TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

[Peace]

19 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

@PeaceHow do you square that answer, your statements to @fides' Jack that prompted my question, with the Arian heresy? Which was taught by 2/3 of the bishops and even in part the Pope. 

Well I knew that is what you were alluding to. It's either that, St. Paul correcting St. Peter, or Pope Honorius denying the two wills of Christ when laypeople want to justify disagreeing with their superiors.

It's somewhat amusing because these are the same three things that anti-Catholics use when they want to attach the authority of the Church.

As for squaring my answer - I would proceed exactly as instructed in the document I posted if I lived during that time and the bishops and the popes taught something that I thought was incorrect.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

1 minute ago, Peace said:

Well I knew that is what you were alluding to. It's either that, St. Paul correcting St. Peter, or Pope Honorius denying the two natures of Christ when laypeople want to justify disagreeing with their superiors.

As for squaring my answer - I would proceed exactly as instructed in the document I posted if I lived during that time and the bishops and the popes taught something that I thought was incorrect.

Doesn't really fit with your statements to fides' Jack. When you made those statements I doubt you had the Aryan heresy in mind. If someone like Jack lived during that time he'd have to submit to the bishops teaching Arianism following your position. 

[Peace]

30 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Doesn't really fit with your statements to fides' Jack. When you made those statements I doubt you had the Aryan heresy in mind. If someone like Jack lived during that time he'd have to submit to the bishops teaching Arianism following your position. 

 

Well, the doctrine on the Trinity has been dogmatically defined and we now know infallibly at this point in time that the doctrine is correct. We have the hindsight of infallibility.

But the hindsight of infallibility and absolute knowledge of the truth cannot be applied to your hypothetical, because at the time of the Arian controversy the doctrine had not been dogmatically defined. It was indeed a controversy with many views on many sides.

Since at that time the layperson did not have the benefit of an infalliable dogma and the absolute knowledge of the truth, let's run with your hypothetical a bit to illustrate a point.

Let's say that Mike was a lay Catholic living during that time. Mike's Bishop was a Trinitarian Christian and taught Trinitarian doctrine to his followers, including Mike.

Mike, with no dogmatic teaching in hand, studied the Bible on his own, reviewed the writings of early Christians, researched what he believed to be the the Tradition of the Church, and based on this research concluded that the Arian position was correct, and felt that his bishop's Trinitarian position was wrong.

Should Mike have submitted to the Trinitarian position of his bishop despite his personal conclusions that Arianism was correct? Or should Mike have objected to the Trinitarian teaching of his bishop and continue to espouse Arianism because this is what his own research and study led him to believe was true?

I would like to hear your answer to that question.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[ZeroM]

Having been banned from the past 3 traditionalist sites, and catholic answers forums before that, as much as I think Francis' crackdown was bad and wrong, I can't say that the Trads didn't have it coming.  Take a look around the internet, and as much as people pretend otherwise, what you see on the internet can't really be dismissed as the lunatic fringe, because this is 2021 and everybody and everything is on the internet.  

[KnightofChrist]

On 8/12/2021 at 10:39 PM, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

 

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

What happens then when a vast majority of the 'living magisterium' teaches and believes heresy and the Pope goes along with it under pressure and/or a desire to get along with the secular powers?

 

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The question as asked was about during the heresy, not afterwards, in relation to your quoted statements.

Does it matter if the 'living magisterium' teaches heresy? Do the laity have the right to object and go back and say "the Church has taught this" or "the Church has always taught that"? Would that simply be an opinion? If that opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from the 'living magisterium', then are the laity to assent to their teaching?

 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

 

Well, the doctrine on the Trinity has been dogmatically defined and we now know infallibly at this point in time that the doctrine is correct. We have the hindsight of infallibility.

But the hindsight of infallibility and absolute knowledge of the truth cannot be applied to your hypothetical, because at the time of the Arian controversy the doctrine had not been dogmatically defined. It was indeed a controversy with many views on many sides.

Since at that time the layperson did not have the benefit of an infalliable dogma and the absolute knowledge of the truth, let's run with your hypothetical a bit to illustrate a point.

Let's say that Mike was a lay Catholic living during that time. Mike's Bishop was a Trinitarian Christian and taught Trinitarian doctrine to his followers, including Mike.

Mike, with no dogmatic teaching in hand, studied the Bible on his own, reviewed the writings of early Christians, researched what he believed to be the the Tradition of the Church, and based on this research concluded that the Arian position was correct, and felt that his bishop's Trinitarian position was wrong.

