Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ServusSpiritusSancti on June 23, 2011, 09:48:10 AM
-
This is a great web-page on how the Catholic Church was infiltrated by Freemasons. It also proves that Paul VI and apparently John XXIII were both Freemasons (although John XXIII supposedly repented on his death-bed). Here's some quotes from masons and some of the VII Popes:
"Now then, to assure ourselves a Pope of the required dimensions, it is a question first of shaping for this Pope a generation worthy of the reign we are dreaming of [by saturating society with liberalism/free opinion/vice] Leave old people and those of a mature age aside; go to the youth, and if it is possible, even to the children... You will contrive for yourselves, at little cost, a reputation as good Catholics and pure patriots! This reputation will put access to our doctrines into the midst of the young clergy, as well as deeply into the monasteries. In a few years, by the force of things, this young clergy will have overrun all the functions; they will form the sovereign's council, they will be called to choose a Pontiff who should reign. And this Pontiff will be... imbued with the revolutionary principles that we are going to begin to put into circulation." "..let the clergy march under your standard, always believing that they are marching under the banner of the Apostolic keys." (Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. - J. Venarri) (pages 6 -10)
Now read these quotes. Pay close attention to the quote from Paul VI at the United Nations!
* John XXIII in opening Vatican II: "The prophets of doom always talk as though the present in comparison to the past is becoming worse and worse. But I see mankind as entering upon a NEW ORDER, and perceive in this a Divine plan."
(Note: the United Nations was established by the Masons in 1943 to be the seat their 'World Government' (Piers Compton, 'The Broken Cross' p. 64)
* Paul VI told the U.N. assembly in New York, Mar. 6, '67: "Your vocation is to bring not just some people, but all people together as brothers. [ ! ] Who can fail to see the need and importance of thus gradually coming to the establishment of a 'world authority' capable of taking effective action on the juridical and political plane. Delegates to international organization, public officials, gentlemen of the press, teachers and educators, all of you, must realize that you have your part to play in the construction of a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr."
(video "Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church" - Dr. James Wardner)
* John Paul II speaking of the crisis in Iraq said on Dec. 20, '98: "To everyone I make a heartfelt appeal that human solidarity and respect for the International Order will prevail." (The Wanderer, Jan. 14, '99)
* John XXIII: "I see no reason why a Christian could not vote for a Marxist if he finds the latter to be more fit to follow such a political line and historical destiny." (Fr. J. Arriaga, ‘The New Montinian Church', p.570)
* Paul VI: "The Church has proclaimed herself so to speak, to be the servant of humanity... everything at the council was directed to the service of MAN." (Fr. Noel Barbara, 'Fortes in Fide', p.5)
* John Paul II: "Nothing [not even God?] surpasses the greatness or dignity of the human person... human life is the concrete reality of being capable of loving and serving humanity." (C.C.C. of America, tape #3)
* John Paul II: "O Man, O Woman, I love you with my whole heart, with my whole soul, and with my whole mind, because you are great in your dignity as Man or Woman, great in your value, and in your 'transcendence'."[!!]
(addressing U.N.E.S.C.O., June 2, 1980; from video 'Has Rome Become the Seat of the Anti-Christ'
-
Here's the link to the complete site. The site is apparently sede so I don't agree with everything they say but most of what they say is true.
http://www.whoistheantichrist.org/partone.html
-
To be honest I haven't read your link yet, but can imagine what it says. . . I will read it but right now I am in the middle of steam cleaning my carpets, not that you needed to know that. Just taking a tiny break.
I did want to answer your question, which is why I am posting.
What has happened to the Catholic Church?
It became much, much smaller in numbers, and the shepherd has been struck, so the sheep have scattered.
-
MyrnaM,
Do you believe that the Trad bishops are the successors of the apostles in our day?
I can't answer for Myrna, but the validity of the New Rites of Ordination of priests and Consecration of bishops has been credibly questioned and, if the arguments (that absolutely no one--not even the SSPX--has adequately refuted) are valid, then there are exceedingly few true bishops or priests left in the conciliar church.
It's not that the traditional bsihops are the successors to the Apostles in our day, they may be the only true successors to the Apostles in our day other than Eastern Rite bishops--if they have not also perverted their Orders.
-
Do you believe that the Trad bishops are the successors of the apostles in our day?
May I ask which position do you have regarding this question?
