Interesting read.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I had no idea that Fr. John Perricone was now assigned to my local Archdiocese, at a church less than 10 miles from my house. As you can see, he got the typical New Sprigtime Love reception.

Obedience isn't really the issue with you people, is it?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 30, 2003

Answers

Jake,

Who exactly are you referring to when you say, "you people?"

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 30, 2003.


PS--Assuming you like this priest, will you be attending mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel each week with your family to show support for Fr. Perricone?

Change happens one parish at a time, right?

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 30, 2003.


Sounds to me like he received the same reception any authority figure would, priest or otherwise, when he is sent to serve a body of people, and instead sets himself up as a dictator over them. The Mass does not belong to Father Perricone. It belongs to the people of the Church, and it is his duty before God to deliver it to them in the manner most edifying to the congregation, within the norms set down by Holy Mother Church, rather than to impose his personal minority preferences on the people of God.

"Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not to be this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28)

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 30, 2003.


"They said that

(a) he faced the altar instead of the congregation when he prepared communion,

(b) did not allow communicants to drink from the chalice;

(c) did not speak out loud for the consecration of the host;

(d) and did not allow lay ministers to deliver communion." [my paragraph numbering]

perhaps this is sloppy reporting and the parishioners have other objections; but pls pls tell me what basis they have to object to these aspects of the Mass offered by this priest (whom i confess i have never heard of).

are they suddenly "traditional" (sense: don't like change) -- but where all tradition began in the 1960's?!? there is an irony in this somewhere.

i have seen a priest that claps his hand through the ceremony. jumps off the altar and angages in the sign of peace. mis-explaims Scripture. changes the liturgy as he sees fit. gives the most appaling homilies. and so it can be a lot worse.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), July 30, 2003.


Who exactly are you referring to when you say, "you people?"

You people who think that the church was broken before Vatican II and is now fixed, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

PS--Assuming you like this priest, will you be attending mass at Our Lady of Mount Carmel each week with your family to show support for Fr. Perricone?

No. I won't attend. I did, however, send a letter of encouragement wherein I expressed my empathy for the horrible reception he'd been given by some of his congregation, and told him we'd love to have him at our chapel if he ever wished to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. I'm not holding my breath for a reply.

Change happens one parish at a time, right?

I'd say one soul at a time, but I get your point.

Say, you alluded to some family-related good news recently. Did i miss it or have you not told it?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 30, 2003.



"Did i miss it or have you not told it?"

No, you haven't missed it. Stay tuned!

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 30, 2003.


I think it's kind of ironic: the parishoners don't think the Tridentine elements are good enough for them. Isn't that what the Schismatics said about Vat II? Yes, the world's a fun place. These people feel that the "old" elements are bad, so they obviously should leave the parish and form their own version of Catholicism, right Jake?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 30, 2003.


Ian writes:

"perhaps this is sloppy reporting..."

We are talking about the NY Times, right? 'nuf said...

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 30, 2003.


jake, I don't want to rehash old issues, but some clarification needs to be made here.

With the approval of the local bishop, a priest may celebrate a Novus Ordo (new order) mass in Latin. This is done quite regularly.

What is not acceptable without consent is a priest saying a Tridentine mass. In our diocese, a priest was reprimanded for this. The Bishop had granted him permission to say the Tridentine mass privately but not in public. He showed up one Sunday and without any explanation said tridentine masses. He is now on a two month vacation but has not been relieved of any duties, officially.

SSPX and the like are schismatics.

I recently attended an SSPX mass (for academic reasons only).

I was saddened. There were only 7 people there including the priest, two alter servers and myself. There was no homily and even with a little background in Latin, I picked up about every third word, because the priest recited the words so fast and so unemotionally. I felt no presence of the Holy Spirit.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 30, 2003.


I've been looking on the 'net for stuff related to Perricone.

I've found that, just as many of us here differentiate between the "spirit of Vatican II" abuses and the actual Vatican II Council, Fr. Perricone attacks illicit liturgical novelties (ie. abuses) while defending the "Novus Ordo" mass as it was promulgated in the GIRM, etc.

Anyway, the NY Times author doesn't seem to know anything about the subject (other than what a few angry parishioners have told him).

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 30, 2003.



jake, I don't want to rehash old issues

Then don't.

I posted about a priest who was too conservative (?) for some of his congregation, who reacted by picketing Sunday Mass, calling their priest a "lunatic" and a "dictator."

Sound familiar?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my liturgical preferences. Looking for a fight? Send me an email.

Nice try, though.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 30, 2003.


"I will not attend the Mass when this other lunatic is on the loose," said Ruth Finley. "That's why we have automobiles. If you're not happy, move on."

That's also why we have wide, smooth highways...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2003.


We have a word to describe these protester-types. Around here, they're called "Episcopals." :-)

Bishop Spong is waiting to embrace them!

:-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 30, 2003.


jake,

is this our same old trad who has been missing for so long?

well, welcome back. best wishes and the like, but the SSPX is still a schism, and the arguements it spews against the vatican and the mass are still not welcome here. but, good to hear from you again.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 30, 2003.


It is good hunting grounds for what I've always found to be true, though... that post-conciliar Catholics are guilty of all the very same charges they level at traditionalists.

Just, worse-so.

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 30, 2003.



I suspect that it's not really the liturgical issues---They just don't like the guy. If he got rid of the eucharistic ministers, for example (or altar girls?) he can't have made himself too popular.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 30, 2003.

Emerald,

that post-conciliar Catholics are guilty of all the very same charges they level at traditionalists.

Exactly Emerald, these parishoners are WRONG, just like the schismatics are WRONG. Good first step!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 31, 2003.


"Exactly Emerald, these parishoners are WRONG, just like the schismatics are WRONG. Good first step!"

Well, there are some good things about the Eastern churches, such as the fact that they do have infant Communion, which is a good thing.

You did mean... them, right? =0

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.


Emerald,

Of course. As a matter of fact, I think Ed Richards said he went to a church in New York, and that's as "Eastern" as you can get in this country. The Church, however, is worldwide, so the same pertains to Schismatics all over. ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 31, 2003.


well, welcome back. best wishes and the like

Thanks. I guess.

but the SSPX is still a schism

Nice try. Again. The issue on the table is that a priest who has had a show on EWTN (which makes him OK, right?) came off as too Catholic for some of his own flock, who reacted by picketing Sunday Mass and by calling him names.

There's a pattern.

There's a purpose.

That's the issue.

Nice try, though.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 31, 2003.


Jake writes:

"There's a pattern."

Right...and when some priest/bishop proposes a renovation of an old church to make it "modern" (you call it "wreck-ovation"), then there are protests.

That's the pattern. People protest stuff they don't like. Right or wrong, that's what people do. In Washington DC, there are protests every week (actually, every day)... So, who cares? In neither case are the protests organized by the institution (Church or government).

"There's a purpose."

Uh...OK, of course there's a purpose for these protesters. And the NY Times' author almost certainly sympathizes with them and their "purpose." But, what would possess someone to believe that the Church as an institution shared the view of the NY Times in this incident?

God bless,

Mateo el Neo :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 31, 2003.


(you call it "wreck-ovation")

How I wish I'd coined that word...

In Washington DC, there are protests every week (actually, every day)... So, who cares?

Most protests are just a result of people having too much spare time, which is why they're so popular among college students, who often have no idea what they're protesting or why. "Who cares?" depends on the issue. Most times I won't care a whip, other times I care very much. the NY Times' author almost certainly sympathizes with them and their "purpose."

Granted, there would be only one reason I would be caught dead with a copy of the NY Times, and I don't have a birdcage. Still, the story says a lot. Here's a priest who says the Novus Ordo and probably takes the EWTN "right-wing liberal" (as Emerald says) stance on things, in full accordance with the Council & local norms, and a band of horse's patoots comes out after him with picket signs. There was nary a peep of outrage as the sodomite and pedophiliac acts of priests in this diocese were brought to light. You'd think the NY Times would be all over that.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 31, 2003.


