©Lucio Mascarenhas. April 25th., 2004.
This is my response to some of the posts on the thread, "Real" Traditionalists
The tread "Real" Traditionalists
begins with a bias against "Traditionalism". The Modernist heretics and their apologists from among the Habitualists and Neo-Catholic parties of the Roman Modernist sect like to confuse people by confusing the heresy of Traditionalism which was condemned, and the Catholic Resistance to the Modernist's Junking of Catholic Tradition and even of Scriptural Doctrines... It is this latter movement that is called "Traditionalism" and it has no logical or historic connection with the earlier, condemned Heresy of Traditionalism.
The heresy of Traditionalism, (see Catholic Encyclopaedia
, 1914) as condemned, was taught first by Louis de Bonald
, F. de Lamenais (1782-1854) and by Augustine Bonnetty
, and is related to the other heresy of Fideism
, taught by Louis Eugene Bautain
(1796-1867). There is no similarity in ideology between these heresies and the Traditionalist Movement that arose against the Modernist Apostasy.
There is no evident connection between the two "Traditionalism"s except the name. But in opposition to those who slander us, I reply:
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
Even more pertinent is Marcel Lefebvre's pungent: "Must I become Protestant in order to remain Catholic?"
However, my caveats... Lefebvre's Schism
| Lefebvrist Apologias
| Adversus Haereses: Lefebvrism
One of the most interesting quotes, however, offered, as the provocation or bait to commence the discussion in this thread, is from St. Vincent of Lerins.
ST. VINCENT OF LERENS (c. 400-450 A.D.)
But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view, if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practiced negligently should thenceforward be practiced with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, this, and nothing else, she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.
As St. Vincent of Lerins pointed out the True Church is UNCHANGING. And it has been proved beyond doubt, that the "NEW CHURCH" has changed and abandoned the Catholic Faith, even as it tenuously pretends rights to the brand name of the Catholic Church, the better to deceive souls.
"Faith" on Sola Scripture:
I notice that you quote everything but Scripture. You like the teachings of men over and above the teachings of God?
There is nothing in the Word of God that testifies to Rome as being God's headquarters. As a Matter of fact, the Bible testifies that the church of Jesus Christ is a universal *Body* of believers--and that our bodies are His Temple. No physical structure is mentioned. There are many locations where the *Body* can meet-and that included houses.
Faith ([email protected]), October 19, 2003
1. Catholic Tradition The Key To The New Testament
by Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D
2. The Heresy of "House Churches" It is not illegitimate for the Church to gather in private houses, under abnormal conditions, on in places where a dedicated building for public worship is not yet erected. However, the Protestant heretical notion that public houses of worship ought to be eschewed is opposed to the Bible.
Scriptours' Douai Rheims Version Online
1 Corinthians 11: 3. I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. 7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man. 10 Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
St. Paul tells us in the Bible, that women must be veiled in Church. But nowhere does Christianity demand that women be permanently veiled, as does the Heresy of Mohahmadanism. But, if the house is to be permanently "Church" then there is no time when the women can live unveiled, for house is Church, and Church is home.
The Whore of Babylon
There are two aspects to this, by which we can identify the "Whore".
Prots have consistently claimed that the Church hqed in Rome is that "Whore". But the fundamental premises of Protism is itself false, demonstrably, (as adequately done by Stenhouse).
On the contrary, Protestantism with its huge diverse fratricidal and fissiparous sects represents literally the Tower of Babel which is the true Symbol of Babylon.
Add to that the basic false premises veritable lies that is the foundation of all Protestantism.
Then take the 2nd Aspect.
Protestantism split into three broad classes Liberals or Modernists, who progressively deny Christ and the Gospels, the Evangelicals in the middle, and the Literalist Fundamentalists.
The Modernists infiltrated the Catholic Church in 1959 and accomplished the French Revolution there, producing the Roman Modernist sect under Roncalli - Wojtyla. This fulfils the prediction of the Universal Apostasy.
Together, the Old Protestants and the New Protestant sect forms the Whore of Babylon - the enemies of God coming together in "Ecumenism" to build a new Tower of Babel - One World Religion in the form of the United Nations, the World Council of Churches, and the program of the Roman Modernists Assisi, Kyoto, etc.
But there is also a third aspect. That is, when we look at Pagan Rome and Catholic Rome, we can see the sharp difference. Catholic Rome is built upon the rejection of Pagan Rome. So much so that the pagans in the time of St. Augustine blamed the accession of the masses to Catholicism for the fall of Rome to the Barbarians, and which provoked St. Augustine to write his tome, The City of God
in defence of Catholicism.
However, when we look around us, we see that there is, indeed, a power that is patterned on Pagan Rome and that is Protestant America, WASP America. The USA was founded by men who revived the "glories" of Pagan Rome, and who patterned themselves literally on Pagan Rome.
So much so that it has Capitols, Senates, and the like. The USA is deliberately patterned on the Constitution of Pagan Rome.
But WASP America is itself a Spawn of Apostate England, the Mother Waspdom. England became a "great power" by robbery, piracy and rapine, by open acts of chicanery, deceit and pillage.
And WASP England, the handmaid of the Freemasons, themselves the front of the Jews, has existed only for one cause to war against God and His Church.
That WASPdom and Protestantdom or to give it its more appropriate name, the West, is un-Christian is proven most signally by the fact that never in any of the Protestant dominated countries was there any civil war between those who were for the Christian morals and those who stood for Libertinism, freedom from morals and freedom from personal responsibility.
