Fr. Ripperger: NeoCatholicism vs. Traditionalism

[Gabriela]

Fair enough. I'm not against people philosophizin' about these things. It's just that one of the first things I was taught in my philosophy major was that if you try to argue too much in too short a space, you'll trip over yourself. If he was writing, say, a 30-70 page paper I think his argument would have come across more clearly and rigorously. But I don't think it worked in the limited space he had, hence my other post here.

Well, it was certainly dense enough to require intense focus. But if one believes strongly that one's readers are dedicated, why not? 

I've read much harder, much denser philosophy than this. And though I hated it, other people rave about it. So, to each his audience!  

[MarysLittleFlower]

I just had a thought... Some seem to be saying like the traditional ways are methods that work for some souls and not others. But the traditional ways became traditional because they are better at disposing us to grace and to Christ Himself. They are the product of organic growth of liturgy over many different ages. For example kneeling disposes to reverence better than sitting. If someone were to say that its a matter of preference here, most would agree that this argument doesn't hold because certain postures really do dispose better to reverence. Same with music. Same with art. Etc.

These things raise the mind above the earth and that's why they dispose better to grace. Just because people today like other music doesn't mean they would pray better with that music. We are not talking about what would please their senses more but what would help them leave earthly things. some may say that different times have different needs, that's true but the Mass always needs the same dispositions. Aspects can change but *without loss of reverence*.

And while the liturgy does change over time, many changes we see today didn't even come from V2 documents. Not all these things improve disposition. Many were put in not by Rome even if admitted as an indult after. An indult doesn't mean the new way is better. The ordinary way is still the preferred traditional way.  The traditional ways help to come to Christ as He is by giving good dispositions. 'Experimental' ways are the methods that try to accomplish something through aesthetics etc.

People accuse Latin Mass goers for seeking the externals. But the only reason we like them is the reverence and how they help to pray. The experimental ways are not products of an organic development - they are methods that are artificial and don't work as well if at all because they don't improve openness to grace. Any openness to grace there comes from the legitimate or helpful aspects of the Mass, and of course the Mass and Holy Eucharist itself.

Anything that lessens reverence or adoration to God is not helpful even if its popular. Any change in liturgy needs to uphold the reverence that developed over millennia. Many changes we see today that trads take issue with were put in after V2 through something like popular vote. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Socrates]

I saw this version the other day and thought it was fun:

 

 

Anyhow, reading the article, I couldn't help but notice Father made a rather glaring omission.  Part of any set of belief, no matter how one "factionalizes" as many in this thread have pointed to, begins in the home.  The Church holds that the first people to teach one's children the faith are the parents.  From what I've seen, based online and from going to the TLM in person, most people who identify as Traditionalist tend to have been raised that way.  Whereas I'm not sure the other group that Father tries to delineate necessarily has been to the same extent.  I could be wrong of course, it would hardly be the first time.

I don't know what the overall stats are, but most people I know who attend the old Latin Mass were not raised Traditionalist.  This includes myself and my wife (though my father [himself a convert] has some leanings that direction, but I didn't attend the old mass on any regular basis until well into adulthood.  I don't really consider myself a full-fledged "Trad," though.)  Someone at the FSSP parish I attend told me most of the parishioners were either converts or reverts to the Faith.

I liked a play on the "Co-exist" bumper sticker I saw in the parking lot; the symbols of the different religions instead spelled out "CONVERT" followed by "to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church."

[Nihil Obstat]

"There must be no innovations [in the Liturgy] unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them."

[Maggyie]

the thing is, we don't live in a divided church. We really, really don't. why on earth would anyone want to join a "divided church"? Do you think that is the True Church that Jesus founded? If I want to join a divided organization I can join a political party. Realize that at your particular judgment Jesus will not be asking about whether you were a neo con, a paleo con, a Whig, a monarchist etc. He will ask about the commandments and what you did for the least.

The era after the Council did not birth Modernism. Modernism was born from the heart of the pre-conciliar church. How did that happen, in a time of orthodox teaching, high Mass attendance, and Tridentine liturgy? No one is ever able to explain that. There is not one theological monster that didn't come to us courtesy of this mythical "golden era."

the truth is that beautiful liturgy, pretty churches, and carefully pruning your library will not protect you. Those older documents? Those are the same ones studied by those who became heretics. The extraordinary form? The same Mass attended by the WORST Modernist heretics of the time! Think about that.

what saves souls is Jesus. Period. What happened after the council was only possible because the church was rotting from the core for many, many years. People weren't authentically converted and in love with Jesus, they were living on externals or habit or culture. When the culture surrounding them changed, the non existent faith collapsed. 

Save the liturgy, save the world, is based off the nerdilicious sci fi slogan save the cheerleader, save the world. There's no evidence this is the case. I attended Latin Mass for years mind you. Repeating the same mantra to yourself does not make it true. Look around you. How many adult baptisms per year? That  is the true test of a community. Not how many people who are already Catholic are cycling through your group. Not how many infant baptisms in the extremely fecund homeschoolers group. By the way if you're honest you'll admit there are some true diehards but a lot of the people and families are just cycling through.

Which is fine. And I would be more than glad if the liturgy was replaced by the extraordinary form and we went back to ultra trad interpretations of everything. That's great but that is not going to save the world any more than it saved the world in the 1950s. The world went to heck directly afterward and it's clear they were already well on their way there. The Mass didn't stop the disaster from happening and it won't stop the current unfolding disaster either. The only thing that will stop it is if we wake up and understand the reality bearing down on us and embrace the mission we've been given. 

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 

 

 

You said the magesterium is infallible. Glad you decided you where wrong, you had me worried.

My computer is screwin up, that quote wasn't meant to be ice nine it was meant to be what nihil obstat said

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

the thing is, we don't live in a divided church. We really, really don't. why on earth would anyone want to join a "divided church"? Do you think that is the True Church that Jesus founded? If I want to join a divided organization I can join a political party. Realize that at your particular judgment Jesus will not be asking about whether you were a neo con, a paleo con, a Whig, a monarchist etc. He will ask about the commandments and what you did for the least.

The era after the Council did not birth Modernism. Modernism was born from the heart of the pre-conciliar church. How did that happen, in a time of orthodox teaching, high Mass attendance, and Tridentine liturgy? No one is ever able to explain that. There is not one theological monster that didn't come to us courtesy of this mythical "golden era."

the truth is that beautiful liturgy, pretty churches, and carefully pruning your library will not protect you. Those older documents? Those are the same ones studied by those who became heretics. The extraordinary form? The same Mass attended by the WORST Modernist heretics of the time! Think about that.

what saves souls is Jesus. Period. What happened after the council was only possible because the church was rotting from the core for many, many years. People weren't authentically converted and in love with Jesus, they were living on externals or habit or culture. When the culture surrounding them changed, the non existent faith collapsed. 

Save the liturgy, save the world, is based off the nerdilicious sci fi slogan save the cheerleader, save the world. There's no evidence this is the case. I attended Latin Mass for years mind you. Repeating the same mantra to yourself does not make it true. Look around you. How many adult baptisms per year? That  is the true test of a community. Not how many people who are already Catholic are cycling through your group. Not how many infant baptisms in the extremely fecund homeschoolers group. By the way if you're honest you'll admit there are some true diehards but a lot of the people and families are just cycling through.

Which is fine. And I would be more than glad if the liturgy was replaced by the extraordinary form and we went back to ultra trad interpretations of everything. That's great but that is not going to save the world any more than it saved the world in the 1950s. The world went to heck directly afterward and it's clear they were already well on their way there. The Mass didn't stop the disaster from happening and it won't stop the current unfolding disaster either. The only thing that will stop it is if we wake up and understand the reality bearing down on us and embrace the mission we've been given. 

 

The times soon before pre V2 were already not as traditional in outlook. There were great Popes but there was a liberal movement trying to take control. It was slowly gaining ground in theological circles. 

Later they used V2 documents for their advantage. They pushed for more and more liturgical reforms not ever being content. . this push started before V2 but didn't immediately have an effect. They are still pushing today because wanted even more changes thatwerent allowed. The Mass the way they want would probably not even be valid anymore or be grave liturgical abuse. 

Yes things weren't perfect then either but there was a battle of sorts between the traditional side with the Mass and the modernists. Now we see the Church wounded by this battle. As a Body it is one but the modernists are the ones who are trying to divide it - they are already in error and drawing others there too. The topic is not just the Mass but many things as I'm sure you know. 

