Author Topic: A place for SSPX Catholics??  (Read 6529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Steven

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Reputation: +94/-2
  • Gender: Male
A place for SSPX Catholics??
« on: November 26, 2010, 08:16:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The description of this forum says that is a place for, firstly, SSPX Catholics and secondly other Traditional Catholics . I am seeing a growing hostility on this forum towards both those that attend the SSPX and SSPX priests so I am left to ponder how many people that participate on this forum are in the the former group and why more moderation is not in place to prevent this.

    Matthew asked awhile back if people are being kept away by the topics that are allowed to be discussed here and I believe the answer is yes based on my own experience as well as others I have talked to.

    What does this forum want to be... a SSPX forum or a sede forum? You can't have it both ways and time is showing that it is true.

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-7
    • Gender: Female
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #1 on: November 26, 2010, 08:20:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew has banned people for SSPX bashing.  I hope you continue posting here, and ignore the attempts at bullying/rudeness, etc.


    Offline Emerentiana

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1420
    • Reputation: +1194/-17
    • Gender: Female
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #2 on: November 26, 2010, 08:48:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: John Steven
    The description of this forum says that is a place for, firstly, SSPX Catholics and secondly other Traditional Catholics . I am seeing a growing hostility on this forum towards both those that attend the SSPX and SSPX priests so I am left to ponder how many people that participate on this forum are in the the former group and why more moderation is not in place to prevent this.

    Matthew asked awhile back if people are being kept away by the topics that are allowed to be discussed here and I believe the answer is yes based on my own experience as well as others I have talked to.

    What does this forum want to be... a SSPX forum or a sede forum? You can't have it both ways and time is showing that it is true.


    Yes you can, John!  This is the only place in the world where ALL Catholics that follow the true faith can talk to each other!  Lets keep it that way.  :jumping2:

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #3 on: November 26, 2010, 09:52:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "I'm a uniter--not a divider. . ."
    --W

    Famous last words, but here goes.

    The concept Emerentiana points to of having a place "where ALL Catholics that follow the true faith can talk to each other," is critical in my view.  The reason I think it is critical is because it may contribute to solving the crisis, it may ultimately facilitate getting all of us back before 1962 Missal before any hint of modernism was introduced into the Liturgy, and most of all because cutting dialogue may result in many more well meaning souls truly seeking to follow a Catholic life being lost.  We already have the setting for that sad state of affairs which I abhor in many of the NO parishes.  Besides, we are already isolated enough as it is without ostracizing each other.

    That being said, the Sede perspective/argument seems to dominate crisis threads.  I respect the Sede position that the reason for that is because that is the very crisis.  However, I feel this may be deterring others from participating and we may be missing out on some other worthwhile perspectives.

    Some potential ways of dealing with this:

    Could some crisis threads be as suitable for the Resistance Forum as the Crisis Forum?

    Have a separate Sede section?

    When there is a compelling Sede perspective to a particular topic in the crisis thread, perhaps start a new thread "Sede position on. . ."?

    For the reasons mentioned above, I do not advocate not letting the Sede position be heard.  I envision all of the alternatives allowing the Sede position to be put forth.  I personally like the idea of side-by-side threads in the crisis forum best.

    I am doing just fine as things currently stand.  But I would like to hear all of the traditional perspectives on the various issues, and it seems we may not be getting this as things stand right now.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #4 on: November 26, 2010, 10:02:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    That being said, the Sede perspective/argument seems to dominate crisis threads.  I respect the Sede position that the reason for that is because that is the very crisis.  However, I feel this may be deterring others from participating and we may be missing out on some other worthwhile perspectives.


    Maybe it dominates because it's hard to argue with?

    You can't solve the sede thesis by kicking out the openly sede priests.  You can't solve it by banning them from forums or consigning them to subsections of a forum.  Or by blanking out the word sedevacantist with BLEEP.

    All that does is make the non-sedes seem incapable of winning an open debate.  I mean really.

    I suggest you just accept them as Catholics who can't believe the Popes of the last 50 years would do the things they did and therefore cannot believe they are Popes.

