The SSPX and Hypocrisy

[aristotle]

No, your proffered conclusion is inaccurate. Hyper-progressivism and hyper-traditionalism lead to the same end – dissent.

Dissent is not always the same, neither in essence, nor in degree, at least by my understanding of the word.

How do you define “dissent”? And how do you understand it to be the sole qualifier of an end? Especially when the two ends are so very different considered objectively (with respect to each other)?

 

[Spiller]

Dissent is not always the same, neither in essence, nor in degree, at least by my understanding of the word.

How do you define “dissent”? And how do you understand it to be the sole qualifier of an end? Especially when the two ends are so very different considered objectively (with respect to each other)?

That’s the whole fallacy…

That somehow dissent in a “traditional manner” is somehow better than dissent in a “progressive manner.” That’s ludicrous.

It gets even worse when some begin to believe that dissent in a “traditional manner” is better than what the Church actually teaches, instructs and/or allows…

 

[aristotle]

That somehow dissent in a “traditional manner” is somehow better than dissent in a “progressive manner.” That’s ludicrous.

Do you have a definition for this word “dissent”? And how does it relate to the end of two prima facia distinct habits (SSPV vs. Progressivism) in such a way that the end, even though it appears distinct in character, is in fact the same?

Show me my error.

 

[Spiller]

Do you have a definition for this word “dissent”? And how does it relate to the end of two prima facia distinct habits (SSPV vs. Progressivism) in such a way that the end, even though it appears distinct in character, is in fact the same?

Show me my error.

The absolute value of distance from what the Church actually teaches or directs. Distance, not direction…

 

[aristotle]

The absolute value of distance from what the Church actually teaches or directs. Distance, not direction…

So doesn’t everyone, save Christ and maybe a very small handful of others, dissent? It must be the case, if one accepts Cardinal Newman’s description of doctrinal development, that the Church is growing into deeper knowledge of what She teaches, such that no one five hundred years ago, much less a thousand or two, accepted exactly what the Church teaches now, or at least a very few. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine would not be on that list.

So maybe it must be a knowing distance. To know that this is what the Church teaches, and to reject it anyway. Is this distance from what the Church teaches infallibly? In terms of dogma? Theology? Discipline? Opinion? Is it acceptable to disagree with the Pope’s opinion? The Pope seems to think so (as was stated in His Holiness’ most recent book “Jesus of Nazareth”).

And it cannot be merely what one Pope has taught, but rather what all have taught organically, as some saints have been credited for standing against the poor decisions of a Pope, using as their defense the Tradition established earlier.

So I am confused about what your definition signifies. And furthermore, I am also confused about why dissent, even as this absolute value, would necessarily qualify two prima facia distinct ends as being essentially and objectively the same, or of the same value, or how it is known, or can be, whether both groups dissent equally.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Here I thought that the SSPV was a joke, turns out they left the SSPX because they thought it was heretical.

There is a joke going around about the SSPI. They keep to the original Mass… IN GREEK!

 

[Spiller]

Here I thought that the SSPV was a joke, turns out they left the SSPX because they thought it was heretical.

There is a joke going around about the SSPI. They keep to the original Mass… IN GREEK!

They might be right…

 

[JKsoren]

The SSPX provides a prime example of just how hypocritical some “traditionalists” can be. They are quick to condemn others whose views do not agree with their own. They are quick to apply labels like “heretic”, “dissident”, etc. to those who do not follow the Church – at least in their eyes.

Yet at the same time they will try to bend over backwards to explain-away the unacceptable conduct of Lefebvre and his minions. Some of the arguments are remarkably offensive, particularly to the papacy.

This absolutely ruins the credibility of said “traditionalists.”

You are correct!

 

[JKsoren]

No, your proffered conclusion is inaccurate. Hyper-progressivism and hyper-traditionalism lead to the same end – dissent.

Actually this is incorrect…the Faith is not reducible to a left/right political spectrum with the “golden mean” in the middle. First of all the political left is liberal/right is “conservative” does not apply to the faith at all, in fact it is not even accurate when you apply it to countries outside of the US! Its an arbitrary label and grossly oversimplified.
Second, there are many practical things in which you can take two extremes and find a golden mean…cowardice opposed to brashness has courage as a mean for instance. But you can’t do this with the supernatural realities of God. Take the extreme of indifference to the faith opposed to “zealotry” and instead follow the mean of “luke warm” where you still go to church but aren’t a zealot! But the lukewarm will be spit out! Thats obviously silly.
Is there a happy middle between liberal and traditionalist catholic? NO! That would be way to simplified…where, for instance, would you place a 3rd dimension like eastern-rite catholics? By definition can they be called Traditionalists? They certainly don’t adhere to the one critical issue for traditionalist Catholics, the Latin mass!
So while it is always more complicated then a ridiculously unhelpful left/right spectrum…it is also far more simple! How about being Faithful to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and its head in Jesus Christ? That would entail living a life is holiness in obedience to legitimate Church authority. We are all called to be just as perfect by the Lord, to unite ourselves to Him who is One. Thus you need not be anything but totally devoted to that one perfect final cause.

 

[ProVobis]

I firmly believe both extremes of the faithful – the ultra-progressives and the ultra-traditionalists which comprised probably 10% of the Church do probably 90% of the damage…

Please refresh me. How did the ultra-traditionalists do damage to the Church again?. It seems that our doctrines have been preserved, thanks to the risks many of those in the trad camps were willing to take during all these years.

But, to be fair, maybe the ultra-progressives did us a favor too. They certainly showed us the way to God is not through mocking Christ’s Church.

 

[Dempsey1919]

This thread was started to provoke arguments.

 

[terillmorris]

Please refresh me. How did the ultra-traditionalists do damage to the Church again?. It seems that our doctrines have been preserved, thanks to the risks many of those in the trad camps were willing to take during all these years.

But, to be fair, maybe the ultra-progressives did us a favor too. They certainly showed us the way to God is not through mocking Christ’s Church.

Traditionalists dont do damage, but Lefebvreists do. They do damage (to themselves and others)because they support the excomunicated, disobiedent, deceased Archbishop, and his movement. The Church has told you not to support them, yet you do it anyway. I dare say it is a sin to support them. A sin of disobiedeince. The Pope has warned the faithful not to do this, and you must obey. If you have reservations (which I dont think you should) about John Paul II’s decision you HAVE to be odedient. GO TO CONFESSION IF YOU SUPPORT THEM, AND CEASE YOUR DISOBEDIENCE.

 

[pnewton]

This thread was started to provoke arguments.

Actually, I think it was more of a continuation of an old argument. I find the whole premise strange. Like hypocracy isn’t a problem within all demographics. There are those in every group that use insults and labels to those who disagree with them. And most of us at some time engage in hypocracy.