SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[Cristiano]

Perhaps. I’ll allow him to clarify his ideas. It seemed pretty clear that he was contrasting intellectual pursuits against helping the poor and finding the former lacking in holiness…

The Gospel says to take care of the poor and it does not say that people that follow intellectual pursuits are going to be inherit the Kingdom of God. Br. JReducation also did not say that you have to pick one over the other, if he were to do so then he would contract himself because he is a strong supporter of education and proper understanding. You can play around with his words but the message is quite clear “do not play with semantics to justify wrong and divide the faithfuls but spend that time and energies to help the poor.”

 

[Cristiano]

For some, the idea might be “two wrongs make a right.” For others, the point is the frustration that for years it seems liberal dissenters have had free reign in the church while traditional dissenters, on a much more smaller scale, have been dealt with more harshly. This discrepancy (treat the smaller traditional dissenters harsher than the larger and more vocal liberal dissenters) seems to show that liberal dissent will be tolerated, which in turn seems to show that liberal heresy will be tolerated, but traditional dissent will receive the “smack down.”

Therein lies the frustration.

• PAX

So you are saying that you get frustrated when you get a speeding ticket because the guy just behind you going at the same speed was not stopped. So what? At least one out of two is getting the ticket, at least one of the two will be more careful about speeding and endangering people, at least that one will have a higher probability of not hurting himself and others in the future.

 

[ProVobis]

So you are saying that you get frustrated when you get a speeding ticket because the guy just behind you going at the same speed was not stopped.

FWIW, last time I went to court on a traffic ticket (many, many years ago), the lady in front of me used the fact that the officer singled her out amidst a bunch of speeders and was actually able to prove it. The judge dismissed her case and chided the police officer.

 

[Cristiano]

Apparently you’ve never been stuck in Chicago traffic.

Being there, done that, got yelled at by all the other drivers for trying to gain 5 seconds over a one hour ride, on top of that I had Wisconsin plates.

 

[TimothyH]

What teaching is one accepting in this case? What specifically?

I think you are stuck on Vatican II my friend. The rest of the Christian world is moving on.

-Tim-

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think you are stuck on Vatican II my friend. The rest of the Christian world is moving on.

-Tim-

I really don’t think it is.

 

[Cristiano]

FWIW, last time I went to court on a traffic ticket (many, many years ago), the lady in front of me used the fact that the officer singled her out amidst a bunch of speeders and was actually able to prove it. The judge dismissed her case and chided the police officer.

I guess that the lady now assumes that she can safely get out of another speeding ticked using the same strategy. Do you think that she will be safer for herself and others? Do you think that the police officer will be more effective in flagging down speeders when everybody does it? I think that I have a concept of fairness that differs from a lot of other people. I am not saying that is better, just that makes sense to me.

 

[ProVobis]

I guess that the lady now assumes that she can safely get out of another speeding ticked using the same strategy. Do you think that she will be safer for herself and others? Do you think that the police officer will be more effective in flagging down speeders when everybody does it? I think that I have a concept of fairness that differs from a lot of other people. I am not saying that is better, just that makes sense to me.

Fair point. But as you already probably noted in your own experience here, if you don’t drive at the same rate of traffic, you’re committing suicide, forget the ticket.

 

[Cristiano]

Fair point. But as you already probably noted in your own experience here, if you don’t drive at the same rate of traffic, you’re committing suicide, forget the ticket.

I hear you and honestly I rather die in a car crash than assuming a disobedient attitude toward the Church. I am an individual that has a strong aversion to forms of power, but somehow I manage to have this deep trust in the authority of the Church and I am always amazed by disobedience coming from so many sides. Of course I am more frustrated by liberal disobedience then by the so called scrupulous disobedience because the latter differs less from me but I do not like either.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

So you are saying that you get frustrated when you get a speeding ticket because the guy just behind you going at the same speed was not stopped. So what? At least one out of two is getting the ticket, at least one of the two will be more careful about speeding and endangering people, at least that one will have a higher probability of not hurting himself and others in the future.

I think a better analogy would be if I got frustrated at getting a speeding ticket by a cop who chose to pull me over rather than dealing with the blatant hold-up going at the gas station right across the street.

Yeah, I’m in the wrong with speeding, but with limited energies and time should more egregious crimes be dealt with? If the officer chooses to enforce speeding over robbery, isn’t he tacitly saying that speeding is worse than robbery?

