Sspx Members Welcome?

[BG45]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1345647765' post='2471962']
When did we ever not care about technicalities on Phatmass?
[/quote]

FP, this post made my night.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1345676191' post='2472172']
FP, this post made my night.
[/quote]

Well, I of all people should know the consequences of not being technical enough.

[Papist]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345666514' post='2472068']
I think there are enough on this forum that are so quick to attack the SSPX, that sometimes they need a little buffering. I've seen many people over the years here make the SSPX out to be the bane of Catholicism.
[/quote]
Don't make me guilty for past threads. I have only been here less than two years.

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345666514' post='2472068']
I think that would depend on what you mean "supporter". I'm sure Nihil and KofC both believe that it is the SSPX that needs to reconcile with the Church, and I certainly think that. The Church has given the SSPX a lot of room to join up and save face at the same time. Benedict has been extremely generous, some might even say overly generous. It isn't the responsibility of the Church to cater to the wants of individual groups, but out of true charity and a desire for unity, I think Benedict is doing everything he can within reason to encourage the SSPX to come home. I'm afraid if the SSPX doesn't give a little, we're just going to see excommunications smacked on the SSPX and formal schism declared. No one wants that, but it would be out of charity for Benedict to do so if resolution cannot be found.
[/quote]
This is a good assessment.

Supporter is the best word I can come up with, but I agree perhaps it is not fully accurate. Defending SSPX is not in of its self wrong. It's the not defending the Church that I find problematic. SSPX defenders may side with the Church. That I do not know. What I do know is they have esteem for the SSPX.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345676090' post='2472169']
Where is the airing of disagreements with the SSPX in this thread?
[/quote]

It is no where, but your prior posts seem to indicate that it is wrong for Nihil/Myself/Anyone else to "defend" the SSPX yet speak nothing of their faults. See below quotes and emphasis.

Neither of us are defending the SSPX, we are attempting to[b] clarify what is actually going on between [/b]the SSPX and the Church, and as Nihil has said, it is quite complicated. If it were so simple, why would there be years of negotiations rather than the Church simply laying down an ultimatum?


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345633849' post='2471903']
[b]Your post's message is that the Church was in error against the SSPX and Lefebrve, and has admitted it. And nothing of the wrongs of the SSPX, which is the biggest problem I have with these conversations[/b]. People that support SSPX believe SSPX have done/doing no wrong and for reconciliation with the Church to happen is for the Church to 100% change to the ways of SSPX. In a thread a while back, someone posted that he could see Lefebrve being canonized someday.
[/quote]

First, the Church isn't in error against the SSPX. If there are any faults, such as the abrogation of the old form of the mass, it is an error against the entire Catholic populous. Also, it isn't the Church with a capital C, but people within the heirarchy who have made poor decisions.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345640873' post='2471924']
I beg to differ. [b]The tone is the defense of the SSPX while elaborating on the problematic actions by the Church. It is extremely rare that I hear from SSPX supporters the problematic actions by the Lefebrve and/or the SSPX, and what actions are the SSPX taking to reconcile[/b]. [b]It is always the Church needs to do this and the Church needs to stop doing that for the SSPX to come back in fullness.[/b]

I am not a SSPX supporter, nor am I a SSPX hater. I would love for them to come back into the fullness of the Church. But until [u]BOTH [/u]sides are honest and open with humility, that is not likely to happen.
[/quote]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345647655' post='2471961']
Nutshell for you,

[b]I see defending SSPX. tone = SSPX in the right
I do not see defending the Church. tone = Church in the wrong[/b]

Obvious, you and I are wearing two different pair of glasses.
[/quote]
You make it far far too simple.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345662636' post='2472040']
I don't think, never have, that you are towing the phishy line. But, it appears [b]you defend SSPX, before/rather the Church[/b]. You are consistent in doing this under the shield of "just giving people on the other side a voice". I am not trying to knock you, but am giving you an explanation of how I am understanding.

Not directing this at any one person: I often wonder do SSPX supporters believe it is the SSPX that needs to reconcile with the Church or the other way around. There is a reason I have this impression.
[/quote]

[Papist]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1345673446' post='2472124']
Maybe at this point, communication is impossible, then.
[/quote]
What do you mean?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345677168' post='2472176']
Don't make me guilty for past threads. I have only been here less than two years.
[/quote]
Not aimed at you. All I know is when I see an SSPX thread on phatmass one of the first things I think is "whoa back off ppl, they aren't [u][b]that[/b][/u] bad."
[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345677168' post='2472176']
Supporter is the best word I can come up with, but I agree perhaps it is not fully accurate. Defending SSPX is not in of its self wrong. It's the not defending the Church that I find problematic. SSPX defenders may side with the Church. That I do not know. What I do know is they have esteem for the SSPX.
[/quote]
What I'm saying is I'd be happy to share what I think is problematic with the SSPX, but not in a thread that is asking if they are welcome here. When I'm only speaking about what good has come of the SSPX/Church negotiations, there's not much need to defend the Church.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345675400' post='2472155']
Go post in the ponies thread, I hear it helps. I'll be your brony dude. Brony's for life. Hoof pound!
[/quote]
[img]http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p136/Evanescence67/Random/1-14.gif[/img]

[Slappo]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345677642' post='2472180']
Not aimed at you. All I know is when I see an SSPX thread on phatmass one of the first things I think is "whoa back off ppl, they aren't [u][b]that[/b][/u] bad."
[/quote]

What I mean by this is I often feel like the SSPX need defended from [b]false [/b]accusations. (in general, not particular people on phatmass, or particular posts in this thread, it's also just a feeling...)