I guess home aloners and some who hold that we cannot consecrate Bishops without Apostolic Mandate like John Daly claim that the episcopal mission as formal element of apostolicity needs to come from the Holy See.
While it is true that the traditionalist Bishops cannot claim a Sessio which truly can only come forth from its own principal, the Prima Sedes.
But the Missio is in its structure of Divine origin (see also Matthew 28,18ff): "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops" (Acts 20,28). Through the Holy Ghost, not the Bishop of Rome. The absoluteness of the Missio, essential for the episcopacy sub ratione ordinis, follows with it.
But the Sessio can indeed not be without the Missio, since the reason for the existence of the Sessio is the better realization of the Missio.
-
I am just an average layperson trying to save my soul, I am not a theologian by far, and have no interest in becoming a canon lawyer.
The way I see it, if you can imagine a white piece of paper intact, which would represent the Catholic Church. Tear off a corner and you have the Protestant Luther and his followers falling away, tear off a little here and a little there which would represent other off shots with roots in the Catholic Church but leaving to find a new religion.
Now with Vatican II, most of the paper is torn away with only a little corner left. The little corner represents what is left of the Catholic Church, now known as the traditionalist. Since the majority has now left, the laws in place that was for the good of the faithful are no longer useful.
The Church must continue with the Holy Ghost as our head because it is not the will of God, the Church wither and die.
-
Explain!
-
Hermenegild, it sounds to me like you think that little corner is smaller than it actually is. I'm partly basing my conclusion off one of your previous posts where you implied you were a home-aloner and the SSPX is not the solution to the crisis. Is that your viewpoint?
-
Not sure how the other sede groups were organized after the apostasy. When I prayed to God for 5 years to show me the Church, He showed me CMRI in 1982.
<<<In 1969, Daniel Quilter Brown received Episcopal consecration as an “Old Roman Catholic” bishop. Bishop Brown had been born and raised a Catholic, but became disenchanted with the reforms of Vatican II and had chosen to become an Old Roman Catholic bishop in order to perpetuate valid Episcopal orders; realizing that the Old Roman Catholics, unlike the modern post-Conciliar Catholic Church, had not yet fallen into heresy and thus still retained valid Orders.
Despite the fact that Bishop Brown obtained his consecration in the Old Roman Catholic Church (a schismatic church), he and his followers called themselves Roman Catholics and refused to use the title of “Old Roman Catholic.” Shortly after his consecration, he broke all ties and communications with the Old Roman Catholics.
Bishop Brown soon became acquainted with Brother Francis and tried to persuade him a accept ordination from him, because “in view of the fact that we cannot exist for long as Catholics without the sacraments, I would propose to ordain to the priesthood a qualified member of your group (from the information I have, this would probably be yourself)...”
Later he proposed to consecrate Brother Francis to the episcopacy in addition to ordaining him to the priesthood.
Brother Francis sought the advise of some traditional Catholic priests, most notably Fr. Burton Fraser, S.J., about Bishop Brown's proposal. He was told that under the grave circuмstances that currently existed, that it was well within Catholic law and principles to accept consecration. Although the Catholic Church acknowledges the validity of Old Catholics orders, Brother Francis was unwilling to receive orders from Bishop Brown because of the schismatic origins of his consecration.
In the meantime, Bishop Brown openly repented of having received consecration from the Old Roman Catholics, broke all ties with them, made a public “Abjuration of Error and Profession of Faith,” confessed his sins and received absolution from a traditional priest. It was only after these events that Brother Francis agreed to receive consecration from Bishop Brown:>>>>
If you can't accept this then find another avenue for the sacraments, as for myself, I am very happy with CMRI, because they seem to be the most charitable of all other traditional groups. Charitable in that they do not sound off why we should beware of this group or that group. I have never heard them speak unkindly of SSPX et al. They pray for unity, and above all God has blessed them with His ever flowing grace.
Not to say we have not had our share of scandals nor problems, but the fact that with each scandal, CMRI has received and abundance of blessings and growth.
So unless you are trying to convince yourself about CMRI, don't bother to post negatively for my benefit.
I answered your question but you never really did explain much about my question to you, as a better explanation of your point above on this thread.
-
Can you really go from being a lay person to a bishop? I was under the impression you had to be ordained a priest first, unless that article cut that part out.
