The Neo-Catholic Dead-End

Catholic Family News ^ | October 2002 | Thomas E. Woods

[BlackElk]

Wrong! Each and every Catholic (and some schismatics as well) believes in the Real Presence. Anyone who does not is certainly no Catholic John vi, 58 et seq. I think you will agree with that.

AND, on behalf of my wife, who thinks of herself as the language police (and she is right), we should restore the meaning of decimate, especially those of us who are attached to the Latin language, decimation was the practice of Roman commanders displeased with the troops of lining them up and killing every tenth man, ten per cent of them, hence: decimate. I don't think you mean that we have suffered only a ten percent loss, even I am not that optimistic.

[ultima ratio]

I used the word in its proper sense in English: to destroy, or to destroy a large part of something. And if you think most Catholics haven't turned into Protestants, you are living in a dream world. Most Catholics nowadays believe what they feel like--and they don't feel like believing in the Real Presence. They stopped going to confession decades ago--but hey, why the heck should they when sin has been banished from discussion? It's never mentioned from the pulpit anymore--and Hell is definitely something out of the bad old days of pre-Vatican II. It's all One Bread One Body and Kumbaya. Our churches look Protestant, our Masses look Protestant, our songs sound Protestant, our priests dress and act like Protestant ministers, our kids think like Protestants. Hey, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

[BlackElk]

Starting at the end: My kids don't act like Protestants. Our Church was built in 1885, retains its high altar and communion rail where people KNEEEL to receive on the tongue only, has no table, will soon have the last four of its pristinely restored (not revised) stained glass windows, is the site ONLY of Tridentine Masses offered by the decidedly non-schismatic Institute of Christ the King. Our Church is fully in communion with Bishop Thomas Doran and with Rome. Bishop Doran did our Tridentine Confirmations this year. Funerals, Wedding Masses, Funeral Masses, Baptisms, you name it are Tridentine. My point was that Catholics may not (are not allowed) to be Catholic and believe what theyt please as to matters of doctrine and dogma. Anyone who does is no Catholic. Don't be so anxious to disagree when I am agreeing with you from time to time.

[ultima ratio]

You were agreeing? The first word you used in your last post was WRONG. That said, you're damn fortunate--most Catholics in this country have no where to go like that. We travel an hour one way to a barren little church that has nothing to recommend it aesthetically. But the people are great and the young priest who says Mass is a gem. I suspect maybe I feel the general wreckage more than you. Some families I know have uprooted their lives and moved across the country just to be near a Latin Mass. People are truly fed up.

[Catholicguy]

<> MOST protestants don't read the Bible. When they do, their beliefs, based upon the oral traditions of the 16th century heretics, preceed their Bible reading.

Oral Traditions of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli FIRST, Scripture second, is the law of belief for protestants<>

[Zviadist]

Thanks for your recommendation and the link. I just subscribed online

Excellent! Let me know how you like it.

[Zviadist]

If we explain that criticizing the pope is not unCatholic, that even the saints have done it, and that there is plenty of cause for doing so, you hurl an insult. If we explain Vatican II was not infallible because it was a pastoral, not a dogmatic council, you hurl an insult. You people don't want discourse, you want to browbeat the opposition. What this tells me is your religion is the Pope--and I don't mean the papacy, either, I mean just this particular pope. To you he is above reproach and can never do wrong, even when he's in direct opposition to all other previous popes. If he said eating hamburgers and french fries three times a day every day is good for you, you'd genuflect before his picture and go out to the nearest McDonalds to load up.

This bears repeating again and again. I have also suffered the endless insults when pointing out basic Catholic doctrine and history. The start and finish of any refutation of objective fact is to scream "SSPX SSPX SSPX" at the top of their lungs. I suppose it demonstrates the emptiness of their argument. You are correct: they are papolotors. The Pope is even above the Holy Roman Church in their eyes. One can only chalk this up as yet another fruit of Vaticn II.

[Zviadist]

But in any event, ultima is a schismatic, and no longer a Catholic.

This is an objective legal term, quantifiable in Canon Law. I challenge you to prove this accordingly, or otherwise I will accuse you of bearing false witness. Prove it according to the terms enshrined in our Sacred law or be guilty of grevious sin.

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

I hadn't engaged you previously in conversation, and thus, don't consider myself obligated to obey your commands.

You may accuse me all you wish. That doesn't mean that I'm guilty of anything, just that you have an overactive imagination and an underactive rational sense.

All the best,

sitetest

[Zviadist]

You may accuse me all you wish. That doesn't mean that I'm guilty of anything, just that you have an overactive imagination and an underactive rational sense.

You have made a legal assertion that attacks the Catholicity of a fellow Roman poster. I have merely demanded that you prove your absurd assertion or stand guilty of bearing false witness. Sounds to me like you don't even understand the term "schismatic." It is just a convenient epithet for you. Go back and learn your faith before attacking others who have already done so.

[ultima ratio]

All the insults do is tell us we're on the right track. If we weren't, they'd have more to oppose us with besides insults. But they don't. So in frustration they lash out.

