[ultima ratio]

1. Encyclicals were meant to be understood by the faithful. They are letters to the faithful. Once again you show your ignorance. How else do you think popes communicate with the rest of us. Do you think it is by mental telepathy? Or do you get your messages from the Pope over the internet or from the newspapers or from other neo-Catholics as badly informed as yourself?

2. The ordinary magisterium has no binding authority when it issues novelties. It is only infallible when it is aligned with the teachings of past popes and councils. That you don't realize this is part of the current scandal these days--a sign of wretched catechesis designed to keep slavish neo-Catholics docile. Rome WANTS you to believe every burp of the Pope is divine revelation--to distract you from the ongoing and deliberate destruction of the Catholic faith.

3. It's very easy to tell me from Luther. I'm the one who follows Trent--the nemesis of Luther; I'm the one who follows past popes and councils and rejects altars being made into tables and turned towards the people as in Lutheran churches. I'm the one who insists the Mass is a Sacrifice and not primarily a memorial meal, which is the Protestant's doctrine, not the true Catholic's and which had been unambiguously condemned by Trent. If you weren't so docile you would see you have been protestantized by modernists who have fomented a revolution, clearly intending to emulate Luther's rebellion.

4. I have said over and over that Tradition is no secret. Any little old lady over sixty knows what it is--and it ain't found in mosques or synagogues and it ain't found in the universal suppression of central Catholic doctrines and it ain't found in clown Masses or the Lutheran notion of justification or in the hiding of tabernacles or the outlawing of genuflections. But you are so used to telling yourself lies and making excuses for this new thing that calls itself Catholic, that you haven't got the foggiest idea what might be a Catholic tradition and what might be just another papal romp among the mullahs and witchdoctors. To you, if the Pope does it that's proof enough.

5. I do not lack submission to this pontiff, though I abhor his persistant assaults on Tradition. But in fact, I submit to all the popes before the Council which you and your fellow neo-Catholics would dismiss as irrelevant. I revere the pre-conciliar popes who warned us time and again that the modernists were poised to strike. I take now what they have warned to heart--we can see the damage everywhere. You pretend they never existed and what they predicted is of no consequence. Yet it is the WHOLE of the Catholic Tradition which tells us what is valuable and what is not, not the words and teachings of those who now pursue an agenda whose purpose is to wreck that Tradition. This Pope deserves obedience, yes--but only when he does not harm the Church he has sworn to protect by guarding its Tradition. When he attacks the very Tradition he has taken a solemn oath to uphold, then I withdraw my obedience because he has exceeded his authority. He may not demand binding obedience to his novelties since novelties are not divinely protected from error as you and others who place the Pope before the faith wrongly suppose.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"That you don't realize this is part of the current scandal these days--a sign of wretched catechesis designed to keep slavish neo-Catholics docile."

Forgive me for pointing out that you are eyeball-deep in hypocrisy when you criticize the verbal barbs of Catholicguy and then write this dreck.

If you were a traditional Catholic, you would know that docility to the Magisterium of the Church is a virtue, and you wouldn't use the word in a perjorative sense. I have heard many Protestants often speak perjoratively of docility.

"Rome WANTS you to believe every burp of the Pope is divine revelation--to distract you from the ongoing and deliberate destruction of the Catholic faith."

Ah, more insults. More hypocrisy.

"Encyclicals were meant to be understood by the faithful."

Very good. You have managed to write a sentence which is wholly true. Bravo.

But you misunderstand all you read and quote. So, I'm uninterested in your interpretation of the encyclicals of the popes. I prefer the the on-going authoritative interpretation of Tradition given by the Holy Father.

"The ordinary magisterium has no binding authority when it issues novelties. It is only infallible when it is aligned with the teachings of past popes and councils."

Actually, even if not infallible, the ordinary magisterium is binding. There is a difference between infallibility and the attribute of being binding. An individual may think to himself that the teaching on artificial contraception is wrong. It hasn't been formally proclaimed as infallible, and Pope Paul VI actually revised Humanae Vitae so that it was not promulgated as infallible. Nonetheless, the Church's teaching on artificial contraception is binding on all Catholics.

The ordinary magisterium is binding on you, too, ultima.

However, though in your interpretation, there are novelties in the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, or Pope John XXIII, or Pope Paul VI, or Pope John Paul II (or whatever, I'm really uninterested in the particulars of URIOT [ultima ratio's interpretation of tradition]), I don't see any novelties. Why? Because the authoritative Magisterium of the Church has the authority from Jesus Christ to teach and interpret what is Tradition.

Paraphrasing BlackElk, 1. When the pope teaches, he is in accord with Sacred Tradition. It is his interpretation of Sacred Tradition which is valid. 2. If you think that the pope has misinterpreted Sacred Tradition, you are wrong. Go back to 1.

