Very Good Apologetic Webpage

[MC Just]

Nevermind I just found out the site is TRaditional and opposes the Vatican II church.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Where did you see that it was against V2?

[MC Just]

http://www.katoliko.com/churches.htm

The How old is your church page I had the page for a while but never read that part.

(If you are a Novus Ordo "Catholic," your church spun off the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the 1960's Robber Council, Vatican II.

If you are a traditional Roman Catholic, you know that your Church was founded in the year 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ, the Son of God.) Thats what it says.

[God Conquers]

sad

[mark4IHM]

It is sad to see division among Catholics.

Don't conclude, however, that the quotation from this one website represents the view of all traditional Catholics. Violent criticism under the guise of traditionalism is sad. Adhering to Tradition, however, is not sad, for Tradition is a large part of our shared faith.

It was Pope St. Pius X who said, "The true friends of the Church are traditionalists."

[God Conquers]

How can they say that V2 is invalid, I simply don't understand it. It was carried out fully within Canon Law right?

[mark4IHM]

That's a very good question, and I'll take a stab at an answer.

I agree, Vatican II was a validly convened Council, and its documents carry varying degrees of authority, from infallible to the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which may not be simply disregarded , but must, as the present pope has at times insisted, be interpreted according to the Tradition and teaching of the Church.

I don't know many traditionalists who believe V2 was not a valid Council. Those who believe that, I disagree with. What I think most traditionalists can't stand is the degradation of the teaching authority of the Church, which many of them attribute directly to certain parts of Council documents which they contend were purposely written ambiguously in order to be exploited for non-Catholic purposes after the Council.

As a traditionalist, what pains me greatly is the steep decline in numbers since the Council: in priestly vocations, in religious orders, in parochial schools, and virtually every other area of organized Church life. It is as if the Curch has been stabbed, and I mourn this wound, and try, in my meager way, to salve it. That the Church has been wounded gravely over the past forty years is, I think, the assumption of most traditionalists. Some of them lash out in anger and frustration, which only increases the incomprehension of their fellow Catholics towards them.

I do, however, find myself in agreement with those Catholics who believe that the climb back to normalcy in Church life will only begin with a renewed adherence to Tradition, not necessarily traditionalism, by everyone who loves Christ and his Bride, our beloved Holy Mother Church.

[MC Just]

sorry ya'll I had no clue that was on the website until after I posted it. It does have some good apologetics on it though.

[God Conquers]

Don't worry about. Most of us can handle ourselves! Plus, we're not about to worry about you becoming a schismatic!

[sem1357]

can we back up to the part about the division among catholics? what's that about?

[Donna]

Mark, you mentioned the degradation of the teaching authority of the Church since the Council (did I put that right?). What do you mean? The Pope and hierarchy still have their authority... if clergy or laymen are teaching/preaching "offensive to pius ears" or "heretical" things, they can be removed.

Also, I like that quote of Pius X. Do you know where it's from?

[Anna]

can we back up to the part about the division among catholics? what's that about?

Well, there was a division in the Church as recently as 1988. Read this article:

http://www.americamagazine.org/reese/ameri...ica/a-lefev.htm

Here is the formal statement of excommunication upon the now-deceased archbishop: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/l-excomm.htm

Not all of the archbishop's ideas were bad, however. In his heart, he wished to protect and preserve the Tridentine Mass (as did the Holy Father), which would have been a noble thing had he (the archbishop) not crossed over the line and disobeyed the Holy Father.

In order that the good work not be thrown out with the bath water, so to speak, some of Lefebve's followers turned away from the sect he had begun and back to the Holy Father.

In turn, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II canonically established the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. (A most amesome order of priests!!!!)

The specific charism of the Fraternity continues to be the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments according to the traditional Roman Rite.

Wanna get some serious goosebumps? Visit their website: http://www.fssp.org/en/index.htm Totally traditional, and totally united with Rome.

Still, there are many who followed Lefebvre and are now in schism. They do not recognize the authority of the present Pope, and may refer to themselves as "sedevacantists" (empty chair) meaning that they don't believe that the Chair of Peter presently enjoys a valid successor. Peter's Chair (to them) is "empty."

That's the division among Catholics.

[mark4IHM]

QUOTE (sem1357 @ Jul 4 2003, 03:29 PM)

can we back up to the part about the division among catholics? what's that about?

Unlike Anna, I think the division between Cathoilcs predates 1988 a bit, say about 1900 centuries. . You can find division in the Acts of the Apostles.

But the division I was referring to was between many traditionalists and the post-conciliar Church, but that is, IMHO, one of the smaller (at least in size) divisions. The post-conciliar years have seen a steady growth of factions: conservatives, liberals, Opus Dei'ers, feminists, homosexuals, liberation theologists, NO Massers versus Latin Massers, various brands of progessives, charismatics, Legionary's (sp), splinter traditionalist groups, and so on. I am not judging any of these groups, just noting their presence, and how they tend to be at odds with each other, and at times, with Rome.

The irony of it is that the Vatican Council sought to expand the brotherhood of the Church to the world, but instead we find increasing disunity within the Church itself.

Archbishop Lefebvre is a controversial figure. As Anna said, he wished to preserve the Tridentine Mass, but he also sought to preserve the priesthood, and in these days of priestly scandal, this may be considered foresight on his part, whatever else one thinks about him.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not form a sect. He began the canonically approved Priestly Society of St. Pius X. Nor are those that assist at SSPX masses automatically schismatic (according to (Ecclesia Dei), or sedevecantist. Lefebvre expelled sedevacantist priests from the society, and they have formed their own group. So it goes.

I'm sure that's much more than you wanted to know. Sorry about that.

[Anna]

Sorry mark4IHM, I misinterpretted "division" as "schism."

