M
maurin
Guest
IMHO, I agree with your assessment, but for a very different reason.
- Status
M
maurin
Guest
Ahhh, gotcha pnewton. I did misunderstand you. Excuse me. And I believe HE has made it clear that the Society is content withy their status until Rome returns to
Tradition.
C
choliks
Guest
Are you trying to say that the SSPX is above Rome?
M
maurin
Guest
I’m not at all sure how you have reached that conlusion.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
It is very astute of you to pass judgement upon me from reading a couple of sentences!
Unfortunately, it isn’t clear from your response that you understand what I meant by tradition either. You appear to believe I am saying that “tradition = ritual”, but if I were, why did I speak of “ritual and tradition” as distinct elements, when I - as you argue - think they were one and the same?
I’m not sure if you realise it, but the SSPX is not the Magisterium. It cannot dictate to the Church what is or is not Tradition, short of usurping the authority which only the Magsterium as led by the Holy Father has.
My earnest wish that is that the SSPX would return to communion, so that they can continue their efforts to help reform the Church from within, not to stand apart as outsiders. However, the Holy Father has made many concessions for them, and if they refuse to take him up on it, it is certainly sad, but the Church waits for no one. It has a divine mission entrusted to her by Christ, and her priority is to fulfill that mission.
M
maurin
Guest
Although I sincerely apologize for having offended you, I would like to state that there is no bway that that was my intention.It is very astute of you to pass judgement upon me from reading a couple of sentences!
Unfortunately, it isn’t clear from your response that you understand what I meant by tradition either. You appear to believe I am saying that “tradition = ritual”, but if I were, why did I speak of “ritual and tradition” as distinct elements, when I - as you argue - think they were one and the same?
I’m not sure if you realise it, but the SSPX is not the Magisterium. It cannot dictate to the Church what is or is not Tradition, short of usurping the authority which only the Magsterium as led by the Holy Father has.
My earnest wish that is that the SSPX would return to communion, so that they can continue their efforts to help reform the Church from within, not to stand apart as outsiders. However, the Holy Father has made many concessions for them, and if they refuse to take him up on it, it is certainly sad, but the Church waits for no one. It has a divine mission entrusted to her by Christ, and her priority is to fulfill that mission.
I will no longer respond to posts which contain eye rolls, or any other assorted emoticons.
If we can’t agree on these two sentences, then let us wish each other well.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
I am sorry that we could not find common ground on a matter that both of us clearly feel passionate about, but I bid you good blessings.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Maurin,
You are overly defensive, and for good reason, perhaps. I remember reading your earlier posts saying that you attend an SSPX chapel - gladly, proudly, supportingly. However, you don’t indicate that in your profile at this time. Are you still a devotee of the SSPX?
You are overly defensive, and for good reason, perhaps. I remember reading your earlier posts saying that you attend an SSPX chapel - gladly, proudly, supportingly. However, you don’t indicate that in your profile at this time. Are you still a devotee of the SSPX?
B
Big_Feet
Guest
Please be careful with the capitalization of "T"radition, here.
The "T"radition of the church has not changed from pre- to post- Vatican II. Some "t"raditions have, but not "T"radition.
O
Old_Salt
Guest
Fr Hans Kung is not in communion with the Church.
Also one is either in communion with the Church or not in communion with the Church.
For centurys, from Her inception on Pentecost, the Church has never used the term “partial communion”.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Can you elaborate on that? How are traditions changed? By definition, tradition is something that is handed or passed down, generation to generation. Either it’s there or it’s not.
M
maurin
Guest
I’m not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion of overly defensive. But yes, gladly, proudly and supportingly SSPX.
M
maurin
Guest
ahhhhh, but isn’t that what is being contended? I heartily disagree that Tradition has not changed.
But I am interested in reading your response to Pro Vobis’ question above.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
For all the talk that people have during these dark times, people often forget that there have been dark times throughout the history of Catholicism. In fact, some of what we see now is very similar to what has happened in the past.
Sexual deviance with clergy, the laity not respecting the sanctity of Marriage, flagrant heresies, outright rejection of the moral authority of the Church. All things that occurred back in the 1200’s. A dark time, but when God called two men to do something about it, those two men didn’t hold back. They affected change, they brought about conversion. We see the fruits of Dominic and Francis every day.
