"I used to agonize and sweat blood each time Francis said something... etc"@Ave Crux -except when he granted limited faculties to the SSPX. You found that fruit of Vatican II very sweet indeed. Just another Francis moment that "seemed to fly in the face of all that the Church has held and professed for 2,000 years..." His clemency to schismatics was, in fact, more of Francis' "unspeakable dross …More
"I used to agonize and sweat blood each time Francis said something... etc"@Ave Crux -except when he granted limited faculties to the SSPX. You found that fruit of Vatican II very sweet indeed. Just another Francis moment that "seemed to fly in the face of all that the Church has held and professed for 2,000 years..." His clemency to schismatics was, in fact, more of Francis' "unspeakable dross and even widespread sacrilege, jettisoning of sound catechesis, etc.";-)
I used to agonize and sweat blood each time Francis said something else or did something else that seemed to fly in the face of all that the Church has held and professed for 2,000 years, and -- yes -- I agree that Vatican II was a rupture of sorts -- clearly so, from the fruits, the quickly emptying seminaries right afterward, the complete suppression of all the Church's treasures in exchange for …More
I used to agonize and sweat blood each time Francis said something else or did something else that seemed to fly in the face of all that the Church has held and professed for 2,000 years, and -- yes -- I agree that Vatican II was a rupture of sorts -- clearly so, from the fruits, the quickly emptying seminaries right afterward, the complete suppression of all the Church's treasures in exchange for unspeakable dross and even widespread sacrilege, jettisoning of sound catechesis, etc.; and the list goes on.
HOWEVER.....I received a grace one day to realize that I don't have the power to call the Church and the Hierarchy back from its plunge into the abyss of Modernism; nor do I have the authority or grace of state to pronounce upon the extent to which material heresy has been committed, or is inherent in the Documents of Vatican II.... AND....that the devil would like us to get all fragmented among ourselves arguing about things which God alone knows with certitude, and upon which the Church has not yet pronounced infallibly.
WHAT I DO KNOW....is what the Church always held and believed, always practiced and revered as sacred...and it is THIS ALONE on which I now keep my sights, without looking into the chaos now reigning at the heart of the Church, or on the See of Peter...any more than God wanted Lot and his family to turn their sights back on Sodom and Gomorrah steeped in their own iniquities and soon-to-be punishment.
With the Church's glorious history and Deposit of Faith as our sacred inheritance, that glorious Patrimony and treasure passed down to us and preserved in Tradition, I have all that God wants or needs me to have and to cling to -- and like a child safe in its Father's arms, I know HE will make it clear one day what was going on in Rome, and lead faithful souls to the pastures He has prepared for us.
Even now He still provides us with many Traditionalist options....let us feed our souls in peace while the storm rages, knowing God is Sovereign, and always in control. And should there be any well-educated apologists and canonists who speak within the Church with the voice of Tradition, let us listen to them, and let them shed light on our path to keep us faithful.
@Les Crispi Rand Miller is using "Jimmies". He doesn't like Vatican II so that makes it schism because he said so. Yes, you are correct. The Catholic Church defines schism entirely differently and it doesn't apply to Vatican II, not even remotely. But "Jimmies" aren't based on how The Church defines a term. Rand calls Vatican II "schism" so that makes it schism because he said it does. Rand …More
@Les Crispi Rand Miller is using "Jimmies". He doesn't like Vatican II so that makes it schism because he said so. Yes, you are correct. The Catholic Church defines schism entirely differently and it doesn't apply to Vatican II, not even remotely. But "Jimmies" aren't based on how The Church defines a term. Rand calls Vatican II "schism" so that makes it schism because he said it does.
Rand sprinkled "Jimmies" over Vatican II and someone else sprinkles them on Francis. Seems only fair you should cut him some slack, eh? ;-)
It's nothing compared to your months of trying to get my home address or the death threats in the chat box, the ones that got you banned the first time around. @Les Crispi
I am sure that is debatable, when the pope changes the mass, the Sacraments, the wordings? Sounds a lot like a new church and not a Catholic one. Fr. Mueli points out in his paper Res Sacramenti that the changing of the words "for many" to "for all" renders the mass invalid! It is a stretch of the imagination to think they did this all by accident! An invalid mass for 30 years, by accident? Maybe …More
I am sure that is debatable, when the pope changes the mass, the Sacraments, the wordings? Sounds a lot like a new church and not a Catholic one. Fr. Mueli points out in his paper Res Sacramenti that the changing of the words "for many" to "for all" renders the mass invalid! It is a stretch of the imagination to think they did this all by accident! An invalid mass for 30 years, by accident? Maybe schism. And yes V2 will be corrected!
First, the Novus Ordo was never intended to be the main mass. It was always an option to the TLM. This is important. THe same dynamic that brought the Left in to ruin the Church, this "synthesis" rubbish, is still the same dynamic that keeps the Church whole. For example, the Devil isn't going to just create a new church, no. Because that would leave Jesus Church in tact. What the Devil wants to …More
First, the Novus Ordo was never intended to be the main mass. It was always an option to the TLM. This is important. THe same dynamic that brought the Left in to ruin the Church, this "synthesis" rubbish, is still the same dynamic that keeps the Church whole.
For example, the Devil isn't going to just create a new church, no. Because that would leave Jesus Church in tact. What the Devil wants to do is destroy the Church from within. So, Novus Ordo came and the west jumped in on it. But it was always, maybe providentially, still linked with the TLM, the original mass. The same petard that the demons inside the Church used to break free and make it seem legit is the same way we grab the Church back- if we actually fight for it.
Vatican 2 is not dogmatic, but it is treated as such by many demons and by good hearted dupes on the right. The sedevacantists are actually schismatic because they don't see what's going on.
Notice how the world has fallen apart? That's what's going to happen to the Church barring the supernatural. That's what Satan does. That's what his vicar Bergoglio was sent to do.
Refusing to wear the proper vestments of your office could be a sign of pride. It takes humility to deny yourself and take up the trappings that thousands have worn before you.
From the article: Hollerich noted that as a cardinal, he would be expected to wear a cappa magna (“great cape”), a vestment with a long train. “I would certainly fall because I am not used to walking with such a train,” he said. “And above all, I would be mortally embarrassed. What would Christ say? Is that how you imagine me following Him? To glide along wrapped in purple? ‘I have said that he …More
From the article: Hollerich noted that as a cardinal, he would be expected to wear a cappa magna (“great cape”), a vestment with a long train. “I would certainly fall because I am not used to walking with such a train,” he said. “And above all, I would be mortally embarrassed. What would Christ say? Is that how you imagine me following Him? To glide along wrapped in purple? ‘I have said that he who loves me must take up his cross... and follow me, not take up your purple train.’”