The guy in the article says "Our people built this church!". "We built this City..."

I can't take credit for the right wing liberal term since I got it from a friend of mine. Whether he coined it or not I don't know, but it sure does a good job of naming the new orthodox. Takes the bite of contradiction out of the latter.

Mateo el Neo :-)

Oh no! He's been codified! lol. He's on a dangerous trajectory towards trajectory.

=)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.


Mateo el Neo :-)

All the Neos I know don't even think of themselves as such, much less advertise.

Too bad my name's not Brad. : D

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 31, 2003.


I'm not sure if I understand Jake's question or to whom he is referring, but I think it's absurd that these people are protesting over the use of "Latin phrases"; they're Catholic! Parts of the Mass must still remain in Latin: From the Sacrosanctum Concilium:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the Liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

I think these people underestimate themselves and their abilities to learn. Latin is a beautiful and useful language that will never change. The priest is simply correcting the lack. Now, perhaps his attitude isn't humble and he needs to understand that it will take a little time for people to get used to hearing more Latin, but he is doing the correct thing. Gwen

-- Gwen Rodriguez (gwen@panam.edu), July 31, 2003.


Gwen Gwen Gwen.

jake is an old hand here, and hes objecting to a little more than you think.

see, jake thinks that the WHOLE mass should be done in latin. further, he thinks that the church should never have changed the mass from the old right to what it is today. in fact, jake thinks of the current mass as an abonination.

why? because jake belongs to a radical schismatic group called the SSPX (society of saint pius X). this group believes that the vatican was under the influence of satan at the time of vatican II and that everything the vatican has done since is some part of a conspiracy sweeping through the vatican to subvert the one true church.

but, what about them. founder: Bishop Lefabvre (did i spell that right jake?). bishop lefabvre was excommunicated for his radical stance taken against the vatican, and for appointing priests loyal to HIS order after being ordered not to by the vatican. further, the act of excomunication is EXTENDED beyond to all those loyal to lefabvre.

jake, why dont you tell us how WRONG you think lefabvre was. dont worry, i know what you will do, all youre going to say is how different theologians have quantified the act of that excommunication, and how various people responded to that decision. but that doesnt change the fact that it was a papal decree that lefabvre and his own have been excommunicated... a decision which has not been overturned since the original decision was made.

therefore, i guess ive exausted most of what can be said in this thread. happy schisming (i hope i was the one to coin that phrase)

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 31, 2003.


When ppl focus on latin, or the lack thereof, it shows that the focus was in the wrong place. Focus on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why you attend Church is it not ?

-- anon (anon@hotmail.com), July 31, 2003.

When traditional Catholicism and the Mass of Trent is considered radical, I know I'm in the right place; I am consoled and achieve clarity of mind and peace.

In hoc signo crucis vinces!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.


"When traditional Catholicism and the Mass of Trent is considered radical, I know I'm in the right place."

That sounds forced...you've gotta wait for the right opportunity to say something like this.

"I am consoled and achieve clarity of mind and peace."

Sounds like you've got all your chakras aligned...hmmm. You really are a Californian! ;-)

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 31, 2003.


Yip!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.

What sounds forced, after a while, is claiming that it's not really Vatican II but a misunderstood and abused Spirit of Vatican II that's the real culprit, and that except for that, everything would be a-ok.

Now that is what sounds forced...

That being said, what I said is the truth. Don't like the way I say it? =) No matter; with the conciliars, it's never what you say but always the way you say it anyways. It feels good to be free of the lies and to get on with the business of being a Catholic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.


What I mean is, it sounds forced because the comment isn't in response to anything...it just came out of thin air.

I suppose you might be radical in the eyes of the nutty protesters; but hey, you're in good company: they think that the "Neo-priest" Fr. Perricone is radical, too. :-)

Personally, I think the best solution is to excommunicate anyone and everyone living in California [sorry Emerald!], New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts...oh yeah, and France! I think that would put a dent into the nutty-leftist influence on the Church. :-)

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 31, 2003.


Better go with the latae sententiae pronouncement... if you go formal, the paperwork alone would clear the rainforests and send the environmentalists into a panic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.

Now I just have to contact the pope on my plan. Now where's that thread with the pope's email?

:o)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 31, 2003.


First though, you gotta get this left/right thing out of your head.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.

The Account of Genes is 18:20-32 just keep running through my mind...

"First though, you gotta get this left/right thing out of your head."

Only when you stop calling me a right-wing liberal! :-) Actually, I already have gotten the "left/right" thing out of my head. There are the faithful...and then there are the dissidents. The dissidents protest from the left and from the right. Objectively, I'm against both; but emotionally, the left-wing dissidents annoy me more!

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 31, 2003.


Opps...Book of Genesis

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 31, 2003.

The book of Genes... I had no idea the evolutionists had a bible.

"There are the faithful...and then there are the dissidents. The dissidents protest from the left and from the right."

I think that's an error of thinking that is the most commonly used tool of the enemy of truth. I think it's a set-up. It's the Hegelian crowbar; when it comes to truth, there is what is; it either is, or is not. The left/right admits of variation of degree which is something that can't really be predicated of truth.

It's the most commonly used tool to pry people away from the truth... thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis.

What do you see in the Genesis quote?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.


I see California. I see France. I see...

"It's the most commonly used tool to pry people away from the truth."

Correct. It is more appropriate to ignore left/right and simply say, "There are those faithful to the Church and Her bishops...and there are those who aren't faithful."

Obedience in the words of St. Ignatius of Loyola:

On Obedience

On Dismissing the Disobedient

And, finally, On Perfect Obedience

with a quote:

"The superior is to be obeyed not because he is prudent, or good, or qualified by any other gift of God, but because he holds the place and the authority of God, as Eternal Truth has said: He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me [Luke 10:16]. Nor on the contrary, should he lack prudence, is he to be the less obeyed in that in which he is superior, since he represents Him who is infallible wisdom, and who will supply what is wanting in His minister, nor, should he lack goodness or other desirable qualities, since Christ our Lord, having said, the scribes and the Pharisees sit on the chair of Moses, adds, therefore, whatever they shall tell you, observe and do: but do not act according to their works [Matt. 23:2-3]."

God bless you,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 31, 2003.


What is it that you would like to see me obey?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.

Why does everything have to be about you? :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 01, 2003.

It's not. I'm using myself as cannon fodder here.

Aquinas from Q.104:

"Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful."

There are distinctions.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.


It doesn't take much to figure that what's being proposed is, that those presumed to err on the right are being disobedient.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.

The quote you've provided merely echoes what St. Ignatius stated in his words above. And they both are based on the words of Our Lord in the Gospel of Matthew (23:3). Am I missing something?

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 01, 2003.

Sort of... that steering a course between a proposed left and a proposed right based on a supposition of obedience, at this time in our Church, and with these problems in our Church, could be construed as "indiscreet obedience".

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.

"It doesn't take much to figure that what's being proposed is, that those presumed to err on the right are being disobedient."

You don't have to "err" to be disobedient, right? I don't need to presume or find any error on the "right" in order to show disobedience.

Off topic a little bit: I'm reading a book that contains some of St. Ignatius' letters, and I do believe that the SSPX sympathizers would have lambasted St. Ignatius as a liberal (guilty of watering down the faith), had he lived in our times.

"and with these problems in our Church, could be construed as 'indiscreet obedience'"

The problem is that a typical SSPX position includes judging the "Novus Ordo" Mass as "indiscreet obedience." Embracing the documents of Vatican II is seen as "indiscreet obedience." They are not. They are just scapegoats for people who need scapegoats to blame the ills of the Church on. Fr. Perricone disagrees with this scapegoating and so do I (for what that's worth).

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 01, 2003.


What I'm getting at, Mateo, is that if you try to chart a course between the left and the right to achieve the truth in the middle, you can be guided off target and away from the truth.

Think about it: other people provide you with what consists of what's on the left, and other people provide you with what consists of what is on the right.

If you take a middle course looking for truth and safety, others merely need to change what left and right consist of.

Here's what happens:

"I suppose you might be radical in the eyes of the nutty protesters; but hey, you're in good company: they think that the "Neo- priest" Fr. Perricone is radical, too. :-)"

Neo-priest Fr. Perricone is now considered too far right for the ever- progressive leftists. Look through the scope to find the center and watch your barrel progressively drift to the left.

Best not to pay attention to either left or right, even to deny their existence; much better to aim at the target.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.


The problem is that a typical SSPX position includes judging the "Novus Ordo" Mass as "indiscreet obedience." Embracing the documents of Vatican II is seen as "indiscreet obedience."

While not in the SSPX, I agree whole-heartedly, with the qualification that it applies to only those parts of the Novus Ordo or Vatican II which are clearly in opposition to the Faith that's been held for 2,000 years. The rest that is good as gold we already had possession of anyways. Obviously, whenever (for example) Vatican II speaks well of the Trinity, I accept it. But it's nothing new.

If one does not accept from the conciliar Church that which denies any precept of the Faith, one commits no true disobedience.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.


What I meant is, I think the sspx is correct in that regard.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.

"What I'm getting at, Mateo, is that if you try to chart a course between the left and the right to achieve the truth in the middle, you can be guided off target and away from the truth."

Emerald, I hear what you are saying. The fact that I see some "left" dissenters and some "right" dissenters does not mean that I'm merely "steering" between them. I am (at least in intent) steering toward Truth. To "steer in the middle" sounds like someone who is a relativist. I am not.

My view:

Truth thrives in the hearts of men who embrace virtue and reject vice. We know Our Lord by imitating Him (and the saints who were mere imitators of His perfect example). Obedience is one of many virtues we are called to live.

The protesters failed to be obedient to their new pastor. Maybe they wanted girls dancing on their altar...maybe not. Maybe they wanted their old clown masses...maybe not. Maybe they just wanted to hear the words of the consecration in English. If it were the dancing girls or clowns, then the protesters were not only disobedient toward the priest, they wished to commit an illicit act. If it were the issue of English, then they were still disobedient toward the priest; even if what they desired was licit.

Here's the issue: the disobedience is present, even if what they ask for is licit in the judgment of the Church.

"While not in the SSPX, I agree whole-heartedly...The rest that is good as gold we already had possession of anyways."

This is such an extremely "Solo Scriptura"-like position. A parallel argument states that all Traditional teachings (including all dogma/doctrine/etc) which are in opposition to the Bible fall under "indiscreet obedience." Why bother having any Conciliar teachings, because "the rest that is good as gold we alread had possession of anyway" in the Bible. Trinity? Maybe it's un-Biblical. Marian devotion? Un-Biblical. Purgatory? Definitly un-Biblical. All these things are "un-Biblical" in the eyes of some of those who don't believe that the Church was given the God-given authority to teach.

I have no doubt that those in SSPX and protestant fundamentalists want to learn what's in the Bible, they want to imitate Christ, etc. But, the consequence of disobedience? Just as branches cut from the vine...

Dare I mention that Martin Luther was quite convinced that the "smoke of satan" had entered the Vatican 500 years ago and that St. Ignatius disagreed? :-)

Faith, hope, charity.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 01, 2003.


sola tradition

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), August 01, 2003.

As opposed to claims of "sola obedientia." :-)

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 01, 2003.

Sola traditio... lol! That's so gay. If a traditional Catholics were to be sola anything it would be sola veritas.

Think about it, man. If sola traditio were to be accurately said of a traditionalist Catholic, and it's parallel to sola scriptura were valid in sense, then the traditional Catholic would not believe in the Scriptures.

Clearly this is sola, uh, traditio denotes... nothing.

What is solo-flex; is that like a modernist? =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.


To "steer in the middle" sounds like someone who is a relativist. I am not.

