Please pray for the SSPX

2,164 Views | 34 Replies | Last: 5 days ago by 747Ag
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:10p, 5/13/26
That they not go through with this rupture that will once again create actual schism with the Barque of Peter.

There is no grey area here, I heavily sympathize with them, while some may argue that they're needed now more than ever, this is not the 80's, we have Summorum Pontificum, with ICKSP and the FSSP within the Church to keep the flame of orthopraxis alive and burning.

They right move is to humbly request a personal prelature for the FSSP, and a Bishop, and to make the Society one again in the Church. Barring that, they still cannot go forth with the Consecrations; it will be a great evil and do much harm to the body of Christ.

Please pray for them daily.

Reply Quote
2
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:20p, 5/13/26
I see a big boost in FSSP membership coming.
Reply Quote
The BQ Jock
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:20p, 5/13/26
It's no secret I am a huge supporter of the SSPX, heck I will be at the consecrations when they happen, but I am also very sympathetic to those belonging to other traditional "groups" (FSSP, ICKSP, etc.). To put it in your words, I actually think there is significant "grey area" due to the crisis in the Church. You are right in that we have Summorum Pontificum, but we also have Traditionis Custodes, Amoris Laetitia, etc. There is undeniable confusion in the Church right now, even in regards to how the Church handles the SSPX. We have heard they were excommunicated in 1988, but then the excommunications were lifted without the SSPX needing to do any reparation, then you had people saying they were in schism still, then you have the Hawaii case… and later then the Pope gave them universal faculties, yet somehow they were in schism… but now if they do this action they are going to be in schism… meanwhile the waters have been made murky in regards to divorce and remarriage (and still receiving communion), blessings over gay unions, etc.

We live in confusing times. It's hard to blame any good hearted Catholic for looking at this situation and coming to different conclusions. I find the state of emergency argument compelling, and the response to be appropriate. If they went out and made ordinaries of dioceses, that would be a schismatic act, properly speaking. Merely the consecration of auxiliary bishops is a different situation.

Best we can do right now is pray for our religious, priests, bishops, and pope. I apologize for the TLDR. Please pray for me, and I will do the same!
Reply Quote
6
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The BQ Jock • 6:32p, 5/13/26
The BQ Jock said:
It's no secret I am a huge supporter of the SSPX, heck I will be at the consecrations when they happen, but I am also very sympathetic to those belonging to other traditional "groups" (FSSP, ICKSP, etc.). To put it in your words, I actually think there is significant "grey area" due to the crisis in the Church. You are right in that we have Summorum Pontificum, but we also have Traditionis Custodes, Amoris Laetitia, etc. There is undeniable confusion in the Church right now, even in regards to how the Church handles the SSPX. We have heard they were excommunicated in 1988, but then the excommunications were lifted without the SSPX needing to do any reparation, then you had people saying they were in schism still, then you have the Hawaii case… and later then the Pope gave them universal faculties, yet somehow they were in schism… but now if they do this action they are going to be in schism… meanwhile the waters have been made murky in regards to divorce and remarriage (and still receiving communion), blessings over gay unions, etc.

We live in confusing times. It's hard to blame any good hearted Catholic for looking at this situation and coming to different conclusions. I find the state of emergency argument compelling, and the response to be appropriate. If they went out and made ordinaries of dioceses, that would be a schismatic act, properly speaking. Merely the consecration of auxiliary bishops is a different situation.

Best we can do right now is pray for our religious, priests, bishops, and pope. I apologize for the TLDR. Please pray for me, and I will do the same!

The excommunications were lifted for all the bishops ordained in 1988. The reasoing 1. because they did it under obedience to their bishop Lefebvre and 2. because they petitioned the Vatican and said they want to be in obedience but have concerns. The lifting was a peace offering that is now in danger

There is confusion to be sure. Unfortunately it's mostly coming from people trying to foist their personal agendas onto Church documents instead of reading them and asking questions.

As to your 3rd paragraph, Amen!
Reply Quote
1
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The BQ Jock • 6:36p, 5/13/26
AG
The BQ Jock said:
It's no secret I am a huge supporter of the SSPX, heck I will be at the consecrations when they happen, but I am also very sympathetic to those belonging to other traditional "groups" (FSSP, ICKSP, etc.). To put it in your words, I actually think there is significant "grey area" due to the crisis in the Church. You are right in that we have Summorum Pontificum, but we also have Traditionis Custodes, Amoris Laetitia, etc. There is undeniable confusion in the Church right now, even in regards to how the Church handles the SSPX. We have heard they were excommunicated in 1988, but then the excommunications were lifted without the SSPX needing to do any reparation, then you had people saying they were in schism still, then you have the Hawaii case… and later then the Pope gave them universal faculties, yet somehow they were in schism… but now if they do this action they are going to be in schism… meanwhile the waters have been made murky in regards to divorce and remarriage (and still receiving communion), blessings over gay unions, etc.