-
He was ordained priest first, anyway that is water under the bridge since the present Bishop has little connection with this incident. I just mentioned it because the question was brought up by Hermen......
If you want to know about our current Bishop Pivarunas see this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pivarunas
With the exception of an opinion on the link<<<<thus he is not in communion with the Holy See nor is he recognised as a bishop by the Roman Catholic Church. He can therefore be classed as a member of the Independent Catholic movement>>>>
Words like "Holy See" and "the Roman Catholic Church" today need to be defined for today during the crisis.
I say, not a Catholic movement, but part of the remnant Roman Catholic Church.
-
Can you really go from being a lay person to a bishop? I was under the impression you had to be ordained a priest first, unless that article cut that part out.
Yes SS- If you remember, in defending +Lefebvre, if his ordination by Cardinal Leinart was invalid, his consecration by Leinart and, more importantly, the two supporting bishops would have his consecration valid as the minor orders are included in the major... So in this case, it would also be possible to elevate Brown to episcopate. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.
-
Yes SS- If you remember, in defending +Lefebvre, if his ordination by Cardinal Leinart was invalid, his consecration by Leinart and, more importantly, the two supporting bishops would have his consecration valid as the minor orders are included in the major... So in this case, it would also be possible to elevate Brown to episcopate. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.
The Episcopacy is traditionally regarded rather as an extension of the Priesthood (the rubrics clearly say that it is a priest who is getting consecrated) - you certainly remember the Tridentine and Scholastic definition regarding the number of Holy Orders: Seven.
Modern theologians tend to see the Episcopacy as a distinct Order, but be that as it may, we cannot confect doubtful sacraments. A prior ordination to the Priesthood is therefore certainly necessary.
-
The Episcopacy is traditionally regarded rather as an extension of the Priesthood (the rubrics clearly say that it is a priest who is getting consecrated) - you certainly remember the Tridentine and Scholastic definition regarding the number of Holy Orders: Seven.
Modern theologians tend to see the Episcopacy as a distinct Order, but be that as it may, we cannot confect doubtful sacraments. A prior ordination to the Priesthood is therefore certainly necessary.
How then do we explain Christ in his consecration of the Apostles without a formal elevation to the priesthood first?
-
He was ordained priest first, anyway that is water under the bridge since the present Bishop has little connection with this incident. I just mentioned it because the question was brought up by Hermen......
If you want to know about our current Bishop Pivarunas see this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pivarunas
With the exception of an opinion on the link<<<<thus he is not in communion with the Holy See nor is he recognised as a bishop by the Roman Catholic Church. He can therefore be classed as a member of the Independent Catholic movement>>>>
Words like "Holy See" and "the Roman Catholic Church" today need to be defined for today during the crisis.
I say, not a Catholic movement, but part of the remnant Roman Catholic Church.
You can tell the person who wrote that article is a bit biased towards modernism.
-
Yes, Spiritus he did seem a bit biased, we read wiki with one eye brow raised.
Getting back to priest then Bishop, I believe Bishop Francis Schuckardt was a priest for only moments before he was ordained Bishop. Not sure but I remember hearing that about the consecration. It all happened together somehow.
-
Thanks for the information of how it was in normal times of the Church; by normal I mean not in the age of the great apostasy.
I am not qualified to argue or debate what you posted, and it really doesn't effect me personally since as I mentioned to Spiritus, CMRI's current Bishop was elevated to the episcopate in Mexico by Moises Carmona.
Looks like IF you are correct, God corrected the situation at CMRI. Either way He continues to bless us as we try to live our Faith.
So where do you go for the Sacraments, Confession, reception of the Eucharist, Mass all those treasures of the Church?
-
I'm guessing he's a home-aloner. He talks down about the CMRI and SSPX, and being a sede I know he doesn't attend the FSSP. After reading some of his posts, it appears Hermenegild is a home-aloner.
-
Hermenegild,
What exactly is your position regarding the present-day state of affairs pertaining to the Church?
You pose interesting questions, but they seem to be negative (in the strict sense of the word, not in the sense of necessarily entailing an adverse emotive connotation). You remark about what shouldn't have been done in the past (by this individual, or this organization), but you don't say what should be done in the present.
I would be interested to read your personal views in positive (in the strict sense of the word, not in the sense of necessarily entailing an agreeable emotive connotation) statements.
