C
Cojuanco
Guest
American culture has been like that since the Revolution, at least. It’s one of our less endearing traits sometimes.
- Status
.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Not per se, but many of the things that would get you banned are sins, usually against the Fifth or Eighth Commandments.
J
JReducation
Guest
I was thinking about this and you have a valid point that I had not seen. When people use the Internet to bash, to gossip, to ridicule, to castigate or to question another person’s integrity, such behavior is sinful.
Something else that comes to mind is the rights of the forum owners. They have put this very complicated and helpful site out there for our use and we don’t pay a penny for it. There are no fees of any kind. In reality, what we’re getting is charity. Failure to cooperate with the rules is a violation of justice. We don’t own the forum nor do we pay to use it. What right do we have over the forum?
Your post made me think. Thank you for sharing.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
D
digitalpapist
Guest
Read that post very carefully. Notice how it says “The friends of the SSPX” and not the SSPX itself? It’s referring to a chapel whose ecclesial status is completely unknown, and has no official affiliation with the SSPX. In fact, Father Z makes that exact distinction in the post where you got that document from.
So, not false.
Still True.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
Fr. Z is mistaken here. The PCED has pretty consistently said that one does not fulfill their obligation at an SSPX Mass.
D
digitalpapist
Guest
No they have not.
The general response has been “Legally and technically, you fulfill your Sunday obligation, but we don’t recommend you going”.
The general response has been “Legally and technically, you fulfill your Sunday obligation, but we don’t recommend you going”.
J
JReducation
Guest
Actually, you’re both right. The letter cited above is in response to a specific person with a specific question. If one reads the letter very carefully, only those who attend mass at an SSPX chapel because they have a devotion to the EF are not culpable of sin.
Those who attend mass at the SSPX chapel because they embrace the ideology of the SSPX are objectively culpable of sin, because the SSPX’s ideology has not been justified by the Church. In fact, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have called it schismatic.
A simple example would be the Jones Family. Mr and Mrs Jones travel across town to the SSPX chapel. I come along and ask them why they go there. No sooner have I asked the question when they engage in a rant bashing the OF, their parish, the bishop and anything connected with the OF. As soon as they throw out “novus ordo parish” or “novus ordo church” you know they have embraced a schismatic mindset. They are creating parallel churches. the Remnant church and the Novus Ordo church or an “us vs them” situation.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
No Modern Christian Pop music in mass for one.
J
JReducation
Guest
Around here we use a very simple ruler, if you will. Traditional or traditionalist to us always refers to Francis. Whatever was part of the Franciscan family through the ages is traditional. To be “traditionalist” is to maintain what can be maintained from that tradition. It really has nothing to do with the EF. Quite the contrary. Moving with the liturgical changes in the Church is very much part of Franciscan tradition, because unlike Dominicans, Carmelites, and Carthusians, we never had our own rite. We have always had our own liturgical calendar and certain details of the Roman Missal were never observed, such as the prayers at the foot of the altar, whispering the canon, communion could be either on the tongue or in the hand depending on which province you come from, the final prayers after the blessing and in some provinces they did not prepare the gifts at the altar, but at the cruet table. But these are details that most people never noticed, because people were not as mobile then. They had no point of reference.
- Status