Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Banez123 on September 10, 2025, 05:14:02 AM
-
As someone who attends the FSSP regularly(but has experience with the SSPX and groups further to the right of the FSSP), i had some questions which might be good food for thought.
1. Given that there are prominent theologians within the mainstream (or "Conciliar") Church who oppose a more liberal interpretation of Vatican 2(Fr. Thomas Crean O.P, the priests of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer, Dr. Thomas Pink, etc), what keeps you from attending the FSSP or ICKSP? I know folks on here like to throw around the idea that the sacraments from FSSP/ICK might not be valid, but I've found that hard to swallow for a number of reasons. Fr. Marie O.P of Avrille (a Resistance Dominican) argued that the sacraments of the New Rite are valid. If one is a Sedevacantist I guess I can understand disregarding Fr. Marie's view, but even so rejecting the sacraments of the New Rite raises serious problems. (even if one does hold the Thesis ) I'm of the opinion that as with politics, one has to be a realist in theology(that is, we as Traditional Catholics must start with what we have, not with a desired outcome or resolution to the Crisis) The fact of the matter is that the vast number of priests, Bishops, and Cardinals today were ordained/consecrated under the New Rite. Let's say that tomorrow, the Pope(or Pope elect if one holds the Thesis) decides to restore the TLM and declares that Vatican 2 must be interpreted traditionally. Do you really think that thousands and thousands of priests and Bishops (and indeed, the Pope himself) would suddenly view their orders as invalid and seek re-ordination/consecration? (and if they did, who would we have to re-ordain/re-consecrate all these folks? The SSPX isn't going to do it as they accept Fr. Marie's position and see the NRO?NRC as valid. The Resistance clergy (of who Fr. Marie is one obviously ) aren't united on the question, and the Thuc clergy more than likely don't have valid orders (even according to the vast majority of Traditionalist non-Thuc clergy) All this to say that it seems much more prudent and reasonable to accept the NRO/NROC if oen wants to consider serious solutions to the Crisis.
2. What is the issue with interpreting Vatican 2 in the light of Tradition?(or in different ways) Again, one has to consider the reality. It's great to oppose religious liberty (I'm firmly of the belief that no one has an absolute right to deny the authority of the Church/Catholic teaching in a Catholic state, though the state may tolerate such attitudes out of concern for the common good) But consider- there are no Catholic states today and it does not seem that there will be any in the near future. Is it really worth separating oneself from the Pope and the Church over an inconsequential difference?(at least in our modern period) One could read Vatican 2 in the modern context as arguing that in SECULAR STATES(almost all developed countries today) one has the right to practice one's religion freely. I'd argue that's a reasonable reading given that V2(DH in particualr) was speaking to the modern world in a context where Communism threatened the Church and religion more generally.
The same can be said about ecuмenism. Many Trads will reject V2 on the grounds that it teaches that we worship the same God as Jews and Muslims. There is a sense in which that's true however. We all claim to worship the one God, and in the sense that Jews and Muslims are monotheists, we do worship the same God. However, they have not reached the fully correct understanding of God( that He is Trinity in Unity) In that sense we can say that we do not worship the same God- but the vast majority of even Novus Ordo priests I know would hold this position. With the exception of extremely liberal clergy who are very few in number, almost no one claims that our understanding of who God is is exactly the same as that of Jews and Muslims.
I'd highly recommend reading Dominus Jesus on these matters.
Fr. Pierre-Marie Berthe of the SSPX (who is one of their most learned priests) seems to argue that the rupture between Rome and +ABL was pastoral, not primarily over doctrine. This argument has a number of points in its favor, not the least of which is that whatever one wants to say, +ABL did sign all the docuмents of V2 as well as the 1988 declaration. If he was firmly of the opinion that V2 contained heresy, why did he do these things?
_______________________________________
Just my thoughts. I'd be interested in what people have to say.
