SSPX communique to Rome

[JReducation]

There is a question here because:
a. the Muslim families in our neighborhood have five or six children, with more on the way. This is in the USA.

First of all, let’s not forget that in Muslim culture the penalty for homosexuality, adultery (women), and abortion is death. We don’t have that in the Western world. There is conditioning that comes into play.

b. I have heard from people on this board and others that families at SSPX tend to be quite large. In one case, there is a family of 16 children at the SSPX near us.

These people don’t have 16 children because they belong to the SSPX. I know many families that have many children and wouldn’t go near the SSPX if they were the only Catholics in town. If you tell me that the SSPX attracts people who don’t use ABC, that I can believe.

Yet, when we had 40-Days for Life in this diocese, I personally invited the SSPX priest and his congregation to join us praying outside of an abortuary for 40 days they declined.

Here I was, the Archdiocesan Director of Project Joseph, the superior general of the Franciscans of Life, standing in full Franciscan habit, beard and all, asking him to let his people sign up to pray a rosary one hour a week in front of an abortion mill for Lent. How traditional can you get?

I have a tough time being impressed by the fact that some have 16 children, but will not join other Catholics to pray for the voiceless.

In another thread we’re talking about this, large families. Am I less Catholic than the family with 16 kids when I only have one?

My maternal grandparents were Sephardi Jews and they had 18 children. They lost five in the concentration camps. But there are some folks who believe that Jews deserved to be killed, because we’re Christ killers. Even if those Jews were boys ages 9 to 17.

No, you’re not less Catholic, less Jewish or less anything than someone who has many children.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JoeBowen7]

If you tell me that the SSPX attracts people who don’t use ABC, that I can believe.

I haven’t heard too many sermons, actually none at all that I can recall, concerning how it is a mortal sin to use any form of ABC. If a particular sin were prevalent in a community, would it not be appropriate to have frequent sermons at Mass advising people of the gravity of that sin?

 

[JReducation]

I haven’t heard too many sermons, actually none at all that I can recall, concerning how it is a mortal sin to use any form of ABC. If a particular sin were prevalent in a community, would it not be appropriate to have frequent sermons at Mass advising people of the gravity of that sin?

Yes and no. You certainly have to keep reminding people. You must also follow the theme of the Liturgy of the Word. The rubrics do not allow you to deviate too far from the theme of the day. The purpose of the sermon is to break open the Word. For many people, that’s there one and only time during the week when they get to reflect on the scriptures.

We have to be very careful not to become a one issue faith or to turn the sermon into a one issue campaign. It’s a homily, not a religious education class. We need to keep that in mind. There are times when it would fit in very well with the readings of the day and there are other times when the readings point us to other topics on Christian Spiritual Theology, Dogma, Christology, Ecclesiology and so forth.

I would also add that one must be very careful not to go looking for sins in people. It’s very tempting to develop spiritual pride. This is the pitfall of the Trad movement. It’s strength is its fidelity to tradition. It’s weakness is it’s tendency to be very fundamentalist and to pay too much attention to what everyone else is doing or not doing.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JoeBowen7]

Yes and no. You certainly have to keep reminding people. You must also follow the theme of the Liturgy of the Word. The rubrics do not allow you to deviate too far from the theme of the day. The purpose of the sermon is to break open the Word. For many people, that’s there one and only time during the week when they get to reflect on the scriptures.

We have to be very careful not to become a one issue faith or to turn the sermon into a one issue campaign. It’s a homily, not a religious education class. We need to keep that in mind. There are times when it would fit in very well with the readings of the day and there are other times when the readings point us to other topics on Christian Spiritual Theology, Dogma, Christology, Ecclesiology and so forth.

I would also add that one must be very careful not to go looking for sins in people. It’s very tempting to develop spiritual pride. This is the pitfall of the Trad movement. It’s strength is its fidelity to tradition. It’s weakness is it’s tendency to be very fundamentalist and to pay too much attention to what everyone else is doing or not doing.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I only asked the question because in a few posts before this one, I thought you said that the Church cannot stop people from using ABC.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I would also add that one must be very careful not to go looking for sins in people. It’s very tempting to develop spiritual pride. This is the pitfall of the Trad movement. It’s strength is its fidelity to tradition. It’s weakness is it’s tendency to be very fundamentalist and to pay too much attention to what everyone else is doing or not doing.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I would qualify this. The strength of the Traditionalist movement is its sense of Catholic identity. Traditionalists know exactly what they believe and what their position on moral issues is. This solidarity of belief and morals creates a cohesive social group, especially where Traditionalists are in numbers. This is reinforced by a clear knowledge of what they oppose - anything that might dilute or undermine their Catholicism, either in belief or practice. Traditional communities are clearly defined and mutually supportive - one has a strong sense of direction.

The weakness of Tradition is its mistrust of the Church. This mistrust I suspect goes a long way towards creating a kind of laager mentality amongst Traditionalists, of being the chosen few, the part that escaped Modernism, but a part that is very much less than the whole. It is a mental schizophrenia: a Traditionalist is convinced of the uniqueness of the Catholic religion, of a Church that is the indefectible rock and guardian of Revelation; yet at the same time he cannot escape the conviction that the religion has failed and the rock is broken. Traditionalists, perhaps more than anyone else, can’t wait for the world to end.

 

[Boulder257]

You have misunderstood Boulder. His comment was more in line with the "Guns don’t kill people, People kill people"type of statement. That is the numbers themselves aren’t lying (witness Br JR’s various numbers about his community’s age – all of which are correct). It is the person giving the numbers that might be lying. By presenting one number rather than another, Br JR can make his group appear to be older or younger according to the impression he’s trying to give.

(Obligatory disclaimer: BrJR, by using you as an example, I am in no way implying that you are a liar. )

In any event, numbers about the Church should look at world wide counts before declaring “success” or “no success”. Numbers may be dropping in the West, but are picking up in the South and East.

Yep, exactly. I think my comments were misinterpreted and certainly twisted, as I suggested some do with statistics. My comments were related to this particular instance, not every mathematical situation. And certainly the quote by Disraeli is intended as much for humor as it is to make a point.

Please read the substance of my comments instead of trying to play “gotcha!” Thanks for defending my point Mrs. Sally!

 

[JReducation]

I only asked the question because in a few posts before this one, I thought you said that the Church cannot stop people from using ABC.

Yes and I stand by that. No one can change another person’s behavior unless they use force. The person has to arrive voluntarily. That’s what I’m saying. We can preach and teach, but we can’t control. We have no power to control.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[curlycool89]

Yes and I stand by that. No one can change another person’s behavior unless they use force. The person has to arrive voluntarily. That’s what I’m saying. We can preach and teach, but we can’t control. We have no power to control.

I like the way the Bishops here in Canada (including my own bishop) have been phrasing it.

Whenever the subject of abortion/ABC/whatever comes up, everyone like to give the cop-out response “don’t impose your rules/morality/whatever on me”. The Bishops have replied saying “The Church does not impose. The Church proposes.”

 

[Dee_S]

I greatly appreciate this dialogue.

In reading the article linked by Dee S:catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541 I came across the following statement,

Quote: “Each person is called to respond to what the Holy Spirit writes in his heart (that is, what the Holy Spirit gives him genuinely to understand, of which only God can judge). Faith is essentially confidence in, trust in and obedience to what God has written there. This response in faith joins us to Christ, which is the same as being joined to His body the Church. Any knowing rejection of the good, God, Christ and the Church (“knowing” being something that only God can judge) prevents, weakens or severs that connection. But while the Holy Spirit does not enlighten us in contradictory ways, He does enlighten us to different degrees, and from him who has received more, more will be required (Lk 12:48).”

which I have difficulty reconciling with all the comments recently posted about the primacy and absolute correctness of the Magisterium to define and direct the Faith (with which I absolutely and completely agree):

I think that anything taken out of context can be either misunderstood or misinterpreted. Here is the part of Dr Mirus’s article that contains the above extract. I think it explains itself on all points raised, as he is only para-phrasing what St Paul said to make his point.

 

[Brendan]

There is a question here because:
a. the Muslim families in our neighborhood have five or six children, with more on the way. This is in the USA.
b. I have heard from people on this board and others that families at SSPX tend to be quite large. In one case, there is a family of 16 children at the SSPX near us.

Our parish is a (mostly) OF parish, we do have one weekly EF Mass.

Our family, with 6 kids, is near the smaller end of parents our age. Most of our parish friends have 7-9 kids. One family just had their 14th.

So it’s not just SSPX families

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I know Protestant families with 11, 12, and more children. I don’t think it is any thing specific to sspx. There is a providential mindset to larger families though that can be very wonderful.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Our family, with 6 kids, is near the smaller end of parents our age. Most of our parish friends have 7-9 kids. One family just had their 14th.

Mostly born in the Spring and Summer months, I would imagine. Oh those long winter nights in metro Detroit!

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

• If “numbers of members or adherents” don’t matter and cannot be used to determine “success”, can the number of those who leave the Church be used as any kind of measurement? Furthermore, how then would you determine “success”, or are you contending that one cannot determine success?
• Your “argument” against statistics has some problems. Yes, numbers can be twisted, but that notion can often be used to ignore or veil reality. Does it happen? Yes. True in every case? No.
• You have stated that people who use numbers lie without any qualification. By means of logic mathematicians then are all liars.
• The argument that some select statistics might be twisted or could perhaps be considered of spurious correlation and therefore ALL statistics are bunk and unusable is not logical or rational. If statistics supported your position would you refuse to use them or consider them of any value?

Pax.

J.M.J.

Yep, exactly. I think my comments were misinterpreted and certainly twisted, as I suggested some do with statistics. My comments were related to this particular instance, not every mathematical situation. And certainly the quote by Disraeli is intended as much for humor as it is to make a point.

Please read the substance of my comments instead of trying to play “gotcha!” Thanks for defending my point Mrs. Sally!

No. The comments did not “twist” what you said. They were taken literally. I would very much like to hear the answer to my question: How then, do you measure success? Nobody is interested in playing gotcha, at least from this end.

Pax

J.M.J.

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

Fan of Trent;9658597:

I greatly appreciate this dialogue.

In reading the article linked by Dee S:catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541

I came across the following statement,

Quote: “Each person is called to respond to what the Holy Spirit writes in his heart (that is, what the Holy Spirit gives him genuinely to understand, of which only God can judge). Faith is essentially confidence in, trust in and obedience to what God has written there. This response in faith joins us to Christ, which is the same as being joined to His body the Church. Any knowing rejection of the good, God, Christ and the Church (“knowing” being something that only God can judge) prevents, weakens or severs that connection. But while the Holy Spirit does not enlighten us in contradictory ways, He does enlighten us to different degrees, and from him who has received more, more will be required (Lk 12:48).”

which I have difficulty reconciling with all the comments recently posted about the primacy and absolute correctness of the Magisterium to define and direct the Faith (with which I absolutely and completely agree):

I think that anything taken out of context can be either misunderstood or misinterpreted. Here is the part of Dr Mirus’s article that contains the above extract. I think it explains itself on all points raised, as he is only para-phrasing what St Paul said to make his point.

"Impossible Contradictions

It is alleged, of course, that recent contradictions in certain Magisterial teachings have been clearly demonstrable, but this is simply false. Those following proper method have shown again and again how particular teachings, which at first glance have appeared to some to be changes in a negative sense, are really developments in a positive sense, developments which provide a more complete understanding of the entire doctrine in question.
But self-serving over-simplifications are legion. For example, I constantly hear from Traditionalists who almost scream in frustration that Vatican II and popes since that time have taught that everyone is saved—atheists, pagans, Protestants, schismatics (take care!), and above all (it seems) Jews. But of course the modern Magisterium has taught nothing of the kind. The Church has, however, taught that it is possible for any person to be saved who sincerely seeks God and the good and lives according to all that he has been able to understand of God and the good.
And why? Well, for the same reason that St. Paul was the first to explain: Each person is called to respond to what the Holy Spirit writes in his heart (that is, what the Holy Spirit gives him genuinely to understand, of which only God can judge). Faith is essentially confidence in, trust in and obedience to what God has written there. This response in faith joins us to Christ, which is the same as being joined to His body the Church. Any knowing rejection of the good, God, Christ and the Church (“knowing” being something that only God can judge) prevents, weakens or severs that connection. But while the Holy Spirit does not enlighten us in contradictory ways, He does enlighten us to different degrees, and from him who has received more, more will be required (Lk 12:48).
It is an incomparable blessing to know the fullness of the Catholic faith and the life of the Church, which provides every grace for union with God in this world and happiness in His presence forever in Heaven. But it is also possible to be joined to the Church in a substantial way, without formal membership, so that, through the merits of Christ and the many graces His Church showers throughout the world, those who are not formal members of the Church have the possibility of attaining salvation through Christ and the Church. Again, this does not mean that all are saved. It simply means that all, no matter what their condition and no matter how much they know, may be saved, and if they are saved, this is accomplished through a mysterious joining to Christ and the Church. This is consistent with everything the Magisterium has ever taught, even if a more complete understanding has developed over time through the intervention of the Magisterium in various controversies.
As with this question of salvation—often distorted by those determined to find a rupture in “perennial” Catholic teaching—so too with every question that has been raised. Those who follow proper theological method can come to an understanding which is consistent with the truth of each datum of Revelation which proper method requires that a theologian accept: The deposit of faith in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterial teachings which determine what is really part of the Tradition and what is not, what Scripture really means and what it does not, and how (as varying questions arise) the content of Divine Revelation is to be properly understood."

If one is to find this fully agreeable then there is no real need or reason for any Catholic to evangelize anyone of any other faith or otherwise for that matter. It is a promotion of spiritual sloth IMHO.

Pax.

J.M.J.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

No. The comments did not “twist” what you said. They were taken literally. I would very much like to hear the answer to my question: How then, do you measure success? Nobody is interested in playing gotcha, at least from this end.

Pax

J.M.J.

I don’t believe the Church has ever defined succes solely by numbers. It is better defined by how well her members conform to Christ’s teaching. But if we are counting we need to count worldwide numbers and we need to take a long view of change o we time.

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

I don’t believe the Church has ever defined succes solely by numbers. It is better defined by how well her members conform to Christ’s teaching. But if we are counting we need to count worldwide numbers and we need to take a long view of change o we time.

You’re probably right, the Church has never defined success by numbers because historically there has never been any reason to. As has been said here by others in a differen context, times have changed.

I have a feeling that there is a refusal to acknowledge any problems in the Church on this thread, so I’ll leave it there for now.

Pax.

J.M.J.

 

[Dee_S]

You’re probably right, the Church has never defined success by numbers because historically there has never been any reason to. As has been said here by others in a different context, times have changed.

I have a feeling that there is a refusal to acknowledge any problems in the Church on this thread, so I’ll leave it there for now.

Pax.

J.M.J.

Mrs Sally on that definition of success in relation to the mission of the Church. I would also like to say here that it is more important than ever (see Pope Benedict XVI’s constant appeals and reminders, and those of our priests, at least over here that is) for every individual Catholic to be ‘a light to the world’ bearing and bringing Christ to their fellow man in every situation they find themselves in. We all have a ‘mission’ to bring others to the True Faith.

Br Jr correctly remarked in a post here quite a while back, that one must not lose sight of that while trying to solve the perceived or real ‘problems’ in the Church.

Fan of Trent, having said that, I do understand and it is not incorrect to wish to seek clarity on issues that have a bearing on one’s Faith and I hope we on this thread, are not past acknowledging any problems anyone wishes to deal with here. If you take a look at this thread from the beginning until now, you will see that several problem issues for Traditionalists (not said in a bad way) have been discussed and dealt with as we’ve gone along. If not to your satisfaction, please feel free to raise them again or something that has not yet been covered. We’re (hopefully) not too narrow minded

 

[Dee_S]

Dee S;9662756:

Fan of Trent;9658597:

I greatly appreciate this dialogue.

In reading the article linked by Dee S:catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541

I came across the following statement,

Quote: “Each person is called to respond to what the Holy Spirit writes in his heart (that is, what the Holy Spirit gives him genuinely to understand, of which only God can judge). Faith is essentially confidence in, trust in and obedience to what God has written there. This response in faith joins us to Christ, which is the same as being joined to His body the Church. Any knowing rejection of the good, God, Christ and the Church (“knowing” being something that only God can judge) prevents, weakens or severs that connection. But while the Holy Spirit does not enlighten us in contradictory ways, He does enlighten us to different degrees, and from him who has received more, more will be required (Lk 12:48).”

which I have difficulty reconciling with all the comments recently posted about the primacy and absolute correctness of the Magisterium to define and direct the Faith (with which I absolutely and completely agree):

If one is to find this fully agreeable then there is no real need or reason for any Catholic to evangelize anyone of any other faith or otherwise for that matter. It is a promotion of spiritual sloth IMHO.

Pax. J.M.J.
I get what you are saying here, but only sort of but given the subject of the article as a whole it is dealing with the myth of obedience to an Eternal Rome vs the present Magisterium, it hardly qualifies, (especially this extract) as a manual or guide to the subject of no salvation outside of the Church.

When I read it again now, I see that he says two noteworthy things .

Each person is called…to respond

It certainly agrees with the theology that mankind is redeemed by Christ, but must respond and co-operate in order to benefit by His Sacrifice. It is a matter of the free will of the individual to respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

It is a dogma of the Church that God gives each soul enough actual graces during their lives to save their souls,…it’s up to them to respond. To deny or denigrate the fact that the Holy Spirit does work in prompting those that are not Catholic is really not true. Nor is Dr Mirus saying or implying anything contrary to Catholic teaching.

The encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (The Mystical Body) by Pope Pius XII gives much fact and food for thought on this subject:

“…Thus, urged by the Holy Spirit, men are moved, and as it were, impelled to seek the kingdom of God…”

"For if not even the smallest act conducive to salvation can be performed except in the Holy Spirit, how can countless multitudes of every people and every race work together harmoniously for the supreme glory of the Triune God, except in the power of Him, who proceeds from the Father and the Son in one eternal act of love?****"

"For, as the Vatican Council teaches, “reason illumined by faith, if it seeks earnestly, piously and wisely, does attain under God, to a certain and most helpful knowledge of mysteries, by considering their analogy with what it knows naturally, and their mutual relations, and their common relations with man’s last end,” although, as the same holy Synod observes, reason, even thus illumined, “is never capable of understanding those mysteries as it does those truths which forms its proper object.” [5]

In relevance to the subject of this thread, it would appear that ‘criticisms’ of the SSPX and other Traditional organisations that are not in full communion with the Church, do have valid foundation, and these (criticisms) are not what is so often called “sspx-bashing” - but an urgent and genuine expression of the desire to recover them from the danger they are in and to which they are oblivious to.
41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You’re probably right, the Church has never defined success by numbers because historically there has never been any reason to. As has been said here by others in a differen context, times have changed.

I have a feeling that there is a **refusal to acknowledge any problems in the Church **on this thread, so I’ll leave it there for now.

Pax.

J.M.J.

I don’t think that’s the case, but I also don’t think folks on this thread believe everything is doom and gloom. There are lots of exciting things happening in the Church right now, alongside some of the sadder things. We have a growing access to the EF and wonderful traditional piety. We have huge numbers of young adults at events like World Youth Day. On the other hand the basically post-Christian culture in much of Europe, the US, and Canada is heartbreaking.

We all need to pray and work to evangelize the people around us.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think that’s the case, but I also don’t think folks on this thread believe everything is doom and gloom. There are lots of exciting things happening in the Church right now, alongside some of the sadder things. We have a growing access to the EF and wonderful traditional piety. We have huge numbers of young adults at events like World Youth Day. On the other hand the basically post-Christian culture in much of Europe, the US, and Canada is heartbreaking.

We all need to pray and work to evangelize the people around us.

I think that you’re absolutely right. There are problems, but there are also very good things happening. I’ll share something that may not mean much to some, but it means a great deal, if you look at it carefully.

One the diocesan priests in our neighboring parish asked one of our brothers if he could be there for the 12:30 mass tomorrow. The brother responded, “Father, we attend the 9:30 mass as a community.”

The priest, very politely said, “I really need you to do me a favor right after mass. That’s why I’m asking.”

To which Brother very politely responded, “Father, if you tell me what the favor is, I’ll ask Father Superior for permission. He’ll need to know why I won’t be attending mass with the community.”

This may seem small to some people. But let’s look at it in context. The brother in question is 41 years old. The petitioner is a local parish priest, who is a good friend of the community’s. In this day and age, many religious come and go as they please and when they please. This brother insisted on asking for permission, before agreeing to do a favor, even for a beloved priest.

The priest in question did not push the issue or discourage him from asking for permission, which was the bread and butter for the last 40 years. On the contrary, the priest tried to understand something that is foreign to him. He’s a Diocesan Priest. They can come and go as they please, when they please. They are not religious. The idea of having to ask for permission to do someone a favor may even sound silly to them.

As I said, what may seem insignificant is very significant. The idea of obedience, of not owning one’s time or one’s free will is returning. The idea that one must respect those who are bound to obedience is also returning. This is not the only time this has happened.

A few months ago the bishop asked a sister to be the cantor at one of his masses. The woman sings like an angel. She politely said, “I’ll ask Mother Superior if she likes the idea.”

The bishop said, “Are you ok with the idea?”

The sister responded, “I have no right to express an opinion on the matter until Mother has spoken. But don’t worry, I’ll let Mother know that you asked.”

Like this, I’m sure that if all of us look around, we’ll find little signs of growth and spring around us. If we allow ourselves to be so absorbed by the problems, we’ll never rise to the heights of men and women like Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Teresa of Avila, Therese, Mother Teresa or a Philip Neri who laughed all the way to heaven.

St. Teresa of Avila said, “God save us from sour saints.” Saints are joyful people. They knew how to deal with problems, when and how to bend, as well as appreciate the signs and wonders of God’s life in the Church. The latter gave them great joy, so much so that they didn’t spend much time discussing the problems. The simply dealt with them as they came across them. If it was not in their power to deal with them, they trusted that the Holy Spirit would send someone else who could deal with them. This trust filled them with hope.

No matter how great the crisis, many were greater than today, the saints were very balanced people. I think part of what made them so balanced is that they did not worry about those things that were unrelated to their daily lives. So many people here worry about EENS. Mother Teresa focused on Christ in the poor. Francis of Assisi focused on converting Catholics to Christianity. John Bosco took care of his boys. Bonaventure reformed his order. Dominic corrected heresies and stayed clear of heretics. Teresa of Avila lived surrounded by the Protestant Reformation and said that she had no time for Luther and his nonsense, because her nuns were more important.

There was a holy indifference, meaning that one focuses on the wrongs that one can fix and leaves the rest up to the Holy Spirit to find someone to fix it. That leaves us free to pray and to contemplate the good that’s all around us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV