Please do not listen to the calumnies and rumors spread by clearly bad willed individuals.

Slander is a sure sign of reprobate souls.

So you are a traditionalist then. That's good.

I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.  

I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.  

That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: MyrnaM

I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.  

That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".

You are correct in the sense that she believes the pope to be a true pope, but so do the SSPX people; are they also "Novus Ordo"?  I didn't think so, but what is an accurate definition of "Novus Ordoism" here on this forum?  Honest question here.  

All I know is that St Benedict Center is part of the Novus Ordo Church, approved by their local diocese.  And it appeared to me that she was singing their praises in the thread I linked earlier.  In that thread others made comments re: Novus Ordo Feeneyites and she did not say that this was an incorrect description.  Even here she does not say this is not true, but rather shifts focus onto the so-called "bad willed" posters with "reprobate souls".

I am most certainly willing to admit I am wrong if I am wrong.

If Cantarella says that she doesn't attend the Novus Ordo, I'll take her word for it.

The only reason I thought otherwise is that she never answers the question.  She's been asked before and always avoids answering.  She is fond of the Novus Ordo SBC, and talks about traditionalists having dubious holy orders and has also expressed a not-so-subtle anxiety about being in schism with Francis.

Combine all the above behaviors with someone who will never unequivocally answer the question "do you attend the N.O./do you exclusively attend the TLM?" and it's hardly a stretch of the imagination for one to be left with the impression that the person fitting this description is a Novus Ordite (even if a conservative one).  That is miles away from calumny.  Besides, calumny is stating something one knows is false about another-- nothing was really stated, and what was said was essentially in question form, due to the elusiveness of Cantarella on this issue.

The Saint Benedict Center is an orthodox traditional organization. They celebrate the traditional Latin Mass exclusively. They oppose interfaith. They work tirelessly to instruct the ignorant on the important Catholic Dogma, EENS. In their bookstore they only sell pre Vatican 2 Catechisms and the Douay Rheims Bible. They even sell The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita in their store. I have bought pamphlets from the Saint Benedict Center and they sent me some of their newspapers for free which I found very edifying. They have written beautiful poetry and seem to include a prayer for the conversion of America in every paper, which is wonderful.

If the SBC is doing the Lord's work, makes the SSPX Resistance seem pretty vain, don't you think?

Quote from: MyrnaM

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: MyrnaM

I don't usually agree with Cantarella about BOD, however judging by her PM's to me, I can vouch for her that she is a Traditionalist, not attending the Novus Ordo.  

That's not the only way one can be "Novus Ordo".

You are correct in the sense that she believes the pope to be a true pope, but so do the SSPX people; are they also "Novus Ordo"?  I didn't think so, but what is an accurate definition of "Novus Ordoism" here on this forum?  Honest question here.  

Myrna,

There are some here that believe that if one is not a sedevacantist then one automatically is a Novus Ordo who will burn eternally in Hell.

For those wounded souls that believe this lunacy, let me remind you that the second way of becoming a schismatic (therefore, outside of the Church, unable to acquire salvation) is to refuse communion with other Catholics.

 

Sneaky keeps attacking me as if I were an R&Rer.  I am not.  I agree that most of the sedevacantist arguments against R&R are quite valid.

Very well.

I am of the opinion that the Holy See is most likely vacant at this time.

But here's the catch.  It's a very crucial distinction.  You might argue that it's semantics, but it's not.  It makes all the difference in the world.

I adopt a posture of humility.  I concede that I might be wrong about this, admit that I arrived at my conclusions based on my private judgment, and defer to the judgment of the Holy Catholic Church on the subject, because only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not.  This makes all the difference in the world because Catholics CANNOT go around determining papal legitimacy based on private judgment.

What about not going to the New Mass? What about being separated from the Novus Ordo? What about rejecting Vatican 2? What about not engaging in dialogue, ecuмenism?

Convenient! Where is your humility in rejecting all of that?

Where is your humility in rejecting bod/bob and EENS?

"only the Catholic Church can decide who is pope and who is not", but YOU get to decide everything else???

 :dancing-banana:

Papal legitimacy is something that must be known with the certainty of faith, and that can NEVER happen when it's rooted in private judgment.

Show me 1 thing saying that this means determining whether a Papal pretender is a manifest/public heretic falls under the same level of certainty.

In my Pius IX infallibility example, the logical conclusion of sedevacantism proper is to say that it's OK to Pope-Sift, i.e. to reject the teaching of a Pius IX due to allegations of illegitimacy.

You mock and insult all the Popes that have lived.

THEY WERE ALL CATHOLICS. They all belonged to the Catholic religion and defended it.

These v-2 monkeys are a joke. Even non-Catholics know they are bogus. They are even worse than Luther!

You should be ashamed of yourself, comparing true and valid Popes with these v-2 antichrists.

No, the legitimacy must be known with the certainty of faith a priori to the dogmatic definition.  Based on that certainty of faith, then, I must accept the dogmatic teaching regarding papal infallibility and change my mind on the subject.

What in the world are you doing being a traditionalist then.

Heed your own advice, "change your mind" about V-2, gobble it all up, start going to your local parish and get on with the program.

Or admit that you refute yourself, you have no idea what you're saying, and that SV is the only answer.

There were several catechisms out there before Vatican I that rejected the idea of papal infallibility. After Vatican I, however, these were all changed and a lot of critics of the idea humbly accepted the teaching of the Church.

Evidence please.

Then there were the Old Catholics, who considered papal infallibility to be a heretical novelty.  Sedevacantism would vindicate their stance.

There will come a day when you will not be able to get away with saying things like this.

You might as well say SV would vindicate any heretic in history.

The fact that you do indeed say that just shows again how you are just plain bad willed and dishonest because you know that is false.