The fact remains that there certainly can be reason to object to having one's sermons in a foreign tongue in one's own country.  That's the thing that doesn't seem to compute with you.

Thats almost funny. You act as if this is Christendom and everything is normal in the world. C'mon telesphorous. People need spiritual nourishment, especially nowadays.

No, but I will be honest, I don't think I will ever be in a situation where I am in a non-English speaking country and hear the priest speak give sermons in English for my benefit outside of an English speaking congregation.

You've also never been in a situation where you're a Mexican who is forced to cross borders in order to feed your family when you're at a point that you could care less what is illegal or not.

You know s2rea, my ancestors had their own parishes, and they were forced to stop speaking their language.  Let's see how you Spanish speakers react if that were done to you.

And I can sympathize with that and call it wrong because it was Tele. But I'm trying to be relevant to the situation these people are in.

Quote from: Telesphorus

The fact remains that there certainly can be reason to object to having one's sermons in a foreign tongue in one's own country.  That's the thing that doesn't seem to compute with you.

Thats almost funny. You act as if this is Christendom and everything is normal in the world. C'mon telesphorous. People need spiritual nourishment, especially nowadays.

Quote

No, but I will be honest, I don't think I will ever be in a situation where I am in a non-English speaking country and hear the priest speak give sermons in English for my benefit outside of an English speaking congregation.

You've also never been in a situation where you're a Mexican who is forced to cross borders in order to feed your family when you're at a point that you could care less what is illegal or not.

Quote

You know s2rea, my ancestors had their own parishes, and they were forced to stop speaking their language.  Let's see how you Spanish speakers react if that were done to you.

And I can sympathize with that and call it wrong because it was Tele. But I'm trying to be relevant to the situation these people are in.

I think your responses in this thread are not particularly logical because this issue obviously had a serious effect on you.

As for the point about illegals, I'm not going to judge their intentions, but I'm not going to agree to the idea that the laws of this country are to be disregarded so they can come here.  And as I said, it's natural to want to hear sermons in your own national language.  Not a foreign language.  So if we want to understand the motivations of those who walked out, you should try to recognize that it is opposition to having their own language supplanted in their own land and place of worship.

Oh geez Tele. Of course it has a serious affect on me; my own family has lived through it. But just because it can stir emotion doesn't remove my ability to remain logical. When you got upset over how you were treated in the past, did it affect your logic?

I'm pointing out that you're not responding to my point as to their motivations.  If you want to see their motivations as having no natural basis and instead being based on hatred then you aren't being fair.  You took it as a terrible slight that they walked out.  It seems to me the real disgrace was the reaction of the SSPX, and that the foolish acts of those who walked out are of relatively minor consequence, except that the SSPX caved to them.

And who's talking about what's "natural" to hear or not? We're talking about masonic government's (our's in particular) taking advantage of other countries (with the help of THEIR masonic governments) and peoples. If someone can ignore that, it doesn't make them racist, just daft.

Our government is letting them in opposition to popular will.  That causes resentment.

And as I said, it's natural to want to hear sermons in your own national language.  Not a foreign language.

Oh, please.  The United States and its people didn't play by the rules in taking all of that land from Mexico; now they are expecting different behaviour from Mexicans and whining about how it is "American" land that belongs to "Americans," who, it should be noted, are expected to speak the English language.  One cannot have it two ways.  Either the principles of the US are universal and apply to everybody, or it is nothing but an over-ambitious Anglo-Protestant, Masonic country that has invaded and squatted on other peoples' land.  As far as I am concerned, the imperial jurisdictions on this side of the Appalachians are simply large scale modular housing schemes for industrial- and service-oriented migrant workers and their families.  It doesn't seem like the US has ever pretended to be much more than a rude Anglo syndicate that doesn't play by its own the rules and fumes when others do the same.  They don't have the necessary luxury of being in Massachusetts for them to complain about "foreign" languages; not in California or Texas or New Mexico or Arizona, anyway.

So if we want to understand the motivations of those who walked out, you should try to recognize that it is opposition to having their own language supplanted in their own land and place of worship.

It's a Catholic place of worship.  As for whose land it is and what it means for any land to be "American," well, that's rather debatable.  The US has always represented itself as an exception to the natural associations the constitute every other country in history; thus, it also does not qualify for the deference to customary law and ownership that every country based on natural associations does.

Quote from: PereJoseph

Oh, please.  The United States and its people didn't play by the rules in taking all of that land from Mexico.

You may not respect America's borders...

I just want to clarify that I dissent from your insistence upon using the word "America" as a synonym for the United States.

...but that hardly bears on what language Americans wish to hear their sermons in.

The wishes of these Anglo-Americans hardly bear on whether or not Spanish-speaking Catholics should be provided with sermons in Spanish.

It's pretty clear that it's not negotiable to those who encroach on it.  They have nothing but insults for anyone who discusses the topic.

"Encroach."  That's kind of begging the question, no ?  As for feeling insulted, well, if somebody believes he is being encroached upon and another doesn't, he might feel as if he is being insulted while the supposed encroacher is not aware of any insult on his part.

"The US has always represented itself" - oh brother, it really is impossible to talk to silly French people.  I've learned that the hard way.  The US has a nationality and the people have a right to that nationality.

Sure, I don't deny that the US is a real country; just not on this side of the Appalachians.

Your curt dismissal of that right to nationality based on the universalist propaganda that has become ever more anti-national over the years is unworthy of consideration.

My dismissal of US propaganda is not based on any universalist propaganda.  As for whether or not my dismissal is worthy of consideration, well, you say no and I say yes; we are at an impasse.

All nationalities have national prerogatives except Americans.

United-Statesians have the typical national prerogatives within their own original, pre-imperial, natural borders.  But, even then, the US has based itself explicitly on unnatural and speculative foundations, retroactively applied to the thirteen English colonies though this basis might be.  Upon this false basis's utter failure, the normal prerogatives and privileges that might be extended to a country should not be extended.

Very similar to the idea that only white countries must accept colored migration.

Not at all.  I don't believe in your silly and incoherent usage of the spurious concept of "whiteness," nor the corresponding term "colored."  Likewise, I don't believe in the Marxist ideology you seem to enjoy assigning me.  The US is a liberal, artificial collective, not a real country in any traditional sense of that term.  Sorry, but your talking points about whiteness and language, borders, culture (and so on) don't really apply here.

United-Statesians cannot both eat their cake and have it, too.

Worst case they can take a nap while the sermon is done, once a month in Spanish.

That's not the point Nadie.  I agree completely that walking out was wrong, but that's not the point.

By the way, a more common occurance is to hear a sermon EVERY SUNDAY in bad accent English, by a Frenchman,  Latin American, or Aussie, and not understand much of anything, to the point where your mind just shuts off from the overload.

The sermons can be understood.

This happens all the time and everywhere in the SSPX. That is MUCH worse than a sermon in Spanish once a month.

English speaking Catholics wanted sermons in the English language in an American Church.  Now you can talk all day that it isn't a big deal but they have an understandable motive for being discontent.

And I can speak English and Spanish, and am very patient with trying to understand bad English, as I have traveled all over the world on business and HAD to listen and understand. Unlike a sermon, which in the end won't cost you  money if you didn't understand it right, or at all.

Yes, you can, and people who live in the United States should be able to speak and understand English.

Quote from: nadieimportante

Worst case they can take a nap while the sermon is done, once a month in Spanish.

That's not the point Nadie.  I agree completely that walking out was wrong, but that's not the point.

It's more worthy of consideration than some rah-rah US nativist nonsense.  Either the US is a melting pot or it's a country for and by Anglo-Germanic people exclusively.

English speaking Catholics wanted sermons in the English language in an American Church.

"American Church" ?  Maybe they should join the Southern Baptists or the Episcopalians or something.  As far as I know, there is no "American" language.  Anyway, there are (or perhaps were) multiple languages at that Southern California SSPX parish.  It seems like English-speaking Catholics wanted and English sermon and Spanish-speaking Catholics wanted a Spanish sermon, the priests were willing to please both parties, and the English-speaking Americatholics threw a hissy fit about having to hear Spanish in Southern California, forcing the SSPX to, somewhat predictably, buckle to their political and economic pressure.  You are acting as if the English-speaking Catholics are in the first tier of chapel-goers and the Spanish-speaking ones are in the second-tier.  Why ?  They just are, they just don't get as much say, because... they just don't.  They're not Uh-murrican.

Now you can talk all day that it isn't a big deal but they have an understandable motive for being discontent.

It's easy to understand how wrong they are, too.

Yes, you can, and people who live in the United States should be able to speak and understand English.

I knew it was going here.

To be brief, no, people who live in the United States are under no obligation whatsoever to speak and understand English.  Sioux need not speak English.  Acadians need not speak English.  New Mexicans and other Spanish need not speak English.  Perhaps the people who immigrated to the US, knowing it was an English-speaking country, are under some sort of obligation of common fairness to learn/speak English.  But Acadians, New Mexicans, the various Indian tribes, and the Mexicans returning to their ancestral land that was acquired and occupied by the US under circuмstances of incredibly questionable legality, should not be expected, pressured, or forced to speak English.  What about the Gullahs, too.  Their language developed alongside so-called "American English."  They shouldn't be expected to speak a language besides Gullah, either.

And, if the US is honest about being a melting pot or possessing universal principles, nobody should be expected to conform to the Anglo-Protestant culture and its language, etc.  But, since the US is serially dishonest about all that and instead expects everybody to dress, think, and act like WASPs, they should either stop pretending otherwise or they should stop complaining about people not speaking the local language of New England.  Southern California, North and South Dakota, Louisiana, Northern Maine, etc. -- these places are not their country; it is wrong when United-Statesians say "our country" and "our language" in reference to any place but the strip of land between the Appalachians and the Atlantic Ocean.

Anyway, I am curious, why should everybody within the US's imperial dominion speak the language of the imperial capital and the home country of the empire ?  What gives force to the "should" ?  Is it a moral obligation or what kind of obligation is it ?