- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I apologize for putting this in the wrong forum. I always search by new posts and was unaware that there was even such a thing as a traditional Catholic forum. It’s just that I found the post funny and posted it withour checking to see where it was. I surely did not mean to “snark” (Heck, I don’t even know what that means). I will be more carecul in the future.
T
TNT
Guest
Your apology is accepted as I know deeeeep down u are a gentlemen.
Funny thing…(or Holy Ghost?)
I have been essentially absent from the CAF for 18months. On the very day that the Trad Forum opened, I had an unexplained urge to come online just to see what was popular & gossipy.
There it was: TRAD Forum!
Having fun in my own sandbox!
P
pnewton
Guest
Can a Church be both Catholic and out of communion with the Catholic Church?
T
TNT
Guest
I** look at the SSPX (the home of my spouse) as follows from the 1917 Cath. Encyclopedia:**
schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (De fide et symbolo, ix). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy. Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
I hold to this last part for the SSPX. They are unique in this respect. Not schism as they recognize the Conciliar bishops as valid, but believe they are in grevious error and teach harmful practices.
So, are they in schism? no.
Heretics? no.
Manifestly disobedient? yes.
By the ancient/scriptural definition (Jerome) they are in schism. By the current criteria (deny the divine right of a bishop or pope) they are not.
They are a hybrid brought about by their refusal to profess adherence to a minority of VAT II documents.
Finally, they are in contradiction in that they profess (at least publically) that the NO mass is valid. But, they refuse to embrace it. (Mainly from the Pro multis supression). That is WHY B16 has moved the Pro Multis translation back to its traditional form - For Many); because of the SSPX negotiations.
EVENTUALLY, they will get their own bishops or equivalent in liturgical matters. This will be the tough part as they will have to come to some compromise on those sticky VAT II documents.
So, to answer P’s question. Thay ARE Catholics & even B16 would not deny them this recognition.
TNT has spoken, the case is closed.
schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (De fide et symbolo, ix). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy. Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
I hold to this last part for the SSPX. They are unique in this respect. Not schism as they recognize the Conciliar bishops as valid, but believe they are in grevious error and teach harmful practices.
So, are they in schism? no.
Heretics? no.
Manifestly disobedient? yes.
By the ancient/scriptural definition (Jerome) they are in schism. By the current criteria (deny the divine right of a bishop or pope) they are not.
They are a hybrid brought about by their refusal to profess adherence to a minority of VAT II documents.
Finally, they are in contradiction in that they profess (at least publically) that the NO mass is valid. But, they refuse to embrace it. (Mainly from the Pro multis supression). That is WHY B16 has moved the Pro Multis translation back to its traditional form - For Many); because of the SSPX negotiations.
EVENTUALLY, they will get their own bishops or equivalent in liturgical matters. This will be the tough part as they will have to come to some compromise on those sticky VAT II documents.
So, to answer P’s question. Thay ARE Catholics & even B16 would not deny them this recognition.
TNT has spoken, the case is closed.
M
MariaG
Guest
I did not realize that “Traditional Catholic” was supposed to be the same as SSPX?Indeed, you have not met my wife!
BTW, P
This forum is a refuge for Trads so as to keep the mutual harassement bet Trad snarkers & progressive snarkers to a minimum.
You are invited (by me) to join in but refrain from snarking such as
“You must have met different SSPX than I have.”
If you want to start a snark-the-SSPX threadgo right ahead.
Just kindly if not charitably put it somewhere other than the Trad Catholic Forum.
Is that the intent and definition of “Tradional Catholic” forums? A refuge for those who are not in communion with the Pope (or were not in communion/agreement? with JPII, don’t know what they think about Pope Benedict)?
Respectfully inquiring,
Maria
P
pnewton
Guest
:clapping:
Well done. I can accept that much of the confusion is because they are a hybrid, a new creature as it were. Perhaps that is why I see so many conflicting points of view. One thing is certain, it is far beyond my expertise to even have a point of view on such a complex topic.
T
TNT
Guest
Maria,
RE:" I did not realize that “Traditional Catholic” was supposed to be the same as SSPX?"
Another Snark that was in no way implied.
The SSPX will inevitably get posted into any discussion of trad cath.
The point is / was to refrain from useless snarking about any trad oriented group on this forum.
snark away anywhere else you want.
The forum is not here to bash those who hold to Roman Rite traditional practices/ beliefs/ liturgy NO MATTER what edge group they embrace.
One good purpose was to be a refuge for discussion & INQUIRY without the constant hit-n-run snarking.by those who reject Trad Catholic mindsets.
RE:"***A refuge for those who are not in communion with the Pope"
Are Eastern Orth in Communion?
Are Non-Cath’s in communion?
Well, they each have a full Forum do they not?
Trad Cath may or may NOT be in the bosom of the church, but the NEW dogma of ECUMENISM requires you & all of us to enter into respectful dialogue, or is there an exception for SSPX? SSPV? CMRI? Benedict Center? FEENEYITES?
INDULTARIANS?
*Finally,
because of the new dogma of Ecumenism, you may now go out and ( Respectfully inquiring ) *kiss the Quran with a clear conscience.
M
MariaG
Guest
Snark? I was inquiring since it appeared to me that you were saying the Traditional Catholic is supposed to mean SSPX in this forum.
If you look further in my post, I even put communion/agreement? since I am not sure how to refer to SSPX.
Maybe if you would assume that a person was honestly inquiring and ignorant of issues instead of being deliberately “snarky” you would have a more pleasant experience in these forums that you seem to have banished yourself from for so long.
I assumed a “Traditional Catholic” would NOT in fact wish to be lumped in with SSPX because it is my understanding that they are not in communion with, at worst, and not in agreement with, at best, the Pope.
Most whom I understand as “Traditional Catholic” fully accept the leadership and are in agreement with the Pope, therefore would not be SSPX. They may wish for more forceful leadership and pronouncments but they do not reject Vatican II as I believe? SSPX have done.
Your post seemed to imply that Traditional Catholic and SSPX are one in the same. I was and am trying to figure out if this is the intent of this forum.
Clearly you do not think JPII acted appropriately, but I am at a loss as how that answers my question as to whether Traditional Catholic is supposed mean the same as SSPX or even whether or not the SSPX are in agreement with the current pope.
If you did not mean to imply that Traditional Catholic is the same as SSPX, you could have said so. If it is, you could have also said so. It was also clear from the question marks in my post that I was not clear exactly WHAT the SSPX is in relation to the Church. They are not in agreement with the pope so that would seem to imply that they are not in “communion” with him, or maybe more correctly, imperfect communion? Or why SSPX is supposed to be the synonymous to Traditional Catholic.
T
TNT
Guest
Maria,
you have over 3,000 posts yet you claim ignorance of SSPX?!
Do you just write & not read?
Even the post just prior to your snarky “inquiry” explains EXACTLY my best shot at the condition of the SSPX as a “they” not “me” or “we” group.
So your claim of ignorance appears to me to be either camoflauge or just plain negligent.
Regardless, this forum is NOT the playpen of the SSPX that you imply.
Now, if you have an interest in Trad catholic living or practice, stick around and READ. Otherwise I cannot understand why you persist in posting derogatives here. There are countless other Forums - Liturgy & Sacraments for one - that have plenty of discussion on the SSPX for your edification, and have had for years while you engaged in those 3,000 posts.
Now ARE YOU A TRADITIONAL PRACTICING CATHOLIC OR NOT?
Are YOU INTERESTED IN BECOMING SO OR NOT?
Or is the SSPX just a burr in your saddle?
you have over 3,000 posts yet you claim ignorance of SSPX?!
Do you just write & not read?
Even the post just prior to your snarky “inquiry” explains EXACTLY my best shot at the condition of the SSPX as a “they” not “me” or “we” group.
So your claim of ignorance appears to me to be either camoflauge or just plain negligent.
Regardless, this forum is NOT the playpen of the SSPX that you imply.
Now, if you have an interest in Trad catholic living or practice, stick around and READ. Otherwise I cannot understand why you persist in posting derogatives here. There are countless other Forums - Liturgy & Sacraments for one - that have plenty of discussion on the SSPX for your edification, and have had for years while you engaged in those 3,000 posts.
Now ARE YOU A TRADITIONAL PRACTICING CATHOLIC OR NOT?
Are YOU INTERESTED IN BECOMING SO OR NOT?
Or is the SSPX just a burr in your saddle?
M
MariaG
Guest
When these boards first started, discussion of SSPX was actually forbidden. Apparently that rule has changed, but I, after one discussion and the nastiness of the posters, I have avoided any discussions about them/with them.
I was not aware it was a requirement of these forums to read everything posted.
If you look at the time post, there is only a 10 minute lag. I started to respond, got distracted, finished my response and posted without ever seeing your post before I originally posted. That would fall into the category of slow typer and constant revision rather than either of the uncharitable explanations you came up with.
