Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nota_Bene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JNB:
Does the church say the Eastren churches are in communion with Rome? You are either in communion with Rome or you are not. I can accept that the SSPX is not in communion with Rome, has in irregualr status at best if one does a canon law workout that confuses the issue, and are most likely in schism, but again, that places them in the same league as the Eastren churches.

One is or is not in communion with Rome, auther the authority of the Pope, where do the Eastren Orthdox stand?
Click to expand...
This is a much better question.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in communion but not being in communion does not mean that you are in schism.

As for the Polish National Church, which I saw you commented on, here is what the Church says about them…

The USCCB has stated that a Catholic may recieve the sacraments at a PNCC Church and likewise in return.

We have been having a lecture series on the Eastern Theological Tradtions at our Melkite parish and the local Ukrainian Catholic Parish, the priest from the local PNCC has been attending.
 
40.png
theMutant:
So, you do not claim, as some in the SSPX do, that the current Latin rite of Mass in invalid? That is very refreshing. 🙂
Click to expand...
I Find the current situation confusing although I favor the Indult latin mass, I do not hesitate to partake in the SSPX mass. As I do not feel they in schism.
The V2 changes will be changed some day,as that council is pastoral not dogmatic thus these changes have no force and can be repealed by future pontiff.
I Know some are sedevacatists but the Pope can be in error, but I need to be in step with Rome.

Fogny
 
40.png
JNB:
But that said, their churches are still not in communion with Rome. What do you call a church that has the sacraments but is not in communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
Now I see the problem.

While the definition of schism is…

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

That must be read in context with this…

818 “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 . .Ê.Ê. 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.”

Now with that in mind, no one born into the Orthodox faith can be called schism. Now you could argue that those who leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church are in schism and I would not disagree with you, but to paint all Orthodox with the same brush is just wrong and goes against what the Church Teaches.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
Now I see the problem.

While the definition of schism is…

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

That must be read in context with this…

818 “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 . .Ê.Ê. 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.”

Now with that in mind, no one born into the Orthodox faith can be called schism. Now you could argue that those who leave the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church are in schism and I would not disagree with you, but to paint all Orthodox with the same brush is just wrong and goes against what the Church Teaches.
Click to expand...
To what degree those born into the Orthdox churches, much less other faiths be held responsible for the tenents these churches have been found on , one can not say. But as kk1727, the churches themselves can be said to be schismatic. Yes, their relationship to Rome and the core of their beliefs are many magnitudes closer because they never denied any of the sacraments, but untill the Pope and the various patriarchs can agree to come to union, as kk1727, their relationship to Rome is one of a schismatic nature.
 
A contrarian position:

As former “traditionalist” and advocate for a so-called independent chapel in Colorado, I readily understand why they (i.e., traditionalists) are horrified with the liturgical deviatations that occur every Sunday during Mass. Although I no longer question the validity of the New Mass I am concerned with the following modern practices that according to the Council of Trent, are prohibated:
  1. Reception of the Eucharist in the hands of the communicant;
  2. The excessive lay involvement during the Sacrifice, vis-a-vis, laymen handling the sacred vessels and distributing Holy Communion;
Finally, most disconcerting to me is the apparent lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by Catholics who never genuflect before sitting down; instead a hasty nod of the head is what our Lord receives from the faithful.

Alternatively, when the Latin Mass is not offered in Wichita, Kansas, I attend the Divine Liturgy at downtown Byzantine chapel. The priest and the faithful face Eastward to worshop and adore our Lord in an ancient and awe-inspiring Liturgy of the East!
 
40.png
JNB:
The fact you lack any understanding of what schism is makes it difficult to debate with you. The Eastren Orthdox are in schism with the Catholic church. From the fact that they "“baptise” even Catholics who “convert” to their church, the fact they do not accept any councils after the first 7 councils, the fact they in no way recognise the Pope authority certainly shows they are indeed in schism.

The fact the Catholic church recognises they have valid sacraments(this is also the case with the schismatic Polish National Catholic Church) does not mean they are not in schism.
Click to expand...
Either you are making a parody of this or you are supremely ill-informed. You need to dig just a bit deeper than the nearest SSPX/geocities website.

