What is the SSPX

[Portrait]

Explain this, please. And explain we it “might be described” as such.

• The scandals were reported in the post V2 era, but some of the sexual abuse took place before the council and the promulgation of the Ordinary Form. Explain how you reconcile this, please.
• Canon Law states that women can be readers and alter servers. Do you feel that Canon Law, and the one who is the head interpreter of Canon Law, are not valid?
• Some Orders were having empty seminaries before V2 and the Ordinary Form. Also, there are shortages in some areas, a surplus in others.
• Shuttered parishes and a lack of attendance may have to do with society’s stance on several Church issues, such as pro-life ones. The man who promulgated the Ordinal Form also wrote Humanae Vitae. I am of the belief that people still would have left the Church regardless of the OF, as they would have likely been uncomfortable with HV.

Innovations like moving the Tabernacle to the middle of the Church? Using the Franciscan missal as the base for the Mass now known as the Extraordinary Form? “Innovations” have happened throughout the history of the Church. I guess one needs to look at them with rose coloured glasses first to see what’s going on. I mean, you can’t honestly believe that the “Latin Mass” was free from any abuses at all.

Dear Melchior,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.

As a consquence of the trail blazed by Vatican II, there has appeared a novus ordo mindset. This is not only connected with the new Mass, but is also about being earthbound and being very happy to imbibe as much of the worldly spirit as is possible and yet remain a Catholic in good standing. Thus, for example, as these boards bear ample testimony, many post-Vatican II neo-Catholics have adopted the accessories of this ‘Catholicism Lite’, such as that debased sensory material known as rock/pop music and immodest styles of attire (e.g. mini-skirt and bikini).

Traditionalists are not contending for some ‘immobilist’ position where nothing in the Church may ever change and that the Church must remain frozen in time. That is, I think, a gross caricature of what traditionalists actually believe. Traditionalist Catholics, being Catholics, recognize and embrace legitimate change through the gradual growth in content of ecclesiastical tradition. Yet the neo-Catholics maintain that there was nothing terribly amiss in Paul VI’s *de facto *abolition of the received and approved traditional rite of Mass and his revision of the entire liturgy by committee!

The Church had never before seen, prior to Vatican II, the abrupt introduction of innumerable ecclesiastical novelties in virtually every area of the Church’s life. That some of these novelties were given official approval surely does not make them any less novelties?

Sorry, dear friend, but I do not follow your point regarding sexual abuse occuring prior to Vatican II but it only being reported in the post-Vatican II period. What is there to be “reconciled”? Can you clarify please?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Closing schools was taking place prior to V-II and had nothing to do with the Council or its teachings. My heart was broken when I tried desperately to have my children enrolled. The problem was lack of vocations - no nuns to teach the students at a minimal cost for education… Lay teachers were commanding salaries that could not withstand the budgets of parishes. They closed when they could no longer afford to pay these salaries. Being parochial, there was no state aid, as with public schools, and the tuition was escalating to cover these salaries. Families just couldn’t keep up with the high cost and enrolled their children in public schools.

Dropping enrollments, high tuition, lack of vocations, no state aid - multiple factors that were not connected with V-II in any way.

Dear Sirach2,

Cordial greetings and a very good day, dear friend.

Whilst I cannot speak for schools, it is an emprical fact, demonstrated by every available statistic, that the postconciliar liturgical reform and the commencement of programmatic “ecumenism” and “dialogue” were followed immediately by precipitous declines in the number of priests, the number of new ordinations, the number of seminarians, the number of baptisms, and the percentage of Catholics attending Mass. All of which cannot be attributed to coincidence and social change.

In the immediate aftermath of the Council, an astounding 50,000 priests defected. In 1997 there were fewer baptisms in the US and UK than there were in 1970.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Melchior_1]

In the immediate aftermath of the Council, an astounding 50,000 priests defected. In 1997 there were fewer baptisms in the US and UK than there were in 1970.

