Poche, what’s worse - your reading comprehension or your lukewarm catholic principles?  You cannot serve both God (True Mass) and mammon (V2’s new mass).  Be a man.  Take a stand.

Sad to say that poche is CI's shining example - and should be used as such - as to what happens to those who go to the NO. Use him as our example as to what happens to those who attend the NO, hence why we must never attend it for any reason whatsoever lest we too become infected with the same liberalism and lose our faith without even knowing it. 




 

I don't buy it.  I don't think an intelligent person would argue as badly as him, no matter what position they held to.  And I don't think a stupid person would argue much better than him, regardless of what position they held to.  I've seen Feeneyites who argue as poorly as he does, but of course I wouldn't castigate Fr. Feeney or someone like Ladislaus who obviously went to seminary and is obviously intelligent, even though I disagree with him, just on that ground.

I suspect, though I could be wrong, increasingly, that Poche is just simple minded and he does have the faith.

I do not think he is stupid at all, what he is, is he is simply NO. It is NO liberalism, false love and false ecuмenism that comes out in his posts - which identifies him as a NOer, because those things are among the traits of and uniquely typical of devotees of the NO. They are not traits of all NOers, but they are traits of NOers who take their conciliar religion seriously.

   

He lacks very rudimentary logic.

He does when he wants to seem pious, and he answers a logical question with sentimentalism, or dodges it altogether.

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but I've never really seen him reason properly.  If I wanted to argue that people should attend NO masses in the absenece of a TLM option, I could do so far more reasonably than he could.  Not to say I'd be right, but I could do so in a way that at least makes logical sense given the premises.  Poche's argument literally doesn't follow from his premises at all.  Neither Bishop Williamson nor Fr. Pfeifer would even claim juridical authority over souls anyways.

What you are not accepting is that his reasoning is derived from his conciliar faith. You (and the rest of us on CI ?), correctly see that his reasoning is improper, but you are not connecting where he gets his reasoning from, which is his conciliar faith, which is drenched and permeated in Modernism, more specifically, Liberalism. These are the traits he reasons with, the same as all avid NOers, which is why you will rarely ever see him reason properly.

Which is why I said that he serves as a shining example as to why we must always stay away from the NO, lest we too become infected with the same liberal thinking. 
 

He has in the past, with surprising coherence.  It surprised us all.  So either 1) Poche hides behind his fake-pious-sentimentalism to spread disorder and confusion (let's not forget that he's been kicked off other sites), or 2) there are multiple people behind his account (which would explain a lot), or 3) both.

That's a favourite of everyone in the NO. You'll see priests and bishops doing it 24/7, and there's not a single sentence that Francis has ever uttered that wasn't "fake-pious-sentimentalism". It's a convenient way of dodging a question. 

Well, I've asked poche repeatedly to state his principles, i.e. explain where he goes to Mass and why he hangs out on a Traditional Catholic forum.

90% of his activity is justifying even the most outrageous misbehavior of the V2 papal claimants., but the arguments are often disingenuous if not mendacious, and so it makes me question his sincerity.

Has anyone ever wondered if the reason Poche has never been banned but people have been banned for complaining about Poche even though he is very unpopular is because Poche is really Matthew and that Poche's views are Matthew's real views and his main account is a psy-op and this forum is set up for nefarious purposes.

I don't believe it but it would be funny if it were true.

Sad to say that poche is CI's shining example - and should be used as such - as to what happens to those who go to the NO. Use him as our example as to what happens to those who attend the NO, hence why we must never attend it for any reason whatsoever lest we too become infected with the same liberalism and lose our faith without even knowing it.  




 

Can't agree more with my brother Stubborn.

I have a friend who converted to the "N.O. Church" many years ago and only recently -- within the last 18 months or less -- discovered Tradition.  I have begged her to stop reverting to the N.O.M. whenever locating a TLM doesn't suit her schedule. (I'm talking more about weekday Masses, even, when there's no requirement to attend Mass at all.)  She lives in a state of confusion -- although in some ways I think it's far worse to go in and out like that than to stick with either one or the other.  The reason for the confusion is obvious to us, not to her, so I explained that once she starts exclusively attending the TLM, she will lose any sense of equivalency between the two, and her theological sensibilities will re-align, as will her spirituality.
Face it:  these are two different religions.  I was going to add "practically," but when you consider that "formally" really refers to the inherent structure and defining intellectual concepts of a body of beliefs, then it is more than just practically that New Church differs from Tradition.  Practically and formally, there are two different sets of beliefs and practices.  Practically and formally, New Church is not the Church of Tradition, not the Church Continuous, not the Church One, not the Church recognizably and objectively Catholic.  It's just that those differences have not been announced formally.  They exist formally, but without formal acknowledgement.

Regarding the question in the OP, I don't think it's a mortal sin simply to attend.  However, it could be a venial sin against the First and Third Commandments if you know in your heart that attending at least does not benefit you spiritually in the way that an available TLM does, but the TLM time or location is inconvenient.  In any case, it is a foolish idea.  I used to attend if I had no other choice.  I won't do that now because it harms my soul and scandalizes me. It is much more fruitful for me to follow interiorly a streamed TLM, to read spiritual material, listen to traditional sermons, pray (of course!), and engage in the spiritual and corporal works of mercy on Sunday if I truly have no other choice.  I recognize that all of those practices do not equal attendance at the Traditional Mass, and so I'm conscious of grieving that loss when I believe I have no other choice, but it is still, for me, a better choice than going to a N.O.M. and not being able to avoid seeing people engage in people-watching, attention-getting, Protestant behavior, and other forms of irreverence.  It's sacrilegious to me.

The wrong question is being asked.
We should not ask "is this a mortal sin?" Something may be venial sin. Then we cannot do it.
We should ask "Is this what God wants me to do?"
Does God want me to go to this NO mass?  
In my opinion, and it is only an opinion, the answer is no. God would not want me to go to this NO Mass.
The NO Mass is not a sacrifice giving honour to God. It is a community meal where we sit down with Jesus Christ as an equal and enjoy ourselves.
God doesn't want me attending such a meal.
To say such attendance is a mortal sin depends on too many circuмstances to make a general rule. Three things are required for mortal sin, grave matter, awareness of the gravity of the matter and full consent. If these are all there it is a mortal sin. But let us say they are not all there and it is not a mortal sin. Does that mean God wants me to go to the NO Mass? I think not.

I agree. We should always ask ourselves, "Is this what God wants me to do?"