Lil Red Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1303756950' post='2232587'] I hope this is rhetorical [/quote] your face is rhetorical. [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1303757507' post='2232593'] your face is rhetorical. [/quote] your momma's face is rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It is my position that supporting the SSPX is counter-productive to the cause of tradition, and that debating the SSPX issue in public is also counter productive to the cause of tradition. I am not sure I would have become as traditional as I became during my time at phatmass if it had not been for the rule that kept the SSPX discussion marginalized and to a minimum. I do not intend to engage in a debate on them; I respect their conscience led fight, I understand that they have indeed forced the hand of the magisterium to do some very good things for tradition in the Church that it is possible (though we will never know) would not have happened had it not been for the leverage the SSPX brought, but ultimately I disagree with them and do not think they should be permitted to be promoted in any Catholic publication; be it a Church bulletin, a Catholic newspaper, or a Catholic website. If the only issue with the SSPX was jurisdiction, the talks in Rome would not be at the standstill they are at right now. The talks in Rome are doctrinal in nature. I leave it to them to hash that out, it is above my pay grade. oh I know a good deal about it, from all sides of the arguments, through and through; but the fact remains that I do not wish to discuss it here; nor even on ST, because I believe the very debate about the SSPX works contrary to the cause of tradition. I simply oppose the promotion of the SSPX. If I owned a magazine, I would not accept print ads for the SSPX. If I owned a forum that was open to the peanut gallery of the general public, it is likely that I would automatically add my own editorial into the posts of anyone who was a promoter of the SSPX... something short and simple... like "I DO NOT REP THE CHURCH", for instance, so that it was instantly clear that the forum does not permit promotion of the SSPX, that the forum considers the SSPX to not be representative of the Church, and their promoters to not be representing the Church. sadly such a tagline would also automatically find itself onto posts which are legitimate and could be representative of the Church... perhaps I would sacrifice some of the simplicity and make it I DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE CHURCH or something. Not just "I don't rep this forum", because I would wish to make a point from my forum that in this forum's opinion the SSPX do not rep the Church itself. perhaps my tag would include a link to a detailed page explaining the position, I dunno. your problems with modernism in the Church, I sympathise with. there are many things out there which are poisonous to my faith when I witness them in mass, because suffering through them in the mass makes me truly despair that all there is in the world to keep anyone Catholic are the stale and shallow gimmicks of religious emotionalism and entertainment. in the simple profundity of good liturgies I find my answer to that doubt and despair: indeed there are things more transcendent. oh that they might spread through the Church like wildfire expelling the gimmickery that rules the airs of the modern transmission of the faith! but alas, I do what I can in my small corner of the world. we may yet see the liturgy blazing in all its glory throughout Christendom, don't count it out, for there are traditional anglicans coming in with some good english liturgies, and growing appreciation for the Traditional Latin Liturgy. the SSPX may yet be part of the equation; BUT IT IS NOT YET SO. It must deal with its doctrinal and canonical issues with Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 My pov is that if the SSPX are renormalized it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to throw around non-Catholic labels. I DO NOT REPRESENT THE CHURCH effectively translates to "not Catholic." The Church may in fact be more pluralistic than this. Also, I wouldn't take lightly such things as the internet can have real-life consequences for people. Just because it occurs online doesn't mean that it is not slanderous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1303757945' post='2232608'] It is my position that supporting the SSPX is counter-productive to the cause of tradition, and that debating the SSPX issue in public is also counter productive to the cause of tradition. I am not sure I would have become as traditional as I became during my time at phatmass if it had not been for the rule that kept the SSPX discussion marginalized and to a minimum. I do not intend to engage in a debate on them; I respect their conscience led fight, I understand that they have indeed forced the hand of the magisterium to do some very good things for tradition in the Church that it is possible (though we will never know) would not have happened had it not been for the leverage the SSPX brought, but ultimately I disagree with them and do not think they should be permitted to be promoted in any Catholic publication; be it a Church bulletin, a Catholic newspaper, or a Catholic website. If the only issue with the SSPX was jurisdiction, the talks in Rome would not be at the standstill they are at right now. The talks in Rome are doctrinal in nature. I leave it to them to hash that out, it is above my pay grade. oh I know a good deal about it, from all sides of the arguments, through and through; but the fact remains that I do not wish to discuss it here; nor even on ST, because I believe the very debate about the SSPX works contrary to the cause of tradition. I simply oppose the promotion of the SSPX. If I owned a magazine, I would not accept print ads for the SSPX. If I owned a forum that was open to the peanut gallery of the general public, it is likely that I would automatically add my own editorial into the posts of anyone who was a promoter of the SSPX... something short and simple... like "I DO NOT REP THE CHURCH", for instance, so that it was instantly clear that the forum does not permit promotion of the SSPX, that the forum considers the SSPX to not be representative of the Church, and their promoters to not be representing the Church. sadly such a tagline would also automatically find itself onto posts which are legitimate and could be representative of the Church... perhaps I would sacrifice