    Is that more of a loss of Faith than believing the Pope can kiss a Koran, say he doesn't want to pray in a missionary sense for Jews, invite worshippers of different religions to pray in common at Assissi, suspend Archbishop Lefebvre for teaching Catholicism in his seminary, and excommunicate him for consecrating Bishops?  To believe the Pope when he says St. Paul meant mutual submission not submission of wife to husband? etc etc etc.

    To say condoms can be a step towards moralisation?




    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #5 on: November 26, 2010, 10:17:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Telesphorus


    . . .

    I suggest you just accept them as Catholics who can't believe the Popes of the last 50 years would do the things they did and therefore cannot believe they are Popes.

    Is that more of a loss of Faith than believing the Pope can kiss a Koran, say he doesn't want to pray in a missionary sense for Jews, invite worshippers of different religions to pray in common at Assissi, suspend Archbishop Lefebvre for teaching Catholicism in his seminary, and excommunicate him for consecrating Bishops?  To believe the Pope when he says St. Paul meant mutual submission not submission of wife to husband? etc etc etc.

    To say condoms can be a step towards moralisation?




    Compelling points succinctly well stated.

    Offline parentsfortruth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +2659/-3
    • Gender: Female
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #6 on: November 27, 2010, 12:04:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I disagree with OHCA here, because I don't believe the 1962 missal was free from innovation. It eliminated the second confiteor (you know, the one before communion?), and the change to the canon was wrong since CANON means UNCHANGEABLE. I don't care if they added Saint Joseph: why not add a full litany if you're going to change something that's unchangeable? And if they start there, where does it stop? NO changes should have been made to the Missal, ESPECIALLY to the canon. It's not just about the Mass. We're in a culture war because of the inaction and ignorance of previous generations, and we're paying for it.

    I think this pretty well explains the stance I take on the matter. Don't agree with everything they say, but I think they're right on the money with this.

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm
    Matthew 5:37

    But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

    My Avatar is Fr. Hector Bolduc. He was a faithful parish priest in De Pere, WI,

    Offline OHCA

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2813
    • Reputation: +1839/-107
    • Gender: Male
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #7 on: November 27, 2010, 12:29:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Parentsfortruth,

    By saying before the 1962 Missal I mean I, too, want something pre-1962.   :cheers:


    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +44/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #8 on: November 27, 2010, 07:37:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: OHCA
    Quote from: Telesphorus


    . . .

    I suggest you just accept them as Catholics who can't believe the Popes of the last 50 years would do the things they did and therefore cannot believe they are Popes.

    Is that more of a loss of Faith than believing the Pope can kiss a Koran, say he doesn't want to pray in a missionary sense for Jews, invite worshippers of different religions to pray in common at Assissi, suspend Archbishop Lefebvre for teaching Catholicism in his seminary, and excommunicate him for consecrating Bishops?  To believe the Pope when he says St. Paul meant mutual submission not submission of wife to husband? etc etc etc.

    To say condoms can be a step towards moralisation?




    Compelling points succinctly well stated.
    :applause: :applause:

    Offline Dawn

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2439
    • Reputation: +44/-0
    • Gender: Female
      • h
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #9 on: November 27, 2010, 07:37:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: parentsfortruth
    I disagree with OHCA here, because I don't believe the 1962 missal was free from innovation. It eliminated the second confiteor (you know, the one before communion?), and the change to the canon was wrong since CANON means UNCHANGEABLE. I don't care if they added Saint Joseph: why not add a full litany if you're going to change something that's unchangeable? And if they start there, where does it stop? NO changes should have been made to the Missal, ESPECIALLY to the canon. It's not just about the Mass. We're in a culture war because of the inaction and ignorance of previous generations, and we're paying for it.

