Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone? [A Month Later]

drstevej

[drstevej]

Thread from last month...

------------

Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone?
drstevej

Posted on 04/08/2003 12:29 PM CDT by drstevej

OBSERVATIONS:

[1] There seems to be a significantly reduced number of Protestant Threads (KJV Only being the exception for sure) in the FR Religion Forum.

[2] There seems to be a reduced number of FR Protestant posts in the Religion Forum.

This thread is a place to discuss these observations.

------------

Now the transformation to a Catholic Religion Forum is almost complete. Must be a Marian miracle or an answer to Jim Robinson's prayer, "Can't we all just get along?" Now all the dissent is within the RC fold ... NO Mass vs. Tridentine Mass. Boredom has descended, the moderators are free to nap without fear of an **** awakening them.

Could someone arrange for a funeral mass? (a clown mass in this case might be in order).

 

-- Pope Piel  I (thinking of abdicating prior to even assuming the Chair of Peter)

[drstevej]

***The same author claims Jesuit leaders worship Satan via a Black Mass, are the leaders of the High Shriner Freemasons, were responsible for the creation of the US income tax and social security, are in COMPLETE CONTROL of the entire intelligence apparatus—FBI, every bureaucratic agency in this country, all of it - and whose ultimate goal is the rule of the world, with a Pope of the Jesuit's making, from Solomon’s rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.. ***

Sounds like a fun thread. I'll make the popcorn.

[drstevej]

***That's one thing we may want to look into to pacify things around here.***

Manditory mood indicators? :0(

[Pyro7480]

LOL. That's was meant as a suggestion. :-)

[drstevej]

So, the NO -as a memorial- offers the communicant bread rather than the body and blood of Christ? And RCs regularly attending NO mass are missing the Real Presence? Or are you saying that the NO priest does one thing (transubstantiates the elements) and calls it another (a memorial)?

I'm getting confused, better help your future Pope out a bit.

[sitetest]

Dear Polycarp,


"I agree that sitetest and patent and siobhan are sorely missed..."


Thank you for saying that. But I'm still here. I told you I'd be cutting back on posting. But I haven't left by any means.

But sinkspur has a good point. There are about 65 million nominal Catholics in the United States. Perhaps 20 or 30 million are active, practicing Catholics.

There are perhaps a few hundred thousand, if that many, who are enmeshed in the recent schisms of the SSPX and other groups, including out-of-communion integrists and sedevacantists.

Even "traditionalists" still in communion with the Church (I hate calling folks who prefer the indult, or prefer indult parishes "traditionalists", because it wrongly suggests that they are separate from the rest of faithful Catholics - they are not) number only perhaps a hundred thousand or so.

In our own archdiocese, with three indult Masses offered each Sunday, in different parts of the archdiocese, at different times, maybe a thousand or so folks attend these Masses on a given Sunday.

The extremely overwhelming number of Catholics (something north of 95%) are what the schismatics, the sedevacantists, the heretics, and even many of the devout Catholic traditionalists refer to as "novus ordo Catholics" or worse, "neo-Catholics".

But you wouldn't think it from looking at FR. I haven't done the arithmetic, but I'm positive that the schismatics, sedevacantists, heretics, and devout Catholic traditionalists here make up a far greater number than 5% of those overall who profess some sort of Catholic belief and tie. If I had to guess, I'd say it was close to half.

And even of us ordinary Catholics, the furthest to the "left" would likely be sinkspur (I might not be far to the right of him), and he is to the right of the overwhelming number of Catholics in the real world.

I don't like categorizing Catholics "right" vs. "left", but indulging in that metaphor, I think that sinkspur is right to point out that the breadth of opinion here at FR is dramatically truncated.

The "far left" at FR is just a little to the left of our Holy Father, if that much. The Holy Father, himself, isn't far from the left-most place in the spectrum, as represented here at FR. And the right goes all the way past Catholic to lunatic fringe sedevacantist heretic. And they represent a fair number of the Catholic and near-Catholic posters here at FR!

No, sinkspur is right. FR is dramatically unrepresentative of Catholicism at large in the non-virtual world. Reading FR, one would think that the schismatic voice has weight and credibility in the non-virtual Catholic world. One would not realize that the schismatics are a poor, pathetic group of lost sheep, that our Holy Father has set out to find and recover, the one lost sheep that he leaves the other 99 to seek out. One would not realize that the overwhelming number of Catholics are unaware or only most vaguely aware of the schisms.