That is one way some traditionalists look at it.

• PAX

 

[wasserfall]

I think you are stuck on Vatican II my friend. The rest of the Christian world is moving on.

If that were true Tim, then you wouldn’t see headlines like “Cardinal Koch says SSPX must Fully Accept Vatican II”.

And you also wouldn’t see people justifying their liturgical antics and doctrinal dissent with “Vatican II”.

But both of those things are still very common.

Maybe it is the case that most posters on CAF will accept it in stride when communion in the hand is banned again, but out in the wider world there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and screaming of “Vatican II! Vatican II!” even though everyone here knows that Vatican II said nothing about it.

So I would say that it is not traditional Catholics who are obsessed by Vatican II. They are content to pretend it never happened. It is the wide majority of self-described Catholics-- call them the lukewarm center perhaps, who are obsessed by it.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I think a better analogy would be if I got frustrated at getting a speeding ticket by a cop who chose to pull me over rather than dealing with the blatant hold-up going at the gas station right across the street.

Yeah, I’m in the wrong with speeding, but with limited energies and time should more egregious crimes be dealt with? If the officer chooses to enforce speeding over robbery, isn’t he tacitly saying that speeding is worse than robbery?

That is one way some traditionalists look at it.

• PAX

But obviously not the way the Church looks at it. It seems to me that the church sees the liberals doing their nonsense and looks at it a bit like a parent views a little kid being naughty. However, the traditionals are seen more like an older kid/teen disobeying. The parent is going to come down harder on the older kid because they know better.

That’s my view, FWIW. The disadvantage to saying one is traditional and wants to live under traditional teachings is that the church will also measure you against that yardstick.

Also to add that for the most part, the liberal groups/people who haven’t been called out by the Church have complied with what the church asked. We’ll see what happens next with the women religious leadership.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This video clip of Bp Fellay talking about the current situation between the SSPX & Rome amply confirms, in my opinion, the exremely positive impression one gets of Bp Fellay from this letter. Note especially his extremely warm and positive attiude towards Pope Benedict XVI.

• papastronsay.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/bishop-fellay-speaks.html

NB the Transalpine Redemptorists in Papa Stronsay, the Orkney Islands, adopted the Traditional liturgy and the original Rule of S. Alphonsus. * When Summórum Pontíficum* was published they applied for regularising under the terms of the Pope’s document. They are not affiliated to the SSPX.

 

[severus68]

I think it would be a bit of an overstatement to say that the mainstream is one billion good brother. Sure, one billion are technically part of the Church through baptism, but the majority of them don’t follow or believe the Church’s teachings,and as we know only 5-20% attend Mass in the West. I think Fr. Kung has quite a bit of influence in Western Europe, but probably not in East Asia or Africa!

I.F.

I just have a question please re your statement I have placed in bold. What is your evidence that the majority of mainstream Catholics do not follow or believe in the Church’s teachings? BTW, just because we may read about Father Kung and his views, does not mean we will blindly follow him.

 

[severus68]

The EF is not a problem. The mass is never a stumbling block to sanctity. What becomes a stumbling block to sanctity are other things.

1. The time and energy invested in debates, which belong to prayer, family, and the poor.
2. The excessive preocupation with documents that other very holy men and women don’t know they exist and if they do know, they could care less, because there are things in their present enviornment that need their attention, as Timothy said: the parish needs a new coat of paint. The dying are alone in hospice. The unwed mother is feeling hopeless, but there are not enough volunteers are a crisis pregnancy center. The Blessed Sacrament is sitting alone in a tabernacle waiting for a visit. The bishops need our support to stop the HHS mandate. The list of situations in which Christ is voiceless and needs our attention is quite long.
3. The fact that this debates often escalate into hateful comments.
4. The struggle for power and control in the Church instead of journeying into the mind of God.
5. The absence of inner silence.

As one who’s primary ministry is the care of souls, these things cause me great concern. I recently saw on another site where they’re taking sides as to who goes with Bishop Fellay and who goes with Bishop Williamson. The language and tone being used is not that of the saints, but that of politicians. It’s filled with ugly anger, not righteous indignation over a real injustice. There are actual comments about the state of people’s souls, which we must never make. There is glee and celebration at the prospect of seeing the Vatican II generation die off.