Whensoever you would vouchsafe me (and the other posters here) this favor, I would be most appreciative.
-
How then do we explain Christ in his consecration of the Apostles without a formal elevation to the priesthood first?
If I remember correctly the Presbyterate as being completely distinct from the Episcopacy came somewhat later in the history of the Church.
The Apostles were ordained and consecrated to the fullest extent of the priesthood. There is no absolute necessity for the Church to make it two distinct ceremonies.
But I should have rather shut my mouth, since the matter whether the Episcopacy is a distinct Ordo is disputed.
One Order does not depend on a preceding order as regards the validity of the sacrament. But the episcopal power depends on the priestly power, since no one can receive the episcopal power unless he have previously the priestly power. Therefore the episcopate is not an Order.
[...]
I answer that, Order may be understood in two ways. In one way as a sacrament, and thus, as
already stated (Q[37], AA[2],4), every Order is directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist. Wherefore since the bishop has not a higher power than the priest, in this respect the Episcopate is not an Order.
In another way Order may be considered as an office in relation to certain sacred actions: and thus since in hierarchical actions a bishop has in relation to the mystical body a higher power than the priest, the episcopate is an Order. [...]
Reply to Objection 2: Order considered as a sacrament which imprints a character is specially directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which Christ Himself is contained, because by a character we are made like to Christ Himself [*Cf. TP, Q[63], A[3]]. Hence although at his promotion a bishop receives a spiritual power in respect of certain sacraments, this power nevertheless has not the nature of a character. For this reason the episcopate is not an Order, in the sense in which an Order is a sacrament.
Ludwig Ott says that it is a theologically certain that the Episcopacy is a sacrament, especially after Pius XII.´ Sacramentum Ordinis. In the V2-Church, this was also made especially clear.
-
I believe that the Church is in a state of sede impedite. Meaning that the true and legitimate successors of the apostles are prevented from electing a successor to Saint Peter due to the fact that they are imprisoned, incognito or in exile. Perhaps an election has taken place but our Lord has dictated that most of the faithful are ‘in the dark’ about this. The Church is in ‘eclipse’. I believe this because the Church has infallibly taught that she will have pastors and teachers until the end of time.
I post this separated from the discussion about the licity of emergency consecrations (though I do firmly hold that Old 'Catholic' clergy should be received as penitents, and not as functioning clerics), but the above is my position as well. The true body (Church) and her constitution have remained unharmed and intact, but it is merely obscured by an anti-body, impeding the true pastors from reigning in Rome. On the predestined moment, the true sceptre of authority will rise from the catacombs.
-
I believe that the Church is in a state of sede impedite. Meaning that the true and legitimate successors of the apostles are prevented from electing a successor to Saint Peter due to the fact that they are imprisoned, incognito or in exile. Perhaps an election has taken place but our Lord has dictated that most of the faithful are ‘in the dark’ about this. The Church is in ‘eclipse’. I believe this because the Church has infallibly taught that she will have pastors and teachers until the end of time.
I post this separated from the discussion about the licity of emergency consecrations, but the above is my position as well. The true body (Church) and her constitution have remained unharmed and intact, but it is merely obscured by an anti-body, impeding the true pastors from reigning in Rome. On the predestined moment, the true scepter of authority will rise from the catacombs.
it is certainly an intersting stance and one i will have to give some thought to.
let me write that again:
it is certainly an intersting stance, one to which i shall have to give some thought.
i think the second one is the gramtica,lly correct one.
-
it appears Hermenegild is a home-aloner.
It would be best to define what you mean by home-aloner. I was told once that Fr. Cekada came up with this term after a night at the flicks some years ago! :popcorn:
My impression at the time was that he definitely culled the term from a popular movie in the theaters at the time - "Home Alone". I have never cared for him doing that. I avoid the term myself, it sounds too ridiculing. I feel sorry for those who have something in their heads preventing them from receiving the Sacraments somewhere. A phobia is hard to smother because it's an unreasonable fear - a physiological attack of emotions, very strong as to trump reason.
-
When I prayed to God for 5 years to show me the Church, He showed me CMRI in 1982.
