Pushed to the SSPX

[ProVobis]

The Vatican II documents, as can be seen by anyone perusing them, contain statements proposed for our acceptance that are word-for-word with statements of Liberalism that the Church had always so bitterly opposed. This is what the trouble is about. Latin in the Liturgy is a long way down the line.

Vatican II documents have been criticized for their ambiguity and time-bomb clauses. Take the one on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Seems straight and to the point. But then they throw in this clause:

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

A little comforting to the liberals although the opt-in value is still accepted by the conservatives.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

Fine print that makes it look more legaleeze, I guess. But would it have prevented many from signing? Probably not. They’re weren’t that many bishops who would want to be overwhelmed by approving translations.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

This is the kicker; yet who would have thought at the time this would happen? And yet, once it reaches the point of all-vernacular all-the-time, the whole document has been shown to be valueless. They basically follow this pattern: A must happen; B can sometimes overturn A: B can always overturn A: therefore A will probably never occur. A lot of money and time spent for what at the end. They could have easily just proceeded with the "spirit of Vatican II’ it seems.

In time, can all of Vatican II’s documents become meaningless if they haven’t already? Maybe it’s the “spirit of Vatican II” that they should be discussing. But what do I know.

 

[surritter]

Vatican II documents have been criticized for their ambiguity and time-bomb clauses. Take the one on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:

Seems straight and to the point. But then they throw in this clause:

A little comforting to the liberals although the opt-in value is still accepted by the conservatives.

Fine print that makes it look more legaleeze, I guess. But would it have prevented many from signing? Probably not. They’re weren’t that many bishops who would want to be overwhelmed by approving translations.

This is the kicker; yet who would have thought at the time this would happen? And yet, once it reaches the point of all-vernacular all-the-time, the whole document is proven useless.

In time, can all of Vatican II’s documents become meaningless if they haven’t already?

I don’t understand this post. Are you saying that the current OF (with the prevalent vernacular) is in violation of Vatican II? You say there is “ambiguity” and “time-bomb clauses” but it seems that the directives given in the Constitution on SL were followed.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, nowadays, everyone is supposed to be quiet in church - the days of the homily being a public debate ended long ago. Today, even if we disagree with the content of the homily, even the men normally sit through it quietly, or else walk out, but no one interrupts to debate with the priest, any more.

As in the movie “Mass Appeal” with Jack Lemmon as the priest?

 

[ProVobis]

People are not blind because they do not see Modernist and Mason under every rock.

But the majority aren’t always right either.

 

[JReducation]

You will forgive me brother, but considering that I am not a religious, and I suspect neither are most of the forum members, my posts generally do not apply to religious, of whom I am not one and connot speak as one. This post was not different. I refer to the laity, not the religious, when I write of this.

I will also add disobedience can be an act of love, if done in fraternal and humble correction.

I understand that most people here are not religious and most religious are not monks or friars. We are a minority.

However, the writings on obedience are theological statements that have endured and through fidelity to them, these men and women have made great contributions to the Church and produced many saints.

In addition, it was the hope of St. Benedict that the laity would immitate the obedience of the monks. In Benedict’s mind the monks served as a beacon of light to guide the laity. They were not to be dismissed as “being religiuos”. Francis picked out Benedict’s writing on obedience and included it in his own rule, but send his friars around the world to preach it to the laity, which is what I’m doing here.

Now you’re telling me that the laity is not interested. Well, if that’s the case, then why does the laity scream and holler so much about the lack of vocations, especially on these threads? If the laity wants more friars and monks, then it has to take the friars and monks message and run with it. Otherwise, let the moanstic and mendicant movement die and dismiss it as irrelevant to the laity and no longer necessary for Catholics.

At this moment, what I’m sensingis that the laity on these forums wants us (friars and monks) around as decor for their faith, not as guides. That’s not why we exist. We exist for two reasons: the salvation of our souls and to preach to the laity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ave_Maria_1]

When one looks to the example of the saints we see they were perfectly obedient. Our Lady was perfectly obedient.

Before I moved, with the parishes SO bad, I might have gone to the SSPX. I actually had permission from my spiritual director to do so had it been available. I would have done so not out of any idea of schism ot going to a separate church but because the heresy and more that was found in the local parishes ‘in union with Rome’ was more than I could bear and my soul was at stake. Many went protestant or just left for nothing; one friend went Greek Orthodox as it was just more than a heart in the know could endure for long.

I had to leave my own hometown.

In my new situation, I have access to the FSSP two weekends a month and my parish is a decent novus ordo parish with no heresies, etc. I have peace.

There is SSPX outside of town. If there is a reunification with the Roman Catholic church under the Holy Father, I will consider going there. But otherwise I will not go even to where the schism aspect is only ‘gray’.

Obedience is imperative. Archbishop LeF. should have put things into the hands of God and not taken matters into his own hands and caused a split in the Body of Christ. He did not trust God to make things right. I can only see him as disobedient. None of us is asked to be obedient to disobedience. (goes the other way too if a liberal prelate is disobedient, we do not have to obey him in his disobedience).

I do hope for a personal prelature or whatever they choose to call it. I would gather that the SSPX cannot operate under the local ordinary but needs its own particular authority. But it must come under the Holy Father or they will forever be a ‘society’ outside of the Roman Catholic Church. There are, after all, other schismatic groups that call themselves ‘catholic’ but when separated from Peter, they are not truly so. (apostolic catholic, old catholic, ecumenical catholic, etc).

Rome has lifted sanctions and the faithful seem to be able to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel. As far as confessions and so forth–the priests do not have faculties. The Masses, as I understand, it are illicit but valid. All this is subject to change.

 

[NeelyAnn]

I understand that most people here are not religious and most religious are not monks or friars. We are a minority.

However, the writings on obedience are theological statements that have endured and through fidelity to them, these men and women have made great contributions to the Church and produced many saints.

In addition, it was the hope of St. Benedict that the laity would immitate the obedience of the monks. In Benedict’s mind the monks served as a beacon of light to guide the laity. They were not to be dismissed as “being religiuos”. Francis picked out Benedict’s writing on obedience and included it in his own rule, but send his friars around the world to preach it to the laity, which is what I’m doing here.

Now you’re telling me that the laity is not interested. Well, if that’s the case, then why does the laity scream and holler so much about the lack of vocations, especially on these threads? If the laity wants more friars and monks, then it has to take the friars and monks message and run with it. Otherwise, let the moanstic and mendicant movement die and dismiss it as irrelevant to the laity and no longer necessary for Catholics.

At this moment, what I’m sensingis that the laity on these forums wants us (friars and monks) around as decor for their faith, not as guides. That’s not why we exist. We exist for two reasons: the salvation of our souls and to preach to the laity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

JR-

I think you are being a bit dramatic here. Those of the laity, who take their faith seriously, do not wish to have monks and friars around only as window dressing. However, you must understand that it is difficult to take anyone seriously who claims to be a friar or a monk but hides behind a ficticious screen name and does not reveal to which monastery they belong or who their superiors are, etc. It would be foolish to blindly believe anyone under these circumstances. At no time in the past was this a possibility - now that it is, we must be cautious. There are many priests, bishops, friars and monks who have gone astray these days and who constantly lead the faithful astray - and most of these are identifiable with real names, etc. With that in mind, we must be all the more careful with someone claiming to be in one of these positions but using a ficticious name and hiding their location, superiors, etc - yet still pressing the ‘obedience’ thing. Surely you must understand that.

If someone on here is a friar, monk, priest, etc. and they wish to act in a formal capacity as such, then they should reveal their true identities, etc. Some on here may already personally know the true identity of those hiding behind an alias and that may make it easier for them to value what is posted. However, those who do not should be, and are rightfully, skeptical.

 

[JReducation]

One has to take an objective step backward and ask, what has this thread accomplished? If it has not accomplished anything, why not? If it has accomplished something, what?

To continue to expound on the virtues and beliefs of Msgr. Lefebvre is not in line with what the Church wants to do. The Church wants to bring the SSPX back and Msgr. Lefebvre is not on that agenda. At some point, for the sake of peace and inner silence, we have to put Msgr. Lefebvre to rest and go with those Catholic leaders who have been tried and proven to be beyond reproach. That’s why I keep referring everyon back to Benedict and Francis. If we’re going to discuss obedience, then let us look at the masters on this subject.

The Church herself acknowledges that these two men have singlehandedly saved her many times over.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_17091882_auspicato-concessum_en.html

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

JR-

I think you are being a bit dramatic here. Those of the laity, who take their faith seriously, do not wish to have monks and friars around only as window dressing. However, you must understand that it is difficult to take anyone seriously who claims to be a friar or a monk but hides behind a ficticious screen name and does not reveal to which monastery they belong or who their superiors are, etc. It would be foolish to blindly believe anyone under these circumstances. At no time in the past was this a possibility - now that it is, we must be cautious. There are many priests, bishops, friars and monks who have gone astray these days and who constantly lead the faithful astray - and most of these are identifiable with real names, etc. With that in mind, we must be all the more careful with someone claiming to be in one of these positions but using a ficticious name and hiding their location, superiors, etc - yet still pressing the ‘obedience’ thing. Surely you must understand that.

If someone on here is a friar, monk, priest, etc. and they wish to act in a formal capacity as such, then they should reveal their true identities, etc. Some on here may already personally know the true identity of those hiding behind an alias and that may make it easier for them to value what is posted. However, those who do not should be, and are rightfully, skeptical.

If you are referring to me, all you have to do is to click the link beneath my name.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ServantofMary]

To continue to expound on the virtues and beliefs of Msgr. Lefebvre is not in line with what the Church wants to do. The Church wants to bring the SSPX back and Msgr. Lefebvre is not on that agenda.

How do you know what the Church wants to do in this regard? Do you have inside information? Have you talked to Pope Benedict personally to know his motivations and desires are in having theological discussions with the SSPX? Just wondering.

 

[JReducation]

When I post what Benedict and Francis have taught, it has very little to do with me or any one monk or friar. What is important is what they said. If one wants to argue obedience, then argue with the masters on this subject. I’m just providing the information.

To say that there are many friars and monks who lead people astray is not a valid argument when there is no friar or monk here saying, “Follow me.” I’m saying, “Follow Benedict and Francis. They have been tried and found to be true and their theology on this matter has proven to be holy.”

I’m not being dramatic when I say, why do you want monks and friars, if you do not want to hear and follow what Benedict and Francis has to say to todays’ Church. In that case, their sons are just window dressing. I hold that these two men had more to say on this subject and of greater impact on the life of the Church, than anything that has been said on these threads. They are experts on this matter.

We have much to learn from these holy men.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

How do you know what the Church wants to do in this regard? Do you have inside information? Have you talked to Pope Benedict personally to know his motivations and desires are in having theological discussions with the SSPX? Just wondering.

We have to go with the movements of the Church. What we are seeing is an honest attempt to bring back the SSPX. Everything that has been released to the faithful has been about the SSPX, not about Msgr. Lefebvre. That’s what we should support and focus on.

I have no more information than you do. But we can all read what has been said and see where the energy is being placed. It seems to be placed on bringing the SSPX home. Maybe, someday, someone will bring up the topic of Msgr. Lefebre. But that topic, if it’s on the table, has not been shared with the world.

Therefore, we go with what has been shared with us. The discussions on Msgr. Lefebvre seem to cause division. The activities of the Church seem to focus on reunification. We must, in charity to each other, refocus our discussion. Let us work on reunification. That’s hard work enough.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JustaServant]

At this moment, what I’m sensingis that the laity on these forums wants us (friars and monks) around as decor for their faith, not as guides. That’s not why we exist. We exist for two reasons: the salvation of our souls and to preach to the laity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

As a revert who spent 14 years as a Baptist preacher, I can tell you this paragraph hits the nail on the head. It is comes close to a Protestant concept of the role of clergy. Without proper guides, we fall into the ditch.

 

[NeelyAnn]

If you are referring to me, all you have to do is to click the link beneath my name.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

JR -

I am referring to anyone who claims to be a priest or religious and speaks authoritatively, yet posts annonymously.

