Well, let’s not beat this dead horse. Whatever the previous status of the SSPX (and I think we can all agree that it has been a murky one) it certainly appears that everything is going to be cleared up sooner rather than later.My problem was the user was *not *being civil.
I also would like to invite you to see this
devthrone.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/SSPX
It says right there, “It is in schism.”
Here are the results of using the search function on the Ask an Apologist forum, where the answers are given by apologists with expertise rather than taken from users in general.Floresco has brought much insight and helpful info on these boards and she is an active member on the traditional forum. I haven’t seen much of you here before and the first post I see you post tends to be offensive.
I’m the OP. Please see Post 44 here, where I posted up Apologists’ answers about the schismatic state on SSPXSo keep that in mind when you use words like ‘schismatic’ and ‘are they Catholic now’?.
They NEVER CEASED being Catholic.
In answer to the bolded…The best way is to recognize that things can change. That once the various groups in a discussion get their issues on the table, level heads can prevail. From this, serious discussion can unfold and ultimately a consensus can be reached. Note that I say “consensus” not “compromise”.This is a question that has been promptly ignored by many on this board. Once, I started a thread asking what it meant to people personally to attend celebrations of the Mass that are legally illict and the question was quickly dodged and rationalized. While the Holy See never declared them to be in schism, the fact that they persisted in grave disobedience for 20 years is a serious matter. While the sspx has many good and fine priest who will welcome reconciliation, what of those with the siege mentality who either refuse to reconcile or do reconcile while still harboring the same mentality? Just a glance at the FAQs on the official sspx website reveals many shocking positions against the modern Church, Pope John Paul II, the Catechism, and the Missal of Pope Paul VI. How does one reconcile what was once such an extreme position?
You certainly seem to have an agenda at proving that the SSPX is in schism… which seems odd, given the fact that right now we are all trying to celebrate the reconciliation of the SSPX and Rome. Older brother syndrome?I’m the OP. Please see Post 44 here, where I posted up Apologists’ answers about the schismatic state on SSPX
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9198034&postcount=44
No offence was meant, but the evidence is in the text. I’m not picking any words other than what people with more experience than me used.
And I do happen to agree with you that the future looks very dark, given the state of the Church and the world, the falling Church attendance rates, the decline in vocations, the government stepping on the Church’s rights and so on.
Needless to say many Catholics of that generation were the architects and greatest proponents of those changes, but let’s leave that aside and consider the situation of those who were shocked and alienated by the reforms.I rarely post on this side of the forum anymore but the attitude of the OP unnerved me and I feel, for my parents sake, I must defend.
I don’t know how old the author of the OP is or if he even remembers the changes that took place in CC during the 1960s. Most Catholics born after 1970 have no idea what the Church in America looked like prior to Vatican 2. The sweeping cultural and societal changes that came with it overpowered a generation.
Try to imagine this.
Let’s step into a time machine and go back to the late 1950s-1970s.
You grew up going to a Latin Mass, you observed Holy Days, your family and local parish were culturally Catholic. As you get older, as with many people, the cares of youth draw you away. You’re still Catholic…but its a lot easier to sleep in on Sunday morning. You neglect the Church. No matter, the old Homestead will always be there.
A few years go on, you’re married now and kids start coming. You have them Baptized because we are all Catholics.
You see what is happening in the culture around you. But you can always count on the Church being there. NOTHING will ever change with that. It’s home. Your heritage is there. It will be waiting for you when you come back.
Time goes on, the kids are getting older.The Holy Spirit reminds you that you need to return to Mass, You hear its in English now, well, that makes sense, Never did understand that Latin anyway.
You walk into the parish you have negleted over the years…and you don’t recognize it.
The Tabernacle has been moved to a little room in the back of the church.
A table has replaced the Altar.
The beautiful statues of Mary and the Saints have been replaced with wooden monstrosities that cannot even be identified by the priest (knew of this personally).
The Mass is in English, the priest is now facing the people instead of with the people toward the Tabernacle (which isn’t there anyway).
Altar rails have been pulled out.
Communion is now by standing. Communion is now distributed by Eucharistic ministers along with the priest.
The organ and choir have been replaced by a “folk band”.
Nuns no longer wear habits.
Priests are seen in the supermarket wearing polo shirts.
You expect to hear homilies on Catholics remaining steadfast in the morality they were raised in.
But now all they hear is the “brotherhood of man”
When they questioned the changes they were told (sometimes with words sometimes without words) to sit down, shut up, and deal with it.
You’re the older generation, we’re the younger, we know best.
Back to 2012.
That is how it felt for my parents generation. I was born in 1961, so I got the tail end of it.
