A
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Children are innocent, why must we think of their mingling as something sexual? Unless you’re talking about 14 year old boys and girls.
A
At_Trent
Guest
Parents have a right to raise their children best they can, and keeping them separated while unsupervised isn’t harmful. So what purpose would it serve to question it ?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Trent:
Children are innocent, why must we think of their mingling as something sexual? Unless you’re talking about 14 year old boys and girls.
I am thinking --keeping children segregated – even teenagers --may end up with dysfunctional adults.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Regarding what Bishops say on the local level- that will vary quite a bit by the Bishop.
I’m sure it’s true some Bishops despise the SSPX.
I know it’s also true some Bishops also despise valid and licit EF Masses, which is why many continue to do whatever they can to keep the TLM away despite what Rome has said on the topic.
The attitude is part of what makes many who do not attend SSPX Masses at least somewhat sympatheic to their situation.
It is a fair question, and one we have no way of knowing the answer to, but would we have gotten Sonorum Pontificum without the SSPX doing what they did?
More prayers for all concerned and for our Church are needed.
Pax.
I’m sure it’s true some Bishops despise the SSPX.
I know it’s also true some Bishops also despise valid and licit EF Masses, which is why many continue to do whatever they can to keep the TLM away despite what Rome has said on the topic.
The attitude is part of what makes many who do not attend SSPX Masses at least somewhat sympatheic to their situation.
It is a fair question, and one we have no way of knowing the answer to, but would we have gotten Sonorum Pontificum without the SSPX doing what they did?
More prayers for all concerned and for our Church are needed.
Pax.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Kids are smart, the sooner you tell them its not a good idea, the more they will ask why. Eventually the questions will lead to sex and the end of innocence. If you let kids be kids, there will be no such questions in their minds for a whileParents have a right to raise their children best they can, and keeping them separated while unsupervised isn’t harmful. So what purpose would it serve to question it ?
A
At_Trent
Guest
We’re doomed
P
Paxvobis
Guest
Ditto. Add to that that many (if not most) Catholics at the time lived in cities and were union households.I’d say more like a hundred years. Fifty years ago Catholics did not live or dress like the OP stated. That was only 1961. Girls wore pants and shorts, I played games with the neighborhood boys, most of us lived in cities, drove cars, had TV’s, and wore hats, (even kleenexes), not veils to church. To the contrary, we were often quite worldly compared to many of our Protestant brethern who did not smoke or drink, dance, play cards, go to movies or watch TV, and they attended church on Sunday just as much as the Catholics–and on Wednesday nights, too.
They can live as they choose and as their conscience dictates, they are not hurting anyone, except perhaps if they try to impose it on others.
I think that what some trads fail to recognize is that there is a difference between the traditionalist Catholicism of today (especially in the SSPX) and the Catholicism of the the 1920s-1960s.
Sure the Mass and the Devotions are the same, but from what I hear the Catholics of that time period weren’t as reclusive from the world.
Those whom the OP describes as having this attitude would say that the modern world is too corrupted with modernism and moral relativism to live within it and keep the faith. There is some truth to that and I don’t fault or mean to attack any trad woman who never wears skirts or a trad family who moves to a farm in the country. All I’m saying here is that “in the good ol’ days” Catholics were involved in those same institutions which many trads today reject. Therefore, traditionalist Catholicism of today isn’t the same, and in some cases is more conservative, than the mainstream Catholicism of 60, 70 years ago.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I’m not sure how you define “reclusive”. I know my family and many of our friends might be considered reclusive by many simply because we homeschool. Protecting your family from negative influences and washing your hands of the world are two different things. I think you can do the first and not do the latter.
In anycase, I just wanted to say that the Catholics of the 1950s or 60s may have been different than the Catholics of today- but at the same time the society in which they lived was different as well.
I will agree that the 1950s, 1870s, nor any other time was a “golden age”. There are always problems and evil in the world. We live in the time God placed us. Some times have more challenges than others- I think that we are in one of those right now. The great news is that God gives the grace that is needed to live in those times.
Pax.
D
Dragonslayer
Guest
I’m glad you clarified that this “cultist mentality”, whatever that is, does not apply to the whole society.
Also, your earlier comment that women are being told it is a mortal sin to wear pants, is simply not true. At least in Australia where I can speak from first hand experience.
Women are encouraged to dress like women and to dress modestly, but it is not a mortal sin to wear pants. As it has already been said about the other “issues” raised, it is merely being Catholic.
D
Dragonslayer
Guest
What stigma, being Catholic?You are welcome friend. Let’s just pray for an agreement between the SSPX and Rome. The SSPX and their flock need to be freed of the stigma, and Rome needs Holy priests.
From what I have read on these forums about some of the happenings in the “modern” church, at the OF mass, and about current church teachings and practises, the more I feel the SSPX will prefer to stay as they are.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
We’re doomed for accepting that kids are innocent?We’re doomed
P
Paxvobis
Guest
I’d define reclusive as putting some distance between oneself and the rest of society. Homeschooling is putting some distance between your kids and the kids in Public and Private Schools. Not that that’s a bad thing! You saw that there were negative influences in public schools (or private for that matter) and decided you didn’t want your kids exposed to that. That’s fine, but understand that doing so is a little reclusive.
That is very true. That’s all I was trying to say really.
I totally agree!
I was just saying on another thread that too many people think that trads just want to go back to the 50’s (or the 30’s and 40’s for that matter). But the truth is that there are deep theological reasons behind traditionalist Catholic thought. We’re not “living in the past” as some say.
A
At_Trent
Guest
The stigma I gather from reading certain posts on this forum.
J
JReducation
Guest
Let me take a crack at this and see if I can help in charitable and clear way. Let’s begin talking about the Holy Father’s letting that At Trent linked. The letter can be very confusing to most lay people, because it was not written to the laity. It’s written to the bishops. Bishops all have doctorates in theology, philosophy, canon law, scripture, ministry, religious education or some other field related to religious studies. It’s a requirement to be a bishop. Therefore, the pope is going to speak them using what I like to call “Church jargon”, which is not the way that most Catholics speak. Some words and concepts go right over many heads.
According to Church law, when a pope dies, everything comes to a stop until a new pope is elected. Only the everyday affairs of the Church continue. The rewriting of Canon Law came to such a stop. Pope John Paul II became Pontiff in 1978, but did not touch the project until 1981. The commission was reconvened and the work was completed in 1982. In 1983, Bl. John Paul II promulgated the current Code of Canon Law. This code does not apply to anyone who was not a Catholic in 1983. Law is never retroactive, at least not Canon Law. It’s not designed that way.
Therefore, the old words that we often used for Protestants and Orthodox, no longer work, because the new code does not apply to them. We can call a Catholic who turns from truth to error a heretic. We cannot call a heretic one who is born into error. The error continues to be a heresy, but the person is not a heretic. There is an old term, material heretic. It means one who embraces error. Many Traditionalists like to use this term. However, Canon Lawyers took this term out of the code when it was written. Bl. John Paul deliberately wanted it gone. He spells out shy in his letter Ut Unum Sint. We won’t get into that here. Suffice it to say, that if the pope wants to drop that language, we should do so. He’s not asking us to drop the Immaculate Conception.
It’s like Cuba and the USA. At one time, they were mortal enemies. Today, approximately 50 years later, there is a whole new generation of Cubans on the island and of Americans in the USA. They don’t consider each other enemies, even though the two nations do not have diplomatic relations. We’re really neighbors who do not get along for many reasons that are not important to this thread. That’s pretty much the case between Protestants and Catholics. Some Protestants and Catholics are still antagonistic toward each other. Most of them are on CAF. As you can see, the number is small. Most are not antagonistic. Most are friends, neighbors, colleagues, schoolmates and some are even spouses. Like the Cubans and the Americans, they still don’t see eye to eye on many essential points of the faith, but they are not mortal enemies, except for that small minority of very stubborn people on both sides. We’re still brothers and sisters, but we remain separated from each other in certain matters of faith, not all either.
Schism means to break with the Church. However, to make it easier, it applies to a group that breaks away with a bishop. When a group breaks away with a bishop, it has the potential to become a Church. All you need to be a real Church is a valid bishop. He can ordain other bishops, priests and deacons and the sacraments can then be validly celebrated. This is what happened with the Eastern Churches. They split. Some embraced what they called Orthodoxy and others remained in communion with the pope. Those who broke with the pope were called schismatic. Today, we no longer call them schismatic, because this happened 1,000 or so years ago. A Greek Orthodox usually comes from a long line of Greek Orthodox people. The typical Orthodox Christian is just like the typical Catholic. He knows about his line of work and the things that are important to his daily life, not about some Church out there that has nothing to do with him. He knows that the Catholic Church exists, because it’s big and in the news every day. However, most of what he knows about the Catholic Church he gets from the 6:00 news, which is not the most reliable source of information.
Separated: refers to Protestants. They are separated ecclesial communities. They are not real churches, because they don’t have validly ordained bishops. To be a real Church you must have a bishop at its head. They are no longer called heretics for two reasons: a) Pope John Paul asked that we drop that language, because it only causes anger and hurt. It has done nothing positive in 500 years; there is no reason to believe that it will do anything positive today. b) Pope Paul VI, who was himself a lawyer, helped write the new code of Canon Law. To be a heretic, one has to be a Catholic and then embrace error. Those people who were born into Protestantism cannot be heretics, because they never turned away. You can’t turn away from Catholicism, if you were not Catholic to begin with. Pope Paul also argued that law only applies to those for whom it is written. Canon Law is written for Catholics. There are two Codes of Canon Law. One is for the Latin Church and one for the Oriental Churches or Eastern Catholics. Canon Law only applies to Catholics. None of those labels and terms in Canon Law may be applied to non-Catholics. It would be like trying to apply the Constitution of the USA to Canadians and to judge them according to our Bill of Rights. Why should they follow it? It’s not their Bill of Rights? This was Pope Paul’s logic when he wrote the current portion of Canon Law that speaks about heresy, schism, apostasy and other forms of separation. Pope Paul died before he completed his work. He died in 1978.
According to Church law, when a pope dies, everything comes to a stop until a new pope is elected. Only the everyday affairs of the Church continue. The rewriting of Canon Law came to such a stop. Pope John Paul II became Pontiff in 1978, but did not touch the project until 1981. The commission was reconvened and the work was completed in 1982. In 1983, Bl. John Paul II promulgated the current Code of Canon Law. This code does not apply to anyone who was not a Catholic in 1983. Law is never retroactive, at least not Canon Law. It’s not designed that way.
Therefore, the old words that we often used for Protestants and Orthodox, no longer work, because the new code does not apply to them. We can call a Catholic who turns from truth to error a heretic. We cannot call a heretic one who is born into error. The error continues to be a heresy, but the person is not a heretic. There is an old term, material heretic. It means one who embraces error. Many Traditionalists like to use this term. However, Canon Lawyers took this term out of the code when it was written. Bl. John Paul deliberately wanted it gone. He spells out shy in his letter Ut Unum Sint. We won’t get into that here. Suffice it to say, that if the pope wants to drop that language, we should do so. He’s not asking us to drop the Immaculate Conception.
It’s like Cuba and the USA. At one time, they were mortal enemies. Today, approximately 50 years later, there is a whole new generation of Cubans on the island and of Americans in the USA. They don’t consider each other enemies, even though the two nations do not have diplomatic relations. We’re really neighbors who do not get along for many reasons that are not important to this thread. That’s pretty much the case between Protestants and Catholics. Some Protestants and Catholics are still antagonistic toward each other. Most of them are on CAF. As you can see, the number is small. Most are not antagonistic. Most are friends, neighbors, colleagues, schoolmates and some are even spouses. Like the Cubans and the Americans, they still don’t see eye to eye on many essential points of the faith, but they are not mortal enemies, except for that small minority of very stubborn people on both sides. We’re still brothers and sisters, but we remain separated from each other in certain matters of faith, not all either.
Schism means to break with the Church. However, to make it easier, it applies to a group that breaks away with a bishop. When a group breaks away with a bishop, it has the potential to become a Church. All you need to be a real Church is a valid bishop. He can ordain other bishops, priests and deacons and the sacraments can then be validly celebrated. This is what happened with the Eastern Churches. They split. Some embraced what they called Orthodoxy and others remained in communion with the pope. Those who broke with the pope were called schismatic. Today, we no longer call them schismatic, because this happened 1,000 or so years ago. A Greek Orthodox usually comes from a long line of Greek Orthodox people. The typical Orthodox Christian is just like the typical Catholic. He knows about his line of work and the things that are important to his daily life, not about some Church out there that has nothing to do with him. He knows that the Catholic Church exists, because it’s big and in the news every day. However, most of what he knows about the Catholic Church he gets from the 6:00 news, which is not the most reliable source of information.
J
JReducation
Guest
When we say that the action of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops whom he ordained is schismatic, we are referring to what happened with the first generation of Orthodox Christians. In other words, by taking the law into his own hands, the Archbishop created a dangerous situation. Had his successors wanted to walk away, they could have done what the Orthodox did. They could have turned their back on the papacy and simply continue to exist as an independent Church as do the Orthodox. This makes the action schismatic, because it has the potential for a permanent rupture or break. To say that the action is schismatic is not the same as saying that the SSPX is in schism. They are not in schism, because they never turned their back or walked away. The Orthodox are in schism, but they are not schismatic, because it was their ancestors who walked. They simply remain away. I should add that many of our ancestors were nothing to be proud of either. They helped drive them away. There was nastiness on both sides. Roman Catholics often like to play John Wayne, the Indians are bad and the white man is good – not always so.
The SSPX has tried to convince the Vatican that its position is right and that the Vatican’s position is wrong. This is why the Holy Father means when he refers to their arrogance. It comes across like the child who tries to give his mom and dad parenting lessons. They remain Catholic, albeit Catholics who are upset about many things and to date seem to be unwilling to compromise or to back down. They certainly are not schismatic. They have not started their own Church.
Suspension is easy. When a bishop, priest or deacon breaks a rule, the bishop, his religious superior or the pope has the right to suspend him. This is like when a kid is suspended in school. He is not expelled. He remains part of the student body, but he has lost his right to be in the classroom and lost all the other rights that come with being a student for however numbers of days the suspension lasts. Nevertheless, the school does not drop him from its rolls.
The SSPX bishops, priests, deacons, brothers and sisters, have forfeited their right to serve as Catholic ministers. Whenever they do so, they are doing it illegally. It’s valid, because they are still on the rolls as ordained clergy or professed religious. But they should not be doing it, because they were told not to do so. It’s like the suspended kid who sneaks onto campus. He should not be there. No one can say that he’s not a student, because he is. He’s a student who is on campus illegally. These are priests who are celebrating the sacraments illegally. They’re not supposed to be doing that.
Many people do not understand one exception. That is the mass. Canon Law says that any priest, who is validly ordained, suspended or not, may be allowed to celebrate mass in any Catholic Church by the competent authority. Many of the SSPX priests visit the Vatican and are given permission to celebrate mass on one of the side altars. However, when there is a big mass, such, as was the beatification of John Paul II, they may not concelebrate. Even the FSSP are invited to concelebrate. They did so too, because John Paul is their founder. If the SSPX priest ask for permission to celebrate mass alone or with their friends, the permission can be given or denied. The law does not say that it has to be given. It says that it can be given. Only a priest who is in good standing with the Church MUST be allowed to celebrate mass in any church in the world. Priests and religious carry with us what we call Obedience Letters. This is a letter from either our bishop or our superior that says that we’re in good standing with the Church. When I travel outside of my region, I must get such a letter from my superior. I keep it in my possession in case anyone should ask about my status. The priests of the SSPX cannot be given such a letter by anyone until the pope says so. That’s what he means when he says that they have no canonical status. They have no permission to function as bishops, priests, deacons, brothers, sisters, etc. It’s like being a doctor without a license. You’re still a doctor.
Disciplinary level means that you have broken a rule.
Doctrinal level means that you have either done something contrary to doctrine or that you have not complied with doctrine. In the case of the SSPX no one has accused them of doing anything contrary to doctrine, at least no one with the authority to accuse them. However, the Holy Father holds that they have not complied with doctrine, because they reject much of Vatican II, much of the CCC, and many of the positions of the modern day popes, especially Paul VI, John Paul II and himself. Doctrine says that part of being a Catholic is to assent to the authority of the pope. When you disobey, you are not assenting. You are failing to do what doctrine says you should do.
They argue that they can disobey and are not guilty of dissent, because the Church is in a state of crisis and the law says that when the Church is in crisis and when there is grave fear for the faith, a bishop may do what Archbishop Lefebvre did, ordain bishops without permission. It is true. The law does say that.
The SSPX has tried to convince the Vatican that its position is right and that the Vatican’s position is wrong. This is why the Holy Father means when he refers to their arrogance. It comes across like the child who tries to give his mom and dad parenting lessons. They remain Catholic, albeit Catholics who are upset about many things and to date seem to be unwilling to compromise or to back down. They certainly are not schismatic. They have not started their own Church.
