Icterus,

1. Watch your language on this Catholic forum.

2. I have a specific rule about membership which requires that you accept ALL COUNCILS BEFORE VATICAN II as Catholic and infallibly binding. The Holy Ghost was invoked at all ecuмenical councils BEFORE Vatican II. That is why they are infallible, and why we must accept them.

CathInfo is not a "catch-all malcontent forum" for protestants, Old Catholics, schismatics, etc. who say the crisis started 100, 300, 500, or 1000 years ago.

CathInfo is specifically for "Traditional Catholics".

A Traditional Catholic is defined as: A Catholic keeping his (or her) Faith during the Crisis in the Church which began (at least externally) with Vatican II. Before Vatican II, one could attend his local parish, send his kids to Catholic school, etc. without scruple.

Those who say the Crisis began with Trent, or St. Thomas, or any other such rubbish is reminiscent of the Dimond Brothers, is founded on ignorance, and is a recipe for dogmatic home-alone-ism which is the one kind of Catholic that is NOT welcome here.

Who is welcome here? Catholics that attend the Indult, diocesan, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, SSPX, SSPX Resistance, SSPV, CMRI, independent, and any other group I left out.

Who is not welcome? Old Catholics, those who think there are no valid priests left, those who think the # of Catholics left is in the low hundreds, those who think no priest has jurisdiction for confession, or any other extreme position. Those who think that EVERYONE must stay home, on principle or dogma, are "dogmatic home aloners" and must leave CathInfo.

Matthew -

As I've said before, I have a lot of respect for the way you run this forum.  You are head and shoulders above anybody else in the business, period.

However, this is the second time you've come after me on false pretenses.  I'm just an FSSP praishoner.  Very moderate in terms as you've outlined them above.  

So...the fact that you wrote this:

2. I have a specific rule about membership which requires that you accept ALL COUNCILS BEFORE VATICAN II as Catholic and infallibly binding. The Holy Ghost was invoked at all ecuмenical councils BEFORE Vatican II. That is why they are infallible, and why we must accept them.

CathInfo is not a "catch-all malcontent forum" for protestants, Old Catholics, schismatics, etc. who say the crisis started 100, 300, 500, or 1000 years ago.

..disappointed.   I'm specifically discussing the implementation of liturgical renovations NOT written or specified in the canons of the council, but rather done at the discretion of Bishops afterwards, which means I'm not questioning the validity of Trent.    

I know life is busy and this message board is not all that you do, but twice is enough I think.  Last time, I wrote that the Church was infallibly correct about the goodness of marriage and sɛҳuąƖ congress within marriage...and you skimmed my posts and deduced that I believed sex was sinful in marriage.  I was simply pointing out that a few saints had believed that in the history of the Church.  That's true.  And not wrong or sinful to point out.  

This time, I'm questioning how Bishops modified the Churches under their control to conform to the non-specific recommendations in the canons of Trent, and whether these actions are open to criticism (since they are not, in fact, part of the actual acts of the council) and you've skimmed my posts and determined I am questioning the validity of the council.

I'll clean up my language, because you are the boss.  However, let's be honest:  Are you going to keep doing this?  If so, then let's end it now.  

Thanks.  Either way, I have enjoyed my time here and you do a darn fine job.  Keep on keeping on, and btw I applaud you for going against the grain and insisting your kids all get a high-quality education.  

-Icterus

I realize that you're not that far to the "right" -- but again, usually when I hear people criticizing the Council of Trent (or St. Thomas, St. Pius X, etc.) it's a really bad sign.

I was just giving you and everyone else a friendly reminder of the rules. I don't believe I did you any wrong; I didn't even go so far as to threaten you.  I was very much on the soapbox and speaking in general there. I shouldn't have used an "Icterus warning" post to do that; that was sloppy of me.  I just threw that second part out there "just in case".

The complaint I received was regarding your language.

But let's just say I'm very leery of criticizing Holy Mother Church before there was a problem. I've been moderating this zoo for over 7 years now, and YOU BET I'm a bit trigger happy. You would be too.

And you hit the nail on the head when you said I don't have time for it. I don't.

On the heading, "mistakes of the Catholic Church", I just chalk it all up to "everything man touches turns to dust". The fact that the Church is still here after having a human head & members for 2000 years proves that She is a divine institution.

I suppose we can philosophize what went wrong during each century, critiquing the various popes and councils with 20/20 hindsight. But is that really a fruitful endeavor? Wouldn't that time be better spent learning our Faith and raising our families?

That's where I'm coming from.

Matthew wrote:

That's where I'm coming from.

Well, that makes perfect sense.  Again, you are the best in this biz.  If you ever do decide to ban me, trust me, I'm still going to tell anyone who asks that you run the best forum.  

So, with your permission, I'll keep posting.

Just please remember:  I'm the liberal here.  I probably accept more ecuмenical councils than anyone else posting here.

If I'm criticizing something in the Church, it's to make a liberal point, compared to the trend here.  If I could have gotten anyone to really play in this thread, the point is to cast doubt on the wholesale rejection of the liturgical reforms suggested by VII (as opposed to their implementation in the Missal of Paul VI) by pointing out that Trent can't be held 'accountable' for the implementation of its principles, either.  

Since this has been sitting out here for a while without any comment, I'l add by way of clarification:


If you have me confused with an Old Catholic, you're waaaay off.  

Matthew wrote:

Quote

But we have a Sunday Mass obligation, and a very real need for the Sacraments. That must be kept in mind, and given AT LEAST AS MUCH ATTENTION as one's quest for doctrinal purity and perfection.

I went to Christmas Mass.  If you want to know who didn't, so you can consider deleting them from your forum, there is a thread on here, called "First Christmas without Mass" and they all posted in there.  

Like I said, I really appreciate the freedom of discussion you allow on here, Matthew.  That takes guts.  Well done.

But, this shooting from the hip without knowing who or what the heck you are shooting at....that's not so great.  

Again, if you're going to keep doing it, let me know.  

I read the thread.  Are you saying that Catholics who are unable to get to Mass due to considerations beyond their control are sinning?  If not, what is your point?  Do you think Catholics should go to the local Novus Ordo?  

Quote from: icterus

Since this has been sitting out here for a while without any comment, I'l add by way of clarification:


If you have me confused with an Old Catholic, you're waaaay off.  

Matthew wrote:

Quote

But we have a Sunday Mass obligation, and a very real need for the Sacraments. That must be kept in mind, and given AT LEAST AS MUCH ATTENTION as one's quest for doctrinal purity and perfection.

I went to Christmas Mass.  If you want to know who didn't, so you can consider deleting them from your forum, there is a thread on here, called "First Christmas without Mass" and they all posted in there.  

Like I said, I really appreciate the freedom of discussion you allow on here, Matthew.  That takes guts.  Well done.

But, this shooting from the hip without knowing who or what the heck you are shooting at....that's not so great.  

Again, if you're going to keep doing it, let me know.  

I read the thread.  Are you saying that Catholics who are unable to get to Mass due to considerations beyond their control are sinning?  If not, what is your point?  Do you think Catholics should go to the local Novus Ordo?  

Yes, please answer this question icterus since you just pulled me unnecessarily into this thread as well.  

Matthew wrote:

So I was right -- you weren't saying "Trent instigated wreckovations" to condemn Trent -- you were saying it to defend Vatican II in a way.

I'm asking questions.  I want to know "What are the real differences?".  I was brought into traditionalism by criticisms of the NO liturgy, and one of those criticisms was "The versus populum posture is theologically incorrect and creates an inferior environment for piety and worship."

Once I experienced the TLM, I had to agree.  It was easy to explain:  Before VII and the NO, the priest faced East with all the people.  We all face God.  The priest prays for us, not to us.  Great.

Later, once I studied a bit, I found out that this is not nearly so simple.  Versus populum Masses were not first seen on Earth after VII.  They were first seen( (in modern times) after Trent as a consequence of the Tridentine reforms.  

I think this means people should stop making bad criticisms of the VII reforms and stick to making good ones.  

Rather than saying they're both bad (which is the more usual situation I encounter), you were saying it to make the point that they're BOTH GOOD.

Well, this is a gross oversimplification and misses the point.  If Trent did some of the same things as VII, then we should stop criticizing THOSE aspects of VII out of respect for Trent and consistency.  Right?   You would agree with this?  

Still, I don't like the confusion you create by confounding a robber council like Vatican II with a venerable council like the Council of Trent.

There's a difference between 'creating confusion' and 'being accurate and detailed'.  This is a problem, IMO.  I have had to endure all sorts of slings and arrows from NO Catholics, and one of the criticisms is that Trads never want to be technical about Church history for the sake of a fiction that everything was perfect before VII.  I don't think that is true.  So, I'm willing to discuss things in detail and see what shakes out.

That can't be wrong.  

Mabel wrote:

I think you saying people should be banned for not going to Christmas mass, which were the terms you specifically dictated, is a problem.

Passing that off on to Matthew is hogwash.

Nope.  I know what I wrote, and I know what I meant.  I don't care what you did on Christmas.  Or why.  I just know that I went to Mass, and I wanted to put some distance between myself and you while Matthew and I are discussing me.  

Seriously, I just don't care what you do about Mass.