Sspx Members Welcome?

[LittleWaySoul]

Small aside: This thread is so fascinating to me! I had no idea about anything like the SSPX before. I love learning these things I think everyone has made wonderful points and intelligent arguments thus far. Please, however, as franciscanheart said, remain loving and civil. It will do no one any good to have nastiness shouted at one another. Keep up the interesting conversation! Peace

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Studiumecclesiae' timestamp='1345558795' post='2471220']
No one is worshipping tradition. We are worshipping GOD, the Almighty. He is not our friend, we won't call Him "you" but "Thou"
[/quote]
Oh, my poor, sweet, silly, dear girl. Allow me to explain...

If you know virtually any other European language, you know that they have two forms of you - the so called "t" - "v" distinction. In French, it's tu/vous, in German it's du/Sie, in Spanish it's tu/usted, in Russian it's ty/vy, in Latin, it was tu/vobis.

Now, for those of you who know Latin, we're going to disregard it for this exercise, because as you well know, 1st and 2nd person pronouns are not used very commonly in Latin (or in modern Spanish). As our language and its more closely related languages differ from it in that respect, we will part with Latin at this juncture.

All of the t words and all of the v words in the all of the languages listed above are cognate. So, when all of the Angles were sitting around - after the Normans had invited themselves to the party - deciding what wild and crazy stuff they were going to put into their language (okay, so that's not actually how languages develop, pipe down), they absorbed this t-v distinction, in the forms of thou and you (or, at least the words that would become thou and you). There are two factors in the 16th century mind when deciding which pronoun is appropriate: number and familiarity. If you were addressing two or more people, it was easy: use you. However, if you were addressing only one person, you had to decide how formal the situation was. If you were speaking to someone above your position, you had better use you. If you were speaking to a friend, a lover, or anyone else with whom you shared some level of an intimate relationship, you could use thou.

[b]WHAT!? [/b]Yes, that's right. Thou was the informal form of the word. Why do you suppose the Bard wrote "Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?" It would have been pretty bizarre for him to have written "Shall I compare you to a summer's day?" since it would be a little off to refer to your romantic item in such a formal way (or, of course, if he was a player (or a Mormon), maybe you would have been more proper...but that's tangential).

So, if it makes you feel better to refer to God as thou, feel free. I'm not against it, in fact, I like more flowery language in the liturgy. It's almost like Latin insofar as it's like a special language set aside for a higher purpose. But don't go around saying that God's not our friend so we should use "thou"...it's like advising everyone in the room that henceforth, you're going to bathe with your clothes on so that your skin doesn't get so wet.

Or you might run into somebody who knows what they're talking about and get shut down.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1345565401' post='2471270']
Oh, my poor, sweet, silly, dear girl. Allow me to explain...

If you know virtually any other European language, you know that they have two forms of you - the so called "t" - "v" distinction. In French, it's tu/vous, in German it's du/Sie, in Spanish it's tu/usted, in Russian it's ty/vy, in Latin, it was tu/vobis.

Now, for those of you who know Latin, we're going to disregard it for this exercise, because as you well know, 1st and 2nd person pronouns are not used very commonly in Latin (or in modern Spanish). As our language and its more closely related languages differ from it in that respect, we will part with Latin at this juncture.

All of the t words and all of the v words in the all of the languages listed above are cognate. So, when all of the Angles were sitting around - after the Normans had invited themselves to the party - deciding what wild and crazy stuff they were going to put into their language (okay, so that's not actually how languages develop, pipe down), they absorbed this t-v distinction, in the forms of thou and you (or, at least the words that would become thou and you). There are two factors in the 16th century mind when deciding which pronoun is appropriate: number and familiarity. If you were addressing two or more people, it was easy: use you. However, if you were addressing only one person, you had to decide how formal the situation was. If you were speaking to someone above your position, you had better use you. If you were speaking to a friend, a lover, or anyone else with whom you shared some level of an intimate relationship, you could use thou.

[b]WHAT!? [/b]Yes, that's right. Thou was the informal form of the word. Why do you suppose the Bard wrote "Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?" It would have been pretty bizarre for him to have written "Shall I compare you to a summer's day?" since it would be a little off to refer to your romantic item in such a formal way (or, of course, if he was a player (or a Mormon), maybe you would have been more proper...but that's tangential).

