Real trads

[Nic]

Jayne is just trying to win support to get me banned along with Vetus Ordo, who was a good friend of mine and a "real trad."  She set up this loaded thread to do just that - to make me say something against her that gets me banned.  Well, here goes anyway...

Jayne, your "brand" of "traditional Catholicism" is a contradiction of true traditional Catholicism - it flies in the face of the reason there is even something called "traditional Catholicism" these days instead of just "Catholicism."  The traditional movement began due to the infiltration of the Church and the enforcing of a new religion that calls itself "Catholicism" but is not.  It has its own set of doctrines (Vatican II) and its own form of worship (the New Mass) - BOTH of which the true traditional movement has been fighting since the beginning (and yes, Jayne, you don't promote, defend and attend something that you are fighting against - it would be like an anti-abortion lobbyist having an abortion - it is hypocrisy).  Your false "tradism" is mixing traditional Catholicism with the new religion - it is trying to wave both flags - it is mixing Christ with Belial.  It is not traditional Catholicism - it is neo-conism.  Because of your lack of courage and your inability to question your own normalcy bias, you will probably never know what it means to be a true traditional Catholic - and that means COURAGE.  You lack courage to accept the implications of this crisis - you are too afraid of what it could mean. 

The facts are right in front of all of our faces, it is easy to see.  What is hard is accepting these facts and statistics, which most are too gutless to do.  The Church has been infiltrated and nearly destroyed before during the Arian Crisis, and this time of crisis is even worse.  There were those during that crisis who were too afraid to act - actually, the majority were too afraid to act.  Only a very few held truly to the Traditions handed down and remained true to the Faith regardless of the new religion being passed off as "Catholicism."  These followers of the great St. Athanasius will be forever known as the true Catholics during that crisis, those who stood firm in the face of overwhelming heresy - just as the followers of the future saint Marcel Lefebvre will be in this one when it is all said and done.

Anyway, it is not hard after looking at history to see what Catholics should be doing in this crisis - and I tell you, it is not what JayneK and her ilk are doing.  It is what St. Athanasius did.  It is what the English did when they first tried to install the Novus Ordo Mass and enforce its sacrilegious worship.  Those Catholics in England would have rather died than attend a Protestantized Mass - and many did.  The entire reason that St. Pius V codified and canonized the true Mass for all-time was so the Mass would never become the Novus Ordo Mass again!  And what do we have these days?  We have all of what the Council of Trent and St. Pius V, along with most Tradition, flushed down the shitter and a new religion installed within the ecclesiastical structure of the Church.  This is EXACTLY what we have today - it is no use trying to fool yourself otherwise.  Only the brave will accept it and the rest will make excuses and continue to do their best with the fruitless task of trying to mix the two religions together.

[Walty]

On the flip side, Jayne, there has been an increase in opposition to the SSPX in the tank, or at least that's how things have come across to me.  The distinction between maintaining loyalty to the Office of Peter and supporting any current pontiff's every word and deed is being blurred far too much lately.

It gets to the point where those who are frustrated with something like the Pope saying in September that Luther was “a great witness of the faith” are labelled as schismatic, or something less than Catholic because they haven't bought in wholesale to one thing which the pope had to say.

And quite frankly, that's a load of BS.

[JayneK]

Jayne is just trying to win support to get me banned along with Vetus Ordo, who was a good friend of mine and a "real trad."  She set up this loaded thread to do just that - to make me say something against her that gets me banned.  Well, here goes anyway...

That is absurd.  I can't make you say things and there is no rule about saying things against me.  

Jayne, your "brand" of "traditional Catholicism" is a contradiction of true traditional Catholicism - it flies in the face of the reason there is even something called "traditional Catholicism" these days instead of just "Catholicism."  The traditional movement began due to the infiltration of the Church and the enforcing of a new religion that calls itself "Catholicism" but is not.  It has its own set of doctrines (Vatican II) and its own form of worship (the New Mass) - BOTH of which the true traditional movement has been fighting since the beginning (and yes, Jayne, you don't promote, defend and attend something that you are fighting against - it would be like an abortion doctor fighting against abortion).  Your false "tradism" is mixing traditional Catholicism with the new religion - it is trying to wave both flags - it is mixing Christ with Belial.  It is not traditional Catholicism - it is neo-conism.  Because of your lack of courage and your inability to question your own normalcy bias, you will probably never know what it means to be a true traditional Catholic - and that means COURAGE.  You lack courage to accept the implications of this crisis - you are too afraid of what it could mean. 

