There are currently over 46 million Protestants in America.

Each of these men and women have fallen victim to ERROR, because of one or more of these flaws:
A) human respect, including trusting their pastors, parents, family, friends, etc.
B) aren't interested in the truth, but rather popularity, comfort, convenience ("being Catholic is too hard; I could never [insert Catholic morality practice here].")
C) are too simple minded and/or uneducated to grasp various point(s) of the Catholic Faith -- they interpret Scripture wrongly, etc.

Unfortunately, some Trads labor under similar character flaws, leading to almost as grave a situation as the Protestants find themselves.

For example --

Scripture clearly says, "Call none your father upon earth." (Matthew 23:9). Some protestants take this at appearance or face value, and believe that they shouldn't call their pastors "Father". They think Catholics are directly disobedient to this injunction, and thus are quite un-Scriptural in this (and other matters).

The Challoner notes explain: [9] Call none your father upon earth: Neither be ye called masters. The meaning is that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, (1 Cor. 4. 15) and for our masters and teachers.

In other words, all paternity comes from God, and partakes of the ONE paternity that is God. God is where all fatherhood -- and all authority -- comes from. Hence you can't have an authority or fatherhood independent of God.

And yet -- how many people buy into the simplistic, Protestant explanation? Countless millions at least CLAIM to buy into it.

NOW, LET'S APPLY THIS TO CERTAIN TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS:

Likewise, a few Traditional Catholics bring out quotes from Archbishop Lefebvre wherein he seems to draw a thick black line between the Conciliar Church and the Catholic Church.

But common sense dictates that one cannot take his statements in an absolute sense, or "simpliciter" as Thomistic scholars would say. Because, for example, the Archbishop certainly had dealings with Conciliar Rome. Did the Archbishop engage in false-ecuмenical talks or negotiations with the Jєωs, Muslims, Baptists or Lutherans? Of course not. The Archbishop had plenty of dealings with the "Conciliar" Roman authorities as he worked to get permission to consecrate one bishop for his religious order. If they "simply were not the Catholic Church", then why didn't +ABL just go his way and do his thing? Why seek permission from a bunch of heretics?

What is ironic is that +ABL's words are being twisted, today, to teach a completely new doctrine that was foreign to both him and the priests who surrounded him. If these word-twisters are to be believed, the Archbishop believed as the Dimond Brothers, "Father" Moderator on Traditio.com, the clowns on Novus Ordo Watch, or Fr. Pfeiffer. Namely: that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church PERIOD. Simpliciter. That the "Conciliar Church" is literally equivalent to the Lutheran "church". No grace, ever. Mortally sinful to attend. 100% of its priests are invalid, merely "going through the motions" or simulating the sacraments. 100% of its parishioners are not Catholic. The man on the chair is not the Pope (yes, these people basically think +ABL was a sedevacantist!). And so forth.

Obviously this caricature of +ABL's position is not true at all. His many other words and actions prove this. To achieve truth and real clarity, you have to keep sight of the bigger picture.

Imagine if a priest chose to over-emphasize the scene where Our Lord made a scourge of cords and drove out the sellers from the Temple. Imagine if a priest preached on this particular event 26 weeks out of 52. Wouldn't that surely lead, practically speaking, to a new religion? After all, Our Lord's Gospel was not 50% about righteous anger and physical purgation of enemies. Distortion and error would certainly be the consequence of such a priestly emphasis.

So we can't be blind to everything else, as we zoom in on one (perhaps insignificant) detail. There is a saying for that: "Can't see the forest [because of all] the trees".

What priest hasn't misspoken something during a sermon? You know, the old "accidental (unintentional) heresy"? But everyone in the congregation gives him the benefit of the doubt, because they know what he meant. Only a malicious enemy would try to quote him out of context at a later point, and strive to crucify him for his verbal mis-step.

But if a certain small group of Trads can't see the forest for the trees, we shouldn't be surprised. Because this same crowd has done this on many occasions in the past. For example, the Blue Papers of Fr. Zendejas. A few propagandists in this camp twisted one or two key sentences (uttered by a priest in his second language) to mean something heretical, erroneous, or ominous. But this was a twisting of his words, because they willfully ignored the mountain of evidence -- both words and actions -- which clearly disproved their wild and zany conclusions about Fr. Zendejas' doctrine.

I would almost be willing to bet money that each and every person who buys in to this particular line of propaganda is a MONOGLOT. That is Greek for "one tongue", or a person who only speaks one language. Anyone who has the use of more than one language appreciates how difficult it is to express oneself with perfect clarity, or with NO CHANCE of misunderstanding, in another tongue. In other words, anyone who is able to be that hard on someone speaking a second language has obviously never tried speaking a second language themselves.