Myself, I knew a little about the lefebvreite schism prior to coming to FR. But I knew nothing of the SSPV (now reunited to the Catholic Church), or the SSP2.5 or the CMRI or that there were actually any sedevacantists, or the various "popes" of the different lunatic fringe groups, etc., etc., etc.

Yet, these voice just about dominate the "RC" Caucus at FR.

It is a shame.


sitetest

[SoothingDave]

Okay. I'll bite, In my best Ed McMahon voice, I ask you... How Protestant is it?

Well, as you know, the question of validity really comes down to the validity of the priest's ordination, the matter used for the Eucharistic elements, and the priest's words.

The priest can have all kinds of strange ideas, the "liturgy" can express certain "Protestant" ideas, etc. But as long as the priest does what he is supposed to, validity is not a question.

SD

[Pyro7480]

I've heard both "For us men and our salvation" and "For us and our salvation" during the Mass. That doesn't disturb my peace during the Liturgy as much as when people substitute "God" for male personal pronouns. I mean, cut the PC crap people! This is the Mass, not your bloody feminist experiement. The worst was when I heard one woman during the Our Father say "Our Father and Mother." I've been trying to maintain my peace of heart and mind when I heard it, but it irks me that they put their ideology before their religion.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

I agree completely, however we are being overrun in the desire for inclusive language. This Easter, I coordinated and directed the readers for the Easter Vigil. By the end of it we had God creating human beings in his own image (I wasn't too happy). God Bless.

[Pyro7480]

See my Chesterton quote in post #125.

[SoothingDave]

In the N.O. you have a valid Consecration, celebrated by a validly ordained priest, but this is done not to offer a present unbloody sacrifice of Christ Himself to the Father so much as to commemorate at a memorial meal the Sacrifice that had already happened

It's funny, cause I was raised post-Vatican II, in the NO Mass, and the references to it being a sacrifice or an offering are clear to me. They are in English, even.

How can you miss them?

SD

[saradippity]

Look,a Catholic is someone who who declares their belief in the Nicene Creed and all that it means. When one says,I believe in One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church,one is confirming what that Church teaches.

The Church teaches that the Truth Christ gave to man is protected and guarded and proclaimed throughout all nations as He commissioned. And,that this is safeguarded by Scripture,Tradition and the Pope,in union with the Magisterium or speaking alone,if necessary or prudent or some such thing.This holds for dogma,doctrine and matters of faith and morals. Most all official papers that come from the Congregations (curia)contain the line "this teaching is to be held definitively by all Catholics everywhere".

This acceptance also includes matters of discipline,which can be changed,but until they are,are included in those things we must hold to be correct. I do think that the internet is an appropriate place to discuss those matters of discipline with which some Catholics disagree,but they should be predicated by a statement that shows an understanding of the Church postion.

When a person who claims to be "catholic" comes along spinning all kinds of dates and misinformation in an attempt to change the thinking of participants in a discussion with information that is not true,I question their Catholicity. That is why I question yours. Maybe if you gave me your definition of "Catholic",I would be less inclined to argue. So what is it,please>

[WriteOn]

I suspect Siobhan discovered that this place does not lead one closer to God.

[SoothingDave]

That doesn't disturb my peace during the Liturgy as much as when people substitute "God" for male personal pronouns. I mean, cut the PC crap people!

Amen. I am blessedly free from such nonsense, except of course for the hymns which have been bowdlerized. The amusing thing is that "inclusive" language is as insulting to women as "affirmative action" is to minorities. If a woman can not look in a dictionary and see that "man" is an inclusive term in the English language, then she deserves all of the resentment she feels.

All of which is secondary. The point is that no one is to alter the texts used in the Mass without approval from Rome.

SD

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

You would love my Parish then , actually a Newman Center. It has a large number of non-Student members, associate, who are very much to the left, while the students are too the right. Our brave pastor has to try working with both groups. He cannot lose the students because the Center serves them, he cannot lose the associates because they comprise almost all the funding. We have associates, who do Our Mother; we don't kneel at the Consecration (a few of us do), lots of singing and guitar playing (which actually, is tastefully done since we have so many darn talented musicians); gender neutral langauge, read my post to SD, has my Easter Vigil story. God Bless

[Pyro7480]

I just finished reading your post. I think you have a point. However, just because one faction has an apparent domination of the Catholic forum, doesn't mean that they have the majority of followers amongst the Catholics on FR. They just happen to post the most (or shout the loudest, if you want to put it that way).

In terms of the Catholic population, I think your numbers are indicative of the cultural change that has taken place. Yes, 20 to 30 million are active, practicing Catholic, but do they actually believe all the Catholic Church teaches? I think that many do not. They attend the Mass regularly, but they have the "cafeteria Catholic" mindset. Most of these people are probably not conservatives politically, and therefore, would not be drawn to a forum like FR. There is the first filter of Catholic on FR.

Then you have the breakdown of how the Catholics on FR practice their faith. If you're a conservative politically, it is likely that you trend more conservative religiously too. Those who do take their faith serious are probably more prone to post on the Religion forum. Many of the other members of FR who may be Catholics are more interested in the News portion of FR, so that would serve as a second filter for the type of person who posts on the Religion forum.

[k omalley]

"The RC forum now consists of the far right: schismatics, integrists, ultra-traditionalists, and even the odd sedevacantist."

I have attended nothing but the N.O. since the Church changed the Mass. That being said, if I still lived in the diocese of Richmond I doubt that I would still be Catholic. You would probably find me at the athletic club on Sunday mornings. I have no real problem with the N.O when the rubrics are followed, but when unspeakable abuses are introduced(and I don't mean altar girls and EEMs) so that you wonder if the Mass and the Sacraments are even valid that is when I have to wonder what happened to the Church that I loved. If all I had now were invalid sacraments offered and there were an SSPX chapel nearby, then yes, I would go. If a Tridentine Mass came to town I would certainly check it out, perhaps attend regularly.

I like this forum because there are knowledgeable Catholics here who don't accept everything at face value unlike my previous fellow parishoners who thought that everything Father did was just wonderful, even when he had the gall to change Holy Thursday footwashing to handwashing. Sheesh!

I am not nearly well versed in Catholicism as many of the posters here. I have an M.A. in Religious Studies but most of my studies were in deconstruction. What little knowledge I do have comes from Catholic periodicals so I really like reading everyone's opinion here as long as they don't get nasty.

[Pyro7480]

That sounds similar to the situation at the Catholic student center at the school I went to, which I just graduated from in January. Many of the students were pretty traditional/conservative, and the liturgical situation is similar too.

[Ex-Wretch]

"Well, as you know, the question of validity really comes down to the validity of the priest's ordination, the matter used for the Eucharistic elements, and the priest's words."

Question: Suppose a "valid" priest is in "mortal" sin (i.e. he's been out all night at the casino, drunk and just buggered someone an hour ago). He's in a hurry and it's time for him to say mass. He loads up the chalice with the correct wafers. So ... now he's on the altar and he says the right words. Does any of this negate his power to offer a "valid" sacrifice? In other words, does God have the liberty to say "NO WAY"?

[sinkspur]

This acceptance also includes matters of discipline,which can be changed,but until they are,are included in those things we must hold to be correct. I do think that the internet is an appropriate place to discuss those matters of discipline with which some Catholics disagree,but they should be predicated by a statement that shows an understanding of the Church postion.

I understand the Church's position on celibacy (I know this is the discipline to which you are referring), I just do not agree that mandatory celibacy is necessary to the full witness value of the priesthood nor to the identity of the priest himself.

If he embraces it voluntarily, that is all to the good. But, obviously, married men can be priests, have been, and are today.

Disagreeing with disciplinary matters should not be any kind of factor in determining one's Catholicity, otherwise disciplines (like laws of fasting and abstinence) would never be changed.

I profess all the creeds I need to profess, sara, with a full and willing heart. Celibacy will likely not be changed in our lifetimes, but we can discuss it, nonetheless, and should.

[SoothingDave]

Question: Suppose a "valid" priest is in "mortal" sin (i.e. he's been out all night at the casino, drunk and just buggered someone an hour ago). He's in a hurry and it's time for him to say mass. He loads up the chalice with the correct wafers. So ... now he's on the altar and he says the right words. Does any of this negate his power to offer a "valid" sacrifice? In other words, does God have the liberty to say "NO WAY"?

The state of the soul of the priest has no bearing on the validity of the sacrament. Much like Paul warns the Corinthians to make sure they take Communion worthily, lest they eat and drink a condemnation upon themselves, the priest is so much more in danger of condemning himself by such a scenario you describe.

But, that does not affect the validity of the sacrament. It is objectively what it is.

SD