Pope Calling Our Bluff?
#41
(05-16-2012, 01:16 AM)James02 Wrote: I thought you got burnt out on the SSPX and were hanging with the FSSP.  Are you with an independent chapel now?

Was this directed at me?  No, no, I love the sspx.  I split my time between an sspx chapel and a diocesan Latin mass.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#42
(05-16-2012, 02:29 AM)Doce Me Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 01:15 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote: I think so, Script.  I was actually talking about this with someone just last night.  Keeping in mind that we have no idea what deal exists, if one exists.  But since we have no idea, we are free to speculate.  IF it's a deal that doesn't require the sspx to change anything (in fact, the only change at all would be on Rome's part, at the minumum by "recognizing" the sspx) then refusal is ipso facto schismatic.  Or, sedevacantist.  To say "no deal with Rome under no circumstances" is to either be sede or schismatic.  So that's the choice some people will have to make.  The sspx has gone on the way they've gone on for the exact reason that they would not compromise Tradition.  So if they don't have to compromise Tradition, then there's no difference after a deal from the sspx view.  Excepting the sede stance, NO ONE could say that such an offer would be a bad thing.  No, it would be a great thing for the society to be given faculties within the regularzed structure of the Church without having to change anything.  Only a sede or a schismatic could logically reject that.  

But if the SSPX were told they didn't have to change anything, wouldn't they be reasonable to suspect that this was a false promise, whatever good intentions were behind it?   Rejecting it then would be quite logical, if the changes were in the practice and teaching of the faith.

If Rome accepts the SSPX with no conditions, then Rome would be saying e.g. that "the Novus Ordo mass is a perfectly good mass" but allowing certain Catholics to teach the world that the Novus Ordo mass is (at least in part) un-Catholic.  But surely Rome would never do that, and would at last would suppress SSPX teaching!  Wait,  maybe there would be hope for the SSPX - Rome might just go on saying that truth and error can be happy bedfellows, and all views are just fine in the Catholic Church.  That is really something to hope for.

I'm pretty satisfied with the way I put it out there.  If someone is unconditionally refusing to be regularized by Rome, they're either sede or schismatic. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#43
I think it is at least possible that the Holy Father is giving this "soft ultimatum" to see if he really has an ally in the SSPX.  Though he has never pretended to be a traditionalist, the Pope certainly has sympathies with the traditionalist movement and recognizes that a fraternity of several hundred orthodox priests is a good thing for the Church at large.  I think it also has to be admitted that the ability of the SSPX to influence the Church as a whole and individual members of the Church will always be limited as long as they are "outside" (I know they are not actually outside the Church, but the distinction between "schism" and "suspension a divinis" is not important to most people).
Reply
#44
(05-16-2012, 12:37 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Colorful and humorous language to be sure. And I can appreciate the humor. Although perhaps a bit passionate. Right now there is a unity against unity. And yes, even in the Church. So what do you want to do? Come in and help, or stay outside and say, "see I told you so" as She falls apart. And yes, you may be on the moon. Because you are so isolated as to have lost a sense of reality. I understand this and relate to it. Sometimes when I attend Mass, I think everything is OK. But, then I have to leave and join the world again.

No, no, no.  You have bought into the false premise.  The SSPX is not "out" and never has been.  There is a crisis, because of this crisis, those who are considered "out" and "in" are a confused jumble. 

You are painting the furniture before it's been stripped, sanded and primed.  The crisis has to be addressed before the worries over canonical regularity can be dealt with.  Because canonical regularity is the bloodstream by which the disease spreads. 

The masterstroke of the devil was to force disobedience through obedience to paraphrase Archbishop LeFebvre. 
Reply
#45
(05-16-2012, 09:06 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(05-16-2012, 01:16 AM)James02 Wrote: I thought you got burnt out on the SSPX and were hanging with the FSSP.  Are you with an independent chapel now?

Was this directed at me?  No, no, I love the sspx.  I split my time between an sspx chapel and a diocesan Latin mass.

Just like me.  Kung-Fu.

As things are working out that has been a succesful strategy.  Spread your risk.
Reply
#46
(05-16-2012, 04:26 AM)ggreg Wrote: It just becomes another choice in the cafeteria church.

In a very real sense by coming under the umbrella you give legitimacy to the umbrella.  By being one of 31 flavours you support the view of the Baskin Robbins church.

Besides who knows what Rome teaches anymore? One minute it says something, the next something contradictory.  Abortion is wrong but US Politcians who support it are Catholics in good standing and have been for 40 years.  They shake the Pope's hand, receive communion from their Bishops and Cardinals and vote for Obama.

Let's be realistic, the SSPX even if they are left alone (which they won't be) will never have any large influence on policy decisions.

Want a model for what will happen.  See Transalpine Redemptorists for the last 3 years.  Split, sidelined, inert.

People who like smells and bells will come to the masses, but standards will be eroded until there is nothing except the externals to distinguish between Trads and Novus Ordinarians.

Barring a miracle, that is what will happen.

Ok, what are you people saying?  If things are really that bad, if what is really going on is proof that the Catholic Church today is not the same Church as the Catholic Church of yesteryear, then you need to be looking at Eastern Orthodoxy.  It is the only possible other option.  Catholicism is NOT in the SSPX if it is not in the Vatican.  If Rome is not Catholic, Constantinople and Moscow is the ONLY option.
Reply
#47
If standards will be soon eroding, and all you think is that many will come for the smells and bells, than maybe, just perhaps, that is indeed already the situation. Because I don't see a lot of mercy for those who may have been misguided. But, I do see a lot of Pharisees looking down on Samaritans. Both the good and not so good Samaritans.

Is this what it means to be a Christian? I thought we are supposed to be bringing light to the world. But if some of you jokers are indicative of a much larger group, Lord have mercy on us. Because you seem to want the status of the Martyrs without so much as having incurred the slightest bruise.

ggred, you said earlier that some are never satisfied. Either they are too harline or too liberal. These tend to be the same souls reacting childlike to the tumultuous times. Outright rejection by those hardliners is just as much the sissy position as the weakest knee liberals. Time to grow a real pair instead of beating your chest so loudly. Because true strength is not made manifest in the ravings of a lunatic.
Reply
#48
(05-16-2012, 08:47 AM)Guardian Wrote: I find Docs comment mild next to the comparisons of the Catholic Church to wife beaters and rapists that several people have made.

While I don't agree with using extreme analogies to describe the problems in the Church, at least it keeps the focus on ideas rather than personal attacks.  The post that I found most disturbing in this thread was Melkite's comment about bipolar disorder.  How hard is it to frame one's posts as "I disagree with you and this is why"?

Reply
#49
Guardian you are right. Doc's post was nothing in comparison. In fact, it was quite accurate.

Jayne is defending Vetus, I think the world may be coming to an end. Just looked out my window, the sun still seems to be in its proper place.

Jayne, it is not hard to say you disagree and give examples as to why. But it does necessitate having a point or firm ground to stand on. Which is not evident in the most scathing of posts.

These posts are downright hysterical as in not funny, but as regards a hysterectomy. Like a woman in labor as the Psalmist says.
Reply
#50
(05-16-2012, 09:05 AM)ggreg Wrote: Would you be equally shocked and scandalised by an Irish 40 year old man making that charge of the Church when he found out that Cardinals and Bishops knew he was being raped as a child but kept silent and moved the homosexual rapist from parish to parish?

I know that the invisible "church in a box" is not guilty of anything, but Fellay is signing a deal and putting himself in the hands of the same curia who stayed silent, inert and inneffective when children were being raped by priests and Bishops.

I personally have a lot of sympathy of the victims and understand why they want to be angry and make strong accusations.

The two situations are very similar and both involve wholesale injustices and lies and cover-ups carried out over decades.

Same men still running things there in the Vatican.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which handles such matters as priestly abuse, has had Cardinal Levada in since 2005 as prefect, and Archbishop Ferrer in since 2008 as secretary. Msgr. Scicluna who is directly involved in the handling of the priestly abuse situation (the "Promoter of Justice"), has been in since 2002. Hardly all the "same men running things".

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vat...ainst-pope
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)