Ask a Traditional Catholic, ask me [almost] anything!

Post Reply New Topic

God is a subjective thing to me. Each individual has his/her own subjective impression and concept of Him.

There will never be objective "proof" that He exists. I've never gotten any "proof."

Only if He desires to reveal Himself to me.

So Limbo is in limbo?

I used my god given gift of reason to reason, that in all probability, given the information at hand, using our understanding of our environment, our history, our technologies and last but not least, our understanding of ourselves, that god does not exist...

Do you prefer English or Latin mass?

Also do you have any take on SSPX's rejection of Vatican II? Or on sedevacantism?

Proof - evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

Sorry, something unexpected came up, I'll be way for a bit but I will return answer everyone's questions.

Okay, I'm back, sorry about that, I realize this was all very awkward.

Are you interested in doing a real crazy experiment of sorts?

Heh, yeah pretty much, it was always just a Theological theory, never a doctrine.

I'm not sure, I used to really like the idea of a Tridentine mass done in English, since I could understand what was being said, and still enjoy the reverence of it, but now, I'm really starting to really warm to Latin prayers, and not just because it's a mysteries ancient tongue. -Although I'd be lying if I didn't say I find it much deeper, if I say the Hail Mary in Latin rather than English.- However, I definitely don't want the Novus Ordo to be outlawed though, most of the problems people have with the Novus Ordo stem more from the abuses than the actual form itself.


The Second Vatican II has been badly misunderstood by many people, I recommend googling "Fr. Smith" and "Vatican II" for the audio or video series by said priest, on Vatican II and the proper understanding of that council, he explains it in a very reasonable way, without going into too much rhetoric about it. (like, he's actually quite generous when talking about the Nouvelle Theologie presence at the council.) Also, when I read the introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I got the impression that this was the official Catechism of the Second Vatican Council, the same way that the Roman Catechism was the Catechism of the Council of Trent, I could be mistaken about this though.

If you want my opinion on the SSPX themselves, that's a whole other topic for another time, the short answer though is, I'm not a big fan of them. In regards to Sedevacantism, I reject Sedevacantism, however you need to know your ecclesiology well in order to deal with them.

Alright then, I'll provide proof tomorrow, I can't right now, because this will be quite a long post, and I need to be fully available for it.

I'll see you then.

My best advice: write it once and file it away somewhere and cc the next time you're asked. Otherwise these sorts of requests turn into rope-a-dope.

I am also Catholic, so my question to you is: What is your opinion of church cliques?

Do you believe they are beneficial or harmful to a Catholic's individual devotion to the faith?

Okay try this, take an object and hold it in your hand. Now, if you are holding an object in your hands, there is something that I, and everyone here for that matter, can 100% know for a fact about this object, without the slightest chance of being mistaken. What is this fact I know for absolute certainty about the object in your hand? (Again, provided that you're actually holding an object hand.) I know that the object in your hands exists, both I, everyone here can know that with absolute certainty.

Now, I've just picked up an object and am currently holding it in my own hand as I type this, once again, we can all know with absolute, 100% certainty that this object also exists, everyone here knows with absolute certainty that the object in my hand exists, and the object your hand exists, and yet we can also know with absolute certainty that the object in my hand is not the object your hand. I have an object in my hand that exists, you have an object in your hand that exists, and yet my existing object is not your existing object, even if they are both the same object, namely an iPhone, that's the object I'm holding in my hand at the moment. If we both happen to be both holding iPhones at the moment, (Which may be unlikely as, I'm not even sure if you're online at the moment that I'm typing this.) and even if we were able to make both of these iPhones are identical, these iPhones would still be different iPhones, my iPhone exists, your iPhone if you're holding one exists, both my iPhone, and whatever object your holding in your hand exists, but my existing object is not your existing object, how are they different? Well, my iPhone was made a whole complex series of parts, most of which are made of metal and plastic, if you have a different object from my iPhone, stop and consider how your object was manufactured.

Now consider this, as we ponder how our projects were manufactured, are any of the things that go into the construction of our products, the explanation of their own existence, or the source of their own existence? No, none these things are the explanation of their own existence, or the source of their own existence, all these things received their existence from something else, and can also pass their existence on to something else. These things can not originate their own existence, they must receive their existence from elsewhere, this is called contingency. Contingency refers to something that is, without having to be, none of these things have to exist due to the fact that they are dependent on something else in order to exist, and thus can very easily not be. Now if all things receive their existence from something else, how can anything exist at all? Existence needs to enter into the cosmos in order for things to exist, but nothing in the cosmos can generate its own existence, there needs to be something that can posses existence all on its own, what can the be? Well in the book of Exodus, we have someone saying "I AM that I AM" and later says that He should be called "HE WHO IS" or YHWH, (Y=He HWH=To be) this someone is none other than the God of Israel, and He is the only lead we've got on a being who is necessary, who posses existence in and of Himself, and can give that existence to contingent things.

It depends on what you mean by "clique" and probably what those cliques are. Cliques can be could refer to anything from Eastern rites, to the Anglican Ordinariate, to people liking a certain devotion and spreading it, to some local Catholic cultural custom. The Traditional Catholic movement itself has quite a few "cliques" in it.

Was I too aggressive in that last post, it's hard to tell on these online forums at times. I honestly didn't know what you meant by "clique," I mean suspected you were considering the Traditional Catholic movement, of being a" clique" as I implied in the last bit of my last post but, I really was trying to give you the benefit of a doubt.

Granted, I could just be reading this whole thing wrong, I could have answered what you wanted answered, and you being satisfied, didn't feel the need to respond, I myself, do almost all the time on other forums.