Schism in the church

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More American narcissism. There is slight potential for schism but the poles of the spectrum are in Germany and Africa. Highly unlikely that American traditionalists will be the vanguard of a schism, especially with the FSSP already in place.

If Pope Leo relaxes TC it placates all but the most vocal traditionalists in America.

My apologies. Anybody conversing on this topic would understand those, but I get that people may be new to this topic. And my autocorrect got me.

SSPX (not FSSP), Society of St Pius X is a Catholic order in schism with Rome. The curious part is that Rome does not completely ban Catholics from taking communion from SSPX priests. SSPX is a Traditional Latin Mass that is a hotbed of conservatism in the USA, though mostly insular. Reconciliation with Rome has long been rumored, but that is a painstakingly slow process.

Tradiciones Custodes (TC) is a papal encyclical from late in the papacy of Pope Francis that was a serious crackdown on the TLM. It pushed (particularly French and American) conservative Catholics that attend the TLM at ordinary dioceses/parishes (not SSPX) further into the margins. It was also a reversal of Pope Benedict’s attempts to bring peace to the liturgy wars. I think progressives in the Church (and Banon) misread TLMers. I don’t think TLMers want schism. SSPX parishes pray for the Pope and seek to be in communion with Rome.

My guess is Pope Leo will issue some encyclical that will affirm TC, but also have a backdoor carve out for TLMers. Many of the bishops appointed by Pope Francis had a hostility to the TLM, so it’ll take decades for Pope Leo’s directive to work through the system.

On the SSPX, who knows, but both sides want reconciliation. So it’ll eventually get done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Seems like many of those people are dead, or very old. Soon they will all be gone. What they want is immaterial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Seems like many of those people are dead, or very old. Soon they will all be gone. What they want is immaterial.

Note sure what you mean. The greatest support for Latin masses is coming from younger generations.

I am guessing PP can't name anything other than liturgical issues that this younger group doesn't care for in Vatican II.

[Anonymous]

Bannon looks like he needs a new liver. I hope Pope Leo tells him to pound sand, but as I am sure he is too holy to do this, a way will be found to let Bannon know who is who in the Catholic hierarchy (it sure as hell is not Bannon anywhere near the top)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bannon looks like he needs a new liver. I hope Pope Leo tells him to pound sand, but as I am sure he is too holy to do this, a way will be found to let Bannon know who is who in the Catholic hierarchy (it sure as hell is not Bannon anywhere near the top)

I am hard pressed to think of a single reason that Pope Leo would have to interact with Bannon in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Seems like many of those people are dead, or very old. Soon they will all be gone. What they want is immaterial.

Note sure what you mean. The greatest support for Latin masses is coming from younger generations.

I am guessing PP can't name anything other than liturgical issues that this younger group doesn't care for in Vatican II.

I"m guessing you can't prove that "younger generations" show the greatest support for Latin masses. Disparaging people for their opinions is easy. Prove what you say is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bannon looks like he needs a new liver. I hope Pope Leo tells him to pound sand, but as I am sure he is too holy to do this, a way will be found to let Bannon know who is who in the Catholic hierarchy (it sure as hell is not Bannon anywhere near the top)

I am hard pressed to think of a single reason that Pope Leo would have to interact with Bannon in any way.

No one who doesn't want to should interact with Bannon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Seems like many of those people are dead, or very old. Soon they will all be gone. What they want is immaterial.

Note sure what you mean. The greatest support for Latin masses is coming from younger generations.

I am guessing PP can't name anything other than liturgical issues that this younger group doesn't care for in Vatican II.

I"m guessing you can't prove that "younger generations" show the greatest support for Latin masses. Disparaging people for their opinions is easy. Prove what you say is true.

Aren't you the person who opined that those who want Latin masses are very dead or old? I wasn't disparaging your view but simply stating what I have gleaned from reading about the revival of the Church among the young would not support your view. This is not really something you can prove as there aren't polls or the like.

But you are talking about the boomer generation here, not really known for its attachment to tradition, who grew up in the period immediately following the post-Vatican II reforms. And it is well known that older (boomer) clergy are more liberal than the younger clergy, who tend to be more orthodox.

[Anonymous]

I understand Bannon is talking about the Vatican needing American money - US Catholics can give a lot of money and the Vatican is asset rich, cash poor. Can't have a Catholic fire sale!
He is also talking about how Pope Leo is continuing Francis' crack down on Opus Dei.

[Anonymous]

He's talking about it because he makes a show of being Catholic. I think he has idealized his working class childhood of the 1950s and his father. He always brings them up. He left his background behind and joined the elite class. Like many people who have done so, he didn't like what he saw there and feels free to criticize it. I think he also feels guilty for his better fortune. But you can't go home again. We are not building the Levittowns and parochial schools of his youth. He has a lot of grief over the loss of this world and so do many others. But it's gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

For the most part, these people are not anti Vatican II people. They just want to celebrate mass and the sacraments according to the Latin Roman rite used until 1962 or so. The Church already accommodates many different liturgical rites, so it would be natural to ask why not this rite too.

Many of the people who are attracted to the Mass as it existed before 1962 would very much prefer the Church to go back to the way it was before Vatican II. They do not care for the changes in the Church that were led by the Holy Spirit through Vatican II.

Other than liturgical matters, can you identify what other Vatican II changes this group does not care for?

Seems like many of those people are dead, or very old. Soon they will all be gone. What they want is immaterial.

Note sure what you mean. The greatest support for Latin masses is coming from younger generations.

I am guessing PP can't name anything other than liturgical issues that this younger group doesn't care for in Vatican II.

I"m guessing you can't prove that "younger generations" show the greatest support for Latin masses. Disparaging people for their opinions is easy. Prove what you say is true.

DP. Amongst informed people it is pretty well accepted that young families in particular are driving much of the TLM devotion.

Not perfectly responsive to your issue, but this is a pretty good proxy.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/younger-us-cat...tive-says-new-report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I wish all the anti Vatican II people would form their own separate church and they can even name their own pope if they want.

The Holy Spirit has moved within the church in the selection of this pope. If the people who want to turn back the church to pre Vatican II times are not happy with that message, they could split off and form a church that harkens back to an earlier era that they prefer.

Out of curiosity are you a Baby Boomer, a Gen Xer or Millenial?