    I think this pretty well explains the stance I take on the matter. Don't agree with everything they say, but I think they're right on the money with this.

    http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm


     :applause: :applause:

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23002
    • Reputation: +20146/-243
    • Gender: Male
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #10 on: November 27, 2010, 08:30:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • When you start wanting a "pre-1962" missal, and whining about how the 1962 Missal is a sellout, you're pridefully considering yourself wiser than Archbishop Lefebvre, the 4 bishops, and all priests in the SSPX, FSSP, Institute of Christ the King, plus every decent priest in the N.O. who discovered the same abuses YOU did in the N.O. and decided to say the Tridentine Mass.

    Such a person needs to stop philosophizing about "in an ideal world, which version of the Tridentine Mass would be best?" and go get their basic Catechism and look up the section on "Humility".

    Because that's quite a prideful stance, in my opinion. You're saying that "you can see it" but they can't?  If it were that simple, I'm sure +W and a thousand other priests -- professionally trained in theology, liturgy, etc. -- could figure it out.

    You might say that's the stance we Trads have vis-a-vis the thousands of Novus Ordo priests -- "We see it, but they don't". But it's different. FAR different. Many Novus Ordo priests are either poisoned by modernism themselves, OR they are attached to some worldly comfort, $50,000 a year salary, human respect, health insurance, pensions, etc.

    That cannot be said for Traditional bishops and priests. You might as well criticize the martyrs of being blinded by their comforts!

    The 1962 Mass is just fine for getting people to heaven. The Novus Ordo is not. Let's stay on track here. Talk about a useless division of trad. Catholics!

    THIS is what makes people not want to talk to Sedevacantists. They are quick to judge the pope, as well as thousands of their "betters" at a single swoop, with no twinge of conscience. They are perfectly prepared to believe that they are wiser than just about everybody else, cleric or laity.
    Just like CM was happy to believe he was of the last 3 Catholics on earth -- he is merely an extreme case.

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23002
    • Reputation: +20146/-243
    • Gender: Male
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #11 on: November 27, 2010, 08:36:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And no you can't say it's the Pot calling the Kettle black.

    I'm a traditional Catholic; I stand aloof from the Novus Ordo and the organization that most people refer to as the Catholic Church. I consider the Novus Ordo to be inferior to the (1962) Tridentine Mass that I attend every Sunday.

    But that's only because the Novus Ordo destroys one's faith. I have proof! So I have good reason to preserve my Faith by avoiding it.

    However, when a person gets all intellectual about it and says, "The Mass that most traditional groups went with -- not good enough!" That stinks of a horrible, demonic pride. That's how the devil gets you on the Trad side of the equation.

    The Devil is keeping you home from Mass! Who wins there?

    He gets a bunch of people in the N.O., then among the resisters he gets a bunch more by stoking their pride, including intellectual pride.

    And then, after you've crowned yourself "Traditional Traditional Catholic" (more trad than the "average trad"), you will likely look down upon your trad Catholic brethren -- another bonus sin the Devil gets you into. See how destructive it is?

    Matthew
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #12 on: November 27, 2010, 10:59:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Matthew,

    Does this mean you will consider John and I's suggestion that the Sedes have their own subforum to contain Sede discussion of the crisis and all Sede theses?

    Thanks.

    Offline hollingsworth1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 103
    • Reputation: +24/-0
    • Gender: Male
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #13 on: November 27, 2010, 12:01:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'm not a sede, but I take the sede position on almost all the points they make concerning the post-conciliar church.  If the SSPX leadership were even half faithful in exposing and condemning the obvious errors and outrages of this pope and his people, the sedes would not, perhaps,  have to devote so much time to it.  I don't think the moderator is going to drop the sedes soon.  As for the three or four forum members who whine and rail against them, we can handle them just fine.  Let them prate on indignantly.  

    Offline Alexandria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2607
    • Reputation: +442/-103
    • Gender: Female
    A place for SSPX Catholics??
    « Reply #14 on: November 27, 2010, 12:21:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here we go again...

    A member of three years with less than 150 post to his credit comes and starts trouble.

     I honestly don't know what the problem is or what people are so afraid of.

    There are two other forums that are exclusively SSPX - AQ and IA - one is sleepier than the other.    



     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16