I noticed the author of that piece is Canadian. Figures.
Just to mess him up some more, it would be fun to point him to Rolf Nelson's novel "Heretics of St. Possenti". (A really neat novel, worth reading. It also messes up the people who try to fit books into categories.)
Hey I'm one and I'm not stupid. True I'm a Catholic so the church protects my from my own stupidity. The left now mo longer hides its hatred of the religious. The church is the biggest obstacle to their gulagapoolza. Declan did a fine fisking the article and have nothing to add but additional disdain.
"If Rad-Trads rejected Vatican II, they’d be schismatics, on par with Protestants and Greek / Russian Orthodox."
Please permit me to disagree. Protestants and Greek/Russian Orthodox reject specific tenets of Catholic doctrine. Traditional Catholics DO reject Vatican II but do not reject one iota of Catholic doctrine. On the contrary, Vatican II rejects Catholic doctrine. It must be abrogated to remove the justification for liberal inroads in the Faith, such as the James Martins, the bishops that accept abortion and contraception. Here is one link that succinctly covers the words in Vatican II that are poisoning our Church: http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm
I wrote a Rad-Trad Catholic sci fi adventure, Run. There is a shoot-out with robots, as Catholics rescue an unborn baby and mother from a forced abortion on a mining asteroid. Panneton is not wrong about everything. We will use violence when necessary, as necessary, as we have always done, to protect ourselves and our Faith, when there's no way around it, and he knows it, and the article shows his fear. We will use other means first. We will use all means, as creatures of body and soul. https://malapertpress.wordpress.com
That's not correct, or at least, is only correct depending on your definition of "Vatican II." Some "traditional Catholics" do reject the Council. Others reject the way it was implemented. That you consider yourself a Traditional Catholic and reject the Council doesn't mean that everyone using that term does. I think far more who call themselves Traditional Catholics disagree with you than agree, but the fact that the term is used so loosely means it's difficult to count, or even know, who considers himself what. And while I have no doubt a small group of Catholics who reject Vatican II would defend themselves with weapons (as MOST OF US would), I really can't see you all allying with the fever-dream "far right nationalists" this guy sees lurking under his bed. BTW I've read your novel, you are really great with characters.
Forget that there are two sides that are both acceptable. It cannot be, there are never two contradictory truths. Go to the link that gives the exact location of the schematic language in the constitutions of the Council. Then see which side you're on. I will continue to use the term 'traditional' only for those who hold actual traditional doctrine. We should do the same for the term 'conservative.' One side is right and the other side is wrong. The last fifty years ought to show us! James Martin is a son of the Council, he is implementing that quiet (euphoric) poison bullshit language.
The problem with saying "Vatican II" is that there are two versions of the Council.
The first is what the Church documents say.
The second is what was reported and what was done to it.
For example, the Latin mass was never disallowed, and vernacular was never mandated. Then you got to muthaf***ing liturgists and muthaf***ing laity meetings, and suddenly, poof goes the mass as we know it.
Reports say "Oh, certainly priests will be allowed to get married soon," when the reality was on the other side of the galaxy.
So, which council do you hate? The Church one, or the one that was reported? Because Vatican II was drafted largely by Pius XII, who was obviously quite Catholic.
Then we got the fat man on the papal throne as a "place holder" and "Hey! Let's open all the windows!" It's the sixties, and opening up the windows is letting in poison gas, but what can you do with freaking Italians?
I did not see your reply to my comment until this morning. You are wrong here. There are not two versions of Vatican II. I realize the language is subtle, but Vatican II does in fact deny central truths of the Catholic faith. I urge you, Declan, to go to the link I posted--here it is again--and focus on what is being said there. It is the gate to all the other abuses that you attribute to a wrong interpretation of the Council. On the contrary, all of it, liturgical abuse, the end of the Catholic states still in existence and our withdrawal from civic legislation that supports Catholic morality, the failure of marriage, the end of missionary work., all stems from the Council's exact words, so carefully concealed by double speak and denied ever since. I fell for it once, too. In addition I recommend Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Confused Catholics. Here are the words, and the interpretation by Rome in the right side is, you will be able to tell, stems directly from the language. http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm
Declan, while I have your ear (I hope), may I also recommend you read, if you have not, Robert Hugh Benson's Lord of the World? When I first picked it up, I thought it perhaps a bit old-fashioned, but now I see his insight. The past and future of Catholicism is completely integrated with the past and future of our world, all its politics, all its wars. All is the war between good and evil, and Benson captures the bitter taste of advanced liberalism so perfectly.