Hey, I know your intentions; that's not lost on me at all. I have no doubts at all your genuineness at all; you know better. Same goes for Stephen who just poked in here. May I be as bold as to say that though you don't intend to have it, I think there's a bit of relativism going on there. That's pretty much my contention with the conciliar people; they mean well but have swallowed something of a modernist pill and don't know it.

"Truth thrives in the hearts of men who embrace virtue and reject vice. We know Our Lord by imitating Him (and the saints who were mere imitators of His perfect example). Obedience is one of many virtues we are called to live."

Agreed.

"I have no doubt that those in SSPX and protestant fundamentalists want to learn what's in the Bible, they want to imitate Christ, etc. But, the consequence of disobedience? Just as branches cut from the vine..."

No comparison. In all honesty, the comparison between Luther and the protestants is lousy. No one has really laid the comparison out though, in detail. I would love to see someone do that in here.

"Dare I mention that Martin Luther was quite convinced that the "smoke of satan" had entered the Vatican 500 years ago and that St. Ignatius disagreed? :-)"

Give me the name of this book and I'll read it. Whatever you're reading, I want to read it too.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.


I'm familiar w/the SSPX. I would not attend their masses. I used to attend a Tridentine mass at the Saint Benedict Center in NH ("Feenyites"). That's a whole nuther issue!

-- Gwen Rodriguez (gwen@panam.edu), August 01, 2003.

Hi Emerald,

You write:

"Think about it, man. If sola traditio were to be accurately said of a traditionalist Catholic, and it's parallel to sola scriptura were valid in sense, then the traditional Catholic would not believe in the Scriptures."

I never stated that SSPX was "sola traditio." Are you responding to Stephen? Anyway, protestants typically have slogans like sola fidei, sola scriptura, sola gratia. No one ever pretends that each somehow excludes the other, nor should you make such a conclusion. The fact is that "Bible protestants" typically accept Tradition related to the writing of the New Testament. Similarly, SSPX-ish people typically accept Tradition up to just before Vatican II. They both come to the same conclusion: the "smoke of satan" accusation...they just differ on the dates.

You write: "May I be as bold as to say that though you don't intend to have it, I think there's a bit of relativism going on there."

I figured you'd disagree with me. I guess we can just keep thinking the other is lost. I do it with protestants all day, and they think I'm lost, too. :-)

You write: "No comparison. In all honesty, the comparison between Luther and the protestants is lousy."

Just your opinion. You're forced to come to that conclusion; because otherwise, you couldn't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with SSPX's schism.

You write: "No one has really laid the comparison out though, in detail. I would love to see someone do that in here."

I have presented comparisons. I suppose if you need me to expound on any of them, I could see what I could do.

You write: "Give me the name of this book and I'll read it."

Would this be to confirm an assertion you find questionable, or are you referring back to my mentioning the letters of St. Ignatius?

I do find it interesting to compare the disobedience of these "protesters" and the SSPX. The protesters of Fr. Perricone picketed the church with signs. If they followed the example of the SSPX, they'd grab a sympathetic bishop, establish their own churches and seminaries, and start consecrating other men as bishops who could continue their disobedience. And it would be all "valid" according to the SSPX gameplan. Of course, protesters on the left have done this in the past.

They are all protesting. Protest: the root word for... In my view, it is the "protesters" on the left and right who are the relativists. They practice cafeteria Catholocism, approving or rejecting whatever they choose. Emerald, you're becoming a relativist! ;-)

God bless,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 01, 2003.


"In my view, it is the "protesters" on the left and right who are the relativists."

Doh! You did it again.

I think we are talking past each other. Btw, I don't consider you lost.

"Would this be to confirm an assertion you find questionable, or are you referring back to my mentioning the letters of St. Ignatius?"

The letters; I'll read them sometime.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.


Here's the book's details:

Letters of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Selected and translated by William J. Young, SJ. (1959, Loyola University Press, Chicago, IL) Here's how you buy it...you won't find it at Amazon!

Here's the Google search.

Enjoy!

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), August 01, 2003.


I'll just read it off the net for now. Do you find that reading off the net isn't nearly the same as holding a book in your hands? It just doesn't seem the same to me. Til later.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), August 01, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