FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: New TLM Parish in Cincinnati
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
(12-21-2010, 10:44 AM)ies0716 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2010, 06:37 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-08-2010, 08:58 PM)Ockham Wrote: [ -> ]If this is the biggest issue you have on your plate you are most fortunate.  I have more important things to spend time on.

Then please attend to them.   ;D

This isn't a tribunal, and we're not the inquisition.  If someone is or is not a sedevacantist is irrelevant to having this type of discussion and amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem or an argument about motivation rather than the question at hand.

I'm assuming that you're going to start posting the same thing every time that someone is called a modernist or a neo-Catholic on the forum now as well?

I do knock people down if they call others Modernists, however, I did ban someone from the forum one time for Modernism.

Neo-Catholic is allowed; it is parallel to traditional Catholic and does not necessarily imply heresy, schism, or lack of fidelity.
(12-21-2010, 11:09 AM)Ockham Wrote: [ -> ]I got called a "NOer" the other day.  I wasn't asked if I was a "NOer" it was stated as factual.  Should that be reported to the Moderator?

You can and should report anything you believe is against the forum rules.
To all inovled:

As someone involved with Una Voce and the decision to select St. Marks, I can honestly say that almost everyone on this message board is WAY over analyzing why St. Mark's was picked. The primary reasons had nothing to do with the SSPX or the SSPV being located nearby. The main reason St. Mark's was selected was that St. Marks happens to be the only available Church currently for sale in the dioceses that is suitable for the TLM.  Plus, the price for purchase and restoration are within reach.

St. Marks is also attractive because a) it's beautiful and has the original marble altar and fantastic artwork/statues b) it's in a convenient location right of off I71 making it easily accessible even to those North/South of the City c) the Italianate architecture is unique to the area d) the bishop would like to keep the artwork in the hands of Catholics and ensure this treasure of a Church is put to good use. e) it's a church that wealthy Catholic patrons might being interested in as a restoration project

Yes the bishop hopes that having a TLM parish might encourage some SSPX/SSPV to attend, but almost everyone involved knows that there will not be a lot of movement away from the SSPX/SSPV to this new parish if it gets off the ground. Sure, we know that the SSPX is moving to Walton and some SSPXers may not want to travel that far, and perhaps they might come to St. Marks instead. Hoever this is a secondary motivation.

The real targets are those already attending FSSP/dioceses masses as well as frustrated NOMers. There are a lot of trads in Cincinnati who attend the FSSP masses in Indiana, Dayton, and Kentucky. Perhaps some of these folks will stay in Cincinnati if they have their own Church.

Bishop Schnurr is definitely supportive of the efforts to establish a TLM parish in the area and this type of action would have never occurred under the previous Bishop. I think we need to acknowledge the good being done here and back off the conspiracy theories. I can see why this action of the Bishop was interpreted as an attack, but I can say with certainty that St. Marks was chosen for less exciting reasons. Charity believes all things and there is a lot of rash judgment on some of these posts.

As one who attends the TLM at an a "approved" Mass in Cincinnati, I think it’s fair to say that many of us are supportive of the SSPX and appreciate the stand they are taking. Obviously some at our Mass are scandalized by the SSPX, but that's because they don't know the full story. People choose where to go to Mass for a variety of reasons, and without getting into why I've chosen to stay "inside the fence", I think we need to remember that there really is no "right" decision for everyone and every family. The SSPX is not perfect and every SSPX parish (like any) has its own  set of problems not the least of which is tendencies towards sedevacantism.

I simply implore everyone to see this decision by our Bishop for what it is, a generous offer from a Bishop who's trying to be supportive of UnaVoce's efforts. There is no evil intent or strategy to fool SSPX/SSPVers into being drugged with Novus Ordo sermons and VII propaganda.  Everyone knows that most TLM attendees are firmly against VII reforms. Now that this has become more acceptable and the bad fruits of VII are fairly obvious, we see some Bishops being less resistant to the TLM.

Instead of bickering, let's pray for Bishop Schnurr to go in a more Traditional direction and that funds for St. Marks can be raised. I pray for Bishop Fellay quite often and hope that the dire situation in our church will be righted one day soon.

God Bless.
Sounds good to me HomemakinMom, thanks for posting that and welcome to the tank!

I do hope they use it strictly for the TLM.
Isn't the primary point of advancing the traditional cause that we advance the sacred Mass?  Far be it from be to complain that it is new anywhere, be that SSPX, SSPX, FSSP/indult, or ANYWHERE, up to and including brave priests serving limited (but growing!) groups of laypersons with occasional liturgies at churches normally used for the most banal of New masses (as is happening in increasing locations around the archdiosese of Seattle).  I approve of a proper TLM anywhere, everywhere, and for anyone.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6