Tradition Commercialized
May 23, 2018 5:01:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2018 5:01:46 GMT
So often we are told tradition is just the same in this group and that group; over here and over there. So make a pick. Tradition is in the new religion we are told; tradition is in its Ecclesia Dei front; tradition is in the FSSP; tradition is in the sedevacantists; tradition is in the SSPX; tradition is in the false resistance; and tradition is equally in the true Catholic Resistance. Tradition is everywhere; wherever you want it to be. But how is Tradition distinguished in its Four Marks: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic if it is really exercised as pluralistic carrying many views?
What then is Catholic Tradition if it is depicted as a smorgasbord of contradiction? Is it not the very being of the Catholic Church itself; anymore?
In May 1995, Bishop Tissier wrote an article explaining what is The True Notion of Tradition. There is no question it is the essence of God lived immutable and unchangeable; yet alive because we live in its life, not it in ours (as the modernists think).
By observation, there is a beautiful insight from TheRecusant on this that needs to be meditated on and questioned where are we in tradition; really. And where is it frankly? Can it be plural or is it one? Sometimes it is like trying to find Waldo in a book. But it is not too difficult when you know what to look for and cut through the think layers of ecumenism prevalent in our times, even intermixed within "tradition" itself, called trad-ecumenism. After all, the French revolution raised its ugly head forcing the guillotine on everyone through time and political correctness saying all gods and all beliefs are to be held in esteem. So they say.
This should be a reminder, there is only one God and He said He is a jealous God.
Be forewarned, tradition in NOT in modernism and "traditional" priests who submit to any form of modernism are NOT traditional; they are modernists! When the cloud of confusion clears, it is plain and simple to see.
[Adapted with a slight edit for context.]
[And from TheCatacombs.org Admin and adapted with some edits.]
What then is Catholic Tradition if it is depicted as a smorgasbord of contradiction? Is it not the very being of the Catholic Church itself; anymore?
In May 1995, Bishop Tissier wrote an article explaining what is The True Notion of Tradition. There is no question it is the essence of God lived immutable and unchangeable; yet alive because we live in its life, not it in ours (as the modernists think).
By observation, there is a beautiful insight from TheRecusant on this that needs to be meditated on and questioned where are we in tradition; really. And where is it frankly? Can it be plural or is it one? Sometimes it is like trying to find Waldo in a book. But it is not too difficult when you know what to look for and cut through the think layers of ecumenism prevalent in our times, even intermixed within "tradition" itself, called trad-ecumenism. After all, the French revolution raised its ugly head forcing the guillotine on everyone through time and political correctness saying all gods and all beliefs are to be held in esteem. So they say.
This should be a reminder, there is only one God and He said He is a jealous God.
Be forewarned, tradition in NOT in modernism and "traditional" priests who submit to any form of modernism are NOT traditional; they are modernists! When the cloud of confusion clears, it is plain and simple to see.
[Adapted with a slight edit for context.]
All SSPX priests are traditional priests
All FSSP are traditional priests
All true resistance priests are traditional priests
All false resistance priests are traditional priests.
All ecclesia dei priests are traditional priests
We are told to take your pick. Trouble is, people are taking their pick.
Unfortunately, this is the perfect example of a straw-man fallacy to say whoever wears a cassock or says the traditional mass IS traditional. Are they? Is this what the Church says?
Let's see...
"All SSPX priests are Traditional priests." Not true. They accept Vatican II, the new code, the New Mass, the new "Saints", Novus Ordo jurisdiction for their marriages and much else besides. That is what the organisation as such accepts. As to the individual priests, some of them only accept it implicitly by their silence. However many of them (particularly the ones who have been appointed as superiors in the last few years) accept it explicitly, openly and enthusiastically to varying degrees. How can you accept the Council and all it's bogus, poisonous fruits (the "legitimately promulgated" New Mass, for example) and still be Traditional? You can't. How can you be in effect a puppet, a client state of the very conciliar authorities who are promoting modernism and yet still be "Traditional" in any meaningful sense? You can't. Therefore they're not really Traditional.
"All FSSP priests are Traditional priests." Not true either. Like the SSPX they must accept the Council and its false teachings and errors, either explicitly or implicitly by their silence. Like the SSPX, they can be found promoting bogus conciliar "saints" and devotions and "miracles". Furthermore, unlike the SSPX, they must participate in celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass at least once a year (Maundy Thursday).
"All (True) Resistance priests are Traditional priests." True. [Incidentally, what is it that put them in the "True Resistance" camp, if not precisely their rejection of those things accepted by the others...?]
"All False Resistance priests are Traditional priests." Not true. Not one of them has spoken up publicly against Bp. Williamson's teaching about the grace in the New Mass. Some of them disagree privately but their public silence implies assent. The False Resistance teaching about wanting positively to form "loose pockets" and that the idea of organisation and hierarchy in the Church is at an end, etc. is pretty much heretical. It's definitely not "Traditional". Nor is their secrecy and silence, where sermons are never made public and Mass times and locations are only for the elite inner circle of those in the know. Is that Traditional? Of course it isn't. The promotion of Novus Ordo "miracles" is not Traditional either. Nor is their turning a blind eye to one of their bishops promoting the public ministry of a justly suspended priest. That's definitely not Traditional. And as for the promotion of a book which was placed on the Index and condemned by the Holy Office together with the poo-pooing of the judgements of the Holy Office of the 1940s and 50s and pouring scorn on the Index - how is that Traditional? It's not. How about Bishop Williamson's teaching, repeated again and again, that God doesn't want Novus Ordo Catholics to become Traditional, He just wants to save them by and through the Novus Ordo...? Is that "Traditional"? Is it really? I don't think so! [Edit - and what about Fr. Zendejas's Blue Paper teaching that the good guys managed to defeat the error at the Council and the bad guys, the ones promoting error, only got into power after the Council? How Traditional (never mind, how true!) is that? Can you call someone who teaches that kind of nonsense "Traditional"..? I don't think so.] I could go on, you get the idea.
"But not all those priests promote those things!" - No, maybe not, some do, some actively defend those things publicly, not all do however. But show me one, just one, who has publicly spoken up against those things, or even some of them, or distanced himself in any way from them or from the promoters of them? No, that's right. None of them have. Not one. Because if they did, they wouldn't be one of them any more, would they? They would soon find their former colleagues and bishops turning on them, they'd find doors clammed in their face, they'd find their good name maligned, they'd find themselves thrown out of the Fake Resistance and they'd be left without a friend in the world. (Except for Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko who are almost the only priests out there with true charity and never turn away a homeless padre...) Look at the case of Fr. Cardozo. The guy founded almost every mission in Latin America. He lived at Santa Cruz monastery with Fr. Tomas Aquinas in the early days of the Resistance. Everyone admits what good work he's doing and praises him. One minute he's their best friend. He says publicly "Bishop Williamson is wrong about this, here's why. Let me quote from the catechism for you." The next minute, he's the devil incarnate and they're telling people not to go to his Mass and Fr. Thomas Aquinas (who soon after became Bishop Tomas Aquinas - what a remarkable coincidence!) is refusing him access to other places where he had been saying Mass already for years and refusing him holy oils.
"All Ecclesia Dei priests are Traditional priests." Not true. Like the FSSP, they must accept the Novus Ordo and many of them say it too. The Franciscans of the Immaculate were saying the Traditional Mass until conciliar Rome told them they couldn't - did they resist? Most diocesan clergy who act as Indult/Ecclesia Dei priests and say the Traditional Mass also say the Novus Ordo, they give communion in the hand, they tell penitents in the confessional "That's not a sin..." and so forth. Fr. Ripperger talks approvingly about "Saint John Paul II"... I could go on. They can't attack the Council, the conciliar teaching or the conciliar authorities, especially where it is close to home. How are any of those things Traditional? They're not. how are people who live and behave and practice such an apostolate "Traditional"? They're not. Therefore those guys aren't Traditional either.
