/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I don't think is is a result of Latin masses, but as a result of those who seek them out. I go to NO, nothing wrong with it, but it's a lot more common, so it's easier for everyone, even those who aren't as committed. Where as you have to seek out Latin mass, and for me, drive out an hour, it's still worth it imo I just can't most Sundays.

That part about the alms giving is kind of surprising to me. Not that I thought that TLM attendees would give less, but rather the disparity. The NOM sure talks high but they clearly don't put their money where their mouth is.

>>778329

I do not go to the the tridentine mass as there is none nearby, but there's no doubt it better preserves the sense of the sacred and of sacrifice. So, in general, people who go there are more preserved in the deposit of faith.

Does anyone know TLM vs NOM population?

How many parishes or each?

>>778381

TLM is miniscule. There's a few million with the SSPX, probably a few million more with the FSSP, and then miniscule numbers with groups like ICK or diocesan Latin masses (the problem with diocesan TLM is it's usually more of a once-a-month or at best once-a-week special occasion, so it doesn't really count; the people attending are still fundamentally doing novus ordo stuff).

Correlation != causation

>>778412

amen

>>778412

Don't you think it's safe to assume that those who partake in the traditional mass also have the the doctrines better preserved by it?

>>778324

Traditionalists are Traditional; Modernists are Modern. Film at 11:

>>778336

>>778419

>>778447

>>778324

Given that I'm NOM and yet I hold the same stance as TLM people, I can't way i particularly care. I'll receive mass wherever I can. So long as both I and Christ are present I'm satisfied.

>>778511

Christ is even present at the Divine Liturgy, that's not a very good argument for the novus ordo mass.

>>778531

Christ is present in all the Liturgy that has a consecrated priests, trying to play the "this type of mass is better than this type of mass" is silly. It's also a game that SSPX types like to play.

>>778412

Thank you.

>>778501

>Modernists are Modern.

this is an uncatholic and uncharitable approach to thinking of this, the Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world, NOM containing the biggest discrepancies is not only expected, but logical.

I live in one of the biggest Catholic cities in the US. Lots of fairly nice/maintained buildings/parishes. They're not all traditional. Where are they getting the funding?

>>778533

>this is an uncatholic and uncharitable approach to thinking of this, the Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world, NOM containing the biggest discrepancies is not only expected, but logical.

The ultimate purpose of the NOM is to be as accommodating to modern tastes as possible. To make the church adapt to the world, rather than the other way around, and it's fruits bear witness to this. Such things as less than a third attending weekly services, almost 90 percent in favor of contraception, and a half to over a half approving of things like abortion and gay marriage, goes far beyond mere "discrepancies." If calling a spade a spade is uncharitable, then call me Ebenezer Scrooge.

>>778544

>Why did the number of baptized decline rapidly after the new mass was instituted? Why did the number of catholics decline after the new mass? Where is the sense of sacrifice that got replaced by a 'feast'?

Because it was the 60's, and the world was groaning under the heel of the sexual revolution. Vatican II was a response to the culture-war and declining Mass attendance rate, not a cause.

Read E. Michael Jones.

>>778546

>The ultimate purpose of the NOM is to be as accommodating to modern tastes as possible

The ultimate purpose of NOM is to be a divine liturgy for Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

>Such things as less than a third attending weekly services, almost 90 percent in favor of contraception, and a half to over a half approving of things like abortion and gay marriage, goes far beyond mere "discrepancies." If calling a spade a spade is uncharitable, then call me Ebenezer Scrooge

All things that are actually impossible to blame on NOM, I'm unsure how you could prove it.

I go to the new mass since there's traditional mass near where I live. Therefore I recognize the real presence in it. But I do not look down upon the traditional. No. On the contrary: it was done with proper reverence and the sacrifice was explicit. Modernists go away. Nothing was more harmful to the church than the second council. I challenge you to name a good fruit that has come out of it

THE TRUTH IS ETERNAL. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO ADAPT TO THE TIMES

>>778549

>The ultimate purpose of NOM is not about accommodating modern tastes.

>Vatican II was a response to the culture-war and declining Mass attendance rate.

Pick one.

>All things that are actually impossible to blame on NOM, I'm unsure how you could prove it.

You seriously think that the rise of things like "clown mases", rock concert like services and the fact that brazenly open LGBTQ supporters like James Martin have not been defrocked yet, in the aftermath of the liberalizing effects of V2 are just a coincidence?

>>778558

OP here posting from me phone

>>778329

/thread.

>>778559

Honk honk.

>>778559

>You seriously think that the rise of things like "clown mases", rock concert like services and the fact that brazenly open LGBTQ supporters like James Martin have not been defrocked yet, in the aftermath of the liberalizing effects of V2 are just a coincidence?

Yeah because that's written in the roman missal and the documents of V2, its totally not the actions of sinful people trying to destroy the church.

>>778531

The divine liturgy is used by Eastern Catholics, so of course he is. Crapping on another rite isn't a good argument for the Latin mass either.

Honestly, My ideal would be the TLM in vernacular, given that the Easterns are allowed to use vernacular in the Divine Liturgy. It just seems like the most reasonable compromise between NOM and TLM.

