Poll: Now that the trad. Sacrament of Confirmation is banned, what will you do?

[GiftOfGod]

I mean, Francis is no pope, and these sacraments are doubtful, when administered by clergy ordained in the new rite.

So it's weird that you show concern over it.  [emoji28]

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

It's weird that I'm concerned about my fellow trads (even though they are not 100% aligned with my theological opinions)? That's sad.

Do you go onto Anglican forums and post like this?

No, why would I? What Anglican forums are you referring to?

Your certainty of your opinion is as strong as I've ever seen, yet, you seem to be attracted to the visible Church and the Pope.

I'd like to see traditional Catholics have access to valid Sacraments, so what? How do I "seem to be attracted to the visible Church and the Pope"?

Maybe you need to temper your opinion with some truth, that you cannot be certain because you and no individual has the authority to make the proclamations required for your opinion to be certain.

Your implication is that my opinion contains no truth. Which parts, specifically, contain no truth?

[TerrorDæmonum]

Do you go onto Anglican forums and post like this?

No, why would I? What Anglican forums are you referring to?

You have the same reaction to the current Pope and Bishops and their works and claims as I have to the Anglicans.

They are heretics, don't have valid orders or sacraments (except Baptism if done properly), and their approval of anything is meaningless, and their authority is non-existant.

Who was I talking about? Anglicans or the Pope and Bishops that are representative of the Holy Catholic Church?

[TerrorDæmonum]

I voted Other.

My explanation:

I am born and raised in the TLM and I received the sacrament a long time ago, and I cannot receive it again. I have nobody who I am spiritually (or materially or legally) responsible for.

However, this thread's title is begging the question (really). The sacrament has not been banned at all.

The Holy Spirit isn't just an idea and it is not up to Internet posters to take it upon themselves to usurp lawful authority and make declarations as if they were at all certain or binding.

It is one thing to have an opinion, but it is quite another to raise that above everything else.

[GiftOfGod]

Do you go onto Anglican forums and post like this?

No, why would I? What Anglican forums are you referring to?

You have the same reaction to the current Pope and Bishops and their works and claims as I have to the Anglicans.

They are heretics, don't have valid orders or sacraments (except Baptism if done properly), and their approval of anything is meaningless, and their authority is non-existant.

Who was I talking about? Anglicans or the Pope and Bishops that are representative of the Holy Catholic Church?

You don't see a difference between sedevacantism and Anglicanism, really?

However, this thread's title is begging the question (really). The sacrament has not been banned at all.

I never said "the Sacrament of Confirmation is banned; I said "the trad. Sacrament of Confirmation is banned". Are you not aware of the Responsum from the CDW regarding implementation of Traditionis custodes?

[TerrorDæmonum]

I never said "the Sacrament of Confirmation is banned; I said "the trad. Sacrament of Confirmation is banned".

Do you think the Sacrament is different between the rites used?

There are no "traditional Sacraments". There are "traditional" rites/orders to differentiate from revised orders. The sacrament is not affected.

[Gardener]

A good friend asked the other day about this and if we (me and those in the chat) would go Eastern (I assume he meant Eastern Catholic; the Orthoducks are out of the question). No. Going to the Maronites at this point is like having your local gas station clerk say the Novus Ordo with an accent. Blech. Even my Lebanese friend dislikes them.

No, I'd go to Watkins, CO. St. Isidore's. SSPX.

[GiftOfGod]

There are no "traditional Sacraments". There are "traditional" rites/orders to differentiate from revised orders. The sacrament is not affected.

I disagree and, if the reaction to the CDW instruction is any measure, most trads also disagree. If you trust in "Pope Saint" Paul VI's new rites, then you "do you". I hope for your sake that the new sacraments are valid.

[LausTibiChriste]

A good friend asked the other day about this and if we (me and those in the chat) would go Eastern (I assume he meant Eastern Catholic; the Orthoducks are out of the question). No. Going to the Maronites at this point is like having your local gas station clerk say the Novus Ordo with an accent. Blech. Even my Lebanese friend dislikes them.

No, I'd go to Watkins, CO. St. Isidore's. SSPX.

Good call. Maronites are just Lebanese NOers.

No Ukrainians near ya?

[Gardener]

A good friend asked the other day about this and if we (me and those in the chat) would go Eastern (I assume he meant Eastern Catholic; the Orthoducks are out of the question). No. Going to the Maronites at this point is like having your local gas station clerk say the Novus Ordo with an accent. Blech. Even my Lebanese friend dislikes them.

No, I'd go to Watkins, CO. St. Isidore's. SSPX.

Good call. Maronites are just Lebanese NOers.

No Ukrainians near ya?

There are two Byzantine Phoenix Eparchy parishes in Denver, Holy Protection and Sts. Cyril and Methodius. The drive is equal or longer than just driving to the SSPX (I can drive to Watkins via a rural highway, whereas I must get onto the Interstate and then into wretched Denver city traffic for the Byz parishes). But mainly, I'm not Eastern. I appreciate their spirituality. But I don't see the point in going when the SSPX is viable and available.