Your post did however, not answer my question of whether or not Traditional Catholic is supposed to be synonymous with SSPX as your post seemed to imply to me so I let the post stand. It was still unclear to me whether they would be considered in not in communion with or simply “disagreement” would be more appropriate which is why there were question marks in my post.
I never implied that. I questioned if that was the intent since I was under the impression from your post that Traditional Catholic and SSPX were synonymous. I asked you to clarify and was attacked for it.
I have posted not one single derogative to you, the SSPX or anyone in this thread.
Again, I was not aware that I was required to read every single post or know absolutely everything about the SSPX before posting in the Traditional Catholic forums.
Since I have yet to recieve a definition of what “Traditional Catholic” is meant in this forum, I cannot answer that question.
It would seem to be that you are now implying that Traditional Catholic and SSPX are not synonymous but I am having trouble pinning down your answer in between the numerous insults and uncharitable assumptions you have accused me of.
I certainly am willing to start over realizing that your time away from these forums have made it more difficult for you to read the “tone” of a poster and proceed from here.
I pray that you will be able to do so.
God Bless,
Maria
T
TNT
Guest
RE:
Extreme in the sense that they are manifestly in disregard of direct orders from a Conciliar Pope, namely JPII.
Quasi in the sense that they profess to recognize the Divine right of the Pope to rule the church & his bishops and include his intentions in their liturgy & public prayers.
The Full extreme form (SSPV, CMRI) known as Sedevancantist deny the pope’s authority as he lost it by teaching by word, deed or grave omission, heresy against the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.
Traditional Catholic is a Catholic who embraces the liturgy, customs, religious practices, moral code prior to VAT II/post VAT II changes in them.
Try here.
Otherwise I’ll leave your further probing for someone else.
The SSPX is a quasi-extreme form of Trad catholicism.
Extreme in the sense that they are manifestly in disregard of direct orders from a Conciliar Pope, namely JPII.
Quasi in the sense that they profess to recognize the Divine right of the Pope to rule the church & his bishops and include his intentions in their liturgy & public prayers.
The Full extreme form (SSPV, CMRI) known as Sedevancantist deny the pope’s authority as he lost it by teaching by word, deed or grave omission, heresy against the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.
Traditional Catholic is a Catholic who embraces the liturgy, customs, religious practices, moral code prior to VAT II/post VAT II changes in them.
Try here.
Otherwise I’ll leave your further probing for someone else.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
No, SSPX and Traditional Catholic are not synonymous.
Some here are FSSP, some attend the TLM at different chapels, some are SSPX etc.
Maria, those here thought that this forum would be a safe haven where Traditionalists could come and not be smacked. So far it’s not looking that way. Instead those who are coming here are giving freereign and the Traditional poster are told to ignore it.
While you say and I believe you did not come here with that intent, people are getting really defensive.
You know in your own heart that you did not come to attack, but the other posters have just lived through a lot in the short time this forum has been on.
I will stand up for Maria. I have not seen her nasty.
T
TNT
Guest
The word was snarkyI have not seen her nasty.
T
TNT
Guest
Oops, never mind, I read yur sig
**:** Yes, I am a…BLOOD BOUGHT, spirit taught, Bible totin’, Scripture quotin’, Christ Followin’, Born Again, Charismatic Catholic Christian Believer.
M
MariaG
Guest
Thank you. I appreciate your answer
I was not aware of the difference between SSPX and the SSPV and I believe I have mistaken the extreme postion for the SSPV for the relatively less extreme position? of the SSPX if I am understanding you correctly.
Thank you for your definition.
God Bless,
Maria
M
MariaG
Guest
No, SSPX and Traditional Catholic are not synonymous.
Some here are FSSP, some attend the TLM at different chapels, some are SSPX etc.
Maria, those here thought that this forum would be a safe haven where Traditionalists could come and not be smacked. So far it’s not looking that way. Instead those who are coming here are giving freereign and the Traditional poster are told to ignore it.
While you say and I believe you did not come here with that intent, people are getting really defensive.
You know in your own heart that you did not come to attack, but the other posters have just lived through a lot in the short time this forum has been on.
I will stand up for Maria. I have not seen her nasty.
Thank you:tiphat: Netmil(name removed by moderator). I truly have not meant to be nasty OR snarky.
But I do understand why sometimes those who would call themselves “Traditional Catholic” could feel attacked frequently as I have seen it done repeatedly. Unfortunately, it is sometimes hard to see when a person is being honestly ignorant or inquiring after so many attacks.
Which is why I offered the olive branch in good faith realizing this can happen to the best of Christians.
Your sister in Christ,
Maria
N
netmilsmom
Guest
- Status