Should Mike have submitted to the Trinitarian position of his bishop despite his personal conclusions that Arianism was correct? Or should Mike have objected to the Trinitarian teaching of his bishop and continue to espouse Arianism because this is what his own research and study led him to believe was true?

I would like to hear your answer to that question.

In context to the Arian heresy, our quoted posts that are attached above, I answer that the bishop is Saint Athanasius and is a excommunicated, perhaps schismatic, Protestant with a history book. He or rather any simple individual laity who would have believed as Athanasius. 

[Peace]

 

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

In context to the Arian heresy, our quoted posts that are attached above, I answer that the bishop is Saint Athanasius and is a excommunicated, perhaps schismatic, Protestant with a history book. He or rather any simple individual laity who would have believed as Athanasius. 

Thank you for the response, but that is not an answer to the question I asked you.

I would like an answer the question I asked you, which is based on the hypothetical I presented, in which the bishop held the Trinitarian position, and the layperson concluded that the Arian position was correct after his own research and study on the issue. Should the layperson have followed his bishop, or followed his own research and study? More importantly, why?

Is the layperson in my hypothetical also a "Protestant with a history book". Why or why not?

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

 

Thank you for the response, but that is not an answer to the question I asked you.

I would like an answer the question I asked you, which is based on the hypothetical I presented, in which the bishop held the Trinitarian position, and the layperson concluded that the Arian position was correct after his own research and study on the issue. Should the layperson have followed his bishop, or followed his own research and study? More importantly, why?

Is the layperson in my hypothetical also a "Protestant with a history book". Why or why not?

You've never really answered the question I originally asked you in context to your statements to Jack. The reason being you don't want to admit you went way too far in some places. And cannot be squared with times when heresy nearly consumes all the bishops and even the Pope. Individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy. Because that is what the 'living magisterium', aka the Pope and 2/3 of bishops taught at the time. Who also condemned and excommunicated Catholics like Saint Athanasius who did not go along. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

You've never really answered the question I originally asked you in context to your statements to Jack. The reason being you don't want to admit you went way too far in some places. And cannot be squared with times when heresy nearly consumes all the bishops and even the Pope. Individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy. Because that is what the 'living magisterium', aka the Pope and 2/3 of bishops taught at the time. Who also condemned and excommunicated Catholics like Saint Athanasius who did not go along. 

I thought I answered your question but I will attempt to answer it again to your satisfaction. If not, kindly let me know exactly what else it is that you would like me to answer.

1) If the situation were that Jack was a Christian living during the times of the Arian controversy and Jack's bishop was teaching Arianism and instructed Jack to follow this Arian teaching; and Jack concluded based upon his own study and research that the Trinitarian position was correct, Jack should have followed the instruction of his bishop until the point in time when the council dogmatically resolved the controversy. If Jack's conscience absolutely would not allow him to follow his bishop at that time, he could then refuse to follow the teaching and make his objections known in the proper manner set forth above in Donus Veritatis. In either case, Jack could have rested assured that "with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail" as Donus Veritatis teaches.

2) As for your point that "individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy" that is simply impossible as noted above - because the Church can never dogmatically teach error. Only a Pope or a council can dogmatically bind doctrine on the faithful, and God prevents them from dogmatically binding error, as you very well know.

3) As for as St. Athanasius supposedly having been excommunicated by the Pope, that is fan-fiction created by the SSPX in order to justify their schism. There is no historical evidence of his excommunication, as discussed here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Infallibility

And the supposed letters upon which those arguments are based were forged, as discussed here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is the reference for both links.

4) I also find your claim that 2/3 of the bishops in the world were Arian during the Arian controversy to be SSPX fan-fiction, and that Pope Liberius was an Arian also to be SSPX fan-fiction. But I will grant you that the Arian position was widespread.

Now, I think its fair that you answer my question since I have answered yours (again). Could you please give a clear answer to the question, without attempting to change the hypothetical? Thank you.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Peace

[Lilllabettt]

I'm enjoying this a great deal.

[KnightofChrist]

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

I thought I answered your question but I will attempt to answer it again to your satisfaction. If not, kindly let me know exactly what else it is that you would like me to answer.

1) If the situation were that Jack was a Christian living during the times of the Arian controversy and Jack's bishop was teaching Arianism and instructed Jack to follow this Arian teaching; and Jack concluded based upon his own study and research that the Trinitarian position was correct, Jack should have followed the instruction of his bishop until the point in time when the council dogmatically resolved the controversy. If Jack's conscience absolutely would not allow him to follow his bishop at that time, he could then refuse to follow the teaching and make his objections known in the proper manner set forth above in Donus Veritatis. In either case, Jack could have rested assured that "with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail" as Donus Veritatis teaches.

