Ask a Traditional Catholic

[PiousPaladin]

Driving the Christian faith out of Jerusalem as the Muslims attempted is mortal sin and must be met with force to quash it.

....and it only took 4+ centuries to get around to it!

For Western Christendom, it was for many centuries under the control of the Byzantine Greeks who had not yet broken with Rome. Why would we "get around to it" when it was still then under the protection of a Catholic power?

What is it like living on such a high pedestal and viewing everyone as a heretic, and ‘knowing’ that 99%+ of the people on it will burn in hell if they are not in the SSPX cult? Does it make you happy that god’s intelligent plan was to have SSPX as his true religion, you know the one jesus taught...., and a massive amount of people on the planet won’t even know what it is their entire lives?

What makes SSPX correct? I’m aware that they adopt Vatican I views, especially the Tridentine Mass, but what if you have to go back further to get the more pure version of mass? I could see people outraged over new ideas from, let’s says, Lyon I to Lyon II. I could certainly see a similar outrage between Lateran V to Trent. It would have been the modern day Vatican I to Vatican II transitional schism. What if one of the Pre-Tridentine forms of mass was the proper way to celebrate it, and you are just as bad of a heretic as the Novus Ordo folks. I know transubstantiation is a big part of the catholic mass, but it wasn’t ever thought about until the 11th century, you’d think something that important would have been already guided by god into the earliest forms of mass, and not officially accepted in 1551 in the Council of Trent. It seems that there is a clear evolution in the catholic church due to man made rules, where does the truth start and where does it end in the catholic church, and how do you know? Why is Vatican II man made and not divinely inspired?

There are so many misconceptions in this post I'm going to need to break it up to answer them all.

1. There were small changes in Church discipline between councils, not all of which everyone did like. However they all followed the same format and drew upon Catholic teaching. Vatican II was different to every other before, the prayers and invocations to the Holy Spirit were not offered as the formula dictated (thus it was not an infallible council nor binding) as well as the fact several "Fathers" admitted they wished to incorperate Protestant ideas to make it more appealing to them to draw in converts.

This is not acceptable, we cannot compromise the fullness of the Catholic faith with heretical ideas, even less those of Protestants. We do not adapt to suit the world, the world must adapt to suit the true religion.

2. Transubstantiation has always been a teaching of the Catholic Church, it had not previously then been dogmatically defined. This means that a definitions of what something was is confirmed and all Catholics must adhere to it with full faith. Transubstantiation up until that point had never been questioned so there was no need for a formal ruling of a definition, it was however always a teaching of the church before then.

3. There is a difference between disciplines made by man that can be changed such as the color or style of vestments and the divnley revealed unchangeable teachings of the will and nature of the Lord concerning sacraments of the Church.

I hope that helps explain it.

And apparently 'god' didn't favor their cause as they were eventually driven out by the allah-blowers.

What does that say about "jesus?"

Poor strategist?  Bad at logistics?  A pussy?

The Crusaders got greedy and fell into the dual sins of decadence setting themselves up as Eastern Sultans and Ecumenicalism. We were not there to trade with the Muslims but to drive them out of the Holy Land. They renaged on their divine mission and pledge to the cross and were duly punished.

Do you read The Thinking Housewife's site?

What made you decide to visit our site?  What do you have against the Freemasons?

1. I have previously in the past but I do not today. There are several other blogs ran by traditional Catholic women I prefer. The Thinking Housewife is fine, just not my personal taste.

2. I encountered it while visiting another forum. I felt Catholicism was being demeaned and the fullness of tradition as represented by the SSPX was not represented in these many threads that had been devoted to discussing Catholicism.

3. Freemasons are the deistic enemies of Gods most Holy Catholic Church. To be a freemason is to automatically condemn oneself to hell. Several pontiffs have decried freemasons and have exposed their diabolic plots to destroy the Catholic Church. They are to be reviled and destroyed. They are one of the biggest threats on earth today. For them we can thank the abominable slaughter of infants in the womb, the peversion of the sacrament of marriage and the dilution of the teachings of the true religion in the Novus Ordo Church.

Do you think that Supreme Court Justices Kennedy and Sotomayor should be excommunicated or killed because they are Catholics that voted for same sex marriage?

Please do not describe them as Catholics. Catholics are forbidden to endorse or support sodomy in any way. They are apostates who have renounced the faith and have already excommunicated themselves.

What do you mean by, "Dealt with"? What would happen in private to the disobedient woman who refuses to cover her hair

She would be shunned and not allowed to re-enter decent society until she had repented and corrected herself of all errors.

What, specifically, have I said that is outside the boundaries of Catholic doctrine?

Ignore the sodomite Randy, his ability to reason has been too grievously compromised. No sane mind could possible align itself with the dual abominations of communism and sodomy.