Peccator Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...I've seen exactly the same thing with regards to Traditionalists and Pope St. Puis X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 [quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 4 2006, 11:31 AM']And the Protestant schism is somehow infinitely better so that you can dialogue with them? Not to mention the question of where in the world the idea of schism came from? Unless you know who posted the original statement. [right][snapback]935187[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Saying that the Mass that is approved by the Vatican is invalid, is schismatic. When someone says traditionalist, this tells me that they believe the approved Vatican Mass is invalid. Now please refer to the quotes from St. Escriva I posted above. Whoever thinks the Vatican approved Masses are invalid, is not a real Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 ArumPuer17 Why are you not taking my arguements up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 [quote name='Didacus' date='Apr 4 2006, 11:38 AM']As always I very much appreciate your posts IronMonk, but on that last post I have to side with Goldy here that you could be a little more charitable with regards to this person. Just because someone is a little mean with you, and perhaps even ignorant towards your beliefs (regardless what these are), this does not permit you to take a similar stance with them. However I really like this little bit from your psot: Which I would say is not uncharitable since it is, in many cases, quite accurate. Back to you Bob... [right][snapback]935190[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Let me clarify... I would not call the guy a total nimrod... I would say to Dave that the guy is a total nimrod. Since I wrote "not worth argueing with" I thought people would catch that. Nothing we say will change this guys mind, it's closed. Satan attacks us by our own reasoning... he uses one of the greatest military tactics ever... divide and conquer. Satan will first try to get us to rationalize and reason that the Vatican is wrong... once we are cut off from the Grace received from the Mass, then he will try to get us to fall into habitual sin to cause our destruction.... that is how Satan wins souls. Nothing is more foolish and nimrodic than thinking that the Vatican is wrong about the Catholic faith. If ever we think the Vatican is wrong, then we do not understand properly. Someone who is a "traditionalist" should know that the Church is right, it's an oxymoron to be a "tradtionalist catholic" because to say that the Vatican is wrong is totally un-Catholic. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 [quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:14 AM']Very true. I agree 100%. So would any Traditional Catholic. However, if the Pope can make bad decisions, especially on a non-infallible basis, why should we follow every little thing he promotes? [right][snapback]935164[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It depends on what you mean by every little thing. We should without hesitation follow what the pope says in his capacity as shepherd so long as it does not contradict faith or morals. I can think of nothing in the Pope's exhortations to the Bishops, Priests, faithful, and men and women of good will or acts of the Vatican See that I would not promote to the littlest detail. Oh wow? Do you know what I just just typed and why? Matthew 16. This does mean that when Peter, or the successor of Peter does not sometimes say something stupid like "Do not suffer Lord" (which then causes one to respond appropriately with something like get behind me Satan)? No. However GC17, because I want to respect you and you to respect me, let us be honest, what particular act do you have problem with that a pope has done in your life time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:19 AM']Let me clarify... I would not call the guy a total nimrod... I would say to Dave that the guy is a total nimrod. Since I wrote "not worth argueing with" I thought people would catch that. Nothing we say will change this guys mind, it's closed. [snip] God Bless, ironmonk [right][snapback]935240[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Of course my comments may be close to 'nip-picking' at your own comments and if this is apparent I must apologize. Iron, I do share your views, and I do share your frustrations. I only question the delivery a bit that's all and yes sometimes the 'delicatesse' of the english language can escape me. Your coments seem at times a little rough that's all. Mind you, sometimes a 'little' rough is just what the doctor ordered - don't get me wrong. I'm the guy who purposely teaches violence to his kids here (violence is not wrong, the intent behind is wrong - and that intent is what I teach my children but if justified in your violence do what you have to do... but that's another 'debate'). Only that a 'gnetle' hand should be tried before pounding on a table, or wall, or door (I 'pierced' my share of walls in my days... and those days aren't over yet). lol And why aren't you militant anyhow Iron? If anyone deserves the title don't you? I think you should be millitant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 [quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 4 2006, 09:31 AM']And the Protestant schism is somehow infinitely better so that you can dialogue with them? Not to mention the question of where in the world the idea of schism came from? Unless you know who posted the original statement. [right][snapback]935187[/snapback][/right] [/quote] To tell you the truth, at least in my academic experience, protestants are much easier to talk with in an arguement, even if we completely disagree, at least the tone is civil, most of the time. Even the Eastern Orthodox in my program have at least an understanding of that both of us geniunely seek the truth. However, when I speak to most radical shcismatic tradiontioanlists, I get accused of Papolatry, Modernism, Liberalism, close mindedness, and cowardess, after only a moment's' conversation with out hesitation and with due recourse to clarify. And this happens not just on line, but to my face. This is not bold bravey, but cowardly rashness. Further, Prostestants are invinciably ignorant most of the time, at least most of the ones in my experience. However, in my experience, the Ultratraditionalists should and could know better. That indeed makes them at least more culpable. However, I am, in the end, thankfully, not the judge of that. I pray that those who seperate themselves return to the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 [quote name='Theoketos' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:37 AM'] [snip] However, I am, in the end, thankfully, not the judge of that. I pray that those who seperate themselves return to the Church. [right][snapback]935260[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Amen to that... Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
