Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

[GregChant1545]

Nota Bene:

The Eastern & Oriental Orthodox are not in schism. The SSPX is at least in schism…

The Orthodox certainly are in schism and the schism of the SSPX is in doubt.

This thread was opened to inflame and create disharmony and the moderators, if there are any, should have closed it after the OP.

This is the most disappointing catholic forum I’ve ever participated in. The anger and resentment of those who have no tolerance for nothing but innovations and excuses is remarkable.

So long folks. Enjoy your little love fest.

 

[fix]

GregChant1545:

The Orthodox certainly are in schism and the schism of the SSPX is in doubt.

This thread was opened to inflame and create disharmony and the moderators, if there are any, should have closed it after the OP.

This is the most disappointing catholic forum I’ve ever participated in. The anger and resentment of those who have no tolerance for nothing but innovations and excuses is remarkable.

So long folks. Enjoy your little love fest.

I think she was referring to Eastern rites in communion. The rest of your post I agree with.

SSPX , at least the priests, are in schism, but your remark about tolerance for novelty and excusing errors and abuses is spot on.

The Pope has tried to correct them, but many bishops do as they please. On top of it all, even when the Vatican specifically renders an authentic judgment, it is ignored by some under the pretense of obedience to the bishop. It gets confusing. Follow Rome and one should do ok.

 

[Jakub]

Fix,

Your post # 92 is so correct, the title says it all, so who is uncharitable ?

As I watch the Passion of the Christ today, I will again relive that Jesus’s sacrifice was for this ?

james

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

GregChant1545:

The Orthodox certainly are in schism and the schism of the SSPX is in doubt.

The Orthodox are not in schism.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch

[818](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/818.htm’) “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

As for the SSPX schism being in doubt, it is only in doubt to those who do not listen to the Church.

The Church is the only one who can say who is in schism and who is not. The Church has clearly stated that the Bishops and priests of the SSPX are in schism. I would add that those lay people who are in the SSPX third order are also in schism as they are members of the SSPX.

Those who materially support and encourage the SSPX, if not in schism, are being diobedient to the Church.

 

[pnewton]

JKirkLVNV:

Originally from Texas, now in exile, with a directive to my family to bury my cold, dead body in the sacred soil of the Republic!

This is the smartest thing anyone has posted on this thread (even if somewhat unrelated).

 

[pnewton]

And speaking of Texas:

We have a small group that claims the Republic of Texas never legal dissolved. Therefore all federal laws do not apply to them. They claim they are following the proper legal defense of the true Republic of Texas by arming themselves and ignoring all other laws.

This always comes to my mind when I read discussions on the SSPX.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

fix:

The Pope has tried to correct them, but many bishops do as they please. On top of it all, even when the Vatican specifically renders an authentic judgment, it is ignored by some under the pretense of obedience to the bishop. It gets confusing. Follow Rome and one should do ok.

Very true. Let’s look at this from the typical concerned layman’s viewpoint. And let’s take Cardinal Mahony’s little problem with consecrating the wine while it’s in a flagon, and then pouring it into disparate chalices as a prime example. It’s clear that the Holy See has spoken, it’s clear that the Holy See’s intent is clear, it’s clear what the concern is (the spilling of Our Lord and Savior’s Most Precious Blood). So then what does His Em. do (if I recall correctly)? He says that he has the authority over the liturgy’s rubrics in his diocese, maybe we’ll study it for a while (till the Savior comes in His Glory, more like), there’s a dubium, we’re waiting on the Holy See to explain something that she has
already explained in terms that a three year old Hare Krishna would be able to understand, never mind a Prince of the Church, yadda, yadda, yadda. In the meantime, he’s still going stand in the sanctuary of his ugly cathedral, at an Altar you could land a helicopter on, but which cannot possibly accomodate more than one chalice, and consecrate the wine while it’s still in the flagon. Now what should we do at this point? Stand up and yell,“Hey, you! Yeah, you in the pointy hat with the Bo Peep stick thingy! You’re not supposed to do that, you’re supposed to do this, ya moron!”? I can see how one would be tempted. Should we go to an SSPX chapel? That’s schism. And we aren’t congregationalists. These are the shepherds Rome has given us (and I understand the vetting process for potential bishops, so maybe we need a new way to send Rome names). It is ultimately Rome’s responsibility. If they were all like Archbishop Burke, or Archbishop Chaput, or Archbishop Sheehan, we’d all be happy (except the rad trads, the rad fems, the rad gay front, etc.). I guess we have to complain through proper channels, and pray for our bishops and for those who will be our bishops. And a good stiff drink probably wouldn’t hurt. PS: I’m not actually saying Cardinal Mahony is a moron, I’m trying to make a point.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

pnewton:

And speaking of Texas:

We have a small group that claims the Republic of Texas never legal dissolved. Therefore all federal laws do not apply to them. They claim they are following the proper legal defense of the true Republic of Texas by arming themselves and ignoring all other laws.

This always comes to my mind when I read discussions on the SSPX.

Is that still going on? Yes, I see the SSPX analogy.

 

[buffalo]

I see no reason for the Pope to send people to see what’s going on in America. He should have a daily morning briefing of these forums. It would be an eye opener.

 

[BulldogCath]

I’ll buy into your analysis-not allowing the TLM for almost 20 years like it was bad for your health just added to the mystique. But I can see why they wanted to keep it banned-if you have ever gone from a TLM to a NO mass all in the same day, the difference is quite startling.
Dr. Bombay:

The Pope never had to “sign” any excommunication papers. Abp. L. automatically (*latae sententiae) *excommunicatedhimself and the four priests he illicitly ordained bishops by defying the wishes of the Supreme Roman Pontiff. The Pope never had to officially declare this or sign anything.

In a way, I suppose I should be thankful to the Archbishop (tho I fear for his soul). Without this schismatic act, it’s highly unlikely I would currently have the opportunity to attend an approved Traditional Mass in my area.

Of course, if the Mass of Paul VI had been said with the same dignity and reverence as the old Mass from the beginning, it’s highly unlikely that the Traditionalists would be anything more than a tiny fringe group. Instead we’ve got people inventing stupid things like hand-holding during the Our Father, altering established prayers with “inclusive” language and other nonsense. No wonder so many otherwise faithful Catholics get driven into the arms of these schismos.

However, one thing we can learn from the lives of our saints: You can never be led astray by practicing the virtues of humility and obedience. I don’t want to be a liberal or a conservative, a traditionalist or a modernist. I just want to be a Catholic. The hand holders and new Mass haters can go their own way. I’ll stick with Peter. :yup:

 

[BulldogCath]

Do you know what I have noticed on my short time on this board-that nothing stirs up the well, **hate **in the posters here more than the SSPX-not the Jews, Anglicans, Muslims, Protestants, Novus Ordo Catholics performing all kinds of liturgical abuses-Nothing compares-why would that be? Because they actually believe that the council and the changes may not be in the best interest for the church-and there are statistics to back it up to boot. I am not supporting them, but I do see a lot in what they say-the way they deliver the message may not be the best, but the message makes sense if you really read about the changes.

pnewton:

And speaking of Texas:

We have a small group that claims the Republic of Texas never legal dissolved. Therefore all federal laws do not apply to them. They claim they are following the proper legal defense of the true Republic of Texas by arming themselves and ignoring all other laws.

This always comes to my mind when I read discussions on the SSPX.

 

[dumspirospero]

Thanks for the generalization and the flaming…I hope you feel better. As a person that considers themself a “traditional” Catholic, I don’t believe I fall under any of the accusations you have labled me with. After reading this all out assault on your fellow Catholics, a thought came to mind…when I was praying my Stations of The Cross Chaplet today, I came across a line in there that says “My Jesus, I fear I do the same when I strain gnats and then swallow camels–when I take out the splinter in my brother’s eye and forget the beam in my own” Read that sentence and let it sink in…I will pray for you.
Nota Bene:

It’s amazing to see the arrogance and hypocrisy of self-described “traditionalists” on these threads. Many of them rail-away at liturgical irregularities and abuses – often rightly so. Yet at the same time they concoct and support other irregularities and abuses because they fit their prideful notion of what is “better”, versus what the Church actually directs.

No wonder the celebration of the Mass is in such disarray in so many locations. The “traditionalists” whine about those they label as “liberals” or “modernists” while they continue with their own brand of irregularities and abuses. The resulting hypocrisy makes them effete and this is certainly not lost on the “liberals” or “modernists.” All it really does is empower them.

One thing is clear. To be a “traditionalist” is certainly no guarantee that one is an orthodox Catholic Christian. Traditionalists need to come to grips with how similar they are to those they label as “liberals” or “modernists” – particularly when it comes to the negative impact they have on the Church, and more specifically, the Mass.

 

[jlw]

A little family spat is bound to happen, and even healthy by some accounts, but this is rediculous. Everyone take a chill pill. It’s Lent for goodness sake. I’m done with this thread.

 

[bear06]

Nota Bene:

The Eastern & Oriental Orthodox are not in schism. The SSPX is at least in schism…

This is correct but they were at one time in schism. You just can’t be born into a schism so at the end of 50 years of schism you are just cease to be Catholic in nature. You’ll see, in another 30 or so years SSPX will no longer be considered in schism either.

 

[bear06]

GregChant1545:

The Orthodox certainly are in schism and the schism of the SSPX is in doubt.

This thread was opened to inflame and create disharmony and the moderators, if there are any, should have closed it after the OP.

This is the most disappointing catholic forum I’ve ever participated in. The anger and resentment of those who have no tolerance for nothing but innovations and excuses is remarkable.

So long folks. Enjoy your little love fest.

It seems that some can dish it out but they can’t take it. If the OP is a post that attacks VII then it’s OK but if it’s an attack on people who are showing dissent on the right then look out. The poster must be a meanie! I think everyone needs to lighten up. I will always join in the conversation because I will do my best to make sure people don’t drift the schismatic way but I really don’t see the need to get so nasty. I don’t doubt the intentions of rad-Trads. I just know they’re wrong!

 

[Exporter]

Nota Bene:

SSPX = just another Protestant sect w/ incense…

---

We have five (5) Catholic Churches in my town. Only one has the tabernacle off to the side ( the newest one).

I have read most of this thread. I notice that some such as Note Bene have some insight as to just what was sent to the US Bishops from Rome w.r.t. practices during Mass. I go to a Spanish-Language Mass and also to an English-Language Mass.

But each time I do I long for the Roman Catholic Latin Mass as said during the 1950s. If someone wants to give me a slur for that…then go ahead, it will not change me. Catholic means “universal” so why not be “universal”. Years ago I attended a Mass in Japan and it was just like we had at home - it was the Latin Mass. I understood it and was comfortable too.

 

[bear06]

Do you know what I have noticed on my short time on this board-that nothing stirs up the well, **hate **

in the posters here more than the SSPX

I wouldn’t use the word hate but I would use the word concern. I’ll tell you the two main reasons why Anglican, Muslims, etc. don’t concern me as much as SSPX. #1 Anglican, Muslims, etc. aren’t trying to say that they are espousing the Catholic faith. I have as equal amount of concern for those who are for women priests, etc. as I do for SSPX and I might just have a tad bit more because #2 the SSPX should know better!!! Face it, the Devil couldn’t get these folks by getting them to go the liberal way so he found another way to do it. This is his new game and they can’t see it.

 

[JNB]

Nota Bene:

The Eastern & Oriental Orthodox are not in schism. The SSPX is at least in schism…

Uh yes they are. The Eastren Orthdox and Oriental Orthdox churches are indeed in schism. That this has to be explained to you means you lack even a minimal understanding for a debate.

 

[EddieArent]

Hmmm…if the SSPX are in fact in schism, why does Cardinal Hoyos deal with Bishop Fellay and not some “eccumenical” cardinal (e.g. Casper)?

 

[Nota_Bene]

bear06:

This is correct but they were at one time in schism. You just can’t be born into a schism so at the end of 50 years of schism you are just cease to be Catholic in nature. You’ll see, in another 30 or so years SSPX will no longer be considered in schism either.

Wrong.

First, the Orthodox were in schism from 1054 to the 1960’s (1960?) That’s much longer than 50 years/1 generation.

So while it may be possible that Orthodox Christians born in say 1900 were not schismatics – I’m not saying thery weren’t, and it’s not logical that there were not, their Church was most certainly schismatic.

The SSPX “church” will always be schismatic as long as nothing changes,