SSPX Update - Redux

[JReducation]

This reminds me of when I was a kid in high school. I went to an all male school. There was a group of guys who always hung around my house, because I was good at math, even though I couldn’t throw a football if my eternal salvation depended on it.

Now that I think back on those years, I missed an opportunity to make a fortune. I recently learned that tutors make more money per hour than do classroom teachers.

I think you will find that many of us do the same. I am in that boat myself. He also has a knack for correcting when it’s necessary, bringing brevity when it helps, etc. Not only is he a wealth of information, but I appreciate his style, even when it’s corrective.

He also had (has) what might be the longest lasting birthday thread I have ever seen on a board.

The funniest part is that we’re halfway to my next birthday. One of my brothers proposed that we put my birthday up there with Ordinary Time on the liturgical calendar. :yup:

Well, the term ‘Holy Ghost’ has one value for me: it’s now a unique, Catholic term for the Holy Spirit. It won’t be confused with the ‘Spirit’ that pentecostalists seem to have on tap.

Go gently here. The Pentecostals are referring to the same Holy Ghost that you know. There is validity for their method of prayer and spirituality in Christian tradition. Much of what this movement holds dear is also held dear by the spiritual masters of East and West. The difference is more style than theology. Two spiritual masters that come to mind immediatey are Francis of Assisi and Maximilian Kolbe. Francis is better known than Maximilian. He’s just coming into his own.

I think the crown jewel in Glory and Praise music is the Canticle of Brother Sun. The original melody has been altered so often that no one remembers which one is the original. During the Reformation, Catholics shied away from this form of prayer and song. The friars made an attempt to steer away as well. They ended up doing criminal things to the Canticle. That’s how we ended up with All Creatures of Our God and King. I love that hymn. But it’s not the way that it was written or the way that history tells us that the early brothers sang it. From what I’ve read, it was sung with much more gusto and the melody was taken from popular Italian music of the time.

However, in the biographies of both Francis and Maximilian, we find that they broke into praise and worship at the drop of a dime. It is said that the friars did not always understand what Francis was saying. There is possibility of some form of gift of tongues. We can’t prove it, because we don’t have recordings. We can’t deny it either.

We know that Maximilian did break into a type of praise that to us sounds like “babbling.” It seems that it happened when he was in prayer before the Blessed Mother. Babbling is how it was described by someone during his canonization proceedings.

There are also reports of Bl. John Paul praying this way, especially during mass. I never heard it, even though I attended four or five masses were he presided. What I did see, consistently, was that during the proclamation of the Word, he would go into what would look like a sleeping state and appeared to be mumbling something, like someone who is talking in his sleep. However, everyone who was near him says that he was not asleep and that they could not make out what he was saying, because it was an audible whisper.

We have difference is styles, which is normal. Times change and forms of prayer often reflect the culture of the time. Which is one of the beauties of prayer. Prayer retains the fundamental truths of the faith, while the form, sound, and expression evolves. We see continuity without being static.

This takes me back to one of the issues that the SSPX has with Pope Benedict. The Society seems to be caught in a time warp. Pope Paul described this very well when he wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre. He spoke of the danger of equating tradition with time. The use of the term “before” is overdone in the teaching of the SSPX.

That’s not to say that those things that came after Vatican II are perfect. I don’t think that’s what Pope Paul said or what Pope Benedict says. What they are saying is that one can get stuck in a format, not only of prayer and liturgy, but more importantly a vision of man, God and the Church. When we get stuck to the point that we exclude all possibility of God and man meeting in new ways, without changing a single letter of the truth, we place limits on God and man. This can certainly lead to heresy as quickly as going to the opposite extreme, where we force God and man into created ways of communication rather than those that are born spontaneously out of the life of the Church.

I’m always very cautious to avoid tapping any form of prayer or expression of faith and saying, “this is not it.” The diversity in schools of Christian Spirituality from East to West, from the Apostles to the current age, from monasticism to secular life is proof that there is room for differences in prayer and expressions of the one Christian Spirituality.

There are not many spiritualities. There is only one Christian Spirituality. There are the Benedictine, Augustinian, Franciscan, Carmelite and other expressions of the one. There are even the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox expressions of Christian Spirituality. Catholicism does not have a monopoly on the spiritual life. The Holy Spirit hovers over time and space. He’s not locked into a box. The key is not how, but what. What does one’s prayer say. Does it speak truth?

 

[Lormar]

The funniest part is that we’re halfway to my next birthday.** One of my brothers proposed that we put my birthday up there with Ordinary Time on the liturgical calendar.**

What a grand idea!

 

[JReducation]

What a grand idea!

Don’t even think about it. :tsktsk:

I’m having enough problems with these men already. I try to be anonymous and they keep switching on the light.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Don’t even think about it. :tsktsk:

I’m having enough problems with these men already. I try to be anonymous and they keep switching on the light.

No but we can start a “Happy Half Birthday to Br JR” thread. :cake::getholy:

 

[Pat_the_elder]

The key is not how, but what. What does one’s prayer say. Does it speak truth?

A lot of the time my prayer(s) are, apart from the Sign of the Cross, the Our Father and the Hail Mary ( All truths), consist of lots of requests. Maybe I do too much asking and not enough praising (is that what you mean by ‘truths’ Bro Jay?)

 

[JReducation]

The key is not how, but what. What does one’s prayer say. Does it speak truth?

A lot of the time my prayer(s) are, apart from the Sign of the Cross, the Our Father and the Hail Mary ( All truths), consist of lots of requests. Maybe I do too much asking and not enough praising (is that what you mean by ‘truths’ Bro Jay?)

Yes, if your prayer reflects truth, then how you do it is not as important. For example, I can be very meditative and quiet during prayer and then pray to God that he may turn my wife into a pig, it ain’t gonna’ happen, because it’s not truth.

 

[Dee_S]

That’s a good question. I’m not sure how well I can answer it from my limited experience. I’ll tell you what is encouraged. First Friday and Saturday devotions, devotions to the Immaculate and Sacred Hearts, daily rosary, compline, vespers, Holy Hour of Reparation, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Devotions, the scapular…those are just a few that come to mind. I’ve never experienced a devotion or spiritual practice being discouraged. **The only exception I can think of are the newer Luminous Mysteries. They would never, ever be prayed. **

Maybe someone else who has been an SSPX attendee or who knows about it has more to say about any discouraged spiritual practices.

You took the words right out of my mouth…:sad_yes:…and this I can remember going back very many years when the Holy Father first promoted this very beautiful & worthy addition to the Rosary.

The five Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary
**THE BAPTISM OF THE LORD
****THE WEDDING OF CANA
****THE PROCLAMATION OF THE KINGDOM
****THE TRANSFIGURATION
**THE INSTITUTION OF THE EUCHARIST
“The purpose of the Rosary is to help keep in memory certain principal events or mysteries in the history of our salvation, and to thank and praise God for them. There are twenty mysteries reflected upon in the Rosary, and these are divided into the five JOYFUL MYSTERIES, the five LUMINOUS MYSTERIES, the five SORROWFUL MYSTERIES, and the five GLORIOUS MYSTERIES.”
rosary-center.org/luminous.htm

The SSPX really has no cause to gripe here, but they still find a way to do so, as these extracts from a long article on their website show:

** “A Vatican II appropriation
** Firstly, we are more than surprised by the affirmation that "the rosary is, in some sense, a prayer-commentary on the final chapter of the Vatican II Constitution Lumen Gentium*,*** a chapter which discusses the wondrous presence of the Mother of God in the mystery of Christ” (§2),** for it is well-known that this chapter is in fact the result of a sustained attack against the privileges of the Virgin Mary,** in particular against her title of Mediatrix"

“Another difficulty is found in the presentation of one of the prayer intentions proposed by the pope. It is true that “the rosary has many times been proposed by my predecessors and myself as a prayer for peace.” ** But, with all due respect to the pope’s words, this presentation is simplistic**. If one considers in fact the history and development of the rosary, it becomes immediately evident that this marvelous prayer is linked to the Church’s combat against all her enemies.”

“Let us conclude by recognizing what is evident, that the Christian soul cannot but profit from meditating on all the actions of Our Lord, and that the wedding feast at Cana or the institution of the Blessed Sacrament plunge the soul into the marvels of divine charity.** Nonetheless, they could have been included in the new chaplet of John Paul II instead of upsetting tradition.”**

** Conclusion
** Here we find the fundamental novelty of the Council: Divine revelation is no longer the revelation to man of the supernatural mystery of God, but “by revealing the Father and by being revealed by him, the Christ ultimately reveals man to himself.”[8]** In conclusion, it seems that we can state that this novelty fits the pattern of preceding reforms: integrate elements of the Church’s tradition into the new thinking of Vatican II. While wanting to honor the Virgin Mary and restore the rosary to its place of honor, the pope tends to give it a new twist and a different spirit than the one Tradition has bequeathed to us.** Still, and precisely in order to try to maintain this prayer in the place and form in which it has come down to us from antiquity, we welcome the Year of the rosary that the pope has given to Christendom, and throughout the year we shall study all the Church documents and teaching which show its richness, grandeur, virtue, power, and beauty. We place this initiative under the patronage of the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary.

Translated from the SSPX’s international news bulletin, DICI, #63, October 26, 2002
sspx.org/miscellaneous/luminous_mysteries_of_rosary.htm

They certainly appear to ignore their Moderator…

Conditions resulting from the 4 june 2008 meeting between Dario Card. Castrillon Hoyos and Bishop Bernard Fellay:

1. 
   *]A commitment to a proportioned response to the generosity of the Pope.
   *]A commitment to avoid any public speech which does not respect the person of the Holy Father and which can be negative for ecclesial charity.
   *]A commitment to avoid the pretense of a Magisterium superior to the Holy Father and to not put forward the Fraternity [SSPX] in opposition to the Church.
   *]A commitment to demonstrate the will to behave honestly in full ecclesial charity and in respect to the authority of the Vicar of Christ.
   *]A commitment to respect the date – fixed at the end of the month of June – to respond positively. This will be a required and necessary condition for the immediate preparation for adhesion to have full communion.

 

[Dee_S]

I’ll go ahead and assume you are apologizing to me too…

No problem, I understand that you have some heavy feelings on this matter and an experience that none of us could understand. So, this probably makes it an emotional thing for you. But some language offends.

:console:Hi Moore11, nice to see you again, and yes I most certainly am apologizing to you and any others here who found what I said or say offensive. Please bear in mind that (for the most part, bar the impulses of our imperfect natures) I do not intend to hurt or be deliberately obnoxious.

The actual problem, as I see it, is not any of us on these threads, it is really the subject itself that is problematic and none of us are professional, trained diplomats like those in the Church (Archbishop Mueller, Cardinal de Noia, etc.) who are very careful how they phrase their views and criticisms.

It’s not only that it’s an emotional thing for me…it is also that there are very real issues at stake and perhaps only people who have “been there, and done that” and have come out of it relatively unscathed, that are able to comprehend at more than an intellectual level, the realities of adhering and buying in to such an organization.

 

[Julia_Mae]

This takes me back to one of the issues that the SSPX has with Pope Benedict. The Society seems to be caught in a time warp. Pope Paul described this very well when he wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre. He spoke of the danger of equating tradition with time. The use of the term “before” is overdone in the teaching of the SSPX.

I know that Saint Pope Gregory I reformed the liturgy and it was quite a big deal and that we get Gregorian Chant from him. This was in the late 6th century. I’m wondering how often Liturgy has been changed since then?

I thought people might also find this article interesting: When did we start celebrating Mass in Latin? Here’s an excerpt:

The first language of Christian liturgy was Aramaic, the common language of the first Christians, who were Palestinian Jews. While Hebrew was the language of scripture and formal worship, Christian worship occurred in the home where Aramaic was spoken. The words Abba and maranatha are Aramaic.

Christianity quickly spread from Palestine to the rest of the world, and the Eucharist came to be celebrated in many languages, including Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian. In most of the Mediterranean world, the common language was Greek, which became the language of liturgy in that region and remained so until the early third century.

Eucharist itself is a Greek word, meaning thanksgiving. The phrase Kyrie eleison and the words liturgy, baptism, evangelize, martyr, and catechumen, among other familiar church words, are also Greek in origin.

From around the third century B.C., what we call “classical” Latin was the language of the Roman aristocracy and the educated classes. Around the time Jesus was born, during the reign of Augustus Caesar, the language began to change. The Roman aristocracy was destroyed by war and political infighting; when they disappeared, their language went with them. Classical Latin was replaced by a less refined version of the language.

In the third and fourth centuries A.D. this form of Latin began to replace Greek as the common language of the Roman world and soon became the language of the liturgy.

While I understand what not equating time with tradition means, and while I understand that Latin was the common language for rather a long time, the Latin Liturgy was in place and - codified" - I guess, anyway, official since that 6th century reformation when the First Eucharistic prayer appeared in Latin and is still the same, according to the article.

So, 1400 years is a pretty long time to not equate something with tradition. But even older is the tradition of celebrating in the common language, which is how we started. Christianity probably would have had a very hard time spreading if we insisted on an Aramaic Mass in the rest of the world in the 1st century.

