SSPX

[Inquisitor Generalis]

Ok, here's a source. Here's an article dealing w/the Society of St. John Vianney's regularization w/Rome. Note that this ONLY happened after these priests were allowed to say the Traditional Mass...

[url="http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ssjv.htm"]http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ssjv.htm[/url]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:23 AM']Ok, here's a source.  Here's an article dealing w/the Society of St. John Vianney's regularization w/Rome.  Note that this ONLY happened after these priests were allowed to say the Traditional Mass...

[url="http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ssjv.htm"]http://www.latin-mass-society.org/ssjv.htm[/url]
[right][snapback]887978[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I referring to FSSP, but thank you for the article.

I understand your point (though I do not think that simply because a person joins FSSP they think something is lacking in the NO). I was asking for refrences because you were speaking in someone else's name.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Paphnutius

[rkwright]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:18 AM']This is like asking someone to cite sources saying the sky is blue.  If someone thought the NOM was 100% a-ok (and it takes more than mere validity to be 100% a-ok), then why would they even bother joining a traditionalist fraternity like the FSSP or the Society of St. John Vianney?  Why would these groups have even started?  THINK about this for a moment, will you?

In other words, yes, there are ppl who are in full unity w/the Church who think the Novus Ordo Mass has grave deficiencies, [i]even despite its validity[/i].
[right][snapback]887977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have a good friend joining the FSSP this summer.... he does not think the NO mass has grave deficiencies. You're making blanket statements that probably aren't quiet as true as you make them. Like Pap said, if you're going to say they have grave misgivings you better back it up.

Could they just like the latin mass better? Does a Marionite Rite Catholic have 'grave misgivings' about the NO also?

Your argument to me looks like this:
1 -The FSSP uses only Trindentine Mass
2- They are not in schism
3- The FSSP has grave misgivings about NO. (From 1 I guess since you can't provide the cite)
4 - A group can have grave misgivings about the NO and not be in Schism. (2-3)

Obviously 3 does not follow from 1 or 2 alone, and it is not in my opinion some group of common knowledge such as the sky is blue.

[qfnol31]

There are differences between misgivings/questions and questions of validity and authority.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 15 2006, 08:50 AM']I have a good friend joining the FSSP this summer.... he does not think the NO mass has grave deficiencies.  You're making blanket statements that probably aren't quiet as true as you make them.  Like Pap said, if you're going to say they have grave misgivings you better back it up.

Could they just like the latin mass better?  Does a Marionite Rite Catholic have 'grave misgivings' about the NO also? 

Your argument to me looks like this:
1 -The FSSP uses only Trindentine Mass
2- They are not in schism
3- The FSSP has grave misgivings about NO.  (From 1 I guess since you can't provide the cite)
4 - A group can have grave misgivings about the NO and not be in Schism.  (2-3)

Obviously 3 does not follow from 1 or 2 alone, and it is not in my opinion some group of common knowledge such as the sky is blue.
[right][snapback]888099[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I said "members of the FSSP," not necessarily the FSSP as a whole. I think there are members of that fraternity who are (a) in union w/Rome and (b) think the NOM is deficient, but valid.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 12:45 PM']I said "members of the FSSP," not necessarily the FSSP as a whole.  I think there are members of that fraternity who are (a) in union w/Rome and (b) think the NOM is deficient, but valid.
[right][snapback]888265[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

no doubt... yet thats a weak statement... you could say that of nearly any group of Catholics.

