The SSPX is about to get a whole lot bigger

11,462 Views | 128 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by Sea Speed
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

I hit the "post" button too soon. I wanted to add some context to what I believe you are saying and what the RCC is saying. Here we go…

Persons having same sex attraction are homosexual. You would think that should be obvious, but you have attempted to make this orientation sinful and the Church has written much that it is not. It is not comparable to adultery because that is understood as lust. Lust as you know is a vice.

"But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28)




Lust is a desire that is entertained, if I have an inclination towards sinful acts but don't entertain them, it's not a sin, whether homosexual or straight.

I also don't believe homosexual orientation is sinful. I believe it's intrinsically disordered as the Catechism says, but that doesn't mean sinful.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

Not supported in scripture. Try again.


I have no clue what you're talking about. I need scriptural support to say "inclinations that aren't entertained don't become lust?"
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was responding to your conclusion that "both are orientations and both are acts of the will" comment.

ETA: I misquoted you on the sinful part.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

I was responding to your conclusion that "both are orientations and both are acts of the will" comment.

ETA: I misquoted you on the sinful part.


Both are orientations, and entertaining them becomes lustful, and acting upon them becomes fornication.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There has been for a long time this idea that people who have same sex attraction "choose to be homosexual" or to use Serviam's words, "act of the will."

We are learning more now that this is not the case. You cannot "pray the gay away" - it is part of who you are. That is not sinful. Hope we have settled that.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

There has been for a long time this idea that people who have same sex attraction "choose to be homosexual" or to use Serviam's words, "act of the will."

We are learning more now that this is not the case. You cannot "pray the gay away" - it is part of who you are. That is not sinful. Hope we have settled that.


You're trying to purposefully misunderstand what I said to avoid having to address your competing claims.

I'm not addressing whether homosexual attraction is nature vs nurture, I'm stating that the mere attraction is not sinful.

The act of will for both straights and gays is to not entertain sinful sexual behaviors nor act upon them.

For some reason straight people aren't defined by their inclinations towards sinful behavior but gay people are.

Gay person - I have an inclination towards sinful sex acts with men so I'm gay. It defines me

Straight person- I have an inclination towards sinful sex acts with women so I'm straight- it doesn't define me
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So here is where I will disagree to a point with not just you but some of what I understand the RCC's position on homosexual persons.

While we have gotten past the notion that being homosexual is not a sin, because of everything we have previously discussed, there is no way for homosexual persons to live in a free and loving relationship within the Catholic Church today.

What the German Catholic Church has advanced is the notion that there can be and it is not marriage, because that is exclusive to heterosexual persons, it could be in a blessed union.

My hope is that one day the Church will see that Saint Paul was writing about male prostitution, sex trafficking of young boys, and not the kind of longterm exclusive relationships some same sex Catholic couples desire.

Until then, I am clear on what the Church teaches and I submit to the authority of the Church. If I were a gay man cohabiting with another gay man and we wanted to partake in the sacramental life of the Church- we would struggle to abstain for the glory of God.
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How on earth could the union be blessed if it is sinful?
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

So here is where I will disagree to a point with not just you but some of what I understand the RCC's position on homosexual persons.

While we have gotten past the notion that being homosexual is not a sin, because of everything we have previously discussed, there is no way for homosexual persons to live in a free and loving relationship within the Catholic Church today.

What the German Catholic Church has advanced is the notion that there can be and it is not marriage, because that is exclusive to heterosexual persons, it could be in a blessed union.

My hope is that one day the Church will see that Saint Paul was writing about male prostitution, sex trafficking of young boys, and not the kind of longterm exclusive relationships some same sex Catholic couples desire.

Until then, I am clear on what the Church teaches and I submit to the authority of the Church. If I were a gay man cohabiting with another gay man and we wanted to partake in the sacramental life of the Church- we would struggle to abstain for the glory of God.


And you call me pining for Satan? You yourself admit that it cannot be marriage but want to sanctify sex outside of marriage, but only for gay people?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not you personally, but I do believe one of the goals of Satan is to divide and conquer. So when you call out the Church as "trads" or "progressives" -it starts to (in my mind) accomplish that goal. To me we are both Catholic brothers that emphasize different aspects of the same mission. Those aspects could be characterized as "traditional" (little T) or "progressive" -but the people are Catholic.

To your other point, you have oversimplified what I believe is a more complicated aspect of love between two persons. Here is what I believe is important to a blessed relationship:

FREE - This is where I think the list that St. Paul provides is important. The list is a list of sexual vices that are self serving or as with the case of adultery, hurt someone that is innocent. It has been written that the words used refer to sex trafficked youths (young boys) and powerful perpetrators. So the first aspect has to be that the two persons make a free and non-coerced decision to give of themselves.

LOVING - This is a reflection of God. We know God is love and it is reason that I and others have questioned the current doctrine/pastoral approach. I have said this before, that I have clients and family that are in long term, loving relationships. People can say they love each, but love is not something you can just hold in your hand and show people as proof. Love is kind, patient, self-giving, endures all things, rejoices with the truth (all those things written in scripture). Love never fails. I can only tell you that I have met same sex couples that check this box as clearly as opposite sex couples -but are denied the benefit of doubt simply because they are gay. As if being gay prevents someone from loving another as Christ loves his church. Love will be the key to unraveling the truth in my opinion. Because if there is love, there is God. If there is God then that is a blessed relationship.

COMMITTED - This is a distinguishing aspect of any relationship, but especially between two persons who say they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. There will be ups and downs. Leaning together on God, making God the center of the relationship is critical and what will make that union blessed.

How one chooses to express their love they have for their beloved is where we stand today. For now, same sex couples cannot fully express their love in a physical way because of the immorality attached to the sex act. Currently, it is understood as disordered and unnatural. In both instances it is in relation to bringing forth new life. That is why I think this understanding is misplaced.

For heterosexual married couples we can see the truth of that understanding as it is ordered by God that we go forth and multiply. That neither the man or woman withhold any aspect of their love through artificial or physical means. For homosexual couples, I believe, it is more about the unitive aspect of love than the procreative aspect of love. For heterosexual married couples, these two aspects cannot be separated without diminishing love which then diminishes God within the relationship.

TLDR; its complicated because of how we see the sex act as a part of God's plan for procreation and unifying act between two people in love.



Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Not you personally, but I do believe one of the goals of Satan is to divide and conquer. So when you call out the Church as "trads" or "progressives" -it starts to (in my mind) accomplish that goal. To me we are both Catholic brothers that emphasize different aspects of the same mission. Those aspects could be characterized as "traditional" (little T) or "progressive" -but the people are Catholic.

To your other point, you have oversimplified what I believe is a more complicated aspect of love between two persons. Here is what I believe is important to a blessed relationship:

FREE - This is where I think the list that St. Paul provides is important. The list is a list of sexual vices that are self serving or as with the case of adultery, hurt someone that is innocent. It has been written that the words used refer to sex trafficked youths (young boys) and powerful perpetrators. So the first aspect has to be that the two persons make a free and non-coerced decision to give of themselves.

LOVING - This is a reflection of God. We know God is love and it is reason that I and others have questioned the current doctrine/pastoral approach. I have said this before, that I have clients and family that are in long term, loving relationships. People can say they love each, but love is not something you can just hold in your hand and show people as proof. Love is kind, patient, self-giving, endures all things, rejoices with the truth (all those things written in scripture). Love never fails. I can only tell you that I have met same sex couples that check this box as clearly as opposite sex couples -but are denied the benefit of doubt simply because they are gay. As if being gay prevents someone from loving another as Christ loves his church. Love will be the key to unraveling the truth in my opinion. Because if there is love, there is God. If there is God then that is a blessed relationship.

COMMITTED - This is a distinguishing aspect of any relationship, but especially between two persons who say they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. There will be ups and downs. Leaning together on God, making God the center of the relationship is critical and what will make that union blessed.

How one chooses to express their love they have for their beloved is where we stand today. For now, same sex couples cannot fully express their love in a physical way because of the immorality attached to the sex act. Currently, it is understood as disordered and unnatural. In both instances it is in relation to bringing forth new life. That is why I think this understanding is misplaced.

For heterosexual married couples we can see the truth of that understanding as it is ordered by God that we go forth and multiply. That neither the man or woman withhold any aspect of their love through artificial or physical means. For homosexual couples, I believe, it is more about the unitive aspect of love than the procreative aspect of love. For heterosexual married couples, these two aspects cannot be separated without diminishing love which then diminishes God within the relationship.

TLDR; its complicated because of how we see the sex act as a part of God's plan for procreation and unifying act between two people in love.





You always do the Love is Love tautology to grant yourself that your friend's relationships are loving in nature. God is Love is how we know as a matter of fact your friends aren't in loving relationships. Unchastity is not love. frustrating the natural order of things isn't love, because that's how we interact with and participate in God's eternal law. Our sex organs are for a particular thing. What you're doing is distorting God to fit your idea of what love is.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is obviously something you're very passionate about, but I hope you can see how you're taking something that you think should be okay, and trying to contort it into such a way that it doesn't contravene with the entirety of church history.

For the sake of argument, even if I granted you (which I don't) that St Paul's comments against homosexuality were actually not about the act itself but in harmful aspects of it, you still have the church fathers and 2,000 years of Magesterium that states that any sort of relationship that purports to mimic or in any way resemble marriage, but between two members of the same sex is sinful.

There's this weird sort of disingenuousness where you claim "currently the church teaches this" when it's not a "current" thing at all. It's the same teaching going back 2,000 years.

I dont understand a person who has been Catholic their whole life and who has studied the faith can say "I guess the entirety of Catholic history has never thought there might be gay couples who seem nice and committed and loving".


What if we see a 30 year old son and a 60 year old father who want to get married? What if they have a committed sexual relationship and seem really happy? I am pretty sure you'll say "of course comparing homosexuality to incest" and refuse to answer the question, but much like with Protestantism, if you split once, it's easier to split again. If the church is mistaken on gay marriage, why isn't it mistaken on incest?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I understand the procreative aspect you bring up. I answered that in my response.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To your first question about me, just because I have questions does not mean my faith is less than before. Quite the opposite.

To your second question, incest no matter how you slice it is still incest.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

To your first question about me, just because I have questions does not mean my faith is less than before. Quite the opposite.

To your second question, incest no matter how you slice it is still incest.


What's the problem with incest if it's between two men, and both are adults? Obviously there's no procreation possible.

Again, I know why incest is wrong, but I also know why homosexual activities are wrong. They are both wrong for the same reason, they are against God's design. However, other than "it just feels wrong" I don't see how you can claim that homosexual sex can be sanctified between committed adults, but not if they're related. Your standard for what is right cannot be "this seems ok to me"
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe a cake is a better example to convey the point I am trying to make. Ingredients matter.

We understand what are the ingredients for the sacrament of holy matrimony. Male and female, not related, one each. This is the example par excellence and most clearly reflects the will of God.

Now as we are more and more understanding that persons that have same sex attraction are no different than persons with opposite sex attraction the question then becomes what about that union? Can it be holy? It is not like the other cake because the ingredients are different. It used to be that some people believed people choose to be gay. As if they could just as easily been straight. We know better now that is not the case. They were born this way.

If we believe that we were made to love and be loved then this extends to all. Can homosexual persons love and be loved? Yes.

What is happening right now in the RCC is that there is no recipe to understand the relationship that exists.

You have said that in 2000 years this has always been the case, however, I am pointing out that even the latest doctrine is in relation to heterosexual persons. So it is obvious this cake is not like that cake at all.

What I am saying is that it has one key feature- love. So yes, I am working back from there if only because I believe (not just me) that there must be a way.

Regarding your proposition of incest or adultery or multi-partners, and on and on- the ingredients matter. They don't fit.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Can it be holy?


No. Sin cannot be holy. Sex outside of holy matrimony is unchastity, it is sin. QED.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Understood.
aggietony2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To end (probably for about 2 posts) the frociaggine filled derail, and get this thread back on track

If the rumored mid-July dates are true (and I'm praying they are not), I may have just attended the last TLM at my parish.

It was beautiful. Preceded by a rosary led by the girls at the parish. Outstanding music, lots of incense, a great homily, and beautiful prayers. Probably 20 altar boys, including a few of my nephews (one serving for the first time, my sons are not yet old enough)

And perhaps my favorite Preface, the Preface of the Holy Cross, used during Passiontide and other occasions like today (Precious Blood), which gets relegated to a single day in the post Vatican II lectionary. Man, what a treasure we've put up on the shelf to collect dust.

And to think some would attribute my appreciation for these things to the work of Satan.

Whether or not this was the last, it's enriched my faith, and the faith of many in our parish (which celebrates the Novus Ordo 98% of the time). I would be flabbergasted if that group of 20 altar boys doesn't yield at least one priest. Simply beautiful.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serviam said:

Rorate Caeli, who had inside scoop on Traditiones Custodes is posting that the Vatican is set to ban the Traditional Latin Mass everywhere in the Roman Church, with the possible exception of ICKSP and FSSP (who without a Bishop are extremely vulnerable)

Expect a huge influx of parishioners into the SSPX and Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter.

I wish I could understand what is motivating the Holy Father to attack the most observant sectors of his flock, but this too shall pass.

Now rumors to the contrary...

https://www.la-croix.com/religion/messe-traditionnelle-aucun-document-en-preparation-a-rome-malgre-les-rumeurs-20240701
aggietony2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I saw this, and it gives me some short term hope to go along with the Hope I have on an eternal timescale.

Either way I'll try to cherish each like it's my last, because regardless of what's going on in the various dicasteries, any one of them could be my last. And that goes for the NO I attend on Sundays as well. Memento Mori.
Serviam
How long do you want to ignore this user?
747Ag said:

Serviam said:

Rorate Caeli, who had inside scoop on Traditiones Custodes is posting that the Vatican is set to ban the Traditional Latin Mass everywhere in the Roman Church, with the possible exception of ICKSP and FSSP (who without a Bishop are extremely vulnerable)

Expect a huge influx of parishioners into the SSPX and Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter.

I wish I could understand what is motivating the Holy Father to attack the most observant sectors of his flock, but this too shall pass.

Now rumors to the contrary...

https://www.la-croix.com/religion/messe-traditionnelle-aucun-document-en-preparation-a-rome-malgre-les-rumeurs-20240701
Wow that would be great. Here's praying that this one is true.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
747Ag said:

Serviam said:

Rorate Caeli, who had inside scoop on Traditiones Custodes is posting that the Vatican is set to ban the Traditional Latin Mass everywhere in the Roman Church, with the possible exception of ICKSP and FSSP (who without a Bishop are extremely vulnerable)

Expect a huge influx of parishioners into the SSPX and Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter.

I wish I could understand what is motivating the Holy Father to attack the most observant sectors of his flock, but this too shall pass.

Now rumors to the contrary...

https://www.la-croix.com/religion/messe-traditionnelle-aucun-document-en-preparation-a-rome-malgre-les-rumeurs-20240701

Another conflicting report...
https://english.katholisch.de/artikel/54447-report-no-further-restriction-of-the-traditional-latin-mass-by-the-vatican

Other reports indicate that there is a document drafted. Supposedly since shortly after Pope Benedict's passing.

So, a few things...
1. Some in the curia definitely want the Old Mass squashed. Perhaps not necessarily Pope Francis.

2. The Rorate Caeli reported rumor could be a so-called trial balloon to gauge public opinion.

3. Further, said rumors could also be an effort to try and plug leaks in the Vatican.

So... "Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer."
-- Padre Pio
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sea Speed said:

Serviam, care to explain the importance of the Latin mass and why the Pope is attempting to remove it to a uninterested observer? My kids go to Catholic school so the chaos is of some interest to me.

Sorry about the emoticon. :-(

Mass of the Ages II gives a 70-minute overview of the changes in the Mass. Episode 1 is oriented more towards this is the Mass and why we love it. Episode 3 is about where we go now given Traditiones Custodes. Episode 2 is the most polemical, but it uses a steelman argumentative approach as opposed to the strawman approach.

