Author Topic: Possibly the worst topic ever created at CAF (Read 14047 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2011, 10:02:09 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I remember JReducation. He is one of the most modernist people in the religious life I have ever seen. He never got nasty like some of the other modernists there and that's good that he kept it clean, but he didn't know the first thing about Tradition. If I remember correctly he said he wasn't even willing to fully rule out the "possibility" that Archbishop LeFebvre was not in Heaven (he was basically implying ABL was a heretic).

Only believing Catholics go to Hell. That is what conciliarists would have people believe.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2011, 10:12:47 AM »

Straight from CAF Q&A , supporting my definition of "illicit":

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Mass/page8

Quote

Masses are not valid or invalid, they are licit (in conformity with the law) or illicit (not in conformity with the law). It is the consecration of the Eucharist within the Mass that can be valid or invalid.

Whether a crucifix is present at the altar has no bearing on whether the Eucharist is valid or invalid (the absence of a crucifix will not cause the Eucharist to be invalid), but it does have a bearing on whether the Mass is licit or illicit.

The law requires that "There is to be a cross, clearly visible to the congregation, either on the altar or near it" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal [GIRM] 270). The revised General Instruction—which has not yet gone into effect—clarifies that the cross in question should have a corpus (representation of Christ’s body), meaning that it should be a crucifix rather than a bare cross.

If there were no cross by on or near the altar (or, once the new GIRM goes into effect, no crucifix) then the Mass would be illicit, or not celebrated in accord with the requirements of the law.

However, a Mass celebrated in this manner would still have a valid consecration of the Eucharist. Furthermore, it would still fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2011, 10:18:13 AM »

If a NO is not in conformity with liturgical law it is "illicit", just as they say SSPX Masses are "illicit". Therefore how can they criticize Catholics who go to "illicit" Society Masses when 90% of all NO Masses are "illicit" due to aberrations in following the NO rubrics?

"Licitness" does not affect the Mass fulfilling one's Sunday obligation anyway, according to Catholic Answers themselves!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2011, 10:32:11 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

You heard people saying stuff like that long before Modernism. That's just relativism, weak faith, humanism, whatever you want to call it.

You can't hold it agains the website that someone comes on and is a relativist. But the scary thing is that only one person on the entire first page took him to task and corrected him.

I think it is modernism because he claims to have the Faith while rejecting the essentials of the Faith.

"Does that mean I don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches? No"

LM · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2011, 11:52:45 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

I was suspended yet again on CAF.

I wrote:

Quote
If you've ever attended a NO Mass where the priest said one word wrong or got one rubric wrong you've attended an "illicit" Mass. If you regularly attend a Mass where Eucharistic Ministers are used but are not absolutely needed, you are attending an "illicit" Mass.

Catholic Answers Moderator then sent me a private message stating:

Quote

You have received an infraction at Catholic Answers Forums.

Reason: Continuous violoation of rules, despite many infractions
-------
Your statement is incorrect, to begin with.

Second, it violates the forum rules that say you may not pit one form of the mass against the other.

Third, you have violated the rules too many times and you continue to do so.

Therefore, your account is suspended for one month. You cannot be on these fora and violate rules at a rate of one a month. If you want to participate on Catholic Answers, you must comply with our rules.

The previous "violations" were just as ridiculous.

I'm not sure how he could make the claim I'm pitting one form of the Mass against the other with a straight face.

I'm going to appeal. I expect nothing, but I'll at least make the case to a third party that this is nuts, even by Neo-Cath standards.

Stevus, what do you expect from the "mod", certainly not integrity. He is just doing his "duty" being "faithful" to CA's party line. All anyone has to do is read CA's Liturgy and Sacraments forum, to know that illicit NOs abound. But of course, some reason(s) had to be made up for the suspension.