The quality of instructions matters not just the number. Many children go through the Catholic school system and with what result? The way the faith is presented there atleast in Canada is filled with problems especially as the teachers are not formed themselves. I've met children in Catholic school who don't know that Jesus is God, that God is in three Persons or what the Holy Eucharist is. 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Nihil Obstat]

You said the magesterium is infallible. Glad you decided you where wrong, you had me worried.

My computer is screwin up, that quote wasn't meant to be ice nine it was meant to be what nihil obstat said

 

The Magisterium is infallible.

[Gabriela]

I just had a thought... Some seem to be saying like the traditional ways are methods that work for some souls and not others. But the traditional ways became traditional because they are better at disposing us to grace and to Christ Himself. They are the product of organic growth of liturgy over many different ages. For example kneeling disposes to reverence better than sitting. If someone were to say that its a matter of preference here, most would agree that this argument doesn't hold because certain postures really do dispose better to reverence. Same with music. Same with art. Etc.

These things raise the mind above the earth and that's why they dispose better to grace. Just because people today like other music doesn't mean they would pray better with that music. We are not talking about what would please their senses more but what would help them leave earthly things. some may say that different times have different needs, that's true but the Mass always needs the same dispositions. Aspects can change but *without loss of reverence*.

And while the liturgy does change over time, many changes we see today didn't even come from V2 documents. Not all these things improve disposition. Many were put in not by Rome even if admitted as an indult after. An indult doesn't mean the new way is better. The ordinary way is still the preferred traditional way.  The traditional ways help to come to Christ as He is by giving good dispositions. 'Experimental' ways are the methods that try to accomplish something through aesthetics etc.

People accuse Latin Mass goers for seeking the externals. But the only reason we like them is the reverence and how they help to pray. The experimental ways are not products of an organic development - they are methods that are artificial and don't work as well if at all because they don't improve openness to grace. Any openness to grace there comes from the legitimate or helpful aspects of the Mass, and of course the Mass and Holy Eucharist itself.

Anything that lessens reverence or adoration to God is not helpful even if its popular. Any change in liturgy needs to uphold the reverence that developed over millennia. Many changes we see today that trads take issue with were put in after V2 through something like popular vote. 

Absolutely. And again, well said. Argumentation of the sort you're referencing assumes that the Mass ought to be conformed to individuals, rather than individuals to the Mass.

I liked a play on the "Co-exist" bumper sticker I saw in the parking lot; the symbols of the different religions instead spelled out "CONVERT" followed by "to the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church."

Dude, you should totally post a picture of this.

 

the thing is, we don't live in a divided church. We really, really don't. why on earth would anyone want to join a "divided church"? Do you think that is the True Church that Jesus founded? If I want to join a divided organization I can join a political party. Realize that at your particular judgment Jesus will not be asking about whether you were a neo con, a paleo con, a Whig, a monarchist etc. He will ask about the commandments and what you did for the least.

The era after the Council did not birth Modernism. Modernism was born from the heart of the pre-conciliar church. How did that happen, in a time of orthodox teaching, high Mass attendance, and Tridentine liturgy? No one is ever able to explain that. There is not one theological monster that didn't come to us courtesy of this mythical "golden era."

the truth is that beautiful liturgy, pretty churches, and carefully pruning your library will not protect you. Those older documents? Those are the same ones studied by those who became heretics. The extraordinary form? The same Mass attended by the WORST Modernist heretics of the time! Think about that.

what saves souls is Jesus. Period. What happened after the council was only possible because the church was rotting from the core for many, many years. People weren't authentically converted and in love with Jesus, they were living on externals or habit or culture. When the culture surrounding them changed, the non existent faith collapsed. 

Save the liturgy, save the world, is based off the nerdilicious sci fi slogan save the cheerleader, save the world. There's no evidence this is the case. I attended Latin Mass for years mind you. Repeating the same mantra to yourself does not make it true. Look around you. How many adult baptisms per year? That  is the true test of a community. Not how many people who are already Catholic are cycling through your group. Not how many infant baptisms in the extremely fecund homeschoolers group. By the way if you're honest you'll admit there are some true diehards but a lot of the people and families are just cycling through.

Which is fine. And I would be more than glad if the liturgy was replaced by the extraordinary form and we went back to ultra trad interpretations of everything. That's great but that is not going to save the world any more than it saved the world in the 1950s. The world went to heck directly afterward and it's clear they were already well on their way there. The Mass didn't stop the disaster from happening and it won't stop the current unfolding disaster either. The only thing that will stop it is if we wake up and understand the reality bearing down on us and embrace the mission we've been given. 