Edited August 22, 2012 by Slappo

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345666535' post='2472070']
Again, please point out where I am defending the SSPX before the Church. Anytime that I have presented what might be interpreted as an "SSPX side" I have made it clear that I do not necessarily agree with everything they have done. Furthermore I have been very clear in my position: that simple answers are not sufficient in this case.
I understand that you are not trying to attack me, and I appreciate that you are trying to be reasonable, but I do not think you are making a great deal of effort to parse my actual statements.
[/quote]
That's the thing. You have not been bold nor brazen, yet ambiguous. What is clear[at least to me] is that you side with SSPX, without stating such. If I am incorrect, I apologize. But I must be honest. I would like to add that I believe your posts are charitable and sincere, which I really appreciate.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1345632859' post='2471899']
When St Teresa of Avila's wagon axle broke and pitched her into the road, she shook her fist to the heavens and said to God, "If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them!"

I don't think anybody could accuse her of not having proper fear of the Lord, but an indignant exclamation in the colloquial Spanish of her day is very different from the beautiful formal prayers of our tradition. Yet they belong in the same prayer book.

This informality is not Protestant - it's human. Sometimes when I have been in pain, or very frightened, or angry, I have poured out my jumbled thoughts pell-mell to God, without giving much thought to the language I used. Kneeling in my room during my designated prayer times, I use my breviary and the rosary. Formal prayer and lectio divina helped me to learn to really trust God. This trust sometimes expresses itself in more informal and spontaneous cries/grumbles/thank-yous as I go about my day.
[/quote]

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with any particular word. I am certainly not going to argue the thees and thous- I am horrible at English and apparently we have some English Majors in the Phamily.

I certainly am not going to judge how you speak towards God. Heaven knows when I am hurting I say all sorts of things. What I am talking about (and think the OP was talking about) is an overall mentality when approaching God. I agree that informality is human but I think we would all agree that there is a lack of reverence towards God as a whole in the Church today. The beach wear to church, lack of reverence towards the Eucharist, etc. I do think a lot did come from the Protestant individualistic mindset. Like the Jesus Movement and the concerts at the mega churches that are supposed to be church. I do not agree with the OP took their position from there, but I really do agree modernism has brought in a lot of irreverence.

[Papist]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345675475' post='2472157']
Typically when a bunch of people attack you... you get defensive. It's kinda how things work.

Kinda like if someone sucker punches me cause I'm wearing jeans he don't like, I'm gonna defend myself not stand there and apologize for not wearing the right brand.

Edited: To remove a reference that would have been offensive. Oops.
[/quote]
"attack" srsly!?! Everytime I disagree in a post is going to be viewed as an attack? Have I been gruff?

[missionseeker]

I've lived in Naples Florida and have never seen anyone wear a bikini or swimsuit to mass. One time we had been at the beach and came back to mass We got stuck in traffic and were late and as a result couldn't go home and get changed out of shorts and tshirts. That's honestly the closest thing to beach wear I've ever seen at mass. And that was an extraordinary situation

[Papist]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1345677352' post='2472178']
It is no where, but your prior posts seem to indicate that it is wrong for Nihil/Myself/Anyone else to "defend" the SSPX yet speak nothing of their faults. See below quotes and emphasis.

Neither of us are defending the SSPX, we are attempting to clarify what is actually going on between the SSPX and the Church, and as Nihil has said, it is quite complicated. If it were so simple, why would there be years of negotiations rather than the Church simply laying down an ultimatum?




First, the Church isn't in error against the SSPX. If there are any faults, such as the abrogation of the old form of the mass, it is an error against the entire Catholic populous. Also, it isn't the Church with a capital C, but people within the heirarchy who have made poor decisions.




You make it far far too simple.
[/quote]
So we agree that no one is airing thier disagreements with the SSPX in this thread.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1345678733' post='2472188']
I've lived in Naples Florida and have never seen anyone wear a bikini or swimsuit to mass. One time we had been at the beach and came back to mass We got stuck in traffic and were late and as a result couldn't go home and get changed out of shorts and tshirts. That's honestly the closest thing to beach wear I've ever seen at mass. And that was an extraordinary situation
[/quote]

Ok- does picnic wear work better for ya or just rolled out of bed wear

Seriously though I have seen guys in swimming trucks in Kansas. Never a bikini (thanks be to God!) I was using the term to loosely (sorry) but I think we get the picture and something most were agreeing with in the thread earlier. I just think maybe we are taking things a bit to literally on this thread. Or maybe we just need more ponies or something...

[Slappo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345678770' post='2472190']
So we agree that no one is airing thier disagreements with the SSPX in this thread.
[/quote]

Yes that is correct.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345678501' post='2472186']
"attack" srsly!?! Everytime I disagree in a post is going to be viewed as an attack? Have I been gruff?
[/quote]

Are you a bunch of people?