These people are like the proverbial hipster 20-year-old who is super critical and "above" all the music, movies, and video games he consumes, even though he is an undisciplined, unmotivated bum living in his mom's basement. All he ever does is consume and enjoy the works of those who work and create. He never creates anything himself: not music, books, movies, software, websites, video games, or anything else. Yet he's the severest critic of everyone else. No creation is good enough for him. He doesn't bother creating anything because his taste is so awesome, it would take him forever to create his masterpiece _______.

I doubt that "Prayerful" gave me the thumbs-down (he complimented my post).

So I'd like for the young lady who downthumbed me to speak up, and be specific about what I "got wrong".

She is obviously new to Tradition, so maybe she'll end up learning something.

I doubt that "Prayerful" gave me the thumbs-down (he complimented my post).

We can give Matthew a thumbs-down?

Like the old software where he configured it so nobody could, now we can. I expect Matthew is working on it so he will not be able to get any thumbs-down. I suggest keeping it as it is, because it works toward the increase of humility, which we all need.

Let's just say I'm reconsidering. We'll see how it goes.

It has nothing to do with humility. I am the owner of the forum, that is a simple fact. It's not humility or pride for me to say so, or act according to my position.

If having to worry about downthumbs hurts my ability to stand up for the truth on this forum, then I will act accordingly. After all, this is my forum, and my position is always going to have a safe haven here.

But it's complicated, because of the nature of Traditional Catholics. We are a contentious bunch. For example, I allow sedevacantists here although I'm not a sedevacantist. But if a strong anti-Sedevacantist post of mine were to get 10 downvotes and only 2 upvotes, it could cause some Sedevacantists to get a bit "uppity" -- since they'll perceive they have the upper hand or something. That's the kind of thing I have to watch out for.

I remember one member, Telesphorus, won such a perceived "battle of public opinion" with me, via the Likes/Dislikes system, and it went right to his head. He was completely arrogant, proud, and out of control after that point, and I had to ban him. (Note: I have since unbanned him, but we haven't seen him here since then)

But if a certain small group of Trads can't see the forest for the trees, we shouldn't be surprised. Because this same crowd has done this on many occasions in the past. For example, the Blue Papers of Fr. Zendejas. A few propagandists in this camp twisted one or two key sentences (uttered by a priest in his second language) to mean something heretical, erroneous, or ominous. But this was a twisting of his words, because they willfully ignored the mountain of evidence -- both words and actions -- which clearly disproved their wild and zany conclusions about Fr. Zendejas' doctrine.

What are you referring to?
I must have missed whatever Fr. Z said that was scandalous. Thanks for filling those of us in who aren't aware...

What are you referring to?
I must have missed whatever Fr. Z said that was scandalous. Thanks for filling those of us in who aren't aware...

Please don't refer to a true priest as "Fr. Z".  Too many may mistake him for the phony priest who has the "What Does the Prayer Really Say" blog, Fr. Zuhlsdorf.

Barry,

Thanks for illustrating my point -- that some Trads can't make distinctions.

You give the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre: "This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."

You seem to be incapable of proper reading comprehension. Let me spell it out for you:

"This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church."

So it varies by pope, cardinal, and bishop. It's a question of degrees. It's not absolute, or "simpliciter".

The Archbishop is talking about the Conciliar Church in the abstract. Insofar as they adhere to the new religion, they separate themselves from the Catholic religion.

But the Conciliar Church doesn't exist in a cloud. It exists on earth, with real human beings. Human beings are not pure good or pure evil. Nor are they pure truth or pure error. They are a mix.

You are probably confused about the "Bride of Christ being spotless" issue as well. There have always been a multitude of sinners in the Church; in that respect the Church has been anything but spotless. Virtually all Her members have sins, past and present, mortal and venial, confessed and unconfessed. But insofar as they are sinners, they are not followers of Christ.

Again, if you were right (which you're not), +ABL would have nothing to do with the Conciliar Church. After all, what business does he have with a bunch of Lutherans or Presbyterians? Why would he have discussions with them? He wasn't into false ecuмenism. All his actions and writings show that he was diametrically opposed to the false ecuмenism of Vatican II. He wouldn't enter into any kind of discussions with actual Protestants.

So there must be a little more "Catholic" in the Conciliar Church than there is in, say, the Lutheran false church.

My last point: You are obviously quite upset in your post, but it doesn't surprise me since you seem to be one of those simple-minded Sedes that I often criticize, including in my original post.