You don’t suppose some of the defections were caused by Vatican II not bending to the whims of society at the time, nor relaxing some of the disciplines She holds? I recall one such example being given in one of Karl Keating’s books about a seminarian who expected celibacy to be revoked at V2. It wasn’t, so he left.

 

[Indyann]

“Neo-Catholic” is a term generally used by a certain group of self-proclaimed traditional Catholics, that do not accept all the teachings of the Church, to describe those traditional Catholics that do.

Excellent definition! Add, usually used in a perjorative manner.

 

[Sirach2]

Does anyone else find this term “neo-catholic” offensive? If member used the term “rad-trad”, it would be edited for certain. I see a good bit of bantering offensive labels in this forum to disparage those who have lawful preferences other than the traditional mass.

 

[Portrait]

You don’t suppose some of the defections were caused by Vatican II not bending to the whims of society at the time, nor relaxing some of the disciplines She holds? I recall one such example being given in one of Karl Keating’s books about a seminarian who expected celibacy to be revoked at V2. It wasn’t, so he left.

Dear Melchior,

Hello again and thank you for your response.

Indeed, I would not deny that some of the defections were for the reasons you state, but only a very small percentage. The vast majority immediately followed hot on the heels of the novelties introduced by VII and this is not the fallacy of post ergo propter hoc (Lit. “after this, therefore because of this”), but rather an inference of cause and effect virtually compelled by the available evidence.

To have expected celibacy to be rescinded was, I feel, a little bit of wishful thinking on the part of that seminarian, even when allowance is made for the seismic and radical changes of VII.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Melchior_1]

Indeed, I would not deny that some of the defections were for the reasons you state, but only a very small percentage. The vast majority immediately followed hot on the heels of the novelties introduced by VII and this is not the fallacy of post ergo propter hoc (Lit. “after this, therefore because of this”), but rather an inference of cause and effect virtually compelled by the available evidence.

Facts, please. Unbiased facts from reputable sites, if you don’t mind.

 

[Portrait]

Does anyone else find this term “neo-catholic” offensive? If any one of us used the term “rad-trad”, it would be edited for certain.

Dear Sirach2,

Hello again, dear friend.

Are you sure that you are not being a tad oversensitive when you suggest that the apellation “neo-Catholic” might be offensive? It is merely a convenient collective designation for those who enthusiastically embrace the ‘new’ Mass and the novelties of Vatican II, in contradistinction to those traditional Catholics who do not share the new order or its radical vision.

Indeed, I would freely acknowledge that the lively faith of many who would fit the description ‘neo-Catholic’, puts to shame many of those who proudly call themselves traditionalists. Many individual neo-Catholics are undeniably pious and thoroughgoing men and some have made a marvelous contribution in the field of apologetics.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Facts, please. Unbiased facts from reputable sites, if you don’t mind.

Dear Mechior,

Hello again, dear friend.

As requested, here are some sources to corroborate the overwhelming evidence of which I spoke:

See, for example, statistical analysis of the priesthood in* L ’ Osservatore Romano,* 13/20 August 1997.

“The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators”, The Latin Mass, Winter 2000, presenting extensive data from the Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church and other standard reference works.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Sirach2]

Portrait:

Melchior:

Facts, please. Unbiased facts from reputable sites, if you don’t mind.

See, for example, statistical analysis of the priesthood in* L ’ Osservatore Romano,* 13/20 August 1997.

“The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators”, The Latin Mass, Winter 2000, presenting extensive data from the Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of the Church and other standard reference works.

He asked for facts from reputable sites, Portrait. You simply cut and pasted from this site, which is hardly reputable; in fact, I wouldn’t give it the time of day, to be honest. At first, though I suspected you used this article when you quoted about the 50,000 priests and the number of baptisms, you pulled the exact footnote #1 from this same site, minus the information Melchior requested.

Can you pull the exact quote from these referenced sources, rather than from a disreptutable website? As of now, it is only second-hand hearsay.

 

[PaulinVA]

Many traditionalist’s, like myself, are firmly of the opinion that the proconciliar novelties, especially the new liturgy and the new ecumenism, have been the occasion of grave harm to the Church, as demonstrated by the overwhelming empirical evidence of drastic ecclesial decline in almost every area immediately following the appearance of said novelties. Thus, for example, the imposition of the new Mass was followed forthwith by serious decline in Mass attendance, the abandonment of attempts to convert Protestants in favour of “ecumenical dialogue” by a drastic decline in conversions. Surely to attribute these unhappy developments to mere “coincidence” and or to the complex interplay of other factors is untenable, if not riddiculous.

To discount what was happening in the world during the sixties and seventies as having no effect on Mass-going Catholics is what is ridiculous.

You have to remember that the defections during the sixties were people who were catechized in the fifties, during the traditionalists’ “golden years of the Church”. So, actually, the people who left immediately at the introduction of your so-called novelties apparently had been given no foundation in the faith during the preconcilliar period. Ooops.

 

[ProVobis]

I recall one such example being given in one of Karl Keating’s books about a seminarian who expected celibacy to be revoked at V2. It wasn’t, so he left.

FWIW, I don’t think it takes a council to revoke traditional or contemporary practices. Maybe people got the wrong idea about the purpose of the council?

 

[TrueLight]

Does anyone else find this term “neo-catholic” offensive? If member used the term “rad-trad”, it would be edited for certain. I see a good bit of bantering offensive labels in this forum to disparage those who have lawful preferences other than the traditional mass.

I like rad-trad. In fact, by the time I convert, I probably will be just that.

 

[Portrait]

He asked for facts from reputable sites, Portrait. You simply cut and pasted from this site, which is hardly reputable; in fact, I wouldn’t give it the time of day, to be honest. At first, though I suspected you used this article when you quoted about the 50,000 priests and the number of baptisms, you pulled the exact footnote #1 from this same site, minus the information Melchior requested.

Can you pull the exact quote from these referenced sources, rather than from a disreptutable website? As of now, it is only second-hand hearsay.

Dear Sirach2,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above.

Please tell me, dear friend, why you think that site is so disreputable and unsound? Are you making assumptions based soley upon the the name of the site rather than its content? Moreover, is not conceivably possible that they derived the statistics from the wholly reliable sources which I cited?

Those sources I referenced can, I am quite certain, be verified by simply consulting them.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Sirach2]

Portrait:

Are you making assumptions based soley upon the the name of the site rather than its content? Moreover, is not conceivably possible that they derived the statistics from the wholly reliable sources which I cited?

It is really clear after scanning that article where you obtained some of your radical disparagement toward the new mass. The content is largely opinionated, full of error, and gives no quotations whatsoever other than a few footnotes, as though the writer is infallibly claiming gospel certitude.

I trust you realize how easy it is to read a reference and take a line out of context to promote falsehood. Without the source, it is anybody’s wild guess what the author meant to say. You yourself are repeating secondhand hearsay without a shred of evidence that what you speak is true, telling us to consult the references. Have YOU looked it up prior to presenting your “facts” to our members here? Why did you not say that you were quoting someone else’s material?
I believe it’s called plagiarism.

 

[Portrait]

To discount what was happening in the world during the sixties and seventies as having no effect on Mass-going Catholics is what is ridiculous.

You have to remember that the defections during the sixties were people who were catechized in the fifties, during the traditionalists’ “golden years of the Church”. So, actually, the people who left immediately at the introduction of your so-called novelties apparently had been given no foundation in the faith during the preconcilliar period. Ooops.

Dear PaulinVA,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

What I do think is that the moral and cultural revolution of the Sixties, that decade of decadence, impacted and inflittrated Holy Mother Church a great deal more than some are willing to concede. The problem was that the Council, by its ‘opening up to the world’, tended to foster a mindset that was eager to embrace as much of the spirit of the age as is possible. Naturally, such a milieu is extremely favourable to irreverent ‘clown masses’, semi-nude papal masses and masses that have exchanged the organ and sacred music for guitars and the singing of shallow repetitive ditties that are not cunducive to worship or contemplation of the Blessed Sacrament. Many of us believe that it was this assimilation of the spirit of the world, and the ensuing mounting troubles, that drove many of the faithful away from Holy Mother Church; suddenly their beloved Church had been snatched from them overnight and they, quite understandably, felt disinfranchised of their patrimony. In conscience, they just could not stomach these radical changes and felt like strangers in their own parishes as trendy priests introduced the new ‘Catholicism Lite’. No wonder many could no longer tarry!

It was because they were “catechized in the fifties”, and therefore well-grounded in their holy religion, that they were alert to the present dangers and the innovation of novelty. Yes, I sincerely believe that Vatican II paved the way for many of the troubles that now beset the global Church and undermine its mission to the non-christian world.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

It is really clear after scanning that article where you obtained some of your radical disparagement toward the new mass. The content is largely opinionated, full of error, and gives no quotations whatsoever other than a few footnotes, as though the writer is infallibly claiming gospel certitude.

I trust you realize how easy it is to read a reference and take a line out of context to promote falsehood. Without the source, it is anybody’s wild guess what the author meant to say. You yourself are repeating secondhand hearsay without a shred of evidence that what you speak is true, telling us to consult the references. Have YOU looked it up prior to presenting your “facts” to our members here? Why did you not say that you were quoting someone else’s material?
I believe it’s called plagiarism.

Dear Sirach2,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Forgive me, dear friend, but your remarks above sound like subjective and biased opinion, because you vehemently demur from the stance that they take.

Neverthless, they do give references in a footnote to a statistical analysis of the priesthood in L ’ Osservatore Romano, 13/20 August 1997; “The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators”,* The* Latin Mass, Winter 2000, presenting extensive data from the Vatican’s Statistical Yearbook of **the Church.. These sources should be checked as they are wholly reliable. Even if the site is biased and unsound, that does not mean that these references are. Indeed, L ’ Osservatore Romano is continually appealed to by neo-Catholics to support such things as rock music and its performers, thus I would hardly call that biased in favour of traditionalism.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PaulinVA]

Portrait, your posts 77 and 93 directly contradict each other.

So, were the people well catechized in the fifties and therefore aware of and resisted the “novelties”, or did they leave the Church in droves and cause Mass attendance to drop?

Did the social upheavals of the sixties affect Church-going people or not? You’ve said both things.

 

[Sirach2]

Portrait:

Forgive me, dear friend, but your remarks above sound like subjective and biased opinion, because you vehemently demur from the stance that they take.

If there is any “demuring” to notice, it would be from the article’s calumniating comments about Cardinal Ratzinger and other false, disparaging remarks about the Church. Who truly wears the robe of bias here? Every post you submit evidences your disdain for V-II, the OF liturgy, and the authority of the Church. Tell, me, Portrait, are you a member of SSPX?

If the references are so easy to find, then present them, please. Even if they prove to be true census data, it does not follow that the cause is in accord with your opinion. You may believe your truth, but others do not necessarily agree with you. It would be good to qualify these statements as your opinion, rather than as the factual reality of what is happening within the Church. Your picture is painted with a very broad and biased brush.

 

[Sirach2]

Portrait:

Are you sure that you are not being a tad oversensitive when you suggest that the apellation “neo-Catholic” might be offensive? It is merely a convenient collective designation for those who enthusiastically embrace the ‘new’ Mass and the novelties of Vatican II,

Those who enthusiastically embrace the OF mass are probably 90% of Catholics, most of whom love the Church and its liturgy, and most of whom give filial religious assent to the teachings of Vatican II. Yes, it is offensive to be labeled “neo” anything, for the connotation is demeaning.