Interesting video. Am watching it now. Thoughts on it?



Seems to be from: "Catholic Truth Society (CTS) is a body that prints and publishes Catholic literature, including apologetics, prayerbooks, spiritual reading, and lives of saints. It is based in London, the United Kingdom."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Truth_Society

Interesting.

It sure is interesting, isn't it?

I don't like what you post. You appear to have an agenda. You've been a member since January, and today, you emerge to debate several topics that have been discussed at length already. I'm skeptical of your motives.

You say you are a "Glad Trad" and that tells me all I need to know about you.

RosaryTrad, I could say the same, that you have an agenda too - and as if the Dimonds do not! Or, we could admit, there are 2 or 3 reasonable perspectives on the Crisis, and Indult Traditionalism ("Glad Trads"), is one of them. I guess you're an R&R Catholic, and that's fine, but I disagree. And this thread is about sede-vacantism, particularly Dimondite sede-vacantism.

Hi Simpleman. If you have about 15 mins, you can maybe listen from 45-60 mins. 

(1) He mentions his father became Catholic from Protestant, and part of the reason was the Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus, he says, it's not true, that the NOM/Vatican II/the CCC deny the Mass is a Sacrifice. 

(2) They also mention Dr. Scott Hahn's conversion from Protestantism, who likewise was attracted to the Sacrificial Nature of the Mass, which he felt was lacking in Protestantism.

(3) Then, they cite Sacrosanctum Concilium, that it called for Latin to be retained in the Latin rites; they mention some abuses that followed the Council. Some that existed before it. etc.

I don't have time (now at least) to listen to a 2-hour video, but it starts off on a very bad foot, in the first 30 seconds, by claiming that MHFM are not Catholic, since they don't follow the Vatican.  That colors everything right out of the gate from a non-Traditional-Catholic perspective.

So, after their initial explanation that these guys are Conciliar Catholics operating under the assumption that the Conciliar authorities are legitimate, which colors and invalidates everything which follows,

through 6 minutes,

They attack MHFM as not being a Benedictine monastery and not being Benedictines, again on the assumption that there' s a legitimate authority in Rome that Traditional Catholics could rely on to approve a monastery, and yet also a misunderstanding about the Benedictines.  Benedictines are unique among the various religious in the Church in that they have no centralized authority (cf. the Catholic Encyclopedia order on the Benedictines), and even the Conciliar "motherhouse" in Rome agreed that anyone who professes to follow the rule of St. Benedict can call himself a Benedictine.  This was cited in the legal decision in favor of MHFM when Hoyle sued them.  Of course, these guys would say the same thing of any other Traditionalist religious house / order, since they would hold that the Antipope Bergoglio's approval is required to have a legitimate religious house / order.  Dimond Brothers are doing what they can in a period of sedevacante.  They also blabber about how there's "no evidence" that they follow the rule.  Well, there's no evidence that they don't either, so charity requires you give them the benefit of the doubt.  Also, part of the Benedictine rule is that it's permitted to be modified and adapted, based on the circuмstances.  No, it's not required that all Benedictine monks worldwide till the fields or construct buildings.  Brother Joseph in fact founded MHFM before V2 because he was going to establish a rule adapted to handicapped men.  It only transformed into a Traditionalist center after V2 started to ravage the Church.  Some Benedictine houses focused more on scholarship than on manual labor.  They finish this segment with claiming that MHFM have no "divine commission" to teach.  OK.  Do they have such a commission to blabber on Youtube, pretending to "teach people" (the opening host's words)?  "... where we teach and preach the truth handed down ...".  Who exactly appointed this clown a teacher and preacher, and a representative of the Church's Tradition?

Then the moron (self-appointed teacher and preacher) makes a fool of himself by asking "Are they ordained Brothers?  Do they claim to be ordained Brothers?" ... as if you have to be "ordained" to be a Brother.  Even the other guy tries to gently correct him.

So it starts out with all the baggage of Novus Ordo assumptions and a misunderstanding of the Benedictines.  Not going well already.