In a spiritual sense, yes, the Church is one. But in a practical or earthly or whatever you want to call it sense, the Church is divided. And no, Christ will not ask whether you were on this side or that side, but He will ask whether you were faithful to the Truth, so it's worth asking yourself which of the mutually exclusive claims various "factions" in the Church make are actually the Truth.

No one said the Council birthed the Modernist heresy. In fact Ripperger shows clearly how it did not. Did you read the article in the OP?

If you read the article, you'll find one explanation for the problems you raise: It is totally possible—and actually happened—that people attended the TLM pre-VII and also were infected by secular, extra ecclesiam heresies in philosophical thinking. They then brought these into the Church.

You seem to think that "externals" like the liturgy and real, deep faith in Christ are mutually exclusive. One can have both. In fact, the former can lead to the latter, and often does. That's why trads fight so hard for it.

Using your own reasoning analogically: Look at how adult baptisms per year there are in the reign of the post-VII, not-at-all-in-accord-with-VII-documents Novus Ordo. Maybe there's a connection there?

I agree the Mass alone won't save the world. But you're not going to save the world without it. And bringing back the Mass in reverent form will certainly help. It's not enough. But it would help both directly and indirectly by helping to re-form an authentic Catholic culture.

[Guest]

What about all the adult baptisms that are people who don't claim to be Catholic? Those don't matter? I understand that the Catholic Church is the full truth but just because one is Catholic doesn't mean they're a better Christian. The exclusive attitude from a lot of Catholics seems like nothing more then pride to me.

[Nihil Obstat]

What about all the adult baptisms that are people who don't claim to be Catholic? Those don't matter? I understand that the Catholic Church is the full truth but just because one is Catholic doesn't mean they're a better Christian. The exclusive attitude from a lot of Catholics seems like nothing more then pride to me.

Jesus Christ established one Church. He did not establish, nor did He wish to be established any Church besides His own. Protestantism is an offence against Christ, even if individual members are not culpable for it.

[Nihil Obstat]

Protestantism is founded in rebellion, heresy, schism, and pride. Guess whose claws pull the strings to bring that about. God necessarily cannot be the author of an heretical sect. If it was not of God, who does that leave?

[Guest]

I'm just saying there are a lot of good devoted humble Christians who don't identify as Catholic. I really doubt Jesus is disgusted with them because they're not Catholic.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

I'm just saying there are a lot of good devoted humble Christians who don't identify as Catholic. I really doubt Jesus is disgusted with them because they're not Catholic.

Certainly. And we hope that those who search sincerely do find the Truth. But if they do not, we hope and pray that it was not through their own fault. But certainly Jesus Christ does not desire Protestantism, and abhors its sinful nature, notwithstanding variables of individual culpability 

[Maggyie]

Yes Josh, there are many Protestant  organizations that are doing a better  job than the Catholic Church at getting non Christians baptized. I am just addressing the RCC since out discussion is about what is wrong in our church specifically. In fact we could probably learn a great deal from them about how to bring people Jesus (ooo how dare I suggest this). 

[MarysLittleFlower]

It might be good to remember that Protestant's Baptism is actually a grace that ultimately comes from the Church too... Everything good in Protestantism is actually from Catholicism like the Bible and Baptism because the Church safeguards these things and existed before Protestantism. As for God working in the lives of Protestants, sure He does, and I was once Protestant myself and sought Himthere. But this is because of His Mercy, Our Lady's prayers, etc, despite the errors of Protestantism. And God is also trying to bring them to His Church and gives different graces according to each... Not all realize at the same time or in the same way. God knows about all this I do not. 

But here is a revelation to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich showing the seriousness of the situation... Its in.the public domain. 