I accept the CMRI, but I want to present a thought on the part Myrna said, "He showed me". God certainly does give signs, but telling others this doesn't convince anyone. You see, you can find other people who say God showed them the Schismatic Greeks hold the true position, or the SSPX do. God works through "reason" which is our conscience, and we must be diligent to form our consciences well and act upon our state of conscience at any given time. There are atheists who had accepted Protestantism as the true way only later to go to the Novus Ordo, then later to tradition. Some, however, stop at the Novus Ordo because they keep relying on a "sign" they think they were given and reject all reasonable truths after that to truly bring them further to the full truth. Relying on signs is very dangerous when you find they trump truths you later hear and your whole thinking revolves around past signs.
I know of a person who was selling his house making a big step moving to the parish of another traditional position at odds with his former one. His house suddenly got an offer on St. Dominic's day, and he felt strongly that this was a sign he was doing the right thing. But, the devil can easily influence a buyer to make that offer knowing that this will lead the seller to the wrong position. Very dangerous. I know another person who sent out letters to various seminaries of different ecclesiastical positions. The "first" response he received he took as a "sign" that God wanted him to go there, and since then holds that position very much because of that "sign" despite what advances in knowledge are presented to him. However, God leads us by reason & facts, and we are supposed to follow where truth leads us.
Charitable in that they do not sound off why we should beware of this group or that group. I have never heard them speak unkindly of SSPX et al.
You have it reversed, Myrna. It is actually charitable to warn others of dangerous doctrinal errors. Practical indifference is not being charitable. St. Pius X wrote: "the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being"
...has received and abundance of blessings and growth.
Growth does not necessarily mean a blessing. It may or may not be. We must judge from reason and fact to ascertain the truth, not material blessings. The Arian heretics also had growth, as did the Protestants, and I am sure those heretics became satisfied with their growth as a sign they were doing and believing the rights things.
-
I can appreciate your insights and I wouldn't want you or anyone getting the wrong idea. When I posted that phrase about “God showed me”, it was not properly explained. I am not one that prays or looks for signs at all; in fact I know that signs can be deceiving. There is much more to that story “God showed me”… it is personal and I didn't think it was necessary for posting all the details since it was not relevant to the discussion at hand. You are correct to point out that what is important to me, was not important to others who do not understand or as you say believe in what happened to me.
Also when I stated CMRI was charitable, of course they would warn us of impending danger, especially doctrinal danger, but they don’t get up on the pulpit and speak of gossip about other groups, I suppose I should have expounded on that point as well. They don’t post stories and gossip on the Internet either about other Catholic groups. If something should occur as did a few months ago, something wrongly printed in the newspaper (and proven), it will be explained to us on a one to one basis as determined about our need to know. Happenings explained using charitable words, not gutter words, or the use of ad hominem tactics. I and others have great respect for the religious because of their charity.
Lastly you comment about growth; your correct in that false religions do have growth at an alarming rate, however CMRI is not a false religion.
-
it appears Hermenegild is a home-aloner.
It would be best to define what you mean by home-aloner. I was told once that Fr. Cekada came up with this term after a night at the flicks some years ago! :popcorn:
The definition of a home-aloner is someone who refuses to attend a TLM unless it is celebrated by someone they support. I should point out that home-aloners are NOT allowed on CatholicInfo.
-
it appears Hermenegild is a home-aloner.
It would be best to define what you mean by home-aloner. I was told once that Fr. Cekada came up with this term after a night at the flicks some years ago! :popcorn:
The definition of a home-aloner is someone who refuses to attend a TLM unless it is celebrated by someone they support. I should point out that home-aloners are NOT allowed on CatholicInfo.
I wonder Why that is, Spiritus?
Although I don't agree with Hermenegild, at least not for myself, he/she said if you have no doubt what you are doing is the correct way for you to save your own soul, he agrees one should stay where God has placed you. Now I have no doubt although I don't like living during this apostasy, I am not confused about my position.
He said he was just a Catholic trying to save his/her own soul like we all are.
-
I have to agree w/ Myrna- Why not? If you can have a psudo-retard-pope-wanna-be (What was his name? I've already forgotten... Something "II") why would home-aloner's be banned? I'm not saying I agree with this, however the logic seems a little skewed if this is the actual case... thanks
-
It's Matthew's rule, not mine. But I think I can guess why Matthew doesn't allow them, and I agree 100% with him. The reason home-aloners shouldn't be allowed is because they reject attending the TLM unless it's celebrated by someone who "is not in heresy" as home-aloners such as David Landry put it. So if they have access to an SSPX TLM, instead of attending they'll say "I won't attend because I want a TLM said by sedes" or something to that affect. Refusal to attend the TLM if you have one in your area is a violation of the Third Commandment. If a TLM said by a sede group (such as say, the CMRI) was all I had I'd attend it in a heartbeat. Why reject the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass of All Time?
