Matthew has banned people for SSPX bashing.  I hope you continue posting here, and ignore the attempts at bullying/rudeness, etc.

"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.

. . .

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 Jєωs, 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.

Parentsfortruth,

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

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:

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

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.