Posted on 09/20/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by NYer
<I think all that is great, my hat off to you, but you are missing the point I am many others have been making.
BCM: I answer your direct question directly, and then you say I am missing the point.
<I have never attacked the indult neither in public nor in private. I am sure there have been some on this site who do but I do not see it very often.
BCM: SSPX literature, which I picked up and read again after attending the chapel, said effectively that Catholis attached to Tradition should not attend the Novus Ordo because it is "evil" and should not attend the indult. I read this years ago, and now I read it again. It is dangerous to tell people to stay at home and NOT go to Mass, when the Mass is the Mass, but it is the LITURGY we are really discussing.
<Many of the people who defend SSPX are Indult people but it is a bit of a split down the middle as far as I can tell.
BCM: And believe it or not, I have been one of them. I read the most recent issue of Latin Mass and thought Bishop Fellay's Q&A (BRAND NEW and I can't find it on the web) was phenomenal. I continue to hope and pray for a reconciliation.
<This half-n-half situation is one of the major reasons I do not attack them, the other being sympathy for their situation.
BCM: Me too. But I also think that having a LARGE Novus Ordo parish (where our indult is offered) to evangelize too is also advantageous to building the Kingdom.
<They will be coming for you just as soon as they can. I bet you suspect this is right even if you dread to admit it. Who wants to admit something we love has gone bad?
BCM: I am quite uncertain what you are speaking about.
<Half of you Indult folks come to our defense and half attack us. Some one side one thread, on the other side with the next.
BCM: It depends upon the specific topic. I would not say we are attacking anyone. We clarify ideas and put up what Vatican I and Ecclesia Dei Adflicta say. I am not saying any particular people here are SSPX adherents. That is for your own examination of conscience. I can say what it appears to be based upon what certain people write. I also know that the SSPX attendees, for the most part, are just Catholics seeking solace. However, the diocesan structure, even those open to the indult, are easily dissuaded by the type of acrimony and discussions we have on this board.
Like it or not, the individual feelings and predispositions of Novus Ordo bishops and priests do matter in the Big Church. We might not like that, but it is a fact of life. I would prefer to keep them on our side, or at least tolerate us.
And our younger pre-seminarians, well, my children will be richly blessed, because the half dozen or so I know are traddies through and through--or at least coming that way. But this kind of acrimony could dissuade them. This is my primary concern--as well as the sede tendencies I detect here.
"We acknowledge the Pope is the Pope, but we pick and choose what we want to obey."
This is the impression I am left with.
<But you have about SSPX and they are most likely the only reason you have your Indult. By the way, your welcome.
BCM: No, the Mass survived because Ratzinger and the Pope stuck to their original agreement with Lefebvre. Unfortunately, Lefebvre did not. I used to agree we had it because of him, but we really have it due to our bishop, the Pope and our director of prayer and worship who offers it.
I would say "thank you," but you are not Lefebvre as far as I can tell. What I would have said to him was "Think about how much more good you could have done and leaven your priests could have provided from within the heart and soul of the Church."
I am not in any way saying there are not good fruits. But everything SSPX is NOT a good fruit.
The Apostolic See...
From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.
* any sane individual can see lefevbre was calling the Pope an antiChrist. That is a heresy
Talk to your co-religionists in the cult of Marcell. I am no more likely to become a Marcellian schismatic than I am likely to become a resident of the planet Pluto. Actual Catholics have no reason to be interested in your self-serving schismatic propaganda. You have no more credibility than does the See-BS Network or Dan Blather.
Funny how, on a conservative website, we see so little of the Marcel cult on the political threads.
Talk to your co-religionists in the cult of Marcell. I am no more likely to become a Marcellian schismatic than I am likely to become a resident of the planet Pluto. Actual Catholics have no reason to be interested in your self-serving schismatic propaganda. You have no more credibility than does the See-BS Network or Dan Blather.
Funny how, on a conservative website, we see so little of the Marcel cult on the political threads.
<"To explain your question about "they will be coming for you" was a reflection of my belief your Indult will go away at the first opportunity. Maybe not this Pope, or not your present Bishop but someday and most likely in your lifetime.">
Perhaps you have not been reading what Cardinal Hoyos has been saying. Perhaps you do not trust him or the Pope.
If I walked around thinking like this all the time, people would say I am even more pessimistic than they already do.
The indult is NOT going away because it is growing and we are helping form young men who want to say the Mass. If we have the priests, we'll have the Mass--even if nobody wants to go to it.
By the way, we have a third indult location (by FSSP) being added to the li'l ole diocese of Charleston in the old South with a 3 percent Catholic population. Three of them. Looks like the trend is toward more, not less.
The judgment of the pope gthat SSPX is in schism and its bishops excommunicated will suffice as a foundation for anyone actually Catholic to agree. What outsiders declared in schism or excommunicated may imagine need not trouble the actually faithful.
Funny how your last 20 posts have been on this thread.
p.s. I'm not tugging at your sleeve, I'm just accusing you of being a hypocrite.
At the very least, for one who defends the schism, attendance at SSPX Masses (meritorious as a Mass but perfectly replaceable by any Indult Mass or Novus Ordo Mass) would also seem to be a near occasion of sin. God gave you free will to use or abuse as you see fit with rewards and consequences. Have a party.
The answer to your question would therefore seem to be no.
For all of this, I receive your complaint that I am talking to more than one person.
If I ping others, that is not your business. No one died and left you in charge of determining which other people (other than you since I do have manners) I should ping. We seem to be in anarchy on FR for the time being even as to whether we may effectively insist on not being pinged by others.
You have refused my now withdrawn offer to cease conversation by way of pinging each other. If you are complaining that I pinged someone else (not you) to whom I posed the question of Philomena, you have no standing to make such a complaint.
I also note that you prvide nothing in the way of the reuested material to back the claims that this girl was someone named Philomena, much less any documentable facts of her life to underlie the claim of her sainthood based on her life. You reference only that, about eighteen hundred years after the death of her whose remains have been found, Church officials saw to her canonization. I knew that but not why.
I had not known that she had been withdrawn from the Church calendar in about 1970. Has she also been withdrawn from the honors of the altar? As a non-person? As one not provable? I actually have no idea. Facts? Documentation? Usable links?
You think I support "bugger priests?" Now certainly you can bring up one teensy little post of mine in support of them? No???? Then keep your libels to yourself, Frankieboy!
Fifthmark: Do you think the damned arrive in hell by accident or do you think they wind up there through the willed (however disappointed) justice of Almighty God, based upon His objective knowledge of their behavior in life and unrepented mortal sins????
I think you may be missing the point which is not whether the indult is growing but whether adherence to Catholic Tradition is growing. Everyone here who supports Catholic Tradition is glad to see more indult locations, and hopefully they are also glad to see more SSPX locations, since in both cases opportunities are offered to the faithful to practice the traditional Catholic faith and attend the traditional Catholic Mass. We need more of every kind of traditional Catholic.
If there are issues from the SSPX point of view regarding the FSSP and other indult situations, they would consist of questions regarding:
1. Do they truly adhere to Catholic tradition or do they merely say the 1962 Mass? I've heard the priest at an indult Mass tell the congregation in his sermon that they shouldn't bother having so many children now that the pope has recommended NFP.
2. Is it a wise move to split traditional forces which are already so small in comparison to the numbers of those who are promoting the revolution? The indult succeeded in creating divisions within the traditional movement, which is a bad thing, although it also succeeded in making the traditional Catholic Mass more widely available, which is a good thing. It is a legitimate question to wonder which will prove more significant in the long run, the good effects or the bad effects. We can all hope together that the good effects will outweigh the bad, even if we deplore the bad effects of division and infighting within the traditional movement such as what is described in the article that started this post.
Fifthmark: I have no idea of whether Frankwild is a schismatic but he sure does have an overly active and overly malignant fiction gland if he thinks I support "bugger priests."
See bornacatholic's #215 which, though aimed elsewhere, is the answer to your old schismatic argument. You believe you owe obedience when you or the now dead and excommunicated archscismatic of your group pleased or pleases. Catholics KNOW you owe obedience to the Pontiff. So did dead Marcel and so do all of his excommunicated bishops and all of his schismatic sycophants, whether they like it or not. The priests of the swchism are violating their vow of obedience and well do they know it.
The schismatic Fr. Scott sounds like the faux Teddy Roosevelt character in Arsenic and Old Lace, bounding up and down the staircase blowing his bugle and imagining his sisters' home to be San Juan Hill.
Sincere thanks for your posts.
You have a very good working definition of your little sulfurous schism there in the second sentence. The rest, per usual, is bilge.
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.