We live in confusing times. It's hard to blame any good hearted Catholic for looking at this situation and coming to different conclusions. I find the state of emergency argument compelling, and the response to be appropriate. If they went out and made ordinaries of dioceses, that would be a schismatic act, properly speaking. Merely the consecration of auxiliary bishops is a different situation.

Best we can do right now is pray for our religious, priests, bishops, and pope. I apologize for the TLDR. Please pray for me, and I will do the same!

I'm sympathetic as well, but I've never darkened the door of one of their chapels. They're 80ish miles from my home. No need to travel when the diocesan Mass is 20 minutes away.

Yet, I find their argument for necessity compelling. Similarly, I find that canon law, especially the germane canons to be man-made laws and as such, exceptions exist for man-made laws (I'm not a legal positivist despite living in such a culture). It's interesting that the SSPX is deliberate in avoiding setting up jurisdiction, which rightly belongs to the Holy See to grant. Furthermore, it's a novelty or innovation of Vatican II to state episcopal consecration automatically confers jurisdiction. And it's lived to the contrary by the Church today by auxillary bishops and bishops emeriti and titular bishops... all without jurisdiction.

And to the point of excommunication as penalty for consecrating bishops without Rome's approval, it only became so in 1983. The 1917 canons merely prescribed suspension. The 1983 canon is said to have been codified as such for the Chinese "church" and yet the logic with the Chinese church is now flipped on its head. Ironic.

The defining point or the dividing line is "full acceptance of Vatican II." Heck, I get heckled with that once in a while. However, Fr. McTeigue has a good answer for that...



sigh
Reply Quote
3
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:10p, 5/13/26
I attend an SSPX church in the Houston area, and I will need to switch to the FSSP if this happens.

I agree, they are not schismatic, not in the least; but they were in the past, and will be again if they do this. The mere fact that they can be in Schism going forward proves that all the ninnies claiming them as in schism are guilty of a grave false witness against their fellow Catholics.

I have had major problems with the FSSP. It has hurt me that they paid lip service to accepting Vatican II, while not actually accepting it. It's very easy to accept Vatican II if you don't have to do any of the messy Vatican II stuff. With that being said, they have great parishes doing great work.

I pray that the Holy Spirit can soften some hearts and find a solution that avoids a further rupture of some of the best and brightest of the Church
Reply Quote
The BQ Jock
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Vox Clamantis • 9:39p, 5/13/26
Can you clarify what you mean when you say the SSPX has been schismatic before but are not currently? It seems to me that if they at one point were schismatic and never changed their opinions, actions, etc. then they would still be schismatic today. So I guess they either once were and still are, or never were in the first place.

I understand your thoughts on the confusing position of the FSSP. I guess I can only say we have to try and understand where they are coming from in charity. They, too, are trying to navigate one of the most confusing times in the history of the Church.
Reply Quote
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The BQ Jock • 10:28p, 5/13/26
The BQ Jock said:
Can you clarify what you mean when you say the SSPX has been schismatic before but are not currently? It seems to me that if they at one point were schismatic and never changed their opinions, actions, etc. then they would still be schismatic today. So I guess they either once were and still are, or never were in the first place.

I understand your thoughts on the confusing position of the FSSP. I guess I can only say we have to try and understand where they are coming from in charity. They, too, are trying to navigate one of the most confusing times in the history of the Church.


The initial consecrations were a schismatic act, as defined by Pope St John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei, they might not have meant to set up a parallel hierarchy with the consecrations but they in fact did. However, they stopped after that, and the excommunications for the guilty were lifted, faculties were granted and so on and so forth.
Reply Quote
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Vox Clamantis • 4:48a, 5/14/26
AG
Vox Clamantis said:
The BQ Jock said:
Can you clarify what you mean when you say the SSPX has been schismatic before but are not currently? It seems to me that if they at one point were schismatic and never changed their opinions, actions, etc. then they would still be schismatic today. So I guess they either once were and still are, or never were in the first place.

I understand your thoughts on the confusing position of the FSSP. I guess I can only say we have to try and understand where they are coming from in charity. They, too, are trying to navigate one of the most confusing times in the history of the Church.


The initial consecrations were a schismatic act, as defined by Pope St John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei, they might not have meant to set up a parallel hierarchy with the consecrations but they in fact did. However, they stopped after that, and the excommunications for the guilty were lifted, faculties were granted and so on and so forth.

But how is it a parallel heirachy if there is no claim to jurisdiction and thus no claim to jurisdictional authority?
Reply Quote
1
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 747Ag • 7:45a, 5/14/26
747Ag said:
Vox Clamantis said:
The BQ Jock said:
Can you clarify what you mean when you say the SSPX has been schismatic before but are not currently? It seems to me that if they at one point were schismatic and never changed their opinions, actions, etc. then they would still be schismatic today. So I guess they either once were and still are, or never were in the first place.

I understand your thoughts on the confusing position of the FSSP. I guess I can only say we have to try and understand where they are coming from in charity. They, too, are trying to navigate one of the most confusing times in the history of the Church.


The initial consecrations were a schismatic act, as defined by Pope St John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei, they might not have meant to set up a parallel hierarchy with the consecrations but they in fact did. However, they stopped after that, and the excommunications for the guilty were lifted, faculties were granted and so on and so forth.

But how is it a parallel heirachy if there is no claim to jurisdiction and thus no claim to jurisdictional authority?


I agree with you that it did not end up as a parallel hierarchy, but their initial actions did just that. They essentially created an independent ecclesial body outside of the Church, in order to continue exercising church specific functions without need of and against Papal approval.

That's a parallel hierarchy, it ended up not being used, and is why I argue they "fell out of schism" but the initial consecrations were done so that they could operate with their own hierarchy outside of Rome.




Reply Quote
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Vox Clamantis • 8:51a, 5/14/26
AG
Vox Clamantis said:
747Ag said:
Vox Clamantis said:
The BQ Jock said:
Can you clarify what you mean when you say the SSPX has been schismatic before but are not currently? It seems to me that if they at one point were schismatic and never changed their opinions, actions, etc. then they would still be schismatic today. So I guess they either once were and still are, or never were in the first place.

I understand your thoughts on the confusing position of the FSSP. I guess I can only say we have to try and understand where they are coming from in charity. They, too, are trying to navigate one of the most confusing times in the history of the Church.


The initial consecrations were a schismatic act, as defined by Pope St John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei, they might not have meant to set up a parallel hierarchy with the consecrations but they in fact did. However, they stopped after that, and the excommunications for the guilty were lifted, faculties were granted and so on and so forth.


But how is it a parallel heirachy if there is no claim to jurisdiction and thus no claim to jurisdictional authority?


I agree with you that it did not end up as a parallel hierarchy, but their initial actions did just that. They essentially created an independent ecclesial body outside of the Church, in order to continue exercising church specific functions without need of and against Papal approval.

That's a parallel hierarchy, it ended up not being used, and is why I argue they "fell out of schism" but the initial consecrations were done so that they could operate with their own hierarchy outside of Rome.

I'm not following. The SSPX believe that jurisdiction is not automatically conferred by episcopal consecration. I read this as sort of a pre-crime sort of thing... they MIGHT claim jurisdiction therefore Rome must come down hard. At least that what's we saw in in '88 and what we likely will see later this year. What I do see is a lot of bad-faith argumentation out there on the interwebs. I see the SSPX laying out there case in detail. I see Rome saying that there is no possibility to revisit the documents of Vatican II for clarity etc.. Non-starters for both camps. But in arguments, charity demands listening to the other's arguments in good faith and steel-manning such arguments.

sigh
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 747Ag • 8:57a, 5/14/26
Do you have a good link to what the SSPX bishops are claiming they want to discuss? All I tend to find are articles saying what the SSPX is saying without any citation
Reply Quote
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 9:12a, 5/14/26
AG
The Banned said:
Do you have a good link to what the SSPX bishops are claiming they want to discuss? All I tend to find are articles saying what the SSPX is saying without any citation

They've been quite public in stating their case. They believe the crisis is not really liturgical, but doctrinal. As such, the retorts about "well you have these other Mass options" don't really address their position.

I'm seeing commentary about the SSPX and Rome coming to an agreement some time ago under Francis until Cardinal Muller torpedoed things (SSPX slanted opinion there).