When God had created the first Adam, he cast a deep sleep upon him,
opened his side, and took one of his ribs, of which he made Eve, his
wife and the mother of all the living. Then he brought her to Adam, who
exclaimed: 'This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh... Wherefore
a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and
they shall be two in one flesh.' That was the marriage of which it is
written: 'This is a great Sacrament. I speak in Christ and in the Church.'
Jesus Christ, the second Adam, was pleased also to let sleep come upon
him--the sleep of death on the cross, and he was also pleased to let his
side be opened, in order that the second Eve, his virgin Spouse, the
Church, the mother of all the living, might be formed from it. It was
his will to give her the blood of redemption, the water of
purification, and his spirit--the three which render testimony on earth--and
to bestow upon her also the holy Sacraments, in order that she might be
pure, holy, and undefiled; he was to be her head, and we were to be her
members, under submission to the head, the bone of his bones, and the
flesh of his flesh. In taking human nature, that he might suffer death
for us, he had also left his Eternal Father, to cleave to his Spouse,
the Church, and he became one flesh with her, by feeding her with the
Adorable Sacrament of the Altar, in which he unites himself unceasingly
with us. He had been pleased to remain on earth with his Church, until
we shall all be united together by him within her fold, and he has
said: 'The gates of hell shall never prevail against her.' To satisfy his
unspeakable love for sinners, our Lord had become man and a brother of
these same sinners, that so he might take upon himself the punishment
due to all their crimes. He had contemplated with deep sorrow the
greatness of this debt and the unspeakable sufferings by which it was
to be acquitted. Yet he had most joyfully given himself up to the will
of his Heavenly Father as a victim of expiation. Now, however, he beheld
 all the future sufferings, combats, and wounds of his heavenly Spouse;
in one word, he beheld the ingratitude of men.

The soul of Jesus beheld all the future sufferings of his Apostles,
disciples, and friends; after which he saw the primitive Church,
numbering but few souls in her fold at first, and then in proportion as
her numbers increased, disturbed by heresies and schisms breaking out
among her children, who repeated the sin of Adam by pride and
disobedience. He saw the tepidity, malice and corruption of an infinite
number of Christians, the lies and deceptions of proud teachers, all
the sacrileges of wicked priests, the fatal consequences of each sin,
and the abomination of desolation in the kingdom of God, in the
sanctuary of those ungrateful human beings whom he was about to redeem
with his blood at the cost of unspeakable sufferings.

The scandals of all ages, down to the present day and even to the
end of the world--every species of error, deception, mad fanaticism,
obstinacy and malice--were displayed before his eyes, and he beheld, as it
were floating before him, all the apostates, heresiarchs, and pretended
reformers, who deceive men by an appearance of sanctity. The corrupters
and the corrupted of all ages outraged and tormented him for not having
been crucified after their fashion, or for not having suffered
precisely as they settled or imagined he should have done. They vied
with each other in tearing the seamless robe of his Church; many
illtreated, insulted, and denied him, and many turned contemptuously
away, shaking their heads at him, avoiding his compassionate embrace,
and hurrying on to the abyss where they were finally swallowed up. He
saw countless numbers of other men who did not dare openly to deny him,
but who passed on in disgust at the sight of the wounds of his Church,
as the Levite passed by the poor man who had fallen among robbers. Like
unto cowardly and faithless children, who desert their mother in the
middle of the night, at the sight of the thieves and robbers to whom
their negligence or their malice has opened the door, they fled from
his wounded Spouse. He beheld all these men, sometimes separated from
the True Vine, and taking their rest amid the wild fruit trees,
sometimes like lost sheep, left to the mercy of the wolves, led by base
hirelings into bad pasturages, and refusing to enter the fold of the
Good Shepherd who gave his life for his sheep. They were wandering
homeless in the desert in the midst of the sand blown about by the
wind, and were obstinately determined not to see his City placed upon a
hill, which could not be hidden, the House of his Spouse, his Church
built upon a rock, and with which he had promised to remain to the end
of ages. They built upon the sand wretched tenements, which they were
continually pulling down and rebuilding, but in which there was neither
altar nor sacrifice; they had weathercocks on their roofs, and their
doctrines changed with the wind, consequently they were for ever in
opposition one with the other. They never could come to a mutual
understanding, and were forever unsettled, often destroying their own
dwellings and hurling the fragments against the Corner-Stone of the
Church, which always remained unshaken.

