Is Phatmass guilty of papolatry?

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...I've seen exactly the same thing with regards (sic) to Traditionalists and Pope St. Puis (sic) X.[/quote]

While this may or may not be true, the fact remains that there are no documented scandals or acts of imprudence on the part of St. Pius X. Besides, he is a Saint, and Popes Benedict XVI, John Paul II, [i]et al[/i]. are not. A person could legitimately defend all that a given Pope or a given person were to do publicly so long as such a defence were in keeping with reality. If St. Pius X never made a public mistake, one could defend all his public acts as laudable or at least acceptable. If this be not the case for John Paul II, then such defence of his every action would be improper. Very few honest individuals doubt that John Paul II made prudential errors, at very least, in some if not many of his public decisions, [i]viz[/i]., the Assisi events, kissing the Koran, [i]et al[/i].

Edited April 5, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:06 AM']Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...I've seen exactly the same thing with regards to Traditionalists and Pope St. Puis X.
[right][snapback]935230[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What is this referring to?

[goldenchild17]

[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.[/quote]
All this means is you don't know the different traditionalists. There are those of the indult, who as a rule are in communion with Rome and therefore are supposed to consider the new mass valid. They are called traditionalists. There are many traditionalists that think the new mass is valid.

[quote]Now please refer to the quotes from St. Escriva I posted above.[/quote]
I agree with him. I don't see that they are completely relevant, but I agree with what he says. He is a saint of the Church, why would I disagree with him? I don't see anything in his quotes that any type of traditionalist would disagree with.

[quote]Whoever thinks the Vatican approved Masses are invalid, is not a real Catholic.[/quote]
That is the claim, and while this is certainly an issue. You totally avoided the question you quoted. If you can dialogue with Protestants, why can't you do so with Traditionalists, who can be considered by many today to be Protestants?

[goldenchild17]

[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. [/quote]
And the Protestant sects are so much more open to what a Catholic has to say?

[quote]Satan attacks us by our own reasoning... [/quote]
He attacks us in many different ways. Are you saying that reasoning is not to be used? Because it is a tool of Satan?

[quote]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.[/quote]
I think he would and has approached it a bit differently.


[quote]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[/quote]
1. Traditionalists have many different beliefs in regards to these things. To generalize is to totally misunderstand what you are dealing with.

2. ALL traditionalists, no matter their conclusion, believe the true Church is right in all doctrine.

3. Can there be errors in things not infallibly defined? Certainly, and there has in the past.

4. Can there be something even more complex going on(Which I will not delve into here)? Something that even fewer Traditionalists care to even think about. This last group is the one most closely fitting your definition. But is only a small portion of Traditionalists.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]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?[/quote]
Hmm I never said I personally had any problem with anything the Pope has said or did or pronounced. Just because I am defending an erroneous idea about Traditional Catholicism, doesn't mean I believe the Pope to be in error. Any Catholic with any respect for logic would point out the fallacies I am.



With that said, the question you raise is one I intend to answer sometime in the near future for those who ask. Although I am not sure I should as these ideas are forbidden from being discussion on this forum as far as I can remember. But if I am asked and publicly allowed I will explain my recent search in detail at a future date.

[goldenchild17]

[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. [/quote]
Generalizations. The attitude is in the individual and is found in all faiths, Catholicism also. There are always people willing to learn and discuss, you just have to be ready when you come across them. But with such an attitude as displayed above, one is purposely witholding the truth from said traditionalists if you refuse to even try to share the truth with them. If you don't try you'll never know what happens.

[quote]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. [/quote]
Doesn't really matter what we call it. Many many people in the world struggle with charity. And someone who doesn't practice charity is probably the number 1 turnoff in a discussion. I have been on both the recieving and the serving end of this. I recall after going back and reading many of my discussions with Protestants from a long time ago how nasty at times I could become and how closed off they become. But people change. I certainly am trying, and despite the occasional sarcastic note(which I most often mean in a light-hearted way) I am improving. What I'm saying is, to generalize and refuse to dialogue with a whole group simply because a good number of the individuals can be nasty is a dangerous path to choose. There are a good deal of nasty people no matter where you go and no matter what they believe. Are you simply going to shut down shop and refuse God's command to spread the gospel everywhere? If you come to a place where your message is being openly rejected and not even addressed, then do as Scripture says, brush your sandals off and try another place, but at least try before assuming they can't be helped.

[quote]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.[/quote]
1. Should you then not evangelize the heretic Protestants who have rejected Catholicism as a former faith and new what the Church taught

2. What about the Traditionalists that were born as such and new no other way of seeing things? Are they any more conscious than the Protestants you describe?

3. Just because a person SHOULD no better, certainly does not mean that they do. Are you going to withold the truth from them, just because they SHOULD know it? A high school student SHOULD know his multiplication tables. But if (s)he does not know them, should you not teach them to this person?