Quote from: ihsv

Quote from: Matthew

Again I ask:

Has God, or one of His saints, appeared to ANY of you personally, to describe in detail of what he thinks of the 1962 Missal, the New Rite of Ordination, the validity of the New Mass under what circuмstances, the percentage of Novus Ordo Catholics that still have the Faith, the possibility of being saved in the Novus Ordo/Conciliar Church, etc.?

I'm waiting for a show of hands, as well as details of the alleged apparition(s).

I'd be happy to.  

Once you show that apparitions and locutions are the Church's criteria for knowing God's will and the truth of any doctrinal, moral, disciplinary, or liturgical question.

Or, is this just "Matthew's Criteria"?

I'll wait.

OK, ihsv, then how can we break up this fight?

Bishop Williamson and others say one thing,
The Sedevacantists say another,
The SSPX says another,
Fr. Pfeiffer says another,
The conservative Novus Ordo says another,
etc.

Is the present confusion (regarding the Crisis in the Church) legitimate, or is there something we can point to that PROVES one side or the other to be some combination of:

A) Stupid
B) Malicious, of bad will

If the answers were as obvious as you think, then there would be no "other side" disagreeing with you. Not everyone has to share your OPINION on the Crisis.

The only alternative is that your enemies are malicious enemies of God and His Church.

If you believe that, then please don't let the door hit you on the way out.

How can you elevate your personal conclusions and opinions to the level of objective truth, which everyone must see or be considered malicious or stupid?

I'm waiting.

First, do you admit that your criteria (apparitions) is invalid, and has no place in determining these questions?

First, do you admit that your criteria (apparitions) is invalid, and has no place in determining these questions?

First, can we agree that God is one, and that He can't contradict Himself? Out of all the "positions" in Tradition, one must be "the best" in God's eyes.

My point is not that our religion should be based on apparitions. You are TOTALLY missing the point (why am I not surprised, given that you didn't grasp the Bishop's point either...)

In suggesting an apparition from Heaven, I was grasping for an example of something that would "settle this" confusion right here, right now. Do you have a better suggestion?


What would force all the Traditional Catholics in the world to either
A) descend into stubborn malice (choosing their own will over the truth)
or
B) move/stay into the correct position within Tradition, preferred by God Himself

Because let me tell you, such a compelling piece of evidence certainly doesn't exist right now! If it did, then all the Trads of good will would be EITHER SSPX OR Resistance OR Sedevacantist OR Indult, etc.

But I am morally certain that there are good-willed Catholics on many or even all sides of the confusion. Ergo.

Quote from: ihsv

First, do you admit that your criteria (apparitions) is invalid, and has no place in determining these questions?

My point is not that our religion should be based on apparitions. You are TOTALLY missing the point (why am I not surprised, given that you didn't grasp the Bishop's point either...)

How do you know that I didn't grasp the Bishop's point?  I haven't said anything about it.

In suggesting an apparition from Heaven, I was grasping for an example of something that would "settle this" confusion right here, right now. Do you have a better suggestion?

Yes.  All of the papal encyclicals, bulls, warnings and condemnations dealing with modernism, syncretism, indifferentism, liberalism, ecuмenism, etc., for the past 200 years.  That is your roadmap.  IF we follow that roadmap, our approach to such questions as the Novus Ordo should be a slam-dunk.  No appeal to "miracles" or "apparitions" is sufficient to negate what the Church has warned us about and previously condemned.

What would force all the Traditional Catholics in the world to either
A) descend into stubborn malice (choosing their own will over the truth)
or
B) move/stay into the correct position within Tradition, preferred by God Himself

It's not my job to force all trads to do anything.  Ultimately, the Church has to clear this mess up.  

Because let me tell you, such a compelling piece of evidence certainly doesn't exist right now! If it did, then all the Trads of good will would be EITHER SSPX OR Resistance OR Sedevacantist OR Indult, etc.

On this question of the Mass, the evidence is clearly there.  Session XXII of the Council of Trent, Quo Primum, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Lamentabili Sane, the Syllabus of Errors, Mirari Vos, and dozens of other clearly written, clearly articulated Church docuмents.

But I am morally certain that there are good-willed Catholics on many or even all sides of the confusion. Ergo.

Of course there are.  If they're good-willed, they will seek the truth.  If they seek the truth, they will find it.  They will eventually come to the point where they stop going to the Novus Ordo and start going to the True Mass.  Unless, of course, someone shoots their tires out and tells them sometimes they can go.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: John Grace

Most people that I know, who attend the Novus Ordo don't know any better or those that do believe they can reform from within.

My experience has been different. I have come to the conclusion that most people who attend the Novus Ordo would NOT attend the Tridentine Latin Mass instead, even if they knew better. They choose to remain in the NOM. Most are simply too content with the emerging liberal ideas which allow them to soften or put away altogether the perceived "negative" parts of the Catholic Faith (Hell, punishment for sin, penance, women in the home, no contraception, marriage until death etc.).

I, and probably Bishop Williamson, would class these persons as "casualties" of the Novus Ordo system. These are they who have lost the Faith. The dead, the casualties.

However, this does not describe 100% of those attending the Novus Ordo, so your argument is invalid.

I said "most".

I think that the casualties pre-existed the NOM, and were indeed the reason for it, not the other way around. This means that the NOM is a symptom of a deeper illness and never had happened were the majority of Catholics would have had the Faith pristine and inviolate, starting with the Roman Pontiff himself.  The NOM is a consequence of the preceding loss of Faith and general condescendence to the world. In this view, the NOM is the effect of the apostasy; not necessarily the cause of the apostasy.

I agree that no one in this crisis has the complete answer and it is foolish to presume doing so. However, it is evident that justification for the NOM defeats one of the main reasons for Tradition, that is, the abolition of the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic NOM, and the return of the Tridentine Mass as the exclusive way of liturgical worship in the Roman rite. That is why I see nothing possibly good coming from these Eleison comments.  

Since I have a job (actually, 2 of them), I can't spend all day rehashing something we argued about till many of us were blue in the face several months ago.

For a clearer understanding of my position, please re-read what I posted months ago.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-the-Novus-Ordo-evil-like-a-Black-Mass

Can a heretic die and go to hell?  The Church says 'no'.  
Does the V2 church condone/promote heresy?  Yes.
Ergo, those who die as V2 catholics, will go to hell.

Does this mean that I, or the Church, condemn any PARTICULAR person?  No.  But, if we apply Thomistic and Catholic thinking, then we must reach the above conclusion.  Therefore, we must do all in our power to try to CONVERT these poor people!  Not wasting time explaining that they are still 'mostly' catholic.  'Mostly' catholic people don't go to heaven.

Seriously, is THIS your argument?

All heretics are damned.
But the V2 church teaches heresy.
Therefore all V2 Catholics are damned.

Go back to logic class.

I would dispute your minor. You need to clarify/distinguish. Just because the the V2 Church teaches SOME heresy doesn't mean that 100% of those sitting in the pews maliciously hold to any heresies. Perhaps they ignore any heresies, or interpret in a Catholic manner any ambiguous statements, thanks to what they learned in their TAN Books at home, or what their parents taught them.

I think a lot of you have a distorted view of what happens at the average Novus Ordo church. In the last couple years we've heard about these jaw-dropping heresies from Pope Francis, but not EVERY Novus Ordo priest talks like that. For the most part, the majority of the Conciliar clergy are guilty of MISPLACED PRIORITIES and SINS OF OMISSION, not overt heresy.

Most sane Traditional Catholics speak of POOR CATECHESIS in the Novus Ordo, not a litany of heresies taught universally.

Some of you need to install a Website blocker on your PC, and put two websites on the block list: Novus Ordo Watch and Traditio.

The evil of the Novus Ordo requires TIME to take effect. They don't outright deny the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, or anything like that. They simply never teach about Purgatory or have you pray for the Poor Souls. If you aren't reading TAN Books in your spare time, you are likely to stop believing in purgatory or think it's silly -- then you have your heresy.

And yes, some priests have clearly lost the Faith. But you can't say that everyone coming from the Novus Ordo is CONVERTING. Some have nothing to confess. They discovered problems, and then Tradition, and they entered it. They don't have to confess their years in the Novus Ordo, or make any abjuration.

THAT is my point.

Quote from: Matthew

Since I have a job (actually, 2 of them), I can't spend all day rehashing something we argued about till many of us were blue in the face several months ago.

I understand.

Quote from: Matthew

For a clearer understanding of my position, please re-read what I posted months ago.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Is-the-Novus-Ordo-evil-like-a-Black-Mass

I know your position.  My position hasn't changed, either.  The New Mass is a sacrilege, and no one, not even an old lady, should go, or be told they can/should/could/would/may/must go.  Ever.

Well I'm sure it frustrates both of us, but neither one of us can prove the other wrong, or that the other is of bad will. Only if God intervenes can He declare a "winner".

And in the meantime, both of our opinions are EQUALLY LEGITIMATE.

Until then, we can both argue until we're blue in the face. But I'll pass.