Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
***Out of a Wisconsin Catholic population of about 1 million+, the SSPX membership is around 1,000.***
How many of the 999,000 non-SSPX are agressively Catholic? How many attend mass weekly and believe Catholic core doctrines?
This seems to be the relevant comparison.
Does that go for the Jews and Muslims?
***Does that go for the Jews and Muslims?***
Yes, unless they are co-officiating at an ecumenical service INSIDE the church. ***grin***
Are you claiming its impossible to do this in a Christian way? Invoke "ho Theos" to come and bless?
I guess you'd say the Church was wrong to use the sacred springs of the pagans as the running waters of Baptismal fonts across Europe, to buidl Cathedrals were pagan worship sites stood, to transform pagan festivities into Christian feasts, or to turn the Pantheon into a Church.
Or is inculturation only valid in Europe but not India?
Of course, speaking of the UN is not exactly germane to this thread--but since you might regard 'speaking about the UN' as ANOTHER heresy...and I'm sure you can come up with some fragment of some letter someplace which would seem to make it so---I'll respond FWIW.
The Pope likes the UN because he's not sold on GWB's "preventive strikes" concept. There's a good reason for that: "preventive strikes" are hard to square with the Just War theory. You may recall that theory--it has to do with morality in war.
"Preventive strikes" are possibly acceptable at the very bleeding edge of the theory, when it is demonstrated that the target nation/state has the will and the way. Even more helpful is a demonstration that the target nation has participated in prior strikes against the country, (obviously in a clandestine fashion.)
IOW, our action in Iraq was marginally acceptable from a moral point of view.
Of course, the Pope's words about the UN have ALWAYS included a conditional phrase to the effect that 'the UN needs reform,' or some such. This is obvious to anyone with two eyes.
The Pope is a liberal, although not quite as naive as Paul VI. Liberals believe that there can be some forum which brings justice and mediates all conflict satisfactorily.
Most of us disagree, and the argument in favor of patriotism is very strong in Church history.
Second answer first: about 30% of Catholics attend Mass weekly (or more often.) Thus, about 1/3 of a million.
As to "aggressive" Catholics--perhaps you'd like to define that term. "Aggressive" seems to describe Tomas deTorquemada rather well. I don't know of any Catholics up here who are fully "like" TdT, who should be canonized.
Thanks, GS, for another useful angle.
I forgot that some SSPXr's are living in sin, (having invalidly and illicitly attempted 'marriage,') and are also in a very dicey position regarding the validity of their Confessions.
By agressive I mean that they are preemptively and actively communicating their convictions to others.
I've mentioned before that I've actually been to India on a Catholic mission and received the same mark on the forehead from a married woman that the Pope received while working in a slum to rebuild one of their parks. (Actually, we were at the "school" in the slum at the time on our first visit to these people, but I digress).
The ceremony had nothing to do with paganism. We didn't hold any lamps or have any chantings of the Vedas. It was explained to us by the leading men as exactly how Dominick and gbcdoj have explained it here - a ceremonial gesture of friendly greeting and blessing God for our coming among them as honored guests. We looked upon it as about the same as receiving a luau upon arriving in Hawaii - especially since we were also give a floral necklace at the same time that had been made by the girls of the school.
Had we thought we were engaging in Shiva worship, we would certainly have fled. (We did see Shiva worship a few weeks later at the slum, when a wild procession of a statue went by as we worked - the procession itself rather reminded me of Italian processions of the Madonna.) And our leader (a devout Catholic) would certainly have known what was going on had that been the case, considering the careful vetting that went into planning our trip.
ur, you are quite simply out of your depth on this one, and don't know what you are talking about.
***I forgot that some SSPXr's are living in sin***
Unlike Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry who have an official church annulment?
The two regularly ingest the consecrated Host.
Given that definition, my response would be "less than I'd like."
But I have NO earthly idea of how to quantify that--much less how to determine the quality of such evangelization.
Steve, I'm at a loss to explain to you the pastoral situation regarding Ted Kennedy (or Mario Cuomo, or Rudy Giuliani, or.....the list goes on.)
As you have noticed, a great Furor was aroused by a few Bishops who took seriously the Pope's letter on the Eucharist and/or who took seriously Canon 915.
It might be analogous to this: GS took umbrage to your pointed question about the pols and the Eucharist; OTOH, I did not.
I realize that we're dealing with different stakes in the Politician Controversy.
But I still can't explain it. Look, Cardinal Cushing of Boston was not known as a lefty-wonk, and he was comfortable with the Kennedy antics, too, I guess.
***btw, I find it distasteful when a person [moreso even - a non-Catholic] introduces the Body and Blood of Our Savior as some sort of "gotchya!".***
It was a fact. I would think you would reserve all of your offense for CINO politicians who advocate and legalize abortion and then have the gall to ingest the Host in sheer hypocrisy.
For a priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal or Pope to allow these men to flaunt Catholic doctrine and take the Eucharist pretending all is well with their souls is also something that should cause you offense unspeakable.
I did not disrespect the Host. In fact, out of respect to you I even capitalized the "H" even though as a Protestant I do not believe in transsubstantiation. My accomodation in capitalization was for you, not me.
Have said before, if I believed the doctrine of the real presence I would be a raging trad.
Appreciate the comments and the tension.
I am reminded of the writings of Malachi Martin (Final Conclave, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church) exhorting the Church to forsake it's pursuit of economic and political clout and focus on its spiritual calling.
I am not one who supports the current SSPX leadership, but the sacramet of marriage conferred by the SSPX, while illregular and in need of regularization, is valid(though annulments by the SSPX are another matter alltogether). As for confessions, because of its irregular status, the validity is a bit more difficult.
I can understand the fustration at the SSPX leadership, I really can, if they regularized their relationship with Rome in late 2001, the traditionalist movment would be FAR ahead of where it is today. I can understand the fustration at Bishop Williamson, who I believe is on the edge of sanity, who has a cult of personality that surrounds him and skirts the lind of Sede territory.
But that said, I think the stones thrown in this forum at many honest faithful who attend the SSPX because their is no other option for a reverent mass, much less a mass that is theologically orthodox in terms of church teahcings and traditions avilable where they live, are disgusting. I know that doesnt excuse the Pope bashing behavior on the part of two traditionalist posters on this forum, but still, walk a mile or even an inch in the shoes of many people who have to go beyond the diocean structure.
Lastly GSS, and to others, why did the Vatican overturn the ex communication of laity who attended SSPX masses(and in fact they paid to fly out the SSPX priest) to Hawaii?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.