Anything else really and truly is Protestantism. And I say that with the deepest respect to our Protestant observers, especially drstevej. ;-)

"I'm the one who follows Trent..."

That's very nice, really, ultima. But you follow Trent as if you're living in 1602, rather than 2002. And you interpret Trent as if nothing has happened since. Which is why you disagree with the pope. Which is why you should return to 1., above.

We follow Trent, too. But we follow the First Vatican Council, as well. And the Second Vatican Council. And the encyclicals and teachings of all the popes who followed Trent, including John Paul II. If, in our limited view, we believe that Trent contradicts Vatican II or John Paul II, it is we who are in error, not Vatican II nor John Paul II. Again, apply rule 2., and return to rule 1.

"I'm the one who insists the Mass is a Sacrifice and not primarily a memorial meal, which is the Protestant's doctrine, not the true Catholic's and which had been unambiguously condemned by Trent."

* sigh *

How many times must your errors be corrected, ultima? It's only worthwhile to correct them again because this thread is developing into an entire syllabus of lefebvrist errors.

Here is where you live as if it is 1602. Indeed, the Mass is a sacrifice. It is THE Sacrifice. And Luther said it wasn't. So Trent's reform was to add extra heavy emphasis, bold, underline, and italic, to the sacrificial nature of the Mass, to counter the Lutheran heresy.

But, it is also a meal. Or at least Jesus thought so. Or perhaps you think that Trent overruled Jesus? In any event, it is a meal, as well. And the Church believed that that had been lost in the shuffle. You, of course, are evidence of this. So, the Church made a prudential judgement to change the Mass to remind us again that it is also a meal.

Now, perhaps you could argue that this was a poor prudential decision. I disagree, but you are entitled to your point of view. Perhaps you think the change went too far. Perhaps you think some adjustments could be made to improve what is already good. It would be rather arrogant on your part to think these things, but it wouldn't make you a schismatic.

But when you say that the new Mass was not permissible because it violated Trent, you are wrong in fact, and wrong in theology. It is URIOT, not Catholic teaching.

"If you weren't so docile..."

Again, docility is a virtue. It is the mean between contentiousness and subservience. A true traditional Catholic would know that.

But thanks for the compliment. A true traditional Catholic knows that it is high praise, indeed, to be called docile, in the context of submission to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

"I have said over and over that Tradition is no secret."

I agree! Listen to the Successor of Peter, and TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF TRADITION are yours!

But URIOT, or perhaps its LIOT (Lefebvre's interpretation of Tradition), or perhaps a broader SIOT (schismatic's interpretation of Tradition) IS esoteric and secret. Your interpretation is held by a few thousand folks throughout the world, whereas a billion Catholics submit to the authentic Tradition taught by the Bishop of Rome.

"I do not lack submission to this pontiff..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Catholics all, I nominate this laugher for BIGGEST LAUGH OF THE DAY AWARD.

You directly disobey Pope John Paul II's direct instruction to all Catholic faithful to abjure from assisting at the Masses of the schismatic SSPX. "Ah, but I CANNOT obey THAT instruction, because it is the command to do evil!"

Yeah, right. Again, you have substituted your judgement for that of the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church. That is schism, plain and simple. You have rejected the clear teaching of the Holy Father, prefering your own judgement, on a matter where the Holy Father has made plain is matter of basic unity and communion with the Catholic Church. You have chosen schism.

Worse yet, ultima, you have chosen schism when you could have easily continued to obey. If attending the Novus Ordo contradicted your (malformed) conscience, you HAVE AN INDULT MASS AVAILABLE TO YOU. You could have EASILY continued in obedience to the Holy Father AND have had your Tridentine Mass, too.

If disobedience were truly and really necessary for you to attend what you believe is a good and holy rite of the Mass, you could be considered to be misguided, but in good conscience.

But any reasonably well-catechized Catholic knows that disobedience to the Holy Father for its own sake is nothing other than RANK REBELLION.

Your choice is not about assisting at a rite of the Mass you believe is good and holy. You are angry at the Holy Father because he exercised his right to discipline the FSSP in a way with which you disagreed. Even if his prudential choice was wrong, it was certainly within his prerogative to make it. Even if you disagreed with it, it gave you no right to directly disobey him. You have available to you the same rite that is yours with the schismatics. Your choice is about rebellion, out of anger. You are a rebel against the Catholic Church, acting like a teenager who does what is wrong because he feels himself over-harshly judged by his father. And by rebelling against PETER, you are a rebel against God. Repent, ultima.

You are angry how the Holy Father has dealt with the FSSP, and so you have said, "non serviam".

And I know that you are so far gone that there is virtually no hope that my feeble, inadequate defense of the Holy Catholic Church will reach your darkened heart, mind, and soul.

I will continue to pray for you. It's the only remedy for the spiritual sickness from which you suffer.

sitetest