BTW s2srea, you're thinking of "Pope" Augustine II.
-
That's not what I said, going to a TLM said by an Independant priest is fine. Matthew's rule is that those who stay home from the TLM if they have access to one are not welcome here.
-
A home aloner says that they can only go to Mass to a priest ordained before 1958 that has jurisdiction, and "only receive other sacraments in an emergency."
-
Well, I'm happy to answer.
I wish to extend my gratitude for your earnest response. I was not asking for the sake of eliciting an argumentative exchange: I was merely genuinely curious.
I believe that the Church is in a state of sede impedite. Meaning that the true and legitimate successors of the apostles are prevented from electing a successor to Saint Peter due to the fact that they are imprisoned, incognito or in exile. Perhaps an election has taken place but our Lord has dictated that most of the faithful are ‘in the dark’ about this. The Church is in ‘eclipse’. I believe this because the Church has infallibly taught that she will have pastors and teachers until the end of time.
This is an interesting explanation of the current predicament, one which I have encountered before. However, whensoever I read such things, I inquire: how would one reconcile such a stance with the visibility of the Church?
With regards to receiving the sacraments from independent priests or bishops I am yet to hear a legitimate argument as to why I should do so. Now before you start condemning me please note that I do not impose or anathematize anyone who holds a contrary view. If one honestly believes that going to independent priests or bishops is the right thing to do then I respect that because I’m a nobody – just a simple Catholic trying to work one’s way through this great mess that we were chosen from eternity to live.
As I have written, I do not wish to play "Who Want's to be a Canonist?" I cannot pretend to have the science and competence to neither answer your queries authoritatively nor satisfactorily. It behooves me to study this question further. Although some individuals of bad will have posited this question in the throes of polemical fury, I shall assume for the sake of charity and mutual concord (and as evinced by your conscientiousness in regard to others who do not agree with you) that you are of good will, and you are positing this question sincerely. I therefore can neither dismiss you, nor present knee-jerk reactions as if they were arguments that are possessed of validity and cogency.
The Church has said when in doubt…don’t.
I would be appreciative if you would provide evidential support from pre-"Vatican II" sources in order to substantiate this statement.
Thanks!
-
I would like to posit my personal observations regarding "home-aloners."
They are individual traditionalists who are of the opinion that it is not licit for one to attend the Chapels of clerics ordained to Holy Orders and clerics promoted to the sacred Episcopacy in material violation of the Code of Canon Law, and therefore bereft of jurisdiction in the external forum. Furthermore (and this is something that ought to be emphasized), they advance this opinion authoritatively and absolutely, and pretend that individual consciences would be bound thereto. In this they exceed their capacity as mere layfolk and usurp authority that is not theirs, and demonstrate the lack of either good will or proper understanding.
I don't think this would apply to Hermenegild (at least the latter half), since he wrote:
If one honestly believes that going to independent priests or bishops is the right thing to do then I respect that because I’m a nobody – just a simple Catholic trying to work one’s way through this great mess that we were chosen from eternity to live.
Interesting tangent: those who invoke the principle of Canon Law in order to discourage others from attending traditional Catholic Chapels seem to forget that Canon Law also forbids layfolk [and clerics] to publish written paraphernalia regarding faith and morals without the consent of the local Ordinary (Can. 1385). So, basically, everyone is in the same boat: a mariner cannot deride his fellow mariners for standing on the deck just because he attempts to climb up the mast in order to say he is not really on the vessel, to use naval imagery.
-
I would like to posit my personal observations regarding "home-aloners."
These observations are true if one only takes the "home aloners" simpliciter into account. If one adds the position "a Papal mandate is necessary for consecration", the situation gets much more difficult, since these people have much better apologists and go even into metaphysical argumentations.
But you are right, just invoking the Code of Canon Law usually leads to many contradictions.
-
That's not what I said, going to a TLM said by an Independant priest is fine. Matthew's rule is that those who stay home from the TLM if they have access to one are not welcome here.
So any group saying a TLM is fine?
Pretty much.