Basically, the straw man consists of this. What do we mean when we say that this or that priest is "Traditional"..? If it means only that he says the Traditional Mass, then that's setting the bar pretty low. You can go to the Traditional Mass, you can even say the Traditional Mass, and be a heretic. You can say the Traditional Mass and be an enemy of God who's destroying the Church - just ask Teilhard de Chardin, Loisy, Tyrrell or any of those 20th Century modernists. Teilhard de Chardin died in 1955, he said the Traditional Mass all his life. Does that make him "Traditional"..?
If you water down the definition, it becomes as good as meaningless. It's like saying "After all, the Anglicans are Christian..." - yes, they're "Christian" in the very broadest sense of the term. They're "Christian" in such a way as to render the term "Christian" almost useless for defining what you mean. In much the same way, the FSSP, the Ecclesia Dei and Indult priests, the Fake Resistance, all can be put under the same umbrella and called "Traditional." An umbrella so large you might as well include Anglican "Anglo Catholics" (some of them have Old Catholic holy orders and use the Tridentine Missal), the Russian Orthodox (after all, they are using a "Traditional" rite of Mass, aren't they?), the Copts, the Arians of bygone years, who else..? There are plenty of potential candidates if we set the bar that low.
Give me a break.
If, on the other hand, it is doctrine and teaching which matter... Ah. Then things look a little different, don't they? But then, that whole silly argument falls to the ground. Because then you need to look at what this or that priest teaches, does he accept modernism in any way? Does he accept the Council or the fruits of the Council (new Mass, new "miracles" etc) in any way? And if he doesn't, if he really is Traditional and really does reject modernism entirely and wholly, then you can't just reject him because you have a personal quarrel with him, disagree with how he arranges his travel, think he should leave decision making to you or whatever other petty squabble you have going on. (Especially not if you're the one in the wrong!)
All FSSP are traditional priests
All true resistance priests are traditional priests
All false resistance priests are traditional priests.
All ecclesia dei priests are traditional priests
We are told to take your pick. Trouble is, people are taking their pick.
Unfortunately, this is the perfect example of a straw-man fallacy to say whoever wears a cassock or says the traditional mass IS traditional. Are they? Is this what the Church says?
Let's see...
"All SSPX priests are Traditional priests." Not true. They accept Vatican II, the new code, the New Mass, the new "Saints", Novus Ordo jurisdiction for their marriages and much else besides. That is what the organisation as such accepts. As to the individual priests, some of them only accept it implicitly by their silence. However many of them (particularly the ones who have been appointed as superiors in the last few years) accept it explicitly, openly and enthusiastically to varying degrees. How can you accept the Council and all it's bogus, poisonous fruits (the "legitimately promulgated" New Mass, for example) and still be Traditional? You can't. How can you be in effect a puppet, a client state of the very conciliar authorities who are promoting modernism and yet still be "Traditional" in any meaningful sense? You can't. Therefore they're not really Traditional.
"All FSSP priests are Traditional priests." Not true either. Like the SSPX they must accept the Council and its false teachings and errors, either explicitly or implicitly by their silence. Like the SSPX, they can be found promoting bogus conciliar "saints" and devotions and "miracles". Furthermore, unlike the SSPX, they must participate in celebrating the Novus Ordo Mass at least once a year (Maundy Thursday).
"All (True) Resistance priests are Traditional priests." True. [Incidentally, what is it that put them in the "True Resistance" camp, if not precisely their rejection of those things accepted by the others...?]
"All False Resistance priests are Traditional priests." Not true. Not one of them has spoken up publicly against Bp. Williamson's teaching about the grace in the New Mass. Some of them disagree privately but their public silence implies assent. The False Resistance teaching about wanting positively to form "loose pockets" and that the idea of organisation and hierarchy in the Church is at an end, etc. is pretty much heretical. It's definitely not "Traditional". Nor is their secrecy and silence, where sermons are never made public and Mass times and locations are only for the elite inner circle of those in the know. Is that Traditional? Of course it isn't. The promotion of Novus Ordo "miracles" is not Traditional either. Nor is their turning a blind eye to one of their bishops promoting the public ministry of a justly suspended priest. That's definitely not Traditional. And as for the promotion of a book which was placed on the Index and condemned by the Holy Office together with the poo-pooing of the judgements of the Holy Office of the 1940s and 50s and pouring scorn on the Index - how is that Traditional? It's not. How about Bishop Williamson's teaching, repeated again and again, that God doesn't want Novus Ordo Catholics to become Traditional, He just wants to save them by and through the Novus Ordo...? Is that "Traditional"? Is it really? I don't think so! [Edit - and what about Fr. Zendejas's Blue Paper teaching that the good guys managed to defeat the error at the Council and the bad guys, the ones promoting error, only got into power after the Council? How Traditional (never mind, how true!) is that? Can you call someone who teaches that kind of nonsense "Traditional"..? I don't think so.] I could go on, you get the idea.
