The famous MikeO said:

If you believe with utter intellectual sincerity that a "new religion" has been created post-1965 which seeks to systematically eradicate genuine Catholicism, it would be helpful to provide some fairly strong evidence to corrobate as much.

Perhaps your statement was merely rhetorical flourish, but it remains difficult at times to tell. Other self-named traditionalists (Fr. Moderator, the Dimonds, Cekada, and perhaps Drolesky come to mind) formally refer to "Newchurch" and "Newpope" as though the last vestige of Catholic Faith has been utterly excised from the Church. Such an assertion clashes dangerously (if not unquestionably) with the Church's indefectibility.


To which I replied:

Intellectual sincerity? To God alone be the glory, I only have one setting: sincerity.

A case could be made that a new religion was desired: we have a new Mass, a new priesthood (president, friendly guy, facilitator vs. offerer of Sacrifice), new Sacraments, a new language, a new Pentecost (Vatican II vs. the real Pentecost), new philosophy (subjectivism and idealism to replace St. Thomas and Scholasticism), new devotions, new outlook on the world, new outlook on other religions, new outlook on Freemasons/Jєωs/Communists, new architecture, new emphasis on Scripture, new kind of praying (ad-libbed prayers vs. memorized/set vocal prayers), new attitude toward sin (we must LOVE the sinner, not correct him!), and so forth.

So much was made "new" that there was nothing old left -- except what they were unable to get to.

I don't agree with the Sedes that the Catholic Church is only found where the TLM is said -- that's not true. But the Faith is being lost, slowly but surely, in the Novus Ordo branch of the Catholic Church. Some people are holding on somehow (by God's grace) but ignorance is at record levels, and morals are falling lower every day.

God bless,

Matthew

...But the Faith is being lost, slowly but surely, in the Novus Ordo branch of the Catholic Church...

Are you espousing some form of the famous (and condemned) 'Branch Theory' here, Matthew?  Is She ONE or not?

He may have, as I take him to be a solid, thinking man, and a solid Catholic.  Most of us do not use particular words by mistake, although we do sometimes use them without realizing their import.

Well, I know that the Church right now is in a very confused state. You have liberals, neoconservatives, conservatives, and traditionalists, but she is always directed toward heaven and always goes against the current of the world. Sadly though, many Catholics seem to want to equate or synthesize the Catholic faith and the spirit of the world, which cannot be done at all without compromising the Catholic faith and spiritually harming the faithful.  

Visible = to be seen

Your Church cannot be seen unless you have specialized knowledge of theologians opinions which never carry to the level sedes bring them to.

When I met Bishop Veselis (a sede bishop) he flat out told me that the only way he could understand there to be another pope is for Christ to come down and elect one in a miraculous event. Can you tell me how you see it?  

Without getting into quoting ad nauseum from authors please explain on a practical level where the Church is. If you want a commentary on the visibility as a mark of the Church read Rev. Berry's "The Church of Christ" published in the 30's.

The sede version of the Church is unthinkable to any Catholic theologian. It is the branch theory re-packaged.

Since you hijacked the thread, like every thread that pertains to something else into sede-world it's on you to show me what theologians believed in your version of a visible Church that is a city set on a hill.

I really don't want to debate with you. You already have shown how you hijack threads, project Veselis's views with ad hominem attacks with sodomy (as if I don't know sede priests who aren't sodomites) as your catalyst.

This is a common theme among sedes... hijack other people's statements and tell the world why every word and act is not according to your vision, promote your ideals as if there is no tomorrow, and act rude to other people (not to me, but previously). That may be ad hominem, but it's certainly true in every sede camp I've ever seen in regards to how they promote their ideas. I just don't have time to waste on your myopic, diabolic campaign.