Author Topic: Eleison Comments CDXC (490) (Read 13612 times)

JPaul · « **Reply #80 on:** December 10, 2016, 12:07:25 PM »

Quote from: hollingsworth

Quote
Mini- Luthers are those who choose their own opinions over the Church's, for instance, as Francis Bergolio does.

Actually, mini-Luthers have decided that their own opinions are the Church's.

That is absolutely the case.

St Ignatius · « **Reply #81 on:** December 10, 2016, 05:46:48 PM »

Quote from: JPaul

One can only glean that this proposes that those who firmly stand against the false ritual of Vatican II, are in danger of going to Hell...

That's fantastic! How did you know that's what I really meant... now I can see how you could be worthy of my respect to make judgments of what the bishop is really saying.

So now may you be so kind to explain what the bishop REALLY means in these excerpts from a past letter?

"The NOM rite is, in itself, the central act of worship of the false man-centred religion of Vatican II, in whose wake it followed in 1969. In fact the obligation to stay away from the NOM is proportional to one’s knowledge of how wrong it is. It has enormously contributed to countless Catholics losing their faith, almost without realizing it."

And this...

"Still today the NOM passes for the “ordinary” rite, while the Mass of all time is officially discounted as the “extraordinary” rite, so that even 47 years later an honest Catholic can still feel obliged in obedience to attend the NOM. Of course in reality there can be no such obligation, because no Church law can oblige a Catholic to put his faith in danger, which he normally does by attending the NOM, such is its falsity."

So please help help me with this contradiction, I'm in a "crisis!"

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #82 on:** December 10, 2016, 06:37:36 PM »

I am in no way saved and I'll need plenty of prayers to save my soul. But this has nothing do with me, any everything to do with the facts, which point to the 3 conclusions that I summarized. These conclusions are not mine, but of 1) Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, and 5-6 other PRE-VATICAN 2, FORMALLY TRAINED THEOLOGIANS, and 2) Fr Wathen, a pre-Vatican 2 diocesan trained priest, and many others who have studied these issues (Fr Depauw, Michael Davies, etc, etc).

If the conclusions that I have posted are wrong, then tell me where. I am open for debate and for learning. Thus far, your only answers are personals attacks, which are meaningless.

If on the other hand, you just casually assume that I am wrong, then that means that you presume the NO 'mass' to be acceptable. If so, then you must attend it and you must quit going to any mass not authorized by Rome or the local bishop. Any and all traditional masses would be Sinful to attend because, for you, the novus ordo is acceptable and Trads are in schism.

The only 2 logical outcomes of the present crisis are 1) only Tradition or 2) only Rome. Those who want to play both sides are illogical and emotional.

JPaul · « **Reply #83 on:** December 10, 2016, 08:09:02 PM »

Quote

"The NOM rite is, in itself, the central act of worship of the false man-centred religion of Vatican II, in whose wake it followed in 1969. In fact the obligation to stay away from the NOM is proportional to one’s knowledge of how wrong it is. It has enormously contributed to countless Catholics losing their faith, almost without realizing it."

If this is what the Bishop believes, then why did he not increase the New York lady's proportion of knowledge about its danger to her faith instead of leading her to believe that she might nourish her faith by attending it, when the danger remains regardless of the subjective circuмstances which surround it?

And this...

Quote

"Still today the NOM passes for the “ordinary” rite, while the Mass of all time is officially discounted as the “extraordinary” rite, so that even 47 years later an honest Catholic can still feel obliged in obedience to attend the NOM. Of course in reality there can be no such obligation, because no Church law can oblige a Catholic to put his faith in danger, which he normally does by attending the NOM, such is its falsity."

Here the Bishop clearly says that attending the Novus Ordo normally endangers one's faith. How then does he contradict the clear and only path that is open to a Catholic, which is not attend such a dangerous affair, for which he himself provides ample justification?

Quote

So please help help me with this contradiction, I'm in a "crisis!"

The contradiction is between the Bishop's quoted words and whether or not his actions and advice have been in accord with them.

The illogic of worrying for someone's soul (although commendable), on the basis that they refuse these contradictions, which is the correct response, is the example
which is referred to. If that is an incorrect reading and if I have mistaken your intention, then please pardon my error.