C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Today is not the 60s
Anyway, I just shared an opinion. People I know is not a valid statistical population.
- Status
Anyway, I just shared an opinion. People I know is not a valid statistical population.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Thanks Bro. JR. My question of course was more from the perspective of the Traditional Mass and those whom we look to as bearers of tradition. But thanks for the reminder that we do lose good priests and bishops if the schism does happen.
C
ChadS
Guest
I think that if the EF is going to continue and grow and continue to attract more attendees then we should expect some tinkering with some of the prayers and also seeing recently canonized saints added to the calendar in the EF. I would think there would have to be some effort to make the calendars coincide with each other so they don’t seem to be worlds apart.
ChadS
P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe not but here is the actual interview:If this story is accurate then it seems the reunification of the SSPX is not going to happen anytime soon.
sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay1.htm
W
white_sheep
Guest
Was this a rhetorical statement? If a story about the Church comes out in the media, particularly the British media, it is not accurate, ever.If this story is accurate then it seems the reunification of the SSPX is not going to happen anytime soon.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
I also heard of more than a few “regular” priests do the same…
P
ProVobis
Guest
Like there are no problems with the translations today? Vernacular seems to work well in theory and you’ll always get tons of support on that, but when they start quibbling on whether it should be “the many” rather than “many,” something definitely went wrong and they need to take a step back. But we digress.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I think we should stick with things that someone actually said. The conclusions the press draw are wildly speculative and often not based in reality.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Step back to Latin? Such a move will decimate the population of the Roman Catholic Church. There are already many who are hanging by a thread, this will only cut them off and lead them to other denominations.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I never understood why a religious society of priests needed its own bishops to begin with. A religious superior is the ordinary for his community and requests a bishop to ordain the men of his community. If a bishop refuses he goes to another bishop.
Also most (if not all) religious communities are ruled by a superior and constitutions that the members of that community vote on.
So my question (which maybe should be another thread) is this, did the SSPX wish to have bishops so that the members would not have a say in who is in charge of the community?
The FSSP and the Institute of Christ King Sovereign Priest (can’t recall their initials) seem to be running fine with out a bishop to head them.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is another issue here. The SSPX are not religious. They are a priestly society .
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
And that kind of out right political statement can make a Church lose its tax exempt status.
W
white_sheep
Guest
It’s a moral statement. Supporting pro-abortion politicians is a sin and should be confessed prior to reception of the Eucharist.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
How so? Unless you support a politician specifically for their immoral stances. But what if its for another reason?
J
JReducation
Guest
Be very careful. That’s not the official teaching in Evangelium Vitae. The teaching is that one may not support a pro-abortion politician, if there is a choice between one who is and one who is not.
The other part of this is that when you have two pro-abortion politicians, you must support that one who shows the greater restraint.
There is no teaching that says that voting for a pro-abortion politician is a sin. If that were the case and you only had two pro-abortion politicians to choose from, you would be sinning no matter which way you vote.
To vote for someone, one must choose the greater good. To choose the lesser good is sinful. The Church can tell us how to vote, but not whom to vote for. That is illegal The Church is bound to comply with legitimate law and disregard ilegitimate law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You’re probably right. The general population freaks out when told they have to take a math or science class in order to graduate. Even English grammar is hardly taught anymore. No wonder reading, math, and science scores are on the decline.
Interesting that SAT scores improve with the study of Latin, though.
bolchazy.com/al/latadv.htm
P
ProVobis
Guest
And were legitimately set up by Pope Paul in 1970, albeit on a 6-yr basis.
J
JReducation
Guest
I also think that the pro-Latin group sometimes leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. They don’t know how to promote the use of Latin.
I remember when we (Franciscans) went back to Latin. There was no compaigning. No one ever said, “It’s the official language of the Catholic Church”. No one ever said, “It’s the language of the angels.” Nor did anyone say, “We pray better in Latin.”
It was introduced very easily, someone simply said, “Can we do this, just once?” The friars did it. They decided to try it again. Then again. Gradually, it started to get popular and more houses were using it. Do all of us use it? No. I don’t. Do all of us know it? Yeppers. We’re all fluent readers and translators. But it has always been taught as a requirement for studying ancient writings. None of the pius jargon that we read on these threads was ever thrown around in friaries. In other words, the selling point has always been that it’s practical to study it. Then later, it became something interesting to try to do again. Now, no one has a problem with it. Some of us do it and some of us don’t.
Those of us who do not use it to pray are not upset when we visit a house that uses it. We simply borrow a breviary and pray along. Those who live in houses where they pray in Latin, don’t fret when they visit a house that prays in the vernacular. They borrow a breviary and pray along.
When you get transferred, you go with whatever the house does. It’s that easy, because it’s not an emotional issue. Praying in Latin is a matter of preference, not a duty. Learning it for academic reasons is a duty that is practical.
I just wish that we would simply approach this in a very practical manner and take the emotional element out of the discussion. The conversation would flow more smoothly. Just my two cents.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
opusaug
Guest
I disagree with the assumption that leads there, if not the conclusion.
I for one would like to see an optional “third way” beyond the OF and the EF - not the EF in the vernacular as was suggested, but the OF in Latin.
As a child of the '70s who only saw his first TLM under SP, I find the experience a bit of a let-down. I actually prefer ad orientam and the Latin (though I don’t understand much). But I’m too much a product of my generation to feel comfortable with the kind of quiet participation required by the EF.
I like the form of the OF, with three readings and audible prayers throughout. But the lack of reverence and the inevitable folksy music drives me to distraction. Many say there’s no reason you can’t have holy, reverential masses in the OF as it is, and I agree, but the temptation to relax, innovate the Eucharistic prayers, and play Glory and Praise music seems too hard to resist for most of today’s priests and music directors.
The OF in Latin with chant, allowing for vernacular at the readings, seems like the best of both worlds - and by its nature would promote the best and discourage the worst of both forms. If only I knew of any priest or parish that did this! Just as we’ve seen a surge in devotion via the EF, I think many of us would choose this if given the opportunity - at least as many as choose the EF now.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is no question that they are a legitimate society. What they are not is consecrated men. They are a Secular Clerical Society of Apostolic Life. That’s a fairly new concept. The first to be established were the Maryknoll. Then came Missionhurst. Later there were a few diocesan societies. Finally, Vatican II decided that there had to be a new classification for secular priests who were part of a society of common life, but maintained their secular status. Paul VI came up with Societies of Apostolic Life. Some are clerical, some are lay, some are mixed.
The difference between them and institutes of consecrated life are several major ones.
- They are not consecated men or women.
- They may leave at any time without permission and without sinning.
- They are not bound by poverty, but only common sharing, meaning that they live in community.
- They do not make vows of chastity. They make a promise of celibacy. Therefore, they are not bound to each other as brothers, as is the case of those who vow chastity in an order.
What happens is that if they leave or are dismissed, they must find a bishop who will receive them or they must become postulants in a religious community and start from the bottom up again. Obviously, they don’t have to be ordained. But they have to go through the entire formation process: postulant, novice, temproary vows and final. This is usually six to ten years. It depends on the formation team. That’s why few secular priests join religious communities, though some do. St. John Neumann did. He went through eigh-years of religious formation to become a Redemptorist religious. He had already gone through six-years of seminary to be a priest. They say that he was a good student too.
That’s the solution to this whole problem. We persuade the priests of the SSPX to become monks, friars or clerks regular in some religious order or congregation of their choice. That idea would go over like a lead balloon.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status