So, if it makes you feel better to refer to God as thou, feel free. I'm not against it, in fact, I like more flowery language in the liturgy. It's almost like Latin insofar as it's like a special language set aside for a higher purpose. But don't go around saying that God's not our friend so we should use "thou"...it's like advising everyone in the room that henceforth, you're going to bathe with your clothes on so that your skin doesn't get so wet.

Or you might run into somebody who knows what they're talking about and get shut down.
[/quote]
I would prop this post with my full daily allotment if I could. Thanks for sharing your knowledge, USAIHS.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Studiumecclesiae' timestamp='1345558795' post='2471220']
I agree that the Church is missionary! But what people don't seem to acknowledge is that it already was SO missionary before Vatican II, and Mgr Lefebvre was a Missionary Father. And we got a great decline in missionary communities because of Vatican II and esp. this tendency to say "all religions are right, we adore the same God, etc etc." People lose faith because of this great heresy.
[img]http://www.laportelatine.org/mediatheque/sermonsecrits/TissierVillepreux101009/delegueApostolique.jpg[/img]


[/quote]

I've always liked this picture, and admired the younger Archbishop Lefebvre's epic beard.
He was a great missionary. He really got it. Apparently if you go to Dakar and Gabon there's stuff named after him all over the place because of how influential and popular he was.

[beatitude]

Your photos of Muslims preaching in church (if that is what the man was doing) and a Qu'ran placed on the altar are irrelevant to what you said originally. In your initial post you objected to 'meeting with Muslims' and 'inviting them in church', and having a meeting with Muslims or inviting them to church does not automatically involve either of those things. Why would it? You have created a strawman there. In response, I could pull out plenty of examples of traditionalism gone wrong - when it has led people to be disobedient, disrespectful, or flat-out cruel to one another - but I won't, because those things do not make traditionalism wrong in and of itself.

[quote]No one is worshipping tradition. We are worshipping GOD, the Almighty. He is not our friend, we won't call Him "you" but "Thou"[/quote]

He is very much our friend. In His own words: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but [b]I have called you friends[/b], for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you."

As others have already pointed out, 'thee' and 'thou' were actually used in informal speech. It is only their age that now makes them seem very formal. I happen to use the thee and thou pronouns (most churches I've ever been in do) but it's not particularly relevant anyway, as these prayers are translated prayers. If we were going to be such linguistic purists, we would all learn biblical Hebrew and NT Greek and Aramaic in order to pray exactly as the first Christians did and use the exact words of scripture. But we don't.

I appreciate beautiful prayers, but I also know that all spoken language is human - spirit and truth are the biblical hallmarks of pure worship, and to see that, God looks not at our language, but at our hearts. If only holiness was as easy as just using the right language (Church Latin) and saying the right words. Getting fixated on things like 'thou' and 'thee' is an example of the worship of tradition that I was talking about.

I gave my personal experience of the judgmentalism I faced from grown adults in a SSPX chapel, as a teenage girl who was trying to understand her heritage. I didn't say that all SSPX attendees were like that, just that I can see how dissent fosters such judgmental behaviour. Six years later, in a very modernist parish, I received an unpleasant welcome again - this time for being too traditional. Both times the unkindness was the product of disobedience. SSPX attendees might be outraged at being compared with the publicans in the modernist church, and those parishioners would have been horrified to think that they were like the tax collectors in the SSPX, but really they were no different. It was their way or the high way. Again, I am not saying that attending a disobedient church will automatically make you like this, just that it can lead in that direction - because you're being encouraged to see yourself as right (whether as a bold prophetic revolutionary, or a proud restorer of tradition) and others as wrong. The tone and substance of your own posts hasn't done anything to put me at ease on this.

[Papist]

Studiumecclesiae,

I love your zeal. Truely! The Church needs such zeal from both Her ordained and laity. However, I beleive it is somewhat misguided zeal. There is so much beauty and splendor in the Catholic Church to embrace and participate in. I rather embrace and participate in Her beauty and splendor, than to be an investigative reporter looking for deficiencies of its members and clergy. However, if I do experience abuse, heresy, etc., I will not turn a blind eye to it. I will take prudent corrective measures through proper channels.
God bless you.

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345572685' post='2471326']
Studiumecclesiae,

I love your zeal. Truely! The Church needs such zeal from both Her ordained and laity. However, I beleive it is somewhat misguided zeal. There is so much beauty and splendor in the Catholic Church to embrace and participate in. I rather embrace and participate in Her beauty and splendor, than to be an investigative reporter looking for deficiencies of its members and clergy. However, if I do experience abuse, heresy, etc., I will not turn a blind eye to it. I will take prudent corrective measures [b]through proper channels.[/b]
God bless you.
[/quote]

I think that's the key point - through proper channels. Many of us share some of the concerns held by members of the SSPX. But there are licit ways to tackle these problems - many great saints saw problems in their own times but they reformed [i]from within[/i].

[Papist]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1345574918' post='2471349']
I think that's the key point - through proper channels. Many of us share some of the concerns held by members of the SSPX. But there are licit ways to tackle these problems - many great saints saw problems in their own times but they reformed [i]from within[/i].
[/quote]
Precisely. Ranting and raving on forums, blogs, facebook, etc. is unproductive, and at times dangerous, to youth especially.

[Nihil Obstat]

Just to make sure the other side isn't ignored:
There have been various people, including saints throughout history, for instance Joan of Arc just because she was the first to come to my mind who, for one reason or another, were not in favour with the Roman hierarchy. For them it took some time, in some cases many years after their death, before their reputation was 'rehabilitated'. It is, in my opinion, possible that some years down the road, probably decades, at such a time that we are more removed from the situation and perhaps can view it more objectively, that the actions of Marcel Lefebvre and the other four since then may be treated with considerably more sympathy by official sources.
Right now, being very much caught up in the situation, it's hard for either side to be truly objective. There is a lot of hurt both in Econe and in Rome. Harsh things have been said, rather extreme criticisms have been made, and at the end of the day a lot of people feel or felt personally attacked by the other 'side'. Therefore I don't believe we can have a truly objective look at this right now, at least such a perspective will be very difficult to uncover.
Perhaps a generation or two later on a pope will look and say "most of Archbishop Lefebvre's criticisms were correct. John Paul II did the best job he could with the information that was available at the time, but historical perspective tells us that Marcel Lefebvre acted justly."
All I'm saying is that such things could happen, and it's very hard for us to say many things with certainty right now. It's a complex situation which we're still living out, and things may very well look different when we come out the other side. For now, I attend Mass every week with the FSSP, and I'm content. But there is much work yet to be done. The liturgical crisis is far from over, and speaking more broadly the Church has many challenges now and in Her future. These are confusing times, and the simplest answer may not always be the best one.

[Papist]

All of that is for the Church to handle. All I can do is pray and stay out of the way.

[Ash Wednesday]

I hope someday this business with the SSPX and the Vatican gets resolved. I know BXVI wants it. And I want it... in part because of the people it would throw into apoplectic fits.




And that's all I got to say about that.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345577170' post='2471365']
All of that is for the Church to handle. All I can do is pray and stay out of the way.
[/quote]

Indeed. I'm glad it's not my responsibility to sort out. It is an enormous burden, I think.

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' timestamp='1345577248' post='2471367']

And that's all I got to say about that.
[/quote]

That is one of the best ways to end any statement.

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345577285' post='2471368']
Indeed. I'm glad it's not my responsibility to sort out. It is an enormous burden, I think.
[/quote]
People trying to find abuses and what-not to justify Lefebvre's actions and the SSPX does not help the matter. Also, it goes the other way too. People trying to find ills of the SSPX oes not help the matter.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Papist

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1345577295' post='2471369']
People trying to find abuses and what-not to justify Lefebvre's actions and the SSPX is does not help the matter.
[/quote]

Well I don't think many on this site will deny that many of his concerns were quite valid. The question is more about his actions than the reasons for them.

[Papist]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1345577357' post='2471370']
Well I don't think many on this site will deny that many of his concerns were quite valid. The question is more about [b]his actions[/b] than the reasons for them.
[/quote]
Bingo!