I'm not bias against TLM, I just don't think either is really the optimal solution to restoring Orthodoxy, what little of it there was in the first place.

for context I only go to TLM and would only go to NO unless I literally had no other option. This is totally ridiculous and has just been sad seeing people posting this, it's a terrible survey. It's taking into account ALL No going Catholics, not ones who even go to mass at all. For the TLM it literally asks people in pew.

It's asking people who go to mass frequently enough to see the survey if they go to mass, while for the NO it's asking people randomly (not who go to mass).

I'm sure TLM goers are more in that direction but the actual amount is totally absurd because it's such a poorly done study. I have no idea how anyone is actually taking it seriously at all it's awful, makes TLM Catholics look bad.

>>778898

>I'm sure TLM goers are more in that direction but the actual amount is totally absurd because it's such a poorly done study. I have no idea how anyone is actually taking it seriously at all it's awful, makes TLM Catholics look bad.

I'm with you, anon. Hence why I asked earlier how I have dozens (if not a hundred) NO churches in my city that are all maintained. With the results of this "poll", an outsider would be under the impression that the Catholic church conducts it's services out of shacks, using moth eaten lectionary books… or something.

>>778898

>It's asking people who go to mass frequently enough to see the survey if they go to mass, while for the NO it's asking people randomly (not who go to mass).

Because most people go NOM just out of convenience. Even I'm not opposed to TLM and I still go NOM just because it's easier. The percentage of Catholics who go TLM is naturally going to be smaller.

>>778901

>With the results of this "poll", an outsider would be under the impression that the Catholic church conducts it's services out of shacks, using moth eaten lectionary books… or something.

Because the media wants to destroy the church, and sedes support them when the media indirectly makes it convenient for them to shill their ideals.

I've seen other polls with radically different results based on who's conducting/being asked.

>>778903

No idea what you are on about, the quantity doesn't matter.

The dataset of NO goers consists of people randomly contacted by the Pew center for some of them atleast, its' genuinely random group that is just anyone who identifies as Catholic. This is what the NO group is.

The TLM dataset on the other hand is Catholics who already attend mass, or are active in Catholics stuff online.

Here is the section of the study where they talk about it.

Method

The survey consisted of seven questions on the beliefs and attitudes of the respondents. Data was collected between March 2018 and November 2018. The surveys were anonymous and unique responses only were tallied. In pew surveys were administered to 1322 respondents. The number of responses varied (between 1,251 and 1,322) according to the given question. The same survey, administered online, received 451 responses.

In Pew Survey Respondents

Arizona, California, Colorado, New Hampshire, Texas.

Online Survey Respondents

Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia.

The TLM and NO dataset are gathered in totally different and not comparable ways

The only way to have any sort of accurate test is just Pew or some other big group doing the random sampling and asking about the TLM. Even if they used the method they did on NO Catholics as well the idea that just asking people in the Pew and having an online survey can give you a good clear dataset seems pretty absurd. (atleast in relation to mass attendence)

For the stuff on views asking people in pew would work but NO would need to use the same method to be able to compare the data.

They went with the easier method with bad datasets just to get any stats out because actually gathering data properly would be extremely difficult, but this doesn't mean we should just be okay and repeat a bad study because it agrees with us.

>>778884

Just ignore the fact that V2 has made it all the more easier for sinful people to destroy the church.

>Yeah because that's written in the roman missal and the documents of V2,

Vatican 2 specifically encourages radical ecumenism to the point of holding Islam in "high esteem" rather than heresy. Is it any wonder you're getting stuff like this?:

"Vatican Creates Syncretistic Logo With Muslim Crescent Moon"

https://gloria.tv/article/oHKqidbKACXM4sUexAM8tGqWs

Or statements by Francis that are essentially #NotAllMuslims, and pushing the "Religion of Peace" meme? Of course Vatican 2 is not going to have statements like "Herp Derp, Destroy Catholic Church!" The Devil is a lot more subtle and clever than that.

>>778919

Every media data set outside of ones conducted among Catholics always includes non-practicing Catholics, who obvious should not be factored in.

Like I said, sedes will promote (((Main Stream Media))) lies so long as it lets them paint the core church in a negative light. Just like protestants.

How do you find a Latin mass church? My parish does them a couple times every other month and they're so much better. Living in Massachusetts

>>778923

I though it was the devil making people sin and claiming scripture and councils to support their views. Not that the devil inspiring ecumenical councils.

It's wasnt Vatican 2 the problem.

The problem was the spirit of the V2, based on the sex revolution and the changing of the Western culture to worse.

If Vatican 2 never existed we would probably be in the same situation.

>>778978

V2 is a symptom, not the disease. Hence why African nations haven't been as impacted by it. It's a symptom of a far greater problem in Euro-American culture.

Undo V2, you just get a massive increase in nonpracticing Catholics. Hence why I personally think there has to be a compromise. The damage done to society must be undone slowly, not radically.