-
As regards the Indult itself:
Fr. Wathen:
"People should know that attending the Indult Mass represents a very serious compromise of their faith. Before a bishop allows the Traditional Latin Mass in one of his Novus Ordo churches, according to papal direction, he exacts this commitment: Those to whom the Mass is made available must give a verbal acceptance to the Second Vatican Council and to the new mass. Whether they know it or not, everyone who attends the Indult Mass makes the same implicit commitment. In the days of the Rome persecutions, a Catholic could escape martyrdom if he would burn the tiniest pinch of incense before one of the countless Roman gods. The commitment which the pope and bishops require is that pinch of incense."
The reason the sacraments are always doubtful (not certainly always invalid), is because of the changes made to the Rite of Ordination:
Fr. Wathen:
"...the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful..."
"...We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)"
-
The same can be said about ecuмenism. Many Trads will reject V2 on the grounds that it teaches that we worship the same God as Jews and Muslims. There is a sense in which that's true however. We all claim to worship the one God, and in the sense that Jews and Muslims are monotheists, we do worship the same God. However, they have not reached the fully correct understanding of God( that He is Trinity in Unity) In that sense we can say that we do not worship the same God- but the vast majority of even Novus Ordo priests I know would hold this position. With the exception of extremely liberal clergy who are very few in number, almost no one claims that our understanding of who God is is exactly the same as that of Jews and Muslims.
I'd highly recommend reading Dominus Jesus on these matters.
Fr. Pierre-Marie Berthe of the SSPX (who is one of their most learned priests) seems to argue that the rupture between Rome and +ABL was pastoral, not primarily over doctrine. This argument has a number of points in its favor, not the least of which is that whatever one wants to say, +ABL did sign all the docuмents of V2 as well as the 1988 declaration. If he was firmly of the opinion that V2 contained heresy, why did he do these things?
_______________________________________
Just my thoughts. I'd be interested in what people have to say.
You either worship the Blessed Holy Trinity or you don't. The jews and muslims might be correct in the NUMBER of Gods being one, but their one god is the devil.
-
As regards the Indult itself:
Fr. Wathen:
"People should know that attending the Indult Mass represents a very serious compromise of their faith. Before a bishop allows the Traditional Latin Mass in one of his Novus Ordo churches, according to papal direction, he exacts this commitment: Those to whom the Mass is made available must give a verbal acceptance to the Second Vatican Council and to the new mass. Whether they know it or not, everyone who attends the Indult Mass makes the same implicit commitment. In the days of the Rome persecutions, a Catholic could escape martyrdom if he would burn the tiniest pinch of incense before one of the countless Roman gods. The commitment which the pope and bishops require is that pinch of incense."
The reason the sacraments are always doubtful (not certainly always invalid), is because of the changes made to the Rite of Ordination:
Fr. Wathen:
"...the very doubt which this change creates serves the malevolent purposes of the conspirators as well as does the certitude of invalidity, because from the doubt flows controversy, disagreements, factions, confusion, and disquietude among the clergy and the faithful..."
"...We should rather say, we have every reason to look for an effort at neuterizing this sacramental rite, because those in charge of the new rites have shown themselves untrustworthy, or, more accurately, determinedly subversive. The new form could not be an improvement on the old. How can one method or set of words ordain someone better than another? The alteration of the form can only have had the intention of either negating this purpose, or, at the very least, of creating a doubt as to its efficacy. (As if it needs to be said: They could not have added something to the form by taking words away. And what could they have wanted to add to the power of Orders? Why did they touch the form at all?)"
But again, what's wrong with accepting V2 as long as it's interpreted traditionally?(which it can be)
-
You either worship the Blessed Holy Trinity or you don't. The jews and muslims might be correct in the NUMBER of Gods being one, but their one god is the devil.
Give me a serious theologian who says such a thing.
-
But again, what's wrong with accepting V2 as long as it's interpreted traditionally?(which it can be)
V2 itself is anti-traditional, and the ambiguity of it's docuмents makes V2 purposely anti-traditional. IOW, it should not be possible to interpret it any other way, except traditionally.
