Catholics vs the SSPX

[GerardP]

I don’t doubt that there are some parishes that don’t understand the Real Presence. That said, I know plenty of people who attend the local parishes that know what the Real Presence is. I’ve even managed to hear homilies on the topic when I’ve gone there. Not to mention that Eucharistic Adoration is pretty big around here and I live in a diocese, that up until a few years ago, had an extremely liberal bishop. To say that the “best of them are thoroughly marinated in modernism” is quite wrong. Maybe this is all just a generalization of your local but it is certainly not universal.

Adoration, sermons on the real presence are all traditional practices. I’m not saying there is no traditional parishes, but there are far far fewer than there should be.

I was at a local parish recently discussing current issues with a priest who will be introducing the TLM to his parish.

He spoke with me quite candidly about the modernism he has to deal with from some of the pastoral policies he’s had to endure from above. What I noted was the hostility he has to deal with from the liberal factions within his own parish.

That’s part of the war going on in the Church. The more traditional the practice, the more stability is gained, the more contention and persecution will be attracted from the liberals. “Wherever you have true Catholicism, you are going to have a fight.” is a true statement.

He’s fighting the good fight and I’m trying to help him out by spreading the word locally and encouraging people who are curious to attend and I’ve even told him that I’ll try to enlist support for him from the local SSPX attendees. He was pleasantly surprised by that.

But what I’ve noticed is that no matter what parish I go to. “Something” is always wrong. Even though I have no doubts about the intentions of most of the priests. Angels are ignored in one parish. The architecture is distorted in another, Heretics are in the confessionals of the most traditionally built Churches.

Theology of the Body seminars and other seminars are given with the best of intentions but totally inappropriately done in Churches in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

I had a Eastern uniate priest tell me flatly “There is no Devil” Rhetorically he asked “What do we need a bodily resurrection for? Everyone is already saved” “Transubstantiation doesn’t work anymore.”

Music…I’m sure you know about.

And I won’t even get into what I’ve seen and friends have seen at the University chapels.

And I live in one of the most conservative archdioceses in the U.S.A.

 

[GerardP]

Do you not see the irony in calling someone a fool for making personal attacks? Do you know what Jesus said about the danger for one who says “You fool?”

Huge difference. I’m calling that person a fool for doing something foolish. Namely jumping into the conversation, not to contribute anything but merely to stir up a fight through rash judgment.

Calling a foolish person a fool for doing what was foolish is just stating a truth if not uttered out of malice or spite. Conversely, calling someone “wacky” is when they simply don’t agree or don’t want to agree is pure spite and malice.

 

[GerardP]

One could also say “Where does Tradition in Action” (or the other above listed) get their authority from?

I don’t think they present themselves as having any authority. I don’t think they have a “rating system” in which they decide who is or who isn’t loyal to the mysterious “Magisterium.” But they do reference the magisterium of the Church, tradition and logical arguments to make their points.

Catholic Culture is hardly liberal or even moderate. If you want to give them the title of conservative, they’d probably take that one.

Conservatism is simply the other side of the coin of wild liberalism. As Chesterton said, “the job of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The job of conservatives is to prevent those mistakes from being corrected.”

The conservatives provide the restraint in order to acclimate people to liberalism. Pope Pius X described it and changed my perspective completely after reading his words in Pascendi.

Anyways, I think their review of the site was right on and, not only that, if you scrolled down, they gave some examples from the TIA website to back up their review.

I still don’t see how they were “right on.” They made claims but didn’t back anything up. I looked at the examples and they said the captions were misleading but instead made their own “captions” of sorts in order to spin the pictures their way.

I don’t always agree with everything on TIA but I do know that I want to know why I disagree with something. And as a rule, I leave open the possibility that I’m wrong and they have a fair opportunity to persuade me.

An example of this would be Dr. Horvat wrote an article on “action figures” diminishing the masculinity of boys. I disagree on this because I believe she wrote the article with her perceptions colored by her feminity. As a female she is protective and views action figures as “dolls for boys” I don’t. Since I played with them as a little boy (I think I was 37 when I stopped )

I know for a fact that G.I. Joe was all man. Especially when he would mop up the floor with the evil Ken (or a robot that looked coincidentally like a can opener) by crushing them in the heat of battle under a gigantic toaster.

 

[bear06]

Adoration, sermons on the real presence are all traditional practices. I’m not saying there is no traditional parishes, but there are far far fewer than there should be.

I was at a local parish recently discussing current issues with a priest who will be introducing the TLM to his parish.

 

[stmaria]

And when it was all said and done, **with all of these things in place **when the document came to a vote, it was still nearly unanimous

.
With what things in place? The Constitution is a very conservative document. Heck, even I would have voted for it.!

The documents do in fact place the “active participation” above all else. It would seem abundantly clear that it would have been considered that for that to happen greater use of the vernacular would be required

Remember this was 1963. The Fathers thought active participation meant allowing the laity to read the Epistle and a few other readings. They thought along the line of “participation” as defined by Pope Pius XII

And the document previously quoted made it quite clear that that was the case since the expliitly gave the territorial authorities the ability to extend it to where they found necessary

.

They trusted the territorial authorities [The Bishops} The Fathers of the Council suspected nothing. This is why there is abuse today. The Bishops have authority over the liturgy instead of the Roman Curia.

I just don’t get the logic of claiming conspiracy on one hand while stating that all these things were clearly stated before and during the Council. On another case you even went so far as to admit that Bugnini was stating well before the Council started what his vision was./
I don’t think I said that. There were rumors because Bugnini had been banned from Vatican II by Pope John and then he showed up as the lead man to reform the liturgy. There were those that were suspicious of him.

Whatever though. I’ve wasted more time with this than it warranted. One can never disprove a conspiracy theory in the minds of those who want to find one. I don’t think a lot of others are going to be convinced though.

It’s not a waste of time. Vatican II was an incredible milestone in the history of the Church. No need to cover one’s eyes.To pretend that there was not a well thought out plan by liberal theologians to "modernize’ the Church is ignoring the facts.

 

[bear06]

I don’t think they present themselves as having any authority. I don’t think they have a “rating system” in which they decide who is or who isn’t loyal to the mysterious “Magisterium.” But they do reference the magisterium of the Church, tradition and logical arguments to make their points.

And neither does Catholic Culture. It’s opinion. I’m pretty sure that they’ve never said that they represent the Magisterium. CC also referencest he Magisterium pre and post Vatican II. And, while I’m sure you disagree, CC also uses tradition and logical arguments. You see one as following the Church’s teachings more closely and I see the other as doing so. And, quite frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen them make a comment about any Holy Father like this one:

On December 7, 2005, while being greeted by military men, Pope Ratzinger put on one of their hats trying to be funny. The incident projects the image of a clownish papacy turned toward making the world laugh. It is a quite different message than that of the Man of Sorrows, Who came to teach us the way of the Cross. Alas, the indirect attacks upon the sacrality of the Papacy under the pretext of pleasing men did not end with Pope Wojtyla. They should have stopped, however, because people have had enough of such antics

 

[stmaria]

Sigh! ** I don’t think there were conspiracies. ** I also don’t think that what was implemented was what the council called for or imagined. I think this is a good piece (I guess that’s why I’ve posted it a milllion times) on what was called for and what I believe the Holy Father will try and get us back to during his reign.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp

Bear06 this is a GREAT article. But how can anyone say there was no conspiracy after reading this article. Here are some excerpts. As you read these Bear06 remember that Annibale Bugnini and a small group of theologians WROTE this wonderful Constitution on the Liturgy and then formed a Consilium to **interpret **the very document they wrote. From day one they had NO INTENTION of following it. It was a well thought out plan to write the Mass that THEY envisioned. From your link.

