Author Topic: "Stay at Home" Catholicism (Read 14221 times)

MaterDominici · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2008, 01:10:13 PM »

If I've read all of this correctly, it seems we all agree that the author of the PDF is extreme and WRONG in deciding the church isn't visible or doesn't exist.

It seems we have 2 situations here (I'm sure there are more) which have the same end result (staying home), but should be discussed as separate scenarios. First, the author of the pdf who believes there is no church and we all seem to agree that her position isn't the truth we're all after.

I think that Cletus' "stay-away-from-chapels" position has mostly to do with the chapels available to him rather than Traditional chapels in general. His assertion that the priests are the driving force in creating so-called Home Aloners, if I haven't missed something, has only been supported with

Quote from: Cletus

"You're not welcome here because you were overheard to criticize the Holy Father last Sunday, and the Sunday before that you said that the Society should negotiate more humbly with that diseased Hegelian."

which sounds to me like a single situation and not experiences with dozens of different traditional priests.

So, I would put Cletus' situation more in line with that of someone with no access to a traditional Mass rather than someone who stays at home after deciding all outlets claiming to be Catholic are in fact not.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #16 on:** August 28, 2008, 02:04:12 PM »

Quote

Far more commonly, many who pose as canonical pessimists and spread that kind of home-alonism, in fact secretly go somewhere for Mass. Some even go to the Novus Ordo. They are like the founder of the Breatharians who preaches eating nothing but air, but who was caught eating a hamburger, or like the typical James Bond villain who is perfectly willing to let all his lackeys be blown up along with his secret base, and yet manages to have a secret escape pod for himself.

I found this part interesting. I wonder if he's correct about this in that the number of true "home-aloners" is very small.

roscoe · « **Reply #17 on:** August 28, 2008, 03:07:56 PM »

Like St Pius X when asked by Herzel if he would lend a hand to the judaics in the occupation of the Holy Land, I am embarrassed for anyone who thinks the v2 anti-christ, ʝʊdɛօ-masonic, anti-church could possibly excercise the Pallium of legitimate jurisdiction. Ciao

roscoe · « **Reply #18 on:** August 28, 2008, 05:27:04 PM »

For all those in this discussion besides Cletus--Do you believe there is such a thing as an anti-pope?

Cletus · « **Reply #19 on:** August 28, 2008, 08:02:49 PM »

I don't have any personal experience with rejection by Traditional or sedevacantist priests.

My comments were based on twenty years of vast experience in the "Traditonal world." My business brought me into almost daily contact with thousands of Traditonal Catholics and their stories and complaints: forget the bartender, everyone spills it to the used pre-Vatican II book dealer.

All these stories I've seen corroborated in the dozens of Traditional publications and websites I follow.

Once I avoided a local True Mass emporium because I suspected that the so-called pastor was not a priest at all. He turned out to be a boy molesting short order cook from Chicago who boned up on his Latin and managed to hoodwink sixty sedeprivationists for years before he ran off wth their most expensive gold chalices and altar missals and every cent in the till.

(The story was public knowledge. This took place in St Michael's chapel in Glenmont, NY.)

We all read the Traditionalist message boards and magazines. is there really any doubt about this Inquisitorial picky attitude on the part of many Traditional and sedevacantist priests?

As I said, as far as I know, the sedevacantists are the worst "offenders" in this area and "excommunicate" people for having a different opinion about the degree of the lunacy of a bishop the validity of whose ordinations are in question due to said lunacy.

But I've heard of SSPX priests who knee-jerkily kick out people who engage in two-timing with sedevacantist chapels, or even for having "schismatic" ATTITUDES towards His "Antichristian" Holiness.

There actually are people who read a lot and think a lot, who don't court personal grudges, and come to conclusions based on sheer reasonableness.

No, I just don't believe that these Mass-oriented Traditional organizations have any authority as leaders of resistance against Vatican II. I don't believe that Archbishop Lefebvre was any kind of Athanasius for our times etc... I don't believe that they have any special competence or grace when it comes to explaining and combatting the so-called New Pentecost of Vatican II and keeping souls safe from the Roman jurisdiction which they call Satanic yet insist upon as supported by Christ on His Throne.

I think it's being presumptuous to be a strict "Home Aloner" in that canonically absolute way. I can see no reason to exclude the possibility that individual souls here and there could benefit from the priestly ministries of nice, orthodox priests who offered true Sacraments and kept the True Faith and rejected false popes. Quiet, couteous, humble men who generally kept to the sidelines like padres in old World War II movies and didn't promote Baroque clericalism and downgrade laity to the level of medieval serfs with all this bogus "priestly grace of state" business.