A two or three minute read on the Second Vatican Council (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-second-vatican-council-51899/) sums it up.
-
Give me a serious theologian who says such a thing.
You can't be serious. Muslims worship the god Allah, whose prophet was Mohammad.
-
You can't be serious. Muslims worship the god Allah, whose prophet was Mohammad.
Do you know what Muslims believe about God?(his essence, his attributes, etc) Avicenna who was a prominent Muslim philosopher was extremely influential on St. Thomas.
If you want to know more about Islam, read primary source materials. Their view of the nature of God is very close to ours (with the exception of the difference over the Trinity)
-
Do you know what Muslims believe about God?(his essence, his attributes, etc) Avicenna who was a prominent Muslim philosopher was extremely influential on St. Thomas.
If you want to know more about Islam, read primary source materials. Their view of the nature of God is very close to ours (with the exception of the difference over the Trinity)
Why would any Catholic want to know more about false, even demonic religions? There is only one Lord, one faith and one baptism. V2 does not teach this.
-
But again, what's wrong with accepting V2 as long as it's interpreted traditionally?(which it can be)
Vatican 1 says we are to believe what the Church teaches as she was written them and not according to interpretation.
Give me a serious theologian who says such a thing.
There are plenty of Saints and Popes and councils who have condemned the abdominal sect of mohamhead. You can easily find the quotes, I dont have time now.
Also it's basic logic. They deny that God is 3 persons, so they deny God. They deny that Christ is God, so they deny God and deny Christ. They are anti-Christ as per scripture "whoever denies Christ is Antichrist".
-
Do you know what Muslims believe about God?(his essence, his attributes, etc) Avicenna who was a prominent Muslim philosopher was extremely influential on St. Thomas.
If you want to know more about Islam, read primary source materials. Their view of the nature of God is very close to ours (with the exception of the difference over the Trinity)
God the Father has a Son, Jesus Christ. If Muslims do not accept Christ as the Son of God, they do not worship the same god as us.
By the way, are you still a heretic?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/excellent-video-from-david-bentley-hart-which-shows-not-all-ecuмenism-is-bad/msg969628/#msg969628
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/excellent-video-from-david-bentley-hart-which-shows-not-all-ecuмenism-is-bad/msg969628/#msg969628)
Hell does exist, and those who die having committed grave sins will spend time there. However, whether it is eternal or ultimately comes to an end is a serious question.
-
God the Father has a Son, Jesus Christ. If Muslims do not accept Christ as the Son of God, they do not worship the same god as us.
By the way, are you still a heretic?
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/excellent-video-from-david-bentley-hart-which-shows-not-all-ecuмenism-is-bad/msg969628/#msg969628
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/excellent-video-from-david-bentley-hart-which-shows-not-all-ecuмenism-is-bad/msg969628/#msg969628)
This guy is clearly a troll or a modernist heretic. Either way he is a poor soul, let's pray for his repentance. :pray:
-
This guy is clearly a troll or a modernist heretic. Either way he is a poor soul, let's pray for his repentance. :pray:
I was just about to post the same thing.
-
But again, what's wrong with accepting V2 as long as it's interpreted traditionally?(which it can be)
.
A Catholic's duty is to interpret the solemn texts according to the Church's own understanding of those texts. The Church's own understanding of Vatican 2--under the hypothesis that the Novus Ordo Hierarchy is the Catholic Church's hierarchy-- is the liberal interpretation.
See the problem?
-
Give me a serious theologian who says such a thing.
Seriously ... ?
https://endtimes.video/pope-pius-ii-destroys-muslims-christian-worship/
https://endtimes.video/muslims-christians-worship-st-vincent-ferrer/
As per the teachings of these popes and saints, etc. ... no, the Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God as Christians / Catholics.
Here's the logical sleight of hand. So, the Muslims and Jews worship a God that shares SOME attributes with the Catholic and Christian God, but that does not make them the same in all attributes, and all the essential attributes.
