I used to use the word "Schismatic" a lot, referring to those who cut themselves off from other Catholics and/or Catholic clergy.

However, I now realize I wasn't entirely accurate.

Schism is a very specific crime, whereby a Catholic formally cuts himself off from the Catholic Church in order to start a parallel Church.

So is "schismatic" the proper term to describe various sectarians, who avoid communion with other Catholics? Not really. Most of them would claim to be Catholic.

In most cases, a more accurate term would be "sectarian" -- St. Paul listed one of the fruits of the flesh: Sects. That is where groups divide and subdivide, based on human considerations.

Sectarians cut themselves off from the main group to form a smaller sub-group.
They might also rightfully be called cultists or borderline cultists.

Maybe there's an even better term. All I know is that this problem, whatever it is called, is A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM THAN IS COMMONLY THOUGHT in the Traditional Catholic world, at least among the more serious Traditional Catholics. Along with private interpretation of Tradition.

Altar girls and sentimental music don't tempt me. I could look at them every week and I'd feel the same way in 5 years. But I've seen countless Trads fall prey to sectarianism -- cutting themselves off from valid Masses and practicing Catholics, in the name of their own opinions.

Quote from: Matthew

Altar girls and sentimental music don't tempt me. I could look at them every week and I'd feel the same way in 5 years. But I've seen countless Trads fall prey to sectarianism -- cutting themselves off from valid Masses and practicing Catholics, in the name of their own opinions.

So...are you saying people should attend the Novus Ordo if a traditional Mass is not available?  Given your comment above, it seems you are saying that the Novus Ordo is unquestionably valid.

No.

But I'm saying that "Novus Ordo elements" are not the thing WE have to be vigilant about.

For example, Bowler (when he posted here) was very much against the Dialogue Mass, because it reminded him of the Novus Ordo's lay participation.

I'll admit -- perhaps on a different forum, with more Indult/"Extraordinary Form" Catholics, the Novus Ordo would be more tempting.

And for those who currently attend the Novus Ordo, it is humanly very appealing. The feminism, sentimentality, etc. match those traits which are dominant in themselves: their human nature goes TOWARDS the Novus Ordo rather than away from it.

But in my experience, the kind of Catholics on CathInfo would never be tempted by the Novus Ordo in a million years. It would be a penance, from day 1 to day 10,000. That same feminism which attracts the feminists in the Novus Ordo repulses us. That same drippy sentimentality which causes the Novus Ordoites to cry and feel good would merely turn our stomachs.

On the other hand, I've seen countless serious/CathInfo type Catholics fall to "private interpretation of Tradition" and letting their opinions take charge, to the point that they become home-aloners or otherwise cut themselves off from large swaths of practicing, real (Trad) Catholics.

I'm saying that if you're one of these CathInfo/serious Catholics, you need to reconfigure your scanners to pick up the danger of sectarianism, rather than the danger of hand holding and lay distribution of Holy Communion during Mass.

Matthew - sectarianism is not the main or anywhere near the main problem in tradition.  Fifties-ism(a problem that goes back hundreds of years) and false doctrine is the problem.  Ambiguity(heresy as your other thread posits) has given birth to many errors and evils.  Condemn the ambiguity and  error and evil disappear.

I am glad that you are changing and using the word sectarian vs schismatic.  

Whatever, there's nothing wrong with supporting the group that Bishop Williamson founded in Avrillé last year: Unione Sacedotale Marcel Lefebvre.

You can't turn support for this group of priests into sectarianism or schism, and if so you should join the Ecclesia Dei groups and erase all your tributes to the good bishop from your forum.

Quote from: Centroamerica

Whatever, there's nothing wrong with supporting the group that Bishop Williamson founded in Avrillé last year: Unione Sacedotale Marcel Lefebvre.

You can't turn support for this group of priests into sectarianism or schism, and if so you should join the Ecclesia Dei groups and erase all your tributes to the good bishop from your forum.

Don't read more into the statements than what is there. The USML is mostly NOT sectarian as far as I'm aware. (btw, does the OLMC Seminary operate under that group name?)

I don't think they do.  I wouldn't know.

I used to use the word "Schismatic" a lot, referring to those who cut themselves off from other Catholics and/or Catholic clergy.

However, I now realize I wasn't entirely accurate.

Schism is a very specific crime, whereby a Catholic formally cuts himself off from the Catholic Church in order to start a parallel Church.

Not necessarily.  It's refusal of Communion with either the Holy See or with other Catholics.  There need be no thought of starting a "parallel Church"; that's not an essential element of schism.  So, for instance, during the dispute between the Molinists and the Thomists, there were mutual accusations of heresy.  But the Church declared that this should stop.  If I were a Thomist and persisted in refusing communion with the Jesuits on the ground of heresy, I would be a schismatic, even if I had no intention of starting any new Church.

While it's true that not every separation is schismatic, it's also not true that you have to be effectively starting a parallel Church in order to become a schismatic.

So is "schismatic" the proper term to describe various sectarians, who avoid communion with other Catholics? Not really.

You were right the first time.  Avoiding communion with other Catholics is schismatic.

Whatever, there's nothing wrong with supporting the group that Bishop Williamson founded in Avrillé last year: Unione Sacedotale Marcel Lefebvre.

You can't turn support for this group of priests into sectarianism or schism, and if so you should join the Ecclesia Dei groups and erase all your tributes to the good bishop from your forum.

I'm not saying that groups are always bad -- and in fact, my favorite "group" right now would be +Williamson's group.

I'm just saying that our support for groups should always be subordinate to our support for the Catholic Faith itself. I am a (traditional) Catholic first, and a supporter of +Williamson second. That is how he would want it!

I don't think I'll ever have to choose between them -- but it's the principle of the thing. Of course, I didn't think I'd ever have to choose between the SSPX and the Faith either...despite the nay-saying of some accordistas, the fact is that I was one of the SSPX's biggest fans back in the day.

When I see people's support for groups coming first, even putting the Faith (Catholic morality, for example) on a back burner -- I have to shake my head!