Author Topic: New to the forum  (Read 703 times)

Rubecorks

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2017, 08:27:46 PM »
sedevacantism doesnt exclude you from the DL...they ask the Lord to have Mercy. We do not pray for unity with him. And since hes a heretic he eeds Gods mercy

This is only half true. The pope is prayed for, but the prayer is also an acknowledgment that the man (the pope) is the head of the Catholic Church on earth, East and West. The place in the canon where he is mentioned cannot be a half intention of only praying "for" him.
 
The following users thanked this post: 2Vermont, Nick, Mysterium Fidei

Vinny Zee

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #21 on: December 24, 2017, 11:03:13 PM »
Vinny Zee, you quoted the following,

Quote
In closing, our Catechism states, "The Church reveals that she is Catholic when she gathers the community of faithful around the Eucharistic Table. The assembled community of the Church creates the Eucharist, and the Eucharist creates the Church.

This is Vatican II poison pure and simple. As an Eastern rite Catholic, the Roman Rite cannot be imposed on you. But if you accept the Conciliar 'popes' as Popes you have to swallow the poison nevertheless.

Eastern Rite Catholics might have their own liturgy. But if you accept that the 'assembled community of the Church creates the Eucharist', then you are in the same theological position as the Novus Ordo Catholic.

Awkward Customer I take it from earlier comments you are not even sure if you're a sedevacantist and moreover you didn't seem to know much about the Eastern Church. What I quoted about the community in Eucharist has always been the distinctive way the East has viewed communion. You need to study the issue before making judgments such as, "this is the Vatican II poison pure and simple." Our traditions that we have and have retained pre-date Vatican II nearly 1600 years. The other part of my comment (that you didn't quote) comes from St. John Chrysostom's homily on Corinthians.
 

Voxxkowalski

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #22 on: December 25, 2017, 10:34:17 AM »
Its irrelevent as its the novel non una cum position. The Priest in his willingness to do what the Church intends mentions the man who has userped the throne. It doesnt invalidate the liturgy nor make the eastern rites modernists.
And I was coming to your defense. There is an extensive catholic resource devoted to this topic at www.tradcath.proboards.com
 

Rubecorks

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #23 on: December 25, 2017, 10:55:25 AM »
Its irrelevent as its the novel non una cum position. The Priest in his willingness to do what the Church intends mentions the man who has userped the throne. It doesnt invalidate the liturgy nor make the eastern rites modernists.
And I was coming to your defense. There is an extensive catholic resource devoted to this topic at www.tradcath.proboards.com

While I agree it is true that just because the priest mistakenly mentions Francis because he couldn't personally classify him as a full "manifest heretic", doesn't make a person in the pew sin by that very fact, NEVERTHELESS besides that, religious association with, and care of, a priest who believes Francis is pope yet disobeys him, is a separate moral issue, the morality of which makes it a sin because of the danger of that religious association. We are obliged to separate from dangers to our Faith.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

Vinny Zee

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #24 on: December 25, 2017, 11:16:24 AM »
Its irrelevent as its the novel non una cum position. The Priest in his willingness to do what the Church intends mentions the man who has userped the throne. It doesnt invalidate the liturgy nor make the eastern rites modernists.
And I was coming to your defense. There is an extensive catholic resource devoted to this topic at www.tradcath.proboards.com

Yes Voxx, I did not take your comment as a insult or attack. I just wanted clarification because I didn't want it to come off that was what I was saying. Thank you and Merry Christmas.
 

Voxxkowalski

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2017, 02:43:31 PM »
What is there to obey or disobey at the Parish level?
 

awkwardcustomer

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2017, 10:07:01 PM »
Vinny Zee, you quoted the following,

Quote
In closing, our Catechism states, "The Church reveals that she is Catholic when she gathers the community of faithful around the Eucharistic Table. The assembled community of the Church creates the Eucharist, and the Eucharist creates the Church.

This is Vatican II poison pure and simple. As an Eastern rite Catholic, the Roman Rite cannot be imposed on you. But if you accept the Conciliar 'popes' as Popes you have to swallow the poison nevertheless.

Eastern Rite Catholics might have their own liturgy. But if you accept that the 'assembled community of the Church creates the Eucharist', then you are in the same theological position as the Novus Ordo Catholic.

Awkward Customer I take it from earlier comments you are not even sure if you're a sedevacantist and moreover you didn't seem to know much about the Eastern Church. What I quoted about the community in Eucharist has always been the distinctive way the East has viewed communion. You need to study the issue before making judgments such as, "this is the Vatican II poison pure and simple." Our traditions that we have and have retained pre-date Vatican II nearly 1600 years. The other part of my comment (that you didn't quote) comes from St. John Chrysostom's homily on Corinthians.

