General Liturgy Vatican II Crisis Traditional Groups
Religious Liberty Questioning of Popes Miscellaneous
Why be a traditional Catholic?
What are some of the basic terms and jargon used in the traditional Catholic community?
Can you summarize or give me a picture of where the true Catholic Church is to be found today?
Are not the newer Catechisms easier to read and follow?
Why do you want to go back to what was? Can't you just accept the fact that things have changed now, and are going to be different from now on?
Why should we be so concerned about such things as the way the Mass or sacraments are said, when so many more important things such as abortion or starvation require more urgent attention?
Vatican institution leaders often make such a big fuss about being ecumenical and friendly with other churches. Why can't they be so friendly to traditional Catholics?
What Creed (other than the Standard Creeds of the Church) would you categorize as most representative of all traditional Catholics?
What Statement best defines the position taken by this Website?
Why do you feel free to disregard the contentions the home-aloners make regarding the lack of valid and/or licit orders among the various groups that comprise the traditional Catholic movement?
Why can't the Novus Ordo be considered acceptible if done without any abuses?
Didn't some expert in Aramaic claim that translating "for you and for many" as "for you and for all" in the consecration form of the Mass was harmless because the original language Jesus used had no distinct words for "many" and "all?"
But didn't the liturgy grow and change throughout the history of the Church? If such an amount of change was lawful then, how is it not lawful now?
Why allow the liturgical reform of Pius V while forbidding the liturgical reform of Paul VI?
But no pope should be able to bind future popes, or else their authority is not truly equal. Each pope stands in the Shoes of the Fisherman and his authority is supreme. If Pope Pius V could bind his successors with Quo Primum, then his successors would have had less authority than he did, and would not be true Popes. Why couldn't a later Pope (such as Paul VI) replace or undo the liturgical decrees of a previous pope (such as Pius V)?
All twentieth century popes, from Pope Saint Pius X onward have supported the Liturgical Movement, which culminated in the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae! How do you explain that?
Do you mean to claim, therefore, that the Novus Ordo Missae is intrinsically invalid?
You wouldn't allow the Novus Ordo alongside the Tridentine Mass, would you? It doesn't seem fair to want equal rights for the Tridentine Mass, but then not be willing to grant the same to the Novus Ordo Missae.
Why make this big deal about Latin? I happen to like the New Mass in its vernacular, which I find much easier to understand than all that old Latin.
If the Vatican institution returns to the Tridentine Mass for its Western Rite portion, would that mark the end of the crisis?
Would not the Holy Spirit prevent an Ecumenical Council from doing the clear and serious harm Vatican II has evidently caused?
How is it that it took until this book to find out what had happened at Vatican II to separate the Catholic Church from the Vatican institution; and on the other hand, what makes you so smart as to be able to find those tiny clauses about the Church "subsisting in" the Vatican institution and actually figure out the true import of those statements?
Why can't that statement in Lumen Gentium about "elements of sanctification" subsisting outside the Vatican institution apply to Protestant ministers or schismatic East Orthodox patriarchates as the Council Fathers obviously intended?
Leaders and representatives of the Vatican institution frequently refer to their organization simply as the Catholic Church, and yet you give more weight to those few references in Lumen Gentium and other Vatican II documents stating that their organization merely "subsists in" the Catholic Church than to all of those other references they make to the contrary. How do you justify that?
Did not Cardinal Ratzinger refute your claim about the infamous "subsists in" clause in Lumen Gentium?
Did not the Vatican II Schema "Lumen Gentium" also promulgate the heresy of Collegiality?
"Pastoral" doesn't really mean anything at all; the Second Vatican Council was really just like all the others.
But isn't every council followed by a period of doubt and confusion on the part of the faithful? Won't people eventually get used to having Vatican II around and soon let things return to normal? Maybe the decline in religious interest is temporary.
But didn't Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre finally end up signing even those last two Vatican II schemas? I read somewhere that he did.
Obscure technical distinctions between the Vatican institution and the Catholic Church notwithstanding, I just find it too hard to believe that God would allow that, which so many honest, sincere people take to be His Church, to promulgate invalid sacraments.
But aren't things getting better now? I know that many crazy abuses and so forth have happened, but isn't the pendulum starting to swing back to normalcy?
Hasn't the Church always had trouble? Why should we regard today's troubles as some sort of more serious crisis than before?
Times have changed. You can't turn back the clock. The old ways don't work any more. Why hang on to those obsolete structures and methods which may have served in the Dark ages well enough but are ineffective in these modern times?
Why is there almost nothing said in this book about the various visions and apparitions which talk about this, or the new apparitions?
Why is there almost nothing is said in this book about the plots of Masons, Jews, and Communists who have infiltrated the Church, nor about the "Three days of Darkness," the "Antichrist," or the "Man of Sin" or other End-time prophecies about what has brought about this current crisis?