In every Catholic land, on the contrary, the Catholics fought long and hard, and had to be repeated and bloodily bludgeoned in order that they may acquiesce or not resist any more the advent of the New Age with its Libertinism, freedom from morals and freedom from personal responsibility.
This incontrovertible fact shows beyond any doubt as to who is the Harlot of Babylon Protestantism or Catholicism!
Conversions have dropped 90% since vatican II
I believe that this is an error on your part, Climber. There are large numbers of conversions in some parts of the world, especially Africa and Asia. Prove your "90% drop" claim, or deep-six it
Climber ([email protected], October 20, 2003)
[email protected], October 20, 2003
Please "deep-six" these:
Wojtyla and his Ecumenism Circus at Assisi, Kyoto, etc.
Archbishop & President of the "Catholic Bishops' Conf. of India", Cyril Baselios at the birthday bash of the Pantheist Pagan 'Amma': This Page has been pulled off after I wrote to the Marymatha Seminary in protest... Ask me, and I forward the saved page to you
CBCI on "Forced Conversion"
This page, from the secularist newspaper, The Hindu, has been picked up by the Hitlerite Hindu org, the HVK...
Brother Lawrence de Sousa's eyewitness report as a seminarian of the going-ons in the Bombay archdiocese
. (See also, Brother Lawrence's Hinduism At A Glance
). Brother Lawrence, along with three others, was expelled by Ivan Cardinal Dias from the Novus Ordo Seminary, Bombay, for rejecting Paganism, and then went over to the Lefebvrists!
Please prove that there are any real conversions in Asia & Africa. As a matter of fact, the situation here in Asia is worse, and so it is also in Africa. Have you forgotten so soon the sensational newsreport of the epidemic of sexual abuse of children and nuns, at the hands of the "priests" of the Antichurch, and which the "New Vatican" has pinpointed as being mainly in Africa? Refresh your memory here: Poisoned Fruits from Poisoned Trees
The Heresies of Ecumenism and the "Branch Heresy"
See also here
Questions: How did the various sects originate? Did Christ intend for only one Church?
Christ founded the Church directly, by conveying His authority to His deliberately chosen Apostles, and to Peter especially above them, and not by a general authorisation of all His followers. Christ emphasised authority and the succession of authority, from the Father to Himself, and from Himself to His Apostles.
Christ prayed for the unity of His Church, John 17:20-21
"I pray... for them also who through their word shall believe in me, that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
As Pope Pius XI comprehensively pointed out, it is impossible to believe that this prayer has not been answered. There is nothing in Sacred Revelation to give the idea that this Unity has not been an accomplished fact in the Church from its very inception. (See Pope Pius XI on this subject in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos)
Nevertheless, we are confronted with the fact that there are many who pretend to be Christian, who disobey and reject the Church, and separating themselves, or being expelled, constitute and constituted themselves into rival "Churches". They have further alleged that the Unity of Christianity is something that is absent and which needs to be arrived at.
Christ instructed His Apostles (Luke 10:16):
"He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."
Christ also taught (Matt. 18:15-18):
"But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."
He taught us that those who depart from obedience and faith become "as the heathen" unto the remnant Christians, i.e., effectively, these defectors are to be considered on the par of pagans and infidels. After having effectively withdrawn from the Church, they no longer remained Christian, regardless of any pretensions to that name.
Despite these plain facts, these defectors have been insisting that they remain Christian, and that only when they are included in an arrangement that is satisfactory to all such groups, together with or without the True Church, which they deny is the True Church, but which they equate with their innumerable sects, can the unity desired and prayed for by Christ Jesus be achieved and accomplished.
The True Church has insisted always that this idea is wrong.
Points to note and stress:
1. Christ did not give his authority to one and all; to all his disciples, not even to the mass of 72 disciples whom he had chosen for his first and second missions. He gave it only and specifically to his 12 Apostles.
2. He who remains in communion with these Apostles and their lawful successors, remains in communion with Christ.
3. Those who broke away, ceased to be Christian.
4. Defections did NOT rupture the Perfect & Accomplished and Sempiternally Guaranteed Unity of the Church!
There is a profound difficulty with the basic Protestant premise of "Sola Scriptura". I have searched the Bible and the Bible does NOT teach Sola Scriptura.
The Bible is made up of several books put together by a coherent institution, the Catholic Church, and which maintains it as it is, keeping out books, and keeping in books.
But if we assume that the Bible is its own authority, we must find a reliable Bible quote stating that it had put itself together.
And there is none.
Again, the Bible does not claim that it contains the entire truth of Divine Revelation which it is necessary for men to credit and accept in order to obtain salvation.
The Bible was not written as an encyclopedic compendium of all truth. That is evident from the nature of the Bible and its constituent books, itself!
On the contrary, the Bible is a collection of documents which are purely incidental.
But there is yet another objection. The Bible states, as a narration of facts, only so much. The Bible is not a continuing record going down to our day. It does not even record the works and deeds of all the apostles till the death of the last. Nor is there any reason, if it is to be the authoritative record of the Faith, why it should not be an encyclopedic compendium of the Doctrines of the Holy Faith and also an encyclopedic record of the acts of the Church continuously down to our age.
All this makes nonsense of "Sola Scriptura". This heresy is fundamental donkeyism!
Further Reading Pertinent Pages:
The Doctrine of Romanism
Not In Communion With Rome?
Do Protestants Have Popes?
A Contrived Crisis
©Lucio Mascarenhas. April 25th., 2004.