Ah yes, I did wonder when you said "our catechism". It sounds like Vatican II poison I should have said, if I'd taken the time to check. To me it seemed to have been lifted straight from the General Instruction on the Romsn Missal.

I have heard VII supporters argue that the NO liturgy actually reflects some of what has been taught in the East. And I have heard that argument refuted by Trads who point out the danger of taking quotes out of the context of the entire Tradition.

But you have misunderstood my introduction. I'm absolutely certain that Sedevacantism is correct. The alternative I'm hoping for is a scenario that doesn't involve the reign of the antichrist being almost upon us.

IMO, Vatican II is the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess: 2. The 'one who holds', who St Paul also refers to and who has to be taken out of the way is the Pope, again IMO. That also has happened and the seat is vacant.

This is the scenario that I'm hoping for an alternative to. Meanwhile, sede vacante.
 
The following users thanked this post: annamack

Vinny Zee

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2017, 12:48:57 AM »
Vinny Zee, you quoted the following,

Quote
In closing, our Catechism states, "The Church reveals that she is Catholic when she gathers the community of faithful around the Eucharistic Table. The assembled community of the Church creates the Eucharist, and the Eucharist creates the Church.

This is Vatican II poison pure and simple. As an Eastern rite Catholic, the Roman Rite cannot be imposed on you. But if you accept the Conciliar 'popes' as Popes you have to swallow the poison nevertheless.

Eastern Rite Catholics might have their own liturgy. But if you accept that the 'assembled community of the Church creates the Eucharist', then you are in the same theological position as the Novus Ordo Catholic.

Awkward Customer I take it from earlier comments you are not even sure if you're a sedevacantist and moreover you didn't seem to know much about the Eastern Church. What I quoted about the community in Eucharist has always been the distinctive way the East has viewed communion. You need to study the issue before making judgments such as, "this is the Vatican II poison pure and simple." Our traditions that we have and have retained pre-date Vatican II nearly 1600 years. The other part of my comment (that you didn't quote) comes from St. John Chrysostom's homily on Corinthians.

Ah yes, I did wonder when you said "our catechism". It sounds like Vatican II poison I should have said, if I'd taken the time to check. To me it seemed to have been lifted straight from the General Instruction on the Romsn Missal.

I have heard VII supporters argue that the NO liturgy actually reflects some of what has been taught in the East. And I have heard that argument refuted by Trads who point out the danger of taking quotes out of the context of the entire Tradition.

But you have misunderstood my introduction. I'm absolutely certain that Sedevacantism is correct. The alternative I'm hoping for is a scenario that doesn't involve the reign of the antichrist being almost upon us.

IMO, Vatican II is the revolt that St Paul warns about in 2Thess: 2. The 'one who holds', who St Paul also refers to and who has to be taken out of the way is the Pope, again IMO. That also has happened and the seat is vacant.

This is the scenario that I'm hoping for an alternative to. Meanwhile, sede vacante.

We are all concerned for the Church and for our own souls. We are all concerned for our priests, bishops (hierarchy) the laity and we should not forget evangelism to the lost. I feel this gets lost in translation too. We should never forget the persecuted church. We all pray and wonder about 2 Thess 2.

Yes, we disagree about sede vacante, but I think there is probably a lot we do agree on two. Merry Christmas to you and your family.
 

Rubecorks

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2017, 12:15:00 PM »
What is there to obey or disobey at the Parish level?

I supposed you are replying to me?  You really should either use the Quote function, or address the person by name.

The Catholics who were faithful to tradition at the time of St. Athanasius and the Arian heretics, were faithful in action BEFORE Rome made the final condemnation. They were faithful by immediately sizing up the situation and acting upon it. This meant they did not pick and choose a priest to go to who they deemed was not preaching the heresy of Bishop Arius. Why? Because there is a grave moral obligation to not associate religiously with danger to one's Faith. It's a mortal sin to do so. As well, priests who think they can just name Francis in their Liturgy and stay quiet against Vatican II and their superiors, would be sinning by complicity of silence, and one can judge such silence to me consent to the errors against the faith.

 
The following users thanked this post: TKGS, annamack

Voxxkowalski

Re: New to the forum
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2017, 07:19:36 PM »
I dont use the quote function because it makes your forum unreadable. You realize youre just a layperson like everyone else and you have no protty like authority to judge fellow Trads level of catholicity.
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne