Real trads

[Walty]

How many times do we have to have the same argument? We are all very familiar with what you think Jayne, the same for the  other usual suspects. This is worse then the modesty threads.

Indeed. 

Jayne, do you realize how very much this comes across as you simply wanting to cause controversy and rile things up?  You disagree with how certain people throw around terms like, "real trads".  Fine.  On the same token, I abhor how you throw around judgments on what is truly Catholic and what isn't.

But that's the great thing about an internet forum.  It's a place of dialogue.  We discuss competing thoughts and ideas.  It doesn't all have to fit perfectly with your perception of things and it's quite all right if people disagree with you.  You seem to want to end dialogue and smear whomever you disagree with.

[verenaerin]

How many times do we have to have the same argument? We are all very familiar with what you think Jayne, the same for the  other usual suspects. This is worse then the modesty threads.

Indeed. 

Jayne, do you realize how very much this comes across as you simply wanting to cause controversy and rile things up?  You disagree with how certain people throw around terms like, "real trads".  Fine.  On the same token, I abhor how you throw around judgments on what is truly Catholic and what isn't.

But that's the great thing about an internet forum.  It's a place of dialogue.  We discuss competing thoughts and ideas.  It doesn't all have to fit perfectly with your perception of things and it's quite all right if people disagree with you.  You seem to want to end dialogue and smear whomever you disagree with.

This is true Walty. What is the point of a continual Mexican standoff? We all know where everyone stands. No one is interested in changing their minds. Therefore, there is nothing to really discuss, as far as this particular subject.

[Guardian]

Jaynek,

You and I seem to have similar opinions on the subject.

In my own experience - which I admit is only my own and may well not be shared by others in the tank - is that a bitterly sectarian and even cultish mentality prevails in many quarters of the SSPX. Thanks be to God by no means all SSPXers diplay such tendencies, and let's face it, you get idiots and cultists and fanatics in all sectors of the church. But the SSPX sure has their fair share of them - disagree with them, and you are a neocon, a neo-Catholic, a liberal,  modernist, etc; they cannot take any criticism of the SSPX - the SSPX right or wrong, or the SSPX can do no wrong. Any criticisim is met with a lecture as to how they're the be-all and end-all of traditionalism and how the Church wouldn't exist without them, etc, and how we should al bow and scrape in gratitide and never have any criticisms - because, after all, didn't you know, the SSPX is infallible ad indefectible

I have seen this "up close and personal" - SSPX faiththful instructed in no uncertain terms from the pulpit, to boycott ALL NON-SSPX TRADITIONAL MASSES, even if it meant missing Sunday Mass; INSTRUCTING people to make an act of perfect sorrow and await the visit of the SSPX priest for confession, if we are conscious of mortal sin, rather than receive absolution from TLM-saying local priests; telling people to boycott the TRADITIONAL RITE baptism of their grandson/nephew because the priest was non-SSPX; our priest telling people that even if the Pope were to offer the TLM we should not attend; persecution and public slander of priests who have left the SSPX and public denunciation of faithful who have sheltered such priests; being publicly referred to as  a "convert" even though I am a cradle Catholic; the instructon from our District that SSPX faithful who marry "Novus Ordo Catholics" that they are entering "mixed marriages" and their wedding must be along the lines of  pre-Vatican II mixed marriage, little old ladies being persuaded to abandon Traditional Sunday Masses in favour of Rosary at the chapel , regular public attacks from the pulpit on the Pope.....and that's just for starters. Now by no means all SSPXers are like this or have or display this mentality - but it is suffiiently widespread and established to be a problem. DARE to express disagreement with this, or with any SSPX position and one is a liberal, a modernist, a neocon - you name it. Sorry, but this is very, very evident to me.

This!!

I had a friend who asked an SSPX Priest if it would be ok to go to A TRADITIONAL DAILY MASS at an independant chapel and was told that it was a danger and she would do well to stay away from it.  

[Walty]

Maybe the independent chapel was lead by a priest with dubious orders.  If you don't know the full context then let's not jump to "ZOMG, teh SSPX Is soooooo sElf righteous!!!!"

[Guardian]

Walty, I respect your opinion.  But when you say things like this.....

Of course they are calling it that, because that is exactly what it is.  The SSPX has secured traditionalism.  It has stood unwavering for what the Church has stood for for centuries.  Anything else is a compromise.

And then follow it up with this.....

You disagree with how certain people throw around terms like, "real trads".  Fine.  On the same token, I abhor how you throw around judgments on what is truly Catholic and what isn't.

So let me get this straight.  You "abhor" how Jayne throws around judgements about being Catholic, yet its ok for you to make a judgemental blanket statement about who holds the true Catholic faith? You should try and at least be consistant with your statements so you don't say the exact thing that you so vehemently condemn in others. Just wondering; what makes your stance on what it means to be a Traditional Catholic better or "more right" than Jayne's or mine? I happen to disagree with the SSPX on a lot of positions.  And I have my reasons and sources just like you do.  But at the end of the day, I consider us both Catholic.   

[Walty]

I'm not saying that anyone here is or isn't Catholic.  I have an idea of what makes one Catholic and what one ought to believe to be Catholic, but I'm not going to pass that judgment on anyone else.  You won't often hear me saying that "Person A is this" or "Person B isn't that".

Jayne, however, has no problem insinuating that people are Nazis, disobedient, schismatic, anti-Semitic, etc.  She's been calling individuals out for the past week now (and probably longer), and it's bull.

[Guardian]

Maybe the independent chapel was lead by a priest with dubious orders.  If you don't know the full context then let's not jump to "ZOMG, teh SSPX Is soooooo sElf righteous!!!!"

Actually, I was just commenting on the fact that the SSPX advises its members to stay away from all Masses that are not said by the SSPX.  

In this case, my friend even provided background information to the SSPX Priest regarding the independant chapel.  There was nothing objectionable; It was a reverent Traditional Latin Mass.  The Priest still advised caution based solely on the fact that it was not an SPPX Mass.  

[Guardian]

I'm not saying that anyone here is or isn't Catholic.  I have an idea of what makes one Catholic and what one ought to believe to be Catholic, but I'm not going to pass that judgment on anyone else.  You won't often hear me saying that "Person A is this" or "Person B isn't that".

Jayne, however, has no problem insinuating that people are Nazis, disobedient, schismatic, anti-Semitic, etc.  She's been calling individuals out for the past week now (and probably longer), and it's bull.

If this is the case, it should be addressed when it arises.  I know I'm relatively new here so I don't know your history with Jayne, and I don't know Jayne very well.  However, in this specific topic I saw nothing objectionable in any of her posts.  In fact I thought it was a good conversation starter regarding people who favor traditionalism but not the extremism of the SSPX. 

Maybe you're just paranoid, but I see nothing wrong with this post except that you disagree with her position on the SSPX.  So proud of you, but sorry I don't think that qualifies as objectionable content. 

There are many good things to say about the SSPX.  I think their founder was a holy man, doing what he thought best for the Church.  They have struggled to preserve the TLM under difficult circumstances.  They have taken a stand for orthodoxy in a time when many abandon it.  I disagree with them on some points, but I agree sufficiently that I often attend Mass at their chapel.  I used to defend them back when I was on CAF.

Unfortunately, some posters on FE seem to consider the SSPX the measure of being a traditional Catholic.  They act like they think anyone who does not take the SSPX position is not a real trad and label such people neo-con, neo-cath, etc.  There are enough people with this attitude that anyone stating a non-SSPX position can expect a bunch of people to forcefully, often unpleasantly, express disagreement.  It has created an atmosphere of intimidation on this forum such that people who take non-SSPX positions may be reluctant to say so.

Lately, I have the impression there has been a shift in this.  More and more are speaking up and taking positions not approved by the SSPX.  I think, based on complaints I've noticed about how the forum is ceasing to be a real trad forum, our SSPX supporters here have noticed it too. 

[sarahraphael]

What is the point of your post?

I wanted to find out if anyone else was noticing these things or had an alternate explanation for them.

I for one am increasingly disturbed by the theological separation between the Vatican and NO mindset and the Church Triumphant, the saints who died for their faith- not part of their faith, but all of it, whole and entire, without compromise. The more I read, the more that happens, the more clearly I see this, and the more outraged and scandalized I am. You don't know what I'm talking about? Here's a quick example:

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/papa-pope-el-papa-germania-germay-alemania-ecumenismo-ecumenism-8346/


I pray daily for unity, but separating the church from the traditions and saints of its past creates a graver disunity than calling a spade a spade and a heretic a heretic. Allowing and condoning the practice of everyone believing what they want, "live and let live," does not create unity, but apathy. I suspect other people are feeling similarly, which is why there may or may not be a shift on this forum towards the SSPX, etc.

People crave truth. Not part of the truth, but the whole truth. Deep down inside all of us, I think, is a desire for the uncompromised beauty of complete truth. That's why we're drawn to God and the Church. That's why the Church crisis is so deeply unsettling for so many of us. And that's why more and more sincere, loving Catholics are going to the SSPX, other traditional orders- even becoming sedevacantists- because they do love the truth and desire it and the Church to be whole and complete. Sure, I'm sure many of us, myself definitely included, have done or are doing many things wrong. Certainly we all cannot be right, as Truth is of God (indeed, God is truth!), it is objective, it can't change and it cannot be more than one thing. But God sees our hearts. He sees the sincerity and the desire for truth and the good. He sees our love for the Church, and the confusion which it is currently in, and I do not doubt His mercy (nor His justice) when He considers these things.

We *are* going to disagree here. If it were otherwise it would show an attitude of apathy. We just need, all of us, no matter our position, to work towards being truly charitable in these discussions and arguments, and particularly avoid posting things intentionally inflammatory. Taking a second to review a post, particularly a post written in anger or frustration, could go a long way to improving the real charity of the forum.

My 2 cents.

[NOtard]

Maybe the independent chapel was lead by a priest with dubious orders. 

I was just reading something yesterday which made it seem like the SSPX considers all ordinations and episcopal consecrations done by the "conciliar church" to be dubious at best.  Apparently, if a priest joins the SSPX, he will be conditionally re-ordained, even if he was ordained using the older rite, because the bishop who ordained him may himself have been consecrated bishop using the new rite.

That would help explain why the SSPX is so against diocesan TLMs -- in their eyes, it's probably not even a valid Mass.

Is this accurate?