What the Council Didn’t Say
"Let me tell you what it did not say. The Council did not say that tabernacles should be moved from their central location to some other location. In fact, it specifically said we should be concerned about the worthy and dignified placing of the tabernacle. The Council did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents that record the formation of the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn’t come up. Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.

And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever, until 1969
The Council also said nothing about moving the Tabernacle. It said nothing about removing altar rails. It said nothing about taking out kneelers. It said nothing about turning the altar around. It said nothing about multiple canons. **That, too, is an invention; a pure invention.Look at the other canons. First of all, when I celebrate Mass with the Roman Canon, I’ve often had people come up and say, “What canon was that, Father?” I say, “Well, that was the Roman Canon, the one that has been used for about 1600 years.” “Oh, I haven’t heard that.” Generally, you get Canon Two. Why? Because it’s the shortest
Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei
The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces. Father Vagaggini, with the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually constructed it using their knowledge of liturgical history, which was enormous. But they **totally invented the canon. It would be like taking piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece of some tree, then putting them together and saying, “Well, you see that? It’s organic.” But it’s not organic; it’s constructed.

What, then, does the Pope **Pope Benedict **} say about full, conscious, active participation? That it should be hierarchical, that there should be quiet, and worship in awe and reverence, and that there should be a place for Latin and, certainly for Chant in the liturgy. I submit to you that in most parishes across this country that’s not what you habitually find at the ordinary Masses for the people. Thus, although the Pope doesn’t say it in so many words, he is of the opinion that the way Mass is currently celebrated doesn’t conform fully to the mandates of the Council, as intended by the Church for the next century."
The reformers wrote the Constitution then intentionally did not follow it.

 

[bear06]

But this…person…who came on here to do nothing but make a personal attack is simply a fool.

I’m not even sure which person you’re referring to anymore. Sorry, but that end of the coversation was muddled for me.

I’m really stunned by the anti-intellectual attitude here on CA by many posters. It’s even more dishonest than anything else.

It runs on both sides of the fence and always had and always will.

Seriously, a lot of supposed “conservative Catholics” don’t seem to give a whit about the truth.

Again, I’m lost to this point of the conversation. I think everyone here is of good will.

I actually read that review and it really is bogus

What is bogus about it? Like I said, they made some statements and backed it up with things on TIA’s very own site. So what, exactly, is bogus about it?

And truth to be told. Catholic Culture doesn’t have the intellectual firepower to take on Atila Sinke Guimareas.

The sliming of anyone who brings news that doesn’t promote outright papalotry or some false post-conciliar “rah-rah-ism” right out of the playbook of “Life on the Rock” is an act of amazingly, willfull malice.

You’re categorizing them incorrectly. Let’s look at this review:
catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1889&repos=2&subrepos=&searchid=117071
Somehow I think you’d be just fine with it. I personally thought I’d give them a yellow light but CC didn’t. There’s definitely a difference in the way LM and TIA deal with the issues, don’t you think? TIA greatly shoots the TLM in the foot. LM, not so much. They aren’t just picking on TIA when they don’t deserve it. They do.

 

[bear06]

Bear06 this is a GREAT article. But how can anyone say there was no conspiracy after reading this article. Here are some excerpts. As you read these Bear06 remember that Annibale Bugnini and a small group of theologians WROTE this wonderful Constitution on the Liturgy and then formed a Consilium to **interpret **the very document they wrote. From day one they had NO INTENTION of following it. It was a well thought out plan to write the Mass that THEY envisioned. From your link.

What the Council Didn’t Say
"Let me tell you what it did not say. The Council did not say that tabernacles should be moved from their central location to some other location. In fact, it specifically said we should be concerned about the worthy and dignified placing of the tabernacle. The Council did not say that Mass should be celebrated facing the people. That is not in Vatican II; it is not mentioned. It is not even raised in the documents that record the formation of the Constitution on the Liturgy; it didn’t come up. Mass facing the people is a not requirement of Vatican II; it is not in the spirit of Vatican II; it is definitely not in the letter of Vatican II. It is something introduced in 1969.