Suspension is easy. When a bishop, priest or deacon breaks a rule, the bishop, his religious superior or the pope has the right to suspend him. This is like when a kid is suspended in school. He is not expelled. He remains part of the student body, but he has lost his right to be in the classroom and lost all the other rights that come with being a student for however numbers of days the suspension lasts. Nevertheless, the school does not drop him from its rolls.
The SSPX bishops, priests, deacons, brothers and sisters, have forfeited their right to serve as Catholic ministers. Whenever they do so, they are doing it illegally. It’s valid, because they are still on the rolls as ordained clergy or professed religious. But they should not be doing it, because they were told not to do so. It’s like the suspended kid who sneaks onto campus. He should not be there. No one can say that he’s not a student, because he is. He’s a student who is on campus illegally. These are priests who are celebrating the sacraments illegally. They’re not supposed to be doing that.
Many people do not understand one exception. That is the mass. Canon Law says that any priest, who is validly ordained, suspended or not, may be allowed to celebrate mass in any Catholic Church by the competent authority. Many of the SSPX priests visit the Vatican and are given permission to celebrate mass on one of the side altars. However, when there is a big mass, such, as was the beatification of John Paul II, they may not concelebrate. Even the FSSP are invited to concelebrate. They did so too, because John Paul is their founder. If the SSPX priest ask for permission to celebrate mass alone or with their friends, the permission can be given or denied. The law does not say that it has to be given. It says that it can be given. Only a priest who is in good standing with the Church MUST be allowed to celebrate mass in any church in the world. Priests and religious carry with us what we call Obedience Letters. This is a letter from either our bishop or our superior that says that we’re in good standing with the Church. When I travel outside of my region, I must get such a letter from my superior. I keep it in my possession in case anyone should ask about my status. The priests of the SSPX cannot be given such a letter by anyone until the pope says so. That’s what he means when he says that they have no canonical status. They have no permission to function as bishops, priests, deacons, brothers, sisters, etc. It’s like being a doctor without a license. You’re still a doctor.
I’ve explained how they are in the Church. Just think of the kid who is suspended from school. He is still a student at that school. He just can’t attend classes there until the boss says so.
Disciplinary level means that you have broken a rule.
Doctrinal level means that you have either done something contrary to doctrine or that you have not complied with doctrine. In the case of the SSPX no one has accused them of doing anything contrary to doctrine, at least no one with the authority to accuse them.
However, the Holy Father holds that they have not complied with doctrine, because they reject much of Vatican II, much of the CCC, and many of the positions of the modern day popes, especially Paul VI, John Paul II and himself. Doctrine says that part of being a Catholic is to assent to the authority of the pope. When you disobey, you are not assenting. You are failing to do what doctrine says you should do.They argue that they can disobey and are not guilty of dissent, because the Church is in a state of crisis and the law says that when the Church is in crisis and when there is grave fear for the faith, a bishop may do what Archbishop Lefebvre did, ordain bishops without permission. It is true. The law does say that.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is a glitch here. Canon Law exists at the pleasure of the pope. This means that if the pope wants to nail you, he simply takes away the law and you can no longer lean on it. This is what Bl. John Paul did. He said that the law did not apply to Archbishop Lefebvre. The pope has the power to do this, he can do so, and it’s not a sin. He is the giver of the Law. Doctrine refers to the pope as the Living Law of the Church. He can overrule any previous pope, any council, any bishop, any law or anything he wants as long as it’s not revealed truth. In other words, there is very little that he cannot do and change. He has to stick with moral and doctrinal truths revealed by God. Anything that was created by men, he can overrule. Since Pope John Paul was the pope and the Archbishop and the SSPX quoted Canon Law in their defense, he declared their argument null and void. In other words, he said, “The law does not apply to you and there will be no discussion about the law.” It’s like a parent who says, “This conversation is over.” Your kids can scream and rant about his civil rights, but the parent can pull those rights from under them as long as he does not violate human rights. The pope can do that to anyone too. You can rant about your legal rights and he can pull those out from under you. He cannot violate your human rights or revealed rights.
If the bishops of the SSPX remain argumentative with the pope, then they are in violation of doctrine. Doctrine says that we may not take a position contrary to the pope unless the pope is teaching heresy.
If a Catholic feels that he needs to attend the EF mass and there is no other around, he can attend mass at an SSPX chapel, provided that he does not support or encourage the priests of the SSPX to continue in their disobedience to the pope and the bishops.