2) As for your point that "individual laymen would be required to fall into heresy" that is simply impossible as noted above - because the Church can never dogmatically teach error. Only a Pope or a council can dogmatically bind doctrine on the faithful, and God prevents them from dogmatically binding error, as you very well know.

Are you still telling me you're changing your position without telling you're changing your position?

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

3) As for as St. Athanasius supposedly having been excommunicated by the Pope, that is fan-fiction created by the SSPX in order to justify their schism. There is no historical evidence of his excommunication, as discussed here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Infallibility

And the supposed letters upon which those arguments are based were forged, as discussed here:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia is the reference for both links.

"St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed", i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: "If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me." - Saint Athanasius, Source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

"A great debate existed over the question of whether Liberius capitulated during his exile. However, several orthodox sources admit that he did consent to condemn Athanasius and/or sign a semi-Arian creed. After the death of Constantius II in 361, Liberius appears more orthodox again. He died on September 24, 366. Though not canonized in his own Roman Catholic tradition, he is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church." - New World Encyclopedia, Source: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Liberius#Liberius.27_lapse_into_semi-Arianism

"It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy, at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. Though Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors, he refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense." - Warren H Carroll, EWTN Source: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118

"Liberius eventually signed, possibly under duress, a document repudiating Nicene Christianity in favor of Arianism and supporting the ousting of Athanasius." - Catholic.org, Source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1010

SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? I can find more...

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

4) I also find your claim that 2/3 of the bishops in the world were Arian during the Arian controversy to be SSPX fan-fiction, and that Pope Liberius was an Arian also to be SSPX fan-fiction. But I will grant you that the Arian position was widespread.

"Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325)." - Britannica, Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism

"It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family." - Wikipedia, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHanson2005127–128-14

“The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.” - Saint Jerome, The dialogue against the Luciferians, Source: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1305/_PG.HTM

Again, SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? Again, I can find more but I've not the time I once had to devote to long discussions on Phatmass.

On 8/14/2021 at 12:23 PM, Peace said:

Now, I think its fair that you answer my question since I have answered yours (again). Could you please give a clear answer to the question, without attempting to change the hypothetical? Thank you.

Perhaps, when you've admitted you've changed your position. I'm still not able to square your position now with your original statements to Jack. So clear and strong words do not fit with your revised position.

On 8/12/2021 at 10:39 PM, Peace said:

Doesn't matter. The living magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Sacred Tradition. You don't have the authority to go back and say "the Church has always taught this" or "the Church has always taught that." That is simply your opinion. If your opinion as to what the Church "really taught" since "time immemorial" differs from your superiors, then you are to assent to their teaching.

Otherwise you are functionally no different than a Protestant with a history book.

 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Are you still telling me you're changing your position without telling you're changing your position?

Friend, go back read through my initial conversation with @fides' Jack I made it perfectly clear in my earlier conversation with him that one's conscience is a factor and that one may object to things that one cannot conscience, and we have had that conversation many times. You think that I am "changing my position" because you only the read the later post without having noticed the earlier posts, apparently.

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

"St. Athanasius, writing apparently at the end of 357, says: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed", i.e. the condemnation of Athanasius himself (Hist. Ar., xli); and again: "If he did not endure the tribulation to the end yet he remained in his exile for two years knowing the conspiracy against me." - Saint Athanasius, Source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

"A great debate existed over the question of whether Liberius capitulated during his exile. However, several orthodox sources admit that he did consent to condemn Athanasius and/or sign a semi-Arian creed. After the death of Constantius II in 361, Liberius appears more orthodox again. He died on September 24, 366. Though not canonized in his own Roman Catholic tradition, he is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church." - New World Encyclopedia, Source: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Liberius#Liberius.27_lapse_into_semi-Arianism

"It is true that St. Athanasius was condemned by Pope Liberius though he was the leader of the defenders of orthodoxy against Arianism at the time. Pope Liberius was a weak man (the first Pope after St. Peter never honored as a saint) and he was imprisoned and probably had been tortured to force him to support the Arian heresy, at the time he condemned St. Athansius. He was therefore obviously acting under duress, as St. Athanasius pointed out when he refused to accept the validity of the excommunication. Though Pope Liberius did condemn St. Athanasius under heavy pressure from his captors, he refused to sign a clearly Arian statement of faith, but did sign an equivocal statement which could be interpreted either in an orthodox or an Arian sense." - Warren H Carroll, EWTN Source: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118

"Liberius eventually signed, possibly under duress, a document repudiating Nicene Christianity in favor of Arianism and supporting the ousting of Athanasius." - Catholic.org, Source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1010

SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? I can find more...

"Arianism, in Christianity, the Christological (concerning the doctrine of Christ) position that Jesus, as the Son of God, was created by God. It was proposed early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius and was popular throughout much of the Eastern and Western Roman empires, even after it was denounced as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea (325)." - Britannica, Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism

"It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family." - Wikipedia, Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHanson2005127–128-14

“The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.” - Saint Jerome, The dialogue against the Luciferians, Source: http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1305/_PG.HTM

Again, SSPX Fan-Fiction writers? Again, I can find more but I've not the time I once had to devote to long discussions on Phatmass.

Yes. SSPX fan-fiction.

As for this supposed "semi-arian" creed that Liberius signed. No copy or record of its contents exist. Some people say that it "could have been interpreted to be Arian" and that "it could have been intepreted to be orthodox" which your own sources admit. So that means nothing.

As for a Wikipedia quote with no source, that also means also nothing.

As for him supposedly having giving in after two years - there is no evidence whatsoever that a document, which may have been an outright forgery, was made under his own free-will, rather than coerced under torture, which your own sources admit (and in which my initial source already explained to you). I suppose you think that if I put a gun to your head, put a pen in your hand, and force your arm to write "KnightofChrist is an Arian" on a piece of paper that makes you an Arian?

And your own sources above also admit that Liberius is considered a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. That makes absolutely no sense if there is a shred of evidence that Liberius excommunicated Athanasius and became an Arian.

Is this really the lengths of twisting history to fit a narrative that people will go to in order to justify rejecting the authority of the living Magisterium?

And yes. I would like you to continue researching the matter. You will find that the very same arguments that you are making originated with Newman during his anti-Catholic period, and that Newman later recanted his position after his conversion to the Catholic Church. The arguments were then later picked up by other anti-Catholic Protestants, and then eventually picked up by SSPX fan-boy Michael Davies and repeated ad-naseum until they became part of trad-folklore never to be questioned again by folks such as yourself, in particular when convenient to denigrating the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

So yes, please continue making the same arguments against the Catholic Church and the authority of her Pope and bishops that your anti-Catholic brethren are so-fond of making. It seems that it floats your boat.

Edited August 17, 2021 by Peace

[Peace]

And from your very own source:

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/has-any-pope-been-guilty-of-heresy-1118

I deny that any Pope was ever a heretic, have researched each case where that is claimed, and will be glad to answer and refute any claim that any Pope ever committed himself or called upon the faithful to hold any heretical belief.

[KnightofChrist]

As stated early I don't have the time for long conversation as much as I once had. I will reply in full when/if I'm able. Also my keyboard isn't working or rather it is poorly so I'm speaking as speech to text and copy pasting. I hope it works. 

The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't infallible. It is clearly very pro-Liberius, here is written like a commentary piece and makes various assumptions in favor of Liberius because of that. Catholics and historians who believe Liberius did fall and did condemn St Athanasius aren't SSPX fan-fiction writers. That's just an easy way to dismiss someone. After all no one wants to be a dirty little vile disobedient schismatic fantastical SSPX writer.

I do not know why you call me friend when you do not speak to as one. If you are confident in your positions there is no need to attack my person stating I am in brethren with anti-Catholics because we disagree on this topic of Liberius and Athanasius. I am only interested in addressing your position, not your person. But you know this , from our previous discussions, and discussions with others. Yet you continue to attack the person which at least subconsciously is an admission that you believe your positions to be weak. 

From the same page from New Advent we've both linked to previously.

"It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter." 

Edited August 17, 2021 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Catholic Encyclopedia isn't infallible. It is clearly very pro-Liberius, here is written like a commentary piece and makes various assumptions in favor of Liberius because of that. Catholics and historians who believe Liberius did fall and did condemn St Athanasius aren't SSPX fan-fiction writers. That's just an easy way to dismiss someone. After all no one wants to be a dirty little vile disobedient schismatic fantastical SSPX writer.

I called it SSPX fan-fiction because 1) I believe that the general form of the argument as used by Catholics today originated with the SSPX and 2) I do not believe that the argument has any solid evidentiary basis.

