Replies

Reminds me of a story I once read about Maimoneides,that he reasoned himself almost out of a belief in God.

That is the reason I have asked Ultima Ratio why he chose that name. He has not responded.

I have wondered if his "greatest reasoning" has led him to the abyss of non-belief in anything but the Tridentine Mass and when something harms that certainty his world will collapse. Or,if he knows exactly what he is doing and is trying to lead us all into questioning all that is Catholic with the hope of luring us into the abyss.

But rather than speculate,I will again ask UR,just why did you choose your screen name?

First, faith and reason have always marched together in Catholicism. Second, there is something in what you say. And it is this: if the post-conciliar rejection of the past two thousand years is allowed to stand, then it would prove that the Catholic Church itself is a sham and has always been a sham. You simply cannot reverse Catholicism and say--oops!--we were wrong before, but we've finally got it right, the popes were infallible before, but somehow they still got it wrong, but this pope has got it right and is infallible. No, if the past popes were wrong, then the whole concept of infallibility collapses.

That is why we should understand that Vatican II is a pastoral council only and was not itself making claims to infallibility. Otherwise it would logically bring the whole Church into ruin. This Pope and his bureaucracy understand all this. They are very careful to make changes that do not attack Tradition directly. They do so only indirectly, destroying Catholic culture and suppressing doctrines they no longer find convenient or convincing--which was the real purpose behind the manipulation of the liturgy. Gradually, the hope was that Catholics would no longer believe in the old faith; gradually, a new faith would be introduced while the old faith simply faded away--as it did in Catholic England in the sixteenth century under Cranmer.

This is why the persistance of SSPX is such an affront. It is the living presence of the old Church in which the memory of the Church itself is stored. Why do you suppose an apostate like Kasper is tolerated, but a traditionalist like Lefebvre is not? Why are seminarians who sleep around tolerated, while those who say their rosaries are not? Why do some bishops welcome gay Masses, clown Masses, teddy bear Masses, teen Masses, polka Masses--but not the old Latin Mass? There is a real fear of the glaring contrast presented by a Society like SSPX which adheres to Catholicism as it has always been preached and lived. Traditionalism is a sign of contradiction that condemns all that is presently going on in the name of Catholicism. It teaches the young what their patrimony truly is--something other than what is now being taught.