When I look at that behavior and then I look a true reformers in the Church’s history, I see a grave discrepancy in holiness. I would rather see people doing more penance, more prayer, more for their family and for the poor and forget what this document says or that one. At the end of time we will be asked what we did for these the least of his brothers, not what we read and how intensely we debated.

Heaven is not earned by mental gymnastics. Heaven is earned by true penance and love. Words and actions must convey the inner life of penance and love. We can’t say that we’re penitent and that we love, while we tear each other to shreds. Do you see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you Br JR, excellent post. Your words make me think.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

I think a better analogy would be if I got frustrated at getting a speeding ticket by a cop who chose to pull me over rather than dealing with the blatant hold-up going at the gas station right across the street.

Yeah, I’m in the wrong with speeding, but with limited energies and time should more egregious crimes be dealt with? If the officer chooses to enforce speeding over robbery, isn’t he tacitly saying that speeding is worse than robbery?

That is one way some traditionalists look at it.

• PAX

Hello good friend EcceAgnusDei,

By that analogy you are implying that both sides did objective wrong, just one did much more and didn’t get called out for it. A better analogy would be:

The traditionalist is driving a car very fast over the speed limit because he is being chased by gangsters and being shot at. He gets pulled over, fined, and told to be quiet. Meanwhile, the liberals are robbing a bank across the street, and the cop does nothing. When the traditionalist speaks up, “But, sir, there was a reason… for speeding…” he is shouted at by the neo-Catholic crowd, “QUIET! Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, You must obey, You must obey, You must obey, You were wrong, You were wrong, You were wrong, there is nothing you can do to justify it!” http://cloud.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/radical.jpg

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Hello good friend EcceAgnusDei,

By that analogy you are implying that both sides did objective wrong, just one did much more and didn’t get called out for it. A better analogy would be:

The traditionalist is driving a car very fast over the speed limit because he is being chased by gangsters and being shot at. He gets pulled over, fined, and told to be quiet. Meanwhile, the liberals are robbing a bank across the street, and the cop does nothing. When the traditionalist speaks up, “But, sir, there was a reason… for speeding…” he is shouted at by the neo-Catholic crowd, “QUIET! Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, You must obey, You must obey, You must obey, You were wrong, You were wrong, You were wrong, there is nothing you can do to justify it!”



I cut the picture out of this quote because I’d like to think you are having second thoughts about posting it and really this whole post.

This conversation is straying into the bad territory of each side trying to justify their own behavior and further villify the other side. We should instead be praying for the reconcilliation and laying the groundwork for true unity in the church.

 

[Cristiano]

Hello good friend EcceAgnusDei,

By that analogy you are implying that both sides did objective wrong, just one did much more and didn’t get called out for it. A better analogy would be:

The traditionalist is driving a car very fast over the speed limit because he is being chased by gangsters and being shot at. He gets pulled over, fined, and told to be quiet. Meanwhile, the liberals are robbing a bank across the street, and the cop does nothing. When the traditionalist speaks up, “But, sir, there was a reason… for speeding…” he is shouted at by the neo-Catholic crowd, “QUIET! Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, Obedience, You must obey, You must obey, You must obey, You were wrong, You were wrong, You were wrong, there is nothing you can do to justify it!”

The victim mode stopped working long time ago, now it is just an insult to intelligence and intellectual dishonesty. Disobedience to the pope is simply obvious disobedience.

 

[ProVobis]

The victim mode stopped working long time ago, now it is just an insult to intelligence and intellectual dishonesty. Disobedience to the pope is simply obvious disobedience.

But that argument is getting thin too. Because as Br JR has pointed out, there are increasing number within the ranks who have never known what full communion with and full obedience to the Pope is. Just like you can mitigate the fault of the kids when their parents and immediate superiors don’t go to Mass, you can mitigate the fault of the kids when they’re thinking they’re doing the right thing by going with their parents to a less-than-legitimate Mass. I believe acceptance of today’s Protestants (not Protestantism) is based on this same principle. Better put in the bigger picture of ecumenism, how can worshipping God be wrong?

 

[ImmaculataFides]

The victim mode stopped working long time ago, now it is just an insult to intelligence and intellectual dishonesty. Disobedience to the pope is simply obvious disobedience.

This post is exactly what I am talking about.