"More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists

Envoy Encore Weblog ^ | 07-30-04 | Patrick Madrid

[pascendi]

"The more significant one MAY be regarding exactly who is excommunicated."

If you're going to say something, then say it.

[pascendi]

Hey, it's the truth. That's was exactly what you did.

You got nailed switching definitions mid-conversation, that's all. Face it.

[sinkspur]

It is simply impossible to have a conversation with you.

Get help.

[GratianGasparri]

They why doesn't Vere come on this thread and deny it?

Because while he personally doesn't mind engaging in a little public controversy, he doesn't want his family dragged into it on his account. And that's precisely what those who spread this false rumor are attempting to do. And to a certain extent, it worked. His wife will no longer have anything to do with the traditionalist movement, as she considers traditionalists to be a bunch of malicious gossips. So he frequents the tridentine mass alone. In contrast, she and the children are always with him whenever he attends the Novus Ordo in Latin.

[pascendi]

"For the thousandth time, it isn't me, it is the Church who expelled you. I simply quote the applicable document."

Misquoted. You misquoted it. To the best of my knowledge, ultima isn't a bishop.

[ninenot]

Technical notation: excommunication is brought onto one's self. The Church paperwork sometimes follows.

That's the diff between the two classes--latae sententiae doesn't usually have paperwork, because it might be due to abortion.

In either case, it's a WARNING shot.

[ultima ratio]

Wrong. No Church excommunicated ME personally. In fact, the Vatican has said I may attend SSPX Masses. You have a problem with that. I don't. I also believe the Pope was wrong and the SSPX was right. That doesn't make me a schismatic. It makes me fair-minded. I am not bound in any way at all by a papal statement that defies the truth and states that the SSPX denied that the Pope was legitimate. The SSPX never did this and doesn't do it now. It was motivated by a desire to protect the faith.

Truth is truth. Not even a pope can change this.

[pascendi]

"And that's precisely what those who spread this false rumor are attempting to do."

Oh, quit with the side issue. This is about the Deposit of Faith and proper liturgical practice, and about stemming the tides of modernism destroying the Church.

Lots of us have wives and kids. What his wife and kids do that's so pious... you know, that's nice. It doesn't really address the theological guts of the problem, though, does it?

NeoCatholics always do this. Get their backs up against the Deposit of the Faith, then it's the devotions, the wife and kids, the "well, what we do" stuff. Talk about holier than...

[ultima ratio]

"I notice that you're pathological in your need to assign sinister motivations to anyone you're speaking with."

Why do you always resort to an ad hominem attack when somebody scores a reasonable point. Pascendi is right. You and others play this game of bait-and-switch.

[pascendi]

"It is simply impossible to have a conversation with you. Get help."

You mean, get more traditional Catholics? I'll see what I can do. Hang in there.

[sinkspur]

Oh, so when pasci makes a completely off-the-wall statement about tents (I still don't know what the hell he's talking about), he's making a legitimate point, but when I say that he's doing what he usually does (assigninig sinister motivations to anyone who disagrees with him) I'm slinging ad hominems?

You traditonalists are not serious people. I'm tickled to death that Madrid's book will likely point that out.

[pascendi]

"Oh, so when pasci makes a completely off-the-wall statement about tents (I still don't know what the hell he's talking about)"

Of course you know what I'm talking about. It was your own word, and you used it first. You said that at least I argued from inside the tent, meaning that I wasn't outside the Church.

Don't play the possum.

[ultima ratio]

Did it again. But let me spell out pascendi's point, since you didn't get it the first time. When it suits you guys, the Church is a huge tent. It includes Muslims, Buddhists and witchdoctors. But when you confront Catholic traditionalists like myself, it's a much smaller tent, ready to exclude people like myself for the least infraction--especially criticizing the Pope.

[GratianGasparri]

You don't get it. What if I falsely and publicly accused you and your wife of having an abortion because I didn't like an opinion you spouted concerning some unrelated issue?

[Arguss]

Let me say first that I do not attend a SSPX chapel, but I find myself defending them on principle.

I do attend the institutionally accepted indult Mass, maybe because I lack the courage of my convictions, and accept the handout of a liturgically correct Mass, and in so doing giving the impression that I accept all else the new Church preaches.