Dominic wrote his own Rule for his Order, and took it to the Pope. The Pope said “this Rule isn’t going to work for what you want to do. Further, there are to be no more Rules. Take the Rule of Augustine and make it work”. Dominic obeyed, and did just that.
Fast forward a bit, Francis shows up with his own Rule. The Pope says again “no more new Rules”. Francis was adamant that his Rule came from Christ Himself. Eventually the Pope said “alright, you use your Rule”.
To me, at this point, I compare and contrast how Dominic and His Grace Lefebvre handled things. Dominic could have complained about how Francis got his own Rule. He could have went out and make his own Rule anyway. He could have looked around and said “you see everyone else? Myself making my own Rule is small stuff, all things considered!”. “Look at how bad things are, come on guys!”
But he didn’t.
Instead, he continued to get change to happen within the Church, and he obeyed the Pope.
Sexual deviance with clergy, the laity not respecting the sanctity of Marriage, flagrant heresies, outright rejection of the moral authority of the Church. All things that occurred back in the 1200’s. A dark time, but when God called two men to do something about it, those two men didn’t hold back. They affected change, they brought about conversion. We see the fruits of Dominic and Francis every day.
Dominic wrote his own Rule for his Order, and took it to the Pope. The Pope said “this Rule isn’t going to work for what you want to do. Further, there are to be no more Rules. Take the Rule of Augustine and make it work”. Dominic obeyed, and did just that.
Fast forward a bit, Francis shows up with his own Rule. The Pope says again “no more new Rules”. Francis was adamant that his Rule came from Christ Himself. Eventually the Pope said “alright, you use your Rule”.
To me, at this point, I compare and contrast how Dominic and His Grace Lefebvre handled things. Dominic could have complained about how Francis got his own Rule. He could have went out and make his own Rule anyway. He could have looked around and said “you see everyone else? Myself making my own Rule is small stuff, all things considered!”. “Look at how bad things are, come on guys!”
But he didn’t.
Instead, he continued to get change to happen within the Church, and he obeyed the Pope.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
An example, please.
B
Big_Feet
Guest
Another thread may hold some answers…please see the following, as it provides some examples of both:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=411315
Simplified:
The Church believes (as do I) that "T"radition holds the truths of the faith.
and that "t"radition holds practices that are good, but may change.
My understanding:
Big “T” Tradition includes the canon of the Bible, the Trinitarian God, the belief of the Immaculate Conception and assumption of Mary, and the other such truths the Church holds and teaches.
Small “t” tradition would include such things as eating meat on Fridays during the year or just inside of Lent, private devotions (such as those to particular saints, or even approved apparitions (such as at Lourdes)), or even having the Holy Mass prayed in Latin vs. the vernacular (same words of consecration, different language).
(This is my understanding after reading, hearing, and being taught. Please, I am open to charitable, fraternal correction if I am incorrect in my understanding.)
P
ProVobis
Guest
This statement alone is problematic for me. The validity of the liturgy was established long before the New Testament was written. Today’s validity comes from the Church T/tradition, not from some translation of the Bible.
M
maurin
Guest
I believe what the poster was referring to can be substituting a different form of penance on Fridays other than abstaining from meat.
I believe I may have misunderstood his/her post at first read?
Edited to add that I missed Big Feet’s post above. Sorry Big Feet!
P
ProVobis
Guest
Hmmm. FWIW, you do realize the fish was the symbol of the early Church, don’t you? I think there’s a basis for many of what’s considered traditional-not-Traditional practices.
M
maurin
Guest
If you do not mind me interjecting here, Pro Vobis, I do not doubt that Pope Paul VI HAD the legal right to change the Mass. I firmly believe that qua Pope he absoluyely had the right to do so. I believe that along the lines that Brother JR stated in a post above when he was talking about the advice given by the great Saints of his Order.
I do believe, though, that Paul VI did not possess the moral right to change the Mass. Especially in the light of what has happened to the Faith, and the faith of the faithful, in these passed 40 years. That is my opinion. That is why I support the Society.
- Status