You describe the Uniate Eastern Rites as being still traditional. Is that therefore a good safe haven for traditional Catholics over the long term?
What about the rumor that Cardinal Liénart was a Mason?
Why don't any of the modern apparitions speak of the traditional Catholic movement?
What are the three basic groups?
In defending so many different kinds of traditional Catholic orders and not taking sides in their disputes, aren't you acting just like the Protestants who agree with each other in "the essentials" but feel free to disagree with each other about "the non-essentials;" doesn't that make you therefore a pan-traditionalist?
I find it difficult to see any "Oneness" amongst the various groups you write about since they seem to bicker with each other so very much and even say horrible things about each other.
How can you justify the sedevacantist's rejection of the Pope?
I hear that sedevacantists don't pray for the Pope.
Doesn't your claim regarding the fall of the Vatican institution mandated at Vatican II negate all the other sedevacantist theories?
How can you justify the SSPX's disobedience to the Pope?
So often it seems that the SSPX is always just barely escaping a charge of being schismatic or excommunicated from the Vatican institution on what strikes me as little more than obscure technicalities of Canon Law.
How can you justify the SSPX's refusal to study the theological implications of the current crisis?
Did not Padre Pio predict that Abp. Lefebvre would "tear apart the community of the faithful" with his disobedience?
How can you explain Abp. Lefebvre's continual zigzagging between calling the Vatican leadership alternately the Successor of Peter and the Antichrist?
How can you justify the Indult crowd's unity with John Paul II and the Vatican hierarchy?
How can you justify the Indult crowd's (and even that of Abp. Lefebvre on some occasions) attempt to make the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Rites coexist side by side?
How can you justify the Indult crowd's membership in a non-Catholic church?
Why don't you count the followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney as traditional Catholics?
I've heard that [such-and-such traditional Catholic organization] is like a cult. What do you say about that?
Precisely what mental gymnastics, logic stretching, and special pleading can you possibly come up with to reconcile Religious Liberty with Catholic doctrine?
If you don't believe in Religious Liberty, then does that mean that you don't think people should have the freedom to worship God any way they please? What if a nation should decide to mandate a religion other than Catholicism?
It doesn't seem fair to me that the Catholic religion should be given special treatment by the civil governments.
It seems quite arrogant of you to insist on the traditional Catholic standard as the only right standard.
Aren't you being schismatic by recommending that Catholics attend parishes which are not under the diocesan bishop, and by casting doubt on the papacy of John Paul II?
Aren't traditional Catholics acting just like the Old Catholics by setting up their own hierarchy and separating from Rome?
You "traditionalists" seem to me to be acting just like the Modernists who want to change the structure of the Church and feel free to disagree with the Pope.
Isn't it schismatic to set up a parallel hierarchy?
But didn't John XXIII promulgate heresy in his encyclical Pacem In Terris, Paragraph 14 when he wrote that "Everyone has the right to honor God according to the just rule conscience and to profess his religion in private and public life?" How can you say that the official pronouncements of the Vatican were protected up until 1964 when Lumen Gentium was promulgated?
If the Holy Spirit protects the pope from teaching error, why are ambiguous statements allowed?
What right do you "traditionals" have to judge the pope? Didn't Vatican I say that "the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision. Therefore, those who say that it is permitted to appeal to an ecumenical council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff, as to an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff, are far from the straight path of truth?" If it did, how can you violate that?
Don't Catholic traditionalists tend to be disgruntled, cheerless, Neo-Nazis, Fascists, and other such unsavory types?
Traditional Catholics come across to me as a bunch of kooks, crazies, cranks, and crackpots, pushing all the most absurd conspiracy theories, apparitions, visions, seers, or end-of-the-world gloom and doom, and even all the most pathetic attempts at a "theology." Why should I wish to be associated with that?
But haven't bad things happened in the traditional Catholic movement? You yourself wrote about how bad things got under Francis Shuckardt. Why should I risk having to live with that?
Long ago, well before Vatican II, I was abused and mistreated by a Catholic priest. Why should I go back to that?
Aren't there many other independent bishops and priests out there, and don't some of them claim to be traditional Catholics? What are we to make of them?
You have written much here of unofficial ordinations and consecrations and unpleasant controversies; where is the love that Jesus Christ spoke of? Why couldn't this have read more like the New Testament?
Why is the individual Catholic at liberty to conceal his attendance at parishes within other factions of the Church?
What about activity in such Catholic organizations as the Blue Army, the Legion of Mary, the Knights of Columbus, the Saint Vincent de Paul Society, or Sodalities, etc.?
Why can't the Church "baptize" the more modern philosophies such as Existentialism, Phenomenalism, Teilhardism, and Marxism, etc. the way it once "baptized" the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle?
Have you shown this book to any experts so as to get their approval or advice, or to try to bring them over to your opinion?
What are your opinions regarding the issues that divide traditional Catholics today? Are you Indult, SSPX, sedevacantist, or what?