I can't believe I'm going to use an actor as an example (signs of the times, I suppose), but Jim Caviezel is a very stand up modern Catholic. A good role model it seems. And it shows you can be a modern type of Catholic, but traditional in your own way. The whole of EWTN also reflects this balance as well (if you prefer I don't use an actor to illustrate the faith).

Just take the time and watch this guy and tell me you aren't inspired. He came into a Protestant church, no less, to promote the Passion movie, but he completely silenced that place.. even the silly pastor.. with the strength of the traditional faith and the high price we sometimes have to pay for it. There's no "clown mass" or fun and games with this guy.

And I agree, V2 is not the problem. The West itself is the problem. And if you dislike some things, try to fix it from within.

>>779008

So prove it. The Vatican 2 changes nothing in the Catholic faith. Was it made 300 years ago society wouldn't have changed.

The problem is that so many people had high hopes in this council (for evil of course) and when the council didn't went the way they wanted they pretended it did.

On example is the CIA pressure and the Jewish pressure on Nostra Aetate. The drafts of the document were full of errors and the council fathers had to eliminate them all. Thus foiled the American-Jewish plan, they pretend it's says what they wanted to, and that's why if you go to the ADL website and check what they say about Nostra Aetate one wonders which copy do they have and why is it different from the one the Vatican has.

Let's not forget the the CIA even had people undercovered to winnie the pooh up the council as well as Malachi Martin who worked for the American Jewish committee. Thankfully their plans were foiled.

Another thing that some anon that I must talk about.

The V2 was summoned by St. John XIII in the 60s. What happened in the 60s? Mass secularisation, sexual revolution hippies, junkies and all the shit we see now. Mass attendance was dropping a lot, people were ignoring the church and shifting on its authority. The church had to react to these new challenges, as well as discussing new problems like contraception and the like.

The church did everything it could to make people interested again in Christ.

It didn't condmend anyone like previous councils and spoke with a diplomatic language not to scare away any potential soul. Had she talked like she did in the council of Trent in the 20th century, God, the media and the secular states would destroy it and even more people would go away from it claiming it was stupidly old fashioned and probably we would be on our hands with a giant schism with the closeted liberal wing of the church.

The Vatican 2 had to be done the way it was for the sake of not losing even more souls.

Although truth be told it was already a battle lost from the start since people don't care if the church changes while she still offers the Cross of Christ.

Why do you think people now fall for atheism or other new age cults?

Because there is no Cross there and as long as the Catholic Church preaches the Cross it will keep bleeding faithful and will lose every battle until the final one, when the Divine Founder comes back again.

The church will be getting even weaker more than it is now, while the synagogue of Satan will get strong and more strong than ever before. But in weakness we find strength and that's why we will win in the end. God always wins in the end.

>>778559

I don't need to pick one, Mass's entire point is the Eucharist. The method of the liturgy doesn't mean Christ is not there.

>You seriously think that the rise of things like "clown mases", rock concert like services and the fact that brazenly open LGBTQ supporters like James Martin have not been defrocked yet, in the aftermath of the liberalizing effects of V2 are just a coincidence?

No, I think it's impossible to blame it all on Vatican II, it's something we can only hold the World and the Great Apostasy responsible for.

It's easy to avoid reading history and understanding our times and just blame everything on Vatican II.

>>778923

>Just ignore the fact that V2 has made it all the more easier for sinful people to destroy the church.

These people were already around prior to Vatican II, none of the child molestor priests were born in the 60's, there were all seminarians during this era.

>>779008

Are you even part of the Church then?

>>779011

>>779012

Listen to yourselves: you're literally proving the points I made in the previous post:

>No, more like it's now been solidified.

>If V2 caused all of our problems and undoing it would fix everything, how did people start pushing for it in the first place?

>The Vatican 2 changes nothing in the Catholic faith.

Holding Islam in high esteem changes nothing? The vatican website itself says this under NA, no change whatsoever.

>The V2 was summoned by St. John XIII in the 60s. What happened in the 60s? Mass secularisation, sexual revolution hippies, junkies and all the shit we see now. Mass attendance was dropping a lot, people were ignoring the church and shifting on its authority.

>The church had to react to these new challenges, as well as discussing new problems like contraception and the like.

>The church did everything it could to make people interested again in Christ (post continues along this same line of thought.)

>>779013

>These people were already around prior to Vatican II,

Once again, the same old: "V2 doesn't matter, it would have all gone down the drain anyway."

Y'all keep saying V2 isn't the problem, and yet simultaneously admit it was a direct product of the problem. In other words: "No V2 isn't that bad… even though it was the product of modernism and has exacerbated it." It's like you don't want to acknowledge V2's role in this, while at the same time passive -aggressively admitting it's contribution to the further downward spiral. Why is everyone so hell-bent on defending V2 when it has clearly contributed to creating a compromised church? John the Baptist was noted for literally being imprisoned and beheaded, rather than compromise on the truth. The early church's history if filled with martyrs who chose death over compromise. What good is the church existing in it's current state, when said state is feeding the Liberal infection?

>>779013

NOM is responsible for SO much apostasy though. Especially for young people. They turned mass into a boomer rock concert and everyone under the age of 30 hates it. Yes the Eucharist is still valid, but that's a moot point if you don't even show up to receive it. When I was a kid I always loved receiving communion even though I didn't understand what it really was, but I hated mass overall because of the damn boomers who think it's all about them, nothing more than a "gig." I seriously hate the boomer band and their gay singing because it causes so much apostasy and it makes god look like a faggot. We're supposed to glorify god, not turn his prayers into shitty songs so boomers can feel like the center of attention at mass. NOM is what happens when you have faggot bishops deciding how to do things. I hate faggotry so much

Sedevacantism is the way of madness. Proclaiming the gates of hell never prevail, and yet saying they prevail at the same time. Not a juggling act you'll perpetually be able to keep up.

>>779028

The quote you cited was from a different poster and was not directed at you, though I can see why you took it that way. I will also concede that services in the vernacular is probably one of the few good things to come out of it.

>>779021

>you're literally proving the points

No, rejecting your false dichotomy is not proving your point.

>Holding Islam in high esteem changes nothing? The vatican website itself says this under NA, no change whatsoever.

We do not hold Islam in high esteem, however, we do hold it as yet another worldly religion that we shouldn't go out of our way to persecute (unless we have a good cause; see crusades). The Church has never taught preaching by the sword, now or never. Not even to the Jews (see Sicut Judeis Non).

>Once again, the same old: "V2 doesn't matter, it would have all gone down the drain anyway."

You cannot just rephrase it haphazardly and expect me to accept that as an adequate rebuttal, the 60's was a culture-bomb of declining Church rates, sexual deviancy, and a bunch of other degenerate and satanic social trends that we are still dealing with today.

>"No V2 isn't that bad… even though it was the product of modernism and has exacerbated it."

Vatican II is not a product of modernism, it was a response.

>Why is everyone so hell-bent on defending V2 when it has clearly contributed to creating a compromised church?

Has Vatican II made us accept abortion, contraception, or gay marriage?

>>779026

>NOM is responsible for SO much apostasy though. Especially for young people

It isn't. The apostate are people who deny Jesus Christ, the NOM does not. These are people who also deny the traditional truths of the Catholic faith, and uphold the same eternal moral law that rejects abortion, contraception, cohabitation, gay marriage, pornography, and fornication.

Unless you can somehow mind-trick yourself into thinking that Vatican II somehow made…billions of people do any of the above, it's impossible to blame Vatican II for any of these great social evils.

>>779037

>These are people who also deny the traditional truths of the Catholic faith, and reject the same eternal moral law that rejects abortion, contraception, cohabitation, gay marriage, pornography, and fornication.

fixed*

>>779035

>Has Vatican II made us accept abortion, contraception, or gay marriage?

Literally yes. The majority of Catholics accept these things. 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

>>779043

>The majority of Catholics accept these things. 98% of Catholic women use birth control.

<Implying that changes the actual doctrinal stance of the church.

>>779021

>Holding Islam in high esteem changes nothing? The vatican website itself says this under NA, no change whatsoever.

How can you read that from the documents?

The purpose of nostra aetates is to find the bits of truth in every religion.

For example

>Muslims you have this and that in common with us. Maybe we can talk about this issues and try a new approach on your convertion

How is this bad?

Only the people who want to twist the Catholic teaching say we claim spiritual equality with them which is false.

And that's what you are trying to imply.

Like I said: Madness.

The ironic thing is that once trads realize they can't maintain the juggling act anymore, they either apostasize entirely.. or join some autistic cult like the Dimond bros. Becoming far, far worse than anything that was actually in V2, which set them on this stupid path to begin with.

Nip it in the bud before it's too late.

>>779045

Doctrine is worthless if it's not enforced. It's nothing but words written in some dusty book in the Vatican to most Catholics including priests who care more about "not judging" their parishioners than about teaching the faith. You think a priest doesn't know that his flock is using birth control when they have 3 kids over the course of 10 years then stop? Why does no one say anything? Because no on cares

>>779035

>We do not hold Islam in high esteem,

>3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/pope-benedict-holds-islam-in-high-estehttps://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/pope-benedict-holds-islam-in-high-esteem-but-why/comment-page-1/em-but-why/comment-page-1/

Responding to modernism with easily corruptible modernization effectively makes it a passive product. You imply this with your "but it was the 60's, man!" response.

>as Vatican II made us accept abortion, contraception, or gay marriage?

According to the stats in OP's post, in the long run, yes.

>>779045

<Implying that changes the actual doctrinal stance of the church.

What good is the doctrinal stance of the church if the vast majority of attendees aren't even abiding by said doctrine?

>>779046

Yet Pope Francis' words and actions seem to indicate otherwise:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-07/snyder-one-world-religion-looms-pope-islams-top-imam-sign-historic-covenant

>>779043

98% of catholics don't even know what the Vatican 2 is.

My parents and grandparents always went to church and don't even know what's Vatican II.

And those who know have been eating the lies of the sedevacantists or the ADL like organisations.