The facts are right in front of all of our faces, it is easy to see.  What is hard is accepting these facts and statistics, which most are too gutless to do.  The Church has been infiltrated and nearly destroyed before during the Arian Crisis, and this time of crisis is even worse.  There were those during that crisis who were too afraid to act - actually, the majority were too afraid to act.  Only a very few held truly to the Traditions handed down and remained true to the Faith regardless of the new religion being passed off as "Catholicism."  These followers of the great St. Athanasius will be forever known as the true Catholics during that crisis, those who stood firm in the face of overwhelming heresy - just as the followers of the future saint Marcel Lefebvre will be in this one when it is all said and done.

Even Vetus acknowledged that fidelity to the Pope has always been been a part of traditional Catholicism.  He admitted that you self-annointed "true trads" were missing a key component.  Those of us who have formed our understanding of traditional Catholicism from the writings of Saints rather than SSPX pamphlets, realize that  fidelity to the Pope is not optional.  

[Walty]

There are numerous ways to define fidelity to the pope, however, Jayne.  And when you remain loyal to a man, even when he disregards the Church and his Office, then you do not remain loyal to the Church.

[JayneK]

On the flip side, Jayne, there has been an increase in opposition to the SSPX in the tank, or at least that's how things have come across to me.

This is what I am noticing.  But, rather than call this opposition to the SSPX, some are calling it abandoning true traditionalism or becoming neocaths.  

The distinction between maintaining loyalty to the Office of Peter and supporting any current pontiff's every word and deed is being blurred far too much lately.

It gets to the point where those who are frustrated with something like the Pope saying in September that Luther was “a great witness of the faith” are labelled as schismatic, or something less than Catholic because they haven't bought in wholesale to one thing which the pope had to say.

And quite frankly, that's a load of BS.

I haven't followed any threads about that, but I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with being respectfully critical of a comment like that.

[Nic]

Jayne is just trying to win support to get me banned along with Vetus Ordo, who was a good friend of mine and a "real trad."  She set up this loaded thread to do just that - to make me say something against her that gets me banned.  Well, here goes anyway...

That is absurd.  I can't make you say things and there is no rule about saying things against me.  

Jayne, your "brand" of "traditional Catholicism" is a contradiction of true traditional Catholicism - it flies in the face of the reason there is even something called "traditional Catholicism" these days instead of just "Catholicism."  The traditional movement began due to the infiltration of the Church and the enforcing of a new religion that calls itself "Catholicism" but is not.  It has its own set of doctrines (Vatican II) and its own form of worship (the New Mass) - BOTH of which the true traditional movement has been fighting since the beginning (and yes, Jayne, you don't promote, defend and attend something that you are fighting against - it would be like an abortion doctor fighting against abortion).  Your false "tradism" is mixing traditional Catholicism with the new religion - it is trying to wave both flags - it is mixing Christ with Belial.  It is not traditional Catholicism - it is neo-conism.  Because of your lack of courage and your inability to question your own normalcy bias, you will probably never know what it means to be a true traditional Catholic - and that means COURAGE.  You lack courage to accept the implications of this crisis - you are too afraid of what it could mean. 

The facts are right in front of all of our faces, it is easy to see.  What is hard is accepting these facts and statistics, which most are too gutless to do.  The Church has been infiltrated and nearly destroyed before during the Arian Crisis, and this time of crisis is even worse.  There were those during that crisis who were too afraid to act - actually, the majority were too afraid to act.  Only a very few held truly to the Traditions handed down and remained true to the Faith regardless of the new religion being passed off as "Catholicism."  These followers of the great St. Athanasius will be forever known as the true Catholics during that crisis, those who stood firm in the face of overwhelming heresy - just as the followers of the future saint Marcel Lefebvre will be in this one when it is all said and done.

