B
BobP123
Guest
- is an extremely serious matter; obedience is not the supreme virtue, but it is a very important means of practicing it even so.
- Status
B
BobP123
Guest
Does that mean no bridge games? Brutal.
B
BobP123
Guest
Maybe someone forgot to tell the bishop that the Methodist had attended one of those SSPX meetings.
R
Robert_Floyd
Guest
After reading the responses in this thread it comes to mind that laypeople aren’t being taught properly or in depth catholic Truths. But first faith and I mean faith in Jesus and all that the creed states that we recite every sunday comes from the Holy Spirit. Then we build on that, our faith increases through trials in our lives, or we can turn our backs on God, it’s a choice we have to make every day, hour, moment even. In study one should read only material that has the imprimatur or if ones faith is strong then other materials to discern some truth there. So having girl altar servers or communion in the hand or married priests are really secondary to our faith. I personally like communion in the hand as it’s awesome to me to hold Jesus. We have been taught also to show respect to the Lord by bowing or kneeling or the sign of the cross before receiving the Lord.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
I would have to read what Bruskewitz would have to say about that.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote=childofmary1143
I would avoid any group who’s status is outside FULL COMMUNION with the Church. It should be noted that group would include the members AS WELL AS ITS CLERGY.
Well childof mary1143–you have stuck your foot in it. In the next sentence you include avoiding the members of the group.Any one protestant does not stop being a member of a group outside “FULL COMMUNION” with the Catholic Church.
I do not stop being Catholic (member of the Church)–when visiting my protestant side of the family.
C
childofmary1143
Guest
To my knowledge, Protestants don’t go around saying that they are Catholic so its a moot point anyway.
Also I never said that I or anyone else isn’t a Catholic when they go to visit a non catholic.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote=childofmary1143
I would avoid any group who’s status is outside FULL COMMUNION with the Church.** It should be noted that group would include the members **AS WELL AS ITS CLERGY.
Quote=childofmary1143
The key word in my last post was “avoid any group”. I would not attend any SSPX mass. I would not attend any SSPX meeting. The same of course applies to SSPV. It doesn’t mean that I don’t talk with non-Catholics.
I did not say they did. I was pointing out that you did an about face-when you said the keyword was avoid any group–when in reality you also made note of stating ----you would avoid the members of said group.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Not even if a relative died and their Mass was being held in the SSPX chapel?
B
BobP123
Guest
Not quite that moot. Forget the Anglican Catholics?
Most others just refer to themselves as Christian, which we should be as well.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I am really looking forward to the day when the SSPX reconcile with Rome. Then all the SSPX haters who keep bashing them here by calling them heretics, protestants, non -Catholics and schismatics will hopefully be a little kinder to them.
It amazes me the charity that is shown to other faiths on these forums, but not to the SSPX who are actually Catholics. Love the separated brethren (formerly known as heretics) but hate the SSPX? Is that how it goes?
B
BobP123
Guest
Wait till they need a priest to say Mass for them or to hear their confessions. They may even call him “Father.”
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
While THE REMNANT sometimes has some good information,
on the whole I find that the publication usually brings me down spiritually. I finally let my subscription lapse.
CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS is another one that brings me down spiritually. Has some good information sometimes, but I find it too hostile to the magisterium in my opinion.
I prefer instead nowadays to read good theological books
like the CATHOLIC FOR A REASON series published by
Emmaus Road press and most of the doctrinal books
published by TAN books and publishers.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
on the whole I find that the publication usually brings me down spiritually. I finally let my subscription lapse.
CATHOLIC FAMILY NEWS is another one that brings me down spiritually. Has some good information sometimes, but I find it too hostile to the magisterium in my opinion.
I prefer instead nowadays to read good theological books
like the CATHOLIC FOR A REASON series published by
Emmaus Road press and most of the doctrinal books
published by TAN books and publishers.
Love,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
C
childofmary1143
Guest
What amazes me is that because I chose not to associate myself with the SSPX I am labelled a hater.
B
BobP123
Guest
Would you prefer basher?
What if we called them something else like STLM? Maybe that “X” in the name suggests an evil rating.
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
I don’t disagree that the bishops of the SSPX have been excommunicated. I don’t disagree that the priests are suspended ad divinis, nor that the laity are warned against adhering to their schism. What I object to is when people here show little charity, love or compassion, understanding or sympathy for them. They are, after all, Catholic. You don’t have to associate yourself with the SSPX to act like a Christian towards them.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
It amazes me the charity that is shown to other faiths on these forums, but not to the SSPX who are actually Catholics. Love the separated brethren (formerly known as heretics) but hate the SSPX? Is that how it goes?
I think the reason the SSPX is treated more severely than today’s protestants and EOs is that most of today’s protestants and EOs have never been in communion with Rome in the first place and are therefore “Material” heretics and schismatics, whereas the SSPX rupture is much more recent and is seen as “Formal” schism.
Doctrinally, the SSPX is certainly Catholic.
The problem I have with them is that the SSPX sets
itself up as the Judge of an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II,
and declares some of V2’s teachings “error” in their publications.
In this they follow the lead of Abp. Lefebvre in his later years.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
I think the reason the SSPX is treated more severely than today’s protestants and EOs is that most of today’s protestants and EOs have never been in communion with Rome in the first place and are therefore “Material” heretics and schismatics, whereas the SSPX rupture is much more recent and is seen as “Formal” schism.
Doctrinally, the SSPX is certainly Catholic.
The problem I have with them is that the SSPX sets
itself up as the Judge of an Ecumenical Council, Vatican II,
and declares some of V2’s teachings “error” in their publications.
In this they follow the lead of Abp. Lefebvre in his later years.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
B
BobP123
Guest
How can this be? Abp. Lefebvre put his signature on those Vatican II documents.
Let’s think about this a little. Is it possible that those Vatican II documents led to unintended consequences and that this was what he objected to? Anyone who reads the documents of Vatican II and compare them to what we have today in the Church has to question a little bit about what’s going on.
But then I don’t know the full story and I doubt if anyone on this forum does either.
But we digress a bit. I’m for reading the Remnant to provide information even if the whole thing sounds too much like a conspiracy plot.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Here is the portion of the post where I wrote:"What traditionalists want, is not just that something not explicitly lead to impiety - but something that will actually lead the faithful to a greater degree of piety. Receiving on the tounge on your knees transmits the faith in its very action…both in the Real Presence and in the special role of the ordained. And this is something that receiving in your hands just doesn’t do - at best it’s neutral in these areas.
Receiving on the hand may not be “actively” leading to impiety, but it doesn’t help piety or transmitting of the faith either. In this battle we are all engaged in - especially nowadays and especially for the younger Catholics - I would think we would take all the help we could get. If it’s in this subtle little distinctly Catholic tradition and it helps - why in the WORLD would we do away with it??? Especially when Vatican II explicitly stated: “Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them…” This indult to allow Communion in the hand, therefore, seems directly contradictory to what was actually called for in the council.
I really wanted to hear your thoughts on what I wrote here. It seems that you hold the notion that *"if traditionalists here are right, then the gates of hell **must *have prevailed" (which we all agree is impossible). Methinks you go to far. Not everything the Church permits is equally good - and some of it is neutral (eh…almost said luke warm or ambiguous
). And not all things “newer” are “better”. And sometimes not teaching something is dangerous.Me too - but I think you go to far with it, trusting prudential decisions on the same leval as one would trust the unchangable truths of the Faith*.* Irenaeus didn’t “trust” the prudential decision of Pope Victor I when he excommunicated the Asiatic catholics over the date of which to celebrate Easter - he thought it was a wrong decision. …Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church.
This severe procedure did not please all the bishops. Irenaeus of Lyons and others wrote to Pope Victor; they blamed his severity, urged him to maintain peace and unity with the bishops of Asia, and to entertain affectionate feelings toward them. …([http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm))
Keep in mind here that neither Irenaeus nor I question a pope’s authority to do such a thing - just the wisdom of doing it.
I just don’t think the NO “leads the faithful to piety” better than the TLM. I don’t see how the removal of, say, the prayers at the foot of the altar leads the faithful more effectively than their presense…let alone how their removal could in any way be “genuinely and certainly required”. This goes to so much of what was cut out, abridged, or “watered down” if you will. It boggles the mind.
It’s not that what is there is “bad” in and of itself, intrinsicly…it’s just that what is *not *there (yet present in the TLM) that is so good!
That’s a pretty broad and abstract statement. It is undeniable that many faithful had their faith shaken with the abrubt and drastic changes in the mass…demonstrated by actual numbers and stats immediately after its introduction:
- Status