You also need to quite following what YOU feel is correct and begin to start following the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
JNB:
The biggest Orthdox church in the world, the Russian Orthdox church has less than stellar relations with the Vatican, Alexi II, Patriarch of Russia, has not allowed Pope John Paul II to come to Russia. The Greek Orthdox church in the US certainly does not allow Catholics to recieve communion at their parishes either.

Look, I have no intrest in picking a fight, but I do have an intrest in correcting error. To say the Eastren Orthdox churches are not in schism is a lie, no more, no less.
Click to expand...
Just look at your “argument” as to why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are in schism. In a word, you’ve got ZIP.

Follow the Church and not your own prideful ideas of what is “best.”
 
40.png
MJO:
A contrarian position:

As former “traditionalist” and advocate for a so-called independent chapel in Colorado, I readily understand why they (i.e., traditionalists) are horrified with the liturgical deviatations that occur every Sunday during Mass. Although I no longer question the validity of the New Mass I am concerned with the following modern practices that according to the Council of Trent, are prohibated:
  1. Reception of the Eucharist in the hands of the communicant;
  2. The excessive lay involvement during the Sacrifice, vis-a-vis, laymen handling the sacred vessels and distributing Holy Communion;
Finally, most disconcerting to me is the apparent lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by Catholics who never genuflect before sitting down; instead a hasty nod of the head is what our Lord receives from the faithful.

Alternatively, when the Latin Mass is not offered in Wichita, Kansas, I attend the Divine Liturgy at downtown Byzantine chapel. The priest and the faithful face Eastward to worshop and adore our Lord in an ancient and awe-inspiring Liturgy of the East!
Click to expand...
I share some of your same concerns although Holy Communion in the hand is both an ANCIENT and APPROVED manner in which to receive Holy Communion.

Keep in mind we are directed to bow (not genuflect and not kneel) before receiving the Eucharist in the latin Rite in the USA.

But yes, I know what you mean. What I detest are those that begin to proclaim their own ideas such as “receiving in the hand is sinful.” That sorta garbage is both wrong and dangerous…
 
40.png
Fogny:
I Find the current situation confusing although I favor the Indult latin mass, I do not hesitate to partake in the SSPX mass. As I do not feel they in schism.
The V2 changes will be changed some day,as that council is pastoral not dogmatic thus these changes have no force and can be repealed by future pontiff.
I Know some are sedevacatists but the Pope can be in error, but I need to be in step with Rome.

Fogny
Click to expand...
But with the greatest respect, this is contradictory. You say you don’t hesitate to partake in the SSPX mass, as you do not feel they are in schism. You then go on to say that you need to be in step with Rome. Well, ROME THINKS THEY’RE IN SCHISM. It doesn’t matter what you and I think, it matters what the Holy See thinks. We can think and feel all we want, they are still schismatic according to the Holy See. The changes of Vatican II do indeed have force, the force of the will of the legislator, who happened/s to be the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Some future pontiff may well change the ordering of the Mass. He can do so because the order is a discipline, not a dogma. I very much doubt, however, that the Mass offered in the vernacular will be going away. Too many of the faithful want to actually understand what is being said. We don’t want the altar boys making the responses on our behalf and we want to actually be able to hear what the priest says. We are supposed to worship God (the vertical of worship and the most important) together (the horizontal and, if not as important, at least not unimportant). That doesn’t mean that some of the goofy stuff that has been perped in some of the Masses should ever have been permitted or should ever in the future be permitted. We need our priests to be better trained in liturgy, as well as at preaching. We need bishops who have faithful and obedient hearts.
 