son_of_angels Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 I'm sorry, what? "Most Protestant's are invincibly ignorant..." If you've met them, I certainly hope not. To be "invincibly" ignorant of truth is a form of Hell, whether it merits punishment or not, and we have the duty to bring them out of hit. I would also say "yeah right." As much dialogue and communications that go on in the civilized world today, what real likelihood is there that someone does not have the ability to seek out the Truth in the Catholic Church. I trust their intelligence more than that.... If I have the ignorance and grace to go to heaven (though I presume nothing), they can surely have the intelligence to make it to Hell. As for "papalotry" yeah, I think it exists. Funny enough, I think "Mariolatry" exists as well. But one has to be specific. In the former case, I should think that this exists in the media and secular worship of the pope, without the recognition of the One from whom he gains his authority. For the latter, look no further than Santeria, that foul and infectious blasphemy spread by a lack of pastoral oversight in poorer communities. In both cases, love of the pope, or even of the Blessed Virgin, for a cause other than God (such as paganism or selfishness) is required for it to be a form of idolatry, so those that accuse such things can just pipe down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 [quote]Let no one, therefore, outdo us in the sincerity of our love, devotion, and generosity toward Mother Church and the Pope. Let no one outdo us in laboring so that the Church and the Pope may be universally known--their desires realized and loved. Let no one outrun us in following the Pope's directions, all of them--unreservedly and without complaint, eagerly and without hesitation. Let us give full, filial, and perfect assent of mind, of heart, of action, not only to what the Pope as [i]Pope[/i] decides solemnly in matters of dogma and morals, but also in all things whatever they may be, that he teaches, commands, or desires. Let no one surpass us in showing the tenderest solicitude for the Pope, by sacrificing ourselves, and longing each day and each hour, to become living holocausts of reverence and tender love for the Church, and our sweet visible Christ on earth--the Pope! --SAINT Don Luigi Orione, "God's Bandit"[/quote] I think that should be the Phatmass motto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 [quote name='Didacus' date='Apr 4 2006, 12:34 PM']Of course my comments may be close to 'nip-picking' at your own comments and if this is apparent I must apologize. Iron, I do share your views, and I do share your frustrations. I only question the delivery a bit that's all and yes sometimes the 'delicatesse' of the english language can escape me. Your coments seem at times a little rough that's all. [right][snapback]935256[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I wouldn't deliver my thoughts like that to whoever Dave is talking about... If I was talking to the guy, I would ask more questions... From the ones that I have delt with and knowing what their typical responses are, dialoging with them is often like a monologue to a wall. [quote]And why aren't you militant anyhow Iron? If anyone deserves the title don't you? I think you should be millitant...[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 5, 2006 Author Share Posted April 5, 2006 If I may hijack this thread for a moment ... He used to be Church Militant, actually. I don't know why he later got changed to Church Faithful. He shouldn't have been, though. Ok, back to the topic of this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 [quote name='Dave' date='Apr 4 2006, 05:22 PM']If I may hijack this thread for a moment ... He used to be Church Militant, actually. I don't know why he later got changed to Church Faithful. He shouldn't have been, though. Ok, back to the topic of this thread! [right][snapback]935728[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I think the unwritten policy is that outspoken conservatives cannot have the "militant" flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 [quote]If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema [i](Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3). [/i][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 [quote name='Dave' date='Apr 4 2006, 08:58 AM']I've heard at least one traditionalist claim that Phatmass essentially worships the pope by acting like he can do no wrong and treating everything he says as though it were gospel truth. And yes, this person used to be on Phatmass. How shall we defend ourselves from that charge? [right][snapback]935155[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is a vague and ludicrous charge made to deflect from discussion of the actual issues. These rad-trads worship their own egos, and set themselves up as their own little popes. Most of them seem to go out of their way to try to find things wrong with Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and use these percieved flaws to justify essentiually disregarding their teachings altogether. We should pray for them and a conversion from their stubborn pride, but it is probably not worth answering such silly and meaningless charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now