What's correct is to say AT home alone.

Who says that one is at home alone just because one rejects as interlopers those who have set up TLM shop with no mandate?

How about such Traditional absurdities as fellow bishops who claim supplied jurisdiction over the same territory? Who decides?

Vatican II struck the Catholic world like an Atom Bomb. All Catholics were wounded. It's not incuмbent on any Catholic to figure that if the Roman Pontiff leads you into the Belly of the Beast there just has to be an African Archbishop somewhere out there who'll get you or at least a good chuck of you back out.

You just have to do whatever you can to recover and hold on to "what you heard in the beginning." Like go to Mass on Sunday? No. That falls under the "heed the Roman Pontiff and love and trust him" category. Ordinarily, priests must have a mandate from a bishop in communion with the Pope. The Traditional mistake is to admit the practically unspeakable extraordinary fact of an Antichristian putative pope, and then speak of chapel-going and Mass obligation and priest adherence as though all things were equal- and ordinary.

Cletus · « **Reply #20 on:** August 28, 2008, 08:36:42 PM »

I don't see too many so-called Home Aloners "spreading" Home Alonerism.

I see Traditionalists stubbornly mocking Catholics who avoid the chapels and the various priestly organizations with an ungrammatical and inaccurate epithet.

roscoe · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2008, 08:50:36 PM »

The reason none of the v2ers can answer the above question re: the existance of anti-popes is the moment you answer in the affirmative, you have to acknowledge that the v2 'popes' are just that: anti-popes. Could anyone actually think that there is no such thing?-- Someone who thinks that will believe ANYTHING.

In my study of the history of Holy Church, the only other scandals that can be compared in a small way to v2 is the anti-pope Pierleone(Anacletus II) that was resolved by St Bernard and the Templar scandal under the anti-pope Boniface 8. Even the reign of the Theophylacts in the 10th century doesn't compare.

roscoe · « **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2008, 09:25:32 PM »

And correct again Cletus; the 'ungrammatical and innaccurate ephitet' of 'sede' was hung 'us' by others. I only submitted to the term for sake of argument here is this forum. If as I believe Card Siri was elected in 1958 and succeeded by Card Pintonello then the chair of Peter was never really vacant except for the brief period between the death of a Pope and the white smoke.

One other thing I have found significant in the cases of Boniface 8, Ben 15 and John 23 is that their conduct dictates that they were anti-popes as also their election seems fraudulent( As well as being an opponent of Boniface for many years, Dante suspected his election was fraudulent)--some things just figure.

roscoe · « **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2008, 09:27:58 PM »

And last but not least, the term 'Home Aloner' can be applied to someone who is ailing and simply physically unable to attend Mass--if a legitimate Mass could be found that is.

Cletus · « **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2008, 10:58:19 PM »

Or to someone who lives hundreds of miles from the nearest suitable priest and Mass.

Sedevacantists call themselves sedevacantist. I don't think that anyone calls himself a Home Aloner.

Mr Griff has things backwards.

It is not a question of sedevacantists' off-handedly shrugging their shoulders as regards a solution to the so-called crisis. To speak of Antichrist and Apocalypse and the Abomination of Desolation and the mystical death of Christ is not to show any sort of frivolity or callousness over the Vatican II situation. On the contrary, to speak of "papal" blasphemies and incitations to apostasy as "imperfections" and "flaws" along the lines of a Barberini pope's looting of some ancient Roman marble, to downplay the whole horror, to make this spiritual genocide a matter of Catholic course, regrettable but no biggie, to suggest that those who get the regrettable admixture of Vatican II poison in the Roman bottle labeled Pure Truth are just lazy and stupid, THAT is the evidence of frivolity and callousness.

It is up to us simply to tell the truth about the problem of the Vatican II apostasy. It is not our business to invent unlikely Catholic campfire stories about possible solutions to the problem. (Rome will accord strictly legal and ordinary jurisdiction to Traditional bishops etc...)

Go tell your Holy Father to stop being a Modernist, Liberal, and Hegelian Antichrist. There's an apparent "solution" right there. But will he ever listen? I don't think so. He thinks that Vatican II is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to our world. That belief is not going to disappear in Rome. Not ever. It will never get better in Rome. Some monument to Vatican II is set in stone at the very portal of St Peter's. It will stay there until Kingdom Come.