For me personally, I'm most saddened by the changes to the liturgical calendar. Ember and Rogation days are gone. Several octaves are gone (a process started in 1955). Pre-Lent (Septuagesima) is gone. The lack of Septuagesimatide in the new calendar illustrates a disjointedness when alternating between missals week to week, which ultimately caused me to go fully Old Mass. These changes all illustrate a de-emphasis on doing penance.

Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is the updated liturgical calendar why my kids Catholic school no longer has an extended fall break after years of having one?
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sea Speed said:

Is the updated liturgical calendar why my kids Catholic school no longer has an extended fall break after years of having one?


Anglican here but I doubt it. That's traditionally ordinary time until advent (maybe a few scattered individual feast days but nothing like Holy Week or christmastide).
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sea Speed said:

Is the updated liturgical calendar why my kids Catholic school no longer has an extended fall break after years of having one?

No. The liturgical calendar changed with the Mass, which was promulgated in 1970. Fall breaks, at least from my perspective, is newer and more novel, but nothing to do with the Church. I started Catholic school back in the early 80s and we never had a fall break.
Sea Speed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well we don't have one now either ha.

Only our 2nd year but some of the long time families have long planned vacations this fall and the change after years and years of having one will see them taking their kids out of class instead of canceling their vacations.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Report on the 'new 'Agatha Christie letter' by UK cultural grandees...

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/uk-cultural-grandees-urge-vatican
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Something to note (Homily, Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, 6/29/24):

The journey of the Apostle Paul is also, primarily, a passover experience. First, he is changed by his encounter with the Risen Lord on the road to Damascus and then, fervently contemplating the crucified Christ, discovers the grace of weakness. When we are weak, he tells us, it is then that we are strong, because we no longer rely on ourselves, but on Christ (cf. 2 Cor 12:10). Seized by the Lord and crucified with him, Paul can write, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20). Yet this does not lead to a consoling, inward-looking religiosity like that found in a few movements in the Church today on the contrary, the encounter with the Lord ignites in the life of Paul a burning zeal for evangelization. As we heard in the second reading, at the end of his life, he could say: "The Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the message fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it" (2 Tim 4:17).

747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Something to note (Homily, Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, 6/29/24):

The journey of the Apostle Paul is also, primarily, a passover experience. First, he is changed by his encounter with the Risen Lord on the road to Damascus and then, fervently contemplating the crucified Christ, discovers the grace of weakness. When we are weak, he tells us, it is then that we are strong, because we no longer rely on ourselves, but on Christ (cf. 2 Cor 12:10). Seized by the Lord and crucified with him, Paul can write, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20). Yet this does not lead to a consoling, inward-looking religiosity like that found in a few movements in the Church today on the contrary, the encounter with the Lord ignites in the life of Paul a burning zeal for evangelization. As we heard in the second reading, at the end of his life, he could say: "The Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the message fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it" (2 Tim 4:17).



These insults couched in a false assumption have become so tiresome.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Insulting??

It would seem that he is aware of movements (he didn't say SSPX) that are turning the faithful away from the mission and into what he is calling "inward looking religiosity." I would think that is concerning, because that is not our calling.

How is that insulting?
aggietony2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You post it on a thread of people with largely conservative liturgical preferences, when those are the groups Francis is most likely referring to, to hint that us "trads" are inward focused and fail to evangelize.

You know what you're suggesting with that quote. Everyone on this thread does.

I'll say this, since I've embraced a more traditional approach to both the liturgy I pursue and the spiritual practices I adopt at home, I'm much more likely to share the faith with others.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They are not insults. You have taken them that way. Think about it.
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

They are not insults. You have taken them that way. Think about it.


How are we supposed to take this remark? You've cautioned the so-called trads of R&P to not forget the mission. We've spoken at length on how we haven't. Much like the smells and bells thing. And we have now a bolded remark from the Holy Father in a thread about the possibility of further restrictions on the Latin Mass. If there's a different meaning then, by all means, enlighten us.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.