I am with you, actually.

I would love to be able to attend a traditional Latin Mass, which the bishops were instructed to offer "generously," but which in my diocese are over 100 miles away.

I still adhere to many of the traditions which would earn me the label of post-conciliar conservative wacko, to be sure!

What is sad, in my humble opinion, is the many "smorgasboard" Catholics, who feel they can pick and choose which doctrines of the Church they will accept, and which they will reject...so many disregared the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

That may be a fruit of the abuses since Vatican II, but I cannot say that it is a fruit of the Council.

Pax Christi. <><

[ironmonk]

How can they say that V2 is invalid, I simply don't understand it. It was carried out fully within Canon Law right?

Vatican II was completly valid.

They mistake discipline with Faith and Morals... The disciplines change over the years...

It just kills me... they argue that the Mass should be in Latin as it was for hundreds of years, but they ignore the fact that the Latin Mass was a change itself!?

I think that could fall under the dragon's tail sweeping away 1/3 of the stars.

The stars being clergy... and the dragon's tail being the tail of satan.

To oppose the Church is to think ourselves wiser than the Church and God, because God guides the Church.

I just don't understand how anyone can get past "never overcome" by Jesus' very words... If we know Jesus, we believe His every word. Jesus does not lie and cannot ever be wrong. Therefore, the Catholic Church with the Successor of Peter will always be guided by God.

[mark4IHM]

Anna,

Thanks for your post. I hope you can get a Mass that's closer. It is a problem. And please, just call me Mark.

[nippy316]

Thanks for the link...it's still an interesting site.

nippy316

[mark4IHM]

If we know Jesus, we believe His every word. Jesus does not lie and cannot ever be wrong. Therefore, the Catholic Church with the Successor of Peter will always be guided by God.

Couldn't agree with you more. The Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church. The papacy is an institution we all venerate. There have been many, many, holy, saintly popes that are an inspiration to us all.

But God did not promise to guide Peter in his every action, thought, word, and deed. I reckon that the betrayal of Christ by our first Holy Father is in Sacred Scripture for a reason. Some of our popes have not lived up to their office. One pope was solemnly declared a heretic by his successor. This needn't weaken our faith in the papacy. It should, however, give us a realistic (ie, Catholic) view of the strengths, weaknesses, and the bare, bleeding humanity that each Pope bears within him.

[Jake Huether]

"It just kills me... they argue that the Mass should be in Latin as it was for hundreds of years, but they ignore the fact that the Latin Mass was a change itself!?"

Excellent point Iron! So true. I mean, they try to be so whitty about it, but they're no different! I think it's just a case of "old habbits die hard". It isn't about being traditional or not, it's about not being comfortable or not being in tune to what's going on. You know, many of the traditionalists (that think VII was bad) are simply used to the ol' way of doin' things. If their Mass changes, then they won't be able to help out, or they wont be able to follow. If they just sat down and thought about it for a while... The first Mass wasn't in Latin, it wasn't in a Cathedral, or even a seperate congragational area, I doubt there was an alter, or even pews and kneelers. In fact, at the very first Masses I doubt there was insence! And in all likelyhood, the priest, a Desciple of Christ, would have actually faced the congregation. Jesus faced his Apostles on the night He was to be arrested! "Take and eat, this is my Body..." He was reclined at a table with His 12.

It frustrates me that good Catholics would nail VII on really petty things. I'd be willing to place money on the fact that Church numbers, etc. declined not because of VII, rather because of the things going on outside of the Catholic Church. Like Roe v. Wade and the sexual revolution to name just two. VII was a great thing, and it's true fruits, I believe, have yet to be seen. Unfortunately for JPII it was the weeds of idiocy outside the Church that have infiltrated and constricted the flowers of VII.

Just my 2 pennies.

[cmotherofpirl]

"It just kills me... they argue that the Mass should be in Latin as it was for hundreds of years, but they ignore the fact that the Latin Mass was a change itself!?"

Excellent point Iron!  So true.  I mean, they try to be so whitty about it, but they're no different!  I think it's just a case of "old habbits die hard".  It isn't about being traditional or not, it's about not being comfortable or not being in tune to what's going on.  You know, many of the traditionalists (that think VII was bad) are simply used to the ol' way of doin' things.  If their Mass changes, then they won't be able to help out, or they wont be able to follow.  If they just sat down and thought about it for a while...  The first Mass wasn't in Latin, it wasn't in a Cathedral, or even a seperate congragational area, I doubt there was an alter, or even pews and kneelers.  In fact, at the very first Masses I doubt there was insence!  And in all likelyhood, the priest, a Desciple of Christ, would have actually faced the congregation.  Jesus faced his Apostles on the night He was to be arrested!  "Take and eat, this is my Body..."  He was reclined at a table with His 12. 

It frustrates me that good Catholics would nail VII on really petty things.  I'd be willing to place money on the fact that Church numbers, etc. declined not because of VII, rather because of the things going on outside of the Catholic Church.  Like Roe v. Wade and the sexual revolution to name just two.  VII was a great thing, and it's true fruits, I believe, have yet to be seen.  Unfortunately for JPII it was the weeds of idiocy outside the Church that have infiltrated and constricted the flowers of VII.

Just my 2 pennies.

Jake your 2 pennies are worth a dollar, because you are exactly right. The Church turmoil did not start in the 1960's, it merely came to a head. Dissent had reared its ugly head years before. Society changed. The Church is still the Rock.

It takes around 100 years for a Council to work out all the bugs. Because of unprecendented technology the turmoil following a typical Council has been magnified and compressed into a smaller time span. This combined with the return to pagan and barbaric societial standards has created a real headache for the Church. We will survive. While the Church in Europe and North America is on the decline, the Church on other continents is thriving.

God provides!