B
Boulder257
Guest
That is a really dissapointing statement. Things appeared so promising at one point and now this.
- Status
M
Mike30
Guest
My question would be if the statement is true in what itpresents as fact. If there is truth in it, then there could be cause for concern. If not, then it easily could and should be laid to rest.
B
Boulder257
Guest
It’s from the SSPX and on their website. Here is a link to the entire article, published by them - sspx.org/miscellaneous/will_pope_francis_be_able_to_rebuild_the_church_5-8-2013.htm
B
Boulder257
Guest
Like everonye else, I ask you to give me one example of anyone here supporting or embracing clown masses. This argument is really getting ridiculous. These clown masses have happened a handful of times and yet some people are willing to use these as their argument for complete disobedience to the Pope and the Church. I dont even know anyone who has actually been to a clown mass. Instead, they see a video on Youtube and then support schismatic acts because of it. It’s a dead argument that’s been beaten enough times and it’s not even a good argument at that!
C
clem456
Guest
I get a bad haircut every Easter, maybe that’s the clown thing people refer to.
[/quote]
M
Mike30
Guest
I think that people use the term clown Mass to describe any sort of Mass that steps outside of liturgical boundaries and in essence becomes the Priests or the Liturgical committees own personal; plaything. Kind of a generic all encompassing term.
[/quote]
C
clem456
Guest
Yes, a prejudicial sweeping generalization using loaded language.
M
Mike30
Guest
If you have Masses that step outside the bounds of Liturgical norms, then perhaps prejudicial language is appropriate to get people to realize what is going on. You certainly could or should not speak of such events in glowing, approving, conciliatory terms.
C
clem456
Guest
Since I’m not a liturgist or theologist or even a plumber, I defer to you on this issue. But it seems to me that prejudicial language should be a no brainer that even I can understand is not a good idea, and should not be referred to in “approving, conciliatory terms”.
Differo fratrem.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Very disappointing
that was just a short extract from a lengthy article on their website.Such a rude way to talk about the Holy Father.“Concerning the exponential rise of blasphemy in our world, Cardinal Bergoglio revealed more than once his dislike for confrontations over or demonstrations against blasphemous expositions. Is it not akin to a politician who likes to get along with everyone and will ask for peace rather than provoke a confrontation by boldly proclaiming the truth of the moral law?”
"Unlike his predecessor, but in the footsteps of John Paul II, the Pope seems happy to oblige a media ever ready to turn him into a superstar. Yet this ready-made “Pope of the humble and the poor” could in reality be promoting not personal humility but humiliation of the Church and denial of the rights of Christ. As Bishop Fellay explains in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors:
Works of charity done for the poor, the needy, the infirm, and the sick have always been a true concern for the Church, and we must not excuse ourselves from it, but if it becomes merely man-centered philanthropy, then the Church is no longer carrying out her mission, she is no longer leading souls to God, which can really be done only by supernatural means: faith, hope, charity and grace… Because if people sin for want of that denunciation, they are damned for eternity. The Church’s reason for being is to save them and to help them avoid the misfortune of their eternal perdition.
(Just last week Fr Rostand was in the press, denying that this statement of Bishop Fellay’s was a criticizm of the Pope
)
L
Lormar
Guest
Always keeping their faithful on the edge with fear of what might happen. Something I have noticed lately about traditionals outside the Church - they are starting to sound dated. The Church has and is moving on, but they are still stuck in their rut.
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
…with a knife in their gut…but they are still stuck in their rut.
O
otjm
Guest
Then what they are doing is in essence lying. They are making a statement that is not reflective of the facts when they know well and good that it is not.
D
Dee_S
Guest
The SSPX should stop “suggesting” negative attributes against the Holy Father. But then again, its their *modus operandi *to try to discredit each new Pope as quickly as possible so as to retain their ‘faithful’ in a state of religious paranoia. Some of their statements here are not “suggestions” they are just plain insults.
"…may we suggest to our readers some thoughts about his ecclesiastical career and how we might obtain insights into his pontificate? If his work at the head of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires (Argentina) is any indication of the future, it is difficult, perhaps even presumptuous, to be hopeful. Very conscious of the dilapidated state of his clergy, ** he was unable to improve vocations, seminary training, or continuing formation. Never has the seminary of Buenos Aires had as few seminarians as today.[2] The liturgies presided over by the “Cardinal of the Poor” have been poor in tradition, dignity, and sacrality. With Pope Francis we appear to be on the brink of a return to the bizarre, secular, and even sacrilegious liturgies of Paul VI’s and John Paul II’s pontificates**, complete with raucous singing, dancing, and lack of care for the consecrated sacred species. Liturgies[3] as Pope Francis was accustomed to perform as cardinal would be a far cry from Benedict XVI’s efforts to restore some of the dignity worthy of the worship of God.[4]
O
otjm
Guest
No, prejudicial language is not appropriate. Truth is appropriate. Truth does not require anything in “glowing, approving, conciliatory terms”. If one wants to object about a parish that does not have kneelers and the congregation stands during the consecration, it would be an outright lie to call that a “clown Mass”. Likewise, if for some reason the priest decided to crack some jokes during the homily, that would not make it a clown Mass.
One makes people realize what is going on by accurate reporting, not by lying.
And the last time I looked, no one was calling accurate reporting of liturgical abuses “glowing, approving, (or the use of ) conciliatory terms”.
D
Dee_S
Guest
:thumbsup:That they are. It’s amazing how they can say and believe the same tired story year in year out.Always keeping their faithful on the edge with fear of what might happen. Something I have noticed lately about traditionals outside the Church - they are starting to sound dated. The Church has and is moving on, but they are still stuck in their rut.
The Church will always move on, thanks to the Holy Spirit who knows what we need, even when we don’t know ourselves.
I can only repeat…
.Ubi Petrus, Ubi Ecclesia - outside of which salvation is not guaranteed.
O
otjm
Guest
I would suggest that the most recent statements are not that different from what the SSPX have been saying for the last 40 or so years.
I understand that people want them to reconcile and be regularized. That is what every Pope (with the possible exception of John Paul 1, who was around for such a short time that there was not time for significant (name removed by moderator)ut) back to and including Paul 6th has tried to do. It is simple Christian Charity to pray for reconciliation.
Having read a number of statements of Bishop Fellay over the years, I have found him to be a very bright and articulate writer, and exceedingly good at playing a cat-and-mouse game all along. Perhaps some may consider me cynical, but everything I have seen in the last several years has appeared hedged, so I find no surprise that we are back to the same process and same comments.
I can’t speak to his desire to reconcile and whether or not, should things come to a decision on the part of Rome, he might remove himself from the SSPX. However, it seems fairly accurate to say that there are any number of people in the SSPX (and by that I mean to include bishops, priests, and supporting laity) who appear to be seriously more radical than he appears. That certainly seems to be the status, in any event.
It is my suspicion that this is going to result at some point with Rome saying “If you are not in, then you are out” as the status quo from Rome’s view is that they (the SSPX) are in need of direct, serious and specific reconciliation, and the SSPX act as if the authority of Rome has no impact whatsoever on the choices they make, such as ordaining more priests. How long this will continue in the current status is going to depend on Rome’s patience and whether or not they see a need to bring it to resolution.
B
Boulder257
Guest
You may be right. I was only introduced to the situation a few years ago and at that time the indication was that they were close to regularization. Then, it seemed as though the SSPX changed their mind after their general chapter (is that the correct term?). I was hopeful that they would come back into the fold because it makes me sad to see anyone outside of the Church, especially those that should know better.
I fear for them thatyou are correct and eventually it will come down to an ultimatum. I also fear that pride will get in the way of them doing what is right. It’s all just a very sad situation when you realize the state of people’s souls are being affected by personal pride.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
And pride is the greatest of all sins, and the one which god punishes most severely…
M
Mike30
Guest
Actually, the last time I looked , at least on here, there are apparently no or extremely few liturgical abuses anywhere anymore, except for the few that a stray traditionalist may post. And from the reaction they get, hardly anyone really believes them anyway.
Not kneeling because of no kneelers as an abuse?
Thats actually pretty funny when you consider that around the world there are literally thousands of Churches where there are no kneelers and the people kneel anyway. Of course, I have seen people on this forum use the fact that there are no kneelers to justify not kneeling at all. That and saying that the Easterns don’t kneel, so why do we have to.As far as the Priest cracking a joke, I’ve never seen one of those described as a clown mass either, although I suppose that if the Priest made the Mass a stand up comedy session, which by the way is alleged to have happened and still may at a Parish in the northeastern United States where the Priest is apparently a frustrated stand up comedian, it might reasonably be called a clown mass. Or at least a comedian mass:thumbsup:
Accurate reporting is often ridiculed and repudiated by those who have never seen the things that some people have and make greatr claims that they never do, I know that one personally:thumbsup: as it has happened to me. More than once actually. So at times hyperbole may the only way to get peoples attention. That is an unfortunate reality.
Besides that, I said that using prejudicial language is perhaps justified. My opinion. Nothing more. I also said **I think ** that calling certain Masses clown masses **may be **used as a generic term to describe all irreverant Masses… Again, my opinion, not a statement of fact. Just as you are entitled to your opinion, so am I entitled to mine.
- Status