SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[Cristiano]

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?

You are making a point that Br. JReducation was making, at one point you will have some that will stop playing the victim card and they will come back into the Church, then you will have schismatics that will abandon the Church and the Church will have to wait a few generations to close the problem. If the kids of the traditionalist movement are so smart and well versed in Catholic teachings they can realize that the historical conditions changed, they know what culpability is, and they can make a choice,. I do not like any people that choose to be detached from the Church either traditionalist or liberal. However, I love them and I tell them that, while it is fine to argue and disagree with me, it is not fine to do that with the Church. I am fallible, the Church is not. The sentence that I hate the most is: 'I was a Catholic". I refuse to accept the fact that any member of the Church including the SSPX could come to say that sentence, to me is too much of my personal loss and failure.

 

[Cristiano]

This post is exactly what I am talking about.

I know that my son has the same disciplinary problems. he wants to be loved, he wants be considered as the best thing that ever happened to his parents, and he thinks that he is doing his best. Honestly he is a top notch kid but he also fails and when I correct him he feels guilty and he gets mad at me for his shortcomings. I am not the one that was playing videogames or talking to friends instead of doing homework or cleaning the room. He complains that I am hard on him while I try to be nice to other people. He does not like the fact that I now better and I that I have the authority to correct him.

 

[JustaServant]

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!”

Dare I quote the infamous founder of Bob Jones University, Bob Jones Sr., but I will (even a broken clock is right twice a day):
“It’s never right to do wrong, so that right will prevail”.
Those who resisted the changes of the “spirit of Vatican 2” have been vindicated to a large degree and need not apologize for standing for the 2000 year tradition of the Church. Those early trailblazers like Michael Davies gave very scholarly critiques of how Vatican 2 was being interpreted without rejecting the Council or it’s original intent.
Obedience is not about agreeing. Not about being a “yes man”.
I can obey my supervisor without agreeing with a decision. And when that decision blows up in his face he knows he had at least one employee who was honest with him, and at the same time gave him the respect that is due his position.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

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.

Okay, perhaps your right, the picture was a bit too much. It could easily be mis-interpreted. It was supposed to just be a picture of someone screaming to accurately reflect what I was trying to describe, but that was the only picture I could find. If I could still edit my post, I’d get rid of it.

 

[JustaServant]

Okay, perhaps your right, the picture was a bit too much. It could easily be mis-interpreted. It was supposed to just be a picture of someone screaming to accurately reflect what I was trying to describe, but that was the only picture I could find. If I could still edit my post, I’d get rid of it.

Ask the mod, he’ll do it.

 

[Melchior_1]

RE: the speeding analogy - a friend of mine racked up two or three speeding tickets, and now his license has been suspended.

You can say that it’s not as big of a deal, but tell that to this guy who can’t use his car for the next month.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Dare I quote the infamous founder of Bob Jones University, Bob Jones Sr., but I will (even a broken clock is right twice a day):
“It’s never right to do wrong, so that right will prevail”.
Those who resisted the changes of the “spirit of Vatican 2” have been vindicated to a large degree and need not apologize for standing for the 2000 year tradition of the Church. Those early trailblazers like Michael Davies gave very scholarly critiques of how Vatican 2 was being interpreted without rejecting the Council or it’s original intent.
Obedience is not about agreeing. Not about being a “yes man”.
I can obey my supervisor without agreeing with a decision. And when that decision blows up in his face he knows he had at least one employee who was honest with him, and at the same time gave him the respect that is due his position.

Hello friend,

I think you missed my point. I’m not in any way advocating disobedience, or saying it is good. But, sometimes disobedience is necessary in order to be obedient. Disobedience can be justified. The point of my post was to express what neo-Catholics (or conservatives, as Michael Davies describes them) are like regarding many traditionalists. They don’t care about what justification traditionalists try to put forward, or explain. They simply condemn for being disobedient.

God Bless and keep you JustaServant,

I.F.

 

[Cristiano]

Okay, perhaps your right, the picture was a bit too much. It could easily be mis-interpreted. It was supposed to just be a picture of someone screaming to accurately reflect what I was trying to describe, but that was the only picture I could find. If I could still edit my post, I’d get rid of it.

I think that it was quite obvious that you were not trying to insinuate other things and that you were trying to use the image only to indicate someone screaming. At least that it is the way I perceived it. I would not worry too much about it.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

RE: the speeding analogy - a friend of mine racked up two or three speeding tickets, and now his license has been suspended.

You can say that it’s not as big of a deal, but tell that to this guy who can’t use his car for the next month.

Oh no, I say it’s a big deal!

 

[ImmaculataFides]

I think that it was quite obvious that you were not trying to insinuate other things and that you were trying to use the image only to indicate someone screaming. At least that it is the way I perceived it. I would not worry too much about it.

Well, you never know.

 

[JustaServant]

Hello friend,

I think you missed my point. I’m not in any way advocating disobedience, or saying it is good. But, sometimes disobedience is necessary in order to be obedient. Disobedience can be justified. The point of my post was to express what neo-Catholics (or conservatives, as Michael Davies describes them) are like regarding many traditionalists. They don’t care about what justification traditionalists try to put forward, or explain. They simply condemn for being disobedient.