You can use it however you want to use it, but that doesn't change the fact that lots of other people use it too. There is no way to know, without it being defined, how anyone else is using it -- certainly not some non-Catholic in The Atlantic.
Let's us here try to use the terms correctly. That means to come to a decision about Vatican II. The criteria that 'some people think one way, some another' is not sufficient. There are not two accurate ways of looking at this matter. Either Vatican II is heresy or it is not. Even if the whole world thought otherwise, you and I are obligated to choose Catholic tradition, which may not be changed, not by any pope, not by any Council. I will use the term as I see to be correct and try to teach the multitudes the truth. Declan spoke in favor of the Council and that is why I commented here. Let's try to define tradition and conservative according to the teaching of the Faith and let the chips fall where they may. So very often in history the Holy Ghost has blessed the grunt work with success even against overwhelming odds.
Good is evil in their eyes, but it's still just so... flabbergasting. Just when I think the Powers that Be couldn't sink any lower, they sink lower. It's like some sort of magical power they have, to have no limit to their degradation...
Next thing you know, they'll be saying it's good to kill babies and right to castrate children.
Masterful fisk. I think my favorite line of the insane paranoia-fest is "...which provide an aide-mémoire for a sequence of devotional prayers." OOOOOooooooo, " an ide-mémoire" -- what a sophisticated guy this is, with his French and all! In the middle of what comes across as "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU, HIDE UNDER THE BED!!!" it made me laugh out loud.
I noticed the author of that piece is Canadian. Figures.
Just to mess him up some more, it would be fun to point him to Rolf Nelson's novel "Heretics of St. Possenti". (A really neat novel, worth reading. It also messes up the people who try to fit books into categories.)
Hey I'm one and I'm not stupid. True I'm a Catholic so the church protects my from my own stupidity. The left now mo longer hides its hatred of the religious. The church is the biggest obstacle to their gulagapoolza. Declan did a fine fisking the article and have nothing to add but additional disdain.
You did go line by line. Honestly, I couldn't read the whole thing. Maybe I'll comeback later.
I got a kick out of this fisking, so I posted it in a Telegram channel. A friend of mine responded thusly:
“See how silly and illogical they are? Snicker, snicker. Chortle chortle.”
Meanwhile, they are setting up to kill you for being a Christian. Dead AF"
I'm not sure he's wrong, unfortunately. I've seen the term "Christo-Fascist" being thrown around more and more lately. That bodes ill, I think.
It bodes ill a LOT. Far too ill.
I don't think I would have had the patience to read to the end of his drivel.
"Okay, there were Spanish commies who jammed rosary beads into the ears of altar boys,"
The inventors of ear buds.
"If Rad-Trads rejected Vatican II, they’d be schismatics, on par with Protestants and Greek / Russian Orthodox."
Please permit me to disagree. Protestants and Greek/Russian Orthodox reject specific tenets of Catholic doctrine. Traditional Catholics DO reject Vatican II but do not reject one iota of Catholic doctrine. On the contrary, Vatican II rejects Catholic doctrine. It must be abrogated to remove the justification for liberal inroads in the Faith, such as the James Martins, the bishops that accept abortion and contraception. Here is one link that succinctly covers the words in Vatican II that are poisoning our Church: http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm
I wrote a Rad-Trad Catholic sci fi adventure, Run. There is a shoot-out with robots, as Catholics rescue an unborn baby and mother from a forced abortion on a mining asteroid. Panneton is not wrong about everything. We will use violence when necessary, as necessary, as we have always done, to protect ourselves and our Faith, when there's no way around it, and he knows it, and the article shows his fear. We will use other means first. We will use all means, as creatures of body and soul. https://malapertpress.wordpress.com
That's not correct, or at least, is only correct depending on your definition of "Vatican II." Some "traditional Catholics" do reject the Council. Others reject the way it was implemented. That you consider yourself a Traditional Catholic and reject the Council doesn't mean that everyone using that term does. I think far more who call themselves Traditional Catholics disagree with you than agree, but the fact that the term is used so loosely means it's difficult to count, or even know, who considers himself what. And while I have no doubt a small group of Catholics who reject Vatican II would defend themselves with weapons (as MOST OF US would), I really can't see you all allying with the fever-dream "far right nationalists" this guy sees lurking under his bed. BTW I've read your novel, you are really great with characters.