They did one of three things:
They stopped going to Mass.
They grit their teeth and endured it.
They found a Latin Mass somewhere.
Now I am not giving an opinion on any of those changes (I have them, beleive me). I’m just showing you how my parents generation felt about the changes.
And that cannot be easily explained away or dodged,
So keep that in mind when you use words like ‘schismatic’ and ‘are they Catholic now’?.
They NEVER CEASED being Catholic.
I will stop there…
Except to ask that we all pray because the Church is entering a period of history that looks very dark.
Maybe its time to put away our Canon law books and pick up our Rosaries.
While I agree with your post I find it hard to believe that the sspx and the Holy See can reach a consensus when the society holds such positions:In answer to the bolded…The best way is to recognize that things can change. That once the various groups in a discussion get their issues on the table, level heads can prevail. From this, serious discussion can unfold and ultimately a consensus can be reached. Note that I say “consensus” not “compromise”.
While compromise can certainly be a part of the process, the aim must always be consensus. In that way you avoid most of the problems associated with people such as you mention above…“harboring the same mentality”.
Think back to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. After the council had rendered it’s decision, it’s entirely possible that there were those among the judaizers who “still harbored the same mentality”…But the decision of the Holy Spirit, in the Council of the Church stood.
Peace
James
No, I was simply answering back everyone who insisted to me that I was using the wrong word. They were getting insulted by my use of that word, and I’m trying to show that it isn’t unjustified.You certainly seem to have an agenda at proving that the SSPX is in schism… which seems odd, given the fact that right now we are all trying to celebrate the reconciliation of the SSPX and Rome. Older brother syndrome?
- PAX
They are not in communion at this time. Although most of, if not all of the members are at least lay catholics. This is more about offical status of the community. Although this is not a fair example, I’ll use this as you claim you don’t understand. Let’s say you and all your catholic friends get together and start meeting and with some priests you begin your own group. You pick out a name, a goal, everything. Well that group still is suppose to be approved. Depending a number of factors, it is either approved by a congregation, by a bishop, or by a arch bishop, or by a cardinal or by the Pope. Typically, a bishop can approve a number of groups to a certain status. But this particular group, SSPX, is very large, and expands beyond diocese, and nations. It is large enough that it now must be approved by the Pope. In order for the Pope to approve these things there is usually some form of discussion between it’s head, a Bishop, and the Vatican. The Bishop is a real catholic bishop, and the members are real catholic laity. There is some discussion about some of the ordained within the SSPX. Most of this information we are receiving now seems to be originated by SSPX advocates, and confirmed by anonymous sources in the Vatican. The Vatican, specially Pope Benedict, desires to prevent a schism of the membership and seems to have been fairly working in good faith towards a goal of unity.No I don’t. I really meant that, canonically, does it mean they’re in communion with now or not? I don’t understand how it works.
That would be wonderful! But I’m not holding my breath.I’m sad to see this thread - started so that we could rejoice seems to be turning into just another thread of argument…
Would all parties agree to simply STOP and let those charged with dealing these matters do their jobs???
Peace
James
Yes, thank you James.I’m sad to see this thread - started so that we could rejoice seems to be turning into just another thread of argument…
Would all parties agree to simply STOP and let those charged with dealing these matters do their jobs???
Peace
James
I appreciate you pointing out that this sentence was counter-productive. Thank you for correcting me.The Bolded section is Absolutely correct…However, my dear floresco - if you are not picking a fight, I’d recommend not including the last sentence…Unless of course I missed the post where PazzoGrande actually made the verbatim statement that you placed in quotation marks.
Like you , I’m not picking a fight, just suggesting.
Then let me suggest - in all charity and especially since this is a very touchy subject - that you carry a very profound responsibility to read and to post with utmost care, clarity and tact. To promote the times that advance the discussion on how the process works and to downplay - and even ignore - anything that does not further the very specific topic of how glad we all are to hear the news, to learn the various steps in the process.Yes, thank you James.
I also started this thread to understand how the process works. I hoped we could use this to share our knowledge about the process now, which is why I asked if it means they are in Communion with us now. I was trying to learn in good faith.
I apologize. I posted in anger and irritation and I was wrong to do so. While telling you that it important to express oneself tactfully, I was not tactful at all. Perhaps you can learn from my bad example that the way we express ourselves is very important.My problem was the user was *not *being civil.
Apology accepted.I apologize. I posted in anger and irritation and I was wrong to do so. While telling you that it important to express oneself tactfully, I was not tactful at all. Perhaps you can learn from my bad example that the way we express ourselves is very important.