So, from the "horse's mouth"...

https://fsspx.news/en has articles and interviews on the topic.

This playlist goes into their position as well.

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLonegYXBrLbQkohXeq67jbw7NUr8JgROn&si=0TPXYvEuJ6JBK7b1


In the end, this is messy and I am saddened by the whole affair. Rome comes across to me as inconsistent in these dealings as well as with other issues in the Church (China, Germany, etc...).
Reply Quote
1
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:14a, 5/14/26
AG
Side note and a joke... Rome views communion as a spectrum these days. Full communion... partial... schism... etc... As such, the SSPX is on the spectrum... with apologies to our autistic brethren.
Reply Quote
The BQ Jock
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 10:08a, 5/14/26
There is a lot to wade through throughout their history, but this is a letter from Fr Pagliarini (Superior General of the SSPX) to Cdl. Fernandez (head of the DDF) and is a good place to start.

https://fsspx.news/en/news/letter-father-pagliarani-cardinal-fernandez-57309
I would highly recommend reading the annexes, especially annex 2 which is vital to understanding the SSPX opinion on why it doesn't constitute a schismatic act.
Reply Quote
2
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 747Ag • 11:06a, 5/14/26
747Ag said:
Vox Clamantis said:
747Ag said:
Vox Clamantis said:
The BQ Jock said:
Can you clarify what you mean when you say the SSPX has been schismatic before but are not currently? It seems to me that if they at one point were schismatic and never changed their opinions, actions, etc. then they would still be schismatic today. So I guess they either once were and still are, or never were in the first place.

I understand your thoughts on the confusing position of the FSSP. I guess I can only say we have to try and understand where they are coming from in charity. They, too, are trying to navigate one of the most confusing times in the history of the Church.


The initial consecrations were a schismatic act, as defined by Pope St John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei, they might not have meant to set up a parallel hierarchy with the consecrations but they in fact did. However, they stopped after that, and the excommunications for the guilty were lifted, faculties were granted and so on and so forth.


But how is it a parallel heirachy if there is no claim to jurisdiction and thus no claim to jurisdictional authority?


I agree with you that it did not end up as a parallel hierarchy, but their initial actions did just that. They essentially created an independent ecclesial body outside of the Church, in order to continue exercising church specific functions without need of and against Papal approval.

That's a parallel hierarchy, it ended up not being used, and is why I argue they "fell out of schism" but the initial consecrations were done so that they could operate with their own hierarchy outside of Rome.

I'm not following. The SSPX believe that jurisdiction is not automatically conferred by episcopal consecration. I read this as sort of a pre-crime sort of thing... they MIGHT claim jurisdiction therefore Rome must come down hard. At least that what's we saw in in '88 and what we likely will see later this year. What I do see is a lot of bad-faith argumentation out there on the interwebs. I see the SSPX laying out there case in detail. I see Rome saying that there is no possibility to revisit the documents of Vatican II for clarity etc.. Non-starters for both camps. But in arguments, charity demands listening to the other's arguments in good faith and steel-manning such arguments.

sigh


Yes I agree with 95% of you're saying, but go back to the patristics. What would St Ignatius say "where the bishop is, there is the church". There is no such thing as a "sacramental only" bishop, even though the necessity of auxiliary bishops complicates this.

A bishop exists as a shepherd of a flock, they exist to exercise authority over a church, the reason they are so necessarily sacramental is that it makes a church self sufficient, provided that authority is in communion with the entire body.

The SSPX knows this, during the consecration part of the rite is confirming whether the consecration has the apostolic mandate, the SSPX deviated a little bit claiming their mandate was from Church tradition, rather than from the Pope (for obvious reasons).
Reply Quote
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:44p, 5/14/26


Very humble and respectful outreach to Pope Leo XIV
Reply Quote
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Vox Clamantis • 5:50p, 5/14/26
AG
Vox Clamantis said:


Very humble and respectful outreach to Pope Leo XIV


Such clarity in that declaration....
Quote:
As I ponder it further, I find it an astonishing declaration.

One would be hard-pressed to think of any other body or individual in the Church capable of and *willing to* write something this clear and bold, including on "politically incorrect" topics like the cessation of the Old Covenant, no salvation outside the Church, Christendom as the divinely-willed norm, absolute condemnation of sexual relations outside of indissoluble marriage, etc.

Frankly, it puts the other side in a bind. How would one go about disagreeing with the position of the Society - namely, that this credo expresses the Catholic Faith - without condemning themselves in the very act? It seems all that the other side can do now is insist on legal positivism: "It doesn't matter that we're virtually heretics because we deny most of what you just said, even though it's dogmatic teaching; you are doing something against canon law and the pope's will, and therefore anathema sit!"

... from Peter Kwasniewski
Reply Quote
3
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 747Ag • 6:45p, 5/14/26
747Ag said:
Vox Clamantis said:


Very humble and respectful outreach to Pope Leo XIV


Such clarity in that declaration....
Quote:
As I ponder it further, I find it an astonishing declaration.

One would be hard-pressed to think of any other body or individual in the Church capable of and *willing to* write something this clear and bold, including on "politically incorrect" topics like the cessation of the Old Covenant, no salvation outside the Church, Christendom as the divinely-willed norm, absolute condemnation of sexual relations outside of indissoluble marriage, etc.

Frankly, it puts the other side in a bind. How would one go about disagreeing with the position of the Society - namely, that this credo expresses the Catholic Faith - without condemning themselves in the very act? It seems all that the other side can do now is insist on legal positivism: "It doesn't matter that we're virtually heretics because we deny most of what you just said, even though it's dogmatic teaching; you are doing something against canon law and the pope's will, and therefore anathema sit!"

... from Peter Kwasniewski


Needs both a standing ovation and a slow clap.

I love the SSPX, not afraid of being Catholic. Not afraid of voicing the timeless views of our Church boldly, even if it offends (although that is not their intention).
Reply Quote
6
Ol_Ag_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:45p, 5/14/26
AG
Martin Luther approves of the SSPX and their desire to worship as they see fit.
Reply Quote
3
The BQ Jock
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol_Ag_02 • 4:50a, 5/15/26
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say
Reply Quote
8
HtownAg19
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The BQ Jock • 7:16a, 5/15/26
AG
The BQ Jock said:
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say


Especially considering the NO was created to be more like Protestant worship
Reply Quote
3
The BQ Jock
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HtownAg19 • 10:53a, 5/15/26
No kidding. Or that the SSPX's main concern is not *just* the mass but fidelity to Catholic doctrine… kinda the opposite of Luther…
Reply Quote
7
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40a, 5/15/26
I don't know if it's the same guy, but there was a poster who used to follow me around on the Reddit Aggie board named RedAssAg02 or something like that who had a huge axe to grind against the Catholic Church.

He was in a domestic partnership with a flambouyant hairdresser who was aghast that the Church wouldn't accept them as Godparents. They weren't even Catholic. Was a huge fan of the ELCA and did nothing but chime in on religious threads.
Reply Quote
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HtownAg19 • 1:21p, 5/15/26
HtownAg19 said:
The BQ Jock said:
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say

Especially considering the NO was created to be more like Protestant worship

Just the kind of viewpoint that causes so many Catholics to look at the SSPX as schismatic.

And that whole position paper is nice - and does not address the planned disobedience regarding ordaining bishops without permission.

Seriously - just leave - the SSPX wants to so badly.
Reply Quote
Vox Clamantis
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fc2112 • 3:00p, 5/15/26
fc2112 said:
HtownAg19 said:
The BQ Jock said:
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say

Especially considering the NO was created to be more like Protestant worship

Just the kind of viewpoint that causes so many Catholics to look at the SSPX as schismatic.

And that whole position paper is nice - and does not address the planned disobedience regarding ordaining bishops without permission.

Seriously - just leave - the SSPX wants to so badly.


Those Catholics are ill informed. That's like claiming someone who is dead is about to die. If you're in schism, you can't be threatened with being declared schismatic.

Reply Quote
1
Ol_Ag_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The BQ Jock • 3:42p, 5/15/26
AG
The BQ Jock said:
No kidding. Or that the SSPX's main concern is not *just* the mass but fidelity to Catholic doctrine… kinda the opposite of Luther…


Catholic doctrine isn't really up to SSPX to decide though. They need to submit to the churches hierarchy in matters of faith and doctrine. Isn't that basically Catholic 101 and the chair of Peter.
Reply Quote
2
Ol_Ag_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Vox Clamantis • 3:47p, 5/15/26
AG
Vox Clamantis said:
I don't know if it's the same guy, but there was a poster who used to follow me around on the Reddit Aggie board named RedAssAg02 or something like that who had a huge axe to grind against the Catholic Church.

He was in a domestic partnership with a flambouyant hairdresser who was aghast that the Church wouldn't accept them as Godparents. They weren't even Catholic. Was a huge fan of the ELCA and did nothing but chime in on religious threads.


Never posted on Reddit. And that's just a dumb thing to be mad about. Don't want to follow RCC rules, don't be RCC.

I was married to a Catholic woman for twenty years and attended mass most of the time in support of her and the kids. Never enjoyed it but didn't complain. I do enjoy some good irony though in this situation.

Personally I hope that SSPX gets to worship with their Latin mass, but it's not really up to anyone but church higher ups.
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HtownAg19 • 6:52p, 5/15/26
AG
HtownAg19 said:
The BQ Jock said:
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say


Especially considering the NO was created to be more like Protestant worship


Not so. Was intended to go back to the original.
Reply Quote
HtownAg19
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 7:18p, 5/15/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
HtownAg19 said:
The BQ Jock said:
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say


Especially considering the NO was created to be more like Protestant worship


Not so. Was intended to go back to the original.


Ah yes Pablo. Cause the mass was totally originally a bunch of corny guitar songs with grandmas wearing a Grover tshirt handing out communion
Reply Quote
6
Ol_Ag_02
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HtownAg19 • 10:28p, 5/15/26
AG
HtownAg19 said:
PabloSerna said:
HtownAg19 said:
The BQ Jock said:
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say


Especially considering the NO was created to be more like Protestant worship


Not so. Was intended to go back to the original.


Ah yes Pablo. Cause the mass was totally originally a bunch of corny guitar songs with grandmas wearing a Grover tshirt handing out communion


And if said grandma doesn't have the money for nice clothes she can't serve Jesus in a public fashion? Style over substance. Never change Pharisees.
Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ol_Ag_02 • 12:14p, 5/16/26
AG
The involvement of the laity was a key aspect, that you got right. The rest, Protestant, style- dead wrong.
Reply Quote
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 5:15p, 5/16/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
HtownAg19 said:
The BQ Jock said:
That is a wild and uncharitable thing to say


Especially considering the NO was created to be more like Protestant worship


Not so. Was intended to go back to the original.

Then why was the Council adamant about the Byzantines and Melkites and Syro-Malabars et al keep their ancient liturgies? Why is it only for the Latins?

Rather, it's an ecumenist effort. Latins shed elements to be more amenable to Protestants. The Eastern Churches remain as-is to be more attractive to the Orthodox. And Protestants were invited as non-voting observers while still offering commentary. My opinion: this was the human element of Holy Church wanting to be like others rather than being comfortable as themselves... a lesson I learned late in highschool was to just be myself regardless of what others are doing. Would our prelates do likewise.

Furthermore, "going back to the original" is a false-antiquarianist cope. Popes of not too distant memory warned of adopting old practices merely because they are old.
Reply Quote
6
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 747Ag • 2:15p, 5/17/26
AG
From the Preamble of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):

1. When he was about to celebrate with his disciples the Passover meal in which he instituted the sacrifice of his Body and Blood, Christ the Lord gave instructions that a large, furnished upper room should be prepared (Lk 22:12). The Church has always regarded this command as applying also to herself when she gives directions about the preparation of people's hearts and minds and of the places, rites, and texts for the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist. The current norms, prescribed in keeping with the will of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and the new Missal that the Church of the Roman Rite is to use from now on in the celebration of Mass are also evidence of the great concern of the Church, of her faith, and of her unchanged love for the great mystery of the Eucharist. They likewise bear witness to the Church's continuous and unbroken tradition, irrespective of the introduction of certain new features.
Reply Quote
747Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 7:27p, 5/17/26
AG
PabloSerna said:
From the Preamble of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM):

1. When he was about to celebrate with his disciples the Passover meal in which he instituted the sacrifice of his Body and Blood, Christ the Lord gave instructions that a large, furnished upper room should be prepared (Lk 22:12). The Church has always regarded this command as applying also to herself when she gives directions about the preparation of people's hearts and minds and of the places, rites, and texts for the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist. The current norms, prescribed in keeping with the will of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and the new Missal that the Church of the Roman Rite is to use from now on in the celebration of Mass are also evidence of the great concern of the Church, of her faith, and of her unchanged love for the great mystery of the Eucharist. They likewise bear witness to the Church's continuous and unbroken tradition, irrespective of the introduction of certain new features.

I'm not sure which point of mine you are attempting to address.
Reply Quote
2
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.