What your thoughts on the SSPX now they are rejecting reunion?

[clem456]

Originally Posted by ImmaculataFides

Curlycool has a history of being staunchly anti-traditional, so there is no surprise there. What is slander is accusing the SSPX of teaching against the eternal truths taught by the magisterium, and spreading error. Because that is blatantly false to anyone with an objective, sane point of view on the subject, unhindered by emotional attachments to Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, the New Mass or Pope Benedict XVI.

It is slanderous and calumnious to go on the usual rant about the SSPX and accuse traditionalist contribution as "parrot SSPX propoganda" and claiming they teach things against the magisterium.

.

I have a common sense attachment to JP2 and Vatican 2, and also have emotional attachments to them for various reasons. Does that mean I am not traditional? I think you may be defining the word traditional very narrowly to your own liking. Labels have a place in politics and so forth, to generically converse and classify people. But in Catholicism, by definition, they are pointless and counterproductive, especially when uses the label to hijack a whole group of teachings in order to separate and divide.

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by Melchior_

As I have said before, they aren't in full communion in the sense they are not in the house proper. They're not all the way gone, but they're not all the way home.

What's the proper folk phrase? Reject their cake and eat it, too.

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by ImmaculataFides

[Confessions in an SSPX chapel] are valid. They have supplied jurisdiction supplied by the Church herself in this time of great crisis.

The Church recognizes their Sacrament of Reconciliation only in the case of imminent death, which hardly applies to the vast majority of attendees. To teach otherwise is to spread error and is to not have the mind and intentions of Christ or His Church.

[ImmaculataFides]

Originally Posted by clem456

I have a common sense attachment to JP2 and Vatican 2, and also have emotional attachments to them for various reasons. Does that mean I am not traditional? I think you may be defining the word traditional very narrowly to your own liking. Labels have a place in politics and so forth, to generically converse and classify people. But in Catholicism, by definition, they are pointless and counterproductive, especially when uses the label to hijack a whole group of teachings in order to separate and divide.

No, I was not saying that. Re-read my post.

[OraLabora]

The Church doesn't cut people off from her, people cut themselves off from the Church. It appears that's where the SSPX is headed by their own choice.

So be it. The Church reached out. They refused. Time to move on. Unity is a great thing, but it may have to happen one soul at a time, not en bloc.

[clem456]

Originally Posted by ImmaculataFides

No, I was not saying that. Re-read my post.

Ok, maybe I misunderstand, this is what you said:

Curlycool has a history of being staunchly anti-traditional, so there is no surprise there. What is slander is accusing the SSPX of teaching against the eternal truths taught by the magisterium, and spreading error. Because that is blatantly false to anyone with an objective, sane point of view on the subject, unhindered by emotional attachments to Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, the New Mass or Pope Benedict XVI.

[Stylites]

Originally Posted by ImmaculataFides

Wow, you clearly have an axe to grind. Calm down. Have a glass of water. Relax.

Your slander and calumny is gravely sinful. You should reflect on that.

Wow, indeed. Forgive me for judging that curlycool89 did not commit any gravely sinful act, and for believing that slander (or even libel) cannot be committed against an organization, even if a member of the organization calumniates on their website about how attending an OF Mass is supposedly a sin. You should reflect on that.

[Thomas Casey]

This is premature

CLOSED