OK, I’ll take one more stab at this orthodox schism thing. Here’s an explanation from an EWTN apologist. For some reason traditio.com thinks this answer means that orthodox and protestants are Catholics in good standing which totally cracks me up. Besides the below, I’d read Catholic29’s links above (one of the questions turns out to be mine!). Orthodox are not in union with Rome but they are not considered schismatic. SSPX is not in communion with Rome but they still are considered schismatics.
Hi Michael,
Let me please answer this question, if you don’t mind.
Click to expand...
Orthodox and Protestant Christians are NOT considered schismatic, but SSPX clergy are. Why? SSPX clergy are personally responsible for ending full communion with Rome. This happened in 1988. In fifty years or more, if their schism continues, then SSPX clergy would be recognized as Orthodox and Protestant Christians are now since these clergy most likely were born into their SSPX faith and were never in full communion with Rome. Do you see the distinction I am making here?
Click to expand...
We do NOT consider Orthodox Christians who fell out of full communion with the Catholic Church around 1054 and Protestants who began falling out of full communion with the Catholic Church in 1517 and 1534 schismatic since they most likely always believed in their Christian ecclesial community or Church and never were once in the Catholic Church and then left the Church personally. Now, those Protestants in the 1540s who were once in full communion in Rome and then jettisoned themselves were certainly considered schismatic. I think the definition that you are using for schismatic is an outdated use from before Vatican II. Please note our current usage.
Click to expand...
With the SSPX clergy it is a different story. During their lifetime they were actually in full communion with Rome and made the conscious decision to BREAK OFF THEMSELVES from full communion with Rome. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...
I hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Peace, Bob
Click to expand...
 
40.png
MJO:
A contrarian position:

As former “traditionalist” and advocate for a so-called independent chapel in Colorado, I readily understand why they (i.e., traditionalists) are horrified with the liturgical deviatations that occur every Sunday during Mass. Although I no longer question the validity of the New Mass I am concerned with the following modern practices that according to the Council of Trent, are prohibated:
  1. Reception of the Eucharist in the hands of the communicant;
  2. The excessive lay involvement during the Sacrifice, vis-a-vis, laymen handling the sacred vessels and distributing Holy Communion; **These are matters of discipline, not dogma. Trent could not bind future popes on this. It is perfectly allowable for people to rec. Communion in their hands. As for lay distribution, it **is regretable, but right now, in some places such as my parish, it would take forever to distribute Communion and we would not be able to rec. the Most Precious Blood. Maybe when the priest shortage is reversed.
Finally, most disconcerting to me is the apparent lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by Catholics who never genuflect before sitting down; instead a hasty nod of the head is what our Lord receives from the faithful. This is a concern of mine as well. I find it difficult to genuflect (bad back), but I can make a bow. I’m also disturbed by the talking that goes on before Mass begins. We should keep silence before the Blessed Sacrament.

Alternatively, when the Latin Mass is not offered in Wichita, Kansas, I attend the Divine Liturgy at downtown Byzantine chapel. The priest and the faithful face Eastward to worshop and adore our Lord in an ancient and awe-inspiring Liturgy of the East!
Click to expand...
 
Nota Bene:
Just look at your “argument” as to why the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches are in schism. In a word, you’ve got ZIP.

Follow the Church and not your own prideful ideas of what is “best.”
Click to expand...
You are the one who is throwing stones and being “prideful”. Zip? I gave many examples and again I present this question, if a church is not in communion with Rome, and none of the Eastren Orthdox churches are, then what are they?
 
Nota Bene:
Either you are making a parody of this or you are supremely ill-informed. You need to dig just a bit deeper than the nearest SSPX/geocities website.

You also need to quite following what YOU feel is correct and begin to start following the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
What did I say that was in error? The Eastren Orthdox do not recognise the authority of the Pope, they do not recognise anything beyond the first 7 councils, and of coursre not not recognise any of the doctrinal developments since the first 7 councils. What am I saying that is in error?
FYI, I am not a SSPX, and I have no problem with mass in the vernacular, and I have said on other threads that the SSPX since Romes generous offer to in 2001 has been acting in an insane manner, yet to tar me with that. Yes, there is an issue with pride nota, but for that issue, you need to look in the mirror.
 
I will try one more time.
40.png
JNB:
What did I say that was in error? The Eastren Orthdox do not recognise the authority of the Pope, they do not recognise anything beyond the first 7 councils, and of coursre not not recognise any of the doctrinal developments since the first 7 councils. What am I saying that is in error?
Click to expand...
As the Orthodox are born into that faith they are not in schism.

I have proven this with cites to Offical Church Documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contain the teachings of the Church.

As you have yet to show any cites to Offical Church statements that support your claim, I think the issue is done.

One is your opinion, one is the Teaching of the Catholic Church. I will stand with the Church and the Catechism.
 