Now certainly there is room for debate on the issue. We have been debating it obviously with both of us having support on our respective sides. But in particular what I find to be fictitious are blanket statements such as "Liberius excommunicated Athanasisus" and "Liberius was an Arian" while completely ignoring the context, to paint some narrative wherein Athanasius was the great defender of the faith against the heretic Pope dead-bent on making the Church Arian. Practically every one of your own sources indicates that Liberius was a defender of Athansius before he was thrown in prison and put under coercion.  And your own sources indicate Liberius as being orthodox immediately after the Arian Emperor's death, many years before the council at Constantinople:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm

About 366 he received a deputation of the Semi-Arians led by Eustathius; he treated them first as Arians (which he could not have done had he ever joined them), and insisted on their accepting the Nicene formula before he would receive them to communion; he was unaware that many of them were to turn out later to be unsound on the question of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.

Yet all of that complicated history is narrowed down into a simple assertion of "Liberius excommunicated Athanasius and became an Arian" in order to further an argument justifying disagreement with the living Vicar of Christ.

I do think the narrative is quite fictitious and I think it originates with the SSPX, but if that offends your sensibilities, I will simply call it "horse-manure" instead of "SSPX fan-fiction" from now on.

3 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I do not know why you call me friend when you do not speak to as one. If you are confident in your positions there is no need to attack my person stating I am in brethren with anti-Catholics because we disagree on this topic of Liberius and Athanasius. I am only interested in addressing your position, not your person. But you know this , from our previous discussions, and discussions with others. Yet you continue to attack the person which at least subconsciously is an admission that you believe your positions to be weak. 

OK. I will admit that the personal attacks were unwarranted. I had gotten irritated because I answered your question multiple times only for you to glibly dismiss them with a "So you changed your answer again" and refusing to answer my question even though I went out of my way several times to try to answer yours.

Nevertheless, the insult was wrong. I apologize for that.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Peace

[KnightofChrist]

In the spirit of Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Cupich has banned the Hail Mary and prayer to Saint Michael after Mass.

They may pray in silence as individuals but not in unity aloud as one body.

Source: https://wdtprs.com/2021/08/video-priest-announces-he-and-people-have-been-forbidden-to-say-st-michael-prayer-and-hail-mary-after-mass/

[Peace]

16 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

In the spirit of Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Cupich has banned the Hail Mary and prayer to Saint Michael after Mass.

They may pray in silence as individuals but not in unity aloud as one body.

Source: https://wdtprs.com/2021/08/video-priest-announces-he-and-people-have-been-forbidden-to-say-st-michael-prayer-and-hail-mary-after-mass/

That's not "in the spirit of Traditionis Custodes".

Traditionis Custodes says nothing about banning the Hail Mary and the St. Michael prayer.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

That's not "in the spirit of Traditionis Custodes".

Traditionis Custodes says nothing about banning the Hail Mary and the St. Michael prayer.

The spirit being both actions ban traditional forms of prayer. 

Lastly, thank you for your apology. However, I think it best that we not or rarely converse. It just gets too personal. 

[Peace]

50 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

The spirit being both actions ban traditional forms of prayer. 

No, the spirit is not to ban traditional forms of prayer. Traditionis Custodes allows for the Hail Mary and the St. Michael prayer to be said after Mass. Those are "traditional" forms of prayer accordingly to you, so obviously the spirit of the document is not to ban traditional forms of prayer, since the document allows them.

And the NO Mass is just as "traditional" as the TLM. It ain't like the apostles and the early Christians were celebrating the TLM last time I checked.

50 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Lastly, thank you for your apology.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

50 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

However, I think it best that we not or rarely converse. It just gets too personal. 

Oh please. If you or anyone else writes something I disagree with I am going to say something about it.

You already know that.

[fides' Jack]

Satan is attacking the TLM because it is one of the only safeguards against him right now.  The only reason we still have the Novus Ordo is because of the spiritual protection afforded it by the TLM.

He first has to get rid of the TLM, then he can easily get rid of the NO.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Satan is attacking the TLM because it is one of the only safeguards against him right now. 

I'm pretty sure Satan is attacking all forms of the Mass, friend.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

The only reason we still have the Novus Ordo is because of the spiritual protection afforded it by the TLM.

It ain't like incense and Gregorian chant has some magical power that keeps away evil spirits. You gonna tell us about the exorcist who thinks that the devil hates Latin?

We have the Novus Ordo because God wills it. It seems that you are giving the devil way too much credit here.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

He first has to get rid of the TLM, then he can easily get rid of the NO.

Friend, are you worried about it? Satan can do absolutely nothing that God does not allow. The victory was already won 2000 years ago.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Peace