If the stupid and insolent term Home Aloner is to be used at least let all these distinctions be made. Maybe that's the good that can come from this thread.

Matthew · « **Reply #25 on:** August 28, 2008, 11:17:27 PM »

Quote from: Cletus

Or to someone who lives hundreds of miles from the nearest suitable priest and Mass.

Do you consider that most Catholics are in your situation -- namely, 100's of miles from a suitable priest and Mass?

You said that you don't strictly speaking agree with the "home aloners" that the Church has ended.

But on the other hand, you seem to think that the "V2 church" will never be destroyed (or corrected, depending on whether you view the V2 church as the Catholic Church or not)

If the monument to Vatican II will stay there "till kingdom come" -- when do you think Christ's Kingdom will come (i.e., the end of time)?

It must be very close, according to you.

Matthew

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #26 on:** August 29, 2008, 01:52:53 AM »

Quote from: ChantCd

...So I guess it was a woman after all!...Well, he'll have to try another diversion now because the objective truth about he author's gender is "out"!...

Matthew,

I have been reading this thread, and you are not showing well, my friend. [I had to come out of "retirement" in order to mention a few things.]

1. You told us that you had an "intuition" that the author of the PDF file was a woman.

2. Your friend now points out to you that the docuмent, which you had already read, actually points it out to anyone with eyes.

3. Your response is to focus on Cletus' supposed skulduggery and misdirection, rather than your own inability to read and retain, having tried to sell the world some absurd story about "intuition" - which is a wonderful example of irrational behavior, btw.

YOU are the one guilty of absurd misdirection, from the very start.

Now, to deal with offense #2:

Quote

I hypothesize that she started out Sede (which basically is her current position plus a small chapel and a priest) and when that went sour, she was left with nothing. I think it's a good example of what sedevacantism leads to.

Save your unsubstantiated hypotheses and intuitions for lesser minds, and get to the point, sticking to the facts. Do you not see that you: 1. Throw out an unsubstantiated hypotheses, and 2. Draw a universal conclusion based upon NOTHING. Where did you learn to reason, son? Winona? Did His Double-Minded Lordship teach you such things, while he was showing you how two bodies can share the same head?

Offense #3:

Quote

I suppose, like the Sedevacantists, their heart COULD (theoretically) be in the right place. We ARE living in an unprecedented crisis. But that doesn't make the position any less dangerous for their soul (and the souls of those around them).

You are exhibiting an utter lack of charity and mere decency here, Matthew. I have been involved in COUNTLESS discussions with SSPXers and trads of many stripes, many of whom were rather testy. NEVER have I presumed that their hearts were in the wrong place. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such OUGHT TO BE - MUST BE - PRESUMED, until proven otherwise. Such are BASIC good manners. What IS dangerous is your present attitude, as embarrassingly displayed throughout this entire thread, which is the exact opposite. It is almost as if an old woman logged on as Chant, subjecting the world to her irrationalities. :wink:

Btw, there is no such thing as a Home Alone "sect". If you would THINK, rather than INTUIT (something you have not done very well in this thread, either), you would realize that such an entity is an IMPOSSIBILITY - for they are, each and every one, home ALONE. :wink:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #27 on:** August 29, 2008, 01:55:47 AM »

Please be so kind as to understand that above I am saying a man MUST PRESUME that the hearts of his adversarii are in the RIGHT PLACE. Writing late at night is not wise. God speed and good night.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #28 on:** August 29, 2008, 02:05:48 AM »

Quote from: ChantCd

...It was basically the Sede position, combined with a demolition of the sede position...

Honestly, Matthew: Have you started imbibing something that affects your ability to cogitate normally?

Been breathin' that double-minded air too dern long, sonny!

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #29 on:** August 29, 2008, 02:13:00 AM »

Quote from: ChantCd

I think she's just a frustrated TAN customer who had her order misplaced once, or something along those lines...TAN books have done nothing but good...

I think you are a (former?) TAN employee who is getting emotional in his defense of his employer. TAN, in doing good, has also racked up one helluva debt (and provided physically inferior merchandise with those cheap, glued, worthless spines, for which they charged far too much).

Go have a stiff drink, and a good cigar, too. God speed.

Author Topic: &quot;Stay at Home&quot; Catholicism (Read 14221 times)

Author Topic: "Stay at Home" Catholicism (Read 14221 times)