Even Vetus acknowledged that fidelity to the Pope has always been been a part of traditional Catholicism.  He admitted that you self-annointed "true trads" were missing a key component.  Those of us who have formed our understanding of traditional Catholicism from the writings of Saints rather than SSPX pamphlets, realize that  fidelity to the Pope is not optional.  

Fidelity to the papacy, Jayne, not just a specific Pope.  Don't say what Vetus has said or not said without him being here to defend himself, that is BS.  Only true trads are truly obedient to the perpetual papacy these days.  What neo-cons cannot grasp is that not every word uttered by a specific pope is infallible - in these troubled times, many of his words are ambiguous or outright error.  Calling Jews "people of the covenant" and praising Martin Luther are errors, plain and simple.  We are called to resist and even disobey ecclesiastical superiors, even the Pope himself, when the true Faith is at stake - something that you just cannot (or will not) grasp.

...and it is indeed absurd, but I believe you knew exactly what you were doing with this thread, even calling me out by name.  It is pretty obvious that this thread was loaded from the get-go.

[Stubborn]

There are many good things to say about the SSPX.  I think their founder was a holy man, doing what he thought best for the Church.  They have struggled to preserve the TLM under difficult circumstances.  They have taken a stand for orthodoxy in a time when many abandon it.  I disagree with them on some points, but I agree sufficiently that I often attend Mass at their chapel.  I used to defend them back when I was on CAF.

Unfortunately, some posters on FE seem to consider the SSPX the measure of being a traditional Catholic.  They act like they think anyone who does not take the SSPX position is not a real trad and label such people neo-con, neo-cath, etc.  There are enough people with this attitude that anyone stating a non-SSPX position can expect a bunch of people to forcefully, often unpleasantly, express disagreement.  It has created an atmosphere of intimidation on this forum such that people who take non-SSPX positions may be reluctant to say so.

Lately, I have the impression there has been a shift in this.  More and more are speaking up and taking positions not approved by the SSPX.  I think, based on complaints I've noticed about how the forum is ceasing to be a real trad forum, our SSPX supporters here have noticed it too. 

Jayne, wth is up with this thread?

FWIW, I think *you* need to investigate the beginnings of the SSPX to see where they come from and why -  so as to educate yourself  so you quit slandering whatever has to do with tradition while promoting the anti-traditional NO. Modernists reside at CAF, they infiltrate FE.

So here's your assignment if you feel like facing reality one day........Please enlighten us as regards why the SSPX was ever even formed.

It's not like I'm asking for documentation regarding something that happened 1000 years ago - SSPX started about 42 years ago and the real struggles within the SSPX occurred for about it's first 15 years of existence.

[Walty]

On the flip side, Jayne, there has been an increase in opposition to the SSPX in the tank, or at least that's how things have come across to me.

This is what I am noticing.  But, rather than call this opposition to the SSPX, some are calling it abandoning true traditionalism or becoming neocaths.  

Of course they are calling it that, because that is exactly what it is.  The SSPX has secured traditionalism.  It has stood unwavering for what the Church has stood for for centuries.  Anything else is a compromise.

[Nic]

On the flip side, Jayne, there has been an increase in opposition to the SSPX in the tank, or at least that's how things have come across to me.

This is what I am noticing.  But, rather than call this opposition to the SSPX, some are calling it abandoning true traditionalism or becoming neocaths.  

Of course they are calling it that, because that is exactly what it is.  The SSPX has secured traditionalism.  It has stood unwavering for what the Church has stood for for centuries.  Anything else is a compromise.

THIS!

[Stubborn]

On the flip side, Jayne, there has been an increase in opposition to the SSPX in the tank, or at least that's how things have come across to me.

This is what I am noticing.  But, rather than call this opposition to the SSPX, some are calling it abandoning true traditionalism or becoming neocaths.  

Of course they are calling it that, because that is exactly what it is.  The SSPX has secured traditionalism.  It has stood unwavering for what the Church has stood for for centuries.  Anything else is a compromise.

THIS!

Yep!

Well said!