Well, that sounds sensible, particularly if you've never been introduced in any way by someone who knows him personally. Which is always the case with Santa, at least with truthtellers.
I find that a rather disturbing train of thought.
Some of the scariest people I have known were introduced to me by people who knew them well and thought they were wonderful. (And all of whom were indwelt by the Holy Spirit.)
You mean the scary people were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, or the introducers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
I should have added that I am scared of people who are certain of everything. If they are certain of their faith and salvation, I’m ok, but when they are certain of material things beyond their sphere of knowledge or competence, I worry.
If we start questioning whether someone really is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, don't we also start questioning their certainty about their faith and salvation?
At the time, I found them scary because something in me discerned that they were harmful to my well-being.
Just in relation to certainty, I think it's more the certainty that people have about their own motives, and the motives of others, that's worrying.
If we start questioning whether someone really is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, don't we also start questioning their certainty about their faith and salvation?
At the time, I found them scary because something in me discerned that they were harmful to my well-being.
Just in relation to certainty, I think it's more the certainty that people have about their own motives, and the motives of others, that's worrying.
Specifically regarding their own faith and salvation, I believe one can be entirely certain, and others can too.
Particular problems arise when a person is certain of the motives, thoughts or actions of others.
I hope that makes sense.
'Do not presume, one of the thieves was damned. Do not despair, one of the thieves was saved.'
I'm told that the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware once said to a group of clergy, 'Would I shock you if I told you I sometimes wonder whether any of it is real?'
After 60 years he still had his doubts.
I mentioned that to our parish priest and he concurred. 'I don’t think any of us who are in Christian ministry of one form or other ever have times when we don’t think, "What on earth am I doing?" If anyone says they don’t, I don't believe them. They are deceiving themselves.'
I also think of the RC priest who said, 'The opposite of faith isn't doubt but certainty.'
Yes, we can hope that we are 'saved' but we can't say with cast-iron certainty that we've got it all sussed.
If we could then faith wouldn't be faith. 'We walk by faith not by sight.'
I heard a version of that gag years ago. Instead of the Calvinist TULIP it was the Arminian DAISY.
'He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me not ...'
Now representatives of both the Reformed and the Arminian position will be along shortly to remind us that there's more to it than Dort and the Westminster Confession.
Which of course there is.
And @Jengie Jon once cogently argued, if I remember rightly, that the Arminian position is a subset of the former.
I noted this too. It all seems pretty sad to me, from this corner of a small and shrinking church. Then again - if He lives, and made everything - He has the stones to deal with it. And if he is a figment of our imagination - then there is nothing worthwhile to be sad about.
a person 'attending' an SSPX Mass would not necessarily be a 'member' of SSPX,just as a person attending a standard Catholic Mass might not actually be a Catholic.
Only those who are 'members' of SSPX and indeed those who openly declare that they do not accept the teachings of the Second Vatican council would be affected by the excommunication.
a person 'attending' an SSPX Mass would not necessarily be a 'member' of SSPX,just as a person attending a standard Catholic Mass might not actually be a Catholic.
Only those who are 'members' of SSPX and indeed those who openly declare that they do not accept the teachings of the Second Vatican council would be affected by the excommunication.
I suppose regularly attending a schismatic church in a place where a church in communion with the pope is available could be seen as being a member. But the SSPX calls itself the Priestly Society of Pius 10th so the focus is primarily on the clergy.
Pope Paul VI introduced a 'new' form of the eucharistic liturgy in 1970, 400 years after the introduction of the Tridentine liturgy in 1570.
My understanding is that SSPX deny that this is a a 'valid' Catholic Mass.
But then it was introduced by the pope himself.If you deny the validity of the Mass promulgated by Paul VI you are denying the role of the pope
in the life of the Catholic Church.
I watched some snippets of the impressive Mass celebrated at Econe in the presence of several thousand lay people. I asked myself how many of those present really deny the role of the pope in the life of the Church ?
While clerics of the SSPX presumably agree with the teachings of the SSPX it is quite possible that many of the 'faithful' simply like the old form of the Mass and this does not incur excommunication.
They presumably understood Jesus didn’t write the Tridentine mass ? Is there a reason they thought the contemporary pope was more faillable than the 16th century religious elite ?
There are groups in the RCC that celebrate the old Mass in Latin quite happily. But the SSPX reject Vat 2's openness to ecumenism, dialogue with other religions, and the notion of freedom of religion. Discussions between the Vatican and SSPX have faltered over those points. So they reject both a council and the authority of the head of the RCC to OK the appointment of Bishops. They have broken communion with the rest of the RCC and chosen to go for schism by replacing the authority of the pope and a council with the authority of their own leaders. It is customary in Bishops ordination to read the papal mandate authorising the appointments. This was replaced by a speech listing the ways the post Vatican 2 church has departed from "authentic Catholicism."
The business over worship is simply a banner rally behind and not remotely the root issue.
a person 'attending' an SSPX Mass would not necessarily be a 'member' of SSPX,just as a person attending a standard Catholic Mass might not actually be a Catholic.
Yes, I should have said members and participants (occasional or not).
Comments
I took the "all of whom" to indicate both.
I should have added that I am scared of people who are certain of everything. If they are certain of their faith and salvation, I’m ok, but when they are certain of material things beyond their sphere of knowledge or competence, I worry.
At the time, I found them scary because something in me discerned that they were harmful to my well-being.
Just in relation to certainty, I think it's more the certainty that people have about their own motives, and the motives of others, that's worrying.
https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/pope-leo-warns-traditionalist-catholic-group-eve-schism-please-turn-back
Specifically regarding their own faith and salvation, I believe one can be entirely certain, and others can too.
Particular problems arise when a person is certain of the motives, thoughts or actions of others.
I hope that makes sense.
I'm told that the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware once said to a group of clergy, 'Would I shock you if I told you I sometimes wonder whether any of it is real?'
After 60 years he still had his doubts.
I mentioned that to our parish priest and he concurred. 'I don’t think any of us who are in Christian ministry of one form or other ever have times when we don’t think, "What on earth am I doing?" If anyone says they don’t, I don't believe them. They are deceiving themselves.'
I also think of the RC priest who said, 'The opposite of faith isn't doubt but certainty.'
Yes, we can hope that we are 'saved' but we can't say with cast-iron certainty that we've got it all sussed.
If we could then faith wouldn't be faith. 'We walk by faith not by sight.'
It's a tricky balance I have to walk.
Lately on salvation, I've been thinking of a joke. People talk about "Catholic Guilt," I answer that with "Calvinist Anxiety:"
"God loves me. God loves me. God loves me. God loves me. God loves me. God loves me. God loves me..."
Just imagine the intonation of that sentence shifting, wavering with each repetition and you can feel it creeping up on you.
But I've seen too many good people get lost in uncertainty while bad people take over. And I don't want to be one of those questionably good people.
I heard a version of that gag years ago. Instead of the Calvinist TULIP it was the Arminian DAISY.
'He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me not ...'
Now representatives of both the Reformed and the Arminian position will be along shortly to remind us that there's more to it than Dort and the Westminster Confession.
Which of course there is.
And @Jengie Jon once cogently argued, if I remember rightly, that the Arminian position is a subset of the former.
I noted this too. It all seems pretty sad to me, from this corner of a small and shrinking church. Then again - if He lives, and made everything - He has the stones to deal with it. And if he is a figment of our imagination - then there is nothing worthwhile to be sad about.
It appears that the position is relatively clear cut and depends on the level of involvement a particular member has had with the SSPX:
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2026-07/fraternity-saint-pius-x-ways-to-repent-return-full-communion.html
Only those who are 'members' of SSPX and indeed those who openly declare that they do not accept the teachings of the Second Vatican council would be affected by the excommunication.
I suppose regularly attending a schismatic church in a place where a church in communion with the pope is available could be seen as being a member. But the SSPX calls itself the Priestly Society of Pius 10th so the focus is primarily on the clergy.
My understanding is that SSPX deny that this is a a 'valid' Catholic Mass.
But then it was introduced by the pope himself.If you deny the validity of the Mass promulgated by Paul VI you are denying the role of the pope
in the life of the Catholic Church.
I watched some snippets of the impressive Mass celebrated at Econe in the presence of several thousand lay people. I asked myself how many of those present really deny the role of the pope in the life of the Church ?
While clerics of the SSPX presumably agree with the teachings of the SSPX it is quite possible that many of the 'faithful' simply like the old form of the Mass and this does not incur excommunication.
The business over worship is simply a banner rally behind and not remotely the root issue.
Yes, I should have said members and participants (occasional or not).