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

Whether I offer a defense of my assertion or not, it is either true, or it is untrue.

If it is true, and I offer no defense, I'm guilty of nothing, not even if you think it.

If it is untrue, but I believe it to be true, whether I offer a defense or not, my status doesn't change. If it is untrue, then objectively, I have committed a grave evil. Though, because I truly believe him to a be a schismatic, and base that judgement on considerable evidence, I may not be subjectively guilty of anything.

This applies whether I defend my assertion or not.

Just for your information, I haven't made a "legal assertion" about ultima. I have no authority to make a "legal assertion". I'm noting the actual facts which derive from his words and actions. When I call him a schismatic, it is as a charitable correction to him, and a warning in charity to others, not a formal determination of legal status.

You may wish to read the current issue of the New Oxford Review in relation to this topic.

Your illegitimate demand that I prove that the schismatic ultima ratio is a schismatic would meet with a greater receptivity if it were not ridiculous in the light of the tens of thousands of words that have been spilled here at FR, explaining carefully, diligently, even kindly, to ultima why what he is saying and purporting to do is schismatic, why he is wrong in his interpretations of Church teaching and law.

It has even been shown to him when he has badly misquoted others, or mischaracterized what they said, or even manufactured quotes.

At every turn, every benefit of the doubt was extended to ultima that if only he were presented with the truth, he would turn from his schismatic acts and beliefs.

The vast majority of this pleading for his return to the Catholic faith was by posters far more knowledgeable and intelligent than me. In spite of the onslaught of citation, reason, and appeal to the heart, he has obstinately maintained his schismatic course.

Thus, it's reasonable to call him a schismatic. After having been proven beyond any doubt numerous times, it doesn't have to be re-proved each time someone notes that he is no longer a Catholic.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima,

"If we weren't, they'd have more to oppose us with besides insults."

You've been opposed numerous times with arguments and facts which make your position indefensible.

You seem to enjoy repeating your falsehoods over and over and over and over again.

Those who have refuted your falsehoods don't enjoy having to repeat the refutations over and over and over and over again.

Those who oppose you are relatively normal individuals with relatively normal lives, who can't invest 100% of their time to repeating over and over and over and over again the refutations to your false beliefs.

Nonetheless, you have been defeated, you have refused to let go of your false beliefs, you cling with tenacity and obstinance to your schism.

Thus, there is nothing wrong in noting when speaking about you or what you say that you are no longer a Catholic.

At this point, you are an object lesson. I remember you in my prayers.


sitetest

[RobbyS]

People are making noises that sound like a claim that John Paul II is an antipope.There have often been disputes along these lines, and it generally happens when Rome is not dancing to the tune of a particular sect. Don't like a judgement, deny the competency of the Court. If there is not higher court, then denounce the court as usurper.

[Zviadist]

Though, because I truly believe him to a be a schismatic, and base that judgement on considerable evidence, I may not be subjectively guilty of anything.

So there is no objective reality, just what you "believe". No need to prove scandalous assertions, it is enough to believe them. Sounds like the argumentation of a leftist-relativist to me.

[Zviadist]

People are making noises that sound like a claim that John Paul II is an antipope.

There is a world of difference between questioning the judgement of this pope in matters other than ex-cathedra pronouncements on faith and morals and claiming someone is an anti-pope. Only a papolotor would fail to see that difference.

[Zviadist]

At this point, you are an object lesson. I remember you in my prayers.

Oh, the phony sanctimoniousness of the phony neo-Caths.

Ultima rips your argumentation to shreds with authentic Roman Catholic doctrine and leaves you with two pathetic retorts: "schismatic" and "I will pray for you." I would say it is about game, set, and match in favor of your opponent.

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"Oh, the phony sanctimoniousness of the phony neo-Caths."

LOL.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: sanc·ti·mo·nious
Pronunciation: "sa[ng][k]-t&-'mO-nE-&s, -ny&s
Function: adjective
Date: 1603
1 : affecting piousness : hypocritically devout; also : indicative of affected piousness <the king's sanctimonious rebuke -- G. B. Shaw
2 obsolete : possessing sanctity : HOLY
- sanc·ti·mo·nious·ly adverb
- sanc·ti·mo·nious·ness noun

Since "sanctimonious" is "affecting piousness" or being "hypocritically devout", I suppose that "phony sanctimoniouness" would mean, approximately, "truly pious" or "truly devout".

Gee thanks, Z!

On the other hand, perhaps you mean the obsolete meaning of the word, given in the second definition. In that case, come on, Z, get your head out of the 17th Century.

"I would say it is about game, set, and match in favor of your opponent."

Only if you discount the entire history of ultima's stay here at FR. I'm surprised that you take such a Protestant approach to the situation.

;-)



sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Zviadist,

"So there is no objective reality, just what you 'believe'."

I'm surprised to see such an unCatholic remark from you, Z.

Certainly you recognize the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that there are more elements to mortal sin other than committing an act which is gravely wrong?


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

You will remember me in your prayers? I'll bet you will. Talk about speaking falsehoods. You show your true venom when you repeat I'm not a Catholic. But that is the sum of your pathetic argument.