If the SSPX had not fled the Church, and had remained in dialog with the Pope, they would not have left the Church

Not to be obvious, but "Duh" (sorry, I just couldn't resist)

Among the requirements is a unequivocal statement the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, and the celebration of that 1970 Mass.

Unacceptable! Why offer a flawed sacrifice when a perfect sacrifice is available, and in fact mandated by the Church under penalty of anathema. The Novus Ordo is one or two Mason's interpretation of what the Mass should be, and then foisted upon the Church.

People here have said the SSPX does say the Novus Ordo is flawed yet valid, but when asked to celebrate it they balk.

I think that concession must be made, but that doesn't mean NO should be preferable to anybody.

They can continue to celebrate the 1962 Missal Mass freely, but they have to be Ready for a 1970 Missal Mass if the need arises.

In case the need arises to offer a flawed Sacrifice? What need would that be?

As in ages past, the Bishops are sifted. We get good ones and bad ones. I refuse to say a majority are bad intentioned. I agree many are misled.

And this is acceptable? If they had not strayed off the path, in fact jumped at the chance, none of them could have been misled.

This is not an abstract conversation, as if it is happening to somebody else, and that you and I are not really affected, because after all you and I have it all together, and cannot possibly be swayed. It is happening to you and I, and the whole Church.

These few (as you claim), which are really the majority, are leading the whole Church, giving us flawed theology and liturgy. Accepting abortionists and practicing homosexuals as being in Communion, denying Mary's role in salvation, and destroying man's efforts to show his love for God through architecture. The list goes on.

The majority may have been 'merely' misled by the minority in the beginning, but it was the minority that was clearly steering the ship. As of now, the majority are firmly on board.

Opportunists like Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere are merely seeking to cement the division. That, and make a few bucks doing it.

[Dominick]

Wrong. No Church excommunicated ME personally.

Attachment to the SSPX is evidence of Schism, only the Bishops were excommunicated. Yes you can attend a few Masses, and not be in Schism, that is stated by the See in writing, but attachment which is obvious would put you at odds with Christ's Church. You twist and spin every time I talk to you. I repeat what the Church wrote about the SSPX and you tell others I malign you. You should go work for the DNC.

I am not bound in any way at all by a papal statement that defies the truth and states that the SSPX denied that the Pope was legitimate.

The Pope binds us on Earth, and God gave him that power. Argue this with God. You acknowledge the Pope but refuse to obey.

Madrid has it right.

[pascendi]

"You don't get it. What if I falsely and publicly accused you and your wife of having an abortion because I didn't like an opinion you spouted concerning some unrelated issue?"

The perennial Church would have told someone to offer it up.

But I do get it. It is a side issue to the real problem of Vere and Madrid being needlessly divisive with the book. It's all going to center around the contents of it.

Look, if I ever open this book and find out that Vere and Madrid have promoted full and complete adherence to the Deposit of Faith without a new interpretation of it, have unambiguously pointed out the obvious, which is that the hierarchy of the Church has from top to bottom deviated from said Deposit of Faith; if I find that the authors are actually admonishing all to return to Trent, and are promoting the restoration of the traditional Mass, putting behind them the disaster of a liturgy we've been laboring under, then fine. I'll recant my opposition to it.

The opposition is based on these things, not allegations of any kind not directly pertaining to the above. Keep a focus.

[sinkspur]

Why offer a flawed sacrifice when a perfect sacrifice is available, and in fact mandated by the Church under penalty of anathema. The Novus Ordo is one or two Mason's interpretation of what the Mass should be, and then foisted upon the Church.

This is unadulterated nonsense. But, you obviously read Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara, Esquire, who see Masons behind every candelabra.

Read the account of the early Eucharistic Celebration in 155 AD from Justin, Martyr, found in the Catholic Catechism. The Novus Ordo follows the outline almost exactly.

[ninenot]

In case the need arises to offer a flawed Sacrifice

The Mass is the perfect Sacrifice, NO or otherwise.

You discern a "flaw" in the Sacrifice?

Prithee, demonstrate.

[GratianGasparri]

But I do get it. It is a side issue to the real problem of Vere and Madrid being needlessly divisive with the book. It's all going to center around the contents of it.

Then I strongly suggest your side stick to the topic at hand. Remember, our side did not raise the issue to begin with. Rather, it was your side that kept posting this false and malicious rumor in an attempt to undermine the credibility of one of the authors.