Edited February 15, 2006 by rkwright

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:46 AM']no doubt... yet thats a week statement... you could say that of nearly any group of Catholics.
[right][snapback]888267[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree with you as well Inquistor, but as rkwright said, that may be applied to many different groups of Catholics. Some of which actually still go to the NO.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 15 2006, 11:52 AM']I agree with you as well Inquistor, but as rkwright said, that may be applied to many different groups of Catholics. Some of which actually still go to the NO.
[right][snapback]888269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then there's really nothing to argue about. If you agree that someone can (a) be in union w/Rome while (b) also holding the NOM to be in some ways or even many ways deficient, but valid, then why continue debating my statement? Now do you see why I was saying this is like debating whether or not the sky is blue?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 12:25 PM']Then there's really nothing to argue about.  If you agree that someone can (a) be in union w/Rome while (b) also holding the NOM to be in some ways or even many ways deficient, but valid, then why continue debating my statement?  Now do you see why I was saying this is like debating whether or not the sky is blue?
[right][snapback]888316[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was not debating, I was simply asking for a citation on the bishop and the order for my own personal knowledge. When people speak for others I generally like to see what that person said.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:25 PM']Then there's really nothing to argue about.  If you agree that someone can (a) be in union w/Rome while (b) also holding the NOM to be in some ways or even many ways deficient, but valid, then why continue debating my statement?  Now do you see why I was saying this is like debating whether or not the sky is blue?
[right][snapback]888316[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what you said above is completely true...I wasn't trying to debate you on this issue. One can be in union with Rome, and hold different attitudes towards the NO as well as other practices.

But the point I was debating was this line...
[quote]Correct. And, it should be pointed out that Bp. Rifan and various members of the FSSP all pretty much have grave misgivings about the Novus Ordo Mass. So, one does not have to buy into the neo-Catholic position and ecclesiology in order to not be in schism.[/quote]

Pap asked for cite from Bp. Rifan that he actually does hold this. The position that Bp. Rifan has grave misgivings about the NO, and the later position above (that someone can have misgivings) are 2 different ones. When asked for a cite about Bp. Rifan, you tell us that its like saying the sky is blue, that its obvious he has misgivings about the NO becuase he is in the FSSP.

Your statement that one can have misgivings of the NO is correct. Though you can't apply that to every or any real instances. You have to show that the person you brought up actually does (which is I think what Pap was asking for) . It is not sky blue obvious that because he is in the FSSP this means that he has misgivings about the NO.

Edited February 15, 2006 by rkwright

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:10 PM']But the point I was debating was this line...
Pap asked for cite from Bp. Rifan that he actually does hold this.  The position that Bp. Rifan has grave misgivings about the NO, and the later position above (that someone can have misgivings) are 2 different ones.  When asked for a cite about Bp. Rifan, you tell us that its like saying the sky is blue, that its obvious he has misgivings about the NO becuase he is in the FSSP. 

Your statement that one can have misgivings of the NO is correct.  Though you can't apply that to every or any real instances.  You have to show that the person you brought up actually does (which is I think what Pap was asking for) .  It is not sky blue obvious that because he is in the FSSP this means that he has misgivings about the NO.
[right][snapback]888369[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thank you rkwright.

Furthermore Inquisitor...I am glad to know that I made your blog. I am actually quite flattered for I have never known myself to ruffle anyone else’s feathers over asking for them to support what they say with something other than "it is just common sense." I apologize that you find it difficult to find some document in hundreds of years of Tradition that would at least assist you in showing us that the Church before a certain date would have reacted with disgust to certain people in its flock, but suddenly after a certain date have a change of heart. That seems quite extraordinary that the Church would have such a change of heart, but merely saying that those with a sensus Catholicos would obviously see it is no argument.

Do you read much Chesterton? Even if not, I am sure that you are familiar with his book Orthodoxy. There is a chapter in there that Chesterton discusses the circular logic of those that deny testimony to miracles. Perhaps you should look into that because you are using that same logic with your much overused "common sense" line.

Also just for the record, I am not a "neo-Catholic," I am a Roman Catholic, or Latin Catholic, whichever you prefer. There are no divisions in the Church. As I said, the Church is the same Church today as it was before the council. To label us as "neo-Catholics" is to create a division in the Body of Christ. What are we told about divisions?

1 Cor 1:10[quote]Obsecro autem vos fratres per nomen Domini nostri Iesu Christi ut id ipsum dicatis omnes et non sint in vobis scismata sitis autem perfecti in eodem sensu et in eadem sententia [/quote]

There are those that are creating a line in the Church between "traditionalists" and "neo-Catholics." Such lines must not be drawn and divisions must not be created for the Body of Christ is one.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 15 2006, 01:10 PM']what you said above is completely true...I wasn't trying to debate you on this issue.  One can be in union with Rome, and hold different attitudes towards the NO as well as other practices. 

But the point I was debating was this line...
Pap asked for cite from Bp. Rifan that he actually does hold this.  The position that Bp. Rifan has grave misgivings about the NO, and the later position above (that someone can have misgivings) are 2 different ones.  When asked for a cite about Bp. Rifan, you tell us that its like saying the sky is blue, that its obvious he has misgivings about the NO becuase he is in the FSSP. 

Your statement that one can have misgivings of the NO is correct.  Though you can't apply that to every or any real instances.  You have to show that the person you brought up actually does (which is I think what Pap was asking for) .  It is not sky blue obvious that because he is in the FSSP this means that he has misgivings about the NO.
[right][snapback]888369[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've read Bp. Rifan say he has misgivings about the NO. I don't have time to hunt down the article, and it isn't worth it. As for the FSSP, I gather that from reading the articles on Latin Mass Magazine and from friends who know FSSP priests. I really don't think it's that controversial of a statement to say that SOME priests in that fraternity have serious misgivings about the NOM. Why does this need a citation? If I gave you a citation, what would it prove? This conversation is ridiculous. You just want to argue and nitpick every time a trad says *anything*.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Inquisitor Generalis' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:40 PM']I've read Bp. Rifan say he has misgivings about the NO.  I don't have time to hunt down the article, and it isn't worth it.  As for the FSSP, I gather that from reading the articles on Latin Mass Magazine and from friends who know FSSP priests.  I really don't think it's that controversial of a statement to say that SOME priests in that fraternity have serious misgivings about the NOM.  Why does this need a citation?  If I gave you a citation, what would it prove?  This conversation is ridiculous.  You just want to argue and nitpick every time a trad says *anything*.
[right][snapback]888411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No one is being nitpicky. If we used your logic, then we could say the following

'Preist so and so (insert any Priest or Bishop who celebrates the NO, including the Pope himself) must have grave misgivings about the Trindentine mass because they celebrate the NO mass. Why else wouldn't they join the FSSP or get an indult?'

Of course this is fallacious, and if I said some Bishop thought the Trindentine has grave misgivings based on the fact he celebrates the NO, I would hope you would want some proof also.

Either way, you're right, you can say some priests in FSSP have misgivings about the NO, same as you could say some priests have misgivings about the Indult.

For me its not about arguing everything a trad says... maybe thats because, in my opinion, the only people who repeatedly say they're 'trads' on this board have very inflexible and incomplete views. I like what Pap said about dividing oneself within the Church.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:03 PM']'Preist so and so (insert any Priest or Bishop who celebrates the NO, including the Pope himself) must have grave misgivings about the Trindentine mass because they celebrate the NO mass.  Why else wouldn't they join the FSSP or get an indult?'
[/quote]

That is a straw man argument. I just said that many ppl who join the FSSP do so b/c they have misgivings about the NOM. I never said that ALL of them do. And, yes, you are being nitpicky.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Feb 15 2006, 02:03 PM']No one is being nitpicky.  If we used your logic, then we could say the following

'Preist so and so (insert any Priest or Bishop who celebrates the NO, including the Pope himself) must have grave misgivings about the Trindentine mass because they celebrate the NO mass.  Why else wouldn't they join the FSSP or get an indult?'

Of course this is fallacious, and if I said some Bishop thought the Trindentine has grave misgivings based on the fact he celebrates the NO, I would hope you would want some proof also.

Either way, you're right, you can say some priests in FSSP have misgivings about the NO, same as you could say some priests have misgivings about the Indult. 

For me its not about arguing everything a trad says... maybe thats because, in my opinion, the only people who repeatedly say they're 'trads' on this board have very inflexible and incomplete views.  I like what Pap said about dividing oneself within the Church.
[right][snapback]888443[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

what are you saying? that the pope himself has a problem with the tridentine mass? i dont...and neither do you.

im confused in what you said...