CathInfo.com

I am pleased that Terry Carroll posted here because now we can see more clearly just where he and Michael Voris stand on the true Mass.

Are you prepared to answer the question that was put to you, Mr Carroll, on whether you still hold to the opinion that SSPX Masses are equal to Black Masses?

Quote from: Iuvenalis

That's a pretty interesting opinion to hold while deciding to register and post here.

I decided to register and post here because you were engaging in discussions about Michael Voris and CMTV.  I, personally, don't care whether people like or loathe Michael Voris or CMTV, but I do care that judgments be grounded in facts and truth rather than conjecture.

And we are entitled to discuss it, and were. Some people expressed they didn't care for him, others did, some gave the benefit of the doubt. It was a spectrum. I gave him the benefit of the doubt while criticising his delivery. Welcome to the Internet.

I saw the question about why we don't criticize the post-conciliar Popes and I have answered that.  A question about why I, personally, posted something in a combox somewhere else should not be part of a discussion about Michael Voris or CMTV.

Well, it is.

However, the first line of the comment you quoted (note: *I* did not quote it) is germane to any discussion of Michael Voris and CMTV because it contains a link to the verbatim quote (minus links) of the response we (CMTV) send to those who ask our opinion regarding the SSPX. I will be happy to address THAT in this discussion thread should you care for further elaboration.

Address whatever you want, I asked you a question. You can answer it, or not.

Related to the relatively brief response on the SSPX is our "Sedevacantism: General Response" where we defend the importance of visible union with the visible Church.

So your 'response on the SSPX' is contained in a docuмent called 'Sedevacantism: General Response'?

So, the SSPX is 'sedevacantist' are they?

Note that I do not attend Society Masses, but I'm quite clear they are not Sedevacantists.

If by the term 'sedevacantist' you mean any group that is canonically irregular, then I would quote the great philosopher Inigo Montoya who said: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

If you've made up your mind to declare them as such on your own, this contradicts your blind obedience in all matters towards the Conciliar church. Not only is the status of the Society not a matter of Dogma, Faith and Morals (to Rome anyway), it is an administrative issue you should leave to the same bishops you perform theological gymnastics for. The Society is not, nor have they ever been, 'sedevacantist' and even Conciliar Rome recognizes this.

The crisis in the Church today is beyond description.  It's important that people know this.  It's not important to know what (sic, that?) they can do nothing about.  We maintain union with the Holy Father and encourage others to do the same.  We don't see any other alternative as either workable or consistent with Our Lord's promises to His Church. We seek to fraternally correct our brothers and sisters, which includes elder brothers and sisters in authority, but we are not leaving the family or attacking the head.

Does this help?

Dear Terry Carroll,

Maybe you and Michael Voris cannot see a way.

Certainly the way to deal with apostasy, heresy, etc is not to pretend it does not exist at the top as well as the lower levels. The lower levels of authority get away with it because it has been sanctioned by the highest authority.

Are you not protecting yourselves while claiming to protect those you see as unable to cope with reality? Is it not yourselves who cannot deal with reality? Folk usually are quite capable of developing their own defense mechanisms. We do it all the time. And we in the traditional movement observe it in our family members and friends.

We are absolutely aware of things that we choose not to report.  We (CMTV) were attacked during "The Assisi Events" for not criticizing them.  We know as well as anyone that those "Assisi Events" were capable of causing (and did cause) great scandal because, even if not intended, those events looked like "religious indifferentism on display."

In my opinion, in acting this way you are only destroying your own credibility.

We deliberately ignore "Uncle Billy"moments out of a desire to maintain as much unity as possible within the rather fractured Catholic family.

 

You cannot maintain "as much unity as possible". The Church is either One or it is not the Church. Sticking your heads (or others' heads) in the sand will do nothing at all for unity.