, just indirectly, and way more regularly, basically calling them heretics, which Wessex and JPaul never did..
Regardless of one's opinion of their views, Wessex and JPaul (plus, in a sense, the poster named Croix) all were good members of this site, who may have been overbearing at times, but who brought a lot of intelligence and a different perspective to a variety of topics. Contrast that to a good portion of the posters here - who argue about petty things, or who don’t post much, or who only concentrate on 1 or 2 topics.
...I think this site will take some time (and new members) to recover from their absence.
I'd like to see someone who knows and can articulate more detail spend some time explaining the "formula" for how these priests operated that purportedly not a single cleric is able to get right today. I'm hearing that the biggest difference is a focus on the Faith and an avoidance of the "hot topics" of sedevacantism, BOD, etc, but is this true? Did they not discuss these topics? Or, is the "formula" to discuss them but not hold a strong opinion one way or other? I know very little about these priests. Did they work with others or were they entirely independent?.
.
If Wessex admires them and sees nothing of them in the Traditional priests today, he should have spent much more time talking about how they operated so as to spread these ideas.
.
What Pax Vobis explained about not changing and compromising with the times I think only really applies to the SSPX.
.
What catholic is going to take a chance to cause an argument with a priest, when you depend on him for monthly confession? Are you going to challenge a priest on 3 baptisms when you need him to baptize your child? As the old saying goes: "Beggars can't be choosers." It could also be said that they "Didn't sweat the small stuff." And compared to having mass/sacraments (i.e. KEEPING THE FAITH!), the questions of 3 Baptisms, Sedevacantism, etc are "small stuff". No one is going to be worried about these things on their death bed (God have mercy on their imprudence, if they do).