And, by the way, never in the history of the Church, East or West, was there a tradition of celebrating Mass facing the people. Never, ever, until 1969
The Council also said nothing about moving the Tabernacle. It said nothing about removing altar rails. It said nothing about taking out kneelers. It said nothing about turning the altar around. It said nothing about multiple canons. **That, too, is an invention; a pure invention.Look at the other canons. First of all, when I celebrate Mass with the Roman Canon, I’ve often had people come up and say, “What canon was that, Father?” I say, “Well, that was the Roman Canon, the one that has been used for about 1600 years.” “Oh, I haven’t heard that.” Generally, you get Canon Two. Why? Because it’s the shortest
Now, where did Canon Two come from? From what’s called the Canon of Hyppolytus, composed by a theologian who became a heretic, later was reconciled to the Church and died a martyr
Thus, the Canon of Hyppolytus was perhaps never used as a canon. If it was, it ceased being used at least 1600 years ago. Yet from the Council, which says changes ought to come through organic growth and there should be no changes unless necessary, we come to liturgists saying, “Oh, let’s pull this thing out of the third century and plug it back into the twentieth.” That’s not organic growth; that’s archeologism, specifically criticized by Pius XII in Mediator Dei
The Third Canon was entirely made up. There has never been a canon like the Third Canon in the history of the Church, except in bits and pieces. Father Vagaggini, with the help of Father Bouyer, I believe, actually constructed it using their knowledge of liturgical history, which was enormous. But they **totally invented the canon. It would be like taking piece of a carrot, a piece of a tomato, a piece of a peach and a piece of some tree, then putting them together and saying, “Well, you see that? It’s organic.” But it’s not organic; it’s constructed.

What, then, does the Pope **Pope Benedict **} say about full, conscious, active participation? That it should be hierarchical, that there should be quiet, and worship in awe and reverence, and that there should be a place for Latin and, certainly for Chant in the liturgy. I submit to you that in most parishes across this country that’s not what you habitually find at the ordinary Masses for the people. Thus, although the Pope doesn’t say it in so many words, he is of the opinion that the way Mass is currently celebrated doesn’t conform fully to the mandates of the Council, as intended by the Church for the next century."
The reformers wrote the Constitution then intentionally did not follow it.

First, can you use the little quote box for your quotes? It’s the one at the top of the “reply to thread” page that looks a little like a cartoon bubble. It’s very hard to figure out where the quotes start and you comments begin.

Secondly, you seem very intent on believe as you believe. Fr. Fessio never intended to allege a conspiracy theory in the article.

Thirdly, do you want the mandates made by VII? If so, I do too. If not, well, I can’t help you on that one.

 

[stmaria]

bear06;2996816]you seem very intent on believe as you believe. ** Fr. Fessio never intended to allege a conspiracy theory in the article**.

Have you even read the link you posted?
Fr. Fessio may not have intended to allege a conspiracy theory in his article but he admits that the Constitution and the New Mass have nothing in common. I wonder why that is?
Seems to me you are simply afraid to admit it.

Thirdly, do you want the** mandates made by VII**? If so,** I do too**. If not, well, I can’t help you on that one.:shrug

Let me see, you admit that the Constitution mandated the Mass to be revised in a certain way yet you can’t admit that Bugnini and the reformers ignored that mandate. Very strange.

 

[bear06]

Have you even read the link you posted?

Fr. Fessio may not have intended to allege a conspiracy theory in his article but he admits that the Constitution and the New Mass have nothing in common. I wonder why that is?
Seems to me you are simply afraid to admit it.

 

[Sure]

Have you even read the link you posted?
Fr. Fessio may not have intended to allege a conspiracy theory in his article but he admits that the Constitution and the New Mass have nothing in common. I wonder why that is?
Seems to me you are simply afraid to admit it.

Maybe they just unfortunately departed from it? How does this prove a conspiracy??? Why does it always have to be part of an insidious plan…bwaaahaaahhhaahhahahhh!

 

[stmaria]

Pope Paul called Latin " the language of the angels" yet he beleived that “participation of the people was worth more”
In 1840 Dom Prosper Gueranger knew that the removal of Latin from the liturgy was the goal of the Protestants reformers. This was also the goal of the Catholic reformers that wrote the New Mass.

“We must admit it is a master blow of Protestantism to have declared war on the sacred language. If it should ever succeed in destroying it, it would be well on the way to victory. Exposed to profane gaze, like a virgin who has been violated,** from that moment on the Liturgy has lost much of its sacred character, and very soon people find that it is not worthwhile putting aside one’s work or pleasure in order to go and listen to what is being said in the way one speaks on the marketplace. . . .”**-- Dom Prosper Gueranger, Liturgical Institutions, 1840
sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1999/May/The-Anti-Leturgical-Heresy.htm

CHANGES IN MASS FOR GREATER APOSTOLATE
Pope Paul VI Address to a General Audience, November 26, 1969
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6691126.HTM

Paul VI, General Audience, November 19, 1969: "1. We ask you to turn your minds once more** to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass.** This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

1. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. **This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past **[indeed], which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.
2. …This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance,** that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed…**
3. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by **every novelty **that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect.
4. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. **This novelty is no small thing. … This moment is shaking the Church… **
5. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin,** but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass**. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant…"
6. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that** language of the angels?** We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?
7. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.
8. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. **Participation by the people is worth more—**particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

 

[bear06]

And the rest of it:

1. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19).

1. St. Augustine seems to be commenting on this when he says, “Have no fear of teachers, so long as all are instructed” (P.L. 38, 228, Serm. 37; cf. also Serm. 229, p. 1371). But, in any case, the new rite of the Mass provides that the faithful “should be able to sing together, in Latin, at least the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, the Our Father” (Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 19).

1. But, let us bear this well in mind, for our counsel and our comfort: the Latin language will not thereby disappear. It will continue to be the noble language of the Holy See’s official acts; it will remain as the means of teaching in ecclesiastical studies and as the key to the patrimony of our religious, historical and human culture. If possible, it will reflourish in splendor.

1. Finally, if we look at the matter properly we shall see that the fundamental outline of the Mass is still the traditional one, not only theologically but also spiritually. Indeed, if the rite is carried out as it ought to be, the spiritual aspect will be found to have greater richness. The greater simplicity of the ceremonies, the variety and abundance of scriptural texts, the joint acts of the ministers, the silences which will mark various deeper moments in the rite, will all help to bring this out.

1. But two indispensable requirements above all will make that richness clear: a profound participation by every single one present, and an outpouring of spirit in community charity. These requirements will help to make the Mass more than ever a school of spiritual depth and a peaceful but demanding school of Christian sociology. The soul’s relationship with Christ and with the brethren thus attains new and vital intensity. Christ, the victim and the priest, renews and offers up his redeeming sacrifice through the ministry of the Church in the symbolic rite of his last supper. He leaves us his body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine, for our personal and spiritual nourishment, for our fusion in the unity of his redeeming love and his immortal life.

1. But there is still a practical difficulty, which the excellence of the sacred renders not a little important. How can we celebrate this new rite when we have not yet got a complete missal, and there are still so many uncertainties about what to do?

1. To conclude, it will be helpful to read to you some directions from the competent office, namely the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Here they are: "As regards the obligation of the rite:

1. For the Latin text: Priests who celebrate in Latin, in private or also in public, in cases provided for by the legislation, may use either the Roman Missal or the new rite until November 28, 1971. If they use the Roman Missal, they may nevertheless make use of the three new anaphoras and the Roman Canon, having regard to the provisions respecting the last text (omission of some saints, conclusions, etc.). They may moreover recite the readings and the prayer of the faithful in the vernacular. If they use the new rite, they must follow the official text, with the concessions as regards the vernacular indicated above.

1. For the vernacular text. In Italy, all those who celebrate in the presence of the people from November 30 next, must use the Rito delta Messa published by the Italian Episcopal Conference or by another National Conference. On feast days readings shall be taken: either from the Lectionary published by the Italian Center for Liturgical Action, or from the Roman Missal for feast days, as in use heretofore. On ferial days the ferial Lectionary published three years ago shall continue to be used. No problem arises for those who celebrate in private, because they must celebrate in Latin. If a priest celebrates in the vernacular by special indult, as regards the texts, he shall follow what was said above for the Mass with the people; but for the rite he shall follow the Ordo published by the Italian Episcopal Conference.

1. In every case, and at all times, let us remember that “the Mass is a Mystery to be lived in a death of Love. Its divine reality surpasses all words. . . It is the Action par excellence, the very act of our Redemption, in the Memorial which makes it present” (Zundel).

With Our Apostolic Benediction.

It’s also important to notice that this was just addressed to Italy.

 

[ncjohn]

You assume too much. They signed documents but they obviously didn’t agree on what those documents meant.

And this is why it is a waste of time to continue. You claim that conclusions that at least follow the circumstances and fact are Post Hoc Ergo, yet you can speculate as fact that all but a small handful were blindly misled and signed documents they didn’t understand with no evidence whatsoever.

If that’s the case I can make the same arguments against the infallibility votes of Vatican I (which I am not) based on a much larger minority that voted against it.

In the end you are locked into this conspiracy and cannot concede any possibility that maybe what you would have done isn’t what the Church wanted done, despite the subsequent Popes disagreeing with that and no rush of “we were wrong and need to change things back” from those who actually participated.

You don’t think there was brokering for votes in Vatican II?

Quite the contrary, I’m sure there was. But not in a million years do I believe that an Ecumenical Council is swayed nearly 100% in the opposite direction from where it was meant to go by brokering off votes.

Just why did you enter this discussion? It seems you jumped in just to ridicule people with whom you disagree and expected not to be challenged.

Quite the contrary, I come to ridicule nobody and have not been the one engaging in attacks on people’s intelligence. I have expressed my admiration often for the devotion and zeal of even those I disagree with.

I entered the discussion for the same reason that others enter these discussions. Because people keep posting these threads trying to claim things that just don’t stack up to the facts and history. And just as you have your point of view and will continue to express it, others of us here will continue to counter it, even when our intelligence, devotion, and orthodoxy are questioned.

I don’t think there is much whining going on from this side. Just a recognition that these arguments are going to keep getting posted and a weariness with constantly having to counter the same things over and over. I’m sure you feel the same frustration.

And in the end I’ll continue to say that I find it very sad that Catholics continue to bait and fight each other over such things rather than trying to work together as the Body of Christ.

 

[Aramis]

In Re Latin:

The Eastern Churches have stuck with the use of the vernacular for the most part, but with some elements in the liturgical language in many cases.

Now, the exception is in the Slavonic Tradition of the Byzantine Rite, where Church Slavonic is used. But Church Slavonic is close enough for most slavic language speakers to understand it without significant difficulty. Further, it has kept the Slavic languages pretty much mutually intelligible to each other, as well.

 

[daniel_connolly]

I sometimes feel like the SSPX crowd are always screaming, ‘FIRE! FIRE!’. But actually, Pope Paul VI said it best when he declared, “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church” and “the Church seems set to self-destruct”. That same smoke has surely given way to flame forty years later. Besides, Pope Leo XIII had his famous vision regarding this anyway so what can we expect?

If you try and tell someone their house is burning down it won’t do much good if they haven’t seen a fire before. If that is the case, are they more inclined to stay and watch?