So I have two questions really: how often is the Liturgy changed since Saint Gregory and wasn’t Latin in the vulgar form spoken all over he Empire and when did common people become unable to speak it? That is: why did it take so long to change from Latin to vernacular? After all, we started using Latin because it was vernacular?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The other thing is that anyone following the 1962 Missal is not celebrating the memorials for any Saints declared since then including Katherine Drexel, Josephina Bakhita, Maximillan Kolbe, Rose Duchesne, Claude de la Colombière, Teresa de Jesús de los Andes, Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein), Maria Faustina, Josemaría Escrivá, Padre Pio, Gianna Beretta Molla, Damien Joseph de Veuster, Jeanne Jugan, Hildegard von Bingen. Those are just some of the more well known and among my favorites. There are many more including huge numbers of martyrs.

The world did not stand still after the close of VII. People struggle for the faith still.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The other thing is that anyone following the 1962 Missal is not celebrating the memorials for any Saints declared since then including Katherine Drexel, Josephina Bakhita, Maximillan Kolbe, Rose Duchesne, Claude de la Colombière, Teresa de Jesús de los Andes, Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein), Maria Faustina, Josemaría Escrivá, Padre Pio, Gianna Beretta Molla, Damien Joseph de Veuster, Jeanne Jugan, Hildegard von Bingen. Those are just some of the more well known and among my favorites. There are many more including huge numbers of martyrs.

The world did not stand still after the close of VII. People struggle for the faith still.

Maybe that’s why they don’t pray the Divine Mercy chaplet.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Maybe that’s why they don’t pray the Divine Mercy chaplet.

Good catch! Very likely so - along with the “problematic” date for the celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday.

 

[JReducation]

None of this is that surprising. The danger in their movement is the same that one finds in left wing movements. Instead of promoting the faith, they spend a great deal of time and energy over analyzing any good that the Church does. The result, when one does this is that one ends up speaking as if one had the authority to a) define what is and is not tradition, which no one has except the pope; b) one ends up making public comments about the Church that draw negative attention her, as if we needed help from the SSPX; c) one ends up in a camp of resistance rather than a camp of evangelization.

I believe that for this reason the SSPX has been told by Pope Paul VI, John Paul II and now by Archbishop DiNoia that its job is to clean its own house and let the Vatican fix what’s broken in the Church. We acknowledge that there are many things that are broken, but it’s not the role of the SSPX to fix them. Right now, the SSPX is broken.

Why is it broken? Instead of embracing something as simple and as beautiful as the Luminous Mysteries, they spent a great deal of time criticizing, making theological statements that have no validity (I’ll explain in a moment), and saying how much they respect the pope whom they believe is wrong on everything except the time of day. Doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to respect. It’s double talk. “I respect you, but I don’t trust you and I know that you’re wrong on everything you think and say, so I won’t cooperate with you or even make an effort to see what you see.” If my child said that to me, I’d ask him to find a new address.

I promised to get back to the statements that have no validity. The claim of the Rosary as part of Tradition is incorrect. The Rosary is not part of Tradition. It is a tradition. They’re not the same. The mysteries on which we meditate are part of Tradition, so are the mysteries in the Luminous series.

In addition, there was a reason for the way that the Dominicans organized the Rosary and it had nothing to do with Tradition. It was a very practical one. Ask any Dominican. There was already a version of the Rosary in the Eastern Churches long before St. Dominic was ever born. The Rosary came into full force in the Latin Church long after St. Dominic was dead. He never heard of it. It’s not that kind of tradition with an upper case T. Tradition with an upper case T is that which has been part of the faith of the Church and recognized as part of the public life of the Church. The Rosary has never been given this recognition. Even though it’s prayed in public, it remains a private devotion. It is incorrect to claim that it cannot be touched, because it’s part of tradition.

If one wants to argue that we should not touch it, because the custom is so old that it would be upsetting to many people if we touched it, that is worth discussing. But to throw Tradition on the table and to claim that it has been handed down to us as an untouchable form of prayer is just not true. In fact, it has been revised and reformatted over 100 times. It went from being a simple way to say the Psalter, to what it is today.

These changes over the centuries take nothing away from the spiritual life of the faithful. On the contrary, they enrich our lives, if we stop kicking and screaming.

 

[jwinch2]

Why is it broken? Instead of embracing something as simple and as beautiful as the Luminous Mysteries, they spent a great deal of time criticizing, making theological statements that have no validity (I’ll explain in a moment), and saying how much they respect the pope whom they believe is wrong on everything except the time of day. Doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to respect. It’s double talk. “I respect you, but I don’t trust you and I know that you’re wrong on everything you think and say, so I won’t cooperate with you or even make an effort to see what you see.” If my child said that to me, I’d ask him to find a new address.

I promised to get back to the statements that have no validity. The claim of the Rosary as part of Tradition is incorrect. The Rosary is not part of Tradition. It is a tradition. They’re not the same. The mysteries on which we meditate are part of Tradition, so are the mysteries in the Luminous series.

In addition, there was a reason for the way that the Dominicans organized the Rosary and it had nothing to do with Tradition. It was a very practical one. Ask any Dominican. There was already a version of the Rosary in the Eastern Churches long before St. Dominic was ever born. The Rosary came into full force in the Latin Church long after St. Dominic was dead. He never heard of it. It’s not that kind of tradition with an upper case T. Tradition with an upper case T is that which has been part of the faith of the Church and recognized as part of the public life of the Church. The Rosary has never been given this recognition. Even though it’s prayed in public, it remains a private devotion. It is incorrect to claim that it cannot be touched, because it’s part of tradition.

If one wants to argue that we should not touch it, because the custom is so old that it would be upsetting to many people if we touched it, that is worth discussing. But to throw Tradition on the table and to claim that it has been handed down to us as an untouchable form of prayer is just not true. In fact, it has been revised and reformatted over 100 times. It went from being a simple way to say the Psalter, to what it is today.

Very interesting, thank you. I knew they had some concerns with the Rosary, but I had never heard them articulated.

By using the “tradition” argument, as you described their position regarding the Rosary, I suppose we should all still be praying the Psalms in numerical order rather, than splitting them up into various hours based upon day of the week, etc. like the early Church did. Yet, they seem quite happy with the Divine Office the way it was 50 years ago. It would be fair to ask, in my opinion, why those changes were OK, but the Pope could not get away with adding new mysteries to the Rosary.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Why is it broken? Instead of embracing something as simple and as beautiful as the Luminous Mysteries, they spent a great deal of time criticizing, making theological statements that have no validity (I’ll explain in a moment), and saying how much they respect the pope whom they believe is wrong on everything except the time of day. Doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to respect. It’s double talk. “I respect you, but I don’t trust you and I know that you’re wrong on everything you think and say, so I won’t cooperate with you or even make an effort to see what you see.” If my child said that to me, I’d ask him to find a new address.

Well to be fair, the Orthodox themselves mistrust the Papacy. The non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians… well they think such a thing as a Bishop does not even exist. Yet, we are more friendly with them and willing to compromise much for the sake of unity, yes?

Could one argue that there is a double standard at work? Why can’t we recognize the immense common ground we share with the SSPX and the fact that they have preserved some great traditions that we (at least the Catholic Church of the Western globe) has forgotten?

 

[Dee_S]

Good catch! Very likely so - along with the “problematic” date for the celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday.

I’d forgotten that, what you say is true.

This caught my interest, as a blogger remarked that the Divine Mercy feast of 15 April was given as a deadline for a response from the SSPX to Rome in 2012

"According to pius.info the German FSSPX district website, the “Kanzelverkündiging” below was read in all churches and chapels of the district. To one observer who wrote to me, “it looks like the are preparing the FSSPX-faithfull for a positive response on the latest step in the dialogue with the Vatican, i.e. viewing a positive response as something which is good for (the orthodox forces in) the whole Church (and it is not about the Society).”

As Fr. Schmidberger (District Superior of the SSPX in Germany) puts it, it looks like the 15 April deadline seems to be official (i.e. included in the letter of Cardinal Levada itself and is felt by the FSSPX as an ultimatum/final deadline).

From the German of the “Kanzelverkündiging:Cancel Preaching: Conversations with Rome
Sunday, 25 March 2012
Cancel preaching to all churches and chapels of the German District of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.

Dear faithful,
On 16 March in Rome Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation, gave the Superior General of our Fraternity, Bishop Fellay a letter with statements in which we are asked ultimately to react more positively to the doctrinal preamble of September the 14th then we had done so far.
As a final deadline for a response is given the 15th of April 2012. Surely you have heard this already wholly or partialy from the media. We are have thus arrived at a crucial point.

Even if the letter strikes an unpleasant sound, there are legitimate hopes for a satisfactory solution. If this solution would be reached it would considerably strengthen all the orthodox forces in the church. If not it would weaken and discourage these forces. So it is not primarily about our brotherhood, but for the good of the Church.