"But not all those priests promote those things!" - No, maybe not, some do, some actively defend those things publicly, not all do however. But show me one, just one, who has publicly spoken up against those things, or even some of them, or distanced himself in any way from them or from the promoters of them? No, that's right. None of them have. Not one. Because if they did, they wouldn't be one of them any more, would they? They would soon find their former colleagues and bishops turning on them, they'd find doors clammed in their face, they'd find their good name maligned, they'd find themselves thrown out of the Fake Resistance and they'd be left without a friend in the world. (Except for Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko who are almost the only priests out there with true charity and never turn away a homeless padre...) Look at the case of Fr. Cardozo. The guy founded almost every mission in Latin America. He lived at Santa Cruz monastery with Fr. Tomas Aquinas in the early days of the Resistance. Everyone admits what good work he's doing and praises him. One minute he's their best friend. He says publicly "Bishop Williamson is wrong about this, here's why. Let me quote from the catechism for you." The next minute, he's the devil incarnate and they're telling people not to go to his Mass and Fr. Thomas Aquinas (who soon after became Bishop Tomas Aquinas - what a remarkable coincidence!) is refusing him access to other places where he had been saying Mass already for years and refusing him holy oils.
"All Ecclesia Dei priests are Traditional priests." Not true. Like the FSSP, they must accept the Novus Ordo and many of them say it too. The Franciscans of the Immaculate were saying the Traditional Mass until conciliar Rome told them they couldn't - did they resist? Most diocesan clergy who act as Indult/Ecclesia Dei priests and say the Traditional Mass also say the Novus Ordo, they give communion in the hand, they tell penitents in the confessional "That's not a sin..." and so forth. Fr. Ripperger talks approvingly about "Saint John Paul II"... I could go on. They can't attack the Council, the conciliar teaching or the conciliar authorities, especially where it is close to home. How are any of those things Traditional? They're not. how are people who live and behave and practice such an apostolate "Traditional"? They're not. Therefore those guys aren't Traditional either.
Basically, the straw man consists of this. What do we mean when we say that this or that priest is "Traditional"..? If it means only that he says the Traditional Mass, then that's setting the bar pretty low. You can go to the Traditional Mass, you can even say the Traditional Mass, and be a heretic. You can say the Traditional Mass and be an enemy of God who's destroying the Church - just ask Teilhard de Chardin, Loisy, Tyrrell or any of those 20th Century modernists. Teilhard de Chardin died in 1955, he said the Traditional Mass all his life. Does that make him "Traditional"..?
If you water down the definition, it becomes as good as meaningless. It's like saying "After all, the Anglicans are Christian..." - yes, they're "Christian" in the very broadest sense of the term. They're "Christian" in such a way as to render the term "Christian" almost useless for defining what you mean. In much the same way, the FSSP, the Ecclesia Dei and Indult priests, the Fake Resistance, all can be put under the same umbrella and called "Traditional." An umbrella so large you might as well include Anglican "Anglo Catholics" (some of them have Old Catholic holy orders and use the Tridentine Missal), the Russian Orthodox (after all, they are using a "Traditional" rite of Mass, aren't they?), the Copts, the Arians of bygone years, who else..? There are plenty of potential candidates if we set the bar that low.
Give me a break.
If, on the other hand, it is doctrine and teaching which matter... Ah. Then things look a little different, don't they? But then, that whole silly argument falls to the ground. Because then you need to look at what this or that priest teaches, does he accept modernism in any way? Does he accept the Council or the fruits of the Council (new Mass, new "miracles" etc) in any way? And if he doesn't, if he really is Traditional and really does reject modernism entirely and wholly, then you can't just reject him because you have a personal quarrel with him, disagree with how he arranges his travel, think he should leave decision making to you or whatever other petty squabble you have going on. (Especially not if you're the one in the wrong!)
[And from TheCatacombs.org Admin and adapted with some edits.]
This repeated emphasis of belittling the efforts of the Church in Her true Tradition to preserve and carry the Faith in every generation unadulterated and uncompromised by reducing it to the level of what men think tradition is, becomes empty of any substance and any glory to God.
The attempt is made to state that each one group or "traditional" priest carries more or less some part of tradition and therefore are "traditional". If that can be said. Is that not novus ordo mentality in tradition? Surely it is; but when others point out the errors in charity, they seemingly become unified to vilify those who dare to love the Faith more than persons. It is human nature to dislike people telling us we are wrong. But we have to love the Faith more than our own egos. Therein lies our sanctification.
Tradition is not at war with itself. It is at war against evil and teaching the One Faith given by our Lord.
It has always been more complicated when Catholics have to 'fight' other Catholics. That is how Protestantism started isn't it? There are wars at times between Catholics...until one side shows explicitly they have abandoned the teachings of the Catholic Faith for a faith that they created themselves. And found themselves no longer Catholic. But is it really a fight against Catholics or a fight for the truth Catholics must surrender to?
To placate saying all these variations are of tradition, to the dismissal of the one unadulterated tradition, a great harm is being done. The harm is that by attempting to diminish the fight for the true Faith, the Faith itself begins to take a lesser place. A focus is placed not on the truths of the Faith, but on the persons in the fight. Our minds are lowered and our intellect is dulled by this approach. It necessarily becomes all about the characters involved rather than about the rights of Almighty God.
There is a true Catholic Resistance God started in Genesis 6,000 years ago to where millions of souls thereafter have given up everything for the Faith. They have been impoverished, slandered and maligned, they have been denied the treasures of God only to be in want. But that want is what made them stronger and more thirsty for God who is their only plenty.
Holy Tradition will always continue and thrive because it fights and is the True Faith.
Hell is hard at work to separate Catholic souls from its Tradition.
Real traditional priest frequently remind us, we all can fall. We all are under violent assault. If we stayed strong this time, perhaps the next time we will fall.
The attempt is made to state that each one group or "traditional" priest carries more or less some part of tradition and therefore are "traditional". If that can be said. Is that not novus ordo mentality in tradition? Surely it is; but when others point out the errors in charity, they seemingly become unified to vilify those who dare to love the Faith more than persons. It is human nature to dislike people telling us we are wrong. But we have to love the Faith more than our own egos. Therein lies our sanctification.
Tradition is not at war with itself. It is at war against evil and teaching the One Faith given by our Lord.
It has always been more complicated when Catholics have to 'fight' other Catholics. That is how Protestantism started isn't it? There are wars at times between Catholics...until one side shows explicitly they have abandoned the teachings of the Catholic Faith for a faith that they created themselves. And found themselves no longer Catholic. But is it really a fight against Catholics or a fight for the truth Catholics must surrender to?
To placate saying all these variations are of tradition, to the dismissal of the one unadulterated tradition, a great harm is being done. The harm is that by attempting to diminish the fight for the true Faith, the Faith itself begins to take a lesser place. A focus is placed not on the truths of the Faith, but on the persons in the fight. Our minds are lowered and our intellect is dulled by this approach. It necessarily becomes all about the characters involved rather than about the rights of Almighty God.
There is a true Catholic Resistance God started in Genesis 6,000 years ago to where millions of souls thereafter have given up everything for the Faith. They have been impoverished, slandered and maligned, they have been denied the treasures of God only to be in want. But that want is what made them stronger and more thirsty for God who is their only plenty.
Holy Tradition will always continue and thrive because it fights and is the True Faith.
Hell is hard at work to separate Catholic souls from its Tradition.
Real traditional priest frequently remind us, we all can fall. We all are under violent assault. If we stayed strong this time, perhaps the next time we will fall.
“It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels.”
– St. Augustine.
– St. Augustine.