How about a Catholic Church that does not entertain non-Catholic things like ecumenism and the ‘rights of man’? Ecumenism is one of the scourges of our day. The Spirit of Assisi is a long way from the Social Reign of Christ. Why else could one Bishop declare Vatican II to be a “Counter Syllabus”? Because it is, I guess.

 

[pnewton]

I sometimes feel like the SSPX crowd are always screaming, ‘FIRE! FIRE!’. But actually, Pope Paul VI said it best when he declared, “the smoke of Satan has entered the Church” and “the Church seems set to self-destruct”. That same smoke has surely given way to flame forty years later. Besides, Pope Leo XIII had his famous vision regarding this anyway so what can we expect?
.

How long does calling one call fire without the house burning before we question if there is a fire or not? Even in the short time I have been Catholic it seems that conservatism is on the rise. With the broadening ot hte TLM and the addressing of many liturgical problems, it would seem to contadict the idea that the flame is increasing.

 

[Unitas]

Maybe they just unfortunately departed from it? How does this prove a conspiracy??? Why does it always have to be part of an insidious plan…bwaaahaaahhhaahhahahhh!

By the simple fact that the same people who advised on SC were the same ones who drafted the new mass. So the very same people who helped create SC departed from their own vision that SC embodied with their own new mass?

Please.

They were given an inch and they took a mile, plain and simple.

Anyone can see that SC was written to allow changes in the liturgy and it was written in such a way so as to not trouble the council fathers, having several safeguards and boundaries in place. Then when given the green light they implimented what they really wanted to happen. To hell with the safeguards and boundaries. Same people. SC was merely a foot in the door.

 

[GerardP]

I have seen SSPX posters come and go since this forum opened in '04.
There is a tendancy for them to be zealous to the point of meanness on the part of them.

And there is always either a myopia or hypocrisy on the part of the “conservatives” in that they can call anyone any name “wacky” or “schismatic” or whatever (without any supporting data) with impunity. Yet drawing attention to the nature of their attacks is considered “mean.”

The only parallel I have ever seen is when I was a Baptist, a sect of hyper-Calvinist seemed to have the same attitude.

Guilt by association is another tactic. I could say that the “conservatives” make arguments like the atheists I’ve seen. Dawkins, Hitchens etc.

To wit, you characterized the posters here as unintellectual. Do you not realize how arrogant and elitist that appears?

This is part of the problem. You are more concerned with what “appears” than whether or not it’s true.

I do not attempt the logically impossible task of disproving a negative here.

You could cite some examples of high intellectual reasoning on the part of a majority of posters who are opposed to the SSPX and I could re-evaluate what I’ve determined.

Rather I support my Church and her leader in Rome.

That’s laudable. Yet you seem to think that anyone who doesn’t “support” our Church and Her leader in Rome “your way” must automatically be wrong.

I can know more “prove” that the SSPX is wrong than I can prove that an angel did not appear to Joseph Smith or David Koresh was not really Jesus.

Actually that’s not a good comparison. The SSPX’s fight is based on the doctrine of the Church. There’s no source of revelation or magisterial teaching that both sides don’t claim to accept.

What I can do is attach my faith to Rock upon which the Church was founded.

That’s fine. But it’s little more than a slogan unless you spell out what that means in practical terms.

But I hope that doesn’t mean that the Pope is always right or is entitled to absolute obedience in all things, which is the predominant attitude among “conservatives” and has nothing to do with actual Catholic doctrine on the papacy nor does it reflect the realities in the history of the Church.

If the SSPX is a right, how many decades should it take to become evident? How much time does it take to prove that one is only “kicking against the pricks?”

It’s been self-evident that the SSPX is correct for decades. The fact that many people refuse to admit the scope of the crisis in the Church is a separate issue.

You should listen to one of Bishop Fellay’s conferences and see how well he spells out the SSPX position. Just trying to get Rome to clearly state what has always been the law regarding the TLM despite the de facto suppression of the TLM is evidence that the SSPX was right.