Therefore we ask for the eager, insistent and imploring prayer of all our faithful and all Catholics, that God through the redemptive suffering of His only begotten Son, will lead His Church through this crisis and give her in the Holy Resurrection of Jesus life new strength and new prosperity.
Stuttgart, 22 March 2012
Father Franz Schmidberger, District Superior
wdtprs.com/blog/2012/03/sspx-preparing-for-a-positive-response-to-the-holy-sees-last-letter/

 

[pnewton]

Well, the term ‘Holy Ghost’ has one value for me: it’s now a unique, Catholic term for the Holy Spirit. It won’t be confused with the ‘Spirit’ that pentecostalists seem to have on tap.

It is not unique to Catholics. It is used in the KJV which makes it a popular term among fundamentalists.

 

[Dee_S]

I believe that for this reason the SSPX has been told by Pope Paul VI, John Paul II and now by Archbishop DiNoia that its job is to clean its own house and let the Vatican fix what’s broken in the Church. We acknowledge that there are many things that are broken, but it’s not the role of the SSPX to fix them. Right now, the SSPX is broken.

Why is it broken? Instead of embracing something as simple and as beautiful as the Luminous Mysteries, they spent a great deal of time criticizing, making theological statements that have no validity (I’ll explain in a moment), and saying how much they respect the pope whom they believe is wrong on everything except the time of day. Doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to respect. It’s double talk. “I respect you, but I don’t trust you and I know that you’re wrong on everything you think and say, so I won’t cooperate with you or even make an effort to see what you see.” If my child said that to me, I’d ask him to find a new address.

I promised to get back to the statements that have no validity. The claim of the Rosary as part of Tradition is incorrect. The Rosary is not part of Tradition. It is a tradition. They’re not the same. The mysteries on which we meditate are part of Tradition, so are the mysteries in the Luminous series.

In addition, there was a reason for the way that the Dominicans organized the Rosary and it had nothing to do with Tradition. It was a very practical one. Ask any Dominican. There was already a version of the Rosary in the Eastern Churches long before St. Dominic was ever born. The Rosary came into full force in the Latin Church long after St. Dominic was dead. He never heard of it. It’s not that kind of tradition with an upper case T. Tradition with an upper case T is that which has been part of the faith of the Church and recognized as part of the public life of the Church. The Rosary has never been given this recognition. Even though it’s prayed in public, it remains a private devotion. It is incorrect to claim that it cannot be touched, because it’s part of tradition.

These changes over the centuries take nothing away from the spiritual life of the faithful. On the contrary, they enrich our lives, if we stop kicking and screaming.

:thankyou:Br JR. Your entire post was a most enriching read:tiphat:

As a parent, your point above really makes sense. One has to lead by example.

I have been giving much thought to why I post here, and realised firstly, that thanks to your efforts & (name removed by moderator)ut and that of others here, I am able to see things from a broader perspective and that supplies the balance.

Secondly, that for the 14 years I was ‘in’ the SSPX, there was very little information available e.g. no internet at that time; and one relied mostly on the prolific traditional publications for (name removed by moderator)ut, which needless to say were heavily slanted and supported the justification of their position.

Possibly why most of my posts tend to the copy/paste of facts and news, is possibly that which I wish I could have seen myself during those years. We were not remotely aware of the crucial encycical Ecclesia Dei of Pope John Paul II, in response to the unlawful consecrations of the four bishops which informs, warns and appeals to Catholics not to support them in any way.

I recall from the SSPX communique to Rome thread a poster saying that Bishop Fellay had forbidden ‘the faithful’ to go on CAF. I can quite believe that. Does anyone else know of this prohibition?

 

[pnewton]

I recall from the SSPX communique to Rome thread a poster saying that Bishop Fellay had forbidden ‘the faithful’ to go on CAF. I can quite believe that. Does anyone else know of this prohibition?

That would be strange, and rather pointless, as he has not function within the Catholic Church to forbid any Catholic from doing anthing. That “no role” bit makes even statements to Catholics meaningless.

 

[GloriaMaria]

I recall from the SSPX communique to Rome thread a poster saying that Bishop Fellay had forbidden ‘the faithful’ to go on CAF. I can quite believe that. Does anyone else know of this prohibition?

I had never heard that. However, I can say that CAF was widely ridiculed in the online “SSPX” crowd. So much so that it would be a badge of honour to have never clicked over to CAF. It took me about 7 years to even look in, and when I did, I started reading BrotherJR. What struck me first after being used to the “trad” forums elsewhere was the incredible and true charity of his posting.

Then, secondly, there was and is the education.