Someone comes by and says, "Yes, I believe in dogs, these furry little animals."
Does he believe in dogs? You'd say "Yes" and so does Vatican II.
But dos he actually?
Then he says, "These dogs are 10 feet fall and have serpentine necks that stretch longer than the rest of their bodies, etc."
NOW, does he believe in dogs? No. That which he calls a dog is not the reality of dog, but something else he saw or imagined, so no, in fact, he does not believe in a dog, not what a dog objectively is.
This dovetails with Vatican II subjectivism, where as long as you say or think you believe in something, then you do believe, since it'st he subjective intention that counts, whether or not it corresponds with objective reality. This guy's experience of "dog" is just different than mine, and, who knows?, maybe he has a point there and knows some things I don't. That's in fact the entirety of the Vatican II theological [sic] system in a nutshell, where subjective knowledge is true, true for you, whether or not it actually coincides with objective truth.
-
...
Many Trads will reject V2 on the grounds that it teaches that we worship the same God as Jews and Muslims. There is a sense in which that's true however. We all claim to worship the one God, and in the sense that Jews and Muslims are monotheists, we do worship the same God. However, they have not reached the fully correct understanding of God( that He is Trinity in Unity) In that sense we can say that we do not worship the same God- but the vast majority of even Novus Ordo priests I know would hold this position. With the exception of extremely liberal clergy who are very few in number, almost no one claims that our understanding of who God is is exactly the same as that of Jews and Muslims.
...
Banez, Jesus already explained that those who reject Him (Jesus) do not worship God, the Father. Rather, they worship Satan:
See John 8:41-44.
They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=8&l=42-#x)Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=8&l=43-#x)Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=8&l=44-#x)You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
Therefore, the Jews already tried that "same God" trick 2000 years ago, and Jesus explained the Truth of the matter.
Nostra Aetate introduces the same error. And only the "Trads" are not fooled by it. The False Prophets of the Counterfeit Church fall all over themselves erasing the differences between Catholics and the Jews.
They hold prayer meetings and Seder meals (https://stmonica.net/component/flexicontent/56-event-archives/1399-seder-dinner) with Rabbis.
They also hold Ramadan dinners with Muslims, giving the impression that our religious differences don't really matter.
This is Freemasonic indifferentism. And it is the key to understanding the End Times apostasy. The people still call themselves Catholics but the concept has been emptied of its substance. Just like the Jews who Jesus was talking to, the false Catholics don't follow the actual words of Jesus. They are nicer and more enlightened and more diplomatic. They think they improve upon the example of Jesus.
And no one is being forced to go along with this apostasy. Those who call themselves Catholics freely choose it because they care more about human respect than respect for Jesus Christ.
-
What is the issue with interpreting Vatican 2 in the light of Tradition?(or in different ways)
"Woe to those who call evil good"
Just call it what it is.
-
.
A Catholic's duty is to interpret the solemn texts according to the Church's own understanding of those texts. The Church's own understanding of Vatican 2--under the hypothesis that the Novus Ordo Hierarchy is the Catholic Church's hierarchy-- is the liberal interpretation.
See the problem?
Precisely. Who's "the Church"? V2 papal claimants have clearly explained their interpretation of the V2 teachings, and it's not the same that the Trads have.
Of course, there are things that are simply irreconcilable, and the entire theologicla framework is not Catholic.
V2 needs to be scrapped completely.
-
Catholics do not "interpret" the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches clearly. Catholics believe what is taught. Vatican II is not Catholic doctrine. Catholics do not say I must somehow "interpret" this to make it Catholic. No, they say I do not believe this and reject it.
-
But again, what's wrong with accepting V2 as long as it's interpreted traditionally?(which it can be)
Simple answer:
Because the de-sacralized new Mass was promulgated by a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, lying & murdering jew.
(https://i.imgur.com/NPKlXIS.jpeg)