>>779046

>Only the people who want to twist the Catholic teaching say we claim spiritual equality with them which is false.

… and to be fair, the bible does say god gave the nations outside of Israel their pagan deities. "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.”

So in a way that doctrine does have some scriptural validity.

Just throwing in my two cents here.

>>779053

>… and to be fair, the bible does say god gave the nations outside of Israel their pagan deities. "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince.”So in a way that doctrine does have some scriptural validity.Just throwing in my two cents here.

These weren't real deities. Every nation had a guardian angel, but some sinned (Gen 6) and slept with women, and taught men things that shouldn't have been done, and posed like gods to them. Therefore they shall "die like any man" (rather than lofty angelic status they once had).

>>779051

>What good is the doctrinal stance of the church if the vast majority of attendees aren't even abiding by said doctrine?

That's changing the goal posts. We were talking about doctrinal changes in the truth the church professes. What it's attendees feel is unrelated to that.

You're admitting you were wrong but pretending you're correct.

>>779050

Except we should all assume people aren't in mortal sin, unless they are public sinners like prostitution for example.

How can the priest know their parishioners private life?

Only if the priest was a paranoid crazy winnie the pooh.

What if the couple had difficulties during the act? If the priest called them sinners he would be btfo and rightfully suspended from the church.

And besides 3 babies in 10 years is a pretty good score. You overestimate our reproductive system bro.

>>779056

>V2 engenders lackadaisical attitude towards doctrine.

<But the doctrine isn't changed! Ha! Gotcha!

Now you're just being pedantic.

>>779055

None of what you said changes what I was pointing out. I said God appointed these figures. They strayed, but they still originate from god. Egro, that would explain a general similarity throughout them all tying back to the faith. Again, doesn't make them true, but explains how their could be elements of truth present.

>>779057

This is such feel good bullshit and you know it. You think that EVERY SINGLE Catholic couple is basically infertile? And somehow the trads who adamantly hate birth control just happen to be super fertile? And do you really think that the 90% of Catholics who literally never go to confession are just saints? This is ridiculous to even posit. You have no arguments

>>779058

>Now you're just being pedantic

No I'm not. I'm addressing the actual discussion. You're the one turning the mirror off of the church and onto society.

>>779061

>V2 engenders….

<Now you're blaming society instead of the church!

Wha…?

>>779060

Judging other people while in a mortal state is to put yourself above them. It's an act of pride and is discouraged in the church even before V2. Saying everyone is damned when you're still imperfect is worse than the imperfection itself.

>>779059

Sure, but I wouldn't make much of it. Some religions may teach one "supreme being", but they know little about it. Remember when Paul went to Greece and saw all of the idols? Did he compare our God to that trash? No, he specifically singled out their monument to the "unknown god" and started his preaching from there. He said they were ignorant and deceived on everything else.

>>779063

>Wha…?

The private lives and thoughts of Parishioners aren't something the church is ever going to have control over.

>>779051

>3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.

In other words we don't hate them and believe there is some truth in it.

If it said high esteem it would mean we loved the dudes.

It would be right for example to say we held high esteem for the orthodoxes and even then we wouldn't be saying they could be saved outside the church and that's the point. Whether we like someone or not doesn't mean it's in our power to make them saved.

>but pope benedictus said…

He also said Muhammad was shit so what's your point? He himself says too you can disagree with what he says in his books. The point remains. Where did the Catholic doctrine changed about Muslims?

>>as Vatican II made us accept abortion, contraception, or gay marriage?

>According to the stats in OP's post, in the long run, yes.

Because everyone who claims to be Catholic goes to a NOM parish. Only devout catholics go to a TLM whereas in a NOM you have a mix.

And it wants Vatican 2 who made them think in this way. The V2 happened because people in the church were thinking this way and we had to react to it.

And besides most catholics don't even know what a council is. >>779051

>Yet Pope Francis' words and actions seem to indicate otherwise:

And yet you continue to prove your point by claiming that people don't do this or that. That's their problem. People aren't infallible neither the pope, when not on the chair. Pope John XII was a fornicator. Does that mean he intended to make fornication legal?

What makes me mad about trads/sedes is that they think previous pões were St. Peter's clones. If one studies history and see what they did a person changes his mind completely and thanks God things changed after the renaissance.

Also nice meme source.

>>779067

>Things have accelerated downward since V2.

<We never had control in the first place!

These mental gymnastics are getting more and more desperate.

>>779064

Except it's literally the priests job to guide his local flock to heaven. When it's obvious that people are committing mortal sin and still receiving communion, THE LEAST he could do is to notify people of potential mortal sins they could be committing instead of just looking the other way and having the mindset of "not my problem."

>>779065

Once again, you're admitting I'm correct and then diminishing it to make it out like I have no validity.

Now you're going

>You've got a point……….. but….

inb4 Rome declares TLM heretical

>>779070

>Except it's literally the priests job to guide his local flock to heaven.

You can guide a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

>When it's obvious that people are committing mortal sin and still receiving communion, THE LEAST he could do is to notify people of potential mortal sins they could be committing

That's covered in PSR/RCIA and there are notices attached to most missals.

>>779074

They literally just reinstated it recently… so things are actually heading in your direction as far as that's concerned.

>>779060

Then tell me why should I speak about things I know nothing about. I'm no better than them to make them bow to my will. I'm not gonna put cameras in my house.

I would just remind the congregation people can't go to communion without confession, and then I just have to assume they are in a state of grace. It has been like this for centuries. Only when one was a know whore or faggot one can refuse them communion.

>>779070

I can't slam someone's head against a wall until they do what I want.

I can as a priest or someone else intrude in the intimacy of a couple.

What the priest job is is telling them the way to follow not beating them up and drag them through it.

>>779079

>I can't as a priest…

Fixed.

>>779078

In the past, mass wasn't just some thing you did on Sunday because your parents made you though. Someone saying that they're a Catholic in 1900 is a completely different thing from someone saying that they're a Catholic in 2019. People just assume by default that as long as they go to mass once in a while they will go to heaven. There is no way in hell the lukewarm problem has ever been this bad.

>>779068

>Also nice meme source.

Will this do?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/04/pope-and-grand-imam-sign-historic-pledge-of-fraternity-in-uae

Also just do a search on Google/Bing/etc. for more sources.

And if you don't think the NA laid the ground work for the aforementioned, I can't help you. Everything else you've posted after this is just more ludicrous levels of mental gymnastics. I don't know why I'm even wasting my time.

>>778324

>Actual practicing catholics are actually conservative and uphold Church teachings

So…what's new?

>>779079

>What the priest job is is telling them the way to follow

Yeah, but most priest don't even do this. You just show up to mass on Sunday get your Eucharist and leave. The church has become the spiritual equivalent of a McDonald's

>>779083

>The guardian

ugh.

>The document pledges that al-Azhar and the Vatican will work together to fight extremism.

>In the first ever papal visit to the Arabian peninsula, the birthplace of Islam, the pope specifically called for an end to wars in the Middle East, naming Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Libya. All religious leaders had a “duty to reject every nuance of approval from the word war”, he said in a 26-minute address.

>We resolutely declare that religions must never incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility and extremism, nor must they incite violence or the shedding of blood.”

>The UAE is part of the Saudi-led military coalition engaged in the war in Yemen. On Sunday, before leaving Rome for Abu Dhabi, Francis said he was following the situation in Yemen “with great concern”, and that the population was “exhausted by the lengthy conflict, and a great many children are suffering from hunger”.

>Violence, extremism or fanaticism could never be justified in the name of religion, he said. He also called for religious freedom “not limited only to freedom of worship”, justice and for religions to “stand on the side of the poor”.

<trying to spin this into something evil.

WUT?

This is LARP tier logic. You know the Desert Fathers coexisted with pagans in a totally peaceful and respectful manner right? You're attempting to frame this with your perspective of NA to make it out as something darker than what it actually is. You don't have to constantly be aggressive to others about your faith in order to have it.

>>779090

And you didn't read the full document:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-07/snyder-one-world-religion-looms-pope-islams-top-imam-sign-historic-covenant

>On top of that, the document also boldly declares that “the diversity of religions” that we see in the world was “willed by God”…

>Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.

<Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

>>779085

>Yeah, but most priest don't even do this. You just show up to mass on Sunday get your Eucharist and leave.

And you're 100% sure this is the case how? it's certainly not the case where I go to church.

>The church has become the spiritual equivalent of a McDonald's

Have you ever thought that the parishioner actively taking that next step is a more true sign of faith, and the real first step to having a true spiritual experience. Arguably that's what all of you did in the first place. Likewise, I chose to get involved with a local monastic community. YOU need to put in effort at some point, otherwise you get the same kind of spirituality without devotion, just under a different guise.

>>779093

Non-Christian religions are not "willed" by God. They are they product of the fall. In the same way God does not "will" evil. This document is blasphemy.

>>779093

>And you didn't read the full document:

I was given one link.

>On top of that, the document also boldly declares that “the diversity of religions” that we see in the world was “willed by God”…

I mean, is predestination invalid? The devil only has the powers god allows him to exercise. And how else do you separate the wheat from the chaff than through temptation to falsehoods? To say anything else is to suggest that god doesn't govern the universe.

>Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives.

\So we are supposed to force people to conform to our beliefs by force?I'm not saying Islam doesn't do that, or really will stop anytime soon, but I don't think it's anti christian to say that.

Also, you gave me a link to a cite on par with infowars… that's about as bad as a link to the guardian.

>>779072

No, I'm admitting you're correct, but just adding an "aside". I don't want anyone to go too far with acknowledging truth in other religions. It's just caution.

On the flipside, I don't think we should be completely dismissive either. I think V2 straddled a fine line here, quiet wisely. It's neither modernist or ultratraditionalist.

It's good to find some common ground with the outside world, but the goal should always be to the lead to the Gospel.. rather than them leading us.

>>779095

>Non-Christian religions are not "willed" by God. They are they product of the fall.

So god doesn't govern the entire universe? If not, they couldn't exist. God is so beyond the wicked that he able to utilize even what is wicked in this world for good.

God governs all and wills all. The devil has no power god has not allotted to him. to say otherwise is to give the devil power of his own design.

>>779098

You were given two links, and also told to research further. Which you didn't.

>>779103

God governs the universe, but he does not "will" evil or diversity in religion. Other Christian religions are of the devil. He does not "create" them, in the same way he does not create evil. And the document does not say that in this manner: it says it in a manner that condones and celebrates such diversity, and you know it, and defend it in spite of this. Are you really so spiritually blind and hardened of heart as to not be able to read between the lines and see what is going on?

>>779103

It isn't about God's omnipotence. But what he planned out. He specifically alloted Israel "as his inheritance". Others were purposely left out of this covenant. THEY were the only people with direct revelation, until the fullness of time that Christ came and THEN Jesus said "preach the gospel to all nations". Revelation would come to all after this through Christ. But not before.

>>779105

*Other non-Christian religions

Fixed.

>You were given two links, and also told to research further. Which you didn't.

I was given a link from the guardian and a like to wherever that was. One was a general info dump, the other was conspiratorial conjecture (hence the infowars comment).

> God governs the universe, but he does not "will" evil or diversity in religion. Other Christian religions are of the devil. He does not "create" them, in the same way he does not create evil. And the document does not say that in this manner: it says it in a manner that condones and celebrates such diversity, and you know it, and defend it in spite of this

So, like I said, you want the document to be an aggressive chastisement of other religions. I gave my example from the desert fathers to show that that approach isn't necessary. The church hasn't proclaimed to venerate Allah or suddenly believe Islam is the true faith that leads to salvation. The document is effectively a statement of nonaggression between faiths, which isn't a new concept in the church, given that one was in place post crusades. The equality of it isn't to say it's equally valid, but that it should be equally respected to avoid unnecessary strife.

>Are you really so spiritually blind and hardened of heart as to not be able to read between the lines and see what is going on?

You seem like the one who is blind and hard of heart.

>>779106

>It isn't about God's omnipotence. But what he planned out. He specifically alloted Israel "as his inheritance". Others were purposely left out of this covenant. THEY were the only people with direct revelation, until the fullness of time that Christ came and THEN Jesus said "preach the gospel to all nations". Revelation would come to all after this through Christ. But not before.

None of this corrects or invalidates what I said. In fact, it barely has anything to do with my point. It just lectures me on theology I already know. None of this says god doesn't allow evil to exist for some grander purpose. Because contradicting what I brought up would be heresy.

>>779115

You're arguing like a Calvinist. Just because God is omnipresent and omnipotent doesn't mean we understand how exactly it works with the will of others in creation. We acknowledge the reality of God's ultimate power, but it's a stretch to starting arguing he's the creator of falsehoods and evil.

Paul literally said that serving idols is serving demons. God didn't author this.

Angels were in charge of nations once - and some fell from grace and taught men all manner of things they shouldn't have. And caused them to turn away from God and worship false gods (themselves). This is not God's doing. He wiped out the earth because of it (the Flood). It said God was grieved and regretted that he even created humankind, but Noah was find to be the only good one left. Does this sound like God was cool with all of this? It's one of the few instances in scripture where God is described as grieved in his heart.

>>779121

>but it's a stretch to starting arguing he's the creator of falsehoods and evil.

I said he allows it to exist, not that he is actively creating it. Think of how Satan consults god before bringing misfortune unto Job. At the end of it all, he is still the ultimate authority. I'm not saying hold god in contempt for all evil.

>Angels were in charge of nations once - and some fell from grace and taught men all manner of things they shouldn't have. And caused them to turn away from God and worship false gods (themselves). This is not God's doing. He wiped out the earth because of it (the Flood). It said God was grieved and regretted that he even created humankind, but Noah was find to be the only good one left. Does this sound like God was cool with all of this

Again, none of this changes what I said or invalidates it. God still allowed it to come about, and to say otherwise is to deny god his role above the universe. Men have free will and give into the devil, but only because god granted us it in the first place. He is the author of all, not the author of some. He may not desire an outcome, but he doesn't reach out to stop all evil because it must serve some grander purpose. To say otherwise is to say The devil has power over God.

The intent of this isn't to subjugate the church, it's simply a manner of peaceable coexistence.

Also, I'd like to add to my desert fathers example that they didn't shun the advice of pagans. They didn't change faiths (obviously) but religious coexistence isn't a new thing.

You seem to take the encouragement of religious diversity as some assertion that other faiths are also valid, when in reality the entire stance is about mutual respect. If god is truly with the church there is no harm in nonaggression.

>>779126

Why are you comparing bananas to apples?

Jesus it's just a document so that the Arabs respect Catholic people rights in their country and vice versa.

What the hell were you expecting? "lol guys we know you're a bunch of satanic sodomites but pls tolerate us in your country".

And besides that's besides the point of the discussion. Not in a million years that's a doctrinal document at all. It is a political agreement between two countries namely the UAE and the Vatican City.

Take off the tinfoil for a minute.

If you want a good argument to support you cause you could try to quote some documents by some Vatican advisory organisations that spread heresies about how Jews and Muslims are saved blah blah blah.

Good thing they have no power at all and those documents are worth as much as my toilet paper. But still it's more authoritative than a winnie the pooh treaty between two countries.

>>779135

>If you want a "good argument"

Fixed

>>779134

On this specific topic, I think you guys are letting politics drive your religious convictions. That's not good fam.

>>779141

This is not a counter argument. It's just further appeal to authority.

>>779135

Taking the Lord's name in vain and cursing…

And where are you getting this "It's just about Arabs respecting Catholics in their countries?":

From the article:

>The pope and the grand imam of al-Azhar have signed a historic declaration of fraternity, calling for peace between nations, religions and races, in front of a global audience of religious leaders from Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other faiths.

>Pope Francis, the leader of the world’s Catholics, and Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the head of Sunni Islam’s most prestigious seat of learning, arrived at the ceremony in Abu Dhabi hand-in-hand in a symbol of interfaith brotherhood.

< in a symbol of interfaith brotherhood.

This is precisely about validating other faiths

<“If we believers are not able to shake hands, embrace one another, kiss one another, and even pray, our faith will be defeated”

There are literally canons in the church forbidding mutual prayer with others outside the faith.

>>779140

And I'm starting to suspect you're a /leftypol/ troll arguing in bad faith.

>>779141

5 million people attend TLM worldwide frequently (and I'm being generous) vs

1.2 billion catholics (some who don't even go to mass.)

The 1% that follows the Catholic doctrine is still more than the people that go to TLMs. Also people who go to TLM have an mind set on one objective.

People who go to NOM go there because its the most convenient and most of them don't even know there as a rite before that one. Only the >70 people remember that.

>>779155

>Who cares what the Fathers and Canons of the Church say?

So any time I've said grace around non Christians, did I also violate this?

>>779146

> Taking the Lord's name in vain and cursing…

What do you mean?

>This is precisely about validating other faiths

How the winnie the pooh being friendly with each other is validating other faiths?

Shouldn't Early Christians try to get along with the pagans just because they were pagans? The hate came from them not from us.

>>779155

I assume that praying to Christ for the conversion of the tigger next to us praying to Satan isn't a bad thing but ok I'll give you that.

Still let me remind you that this whole discussion was about how Vatican 2 made the world gay and the doctrine of the church.

The document you quote isn't authoritative nor it claims to be. It can be replaced by another if anyone gets in that mood.

<but the pope shouldn't behave like that

And there's a certain reason in that.

But let's remenber there was many worse popes.

They were popes who were massive fornicator, made fake trials with the bodies of dead people, some say one or two were sodmites etc.

What would you say if you were there?

That is was the fault of x council and that one day the pope was going to allow that shit?

The sins of people don't change the doctrine of the Church fortunately.

So wake me up when a "council" or an infallible statement clashes with tradition since its pretty obvious that Vatican 2 did nothing to that regard as we can see from this discussion.

>>779119

you joke about the inquisition but the Holy Office did what was possible to preserve the deposit of faith and I hope the pope brings it back. You should better inform yourself of its acts and method of operation.

>>779190

I know that it actually wasn't the brutal insanity people make it out as. But like you said, it was a joke.

>>778411

Got any sources?

From what I hear there are radtrads who believe the NOM is not a true mass. So that raises the question, if it’s not valid then the size of Catholicism must be minuscule no?

There's over 2 million Catholics in my city alone.. and over 100 parishes. Guess how many SSPX parishes?

1.

Seriously.

In a funny, and possibly infuriating way, I feel it's apt to quote Gandhi here. Perhaps pagans have wisdom from time to time:

"Be the change you want to see in the world."

Modernism definitely is an enemy, but don't split. Do your small part in keeping traditional values at the forefront. I mentioned a Jim Caviezel vid much earlier about faithful modern Catholics. I also mentioned EWTN in the same post. And Pope Benedict himself is another obviously worth modeling after. Publishing houses like Ignatius Press and Midwest Theological Forum as well (and basically the whole Franciscan university contingent). You don't have to be so insular, and possibly apostasize, to hold up traditional faith. This is not an either/or.

>>779225

Keep praying and someday that will be 0, God willing.

>>779235

Or better yet, full communion is re established

>>779254

Communism is anti-christian and the religion of satan.

>>779254

As much as I rail on SSPX types, I would also love for full communion. It's on them though, not the Church.

>>779201

Yep. The idea that any canonized form of liturgy is valid or invalid compared to the other is actually considered a heresy by one of the councils.

>>779043

That's an insane claim and you have no way to prove any of that.

>779051

>What good is the doctrinal stance of the church if the vast majority of attendees aren't even abiding by said doctrine?

Then how can you even be a Christian? We're all sinners, if our failures invalidated the Church, then Christ and His Church failed with Judas, 2,000 years ago.

>>779273

>insane

You realize condoms are a form of birth control?

>>779292

You cannot blame a form of Divine Liturgy for contraception. One has zero to do with the other, you delusion yourself to undermine the Church.