Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Apr 2nd 2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: The SSPX is in Schism and has been declared so.
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



The SSPX is in Schism and has been declared so.



--hide--


Your information is out of date. www.renewamerica.com

The priests are suspended as are its bishops, but it's not in a state of formal schism according to Rome.
LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new
(Quote) John-220051 said: They are optional rubrics for when the priest CHOOSES to celebrate Mass ad orientem.
(Quote) John-220051 said:

They are optional rubrics for when the priest CHOOSES to celebrate Mass ad orientem.
--hide--


I see what you are saying. Still think it's sad that any priest, anywhere would choose to face the laity thereby turning his back to God.
LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: \First, in practice the term NO is about as meaningless as 'kissing' because both refer to ...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:



\First, in practice the term NO is about as meaningless as 'kissing' because both refer to a very broad spectrum of activity. NO
--hide--


Agreed. My parish offers a very reverent form of the OF in Latin, with chanted prefaces and responses.

However, I grew up in a parish where everything was spoken and the music may or may not have been decent, depending on what week it was.

Fortunately, nothing too atrocious, but when I went off to college, I handpicked a parish were I actually looked forward to divine worship on Sunday, instead of merely got up to fulfill an obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and other Holy Days.
LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: Your information is out of date. www.renewamerica.com The p...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

Your information is out of date. www.renewamerica.com

The priests are suspended as are its bishops, but it's not in a state of formal schism according to Rome.
--hide--

Let's see, the analysis states that the Pope awaits with open arms the return of the SSPX. If they are not apart, how can the Pope be described as waiting for their "return." If they are not scismatic, why is an agreement needed?

The article also makes a point several times, that the SSPX is not in "formal schism." So now we are to believe there are two possible states: formal schism and informal schism. Utter nonsense.

As part of the argument, the artcle points out that a Catholic who attended an SSPX Mass was not a scismatic. That is also true of a Catholic, who out of necessity, attended an Eastern Orthodox Mass to fulfill his Sunday obligation. But it does not change the fact the Eastern Orthodox churches are, in fact, scismatic.

The argument does not wash.

LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new

(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I see what you are saying. Still think it's sad that any priest, anywhere would choose to f...
(Quote) Monica-730858 said:

I see what you are saying. Still think it's sad that any priest, anywhere would choose to face the laity thereby turning his back to God.
--hide--

Monica,

What don't you understand about the fact that since ST. Peter's was built, every Pope has always said Mass facing the Congregation? It is the olnly way the Mass can be celebrated at the main altar there.

That was how the Mass was celebrated in the early church, in the homes of Christians at the dinner table as part of the communal meal.

I also earlier quoted the rules that specify that thye Altar was to be positioned away from the wall so that, preferably, the Priest faces the people when saying Mass.

And when all is said and done, what possible difference does it make if the Priest does or does not face the people when saying Mass except at those limited times where the rubric insists he faces the people.?

Facing or not facing the people has aboslutely nothing to do with the validity of a Mass.

LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: As important as the Bible is, how much more ridiculous can we be to parade the Book of readings ...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



As important as the Bible is, how much more ridiculous can we be to parade the Book of readings at every Mass with pomp and circumstance, when in so many of our Churches the tabernacle has been relegated to a virtually hidden Adoration Chapel?

--hide--


That the tabernacle is neglected does not mean that parading the book of the Gospel is ridiculous. The two, the Eucharist and the Scriptures, should both be given attention.
LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-302787 said: That the tabernacle is neglected does not mean that parading the book of the Gospel is ridiculous...
(Quote) Paul-302787 said:

That the tabernacle is neglected does not mean that parading the book of the Gospel is ridiculous. The two, the Eucharist and the Scriptures, should both be given attention.
--hide--

You missed the point of my statement.

First and foremost, I did not dis the Book of the Gospels.

And I fully agree that both shoulld have a place of honor.

But there is a difference. The tabernacle holds the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The book of readings is just a book of readings which contian the words of God.

But without the Eucharist, the BOOK is nothing more than a book. In fact, it would then be a mere book of myths and fables.

So in that sense, it is ridiculous to parade the Book with all pomp and circumstance when, too often, the tabernacle is hidden away.

LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new
And the point of my statement was that the respect given to one (the Eucharist) should be given without ignoring the respect due to another (the Holy Scriptures).

So, I once again state that I see nothing ridiculous about displaying the book of readings. It is just that the tabernacle should also be more prominent.
LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new

As you wrote Paul... "... formal schism and informal schism. Utter nonsense.".


Is that like being difinitely pregnant and sort-of pregnant? Or is "informal" like "the document is in the mail, but it hasn't been received yet? Or is "informal" like the document has been received, but the authority of the document is not accepted by those to which it applies?


It would be interesting to see the canonical distinction between "formal" and "informal". I suspect that it would be hard to find an authoritive written difinition of the distinction between "formal" and "informal".


Ed

LOCKED
Apr 2nd 2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: The SSPX isn't in schism, but it's ministry is as canonically licit as Dignity for exampl...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

The SSPX isn't in schism, but it's ministry is as canonically licit as Dignity for example.
--hide--

Paul has made a number of good points and I will not repeat them, except to point out the excellence of his point that a Catholic can receive sacraments at an Orthodox Church if necessary, but that doesn't mean that there is no schism.

I am more sympathetic to the whole formal/informal schism facade than Paul, but let's face it; at the end of the day it is a diplomatic fiction. The Church is trying to bring the SSPX back in (and make no mistake- they are out) and that task is made easier if they don't spend a lot of time emphasizing the separation. The SSPX for its part justifies its position by pretending to be "true" Catholics who are waiting for the "mistaken" beurocrats in Rome to come to their senses. If they formally severed all ties with Rome, they'd have a lot of theological explaining to do. Likewise Rome's diplomats don't see any point in burning the bridge since they want the SSPX to come back, but it doesn't change the fact that they are on the other side of a chasm and will need a bridge somewhere sometime to come back into the fold.

LOCKED
Posts 131 - 140 of 200