Remember, they’re being disobedient to the bishops too. You’re not supposed to pitch a tent in my backyard without my permission. I own the backyard. No one can setup an operation in a diocese without the permission of the local bishop. The SSPX do this. This is another of those things that the Holy Father considers a doctrinal error. The error is to fail to recognize the authority of the local bishop that has been handed down from the Apostles to him.
That’s the easiest way of saying it. It’s more complex, but this is already long.
I hope this has helped at least a little bit.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If the bishops of the SSPX remain argumentative with the pope, then they are in violation of doctrine. Doctrine says that we may not take a position contrary to the pope unless the pope is teaching heresy.
These masses are valid, because these are real priests. Catholics are discouraged from attending them. The reason has to do with logic. If Catholics make it a habit of attending mass at their chapel, without meaning to do so, we are encouraging them to continue in their disobedience. It’s like turning a blind eye to something that is not supposed to be happening. They should not be celebrating mass, hearing confessions or doing wedding without permission. However, we may never be unkind to them.Rome doesn’t consider those Masses valid though, right? I mean, as in the Real Presence? (Hope I’m not crossing a line here!)
If a Catholic feels that he needs to attend the EF mass and there is no other around, he can attend mass at an SSPX chapel, provided that he does not support or encourage the priests of the SSPX to continue in their disobedience to the pope and the bishops.
Remember, they’re being disobedient to the bishops too. You’re not supposed to pitch a tent in my backyard without my permission. I own the backyard. No one can setup an operation in a diocese without the permission of the local bishop. The SSPX do this. This is another of those things that the Holy Father considers a doctrinal error. The error is to fail to recognize the authority of the local bishop that has been handed down from the Apostles to him.
Jesus is there and he’s supposed to be there. Whenever a priest, Catholic or Orthodox consecrates, he does so with the intention of doing so. You cannot handcuff God. A consecration does not cease to be a consecration, because the priest is breaking a law. The consecration depends on Jesus, not on the law. Jesus is not Catholic. Canon Law does not apply to him.So Jesus is there
That’s the easiest way of saying it. It’s more complex, but this is already long.Yes. A diocese is also properly called the local Church. It is a real Church headed by a bishop.
It is very sad and it is our hope that there will be reconciliation, because our credibility as Catholics suffers and we’re violating Christ’s command that we be one. It’s very hard to convince a non-Catholic that we believe what we say when we do the opposite. When SSPXers and other Catholics throw mud at each other, they are wrong. They are causing scandal to the world. The people of God are not supposed to be engaged in a barroom brawl.That’s really sad.
I hope this has helped at least a little bit.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
T
TrueLight
Guest
I don’t know which kids you are around, but the kids in the City are dating in elementary school. And by dating, I mean at least tongue kissing with hands roaming. And some of the girls are having oral sex.
And it only stops there because the boys’ bodies are not ready to do more. Once they hit puberty at 11-13, they begin to do more.
Also, even though I was innocent when I was that age, we still did stuff like play “RCK” which is run, catch and kiss - anyone remember that? lol. It was innocent enough - just a peck, but with the influx of media where everything is sex, sex, sex, I can assure you, kids get started early.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Very interesting.
I hope no one gets offended, but the trads of today remind me almost of conservative Protestants. I grew up being told not to wear pants. My mom was a rebel, so we wore pants outside of church like on church trips. This was in a conservative Baptist church and also at my Grandmother’s pentecostal church.
This may make it easier for some of our separated brethren, who see Catholics as worldly, to draw closer to the Catholic Church.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
This is what is confusing. It is difficult, at least for me, to see how attendance is not support and encouragement in and of itself.
What would be the clearest sign there is no support for disobedience? People not showing up. So showing up, IS support.
At least that’s how I see it.
I attend a diocesan TLM. There is an SSPX chapel in the area, I’m not sure exactly where, because I’ve never tried to find out. If the Bishop were to do away with the TLM, this question becomes very real. Based on my understanding of the situation, I would fear attendance of the SSPX masses would be putting souls- mine, my families, and the Priests of the SSPX- in mortal danger. I say this, while definitley not being a “SSPX-hater” in the least.
At the same time, the reason we came to the TLM in the first place was our inability to find a reverent Novus Ordo. So if the TLM were gone, I think would attend an Eastern rite Dive Liturgy.
Pax.
- Status