Replies

One who assists at a Latin Mass offered by SSPX is not, for that fact, in schism.

Attachment to the SSPX is evidence of schism, only the bishops are excommunicated. You are talking out both sides of your mouth though, just a bit ago you said I was making false statements.

However, Rome was compelled to state the truth it seems: there's no sin in attending them, and dropping a little financial support to boot.

I would take that as attachment.

TO the important issue:
When two diverse things lay claim to the same definition, distinctions are in order, and the attachment of modifiers are useful on a field of verbal battle, that's all.

Being in Union with the Pope, and following his teachings is living as a Catholic, traditionalists are no different from other Catholics. Someone who prefers to sing at Church is just as Catholic as a African who dances at Mass in the Congo, Someone who is at a Tridentine Indult Mass is still as Catholic as someone at a Novus Ordo Mass. There should be no battle.

The field of Verbal battle here is between those who say the Mass is wrong, and that we must fully return to the Tridentine. This has been condemned by the See. We can reform the Novus Ordo, and Ratzinger has made some suggestions of late, but, the Tridentine 1962 Mass will not be coming back as the primary rite for the Latin rite.

What is worse is the fairy talk that the Church will somehow return to a pristine state and thing will change when we change the Mass. Some accuse me of talking about the Magic Pope, and yet they talk like this is true. It is not going to happen that way either. I agree time is wasting, and whatever Mass you prefer, the other must be recognized as totally valid worship of our Creator.

The damage has been done to the Church and we don't repair the walls by installing a garage door opener. We need bricks of teaching, and a lot of real work to help recatachieze a whole generation.

"Attachment to the SSPX is evidence of schism, only the bishops are excommunicated. You are talking out both sides of your mouth though, just a bit ago you said I was making false statements."

No sir. Talking outside of both sides of a mouth would be to on one hand deliniate the boundaries of "The Church" ecumenistically in such as way as to allow ample room within the Mystical Body of Christ for protestant denominations and even other religions, while at the same time, holding those who are adherents to Catholic doctrine and tradition at arm's length, and call them nonCatholics. That is what's "talking out of both sides".

Note that you would be absolutely unable to procure for me any specific meaning for the phrase "attached to the SSPX" which would be anything more than nebulous, rendering it incapable of being rooted in any principle of Catholic doctrine. "Rejection of the papacy" is concrete and readily identifiable, on the other hand. But the question is, does somebody really reject the papacy? That's an entirely different question than whether someone is attached to anything.

I said: "However, Rome was compelled to state the truth it seems: there's no sin in attending them [sspx masses], and dropping a little financial support to boot." You say

"I would take that as attachment."

Well then, Rome has been compelled to admit that said attachment doesn't really constitute schism. So see, it appears you have been wrong in your assumption that an attachment to the SSPX (whatever the heck that specifically refers to) was wrong. In Rome's eyes, no less.

"Being in Union with the Pope, and following his teachings is living as a Catholic, traditionalists are no different from other Catholics."

Watch this carefully: what are the Pope's teachings? Guess what. The pope has no new teachings. I'm serious. People talk about the teachings of Pope John Paul II constantly, and badger others as whether they accept these teachings. But nobody knows what those teachings are.

That's because there are no new teachings. Pope John Paul II has not introduced anything new that the Universal Church didn't already know. That's actually the solid truth.

"The field of Verbal battle here is between those who say the Mass is wrong, and that we must fully return to the Tridentine."

Note your wording. You said "those who say the Mass is wrong". That kind of lack of precision leaves someone nothing to work with at all. Wrong in what sense? Without precision and distinction, the phrase is meaningless, so therefore to say that...

"This has been condemned by the See."

...is impossible. "The Mass is wrong" is as ambiguous a statement one could make, and nobody said anything like that anyways.

"We can reform the Novus Ordo, and Ratzinger has made some suggestions of late, but, the Tridentine 1962 Mass will not be coming back as the primary rite for the Latin rite."

You're guessing. You don't know this.