The thing about the SSPX is they live in cognitive dissonance land. They’re incapable of seeing the consecrating of bishops without an apostolic mandate as the schismatic act it is because they firmly believe two mutually exclusive premises: 1) Leo is Pope (and so were all his V2 predecessors) and 2) Leo (and all hisV2 predecessors) have abandoned the Catholic faith and are actively trying to suppress it (the mass yes, but also all the traditional sacraments and the traditional defense and explanation of the faith.)
The consequence of those two beliefs is the firm conviction thar they, the SSPX, have not moved or changed - they are still just catholic, and they cannot quit being catholic, and how can simply upholding the catholic faith and ensuring its existence (because it is manifestly obvious that they would die out without consecrating their own bishops - this they’re right about) cannot be schismatic. The popes have just temporarily lost their minds but will come to their senses soon. This is the basis of the “we’re not schismatic” argument.
SSPX themselves will start talking about “eternal Rome” but that’s just the cognitive dissonance out loud, a rewriting of papal theology and ecclesiology. But you can’t get them to see that. They’re generally smart and sincere men, but the thought of following their premises to a logical conclusion (either a: follow Leo into the novus ordo or b: declare sede vacante) just cause blue screening.
This fundamentally does not seem to understand the definition of schism. Canon lawyers are ripping apart the statement from the Vatican because it was done so incorrectly and against canon law. This is the same thing that happened in 1988, the same thing that was re-evaluated in 2009. That means we've gotten three completely different responses to what the SSPX did, are, and represent from three different popes.
From a canon law perspective, it is far more complicated than the public is making it out to be, and people keep trying to boil it down into something canonically simple. Conversely, the actual situation in the Church is far more simple than the public is trying to make it out to be, and people keep trying to complicate it into a matter that ignores the highest law of the Church: saving souls.
It is tremendously obvious that the Church is in a significant and growing crisis since Vatican II, with the vast majority of Catholics not believing in the Transubstantiation, not attending or attending flippantly, not agreeing with important tenants of the Faith, etc. Meanwhile, the highest officials of the Vatican have been doing things like permitting (and in some cases even participating in) pagan idol worship in the Vatican, permitting Communion and offering blessings to public sinners living disordered lives, and saying not a word about non-mandated episcopal consecrations so long as they aren't SSPX (Communist Chinese bishops, Episcopalian co-consecration with a Californian bishop).
Stepping back and looking at the full picture, it is clear to see that the SSPX is being persecuted, has worked with Rome consistently asking for permission to continue to exist despite doing nothing wrong, and then being forced into taking actions that will permit them to continue to exist (consecrating bishops), then being persecuted further for that.
A schismatic act requires certain parameters, and the SSPX has not met them with their actions. They have been open, sincere, and public about their stances all along, depicting what they believe, what they do, why they do it, and welcoming response from Rome, which has not even offered them the opportunity to have a meeting despite them requesting one long before even announcing the consecrations.
The reality is, when a bully forces a child to defend himself just to keep his lunch money, then gets that child in trouble for the resistance, the culpability no longer belongs 100% to the child, if at all.
And the reality is: the Vatican is suppressing and persecuting tradition, actively and visibly. It's being stamped out all over the world right now. If it takes a step back from this persecution of the Latin Mass (as many bishops and cardinals are recommending after the consecrations), then it has taken a step back only because the SSPX courageously stood their ground.
Sanctuary of la Coveta, Manresa, Catalonia. Catholics believe that Saint Ignatius of Loyola retired to this cave to meditate and write his Spiritual Exercises. In the 18th century, the cave was turned into a sanctuary.
Modernism at its finest. Anything goes except good, holy people (especially priests) who tell the truth. Those, and only those, need to be silenced as per the modernist mindset.
i feel like your group of close knit characters would work better less as a found family and more as a ride or die indie rock band a la lemonade mouth. “whos the mom friend” shut up. whos the bassist.
I watched Little Women as a play a few years back and while the acting, sets, costumes, etc were all really great, I came away from it feeling like I hadn't enjoyed the plot or characters at all. I decided to withhold my judgment since it was a different medium's rendition, but I've had no desire to read the book.
Reading your commentary lately has been strangely validating. That's all, lol
I'm glad for you, I guess? It's a little awkward, because I'm at a point in this reread where it feels like I finally get Alcott--I've read enough 19th-century literature and lived enough life that the events feel more real and relatable than they have before--and I'm thinking I might actually read further into the series.
Good on you for knowing your tastes, though, and I'm glad I could help with that.
Glad it's getting better! I think the push of modernist ideals is what unsold it for me, but I'm still not willing to levee any kind of actual judgment without reading it myself one day, if I ever get the desire.
No worries, sorry for the awkward moment, but generating awkwardness is a natural talent of mine!
Hey, "pro-life" anti choice anti autonomy anti reproductive rights people: you keep reblogging this, tagging it "pro life," and you're wrong.
No one has a right to use my body for anything without my ongoing informed consent. You can't have my kidney or my liver or my bone marrow without my consent, and you can't have my uterus either.
In my experience it seems like people rarely talk about the differences between the intensity and duration of pain. Like, does everyone prefer short lived very painful pain in comparison to long term but less painful in the immediate sense pain? I think I know the answer to this but my researcher mind wants answers. Which would you prepare
I find it easier to offer up long term pain, even if it's awful. Short term but intense pain sometimes puts me out of thought and intention to offer it up. In the end, it sucks but I'd rather die slowly and get the chance to offer up the suffering for good causes.
Where is my movie of The Napoleon of Notting Hill? Better yet, the stage play? This story is made to be played out visually (Shaw knew what he was about when he told Chesterton he should write for the stage). The bright colors of the livery and banners of the various boroughs. The conversations and arguments and grand speeches played out by actors who can bring out the different personalities and perspectives. The little shops with their trinkets and toys turned through imagination into the grounds of a medieval battle. You'd need someone brilliant to play Adam Wayne--someone very young but strangely magnetic, who can fully believe and sometimes draw people in with his stirring speeches while also retaining a level of absurdity. The cast would need to maintain that balance between the fully practical people and those who get swept away into the romance of this silly little war. It would be great, but no one cares about this story, and there's no way to make it happen, and that is an injustice against art.
the central character(s) of the most recent fanfic you completed are summoned into your room, in the physical and mental state they were in at the end of your fanfic. they are made fully aware of the following:
they are a fictional character
whatever happened to them in canon was the result of their original author's writing.
whatever happened to them in your fanfic was the result of your writing.
I would have one who would want to die himself and also want me to die, one who would probably just kill me regardless of whether my story were favorable for him or not simply because that's his MO... and multiple others who would range from ambivalent to enraged.
the central character(s) of the most recent fanfic you completed are summoned into your room, in the physical and mental state they were in at the end of your fanfic. they are made fully aware of the following:
they are a fictional character
whatever happened to them in canon was the result of their original author's writing.
whatever happened to them in your fanfic was the result of your writing.
I haven't abandoned this story. I just put it on the back burner for now. The story is just on a small vacation. It is currently out of office. It can't come to the phone right now. It just fell under my bed to sleep with the monsters. It never left my head. It is everywhere - except on paper.
andulkaphoto
dailybridgerton
stormborns
yousharknotpass
