Why cite SSPX practice as an example to be considered?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Well, Catholics in general are rather a minority in your end of the state, aren't they? SSPX has two locations elsewhere in TN.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    Which monarchist party? a) the Bourbon; the Orleanist; the Napoleonic?


    As to the irrelevance of the SSPX, friends of ours (in multiple places) who, just a few years ago, wouldn't have given anything traditional (said with a tone of utter contempt and disdain) a second thought, are more and more friendly with the Society. That doesn't change the problematic situation with the Society, but it does mean that its influence is growing. Most of the people I'm thinking of are in the former Confederacy.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Yes, Catholics are at most 5-6% but growing. Twenty years ago that number was more like 3%. Didn't know about the SSPX locations, but there was a Pius V group near Chattanooga for a while. Hadn't heard much about them lately. There was also an irregular chapel near Benton claiming to be an offshoot of the Knights of Malta. The real knights said they had never heard of those people and they were imposters.

    Which monarchists? There's more than one? France seems to be firmly in the grip of the socialists at the moment. Who knows? In any event, SSPX is a tail, not the dog.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Charles,

    I used to live in what we called "the buckle of the Bible belt". My wife remembers when Catholics were an even tinier fraction of the population.


    Yes, there's more than one group of monarchists in France. I don't imagine that they get along well, but I don't know for sure. If they're united, it's around the traditional expressions of the faith.

    If the SSPX is the tail, traditional Catholic families are the only part of the Church in France which is growing, except, possible, those who are dead and those who have abandoned the faith.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,184
    Please be ever so careful about the SSPX and the "monarchists" in France. From my friends in the Society who live in France, the return of the monarchy is not a priority among many of them. While it is true that some parts do attach themselves to monarchism, most DO NOT.What is a priority is their growth and the larger growth of traditional Catholicism in France. In the next 10 years, the traditionalists will ordain more priests than the regular diocesan bishops. If you want a real expression of their faith and love, go on the walk from ND de Paris to ND de Chartres (60 miles in three days). 25000 or more do the walk.

    Traditional Catholicism is the life of the eldest daughter of the Church. Much of the rest is mired in the same ways that the Church is all over the world is mired in. Go to Ste. Eugene or ND du Chardonnnet in Paris. You will find incredible life and beauty.
    Thanked by 5tomjaw madorganist M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen mmeladirectress
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Kevin,

    Restoring the monarchy in France would be a great boon.

    Restoring traditional expressions of the Catholic faith to France would be (is being) a great gift, too.

    As I said, though, there is more than one kind of monarchist in France.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    .
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    I have been away due to press of business, and find that we have—-I wish I were surprised—gotten on to monarchism. “Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.” See the words of Lamuel below.

    Let me second CharlesW: SSPX is not particularly significant in the grand scheme of things. Others who are nominally loyal to Rome but are in fact disobedient are, alas, far more numerous. That said, SSPX should submit to Rome.

    My question has long since been answered, but I am happy to see the extreme abusiveness so common on this forum, say, 5 years ago seems to be gone. For good, I hope.

    Many thanks to one and all.

    Kenneth

    [1] The words of king Lamuel. The vision wherewith his mother instructed him. [2] What, O my beloved, what, O the beloved of my womb, what, O the beloved of my vows? [3] Give not thy substance to women, and thy riches to destroy kings. [4] Give not to kings, O Lamuel, give not wine to kings: because there is no secret where drunkenness reigneth: [5] And lest they drink and forget judgments, and pervert the cause of the children of the poor.

    [1] "Lamuel": This name signifies God with him, and is supposed to have been one of the names of Solomon.

    [6] Give strong drink to them that are sad: and wine to them that are grieved in mind: [7] Let them drink, and forget their want, and remember their sorrow no more. [8] Open thy mouth for the dumb, and for the causes of all the children that pass. [9] Open thy mouth, decree that which is just, and do justice to the needy and poor


  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    “Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation.”
    Context is important! I wonder about the relevance of "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" when both have been done away with. I think that's part of what drove Alan Watts to Buddhism.
    SSPX should submit to Rome.
    How? What obedience is Rome currently demanding of the SSPX that they are refusing?
    Thanked by 2StimsonInRehab francis
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    What obedience is Rome currently demanding of the SSPX that they are refusing?


    Heh. You've put your finger on the largest "problem" with SSPX: nobody knows, exactly and precisely, what the problem actually is. That is because Rome never, ever, anathematized the LAITY who attended SSPX Masses--and then Rome mumbled some sort of "de-anathemization" of SSPX priests and Bishops (or most of them.)

    Rome is also working on regularizing all the SSPX-officiated marriages and Pp. Francis has not retracted their Holy Year absolution privileges, either.

    Since FSSP, ICK and SSPX are tracking in the same direction with regards to the Mass and LOTH (pre-1955 is the new hotness), Rome can't exactly condemn SSPX's position while having given permission to FSSP (haven't heard that ICK has permission, but I don't think they really care.)

    Some authority, a dozen-or-so years ago, wrote that 'the Roman liturgical praxis is by far the most loosey-goosey' (or words to that effect) 'compared to the Easterns.' What you see in this whole SSPX kerfuffle is at least in part a direct result of that laxity. The "dogma" questions seem to have receded into the distant background--which to the layman, raises the question "WHAT dogmatic differences?"

    Indeed.

    The question is this: does it make a difference in terms of eternal salvation?
    Thanked by 1madorganist
Add a Comment