"Here’s what frustrates me about this: there is a large segment of faithful, orthodox Catholics who have a soft spot for the SSPX. Some attend their Masses. Some read their publications. Some quietly cheer them on as a counterweight to the chaos in the broader Church."
This tendency to just overlook regular attendance at SSPX chapels, particularly when the FSSP exists drives me a little batty too. I'm sorry, I don't have a lot of patience for someone who is probably driving at least 45 minutes, if not over an hour, past all sorts of Catholic parishes to attend those Masses.
Schism does matter, because it's about a lack of all three virtues: faith, hope, and charity. If you are a faithful Catholic, the bar is FSSP, not SSPX, even if you don't have any Missal of 1962 Mass convenient. I don't want to read materials from them. What materials I've seen mostly amount to uncharitable and pedantic rants.
"We would never think of cheering for Martin Luther, we would never think of cheering for Arias, and we would never think of cheering for 1970s modernists. "
The other 1970's modernist archetype was Archbishop Lefebvre. There's no meaningful difference between a cafeteria Catholic who will throw a fit if they don't get "Gather Us In" in flip flops versus a cafeteria Catholic who will throw fit if they don't ad orientum for 90 minutes in a language they probably don't understand. One party only has better taste. It's the same rebellion inverted.
I will blow mental gaskets when I claim traditionalism = a different form of modernism, but it's true. Vatican I and II were councils aimed directly at modernism. What do traditionalists and hippie/progressives reject? Vatican I and II.
My friend, you belong on a stage or in front of a microphone. That comment….my goodness! I mean I can go on a pretty good tear but your structure and substance there make me look like an imbecile at this. And your finishing move:
“I will blow mental gaskets when I claim traditionalism = a different form of modernism, but it's true. Vatican I and II were councils aimed directly at modernism. What do traditionalists and hippie/progressives reject? Vatican I and II.”
Would you mind if I include this comment in some related piece? I’d come up with a piece just to give that comment a platform.
"Here’s what frustrates me about this: there is a large segment of faithful, orthodox Catholics who have a soft spot for the SSPX. Some attend their Masses. Some read their publications. Some quietly cheer them on as a counterweight to the chaos in the broader Church."
This tendency to just overlook regular attendance at SSPX chapels, particularly when the FSSP exists drives me a little batty too. I'm sorry, I don't have a lot of patience for someone who is probably driving at least 45 minutes, if not over an hour, past all sorts of Catholic parishes to attend those Masses.
Schism does matter, because it's about a lack of all three virtues: faith, hope, and charity. If you are a faithful Catholic, the bar is FSSP, not SSPX, even if you don't have any Missal of 1962 Mass convenient. I don't want to read materials from them. What materials I've seen mostly amount to uncharitable and pedantic rants.
"We would never think of cheering for Martin Luther, we would never think of cheering for Arias, and we would never think of cheering for 1970s modernists. "
The other 1970's modernist archetype was Archbishop Lefebvre. There's no meaningful difference between a cafeteria Catholic who will throw a fit if they don't get "Gather Us In" in flip flops versus a cafeteria Catholic who will throw fit if they don't ad orientum for 90 minutes in a language they probably don't understand. One party only has better taste. It's the same rebellion inverted.
I will blow mental gaskets when I claim traditionalism = a different form of modernism, but it's true. Vatican I and II were councils aimed directly at modernism. What do traditionalists and hippie/progressives reject? Vatican I and II.
My friend, you belong on a stage or in front of a microphone. That comment….my goodness! I mean I can go on a pretty good tear but your structure and substance there make me look like an imbecile at this. And your finishing move:
“I will blow mental gaskets when I claim traditionalism = a different form of modernism, but it's true. Vatican I and II were councils aimed directly at modernism. What do traditionalists and hippie/progressives reject? Vatican I and II.”
Would you mind if I include this comment in some related piece? I’d come up with a piece just to give that comment a platform.
It's this decision moments that will show who truly loves the faith and who just goes with radicalism because it is "based."