God Bless and keep you JustaServant,

I.F.

I realize that, its a way of basically shutting up the opposition. How I explained obedience is how traditionalists should answer when that ploy is used.

 

[Cristiano]

Hello friend,

I think you missed my point. I’m not in any way advocating disobedience, or saying it is good. But, sometimes disobedience is necessary in order to be obedient. Disobedience can be justified. The point of my post was to express what neo-Catholics (or conservatives, as Michael Davies describes them) are like regarding many traditionalists. They don’t care about what justification traditionalists try to put forward, or explain. They simply condemn for being disobedient.

God Bless and keep you JustaServant,

I.F.

I disagree with you. You are making an unproven generalization to justify disobedience in the Church. Disobedience to a civil law can be justified when the law is unjust, and that means against natural law. The statement is clearly defined by its own constraints. Disobedience toward the Church is a different story and I do not see any constraints being defined, without constraints it is the equivalent to say that you can do evil to achieve a higher good. Obedience is also giving assent to the decisions of the Church once they are made, lack of assent is undermining the objective and I also see it as lack of trust in Divine Providence.

 

[thewanderer]

Hello friend,

I think you missed my point. I’m not in any way advocating disobedience, or saying it is good. But, sometimes disobedience is necessary in order to be obedient. Disobedience can be justified. The point of my post was to express what neo-Catholics (or conservatives, as Michael Davies describes them) are like regarding many traditionalists. They don’t care about what justification traditionalists try to put forward, or explain. They simply condemn for being disobedient.

God Bless and keep you JustaServant,

I.F.

I hope you realize that it is quite possible that those who are telling the disobedient traditionalists that they must obey have already heard the arguments for why disobedience was necessary and decided they are insufficient. I am not really sure what a “neo-Catholic” is, but I would certainly consider myself a conservative Catholic, and I do not appreciate having your representation of such a Catholic applied to me and many of my good, faithful, intelligent, and reasonable Catholic friends.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

I hope you realize that it is quite possible that those who are telling the disobedient traditionalists that they must obey have already heard the arguments for why disobedience was necessary and decided they are insufficient. I am not really sure what a “neo-Catholic” is, but I would certainly consider myself a conservative Catholic, and I do not appreciate having your representation of such a Catholic applied to me and many of my good, faithful, intelligent, and reasonable Catholic friends.

I’m not talking about Catholics that have seen the arguments by traditionalists, but aren’t convinced. I’m talking about those who refuse to even hear them, or don’t look at them with an open mind. To be honest, most informed Catholics probably haven’t even seen arguments by traditionalists, unless they read the Remnant or The Angelus! It’s also a banned topic here.

God keep you.

I.F.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

I disagree with you. You are making an unproven generalization to justify disobedience in the Church. Disobedience to a civil law can be justified when the law is unjust, and that means against natural law. The statement is clearly defined by its own constraints. Disobedience toward the Church is a different story and I do not see any constraints being defined, without constraints it is the equivalent to say that you can do evil to achieve a higher good. Obedience is also giving assent to the decisions of the Church once they are made, lack of assent is undermining the objective and I also see it as lack of trust in Divine Providence.

What is the generalization?

 

[Melchior_1]

Oh no, I say it’s a big deal!

Then the multitude of speeding tickets accrued by the SSPX (which endangers the faithful, just as speeding endangers others on the road), is also a big deal, yes?

After all, they did get their faculties “suspended” (removed), just like my friend did. My friend can drive, just not legally.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not talking about Catholics that have seen the arguments by traditionalists, but aren’t convinced. I’m talking about those who refuse to even hear them, or don’t look at them with an open mind. To be honest, most informed Catholics probably haven’t even seen arguments by traditionalists, unless they read the Remnant or The Angelus! It’s also a banned topic here.

God keep you.

I.F.

While it’s a banned topic here there are plenty of other websites where it can be freely discussed. And, while it still isn’t the right way to go about things, it is at least sometimes the case that a person might not appear to listen to the arguments simply because they have heard it before and are tired of having heard it as an excuse for disobedience. I alsorealize it’s natural to be frustrated when I appears that someone is not listening to what you have to say, bit please try to give people the benefit of the doubt and understand where they are coming from as well.

 

[Cristiano]

What is the generalization?

Major issue with quoting brackets. I was not referring to your post but to post #399 and the original post #391 by JustaServant. I did not see that mistake in the quotes until your replied. Now I cannot change it anymore. My apologies for confusing people.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Then the multitude of speeding tickets accrued by the SSPX (which endangers the faithful, just as speeding endangers others on the road), is also a big deal, yes?

After all, they did get their faculties “suspended” (removed), just like my friend did. My friend can drive, just not legally.

Read the analogy again. They were handed a speeding ticket, with the cop ignoring their justification.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

Major issue with quoting brackets. I was not referring to your post but to post #399 and the original post #391 by JustaServant. I did not see that mistake in the quotes until your replied. Now I cannot change it anymore. My apologies for confusing people.

No problem, everyone will make a mistake on using this forum eventually!