Yes, you have a link to the Brothers of Life (I think you actually had a different link in the past - a youtube video, if I remeber correctly)… Still no identity (unless, you are Br. Jay Rivera), superiors, etc. . Again, anyone wishing to speak authoritatively as a religious or priest, needs to fully identify themselves. Otherwise, they should consider themselves on equal footing with everyone else. Surely you can understand the reasons for that.

 

[JReducation]

JR -

I am referring to anyone who claims to be a priest or religious and speaks authoritatively, yet posts annonymously.

Yes, you have a link to the Brothers of Life (I think you actually had a different link in the past - a youtube video, if I remeber correctly)… Still no identity (unless, you are Br. Jay Rivera), superiors, etc. . Again, anyone wishing to speak authoritatively as a religious or priest, needs to fully identify themselves. Otherwise, they should consider themselves on equal footing with everyone else. Surely you can understand the reasons for that.

I am he, as the link tells you. But the point is that I am not saying that you must follow me. And to require a resume of anyone who says “This is what X said” is side stepping the point. The point is what have the mastes said.

The masters do not need resumes. Benedict and Francis do not need a resume. Their vision of obedience is very different from that which is being promoted on these threads. Their vision of obedience was one of clarity. They obeyed because they wanted to follow. They obeyed and encouraged others to obey, because they wanted to lead others to the Church and through her, to Jesus.

They were not blind, as some people seem to suggest. On the contrary, they were very insightful. They understood that without the Church and without obedience to legitimate authority they would end up in some other place that was outside of the Church. Neither of them ever said that the leaders of the Church were perfect or even right all the time. That was not what concerned them. What concerned them was fidelity to the Church and unity within the Church. Obedience to authority, as I quoted from St. Francis’ adomonitions above, was the way to be faithful and to preserve the unity. They had faith that those who obeyed could work out their struggles from inside the Church.

What some poeple seem to be saying is that it is necessary to step outside the structures of the Church. This was far from what Benedict and Francis did. Everything they did, they did with permission.

You mention the Brothers of Life. That’s a good example for today. A group of us had the vision. But that vision was put to the test. It was presented to the local bishop, through one of the auxiliary bishops. That’s the way it works in this diocese. Some diocese have a different protocol. The local bishop said, do it this way. Did he respond as we had hoped? Only in part. He gave the green light, but at the same time, he placed some restrictions.

But when you want to remain within the structure of the Church, you accept the restrictions and you do what is allowed to you. What usually happens is that if your vision is from God, the restrictions will be lifted. The Holy Spirit takes care of that part.

By following that route, you are not exercising blind obedience, you are doing exactly what the masters said to do. You see a picture from your perspective, but you obey, even when the person in authority sees the picture from another perspective. Why? Because it has already been proven that this works. You don’t have to have the same vision as those in authority. However, you have to remain in union with them. Sometimes, you have to sacrifice your vision or put some things on hold.

You see, this is not about me. Therefore, you don’t need my resume. This is about what the masters in the spiritual life have said. We can argue with them or be as insightful as they were. These men had an incredible vision and they wanted to follow it. They put their vision to the Church. The Church guided them. They didn’t get everything they asked for either. They were told that some of what they wanted or what they saw was not acceptable. Francis of Assisi was told that his rule had too much bible in it and that he had to rewrite it with less scripture. He did. He sent it back. It was sent back to him. Too much bible again. When he asked for a clarification he was told that his application of the Gospel was too literal and that it needed more law not more scripture. He wrote it again. When he wrote it as Rome wanted it, it was approved. To his suprise, it had a papal bull put on it so that no one could ever change it, except another pope, not even Francis. This is true obedience and it’s not blind. It is filled with love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

As a revert who spent 14 years as a Baptist preacher, I can tell you this paragraph hits the nail on the head. It is comes close to a Protestant concept of the role of clergy. Without proper guides, we fall into the ditch.

I’ve never been Protestant, so I don’t know if they use this. But the Catholic Church has always believed that the role of the clergy is to: sanctify, preach and govern. The Church has always taught and still teaches that without proper guides you do fall into a ditch. That’s why we have offices such as: pastors, bishops, religious superiors, and spiritual directors.

If you observe any religious order, you will find that each constantly refers back to its spiritual father for guidance. The founder becomes the teacher who points to Christ. Without him, the religious community falls apart, as has happened to those communities who stepped away from the idea of having a guide.

The idea of guides is not a Protestant one. It’s very Catholic. It dates back to the Desert Fathers. That’s how they came to have the title Father. This title was handed down to the members of religious orders. In the early 20th century it was passed on to diocesan clergy. We call a priest Father because he is a guide, a very necessary one.

Each person in the Church, you, me, our neighbor, our pastor, etc has someone to whom he looks. I’m not sure how this is taught among Protestants. But we Catholics look at people in certain roles for example and for teaching. We are not lone rangers on parallel walks.

My take on Protestantism is that everyone is a spiritual master. That’s not what Catholics believe. We have the masters and we have their spiritual sons and daughters. We look to their sons and daughters to tell us what the masters taught. The masters, on the other hand, teach us about Christ.

If I want to know about obedience, I look at Benedict. He is the master on this subject. Since Benedict is dead, I have to go to the Benedictines. They share with me what Benedict said on this subject. If I still don’t understand too well, I observe them following Benedict’s rule of obedience.

There is a wonderful example from the life of Thomas Merton. He had difficulties. His abbot sent him a message that said, “I know.” That’s all it took. Merton got himself back on the right track. That’s how Benedictine obedience plays itself out. It’s that spontaneous loving response and desire to follow the teacher. We can learn from this.

I don’t know if this helps or confuses the issue more.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ServantofMary]

Their vision of obedience is very different from that which is being promoted on these threads. Their vision of obedience was one of clarity. They obeyed because they wanted to follow. They obeyed and encouraged others to obey, because they wanted to lead others to the Church and through her, to Jesus.

They were not blind, as some people seem to suggest. On the contrary, they were very insightful. They understood that without the Church and without obedience to legitimate authority they would end up in some other place that was outside of the Church.

Would Saints Benedict and Francis obey their superior if their superior told them to accept something that was contrary to what the Church has always believed and taught?

 

[surritter]

Would Saints Benedict and Francis obey their superior if their superior told them to accept something that was contrary to what the Church has always believed and taught?

Is this a way of saying that the OF of Mass contradicts something which is unchangeable? I know many SSPXers like to use a quote from Pope St. Pius V that the Tridentine Mass shall never be changed. But of course that is a disciplinary matter, not doctrine, so subsequent popes can modify things.

 

[ServantofMary]

Is this a way of saying that the OF of Mass contradicts something which is unchangeable?

I’ve never said anything about the Ordinary Form of Mass.

 

[JReducation]

Would Saints Benedict and Francis obey their superior if their superior told them to accept something that was contrary to what the Church has always believed and taught?

Sts. Benedict and Francis nevrer allowed their monks or friars to preach where the bishop said they were not to preach or teach what the local bishop said they could not teach. No Franciscan or Benedictine may be ordained without authorization from the Church. Nor are they allowed to celebrate mass or sacraments without the permission of the local bishop or the local major superior, whoever ranks highest.

The following is from Francis’ admonition on obedience, which he incoroprated into his writings from those of St. Benedict.

The Lord says in the Gospel: he “that doth not renounce all that he possesseth cannot be” a "disciple " 3 and “he that will save his life, shall lose it.” 4 That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience. And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the work enjoined by the superior. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

Even when something is better for your soul, you were to bypass that, for the sake of obedience. From a distance it sounds unreasonable. But when one examines the minds of Francis and Benedict, one realizes that they saw the virtue in sacrificing one’s self. In the end, the sacrifice that one makes, it a greater virtue than what one wants to do. The sacrifice is an act of great charity.

On very important difference between the SSPX and the Benedictine and Franciscan families is the issue of ordination. The Benedictines and Franciscans do not allow any monk or friar to be ordained without the permission of the Abbot. The Abbot is the Ordinary. Most monks and friars never become priests. The SSPX continues to ordain without the permission of the Ordinary. That constitutes disobedience. The ordination is valid. No one questions that. But it remains a disobedient act. As Francis and Benedict write above, true and chariatable obedience seeks to do the will of the superior even when one knows that something else is better for ones soul.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF