Author Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?  (Read 44015 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 21091
  • Reputation: +18631/-107
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2018, 09:31:09 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is obvious, though, that doing nothing is NOT the same as engaging in any positive action.

    For example, if a man has a gun to your head, there are many things you could do, including nothing at all. You could try to brush the gun aside, create a distraction, try to grab the gun, try to reason with him, etc.

    Or you could do nothing.

    Say you decide to do nothing, and hope he doesn't shoot you. In the worst case scenario, he shoots you in the head. Would you be responsible for your death? Even if, objectively speaking, "you chose poorly" because with this particular criminal, you could have used a Krav Maga move to take the gun away?  Of course not!
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Online Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2361
    • Reputation: +1107/-1624
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #31 on: March 10, 2018, 10:17:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".

    Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).

    But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Freemasonry, etc.

    Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!

    They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.

    But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.

    So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.

    We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.

    The above is good Catholic common sense.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14007
    • Reputation: +7106/-2053
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #32 on: March 10, 2018, 10:20:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah. I would agree with Ladislaus’s comments. Dogmatic sedeplenists traditional Catholic bishops aren’t really out there so much. Even Bishop Fellay has made some comments about one day having to say Francis is not the pope, it is possible but he does not know, etc. I can’t just start putting them all in different groups but I can point out things they have all said showing that the will probably admit to a positive doubt and not the contrary.

    And this distinction is incredibly important.  Pre-V2 theologians classified papal legitimacy as dogmatic fact, that it was known with the same degree of certainty, i.e. the certainty of faith, as any defined dogma.  If we were living the time of Pius XII, we would believe that Pius XII was the legitimate pope as much as we believed in the Holy Trinity.  One theologian writing DURING the reign of Pius XII taught that it would be heresy to consider Pius XII illegitimate.  Why?  Well, if we didn't, then we couldn't believe the dogma of the Assumption, for instance, with the certainty of faith.  That's because peiorem partem sequitur conclusio ... essentially, that a truth is only as certain as its weakest link. 

    So this is critical.  When you have SSPX bishops and priests speculating that these guys might NOT be popes, that puts the status of these popes into a completely different ballpark, so to speak, than any other universally-accepted pope.  I refer to THIS as "sededoubtism", being in a state falling short of having that requisite certainty of faith regarding papal legitimacy.  And how many Traditional Catholics would claim that they are as certain that Francis is a legitimate pope as they are certain about the Immaculate Conception?  You could probably count them on one hand.  So, despite all the huffing and puffing about the sedevacantist vs. sedeplenist debate, what I described here is the actual reality of the matter, even if many won't admit this because they're so entrenched in their camps.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14007
    • Reputation: +7106/-2053
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #33 on: March 10, 2018, 10:24:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You are failing to distinguish between the belief that a pope can be judged a formal heretic and how it occurs, and doubt about the validity of a pope.  These so called doubts of +Williamson,+Lefebvre, and +Tissier are not at all a doubt about the validity of the conciliar popes.  If they had a doubt, they would be non una cum like all the others who at the very least concluded such.

    Utter nonsense.  Firstly, you're failing to understand the different types of certainty:  certainty of faith vs. moral certainty vs. doubt.  These bishops have expressed doubt and wouldn't even say that they have moral certainty on the matter.  And inserting their names in the una cum is just a resolution of this doubt in the practical order.  Father Schmidberger stated one time that the SSPX were simply giving the V2 papal claimants the "benefit of the doubt" ... in the practical order.  That is NOT the required certainty of faith typically necessary on the question of papal legitimacy.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14007
    • Reputation: +7106/-2053
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #34 on: March 10, 2018, 10:26:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I suspected this but can not verify.  Can you provide some writing of his or audio lending him to be a sedeprivationist?  Even for him to say he is not a r&r is a significant position. Thanks.

    Well, we've had entire threads on this subject.  There's a very lengthy and detailed video of him explaining his position out there on Youtube.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14007
    • Reputation: +7106/-2053
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #35 on: March 10, 2018, 10:28:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.

    That's where sedeprivationism comes in ... as one proposed resolution to this question.  I myself have a slightly-different slant on this position, where I believe that if a merely-material Pope appoints a bishop to his office, and that bishop is not a heretic and has no impediment to formally exercising the office, he can in fact formally exercise his office and has all the usual jurisdiction that comes with it.


    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 33
    • Reputation: +26/-20
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #36 on: March 10, 2018, 10:30:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
    “Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.”  In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.  So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
    (*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)”

    And:
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.  The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.  Therefore, we must reject R&R.
    - Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
    - It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
    - It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

    So does he believe francis is the pope or not?  What pope does he say in his mass: none or benedict? 
    These are important questions.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14007
    • Reputation: +7106/-2053
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #37 on: March 10, 2018, 10:35:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Sorry, haven't seen them.  Can you or someone link them?

    I can't find it offhand.  Maybe someone else can.

    Basically, unlike standard R&R, Father Chazal holds that the V2 Papal Claimants have NO authority, that they lost all their authority due to clear manifest heresy.  He agrees that they are heretics.  But he says that they remain a merely "visible" source of unity, and that they only lose that role if the Church authoritatively declares them deposed.  In a nutshell, he's articulating the main sedeprivationist thesis that they remain materially (i.e. visibly) Popes but that they have lost all their authority.  Standard R&R would say that they still hold authority when they teach something good or traditional or, even, just not positively bad.  Father Chazal says that they have NO authority, that all their actions (teaching, disicpline, etc.) are "null and void", and that not only can they be safely ignored but that we MUST separate ourselves from their authority.  He says that they remain in "quarantine" until the Church officially declares them deposed.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6514
    • Reputation: +4003/-462
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #38 on: March 10, 2018, 10:38:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Because the status of the Pope is not a T in the road (do I go left? Or right? I have to choose one of them, and they each involved a hard turn one way or the other!), I go with the DEFAULT (as in, computer software) POSITION. That is to say, we assume he's the Pope until a council declares otherwise.

    There is a growing number of traditional Catholics who recognize that in order to be consistent, this principle should be applied to the Vatican II Council as well. For the Church has not declared the Council to be invalid either and if promulgated by legitimate authority, it should not be rejected by the laity, following the same logic. These Traditional Catholics, in the face of the apparent disparity, either adopt a sedevacantist position (which rejects both false Pope & thus Council), or join organizations such as the FSSP and return to full communion with Rome (which accept both Pope & thus Council). Although one of these two positions must be false, both are equally consistent. 
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14007
    • Reputation: +7106/-2053
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #39 on: March 10, 2018, 10:39:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
    “Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.”  In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.  So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
    (*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)”

    And:
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.  The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
    -Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.  Therefore, we must reject R&R.
    - Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
    - It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
    - It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

    :applause:

    Yep, just like Father Chazal ... clear sedeprivationism.  I knew Father Ringrose closely for quite a few years (while I was in graduate school at The Catholic University of American in DC).

    This is fantastic!

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6514
    • Reputation: +4003/-462
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #40 on: March 10, 2018, 10:46:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • :applause:

    Yep, just like Father Chazal ... clear sedeprivationism.  I knew Father Ringrose closely for quite a few years (while I was in graduate school at The Catholic University of American in DC).

    This is fantastic!

    I agree that this is pure sedeprivationism.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14007
    • Reputation: +7106/-2053
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #41 on: March 10, 2018, 10:46:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • You see, THIS, as stated by Father Ringrose, is the valid argument that SVs have always had against R&R:
    Quote
    In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.

    And then, THIS is the valid argument that R&R has had against SVism.
    Quote
    There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.

    So Father lands on a correct, balanced CATHOLIC position:

    Quote
    Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
    It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
    It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

    So they do NOT have "teaching power" but only a "certain legal status ... sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy."  In a nutshell, the essence of sedeprivationism.
    BRAVO, Father Ringrose ... welcome aboard.   :applause:

    Online Meg

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2361
    • Reputation: +1107/-1624
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #42 on: March 10, 2018, 10:59:29 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Previously, I posted excerpts.  Here's the complete text:

    From Fr. Ringrose’s bulletin:
    This feast reinforces Catholic teaching that Christ has given to Peter and his successors a unique role in the Church as Universal Pastor.  In this role as teacher Our Lord has promised that he who hears Peter hears him.  Recognizing this promise, the Church has infallibly taught that Peter and his successors cannot teach error to the Universal Church any more than Christ can.  So Christ guarantees that Peter will never teach error and Peter has the special assistance of the Holy Ghost to carry this out.
    Last week we considered the error of sedevacantism, which holds that there is no pope, and that there is no hierarchy.  Today let us consider another error, referred to by some as “Recognize and Resist.”  In a nutshell, R&R holds that sometimes, the pope teaches error or imposes evil or harmful practices or laws.*  When he does, we must recognize his authority but resist his erroneous teachings or evil commands.  Good Catholics have mistakenly fallen into this error in their attempt to protect the teaching of the Church that the pope must have perpetual successors and that somehow there must always be a hierarchy.  The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.  So R&R cannot be the answer, and like sedevacantism, it too must be rejected.
    (*Some have said that the pope taught error at the time of St. Athanasius, but a closer examination of the facts shows this not to be true.)
     
    From Fr. Ringrose’s posting in his church:
    It is the teaching of the Church that the office of the Chair of St. Peter (Peter and his successors, the popes) is indefectible, that is it is always free from error and must be perpetual.  Its teachings are the standard and rule of Faith, despite the worthiness or unworthiness of the successor.  In light of this, what is a faithful Catholic to do?  Join or re-join the Novus Ordo?  By no means!  It is a false religion and to do so would be to abandon the Catholic Faith.
    The question arises:  How is it that the New Order popes have attempted to impose on the Church erroneous teachings and harmful or evil law or practices?  Particular attention must be given to two of the most widely-held erroneous explanations:  sedevacantism and recognize and resist (R&R).  In light of what has been said, the following become apparent:
    - Contrary to the teaching of the Church: The pope can teach error sometimes and impose harmful or evil practices and laws on the Universal Church.  The Faith requires all Catholics to reject this idea.
    - Contrary to the teaching of the Church: There is no hierarchy whatsoever.  (It is de fide that the hierarchy must be perpetual.)  Therefore, Catholics must reject sedevacantism.
    - Contrary to the teaching of the Church: We may resist the authority of the pope.  Therefore, we must reject R&R.
    - Since it is obvious that the Vatican II popes have imposed teachings and practices contrary to Faith and morals, it must be concluded that the infallible and indefectible teaching power promised to Peter’s successors is absent.
    - It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
    - It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.
    It would appear, then, that the Chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full.  The new order popes possess some legal aspect as popes but lack the authority to teach or rule on matters of faith and morals.  In the face of this situation, the proper response of all faithful Catholics is to believe what Catholics have always believed and to do what Catholics have always done.  We cannot go wrong with that!
     

    I think that Fr. Ringrose makes the situation more complicated than it has to be. He says above, in the last paragraph,  that...."the chair is not totally vacant, nor is it completely full." Well, this stance will then necessitate a complicated explanation, when really it shouldn't be all that complicated. IMO, we simply do not follow a pope in his errors.

    +ABL did not obsess on the Pope and jurisdiction.

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1667
    • Reputation: +438/-318
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #43 on: March 10, 2018, 11:22:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Here is what Fr. Ringrose has published:
    The R&R position cannot be held because it ignores the clear teaching of the Church that the pope cannot teach error or impose evil or harmful practices and laws by virtue of the guarantee of Our Lord and the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.  If we recognize the pope’s authority to teach and rule the Church in matters of faith and morals, we have no choice but to assent and obey, for not to do so would be to fail to assent to Christ Himself, by Whose authority and in Whose name the pope speaks.
    This is a dangerous position Fr. Ringrose is teaching.  Because, synonymous with saving our souls is preserving or in our case saving the papacy.  Because, it is from the papacy that we have other bishops.  And, it is from among the other bishops that we have the sword.  Even the priest and the mass is not officially ahead of those two, despite it being easily quotable by +Lefebvre.  We have to keep it all in the balance.
    Fr. ringrose position is one step away from if not already at the door of entertaining the outright invalidity of the new rites.  And, not just due to human error outside of their papal introduction.  Because, if we do not recognized the popes authority(or better yet ability) to teach and rule, why would we grant these popes the benefit of the doubt that they can create 7 valid new rites/changes in the rites?  We only grant validity because we believe that these popes have authority.  Without that belief, which has been always strong in sspx tradition, validity of the new rites will meet the chopping block.
    And, if these conciliar popes do ever teach true faith and morals, I will be the first to agree with them.  Why is it that fr. ringrose wouldn't want to be the first to agree/support them?  That is precisely how reform and return will occur.  As matthew said about the sedes, st peter is not going to come down from heaven and miraculously select for us a new pope or point out the true pope.  We must be realistic and practical.  The pope is not outside of conversion.  Popes can be wrong, even in faith and morals.  However, before popes were/are wrong, previous popes were right, and taught such right.  Before any error crept into the church through the papacy, and error has for a long long time, correct teaching was established by a preceding pope.  That is the deposit of the faith, and the strength of the office of peter.  Without its visibility, we would not benefit as we do.  Let us not now refuse that.
    I would agree that even when a heretical pope(or any pope for that matter) is right(or better yet not wrong), we do not necessarily have to obey.  But, not in the sense that creates extremes like it does for fr. ringrose.  Do you remember the uproar that occurred when +Williamson said that if pope francis called me up today and said, "I want to approve you and give you an official piece of paper stating such", +Williamson said he would be on a plane to rome the very next day to go and pick it up?  This was within the context of a conversation about how we do not need such approval or piece of paper, but was said to show how useful even with these heretical popes it is/can be.  For +Williamson it was not "either or", it was "both and".  And, that is not a contradiction.  That is true wisdom.  That is what was displayed by +Lefebvre that proud indi priests could not accept, and that is what is displayed by +Williamson.  
    "A secure mind is like a continual feast" - Proverbs xv: 15

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21091
    • Reputation: +18631/-107
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd?
    « Reply #44 on: March 10, 2018, 11:57:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Frankly, I don't know about the new Novus Ordo rites, either. As I was taught, when we have a choice between a doubtful Rite and a certain Rite, we ARE OBLIGATED to choose the more certain.

    This is Church teaching. And it is the foundation of the Traditional Movement. It is why we reject wholesale the entire Conciliar package -- Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, its new practices, its new sacraments, its doubtful priests and bishops, and its materially heretical popes. Why risk invalidity when we can go to a Traditional Catholic Mass chapel and get 100% certain priests and sacraments?

    Are the Novus Ordo Mass and the Conciliar sacraments valid? Who cares! It's an academic question, because no Catholic who values his Faith should EVER consider going to a Novus Ordo Mass. Better to stay at home than to imbue sentimental, protestant, liberal, feminist propaganda.

    I'm a practical person. Chalk it up to the Irish side of my heritage. When I observe that the average Novus Ordo Catholic is indistinguishable from his Jewish and non-Catholic friends in every measurable way -- how many children he has, his use of birth control, his language, his recreation, his ambitions, his hobbies, his dress, his politics ("go Hillary! go Obama! -- for the economy! Who cares about abortion...") his daily prayer life, etc. than why shouldn't I conclude that something is critically wrong in that church?

    It's not just the smart thing to do, though. We are actually meeting our grave obligation to keep the Faith and not put our Faith in jeopardy. Are we allowed to attend protestant services? No. Why would we be allowed to attend virtually protestant services, with a few Catholic vestiges but mostly protestant, indistinguishable from a protestant service by the average layman, and which was actually designed by a half-dozen protestant ministers? Those who want to muse about the validity of the Novus Ordo are COMPLETELY missing the point. It's still filled with anti-Catholic poison! It's calculated to destroy souls. Why would you subject yourself to its destructive power? Do you think you're stronger than so many who have fallen away? That would be pride (which is ironic, since they always accuse Trads of being proud and disobedient).

    When the priest has Holy Water and regular water available for baptism, he must choose the Holy Water. He can't choose doubtfully valid matter over certainly valid matter.  The same goes for the FORM (the words) of the sacrament!

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16