FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(02-05-2013, 04:25 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]I think a major problem is that many people seem to lump anyone who disagrees with them (on anything!) as disregarding the crisis in the Church.

I think you can basically boil it down to whether people consider that the SSPX is justified in its position.  If they do, then they have to believe that there is a crisis in the Church.  If they don't, then they have to believe there is NOT a crisis in the Church, however bad things may be.

Sadly, it seems to me there are more of the latter, or at least, the latter are more vocal here, these days.
(02-05-2013, 03:05 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]. . . one surely cannot expect things to remain changeless forever?!  Tip o' the hat

Of course not.  Where can I get my ticket to the next Assisi?
(02-05-2013, 08:30 PM)OHCA Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 03:05 PM)Virgil the Roman Wrote: [ -> ]. . . one surely cannot expect things to remain changeless forever?!  Tip o' the hat

Of course not.  Where can I get my ticket to the next Assisi?

Rome, of course.
(02-05-2013, 06:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 04:25 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]I think a major problem is that many people seem to lump anyone who disagrees with them (on anything!) as disregarding the crisis in the Church.

I think you can basically boil it down to whether people consider that the SSPX is justified in its position.  If they do, then they have to believe that there is a crisis in the Church.  If they don't, then they have to believe there is NOT a crisis in the Church, however bad things may be.

Sadly, it seems to me there are more of the latter, or at least, the latter are more vocal here, these days.

The one doesn't follow the other at all. One can believe there's a crisis in the human element of the Church while also believing the SSPX is not justified in its position. (And one can believe there's a crisis and also believe the SSPX is justified.) But that there sums up what I think is the problem that some people have in thinking the forum is more "liberal" or "neo-con" than it had been:  since the Motu Proprio and since the talks, there are more people here who believe the SSPX is not justified in their position, some of them even having been attendees of SSPX chapels. But this is not and has never been "an SSPX forum"; it's a trad forum for trads from all over the spectrum (with the owner herself being someone who's never set foot in an SSPX chapel) and, as said before, it isn't so that just because one doesn't think the SSPX is justified means that that person doesn't think there's a crisis. So all this "what crisis?" stuff makes no sense here.

(02-06-2013, 01:16 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]The one doesn't follow the other at all. One can believe there's a crisis in the human element of the Church while also believing the SSPX is not justified in its position. (And one can believe there's a crisis and also believe the SSPX is justified.) But that there sums up what I think is the problem that some people have in thinking the forum is more "liberal" or "neo-con" than it had been:  since the Motu Proprio and since the talks, there are more people here who believe the SSPX is not justified in their position, some of them even having been attendees of SSPX chapels. But this is not and has never been "an SSPX forum"; it's a trad forum for trads from all over the spectrum (with the owner herself being someone who's never set foot in an SSPX chapel) and, as said before, it isn't so that just because one doesn't think the SSPX is justified means that that person doesn't think there's a crisis. So all this "what crisis?" stuff makes no sense here.

I think what some people mean by the word crisis is a state of emergency that overrides the normal application of the rules of the Church.  I do not believe that there is a crisis in that sense.  I do believe there is a crisis in the sense that we are facing serious problems that could come close to destroying the Church.
If one believes there's a crisis and also believes th sspx isn't justified, I think that persons definition of crisis is "a little superficial accidental problem"

Like priests with unhemmed cassocks or something

From phone
(02-06-2013, 02:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]If one believes there's a crisis and also believes th sspx isn't justified, I think that persons definition of crisis is "a little superficial accidental problem"

Like priests with unhemmed cassocks or something

From phone

So, the SSPX has a trademark on the word "crisis" now?  By the dictionary definition, I agree we are in a crisis point in Church history.  But that does not necessitate the whole SSPX package.

1
a : the turning point for better or worse in an acute disease or fever
b : a paroxysmal attack of pain, distress, or disordered function
c : an emotionally significant event or radical change of status in a person's life
2
: the decisive moment (as in a literary plot)
3
a : an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome

b : a situation that has reached a critical phase
(02-06-2013, 01:16 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 06:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 04:25 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]I think a major problem is that many people seem to lump anyone who disagrees with them (on anything!) as disregarding the crisis in the Church.

I think you can basically boil it down to whether people consider that the SSPX is justified in its position.  If they do, then they have to believe that there is a crisis in the Church.  If they don't, then they have to believe there is NOT a crisis in the Church, however bad things may be.

Sadly, it seems to me there are more of the latter, or at least, the latter are more vocal here, these days.

The one doesn't follow the other at all.

JuniorCouncilor was just providing Exhibit A for The Curt Jester's argument.
(02-06-2013, 05:30 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-06-2013, 01:16 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 06:36 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-05-2013, 04:25 PM)The Curt Jester Wrote: [ -> ]I think a major problem is that many people seem to lump anyone who disagrees with them (on anything!) as disregarding the crisis in the Church.

I think you can basically boil it down to whether people consider that the SSPX is justified in its position.  If they do, then they have to believe that there is a crisis in the Church.  If they don't, then they have to believe there is NOT a crisis in the Church, however bad things may be.

Sadly, it seems to me there are more of the latter, or at least, the latter are more vocal here, these days.

The one doesn't follow the other at all.

JuniorCouncilor was just providing Exhibit A for The Curt Jester's argument.

Eye-roll
(02-06-2013, 02:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]If one believes there's a crisis and also believes th sspx isn't justified, I think that persons definition of crisis is "a little superficial accidental problem"

Like priests with unhemmed cassocks or something

From phone
There is a crisis. No doubt about that. But the SSPX has declared that there is a state of Emergency within the Church.
That is false. There is no state of emergency. That is just a strawman argument in order to carry on with illicit dispensation of sacraments.
Again, there is a crisis. We would not be here if there weren't one.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35