some of the simplicity and make it I DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE CHURCH or something. Not just "I don't rep this forum", because I would wish to make a point from my forum that in this forum's opinion the SSPX do not rep the Church itself. perhaps my tag would include a link to a detailed page explaining the position, I dunno. your problems with modernism in the Church, I sympathise with. there are many things out there which are poisonous to my faith when I witness them in mass, because suffering through them in the mass makes me truly despair that all there is in the world to keep anyone Catholic are the stale and shallow gimmicks of religious emotionalism and entertainment. in the simple profundity of good liturgies I find my answer to that doubt and despair: indeed there are things more transcendent. oh that they might spread through the Church like wildfire expelling the gimmickery that rules the airs of the modern transmission of the faith! but alas, I do what I can in my small corner of the world. we may yet see the liturgy blazing in all its glory throughout Christendom, don't count it out, for there are traditional anglicans coming in with some good english liturgies, and growing appreciation for the Traditional Latin Liturgy. the SSPX may yet be part of the equation; BUT IT IS NOT YET SO. It must deal with its doctrinal and canonical issues with Rome. [/quote] Nevermind...it isn't worth it. You're right Al....the SSPX is wrong. And all should run to the nearest mainstream church where they abuse the Mass, because that is the right thing to do. And we'll all just suffer Modernism until the Chruch either doesn't exist or it corrects itself, because it's above our paygrades. Great attitude. Edited April 25, 2011 by Cam42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1303756950' post='2232587'] I hope this is rhetorical [/quote] No, not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vee Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1303757535' post='2232593'] your face is rhetorical. your momma's face is rhetorical. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vee Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1303744207' post='2232442'] So that we are clear, there are 4 issues that drove me over the edge. 1. The Mass 2. Eccelsiology (including ecumenism and "inter-faith" dialogue) 3. Religious Tolerance (*sic* Freedom) 4. The Magisterium of Vatican Council II These issues are the reasons why I've come to the decision that I have. I don't doubt the validity of any of them, but rather I doubt the licitness of them in light of 2000 years of tradition. I am still 100% faithful to the Holy Father. I am still 100% faithful to the authentic Magisterium of the Church. I have no plans on leaving the Church, nor do I have any plans on joining a group which seeks to undermine the Holy See. What I am doing is coming to an understanding that Modernism has crept into the leadership of the Church and I am tired of constantly being subjected to the wanton and obvious disobedience which permiates the mainstream Church. If the leaders of the Church authentically apply the principles of Vatican Council II, then I am all for it. The issue is that they are not doing that. This is most evident in the Mass. Finally, my obedience is to the Church and her authentic Magisterium, not to the individual whims of men, even if they be bishops. Case in point....Cardinal Mahony was not acting in line with the authentic Magisterium when he put forth his guidelines several years back. His ecclesiology is not in line with Rome and it is not in line with the authentic understanding of Vatican II, yet because he's a bishop, I'm supposed to simply smell of elderberries it up? Nope. I won't do that any longer. He's not above reproach. Another example is that of the Consilium. We have been subjected to the OF for over 40 years, now. It is not what the Council Fathers nor the Synod of Bishops wanted, but it is what we have. Is it an authentic expression of Vatican Council II? I'm not sure. Does that mean that it's invalid? Heavens no. But it does call into question the reason we have the Mass in the form we have it now. As for the SSPX proper...the only issue that remains for them to be regular is jurisdiction. It really isn't any more complicated than that. The excommunications of the bishops who serve them have been lifted. So, if all that remains is the juridical issue, and that is the reasoning for the illicitness of the Mass, then so be it. It is not my place to judge one way or another. I assist at their Masses, because I can be assured that there is no deviation in the Mass, nothing more; nothing less. The fact that they share the same concerns that I do is a coincidence. I am [b]not[/b] setting them up as an alternate Magisterium. I am [b]not[/b] setting them up as an alternate Church. I still see the authentic Magisterium as being Holy Mother Church and I will abide by the authentic teachings. That is the bottom line. You will never, nor have you ever seen me willingly or knowingly quote or state anything which is contrary to the authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That much I can guarantee you. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='vee8' timestamp='1303760822' post='2232645'] [/quote] That's not very charitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vee Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303761050' post='2232651'] That's not very charitable. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 wow you must REALLY need your beauty sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303761050' post='2232651'] That's not very charitable. [/quote] that's not very charitable, how do you know if Vee suffers from narcolepsy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 or that she REALLY needs her beauty sleep. srsly.. have you SEEN pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vee Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1303761382' post='2232659'] that's not very charitable, how do you know if Vee suffers from narcolepsy?? [/quote] No, just ugliness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 thank you for the bag, it is quite charitable of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 [quote name='vee8' timestamp='1303761485' post='2232663'] No, just ugliness [/quote] well your head is made of wood.... have you talked to St. Joseph about that?? He's really good with wood!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts