Replies

I never thought I would find myself having to defend the Novus Ordo mass, but then I never thought to hear such attacks on the Church and the Apostolic See from a "traditional Catholic".

As long as the Church has existed it has been made clear that the Pope and the bishops, as successors of the apostles, are guarded from error, given the wisdom needed to carry on Christ's work and that unity with them is essential for salvation. When the apostles held council at Jerusalem and broke from the 'traditional' Jewish laws, would you stand with the Pharisees accusing them of heresy? Why accept the Tridentine Mass? If God did not protect Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II from error, how do you know St Pius V was protected? Why is Latin the *only* acceptable language, why not go back to Aramaic or Hebrew?

As I said, I prefer the Latin and wish myself it would be restored, but the language is not the point. When St Thomas went to spread the gospel in India did he say mass in Latin you think? I doubt if all the apostles even knew Latin. Why did Jesus give them the "gift of tongues" if they were to only speak a single language? I think the Latin language was invaluable at giving the Church a sense of its own united identity, of being a seperate 'nation', truly the Kingdom of God on earth. But, I can't make language the most important thing, as much as I love the Latin Mass, I see too many people making it into their own "golden calf".

Marcel Lefebvre could never be a saint. When he was ordained he took a vow to be obedient to the Church, the bishops and the Holy Father, just as men and women vow to be faithful to each other in marriage, he vowed to be faithful to the Church and obedient to his superiors. Yet, he broke that vow just as an adulterer breaks the vow of marriage. No matter how many good points he had, there is no justification for breaking an oath to God. He could have remained in the Church and been the conservative answer to Cardinal Mahoney, he could have ensured that the Tridentine Mass was offered as much as possible in his diocese and built up a stronghold for the Tridentine rite *within* the Church, to be an example to others, he could have beat the liberals at their own game--but he didn't.

Where would we be if St Catherine of Sienna had taken his attitude toward the Church and simply broken away instead of doing all in her power to set things right? He could have been a St Pius V or a Martin Luther, and he chose to be a Luther. Moreover, he took the name of my beloved St Pius X, a man who stressed over and over the need for unfailing loyalty to the Papacy and authority of the Church.

There is a word for Christians who do not recognize the Pope as their supreme leader on earth or the authority and special protection of the Church: they're called "Protestants"

I never thought I would find myself having to defend the Novus Ordo mass, but then I never thought to hear such attacks on the Church and the Apostolic See from a "traditional Catholic".

That is the irony that I find most amusing. I am an ardent supporter of the Latin mass and am a member of an indult community where I live. I'm not a big fan of the N.O. mass, but when these bozos start spreading their indiscriminate calumnies about the pope and Catholics who these clowns think aren't quite as Catholic as they, or even Catholic at all, one has to assume the role of defender for the sake of Truth.

I utterly denounce John XXIII. I do not believe he is "Blessed." I do not believe he was free of error his failure to denounce the evils of Stalinism and his failure to denounce the some 100 million murders committed in the name of communism is a stench before the living God. His entire papacy was an error. Paul VI as well as John Paul II both stood by idly as the church was being destroyed from within. I owe no obedience to any of the afore mentioned. I thank John Paul I however for being a saintly and good man. He did not live long enough to be a participant in the modernist destruction of the Church I was baptized into. I must admit I go much farther than SSPX but that is my own personal view. I claim no infallibility none of the above mentioned Popes have ever spoken infallibly. John XXIII may the Lord hold him accountable for the evil destruction of the faith that he was responsible for!