Zone1 I need to clarify my views on the Novus Ordo sect v the Sedevacantist (both claim to be Catholic)

[Donald H]

Are you saying you abhor me? Or do you wrongly think I am trying to convert you?

I know you're trying to convert me.

Here is what I see: Two people sharing their different perspectives. I am sorry my perspective is so abhorrent to you. As my perspective is all I have, I won't bother you with it anymore.

That's not being honest. I said I abhor missionaries.

Yes, your perspective is abhorrent to me as an atheist, in many ways. As an example, I believe that teaching the faith to little children is child abuse.

I don't know if you feel the same?

But for now, I feel that you don't accept me for what I am and I feel that to be insulting. So we're finished for now.

 

[Meriweather]

I know you're trying to convert me.

Okay, we are through. I have never in my life tried to convert anyone, never felt the need to. I don't know who you have built in your own head/mine and made it 'me', but you go ahead and talk with that person. The one thing I will not do--or be--is be that person someone else has decided I am.

I thought we were simply having a nice conversation, and very much regret I was so incredibly wrong about that.

 

[ding]

your perspective is abhorrent to me as an atheist, in many ways.

And you don't believe you are a militant atheist?

I believe that teaching the faith to little children is child abuse.

Also something a militant atheist would say.

 

[ding]

I don't know if you feel the same?

Of course not. It matters not to me if you believe in one god, twenty or none. I'm not a monster like you.

 

[ding]

abhorrent: inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant.
"racial discrimination was abhorrent to us all"

militant atheist: anyone who condemns respect for people of faith.

 

[ding]

But for now, I feel that you don't accept me for what I am and I feel that to be insulting. So we're finished for now.

I accept you for who you are. It is you that does not accept Christians as they are. Your bias and prejudice against Christians is no different than bias and prejudice against blacks, women, gays, Jews, etc. You abhorring Christians is no different than Nazi's abhorring Jews or whites abhorring blacks. If it were up to you you would use state control to prevent religion being taught to children. It's for good reason that I believe militant atheism is an existential threat to liberty and freedom. History proves it and so do your own words.

 

[Meriweather]

abhorrent: inspiring disgust and loathing; repugnant.

Donald H notmyfault2020
K9Buck

(So no one thinks I am talking about them behind their back.)

Donald H finds my perspectives abhorrent

notmyfault2020 doesn't want to here my perspective unless it aligns his.

K9Buck - With him I was cheerfully enjoying what I thought was a normal exchange of ideas and different perspective. He shocks, insults, and misjudges me by declaring that I am angry. He says he won't engage me (will shun me) from now on. And then he asks God to bless what he deems as angry and unworthy (me). That was the most disingenuous (of him), patronizing (of me), and denigrating (of God) blessing I have ever seen. He judges me as crap and then asks the Lord to bless crap.

I am perfectly content with reading and not bothering anyone who thinks my input is abhorrent, who doesn't wish to hear perspectives that do not align with his, and to refrain from addressing anyone who sees me--through some kind of magic online lens--as crap.

I don't know. Maybe I need a break. What say you? Probably should have done this in a private message, but right now, I don't care. How can people judge people via an Internet lens?

 

[ding]

Donald H notmyfault2020
K9Buck

(So no one thinks I am talking about them behind their back.)

Donald H finds my perspectives abhorrent

notmyfault2020 doesn't want to here my perspective unless it aligns his.

K9Buck - With him I was cheerfully enjoying what I thought was a normal exchange of ideas and different perspective. He shocks, insults, and misjudges me by declaring that I am angry. He says he won't engage me (will shun me) from now on. And then he asks God to bless what he deems as angry and unworthy (me). That was the most disingenuous (of him), patronizing (of me), and denigrating (of God) blessing I have ever seen. He judges me as crap and then asks the Lord to bless crap.

I am perfectly content with reading and not bothering anyone who thinks my input is abhorrent, who doesn't wish to hear perspectives that do not align with his, and to refrain from addressing anyone who sees me--through some kind of magic online lens--as crap.

I don't know. Maybe I need a break. What say you? Probably should have done this in a private message, but right now, I don't care. How can people judge people via an Internet lens?

No easy answer here. Apparently manners are not a prerequisite for anonymous online dialogue. It's a shame really because you are the most conscientious poster here with great insights. Unfortunately no matter how conscientious and insightful your comments are they aren't really interested if it contradicts something they believe. They see your conscientious and insightful thoughts as aggressive attacks upon their beliefs. All of which is beyond your control. So no easy answer. But what I do know... is that if you take a moment to find something to be thankful for and contemplate what it was that God wanted you to learn from this, then all the learning centers of your mind will switch on and the answer will come to you and you will find peace. At least that's how it works for me.

 

[Meriweather]

No easy answer here. Apparently manners are not a prerequisite for anonymous online dialogue. It's a shame really because you are the most conscientious poster here with great insights. Unfortunately no matter how conscientious and insightful your comments are they aren't really interested if it contradicts something they believe. They see your conscientious and insightful thoughts as aggressive attacks upon their beliefs. All of which is beyond your control. So no easy answer. But what I do know... is that if you take a moment to find something to be thankful for and contemplate what it was that God wanted you to learn from this, then all the learning centers of your mind will switch on and the answer will come to you and you will find peace. At least that's how it works for me.

Thank you, ding. I keep contemplating, keep reading, keep thinking. The one thing I do keep reminding myself is that, for me, everything always looks better come morning. Perhaps it will tomorrow, too.

 

[Donald H]

I don't know. Maybe I need a break. What say you? Probably should have done this in a private message, but right now, I don't care. How can people judge people via an Internet lens?

quote me wrong and you'll be treated accordingly.

 

[ding]

quote me wrong and you'll be treated accordingly.

How did she quote you wrong? And are you seriously arguing that two wrongs makes a right?

 

[Donald H]

How did she quote you wrong? And are you seriously arguing that two wrongs makes a right?

I'm aware of your attempts to gain my attention, and I'll respond when you raise an issue that's worth my time. I won't be taking the bait on your current efforts.

 

[ding]

I'm aware of your attempts to gain my attention, and I'll respond when you raise an issue that's worth my time. I won't be taking the bait on your current efforts.

People who don't like hearing the truth are wise to avoid me.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Maybe i don't want to hear it because I know what it is. I was in the novus ordo for many years. There was good, there was bad. There was even the supernatural (good): The Real Presence of Christ. But again, I feel Jesus is withdrawing his Presence from the novus ordo "churches" because they have all (likely) gone the way of the corrupt, anti-Christ Vatican.

 

[ding]

Maybe i don't want to hear it because I know what it is. I was in the novus ordo for many years. There was good, there was bad. There was even the supernatural (good): The Real Presence of Christ. But again, I feel Jesus is withdrawing his Presence from the novus ordo "churches" because they have all (likely) gone the way of the corrupt, anti-Christ Vatican.

Then leave the church, dummy.

 

[ding]

Maybe i don't want to hear it because I know what it is. I was in the novus ordo for many years. There was good, there was bad. There was even the supernatural (good): The Real Presence of Christ. But again, I feel Jesus is withdrawing his Presence from the novus ordo "churches" because they have all (likely) gone the way of the corrupt, anti-Christ Vatican.

It's probably worth repeating - because you are denser than a rock...

1. Any statement not protected by the charism of infallibility carries the possibility of error.
2. "The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.
3. There are various levels of assent owed by Catholics to the body of statements put forth by the Magisterium.
4. Vatican II did not define any Catholic doctrine.
5. None of the documents of Vatican II proclaim any new doctrine binding upon Catholics.
6. So... Vatican II does not demand any assent to its teaching.
7. Therefore, Novusordowatch insistence that assent is required is false and the Sedevacantist's belief that anything the Pope says must be accepted by the members is false.
8. Sedevacantists believe that any churchman (or at least any pontiff) who has made a materially heretical statement as evidence that he has lost his office.
9. It is clear, defined Catholic teaching that it is possible for a true pope to make statements which contain error as long as those statements are not presented as infallible teaching.
10. In summary... not commenting on any of your bullshit allegations specifically... A pope making a fallible statement doesn't make him a false pope it just makes him wrong.

 

[ding]

Sedevacantism owes its origins to the rejection of the theological and disciplinary changes implemented following the Second Vatican Council (1962–65).[6] Sedevacantists reject this Council, on the basis of their interpretation of its documents on ecumenism and religious liberty, among others, which they see as contradicting the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and as denying the unique mission of Catholicism as the one true religion, outside of which there is no salvation.[7] They also say that new disciplinary norms, such as the Mass of Paul VI, promulgated on 3 April 1969, undermine or conflict with the historical Catholic faith and are deemed blasphemous, while post-Vatican II teachings, particularly those related to ecumenism, are labelled heresies.[8] They conclude, on the basis of their rejection of the revised Mass rite and of postconciliar church teaching as false, that the popes involved are also false.[1] Among even traditionalist Catholics,[2][9] this is a quite divisive question.[1][2]

Traditionalist Catholics other than sedevacantists recognize as legitimate the line of popes leading to and including Pope Francis.[10] Sedevacantists, however, claim that the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church could not have decreed the changes made in the name of the Second Vatican Council, and conclude that those who issued these changes could not have been acting with the authority of the Catholic Church.[11] Accordingly, they hold that Pope John XXIII and his successors left the true Catholic Church and thus lost legitimate authority in the church. A formal heretic, they say, cannot be the Catholic pope.[12]

Sedevacantism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Novus Ordo is short for Novus Ordo Missae, which means the "new order of the Mass".

The term Novus Ordo distinguishes the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 from the Traditional Latin Mass promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570. When Pope Paul VI's new Roman Missal (the liturgical book that contains the text of the Mass, along with the prayers for each celebration of the Mass) was released, it replaced the Traditional Latin Mass as the normal form of the Mass in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

The Traditional Latin Mass is still valid, and can be celebrated but the Novus Ordo became the form of the Mass celebrated in most Catholic churches.

Pope Benedict XVI classified the two forms of the Mass as follows: The Novus Ordo is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, and the Latin Mass is the extraordinary form. Both are valid, and any qualified priest can celebrate either form.

Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form of the Mass)

www.peterboroughdiocese.org

 

[nomadic5]

It seems that one can get caught up in learning this and that and forget the central messages of Christ, one being that we are to have charity toward others. I don't see how calling posters hateful names, especially when a person is just trying to discuss opinions or facts or whatever can be construed as "following Jesus."

I think of the clanging cymbal thing

 

[ding]

It seems that one can get caught up in learning this and that and forget the central messages of Christ, one being that we are to have charity toward others. I don't see how calling posters hateful names, especially when a person is just trying to discuss opinions or facts or whatever can be construed as "following Jesus."

I think of the clanging cymbal thing

And yet we are called to stand for good and oppose evil, right?