Perhaps I have been rash towards you.

Ok. So where do we begin? Maybe you can tell me your life story or how you came to Tradition. For myself, I was born Catholic, NO/OF, was an Altar boy in my youth (in the New Mass), for several years. About 15 years ago, I discovered Tradition through the SSPX. I go to the SSPX and like the Priests there, both for Confession and for Holy Mass, but I don't accept the false idea - so contrary to the Church's Indefectibility and even many original statements of Archbishop Lefebvre - that the NOM/OFM is supposedly a "Black Mass" or a Sacrilege. It is a heresy to say the Church can give evil, as even the sedes know. Are you a sede? If not, you can only say "The Church is not the Church" but that is denialism.

See this early statement from +ABL:"Should all the world’s churches be emptied? I do not feel brave enough to say such a thing. I don’t want to encourage atheism."[10]" https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass-30166 According to this statement of +ABL, hardline rad-trads are actually "encouraging atheism" by their rigorism. Also see what he said about going to the New Mass if you have no TLM within about a 40 km radius.

The most rigorist position is not always the correct one, otherwise we would all be Calvinists, Jansenists and Dimondites.

Nonetheless, we do not agree on fundamental matters of the Faith and the current crisis. I do not agree that the Indult is a reasonable position. The new rite of holy orders are highly doubtful, and the new rite of episcopal consecration is null and void. The New Mass is a sacrilege.

Answered above. And most of these are bare or gratuitous assertions that can be gratuitously denied.

I think that the Papacy at this time is a mystery. I cannot discern with 100% certainty what the correct answer to it is.

I'm just a Catholic.

However, with that being said, I think the Cassiciacuм
Thesis best explains what is currently going on in the Catholic Church today. If you're unfamiliar with it here is a link: https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/The_Little_Catechism_on_the_Thesis_Desposito_2022.pdf

Even still it isn't a perfect solution. It is only a way to help me wrap my mind around what it is I do by going outside the “official” structures of the Church. Holding fast to the True Faith is most important. I'm doing what I need to do to preserve and keep it.

Ok, so you're a sedeprivationist of some kind? I disagree, but I understand. I think sedeprivationism is misguided and wrong for many reasons, but one primarily (1) it separates Apostolic Succession from Apostolic Faith, (2) it claims the Apostolic Successors are in one place, but the actual faith in another. This is contrary to traditional Catholic ecclesiology.

If you find the Apostolic Successors, to Peter and the other Apostles, with Mission, you find the True Church with the Apostolic Faith - that is the traditional Catholic approach. And I can docuмent this with multiple sources if you want.

In all charity towards you, JJoseph, you should leave the indult and be an uncompromising Traditional Catholic.

That is your opinion. I do not agree. I am responsible for my own Salvation, and I feel safest in Indult/Diocesan TLMs.

You are intelligent. If you are looking for answers you have come to the right place.

Ok, thanks. You likewise. Let's see how things go. Let me respond to Ladislaus next.
[/quote]

Here's Pre-Vatican II Theology on this: https://stjosephschurch.net/traditionalists-infallibility-and-the-pope/

“The principle, set forth in classic dogmatic theology texts such as Salaverri, Zubizarreta, Herrmann, Schultes and Iragui (see Appendix 2), is explained as follows by Van Noort:
“The Church’s infallibility extends to….ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living….But the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above – and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls….
If the Church should make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer either be a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life. It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church commanded squared with sound doctrine. It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.[Dogmatic Theology. 2:91]"
Catholic Theologians have produced many Magisterial sources as Proof, including: (1) The Council of Trent (Sess 22, Can.7), (2) Pope Pius VI [Auctorum Fidei] and (3) Pope Pope Ven. Pius XII (Mystici Corporis Christi, p. 66) among other sources.
“the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,—false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.”

blah, blah, blah… blah, blah, blah… blah, blah, blah… blah, blah, blah… blah, blah, blah… 

To Hell with the Novus Ordo, its perverts, Anti-Popes, and the rest of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, including their agitprop apologists.