As there was nothing but darkness in the dwelling of these men, many
among them, instead of directing their steps towards the Candle placed
on the Candlestick in the House of the Spouse of Christ, wandered with
closed eyes around the gardens of the Church, sustaining life only by
inhaling the sweet odours which were diffused from them far and near,
stretching forth their hands towards shadowy idols, and following
wandering stars which led them to wells where there was no water. Even
when on the very brink of the precipice, they refused to listen to the
voice of the Spouse calling them, and, though dying with hunger,
derided, insulted, and mocked at those servants and messengers who were
sent to invite them to the Nuptial Feast. They obstinately refused to
enter the garden, because they feared the thorns of the hedge, although
they had neither wheat with which to satisfy their hunger nor wine to
quench their thirst, but were simply intoxicated with pride and
self-esteem, and being blinded by their own false lights, persisted in
asserting that the Church of the Word made flesh was invisible. Jesus
beheld them all, he wept over them, and was pleased to suffer for all
those who do not see him and who will not carry their crosses after him
in his City built upon a hill--his Church founded upon a rock, to which he
has given himself in the Holy Eucharist, and against which the gates of
Hell will never prevail.

Bearing a prominent place in these mournful visions which were
beheld by the soul of Jesus, I saw Satan, who dragged away and
strangled a multitude of men redeemed by the blood of Christ and
sanctified by the unction of his Sacrament. Our Divine Saviour beheld
with bitterest anguish the ingratitude and corruption of the Christians
of the first and of all succeeding ages, even to the end of the world,
and during the whole of this time the voice of the tempter was
incessantly repeating: 'Canst thou resolve to suffer for such ungrateful
reprobates?' while the various apparitions succeeded each other with
intense rapidity, and so violently weighed down and crushed the soul of
Jesus, that his sacred humanity was overwhelmed with unspeakable
anguish. Jesus--the Anointed of the Lord--the Son of Man struggled and
writhed as he fell on his knees, with clasped hands, as it were
annihilated beneath the weight of his suffering. So violent was the
struggle which then took place between his human will and his
repugnance to suffer so much for such an ungrateful race, that from
every pore of his sacred body there burst forth large drops of blood,
which fell trickling on to the ground. In his bitter agony, he looked
around, as though seeking help, and appeared to take Heaven, earth, and
the stars of the firmament to witness of his sufferings.

Source: 

http://archive.org/stream/thedolorouspassi10866gut/10866.txt

 

[Guest]

Im inspired by Christians like Lecrae, Trip Lee, an some others who aren't well known. Most of them are black. Not trying to make it about race but it is what it is. These guys are on fire for Christ and just because they're not Catholic doesn't change anything. Cause after all they are saved by GRACE THROUGH FAITH. To even imply that they are "less Christian" because they aren't Catholic is offensive. Their relationships with Christ and their faith in Him is rock solid. And it shows through their lives and ministries. Yeah I hope they become Catholic but Jesus obviously isn't aggravated they haven't and I'm honestly curious if The Holy Spirit is even nudging them to do so. Because their lives are 100% a living testimony to God yet they aren't Catholic. Hmmmm.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Guest

[MarysLittleFlower]

Why do you assume that God isn't drawing these people to the Church or hoping to? When I was Protestant I felt a strong love for God and sought Him and I didn't think I should be Catholic. Yet eventually I was shown very clearly that God wants liturgy and Sacraments and that I was missing out on much. It doesn't mean He wasn't in my life. But I had errors in mythinking too. 

By the way I believe I converted because of Our Lady's prayers and a Catholic friend was praying the Divine Mercy chaplet for me daily. I didn't know.

I also remember I felt unease sometimes with being where I was but ignored it and no one knew. Even if I looked like a strong Protestant. We can't know others souls or state of heart but its also an error to just assume that all Protestants are going towards salvation - that was said in the Syllabus of Errors. We can't judge individuals. But if they reject dogma and then resist grace to believe the Church and dogma that is dangerous. 

[Guest]

Why do you assume that God isn't drawing these people to the Church or hoping to? When I was Protestant I felt a strong love for God and sought Him and I didn't think I should be Catholic. Yet eventually I was shown very clearly that God wants liturgy and Sacraments and that I was missing out on much. It doesn't mean He wasn't in my life. But I had errors in mythinking too. 

Im not saying He's not. I'm just saying these guys are sold out for Christ and their lives show it. I can't imagine God having any sort of disappointment in them because they aren't Catholic. If it was that urgent I would guess the Holy Spirit would make it clear and evident to them that they HAVE to become Catholic ASAP and be a Traditionalist. Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Guest

[Anomaly]

For some, the Religion is their God.