Most of your positions that you now declare seem fine to me and I congratulate you on what seems to be a good Catholic position. However I think that answering Steve and Bob’s question is important.

In regard to my name, I have always used this psuedonym on blogs until I find a reason not to. Frankly it really would not bother me to use my name, but if you knew me as John or Harold, I don’t see what bearing that has on any question we are dealing with here. So I will continue my status as it is.

As you have fairly answered some of my questions I should answer yours. I answer immediately after the question is posed:

Do traditionalists reject Humane Vitae? Hopefully not. Or Mediator Dei? I don’t know. Name the encyclicals they reject or the canons or scriptures that they reject? I don’t know those details. Also, can one person speak on behalf of all those who call themselves traditionalists? Probably not. Can you say that you know all of those peoples hearts? No

But the current debate is mostly about the acceptance of Vatican II as an authentic arm of the Magisterium. The Hermeneutic of rupture is a position of Traditionalists with which I take exception.

When I said that people where hurt what I meant was traditionalists who were attached to the Old Rite were hurt by losing something that was helpful to them. I do not believe that the NO missal harms anyone, I also believe that the benefit one derives from attending mass is based on their disposition of soul NOT on what form but that some forms of Mass (whether EF NO or even Eastern) better prepare some peoples disposition of Grace.

Do traditionalists reject Humane Vitae? Or Mediator Dei? Name the encyclicals they reject or the canons or scriptures that they reject? Also, can one person speak on behalf of all those who call themselves traditionalists? Can you say that you know all of those peoples hearts?

I pointed out Pope John Paul I because throwing out that traditionalists have rejected the teaching of authority of 5 popes was a puffed up statement. Traditionalists have not rejected the teaching authority of the last 5 popes and have shown great fidelity to their teaching.

I disagree that traditionalists reject Vatican II, their are sections that they dispute over, very small sections. I believe it was unjust to persecute the Old Mass and the priests who said it after the NO missal and that it injured a lot of people who still are hurting from it.

Knight Errant (why don’t you use your real name if you are not ashamed of your position) I hope you will consider explaining to me very carefully how I am close to being a sedevacantist?

Steve, do you think that mockery reflects my position? Really? Have I spoken evil?

Your points and your arguments are vague and emotional.

Clearly traditional (capital “T”) Catholic practices have been de-emphaised inappropriately in many diocese, but I believe that many liberals would feel the same way in more orthodox parishes.

The facts are that Vatican II has been ratified by 4 Popes and not rejected by one (as you so smugly pointed out regarding JPI). The Latin Mass is still valid and beautiful, but is the EXTRA-ordinary form. And the Novus Ordo is ORDINARY. Outline exactly which of these facts you disagree with.

Yes, the liberals are annoying, but it is not our job to correct them, as it is not our job to bolster a “traditionalist” anti-Vatican II position. Your position comes close to becoming sedevacantist. Beware of ending up at the other pole, which can become as bad as the liberals. Don’t end up as a “protestant” for tradition.