Universae Ecclesiae released - full English text
Bak- What are you talking about? Why are you putting out so much misinformation about the SSPX and what they stand for?
Reply
(05-16-2011, 05:05 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: I ask because for me, in some ways, I wouldn’t make a certain discussion board my main hang-out/online home if I believed that half (or more) of its active posters were living in mortal sin.

If that were the case, I would have locked myself up in a desert monastery long ago since most of the world around me, trads and non-trads alike, most certainly lives in mortal sin.

I see things realistically. As far as FE goes, I think it's a rather balanced and lively forum (compared to other traditional forums) which doesn't mean it's not full of sinners like myself. It's actually a fair picture of the traditional world at large.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 05:13 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Bak- What are you talking about? Why are you putting out so much misinformation about the SSPX and what they stand for?

What misinformation did I put out about the SSPX? I was quoting the text from SSPX.org that Dymphna posted. My point was that the official SSPX position is more complex than simply saying "attending the NO is mortally sin". I'm 100% against disinformation!  :)

Thanks for the thoughts, Vetus.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 05:30 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 05:13 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Bak- What are you talking about? Why are you putting out so much misinformation about the SSPX and what they stand for?

What misinformation did I put out about the SSPX? I was quoting the text from SSPX.org that Dymphna posted. My point was that the official SSPX position is more complex than simply saying "attending the NO is mortally sin". I'm 100% against disinformation!  :)

Thanks for the thoughts, Vetus.

I agree with you, the official SSPX position is more complex. I wasn't sure you understood this though.

However, I am troubled when you say, " For example, a neo-Catholic would never dream of going directly to the SSPX but thru FE I could see that happening, for good or ill."

Why would it be "ill" if someone found the SSPX?
Reply
I want to apologize for an earlier comment I made stating that priests of the FSSP have to "disguise their true traditionalism." I did not this mean as a slight against the individual priests of the FSSP, rather I meant it as a slight against the forces within the Vatican that continue to believe: 1.) Novus Ordo is of equal value to the tridentine, 2.) JP2 Has already consecrated Russia properly. Having attended both the FSSP and SSPX I can truly say that both groups share the same reverence and holiness, however I personally prefer the SSPX because of the two issues I mentioned.
Reply
(05-16-2011, 06:37 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 05:30 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(05-16-2011, 05:13 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: Bak- What are you talking about? Why are you putting out so much misinformation about the SSPX and what they stand for?

What misinformation did I put out about the SSPX? I was quoting the text from SSPX.org that Dymphna posted. My point was that the official SSPX position is more complex than simply saying "attending the NO is mortally sin". I'm 100% against disinformation!  :)

Thanks for the thoughts, Vetus.

I agree with you, the official SSPX position is more complex. I wasn't sure you understood this though.

However, I am troubled when you say, " For example, a neo-Catholic would never dream of going directly to the SSPX but thru FE I could see that happening, for good or ill."

Why would it be "ill" if someone found the SSPX?

Maybe you could read that in the Beastie Boys version of "ill", as in, a good thing!

Seriously though, it's more in the sense of the forum being divided about the SSPX. I mean, that's a relatively tame comment compared to Stubborn saying the FSSP are actively working to destroy the true faith!
Reply
(05-16-2011, 06:51 PM)st.dominic_savio Wrote: I want to apologize for an earlier comment I made stating that priests of the FSSP have to "disguise their true traditionalism." I did not this mean as a slight against the individual priests of the FSSP, rather I meant it as a slight against the forces within the Vatican that continue to believe: 1.) Novus Ordo is of equal value to the tridentine, 2.) JP2 Has already consecrated Russia properly. Having attended both the FSSP and SSPX I can truly say that both groups share the same reverence and holiness, however I personally prefer the SSPX because of the two issues I mentioned.

No apologies necessary!! I understand where you are coming from....
And just for the record, my spiritual director (FSSP priest) does agree that not one Pope has consecrated Russia properly at this current juncture! So they are currently aware of the danger we are in!!
Reply
"The use of the liturgical books proper to the Religious Orders which were in effect in 1962 is permitted." 

I don't think this passage has been commented much on.  Today the parish priest (who is religious) announced he would be using a 1954 missal sanctioned by his order.  Is this something new or business as usual?
Reply
(05-16-2011, 07:04 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Seriously though, it's more in the sense of the forum being divided about the SSPX. I mean, that's a relatively tame comment compared to Stubborn saying the FSSP are actively working to destroy the true faith!

Not so Bak - I said the FSSP  support the destruction of the true faith.

I have and would again attend the FSSP Mass in a hot minute if that's all that was available for me - but I would not give any donation.

As I stated my opinion earlier, the plain truth is that the NO and it's service is a parody - or caricature of the Holy Sacrifice.................that, in and of itself is a Sacrilege and due to that fact, there can be no supporting of it.

This UE is, IMO, both good and bad (what else is new eh?). On the one hand, it should make the TLM more readily available - depending on the whims of the clergy,.

OTOH, whereas the Spotless Bride was outlawed 45 years ago, by that act alone She at least remained spotless. What will happen to Her as the NO becomes intimate with Her? Or are we to assume or trust that She will remain untouched by the very enemy that outlawed Her to begin with?

Seems that in their eagerness, most folks here overlook the reality of this crisis - this is nothing new! . . . . and I hope I'm 100% wrong thinking that the demonstrated and proven destruction of the NO over the last 45 years will suddenly disappear with this UE - but the first few items of the UE that I noted earlier in this thread lead me to seriously doubt it.   
Reply
Thanks for the thoughts Stubborn. I agree that the NO is a caricature... I mean once I went to a couple TLM's I lost any desire to go back to the NO... and my Basilica was doing a "reverent" Latin NO as well... so I hope that will become the experience of many
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)