Seeking good defence of Church against SSPX accusations

[Iron_Donkey]

…But the SSPX priests are anti people going, saying we must rather say rosary at the chapel than go to a TLM said by a priest who also says the Novus Ordo.

Comments like this lower my sympathy for the SSPX somewhat. It makes it sound as if a person’s priestly faculties can somehow be tainted by saying the OF Mass, to the point where it is better to ignore the Sunday obligation than to go there.

I think my question, which I think is a reasonable defense though I do not know if it could be made without simply angering someone (definitely not my intention here), is this: what is the point of the SSPX? If the Church really is falling/has fallen away from the truth, is it going to recover if those who notice segregate themselves so much from the greater part of it that they won’t even go to a Mass said by a non-SSPX priest? And if the goal is not to make it recover, but continue apart from it, then isn’t that a schism which makes the schismatics no longer Catholic, but a group of people who think the gates of Hell prevailed against the Catholic Church and so need to scrap it and go their own way?

I mean no offense to any SSPX people here, but I do think that’s a key question to ask.

 

[Padraig1972]

The more people here keep hammering on SSPX, the more my symphathy for them grows.
I understand that the standing between them and Rome is blurred and somewhat “in the blue”.

But keeping on telling how bad they are, how wrong they are and so on, it is just uncharitable, unfriendly and actually very hostile.
Are we not as catholics supposed to love each other and our neighbours no matter what?

Yes we are. Be honest and tell your priest about your views on them the next time you go to confession. I would had to, if i were hammering on them like it`s been done in the one thread after the other. It is more like hate than understanding of differences and different opionions.

 

[Peter_J]

Disclaimer to my last post:

The quote furnished which cast extremely negative aspersions on Blessed John Paul II in no way was intended by me as an attack on the late of Holy Father. I have not been a regular contributor to CAF but I do understand the criticisms of him are not allowed, still less attacks. I want to make it clear beyond any ambiguity that I do not share the views of the Pope implied by the quote. The quote was given merely to illustrate the general tone of the book.

Thank you.

Speaking for myself, I quite appreciate that quoting something doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with. Indeed, I myself have quoted many things that I don’t agree with.

 

[Peter_J]

“There is worse: participation in idolatrous rites. In August of 1985 John Paul II participated in an animist rite in the sacred forest of Togo.”

I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that he “participated in an animist rite”.

 

[Windmill]

Mitch,

I have read Patrick Madrid’s book, More Catholic Than the Pope, and I was disappointed. I have also read the book, *The Pope, the Council, and the Mass *by James Likoudis. Neither of them are for serious Traditionalists in your situation. They are more for mainstream Catholics who are tempted to delve into the depths of radical traditionalism. For you, a point-by-point discussion is best.

I have read a LOT of Traditionalist stuff (all of Michael Davies’s books including the legendary Liturgical Revolution trilogy, The Remnant, Latin Mass Magazine, Keep the Faith, Dietrich von Hildebrand’s The Devastated Vineyard and Trojan Horse in the City of God, Christian Order Magazine, Open Letter to Confused Catholics by Archbishop Lefebrve, etc…). It starts to really get to you, and you really are torn because you see the obvious neglect of the faith in the average parish, and the piety and reverence in SSPX chapels and you start to say, “How can I leave such holiness and immerse myself in the murky waters of a mainstream parish?”

I’d love to help you, if I can. I can’t tell you that I’ve found anything that is a cure-all, but something that helped give me perspective was this pair of talks by Michael Davies:

Indefectibility of The Church

The Church That Cannot Fail

His book on the same subject is here:

I Am With You Always

While these don’t get into specifics, they are a good reminder that the Church cannot fail.

As far as particulars, I will order this book you mentioned, read it, and try to get back with you. Please PM me if this is agreeable to you. in the meantime, I suggest the above works.

Another book on Amazon that looked promising was* Vatican II: The Crisis and the Promise*. You might check that out. I have not read it.

I keep recalling good stuff, so sorry for the edits. Another good talk that helped me:

Divisions Within Vatican II

BTW, I just bought your book. I will get on it as soon as I get it in the mail.

 

[Windmill]

The more people here keep hammering on SSPX, the more my symphathy for them grows.
I understand that the standing between them and Rome is blurred and somewhat “in the blue”.

But keeping on telling how bad they are, how wrong they are and so on, it is just uncharitable, unfriendly and actually very hostile.
Are we not as catholics supposed to love each other and our neighbours no matter what?

Yes we are. Be honest and tell your priest about your views on them the next time you go to confession. I would had to, if i were hammering on them like it`s been done in the one thread after the other. It is more like hate than understanding of differences and different opionions.

I think there is a difference between hammering and expressing serious reservations about the actions the SSPX has taken. Either the SSPX is right for doing what it did, or they are not. Either way, the implications are serious. any discussion of the issue should BE serious.

Catholics are, indeed, supposed to love each other and their neighbors, but ideas mean things. Christ came not to make the world a better place, but rather he came for an idea: the salvation of souls from the clutches of the King of the World, the Devil. He founded a Church that has stood against the gate of Hell and , by God’s grace, has fought for His Kingdom and continues to extend His crown rights over souls.

To say that any belief is as good as another, and that we should give credence to every belief out there is to make a mockery of the Cross. It means that Christ didn’t REALLY have to come down from Heaven and save us because we were perfectly capable of taking care of that on our own. I’d much rather talk to a convicted atheist, Buddhist, Protestant or SSPXer than a lukewarm, anything-goes “Christian” any day. At least those with convictions stand for something. You can have a reasonable discussion with them.

Mudslinging is much different form intelligent debate. Mudslinging is where you neglect the dignity of the person you’re talking to and simply demonize him or his beliefs. This gets no where because anyone with half a brain can detect a straw-man argument.

No, the problem today is that many have been conditioned to avoid debate because it goes against the implicit American idea of “You do your thing and I’ll do mine…and don’t rock the boat.” That idea is poison, because people won’t discuss the important things in life for fear of “offending someone”. In a pluralistic society, “keeping the peace” is critical to maintaining public order, so people are “taught” to keep their ideas to themselves for the “greater good.” Hogwash!

Now, you should always be charitable (Love the sinner, hate the sin…Remove the plank out of your own eye before plucking the splinter from your neighbor’s…practice what you preach…pray without ceasing…rely entirely on the grace of God so that you may not boast of your own works…etc…), but charity does not mean leaving people in their error. It means realizing that the soul you are talking to is infinitely loved by God who desires them to come to the fullness of truth in the Catholic faith.

 

[JReducation]

The problem with this book is that the writer fails to provide with information from the other side of the coin. For example, he speaks about Bl. John Paul’s “excesses and participation in pagan rituals” and the “Assisi Gathering”, which by the way is happening again this fall. However, he fails to provide a copy to the statement by Pope Benedict XVI on the reason for the gatherings. Each one had a purpose that was well within the rules of orthodoxy.

He fails to mention that there was not a single SSPX priest at any of these events, either Assisi or the other places where the Holy Father was. He fails to mention everything that the Holy Father wrote about reconciliation, peace, shared truths. He fails to interview the Minister General of the Conventual Franciscans who run the Basillica of St. Francis and who pushed articles on the Assisi gatherings, with pictures and explanations of what happened, where and when. For example, the crypt were our Holy Father is buried was never used. The guests were allowed to visit the tomb and pray there. So is the entire world. The main church was never used at all. The opening reception was in the vestibule of the main church which sits about 1,000 people. The vestibule is actually a building that was erected over the San Damiano Chapel and was made large enough to hold coronations, knighting ceremonies, receptions, concerts and theatrical productions. It was built in 1228.

He also fails to mention that the reason that Assisi was chosen is because the Franciscans had permission from Pope Gregory IX to pray with the pagans, Muslims and Jews and to live and work among them, with the express directive to find what they had in common and avoid all forms of proselytism and conflict. This was done at Francis’ request.

I realize that there is a lot of background and that the author may not be aware of it all or that he may not have access to it all, because the pieces are scattered in letters, journals, articles, sermons and interviews. They do exist. When I read it, I thought to myself, “this is one writer who does not know all the pieces.” This was only one point. I picked this one, because Mitch mentioned it.

I did notice that some people mentioned going to confession to the SSPX priests. That is not allowed. A priest who does not have faculties from the diocesan bishop or the superior of religious house cannot absolve. The Church does not provide faculties to those who are suspended. The argument “ecclesia supplet” does not apply here. Canon Lawyers have responded to this many times over the last 20 or so years.

There seem to be some lay Catholics who assume to know more theology and canon law than bishops and canonists. That’s not right. The rule has never changed. “The Church supplies” only applies to priests who hear confessions in situations where they don’t have faculties, but there are no impediments to them having faculties. For example, if a priest is traveling through an unknown city and a stranger asks to go to confession at some airport, the priest need not turn him away, because he’s in transit and does not have faculties from the local bishop. There is no impediment to him having faculties, other than the fact that he does not live in that diocese. When you are suspended, there is an impediment.

The suspension of an SSPX priest and that of a priest who is suspended for stealing money from the poor box may be for different reasons and one reason may be more serious than the other, but the effect is the same. Here is where people are failing to see the matter. The Church looks at the effect of the suspension. She could care less about the reason for the suspension. The law is very cold and deliberately so.

If your license is suspended because you failed to pay your parking tickets and my license is suspended for DUI, obviously, one is more serious than the other. However, when the police officer stops you his only concern is that you’re license is suspended, not why it’s suspended. The same holds true with the way that the Signatura does law. The Signatura was not put in place so that Catholics could use it whenever and ignore it when we believe that we know better or when it makes us feel better. This is the same attitude as those who do puppet masses and consecrate Doritos. The attitude is, “I know I’m right.” Unless someone in authority says so, you don’t know.

This is the problem with this book. It has no ecclesial authority behind it. It is interesting and I believe an important work, because it gives us an insight into some of the concerns of the SSPX. Some concerns have validity. Other concerns are based on a lack of information on the part of the writer. There are some concerns that appear to be the concerns of individuals, not of the SSPX. There is a lot being thrown around out there by people who are priests of the SSPX and lay people who attend their chapels. Often these folks throw things out as if it was the shared belief of the entire Society. Having met many of them, I find that they don’t have such a centralized credo. I would take the book for what it is, one man’s perception of the SSPX’s perception. A perception of a perception . . .

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[christosdavid]

To what extent does the SSPX, SSPV influence modern Catholic theology? Are they representative of CAF? Is that why theres a section for Traditional Catholicism? Sorry if im treading on anyones toes, im new to this forum

 

[JReducation]

To what extent does the SSPX, SSPV influence modern Catholic theology? Are they representative of CAF? Is that why theres a section for Traditional Catholicism? Sorry if im treading on anyones toes, im new to this forum

If you go to the first page of Traditional Catholicism, you’ll find a stick at the top that explains what TC Forum is for. You can also ask the moderators. I always ask when I’m not sure and they answer.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[christosdavid]

Ahh, seems to be a very touchy subject by the look of the sticky Ive only found out about the group recently as I did a subject “Second Vatican Council and its reception” at my college.

Is it a substantial group was the intent of the post. Im trying to work out how significant their “schism” is and so forth.

Thanks for your help.

 

[ks_catholic]

The more people here keep hammering on SSPX, the more my symphathy for them grows.
I understand that the standing between them and Rome is blurred and somewhat “in the blue”.

But keeping on telling how bad they are, how wrong they are and so on, it is just uncharitable, unfriendly and actually very hostile.
Are we not as catholics supposed to love each other and our neighbours no matter what?

Yes we are. Be honest and tell your priest about your views on them the next time you go to confession. I would had to, if i were hammering on them like it`s been done in the one thread after the other. It is more like hate than understanding of differences and different opionions.

No - there’s no charity in “telling how bad they are” or “how wrong they are”, etc. There IS charity in pointing out an error, however. We can’t feign unity with any separated brethren just to sound nice.

I am watching this thread closely, as I, too, am interested in any books that could be recommended. Thanks, Mitch, for posting. The way you refer to your wife shows that you care deeply about her and your marriage. Hang in there.

 

[JReducation]

No - there’s no charity in “telling how bad they are” or “how wrong they are”, etc. There IS charity in pointing out an error, however. We can’t feign unity with any separated brethren just to sound nice.

I am watching this thread closely, as I, too, am interested in any books that could be recommended. Thanks, Mitch, for posting. The way you refer to your wife shows that you care deeply about her and your marriage. Hang in there.

I don’t believe that there is a single book, because the issues are many. The best way to proceed is to take the issue and look up what the Church has said on the subject. There are few statements made by the Church and theologians directly to the SSPX. I believe that most of us don’t want to engage in a debate with the SSPX. We want reconciliation.

Most priests, religious, theologians, apologists, bishops and even the Holy Father himself are not going to engage on a point-by-point debate with anyone who is not in a position of leadership in the SSPX. It’s not worth it, because only the leadership has the authority to make decisions for the Society.

In addition, there exists the same problem here that exists on a million other issues. There are too many cooks in the kitchen. I began to ask a friend of mine who is a priest in the SSPX. I was very surprised and he was shocked. I share with him what some people, who say that they are SSPX friendly say and what they say the SSPX says. Sometimes he explains what they (the SSPX) means and how the person misunderstood. There have been many times when he has said, “That’s an agenda. We have never held that position.” At times he’ll say, “There are priests in the Society that hold that position, but the leadership does not hold it.”

One question that I brought to him concerned discouraging people from attending an EF mass at their parish. His answer was that they do not discourage this. However, he admitted that just as we have problems with some priests who are opposed to the EF they have priests who are opposed to the OF. They do not discourage people from attending an EF in the local parish.

My take is that the SSPX is a minority with another minority within it. This smaller minority is doing things or saying things that only aggravate matters. When you publish a book such as this and call it a catechism, it aggravates matters.

I read the book. It is a good reference tool to understand what concerns some people. I don’t have a problem with that. I did have a problem calling it a catechism, because it misrepresents itself as an authoritative teaching tool. Only the bishop of a diocese has the authority to identify a catechism for the faithful. The only universal catechism is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). All other catechisms were published by conferences of bishops. Those that came from the Holy See (ie. The Catechism of Trent) can still be read as it was printed or it can be seen in the CCC. Parts of it were absorbed and other parts are referenced.

This book is a good read, but it’s not a catechism in the formal sense. The person who buys it must understand this. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t see anywhere that it says that it was commissioned by the leadership of the Society.

Anyway, if someone finds a book that takes up these issues in one volume, please share it. I have never seen it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[mitch2007]

Thank you all for the responses so far!

Thank you in particular, Windmill and JReduction for all your help and sensible words and references too.

What a complex situation this is. Yes, there is indeed a spectrum of opinion within the SSPX and of course there is no accounting for the views expressed by the laity. Of course, this book was published by an official or semi-official organ of the Anglophone SSPX and is authored by an SSPX priest so it is representative I feel of at least a certain wing of the SSPX. Indeed, the “mentality” I sense from the book reminds me a lot of the ethos in my own chapel. That being said, I do know that not all SSPX priests or “followers” adhere to this extreme line.

True, there is not likely to be a handy, all-in-one book dealing with all these issues, which ought to be tackled separately - but I will look at the suggested works for a start. I do think that a kind of Q&A style response dealing in detail with key accusations made by at least some of the SSPX and which is up to date and does not simple say “obey” would be very useful. It is hard to know what to say when hardline SSPXers throw out accusations against Pope and Church.

God bless!

 

[JReducation]

It is hard to know what to say when hardline SSPXers throw out accusations against Pope and Church.

God bless!

I would tell them to read the following lives and times:

Francis of Assisi

Bonaventure

Dominic

Teresa of Avila

Ignatius of Loyola

John Vianney

Vincent de Paul

Mother Teresa

Padre Pio

Maximilian Kolbe

I would couch it like this. If you can show me that you can do better than these folks who lived in similar times of turmoil and change inside and around the Church, then I’ll follow you.

Not a single one of them ever made a comment about a pope, their bishop, their superior or the councils. St. Francis even banned Gregorian chant, communion rails, distinctions between ordained and non ordained friars, and founded the first real order for secular men and women to bridge the gap between the religious life and the secular life. He asked the pope to excommunicate his vicar general for disagreeing with him. The pope did it. No one claimed that the excommunication was invalid or unfair. The Vicar later recanted, agreed with Francis and eventually became the Minister General after Francis’ death. Francis was a lay friar and the vicar was a priest and theologian. Yet, the Church holds this man up as the most perfect Catholic, according to Pope Pius X, Pius XII called him the Mirror of Perfection. Pope Benedict said that he embodied the First Beatitude. And commanded the bishops of the Italian Conference of Bishops to read up on Francis and lean to obey as he did, without questions.

Mother Teresa lived long before Vatican II and long after Vatican II and she radiated the Gospel, the love of Christ and love for the Church without ever having to break obedience to the Church. Which of the SSPX clergy and members can stand next to her?

Teresa of Avila took the Carmelite Order back to its roots without ever denouncing the superiors of the order or the friars and sisters in the order. She was taken before the Inquisition and she did not refuse their authority. She simply answered their questions.

Padre Pio was told not to celebrate mass for the public or hear the confessions of the laity. His only answer was “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”

Dominic and Ignatius converted more heretics than any of the SSPX clergy. Both commanded their sons never to speak an uncharitable word or think an uncharitable thought about the heretics, never to engage in debates with them and to co-exist peacefully among them. They were to preach truth and practice kindness in thought, word and deed. Ignatius said that if you found a fault in another person, be kind to that person.

Francis defended the rights of the Muslims to live without being oppressed by Christians. Dominic defended the rights of the Jews to live in peace. Both won many allies among the Muslims and Jews. We have no idea how many souls they saved. But it may be quite a few. Their kindness and concern for the safety, physical welfare and human rights of the Muslims and Jews won them a place of respect among them.

Vincent de Paul saw the collapse of Catholic France. Instead of going on a preaching campaign, he founded two societies to care for the victims of that collapse. He said that the greatest thing that his sons and daughters could do for Christ and the Church was to take physical care of those who had suffered because of the loss of faith in France. He founded the Congregation of the Mission and the Society of Daughters of Charity. They were to heal, teach, feed, and clothe Christ regardless of the faith or lack of in that person.

Even someone who is still alive, Mother Angelica and Father Frank Pavone, have never broken with obedience. Mother took the example of her spiritual Mother and Father: Clare and Francis, she preached the Gospel, corrected errors, and complied when told to do so.

Father Frank has become the Apostle to the Unborn. Has taken advantage of the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism to bring Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Othodox and even non-beleivers together to proclaim the Gospel of Life in the largest and most influential pro-life ministry in the world.

Maybe you can teach those people who attack, which I hope are not the norm among the SSPX, maybe you can teach them to be saints by pointing them toward these great men and women who left the mark of the Gospel on the world, without having to attack anyone or disobey.

Maximilian became a casualty of the Shoah, not a denier of it. He gave his life to save a Jew.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

I would tell them to read the following lives and times:

Francis of Assisi

Bonaventure

Dominic

Teresa of Avila

Ignatius of Loyola

John Vianney

Vincent de Paul

Mother Teresa

Padre Pio

Maximilian Kolbe

I would couch it like this. If you can show me that you can do better than these folks who lived in similar times of turmoil and change inside and around the Church, then I’ll follow you.

Not a single one of them ever made a comment about a pope, their bishop, their superior or the councils. St. Francis even banned Gregorian chant, communion rails, distinctions between ordained and non ordained friars, and founded the first real order for secular men and women to bridge the gap between the religious life and the secular life. He asked the pope to excommunicate his vicar general for disagreeing with him. The pope did it. No one claimed that the excommunication was invalid or unfair. The Vicar later recanted, agreed with Francis and eventually became the Minister General after Francis’ death. Francis was a lay friar and the vicar was a priest and theologian. Yet, the Church holds this man up as the most perfect Catholic, according to Pope Pius X, Pius XII called him the Mirror of Perfection. Pope Benedict said that he embodied the First Beatitude. And commanded the bishops of the Italian Conference of Bishops to read up on Francis and lean to obey as he did, without questions.

Mother Teresa lived long before Vatican II and long after Vatican II and she radiated the Gospel, the love of Christ and love for the Church without ever having to break obedience to the Church. Which of the SSPX clergy and members can stand next to her?

Teresa of Avila took the Carmelite Order back to its roots without ever denouncing the superiors of the order or the friars and sisters in the order. She was taken before the Inquisition and she did not refuse their authority. She simply answered their questions.

Padre Pio was told not to celebrate mass for the public or hear the confessions of the laity. His only answer was “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”

Dominic and Ignatius converted more heretics than any of the SSPX clergy. Both commanded their sons never to speak an uncharitable word or think an uncharitable thought about the heretics, never to engage in debates with them and to co-exist peacefully among them. They were to preach truth and practice kindness in thought, word and deed. Ignatius said that if you found a fault in another person, be kind to that person.

Francis defended the rights of the Muslims to live without being oppressed by Christians. Dominic defended the rights of the Jews to live in peace. Both won many allies among the Muslims and Jews. We have no idea how many souls they saved. But it may be quite a few. Their kindness and concern for the safety, physical welfare and human rights of the Muslims and Jews won them a place of respect among them.

Vincent de Paul saw the collapse of Catholic France. Instead of going on a preaching campaign, he founded two societies to care for the victims of that collapse. He said that the greatest thing that his sons and daughters could do for Christ and the Church was to take physical care of those who had suffered because of the loss of faith in France. He founded the Congregation of the Mission and the Society of Daughters of Charity. They were to heal, teach, feed, and clothe Christ regardless of the faith or lack of in that person.

Even someone who is still alive, Mother Angelica and Father Frank Pavone, have never broken with obedience. Mother took the example of her spiritual Mother and Father: Clare and Francis, she preached the Gospel, corrected errors, and complied when told to do so.

Father Frank has become the Apostle to the Unborn. Has taken advantage of the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism to bring Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Othodox and even non-beleivers together to proclaim the Gospel of Life in the largest and most influential pro-life ministry in the world.

Maybe you can teach those people who attack, which I hope are not the norm among the SSPX, maybe you can teach them to be saints by pointing them toward these great men and women who left the mark of the Gospel on the world, without having to attack anyone or disobey.

Maximilian became a casualty of the Shoah, not a denier of it. He gave his life to save a Jew.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Beautiful post.

 

[Padraig1972]

I would tell them to read the following lives and times:

Francis of Assisi

Bonaventure

Dominic

Teresa of Avila

Ignatius of Loyola

John Vianney

Vincent de Paul

Mother Teresa

Padre Pio

Maximilian Kolbe

I would couch it like this. If you can show me that you can do better than these folks who lived in similar times of turmoil and change inside and around the Church, then I’ll follow you.

Not a single one of them ever made a comment about a pope, their bishop, their superior or the councils. St. Francis even banned Gregorian chant, communion rails, distinctions between ordained and non ordained friars, and founded the first real order for secular men and women to bridge the gap between the religious life and the secular life. He asked the pope to excommunicate his vicar general for disagreeing with him. The pope did it. No one claimed that the excommunication was invalid or unfair. The Vicar later recanted, agreed with Francis and eventually became the Minister General after Francis’ death. Francis was a lay friar and the vicar was a priest and theologian. Yet, the Church holds this man up as the most perfect Catholic, according to Pope Pius X, Pius XII called him the Mirror of Perfection. Pope Benedict said that he embodied the First Beatitude. And commanded the bishops of the Italian Conference of Bishops to read up on Francis and lean to obey as he did, without questions.

Mother Teresa lived long before Vatican II and long after Vatican II and she radiated the Gospel, the love of Christ and love for the Church without ever having to break obedience to the Church. Which of the SSPX clergy and members can stand next to her?

Teresa of Avila took the Carmelite Order back to its roots without ever denouncing the superiors of the order or the friars and sisters in the order. She was taken before the Inquisition and she did not refuse their authority. She simply answered their questions.

Padre Pio was told not to celebrate mass for the public or hear the confessions of the laity. His only answer was “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”

Dominic and Ignatius converted more heretics than any of the SSPX clergy. Both commanded their sons never to speak an uncharitable word or think an uncharitable thought about the heretics, never to engage in debates with them and to co-exist peacefully among them. They were to preach truth and practice kindness in thought, word and deed. Ignatius said that if you found a fault in another person, be kind to that person.

Francis defended the rights of the Muslims to live without being oppressed by Christians. Dominic defended the rights of the Jews to live in peace. Both won many allies among the Muslims and Jews. We have no idea how many souls they saved. But it may be quite a few. Their kindness and concern for the safety, physical welfare and human rights of the Muslims and Jews won them a place of respect among them.

Vincent de Paul saw the collapse of Catholic France. Instead of going on a preaching campaign, he founded two societies to care for the victims of that collapse. He said that the greatest thing that his sons and daughters could do for Christ and the Church was to take physical care of those who had suffered because of the loss of faith in France. He founded the Congregation of the Mission and the Society of Daughters of Charity. They were to heal, teach, feed, and clothe Christ regardless of the faith or lack of in that person.

Even someone who is still alive, Mother Angelica and Father Frank Pavone, have never broken with obedience. Mother took the example of her spiritual Mother and Father: Clare and Francis, she preached the Gospel, corrected errors, and complied when told to do so.

Father Frank has become the Apostle to the Unborn. Has taken advantage of the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism to bring Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Othodox and even non-beleivers together to proclaim the Gospel of Life in the largest and most influential pro-life ministry in the world.

Maybe you can teach those people who attack, which I hope are not the norm among the SSPX, maybe you can teach them to be saints by pointing them toward these great men and women who left the mark of the Gospel on the world, without having to attack anyone or disobey.

Maximilian became a casualty of the Shoah, not a denier of it. He gave his life to save a Jew.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I humbly apologize the one and also the other way. Great post and something to reflect over. I got some reading to do, some praying to do and much understanding to do.

God bless you.

 

[ProVobis]

semi-official organ of the Anglophone SSPX

 

[Peter_J]

I would tell them to read the following lives and times:

Francis of Assisi

Bonaventure

Dominic

Teresa of Avila

Ignatius of Loyola

John Vianney

Vincent de Paul

Mother Teresa

Padre Pio

Maximilian Kolbe

I would couch it like this. If you can show me that you can do better than these folks who lived in similar times of turmoil and change inside and around the Church, then I’ll follow you.

Not a single one of them ever made a comment about a pope, their bishop, their superior or the councils. St. Francis even banned Gregorian chant, communion rails, distinctions between ordained and non ordained friars, and founded the first real order for secular men and women to bridge the gap between the religious life and the secular life. He asked the pope to excommunicate his vicar general for disagreeing with him. The pope did it. No one claimed that the excommunication was invalid or unfair. The Vicar later recanted, agreed with Francis and eventually became the Minister General after Francis’ death. Francis was a lay friar and the vicar was a priest and theologian. Yet, the Church holds this man up as the most perfect Catholic, according to Pope Pius X, Pius XII called him the Mirror of Perfection. Pope Benedict said that he embodied the First Beatitude. And commanded the bishops of the Italian Conference of Bishops to read up on Francis and lean to obey as he did, without questions.

Mother Teresa lived long before Vatican II and long after Vatican II and she radiated the Gospel, the love of Christ and love for the Church without ever having to break obedience to the Church. Which of the SSPX clergy and members can stand next to her?

Teresa of Avila took the Carmelite Order back to its roots without ever denouncing the superiors of the order or the friars and sisters in the order. She was taken before the Inquisition and she did not refuse their authority. She simply answered their questions.

Padre Pio was told not to celebrate mass for the public or hear the confessions of the laity. His only answer was “Obedience, obedience, obedience.”

Dominic and Ignatius converted more heretics than any of the SSPX clergy. Both commanded their sons never to speak an uncharitable word or think an uncharitable thought about the heretics, never to engage in debates with them and to co-exist peacefully among them. They were to preach truth and practice kindness in thought, word and deed. Ignatius said that if you found a fault in another person, be kind to that person.

Francis defended the rights of the Muslims to live without being oppressed by Christians. Dominic defended the rights of the Jews to live in peace. Both won many allies among the Muslims and Jews. We have no idea how many souls they saved. But it may be quite a few. Their kindness and concern for the safety, physical welfare and human rights of the Muslims and Jews won them a place of respect among them.

Vincent de Paul saw the collapse of Catholic France. Instead of going on a preaching campaign, he founded two societies to care for the victims of that collapse. He said that the greatest thing that his sons and daughters could do for Christ and the Church was to take physical care of those who had suffered because of the loss of faith in France. He founded the Congregation of the Mission and the Society of Daughters of Charity. They were to heal, teach, feed, and clothe Christ regardless of the faith or lack of in that person.

Even someone who is still alive, Mother Angelica and Father Frank Pavone, have never broken with obedience. Mother took the example of her spiritual Mother and Father: Clare and Francis, she preached the Gospel, corrected errors, and complied when told to do so.

Father Frank has become the Apostle to the Unborn. Has taken advantage of the Church’s teachings on Ecumenism to bring Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Othodox and even non-beleivers together to proclaim the Gospel of Life in the largest and most influential pro-life ministry in the world.

Maybe you can teach those people who attack, which I hope are not the norm among the SSPX, maybe you can teach them to be saints by pointing them toward these great men and women who left the mark of the Gospel on the world, without having to attack anyone or disobey.

Maximilian became a casualty of the Shoah, not a denier of it. He gave his life to save a Jew.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi JReducation. You make a lot of excellent points. Nevertheless, I think a good question has been raised by someone here (more than one person, iirc): what about those who don’t accept the “just obey” way of thinking?

 

[Windmill]

I think the analogy of having too many cooks in the kitchen is very applicable. In this day of confusion, we laymen feel we must become expert theologians and liturgists because, apparently, no one else will. The problem is that we start to lose sight of our vocation, which is to be a witness to the world of Christ. Many of the matters that surround the SSPX and Rome are matters that need to be tended to by leaders in both groups. Doctrine is a complex subject that is very nuanced, and it can easily be spun by amateurs (I include myself in the amateur category). The result can be a tabloid account of very sensitive and delicate matters.

This is what happened in Galileo’s time. Instead of substantiating his claims with actual science, Galileo published his works to garner public support. The modern equivalent would be a quantum physicist with some radical unproven theory going on Oprah and convincing her and her (non-physicist) audience that he is right. The mob then turns on the academic institutions that are being critical of the quantum physicist and tell them to lay off. The physicist then gets a ton of financial support, not because he has proven his theory, but because he has convinced the masses that he is right.

The talks with the SSPX are similar. To an average layman, the technical language used in theological discussions are over our heads. But when someone with an agenda wants to sway the masses of public (and benefactor) support, they spin the debates in a way that makes them look unequivocally right. Our sense of injustice is roused and we start protesting or withholding money from the Church. Etc…

As far as liturgy, we can hope and wish for certain things all day, but most of these things need to come form the top down. Our job is to receive the liturgy from the Church as a gift, not to sit and pick it apart and grouse about how it could be better. If there is something that a layman can do that will help (such as what I did, I started a men’s Gregorian chant group that now enjoys widespread public support in our deanery), then great. If that means not volunteering as an EMHC or altar girl because it goes against Tradition, then do your part by not participating in those things. But don’t try to coop the jobs of priests, bishops, and Rome when you think you see neglect. It’s disordered for you to do that as a layman.

Finally, you have to have an ounce of reality here. First, most people who have gotten to this point of realization of the problems in the Church are hyper-catechized. Do you REALLY think the goings on in Rome, the Liturgy, and the debates on high theological matters ARE GOING TO PREVENT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY FROM GETTING TO HEAVEN?!?!?! The answer is NO. You KNOW a heck of a lot more than the average Catholic, and God will use that knowledge to save you. So what if there is not 2 genuflections after the Elevation of the Host in the OF like there is in the EF. That’s not something YOU can change as a layman. You can be liturgically proper and still go to Hell. Second, Mass has always been a compromise because it is limited by our faulty human nature participating in it. The only perfect liturgy is in Heaven where the saints praise God with pure hearts and see Him face to face. We need to understand that even the 1962 Missal is not perfect. I think it’s the best we have as Romans, but let’s not idolize the ritual and miss the sacramental reality behind the forms.

So, in closing, I want to give people the advice that Michael Davies gives in one of the talks I listed previously: “Learn your catechism, pray your devotions like you always did, and frequent the Sacraments and get yourself to Heaven.” That’s what matters most. God will take care of the rest with those whose job it is to handle these matters.

 

[Padraig1972]

Windmill: i got one comment as i have been thinking this through for myself and it is: Amen!