C
curlycool89
Guest
Actually, begging the question is a logical fallacy wherein you presumed your conclusion to be true as built into your premises (essentially, you’ve made a circular argument).
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I feel very uncomfortable making such a strong statement about anyone, especially people whom I don’t know and who have a right to their good name.
I will say this. They are amateurs in this regard. They are a very young community. Fifty years and 500 men is nothing compared to the 1500 years of the Benedictines, 1200 of the Carthusians, 1,000 of the Cistercians, 800 of the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Servites and Trinitarians. Put those numbers together and you’re in the millions.
They’re still feeling their way around the whole legal complexities of being a true society of apostolic life, not just group that lives in a bubble. Once the excommunications were lifted and they accepted the invitation to come to the table to talk, the amniotic sack was broken and they no longer have its protection. They have to deal with each other on the Church’s terms, if they want to return to the Church.
Did they take advantage of the fact that there were unhappy Catholic laymen out there, many who had money? I don’t think that they did so with malice. I think they were on a sinking ship. They had no funds, not place to go to get funds. You can have many vocations, but you have to feed them and cloth them. These lay folks were an answer to their prayers.
On the other hand, the lay folk took advantage of them too. I believe that the lay folk did them more harm. The lay folk encouraged their disobedience. Many lay people did everything they could and still do everything they can to plant hatred between the SSPX and mainstream clergy and religious. The biggest sin they commit is to carry tales back and forth.
They tell the SSPX what it wants to hear about the horrors in the mainstream, as if it were a 24/7 reality. They come back and say horrible things about their bishops, clergy and other religious.
There may not have been lay members, but there were certainly lay stock holders, something that no other community has. These people played the fiddle and the SSPX danced.
The SSPX also preached beautiful homilies on virtue, the end of days, the blessed mother, the Church and the laity loved it. They also used the pulpit to call their fellow clergy and religious, even their pope, Modernists and accuse of of heresy and the people cheered the on. No one stopped to think, “Hey wait a minute. The table of the Word is to feed us with the Word of God, not to feed us sour grapes.”
Rather than milking, I would say that there has been a relationship that is symbiotic and it has to come to an end, if the SSPX is going to become a truly autonomous institute inside of a prelature.
Remember how this works. Look at Opus Dei. You have Opus Dei. Inside Opus Dei, you have the Society of the Holy Cross. Opus Dei is the prelature. The Society is the clergy who serves the prelature. These clergymen keep a distance between them and the lay members of the prelature. They do not share with the lay members their life or plans. It’s the other way around. The lay members of the prelature are accountable to them and must finance them.’
It’s very complicated.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
triumphguy
Guest
Which begs the question: was pro_vobis right? Did your prof write the Nicene Creed?
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
Here is an interview with Archbishop Muller which quotes what he actually says about the need to accept Vatican II.
One extract from the interview:
One extract from the interview:
Code:
“The assertion that the ***authentic teachings*** of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false,” Archbishop Muller stated.
He added, however, that between various texts of the council there are “gradations” of teaching authority. By way of an example, Archbishop Muller drew a comparison between the council’s document on social communications, “Inter Mirifica,” which carries “less weight” than “dogmatic declarations” like the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium.”
“Whatever is ***dogmatic*** can never be negotiated,” he said [my emphasis]
J
JReducation
Guest
If one reads very carefully, Dr. Mirus is repeating the ongoing Traditionalist line. He has not referenced anything that Archbishop DinNoia or Archbishop Mueller have said. The statements that references are those of other personalities who are not in the driver’s seat here.
I strongly disagree what what these previous gentlemen said is the same as what is being said by Archbishops DiNoia and Mueller. I have much better insight, more experience and better credentials than Dr. Mirus when it comes to matters of religious institutes and the Holy See.
I respectfully disagree that this is what’s being said. Go back in this very thread and look up the links to the interviews with Archbishops Mueller and DiNoia and compare what they say to what Dr.Mirus is saying. He doesn’t even mention them by name.
“The assertion that the authentic teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false,” Archbishop Muller stated.
Dr. Mirus does not address this statement.
**
“The purpose of dialogue is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council,” Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller told CNA July 20, “but we cannot negotiate on revealed faith, that is impossible. An Ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”**
Dr. Mirus does not address this statement also by Archbishop Mueller
**
At the request of the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, two points were added again to the preamble: the first relates to the mass according to the Novus Ordo, the new rite of mass promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. Lefebvrians are asked to recognise not only the validity of the new mass but its legitimacy as well. This does not mean liturgical abuses cannot be criticised or that the post-Council liturgical reform and its implementation cannot be discussed.**
Dr. Mirus does not mention this statement by the Holy Father.
Here is another Vatican statement that he does not address, which came out after the articles to which he is referring in his article.
**
The Holy See cannot accept the assertion that the Second Vatican Council documentation contains “errors” and is asking the Fraternity to distinguish between the Council texts and the interpretation of the Council texts, accepting the fact that the magisterium cannot be judged by another group - in this case the Society of St. Pius X – which would end up becoming a sort of “super-magisterium”.**
Finally, the Doctor does not speak to this latest statement by the Vatican.
**
Gerhard Müller, in an interview with Catholic news network EWTN News.” “The claim that the authentic teachings of the Second Vatican Council – he added – formally clash with Church tradition, is false.”**
Archbishop DiNoia had this to say, which the Doctor does not address
**
The Pope is bending over backwards to accommodate them, but he’s not going to give in on the issue of the authenticity of the teaching of Vatican II as a series of acts of the magisterium.**
In another interview, Archbishop DiNoia said
**
The councils cannot — whatever their interpretations may be by the left or right, or whatever the intentions of the authors were of the council documents — be led into error. All of the documents stand.**
The Archbishop responded to a very direct question.
**
What do you say to the argument that if the Council documents are neither infallible nor unchangeable then they are therefore not binding?
To say they are not binding is sophistry. The Council contains swathes of the ordinary magisterium, which is de fide divina [of divine faith].**
He speaks about the binding nature of the Council and how the SSPX and others are trying to circumnavigate around it.
**
People have talked about the ordinary magisterium, trying to get out of this reductionist reading that says you only have to believe what’s infallible. So, no, the Council does have binding teaching. The Fathers are writing as bishops of the Church in union with the Pope; that’s why the Council is so important.**
The good Doctor does not address another of Archbishop DiNoia’s points for the SSPX.
**
There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.
The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.**
All people have to do is Google Archbisohp DiNoia or Archbishop Mueller and get their latest statements on these issues. At the end of the day, the SSPX will have to deal with these two men, not with the Msgr Ocariz or Cardinal Brandmuller, whom Dr. Jeff Mirus quotes. He’s not quoting the sources, I am. And I happen to know one of them personally.
Archbishop DiNoia and Archbishop Mueller are very eager to help the SSPX come home. But they are also make it clear that the SSPX is holding on to ideologies (as Archbishop Mueller calls them) that Pope Benedict is not willing to accept.
They have independently said that after Cardinal Levada had written a response to the SSPX that was acceptable to Bishop Fellay, Pope Benedict threw in two monkey wrenches: full acceptance of the Council Documents, not part of them and full acceptance of the legitimacy of the Ordinary Form, not just its validity. Legitimacy in canonical theological language means that it is fully efficacious and has a right to exist as is. The pope accepts that the abuses and creativity that was not intended can be discussed and corrected.
I fail to understand why Dr. Mirus went to older sources, rather than to the two most current sources: the Prefect for the CDF and President of the EDC and the Vice President for EDC. Even Bishop Fellay noted them in a recent interview.
How is it that the Superior General of the SSPX hears one thing and the traditionalist CatholicCulture.Org hears another or do they really hear something different?
The first article that you link to is dated December 02, 2011 and the second article is dated Mary 22, 2012. It’s not that they are hearing different things. It’s that the articles that you cited were written long before Archbishops DiNoia and Mueller came on the scene. The scene has changed. Dr. Mirus is not dumb. Your articles are old.
The four articles that I have referenced are dated: July 01, 2012 and July 02, 2012; with Archbishop DiNoia and July 24, 2012 and July 25, 2012 with Archbishop Mueller
DiNoia
ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14789
Mueller
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-17065/
catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
R
RogerDeCourcy
Guest
Well, if the Council documents are binding, what do they bind us to, that’s different from the past? Or is that the problem with them: it’s not clear, so liberals have taken advantage?
These are the contentious issues:
The unity of the Church (that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it);
Ecumenism;
Religious liberty;
Collegiality of bishops;
Inculturation (vernacular at mass, local hymns).
**
Is the argument circular and thus, can’t be solved? i.e.: **
*
The documents are binding* > The documents are not clear > I propose such-and-such, based on these documents > What’s proposed is not traditional! > You must obey, the documents are binding > What you propose is not in the documents! …
A nice pickle.
These are the contentious issues:
The unity of the Church (that the Church of Christ is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it);
Ecumenism;
Religious liberty;
Collegiality of bishops;
Inculturation (vernacular at mass, local hymns).
**
Is the argument circular and thus, can’t be solved? i.e.: **
*
The documents are binding* > The documents are not clear > I propose such-and-such, based on these documents > What’s proposed is not traditional! > You must obey, the documents are binding > What you propose is not in the documents! …
A nice pickle.
J
JReducation
Guest
Only if you want to call Pope Benedict XVI a liberal, which he is not.
He is saying that you can’t read the documents in light of what you would like to see them say, but in light of what the Council Fathers wanted to say.
He’s also saying that they do not contradict previous statements by the Church. Take for example, “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church”. This has always been a belief of the Catholic Church. The issue is that the term subsists has not been used in centuries. All it means is that the Catholic Church that we see today, even though it looks different from the Church that Christ founded, it is not different. The original seed is there. Today’s Catholic Church has come from that seed. That seed continues to subsist.
Take a tree. It starts as a seed. Does the seed cease to exist? No. Can you see the seed or are you seeing the fruit of the seed? You’re seeing the fruit of the seed. Would that tree be there without that seed? No.
The statement answers the question for the Protestants who continue to argue that the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ, but rather it’s something that came out of the Roman Empire during the reign of Constatine. The Church is saying that the only reason it was able to erupt the way that it did, even then, was because it always existed in the seed that Christ planted.
So whatever was done over the ages is not a new creation, but ongoing growth of the seed that Christ planted or better said, ongoing growth of the Church that Christ founded. In this regard, the church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. It gives life to the Catholic Church, not Constantine, not the Roman Empire and not some pagan cults as many Protestant thinkers claim.
Like this, every statement of the Council was addressing a specific question or issue either within the Church or the world around the Church.
Inculturation has always been part of Catholicism. Just look at little things such as the way that religious habits evolved over the centuries. The earliest habits resemble the garments of shepherd. That was the culture in which early monks lived. By the time that you get to the 17th century, the garments worn by religious resemble those of the people of that time. Fast forrward to 1946. Sister Teresa of the Sisters of Loreto leaves her convent to live on the streets of India as an Indian woman. That’s inculturation. She has a divine revelation from Christ. She is to found two religious communities, one for women and one for men. However, they are not to dress or act like European religious. They are to dress as Indians and use Indian customs.
The sisters wear a sari, instead of a habit with a skirt, veil and coif. Their sari is made famous when Mother won the Nobel Peace Prize. Up to that point, whenever they traveled outside of India, everyone looked at them as Indian women, not women religious.
The brothers wear white shirts, khaki pants, not crucifix, no cassock or tunic and no Roman collar,because that’s not what Indian men wear. Jesus wanted a community of Indian men. When they travel around the world, not one knows that they are religious brothers and that some of these brothers are monastic and some are ordained priests. They have a diversity of brothers. They all look like Indian men. That’s inculturation.
When Francis of Assisi founded our order he banned Gregorian chant, because it was the music of religious, not of laymen. Gregorian chant was banned from Franciscan masses and the Divine Office until Vatican II. That’s inculturation. Between Vatican II and about 2000, it was used a great deal. Now the renewal communities are dropping it, because it’s not part of the Franciscan tradition. So when we celebrate the EF and we do high mass, we use other forms of music that is not Gregorian chant. That’s inculturation.
The Holy Father acknowledged that the idea is to Christianized African customs, not exchange them for European customs. So African have permission to use liturgical dance and native instruments at mass. These are what they have used for centuries to worship. Now they use them to worship the true God. That’s inculturation.
Things like these is what the Council Fathers had in mind. They were not thinking about brining Elvis into churches of people who are of European decent. People of European decent have their own liturgical music…
Religious of European decent had their own form of dress given to us by our founders and some had none. What they had was imposed by the laity or by bishops, not by the founders. Those who had something from the founders, were to simplify it and wear it. Those who were wearing something contrary to the wishes of the founder were to eliminate it. That was the mind of the Council Fathers. For example, in the Franciscan Rule it says that the nuns are to decide what they want to wear. Every house has its own habit, even though it’s one order. The criteria that Clare gave them was:
- Must be comfortable.
- Practical for the work that the sisters do
- Inexpensive to preserve poverty
- Simple to preserve modesty
- Appealing to the taste of the sisters.
Each document is written with an idea in mind. The Holy Father says that it must be read with that idea. It is the duty of theologians, bishops and pastors to create programs that will teach the documents the way that they were mean to be read and to demonstrate the hermaneutifc of continuity. No one, lay, clergy or religious is allowed to say that the documents contradict tradition or contain error. Those days are soon coming to an end according to the CDF.
I predict that there will be a mandate that will bind all of us to this. This makes it impossible for people to get “creative” with the documents or to reject them because they’re not traditional. Just like the mandate at the beginning of the CCC, which says that this is the official catechism and that all catechisms must use this as their resource.
As Archbishop DiNoia said,"For those of us who lived in friaries and priories, there was never a conflict. We did what we were told and did not ask questions. We were told that this was part of the tradition of the Church and we had to do this and not do that and stop complicating your life by trying be a theologian when you should be running a soup kitchen, a parish, a school, a university, etc. We did and we have not been rattled. I love the way that he explains our experience with all of this. He does not deny that people were thrown for a loop, because bishops and pastors did not handle the Council as well as priors and superiors of monasteries and friaries did. That’s not the laity’s fault.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
D
Dee_S
Guest
Dear Brother, if you feel that ‘uncomfortable’ then take it as a better instinct telling you to rather say nothing…rather than to hypothesize about the intentions of, and to cast aspersions on the character of those who attend/ed the Masses offered by the SSPXI feel very uncomfortable making such a strong statement about anyone, especially people whom I don’t know and who have a right to their good name.
Did they take advantage of the fact that there were unhappy Catholic laymen out there, many who had money? I don’t think that they did so with malice. I think they were on a sinking ship. They had no funds, not place to go to get funds. You can have many vocations, but you have to feed them and cloth them. These lay folks were an answer to their prayers.
On the other hand, the lay folk took advantage of them too. I believe that the lay folk did them more harm. The lay folk encouraged their disobedience. Many lay people did everything they could and still do everything they can to plant hatred between the SSPX and mainstream clergy and religious. The biggest sin they commit is to carry tales back and forth.
They tell the SSPX what it wants to hear about the horrors in the mainstream, as if it were a 24/7 reality. They come back and say horrible things about their bishops, clergy and other religious.
There may not have been lay members, but there were certainly lay stock holders, something that no other community has. These people played the fiddle and the SSPX danced.
The SSPX also preached beautiful homilies on virtue, the end of days, the blessed mother, the Church and the laity loved it. They also used the pulpit to call their fellow clergy and religious, even their pope, Modernists and accuse of of heresy and the people cheered the on. No one stopped to think, “Hey wait a minute. The table of the Word is to feed us with the Word of God, not to feed us sour grapes.”
Rather than milking, I would say that there has been a relationship that is symbiotic…
Br. JR, FFV
In regard to the SSPX taking ‘advantage’ of the laymen who came to them - is nothing but pure conjecture on your part and is in violation of the law of Charity.
As to the lay people ‘taking advantage’ of them - to the point of doing them harm…is really an outrageous proposition which I do hope you will retract.
Generalizing is a dangerous practice. I can agree that the examples you give to support your hypothesis may very well exist in a few isolated and bizarre instances, BUT, they are certainly not reflective of the true intentions of the SSPX in existing to offer the Sacraments to the Faithful who have requested them or have been in need of them.
Stating they had ‘Lay Stock Holders’ is also a distortion of the truth, and the SSPX certainly did not dance to anyone’s tune in this regard. Bishop Fellay, I’m sure would be happy to answer any correspondence in this regard if clarification is needed, as he was the Bursar for many years before he became Superior General.
**“Experience teaches that the man who exercises a frequent and rigid censorship over his thoughts, words and actions, is better capable of hating and avoiding evil and of cultivating earnestly what is good”
- St Pius X**
M
Melchior_1
Guest
As opposed to the SSPX, whose official stance (on their American website) outright states that every single person who celebrates or attends the “objectively sinful” Ordinary Form? Doesn’t seem like much Charity there.
And some of them are taking advantage of the laity. Their enabling the firebrand tactics of the laity, and they’re obfuscating a lot of issues. You know, like holding confessions in their chapels when their confessions aren’t valid, yet passing them off as if they were valid.
Why not accept the offer and come fully home? Why not accept the offer and have your faculties back? Why do they not want legitimate ministry in the Church? Why not take and receive what has been offered, which at one point was more than any other Society in the history of the Church?
It’s the same theory used by some to account for liberal theologians and educators in schools, and personally why I think liberation theology took off. You have clergy leaning a certain way in the first place, and when the laity starts whipping things up into a frenzy it’s easy to follow along.
This is tame compared to what some, including the SSPX themselves, say about other clergy.
This does highlight something I hope the SSPX and the laity catches on to; if you can’t catch the ball, don’t throw it. Wanting the right to criticize Vatican II, the Ordinary Form, and other Catholics, you better be able to accept criticism themselves.
Again, everything Brother mentioned was pretty tame.
Then people need to lay off the Jesuits. Oh wait, there’s another thread on here detailing how “liberal” and “heterodox” they are. People also need to stop posting youtube clips and making references of “Clown Masses” saying they’re the norm.
Pardon my cynicism, but tiny chapels and 500 priests, plus transportation costs to fly them around, didn’t magically appear out of thin air. Someone owns the land they have. Based on those circumstances, I think this is a valid question.Stating they had ‘Lay Stock Holders’ is also a distortion of the truth, and the SSPX certainly did not dance to anyone’s tune in this regard. Bishop Fellay, I’m sure would be happy to answer any correspondence in this regard if clarification is needed, as he was the Bursar for many years before he became Superior General.
Again; Jesuits. People are blaming them for the state of their schools, when they actually only have one vote in the process.
The whole democracy/fancy c-word-i-can’t-spell-right-now thing is hilarious in hindsight; traditionalists oppose the Bishops working this way, but it does seem as if the SSPX listens to the laity more than than most Societies and Orders do.
Nice job quoting a Franciscan, not sure what it was to do with this situation though…
Oh hey, more irony; a Society naming themselves after a Franciscan, and proceeding to perform rampant acts of disobedience.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In that case, I will withdraw my “question” and simply state that the Anglophones are stuck with “many,” whatever that means to them, the Polophones are stuck with “wielu,” and so forth. But my original point was, just like Shakespeare, who chose his words carefully and who shouldn’t be criticized because someone didn’t like some modern translation of his writings, the liturgy as it was promulgated shouldn’t be either. It is what it is. Sure, there were Ottaviavi and others, but criticism of the translation is mostly what I remember of the '60’s without regards to the substance. Not that translations in themselves (or even the need for them) can’t be criticized but it was at best a distraction.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
I think it would help to make a few distinctions. Regarding acceptance of Vatican II there seem to be 4 possible positions:If one reads very carefully, Dr. Mirus is repeating the ongoing Traditionalist line… Your articles are old.
The four articles that I have referenced are dated: July 01, 2012 and July 02, 2012; with Archbishop DiNoia and July 24, 2012 and July 25, 2012 with Archbishop Mueller
DiNoia
ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14789
Mueller
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-vaticano-vatican-17065/
catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
- Every last sentence of the Council belongs to the Magisterium, is problem-free and must be accepted as it stands and taken at face value.
- Every sentence of the Council is part of the Church’s Magisterium and must be accepted, but some texts are problematic and need to be interpreted by comparison with previous Church pronouncements. This was often the case in the past when seemingly contradictory affirmations of Church teaching were reconciled, leading to a deeper understanding of Revelation.
- Some of the passages in the Council documents are part of the Magisterium and some are not. Of those that are, some areas need careful interpretation as described in category 2. The passages that are not of the Magisterium must be examined with good will, but may need interpretation or even rejection if they contain error.
- Vatican II was a pastoral council, and not intended as an exercise of the Church’s Magisterium. Its documents are shot through with modernism and other errors and the only realistic course of action is to dump the whole thing in the converter.
Archbishop Muller
“The purpose of dialogue is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, but we cannot negotiate on revealed faith, that is impossible. An Ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church."
Code:
“The assertion that the authentic teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false,” Archbishop Muller stated.
He added, however, that between various texts of the council there are “gradations” of teaching authority. By way of an example, Archbishop Muller drew a comparison between the council’s document on social communications, “Inter Mirifica,” which carries “less weight” than “dogmatic declarations” like the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium.”
“Whatever is dogmatic can never be negotiated,” he said.**Archbishop DiNoia
**“What I’ve tried to argue is that all they have to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition and that every text, or every part of it that is controversial, should be read in context of the Council — and read it in light of the Tradition. It seems to me, despite their difficulties, they should be able to do that.”
Code:
*What do you say to the argument that if the Council documents are neither infallible nor unchangeable then they are therefore not binding?*
"To say they are not binding is sophistry. The Council contains swathes of the ordinary magisterium, which is *de fide divina* [of divine faith].
"Now, the pastoral constitution “On the Church in the Modern World” *Gaudium et Spes*] makes comments about the nature of culture which, generally speaking, everyone now believes was overly optimistic. Well, that’s not *de fide divina*. It’s not precise; it’s very imprecise. But the Council’s full of the ordinary magisterium."I hardly think Archbishop DiNoia would express himself as a category 3 if Archbishop Muller is a category 2, so the likely conclusion is that both are 3’s. That being the case neither are demanding a blanket acceptance of Vatican II from the SSPX, but both are insisting that anything in the Council that would fall in the orbit of the Magisterium must be accepted, even if that acceptance goes with some careful interpretation.
Where does the SSPX fit in? Not category 4, though individual priests and faithful may belong there. Obviously not 1 or 2, so category 3 with the bone of contention being what in the council belongs to the Magisterium and what does not. This I suspect is what is being ironed out between the SSPX and Rome at present.
As regards Dr Mirus, I feel, with all due respect, that you are being unfair to him. He does cover all the points you raise and with an insight I greatly respect, but that really needs a separate post.
D
Dee_S
Guest
As opposed to the SSPX, whose official stance (on their American website) outright states that every single person who celebrates or attends the “objectively sinful” Ordinary Form? Doesn’t seem like much Charity there.
On the whole, and hopefully I too am not guilty of generalizing here, the SSPX have been thoroughly unpleasant and uncharitable in their public dealings with the Vatican and the ‘mainstream’ Church - there are examples in the media etc.too numerous to mention here - that stand in testimony against them. Just recently they accused Archbishop Muller of being a heretic on their headquarters website - embarrassingly for them:blush: it is easily refuted as they were quoting him out of context.
And some of them are taking advantage of the laity. Their enabling the firebrand tactics of the laity, and they’re obfuscating a lot of issues. You know, like holding confessions in their chapels when their confessions aren’t valid, yet passing them off as if they were valid.
It is impossible to judge the intentions of any person, never mind a group such as SSPX. They are perhaps so sincere in their misguided delusion that it is probable that they (the individual priests also)conceive they are rendering a good service to those laymen who apply to them
As to firebrand tactics, these followers have a strong conviction that they are ‘fighting’ in a just cause, but fall into the trap of adopting the mind set that ‘the end justifies the means’, thereby ensnaring themselves in countless acts of disobedience and lack of true charity.
Why not accept the offer and come fully home? Why not accept the offer and have your faculties back? Why do they not want legitimate ministry in the Church? Why not take and receive what has been offered, which at one point was more than any other Society in the history of the Church?
So much is written on this, and seems this is the ‘rock on which they break’ - Peter/Papal Authority. They and their members are blinded to this reality and continually justify themselves on grounds which compare their situation to that of St Athanasius, and live in the vain hope that their ‘stand’ will eventually be appreciated by the Rome they are trying to save!
This is tame compared to what some, including the SSPX themselves, say about other clergy.
Tame or not, objectively an ounce of fraternal correction is worth it to avoid transgressing the Law our Savior laid down his life for.
This does highlight something I hope the SSPX and the laity catches on to; if you can’t catch the ball, don’t throw it. Wanting the right to criticize Vatican II, the Ordinary Form, and other Catholics, you better be able to accept criticism themselves.
Let’s not imbibe the spirit of criticism too deeply. I’m not saying don’t challenge wrong doing etc. but be careful to support it with facts and with charity.
Again, everything Brother mentioned was pretty tame.
Sorry, but that is a subjective opinion.
Pardon my cynicism, but tiny chapels and 500 priests, plus transportation costs to fly them around, didn’t magically appear out of thin air. Someone owns the land they have.
Donations and legacies by the Faithful are fairly normal in any religious community. They need not be unjustly accused of grave sins on this account.
The whole democracy/fancy c-word-i-can’t-spell-right-now thing is hilarious in hindsight; traditionalists oppose the Bishops working this way, but it does seem as if the SSPX listens to the laity more than than most Societies and Orders do.
Hearsay. Inadmissable.
Nice job quoting a Franciscan, not sure what it was to do with this situation though.
To do good and avoid evil is an obligation of all Christians
Oh hey, more irony; a Society naming themselves after a Franciscan, and proceeding to perform rampant acts of disobedience.
Ironic, I agree.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Which begs the question: Did your prof write the Nicene Creed?
J
JM3
Guest
T
TrueLight
Guest
Wow.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I think it’s important to take a charitable approach to the SSPX and realize that as Dee alluded to, whether you think they’re right or wrong or delusional, their intentions as a society are not nefarious. They truly believe what they teach.
So please keep them in prayer instead of making snide remarks and reveling in witty put-downs.
When they do reconcile, these bitter feelings toward the SSPX are not going to magically transform into good will. So please look internally and pray that some of these feelings expressed here are true indignation and are not feelings of hatred.
So please keep them in prayer instead of making snide remarks and reveling in witty put-downs.
When they do reconcile, these bitter feelings toward the SSPX are not going to magically transform into good will. So please look internally and pray that some of these feelings expressed here are true indignation and are not feelings of hatred.
T
triumphguy
Guest
I was serious.
I had just spent a few minutes viewing a class by Bishop Williamson in which he admits to being a conspiracy nut, and claims among other things that the bombing in London in July 07 was perpetrated by the British Government, and that they are to do the same thing again in these Olympics.
2 things come to mind. Why would the SSPX even allow the filming of such a class, and then let it go public, unless they have no control over their own society?
How can you hear opinions such as these and then give credence to their opinions on Vatican II?
youtube.com/watch?v=lo4yAa2xk6k
T
TrueLight
Guest
Bishop Williamson is a loose canon in my opinion. He sort of does what he wants.
Same can be asked about the many loose canons in the Church who are allowed to spread their anti-Church teaching.
T
triumphguy
Guest
But they are in the middle of an important internal dialogue about their future, and extremely delicate negotiations with the Vatican. Wouldn’t it be important to maintain a “professional” front?
- Status