40.png
theMutant:
So, you do not claim, as some in the SSPX do, that the current Latin rite of Mass in invalid? That is very refreshing. 🙂
Click to expand...
I must say that I will only attend the TLM as the Novus Order has changed the words of consecration instituted by Christ himself for the Mass.

**HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.**FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY SHALL BE SHED UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
This is from the Canon of the Mass said for over 1900 years in the Church. What is telling for me the words of consecration in the Novus Order Mass has been changed to include all men. Christ was Tolerant but not ignorant, he knew not everybody would accept his teaching and in the strictest sense take part in his sacrifice of " The Mass".

My question is how can we be more christian than Christ?

Has man set himself to be as God to know better than what Christ said in divine scripture and what his Church has to taught for centuries as Dogmatic truth. Is God not perfect, is man not imperfect.
If the words of consecration were meant to be changed they would not be from sacred scripture, they would be from man. To say people are traditionalists is to minimize the meaning in a sense that there is more than tradition involved here.
To change tradition is one thing, to change Dogma and sacred verse is entirely a different matter.

In my opinion this is wrong.

Fogny
 
40.png
ByzCath:
I will try one more time.

As the Orthodox are born into that faith they are not in schism.

I have proven this with cites to Offical Church Documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contain the teachings of the Church.

As you have yet to show any cites to Offical Church statements that support your claim, I think the issue is done.

One is your opinion, one is the Teaching of the Catholic Church. I will stand with the Church and the Catechism.
Click to expand...
LIke I said, and neither you or Nota Bene has awnserd this question, if a church is not in union with Rome, even t hough it has all of its sacraments being valid, then what is it? The laity is one thing, but how about the doctrines and dogmas of a church and how it stands in regaurds with Rome.

You quoted once part of the CCC, that regaurds to the laity. Yes, I said I agree that they are not as accountable, and that goes for everyone who is born to a non Catholic faith, but that said, and I guess I have to be blunt, There is no communion between the Orthodox churchs and Riome, none, nada, zilch, despite the fact they have all of their sacraments being valid. That you and Nota Bene paper over these issues is disturbing.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Must we wait til the last original SSPX dies, or can we begin now, with those born into SSPX?
My best guess is that about 30-35% of the attendees of the SSPX are those born into it. The times I’ve attended their Mass, it seems the sub-teens even out number the adults.
So, may we say that 30% of the SSPX members are not in schism. Or, only 70% of the SSPX remain in schism? I think I’ll have my next brood baptized by the SSPX so they won’t be in schism, should they decide the SSPX is their cup of tea.
I will say from now on, .7SSPX are in schism. No longer can I truthfully say the SSPX is in schism, but only .7SSPX.
Likewise .3SSPX are now our brothers and sisters “in Christ” and we, according to the CCC must treat them with outward affection…recognize their faith as a means of salvation for them…ie all the charity and benefits that we give to the Orthodox and prots heretic legacy.
So, already the situation is improving, and more so each day as hundreds are being born into the SSPX families. It cannot help but get better.
Just think, our grandchildren will not be able to affront the SSPX, as we have done. So get your dibs in now. It won’t last.
Mea culpa…broke my fast…in public
 
I never once made a statement in judgement against you… You know what…it is Lent and I don’t have time for this nonsense…this is one of the most asinine threads I have ever gotten involved in…so I will ignore it from now on. I was just offering my two cents and telling you that it is never wise to make a generalization about a group of people, because there are always exceptions…offering advice is not being judgemental…the truth of the matter is I could offer you advice on a lot of things you seem to be lacking in, but I will refrain, but…here is some more advice for you to ponder, and I am not being judgemental by offering this…Learn the facts about something before you criticize it…because you lose all credibility when you defend a fallacious point of view.

It is Lent…this is not the right time to get in an argument with a fellow Catholic over something so minute…I would rather spend my time praying the Rosary or in deep contemplation…God Bless you and I wish you the best…I hope you work out your feelings of anger. Try praying the Stations of the Cross Chaplet…it will help you.
Nota Bene:
Did it make you feel better when you judged me? DId it make you feel better when you patted yourself on the back? Pride is a killer…
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top