Forget that there are two sides that are both acceptable. It cannot be, there are never two contradictory truths. Go to the link that gives the exact location of the schematic language in the constitutions of the Council. Then see which side you're on. I will continue to use the term 'traditional' only for those who hold actual traditional doctrine. We should do the same for the term 'conservative.' One side is right and the other side is wrong. The last fifty years ought to show us! James Martin is a son of the Council, he is implementing that quiet (euphoric) poison bullshit language.
The problem with saying "Vatican II" is that there are two versions of the Council.
The first is what the Church documents say.
The second is what was reported and what was done to it.
For example, the Latin mass was never disallowed, and vernacular was never mandated. Then you got to muthaf***ing liturgists and muthaf***ing laity meetings, and suddenly, poof goes the mass as we know it.
Reports say "Oh, certainly priests will be allowed to get married soon," when the reality was on the other side of the galaxy.
So, which council do you hate? The Church one, or the one that was reported? Because Vatican II was drafted largely by Pius XII, who was obviously quite Catholic.
Then we got the fat man on the papal throne as a "place holder" and "Hey! Let's open all the windows!" It's the sixties, and opening up the windows is letting in poison gas, but what can you do with freaking Italians?
I did not see your reply to my comment until this morning. You are wrong here. There are not two versions of Vatican II. I realize the language is subtle, but Vatican II does in fact deny central truths of the Catholic faith. I urge you, Declan, to go to the link I posted--here it is again--and focus on what is being said there. It is the gate to all the other abuses that you attribute to a wrong interpretation of the Council. On the contrary, all of it, liturgical abuse, the end of the Catholic states still in existence and our withdrawal from civic legislation that supports Catholic morality, the failure of marriage, the end of missionary work., all stems from the Council's exact words, so carefully concealed by double speak and denied ever since. I fell for it once, too. In addition I recommend Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Confused Catholics. Here are the words, and the interpretation by Rome in the right side is, you will be able to tell, stems directly from the language. http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm
Declan, while I have your ear (I hope), may I also recommend you read, if you have not, Robert Hugh Benson's Lord of the World? When I first picked it up, I thought it perhaps a bit old-fashioned, but now I see his insight. The past and future of Catholicism is completely integrated with the past and future of our world, all its politics, all its wars. All is the war between good and evil, and Benson captures the bitter taste of advanced liberalism so perfectly.
You can use it however you want to use it, but that doesn't change the fact that lots of other people use it too. There is no way to know, without it being defined, how anyone else is using it -- certainly not some non-Catholic in The Atlantic.
Let's us here try to use the terms correctly. That means to come to a decision about Vatican II. The criteria that 'some people think one way, some another' is not sufficient. There are not two accurate ways of looking at this matter. Either Vatican II is heresy or it is not. Even if the whole world thought otherwise, you and I are obligated to choose Catholic tradition, which may not be changed, not by any pope, not by any Council. I will use the term as I see to be correct and try to teach the multitudes the truth. Declan spoke in favor of the Council and that is why I commented here. Let's try to define tradition and conservative according to the teaching of the Faith and let the chips fall where they may. So very often in history the Holy Ghost has blessed the grunt work with success even against overwhelming odds.
Good is evil in their eyes, but it's still just so... flabbergasting. Just when I think the Powers that Be couldn't sink any lower, they sink lower. It's like some sort of magical power they have, to have no limit to their degradation...
Next thing you know, they'll be saying it's good to kill babies and right to castrate children.
Oh, wait...
Thank you for inspiring me to post on The Libertarian Enterprise and elsewhere.
Masterful fisk. I think my favorite line of the insane paranoia-fest is "...which provide an aide-mémoire for a sequence of devotional prayers." OOOOOooooooo, " an ide-mémoire" -- what a sophisticated guy this is, with his French and all! In the middle of what comes across as "THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU, HIDE UNDER THE BED!!!" it made me laugh out loud.