Originally Posted By Zhukov:
I saw an interesting meme on Facebook. Y'all remember that scene from Predator where Arnold and Carl Weather clasp hands? Anyway. The caption above reads "We don't need Rome to tell us what's right". The arm on the left is labeled "SSPX". The arm on the right is labeled something like "Society of Catholic Women Priests" or something like that, another schismatic group.

You can slice it any way you want, but the SSPX is just as much of a problem as any liberal offshoot of that deems themselves Catholic. To die on the hill that is the TLM, a form of worship instituted in 1570 as if it were ordained by Christ himself is just absurd in my opinion. It is a way to worship Christ, but not the only way. The people who are willing to leave the Catholic church over it show why the TLM has become such a lightning rod. I'll just leave it that...

Originally Posted By EastWest:


Yes.

Raised Episcopalian from birth (at 11 I decided I was high church, "Anglo Catholic"). When I was 17 (1972) I saw what was coming in the TEC, CofE, etc and left. I became Orthodox, went to St Vladimir's Seminary as an undergrad (1975) in its program with Iona College.

After college worked for three years then returned to SVS for the M DIv program. Half way through I met my RC wife and thought I could convert her. We were married in the Orthodox Church but when she was pregnant with our first and I didn't think she'd convert I decided to be received into the local Melkite Byzantine parish, 1986. I got transfer credits (nights and weekend classes) from St Mary's RC Seminary in Cleveland while working in tech sales and St Vladimir's gave me an MA in theology in May, 1988.

Originally Posted By bluedog82:


LCMS supremacy!

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
I saw an interesting meme on Facebook. Y'all remember that scene from Predator where Arnold and Carl Weather clasp hands? Anyway. The caption above reads "We don't need Rome to tell us what's right". The arm on the left is labeled "SSPX". The arm on the right is labeled something like "Society of Catholic Women Priests" or something like that, another schismatic group.

You can slice it any way you want, but the SSPX is just as much of a problem as any liberal offshoot of that deems themselves Catholic. To die on the hill that is the TLM, a form of worship instituted in 1570 as if it were ordained by Christ himself is just absurd in my opinion. It is a way to worship Christ, but not the only way. The people who are willing to leave the Catholic church over it show why the TLM has become such a lightning rod. I'll just leave it that...

Originally Posted By skid2041:
So, a group that has millions of Faithful members, holds to the Traditions of the the Catholic Faith, which had been in place for 2000 yrs, bringing the Sacraments and conversions to many nations....... is somehow a problem in the same measure of a sect of those going against all teachings of the Church and wanting women clergy?

Interesting.

The Latin Mass was not instituted 1570. The TLM, in form and rubrics has been around from the beginning. Obviously, not always in Latin.

There are reasons for Latin (the TLM also has Greek and Hebrew in it)

There a re very many reasons why the TLM is a vastly more reverent, edifying, and greater Liturgy than the N.O.

Its the mass that Catachised the world. So, yes, like St Paul said "Hold fast to your Traditions."

It is one of the main reasons only 20% of Catholics even believe in the Teue presence at mass.

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Yes.

Not in severity of the schism, but when you deem yourself above the Catholic church you are causing just as large of a wound. You are continuing to hold the TLM up as having some sanctity that it was never afforded. It reminds me of all the people who are losing their minds over the change in the 4th degree uniform of the Knights of Columbus. It causes me great pains to witness.

Originally Posted By skid2041:
The SSPX, has and continues to, be obedient to the Catholic Church. They have requested and were denied countless meetings with the Pope, only to be denied. While the Pope consistently met with heretics and LBGTQ leaders etc.... so, due to Canenon 844 and historical context, they are operating under the belief of a crisis in the Church. Which you would have to be cognitively dissonant, NOT to see.

For you to say, that the TLM is not elevated in Sanctity, goes agaisnt centuries of Popes and Church Traditions. Sad, that you can not see this.

Originally Posted By skid2041:



The SSPX, has and continues to, be obedient to the Catholic Church. They have requested and were denied countless meetings with the Pope, only to be denied. While the Pope consistently met with heretics and LBGTQ leaders etc.... so, due to Canenon 844 and historical context, they are operating under the belief of a crisis in the Church. Which you would have to be cognitively dissonant, NOT to see.

For you to say, that the TLM is not elevated in Sanctity, goes agaisnt centuries of Popes and Church Traditions. Sad, that you can not see this.

Originally Posted By Novelty:





I am not following your reasoning. What historical context? The Catholic Church is the Vatican, headed by the Pope. Just because they are not getting a meeting, which why would they when written correspondence over decades did not make them change their ways, make a difference? They did a thing the Catholic Church said NOT to do, how is that obedience? Where is the justification to schism if there is a crisis in the Church?

Now, I do see where things could become a very hard choice for the faithful. What would Catholics do if the Pope said gay marriage was allowed? If abortion was not immoral or against God's law? What if the Pope called for every Catholic to destroy all of their guns?

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
Of course I can see that it was special, but what makes it elevated in sanctity over other forms of the mass? You appear to give it more credence because it appeals to YOU. How many others would leave the church if the shoe were on the other foot? Mind you, they would be wrong for leaving too. The church Jesus established isn't just for appealing to the sensibilities of a certain group. There's more than one way to worship and keep true to the essence of the mass. If the view on the mass were shared by so many, SSPX would have more than 600,000 adherents (self-reported) in the world. There have been many changes in the last two thousand years to what rituals we embrace, and it seems disingenuous to focus on this one and ignore all the others. Over the centuries, Catholics spent upwards of 100 to 150 days a year fasting or abstaining from certain foods - why not break up the church unless we return to that?

Whether the church leadership meets with others we don't like is also not of the issue here. Whether you want to admit it or not, the embrace of the TLM to the point of schism is a rebellion against what is perceived a "too soft" stance on social issues. Now I actually happen to agree with a lot of the complaints about the soft stance on social issues to a degree. The church leadership spends a whole lot more time appealing to causes that we might bristle at, and spend more time trying to smooth the waters with issues that we disagree with, but that doesn't make them wrong. Take bishop Cahill's recent statement on Haitian immigrants. Now I happen to have met bishop Cahill several times at the KofC state convention and believe him to be an honorable and decent man. If you read his statement, you can disagree with the fact that TPS should be extended to Haitian immigrants as is the right of a sovereign country. At the same time, you have to admit that, were Jesus here today, he would also agree with bishop Cahill's statement that it would cause serious hardship to these people and that we should do what we can to make the process as painless as possible. As clergy, it is right for them to view at these issues through the same lens of compassion that Christ would have used.

In my opinion (take it for what it's worth), the Vatican cracking down on the TLM isn't because they dislike the TLM, but because it encourages the schism that is becoming more and more apparent. Having the TLM around wasn't an issue for many decades, until it became a symbol for openly defying the Vatican and pushing certain social issues. I don't harbor any ill will toward SSPX and anyone who really enjoys the TLM. It's a big planet and I would like the option to attend a TLM if I want it - but I can also see them problems it's creating at this time. I fervently pray that we can all take a deep breath, step back, and come to our (unified) senses.

Originally Posted By EastWest:


I'm with you, Skid 2041. From what I've seen the MSM has portrayed Leo's public pleading for the SSPX to reconsider, while not acknowledging, reporting on the times the SSPX has asked to meet with him in person to discuss the consecrations. This weaponization of canon law by Leo and Fernandez is so hypocritical when one sees with all the manifest heresy among the German bishops and elsewhere. In my opinion Rome is selectively following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law.

Originally Posted By TangoFoxtrot:
This organization offers Latin Mass training workshops for Catholic Priests.  

http://www.extraordinaryfaith.tv/celebrant-training/


https://www.facebook.com/ExtraordinaryFaith

Originally Posted By skid2041:SNIP

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
I don't dispute the fact that the TLM was the only way mass was celebrated for centuries, but the entire leadership of the Catholic church has deemed that NO is the way forward. You and I can have a disagreement about how the mass is celebrated without it devolving into schism. I came from Germany, and old churches and organ music was how I grew up. When I came to the US, I was disappointed - but that doesn't make non-organ music invalid. Guess what's happening in Germany, even with their old churches and organ music? Their churches are empty. Yet here in the US, Catholic churches are full of people who joyously celebrate mass without the trappings of the old world.

As you said: You believe that NO is valid, so what are we really arguing about? FWIW: I want the TLM to be an option too.

Originally Posted By EastWest:


Yes, with social media the world is witnessing things it could not have back in 1987.  I am also more hopeful today than I have been in a very long time!  

Originally Posted By Zhukov:
I saw an interesting meme on Facebook. Y'all remember that scene from Predator where Arnold and Carl Weather clasp hands? Anyway. The caption above reads "We don't need Rome to tell us what's right". The arm on the left is labeled "SSPX". The arm on the right is labeled something like "Society of Catholic Women Priests" or something like that, another schismatic group.

You can slice it any way you want, but the SSPX is just as much of a problem as any liberal offshoot of that deems themselves Catholic. To die on the hill that is the TLM, a form of worship instituted in 1570 as if it were ordained by Christ himself is just absurd in my opinion. It is a way to worship Christ, but not the only way. The people who are willing to leave the Catholic church over it show why the TLM has become such a lightning rod. I'll just leave it that...

In August 2012, Williamson administered the sacrament of confirmation to about 100 laypeople at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil, during an unauthorised visit to the State of Rio de Janeiro. The society's South American district superior, Christian Bouchacourt, protested against his action on the SSPX website, saying that it was "a serious act against the virtue of obedience."[109] In early October 2012, the leadership of the SSPX gave Williamson a deadline to declare his submission, instead of which he published an "open letter" asking for the resignation of the Superior General.[110] On 4 October 2012, the Society expelled Williamson in a "painful decision" citing the failures "to show respect and obedience deserved by his legitimate superiors".[111]

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
As someone who has spent a good deal of years in the broader Orthodox / Russian Orthodox world, I've often found the rhetoric around this intriguingly similar to that of the Russian "Old Believers" who schismed way back in the 17th century or even the more recent "Old Calendarist" schism precipitated in the 1920s. Both are worth reading about for those not familiar.

There is a certain fascinating, and possibly all-too-human and predictable response to changes in liturgy or practice among communities who wrestle with issues of authority versus tradition in light of reform efforts.

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
As for conspiracy theory, one huge one is the idea that the FSSP is a trap meant to lure unsuspecting faithful and which will have the rug pulled out from under it in due time, as opposed to a legitimate outreach from the Church to those who want to preserve the liturgies and rites in the way the Church seeks to reserve the various eastern rites (and, as recently as the 18th century, was quite hostile to... my own sense of a "type" of personality that tried to latinize eastern liturgies is the same "type" that is openly hostile to to NO, so I sense a certain irony in how some western-rite traditionalists seek out eastern rite churches as a refuge).

Time will tell. When we start reading about suppression of FSSP ordinations and congregations, many here can rightfully tell me they told me so. But all around me, I see younger people wanting more reverence and tradition while the aging boomers cling to their "make this relevant for the modern era" rhetoric they were indoctrinated with / learned in the 1970s. I don't see that as the fault of Vatican 2 or the NO as much as a certain wing of the Church taking an inch and trying to stretch it out to a mile.

I'll always be the odd egg that wants NO masses in Latin, as I've attended far too many masses in vernaculars where I did not know the prayers and responses. So, what to I know?

Originally Posted By EastWest:


Well, that's interesting. I was in the Orthodox Church for just shy of 12 years. I have a master's from St Vladimir's Seminary. And a couple days ago I was also comparing things in the Orthodox world  to the Vatican-SSPX situation.

I saw it along the lines of the ROCOR vs Metropolia (OCA) division which dates back to the Soviet era. I can recall in the 1970s how ROCOR (then popularly called the Synod) refused intercommunion with the Metropolia due to Soviet (party members, even agents) being ordained and I believe consecrated bishops in the Moscow Patriarchate. The Old Calendar issue being for me, more of symptom of this as well as "modernism" than an actual doctrinal problem.

Simply, my take is the SSPX makes me think of ROCOR - as opposed to the Vatican (and what I see as its liberalism, Marxist influenced liberation theology) as bringing to my mind the 1929-1945 Soviet era Moscow Patriarchate (and its later immigrant MP and Metropolia/OCA parishes).

A classmate of mine, Metropolitan JONAH, was part of the fortuitous reconciliation Divine Liturgy of the Metropolia/OCA and the ROCOR in 2007.

Originally Posted By Marie:


Jonah was one of your classmates?

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


We have a Melkite "ByzCat" church about 45 minutes from here, the priest is awesome (I tend to go to "competing" parish festivals when I hear the food is good, and met him that way) and I really am tempted to attend one of these days. I'm actually more familiar with "Antiochian" Eastern churches that are "older" in the sense that they were part of pre-1054 schisms (Maronites, Chaldeans) so the idea of the Melkite Byzantine thing is kind if fascinating to me, as was so much if their stuff still being in Arabic vice Greek. It's like a "halfway house" between Chaldean and Greek Orthodox.

How many Patriarchs of Antioch are we up to, anyway?

Originally Posted By 11boomboom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaCP0zIb5m4

ETA: I'm not picking a side during this issue. I do not have enough understanding of the discussions at hand and I am just focused on my own conversion. I'm just sharing a video.

Originally Posted By EastWest:



@skid2041
Yes, I believe I had watched parts of this video recently. I fully agree with her/your conclusions about the message Rome is sending to "normie NO or converts".
Shame on them. I still maintain that Leo/Fernandez are selectively weaponizing canon law to suit the personal agendas of both/each. There are other forms of episcopal disobedience they could have gone after. The German bishops and material heresy come to mind.  

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/german-bishops-and-the-specter-of-schism-how-did-it-come-to-this/

But they've drawn the lines and unless Leo/Fernandez does some fancy backpedaling, they will have to live with it. That could be ugly on several levels.

Back around the time I was received into the Catholic Church (1986) I had concerns that due to the way the western Church was heading, we would eventually see a real or a de facto schism. This would look like a majority "liberal" RC Church (which I called "American Catholic") that would operate separately from an authentic, orthodox Catholicism with much smaller membership numbers.

Perhaps we are there. Or maybe we will (miraculously) see a pope lift the July 2nd excommunication just as Pope Benedict did (of the 1988 excommunication) for the SSPX in March 2009.

Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:



Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication out of a sincere desire for unification. That sincerity was not reciprocated. Instead, Benedicts action was seen as weakness, and twisted and manipulated to justify further obstinance. The olive branch which he extended was forcefully grabbed from his hands as welded as a cudgel.

Originally Posted By Marie:


It's sort of like the Old Calendar is in the Orthodox Church. It's not a matter of faith. There are people who will pick specific Orthodox parishes/jurisdictions just because they're Old Calendar, nothing else.