SSPX Update - Redux

[pnewton]

I didn’t say you questioned facts, pnewton.

Then before this thread is closed, care to explain your accusation and use of the word “liar”? In American, the word means “one who knowingly says something contrary to the truth.” Thus, I would think questioning facts would be implicit in using such a word.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This story was your response to: where is the crisis in the Church?

Phoenix is not the whole Church. What was the follow-up to this incident, presuming it was reported accurately? It’s 15 years later, how are things in Phoenix?

Do you think if this sort of incident was common throughout the Church that we might hear of it?

Th a e argument against the “Church in crisis” is that there are always isolated incidents of one sort or another. The difference is, nowadays, the internet is scoured for these stories, which a gossipy element in the laity seem always too happy to report, and gathered together as if there is one great mass of liturgical horror all around the world.

There is not.

We laypeople are not bishops or cardinals or popes. We parents, however, are by Canon Law the Primary educators of our children. We are bound under pain of mortal sin to do our best for their spiritual and material well-being. That is elementary. That bishop was never rebuked or corrected by the hierarchy. I did not scour the internet for this story; it involved some of my dearest friends. I was making the point that there are cases of real emergency rampant for decades on end at present. Can anybody say, hand on heart, that this would have been allowed to go on for so much as 24 hours before 1960?

 

[Julia_Mae]

** pnewton**, if I am not mistaken, I detect in your posting an imputation of motives to Bp Fellay to which I do not subscribe. He is either a liar or is relating what has happened.

**Again, let me say, that couching an argument in extremes, as if “either…or” really are the only two choices, is false to fact and misleading. **

This is like a family fight and each side has a view of what happened and interprets events and actions in a certain way. No one has to be lying for people to disagree. The difference is, one thinks the issue should be kept in the family and the other is running all over the neighborhood trying to enlist the neighbors on their side.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You can post what you want, but at the end of the day, if the Pope says that Canon Law does not apply then it doesn’t apply. If he says that the crisis in the Church does not warrant the actions you want to take, it does not warrant the actions you want to take. If he says you have no faculties, you have no faculties. This is the case if you are traditional, modernist, liberal, man, woman, small rodents, inanimate carbon rod. It doesn’t matter.

He has the keys, and the power to bind on Earth as it is in Heaven,…

The SSPX, and self-styled traditionalists can speak until their ears turn blue. But the proof is in the pudding; stop paying lip service and come all the way home. Get out of the shoe foyer and enter the living room. Stop saying you respect the Pope on one hand, then turn around and slam him, the Form he celebrates, the Catechism he helped put together, saying invalid confession, performing illicit ordinations. I’d even say stop looking at everyone like they are the enemy. Running off and saying that anyone who disagrees with you (such as liking the Mass in the vernacular or receiving Communion in the Hand) is a modernist doesn’t help matters. Threatening to call someone’s Bishop because you don’t like how they said things and because they’re making it difficult to have free reign to bash Vatican II, the Ordinary Form, and our current Pope doesn’t help either.

It’s the same thing for the SSPX as it is with modernists groups; come home and listen to the man who has the keys.

There ya go.

 

[pnewton]

That bishop was never rebuked or corrected by the hierarchy.

This is not something knowable. The Holy Father does not keelhaul bishops in the view of all, nor is he all-knowing. To assume neglect on the part of the Vatican for lack of a public chewing out ignores more logical alternatives.

 

[Moore11]

Moore11, I assume you have no children. I remember well, 30 years ago, when (in the context of the rampant abuses in our parish and everywhere else) I pointed to the ceiling and said to my dear young wife, “The Future is not an abstraction! The Future is upstairs crying in her cot!”
Justice deferred is justice denied.

Of course I have children! I am Catholic and it isn’t like I live in Europe or anything.
4 Kids, 7, 5, 3, 1 month. I am a stay at home, homeschooling dad.
The future my friend is sitting next to me in the pew, sucking his thumb.

 

[numealinesimpet]

**Again, let me say, that couching an argument in extremes, as if “either…or” really are the only two choices, is false to fact and misleading. **

This is like a family fight and each side has a view of what happened and interprets events and actions in a certain way. No one has to be lying for people to disagree. The difference is, one thinks the issue should be kept in the family and the other is running all over the neighborhood trying to enlist the neighbors on their side.

Bp Fellay has made definite statements here which will be very surprising to some. To repeat, either he is telling the truth or he is not. It is not a question of viewpoints. If I say that a car drove into my front garden, either it did or it didn’t. There is no family argument here. If Bp Fellay attributes these statements to a Cardinal, either the Cardinal really said that or he didn’t. If Bp Fellay is telling the truth, we need to mark what he says. I am passing these things on only to encourage a wider appreciation of the real situation, which is (I beieve) as Bp Fellay depicts is - because I don’t believe he is lying.

 

[jwinch2]

I think the last thing you said was key. It is real to them. The statement was made that this emergency is objective(Post 600*), * as it would need to be to justify such extreme measures.

As I noted earlier, if a fire breaks out in my house but no one declares a state of emergency, it is still an emergency to me based upon objective, not subjective criteria, and all of the legalese and feigning that no emergency really exists, does not make it so.

No one’s concerns or needs should be dismissed. However, it is fair to call into question actions made against the authority of the Church based on those concerns.

I do not support or condone the actions of the SSPX. However, I am more likely be understanding (not in agreement) with those who in this day and age leave to join them, then I am of those who originally started them.

Here’s how it happens:
We have people, trying to be good and faithful Catholics, they go to Mass, adoration, tithe their income, help out around the parish, participate in works of mercy, etc. However, they also see things around them which are not right. They see that their parish doesn’t celebrate the Mass according to the documents of Vatican II and neither does any other parish around them. They see modernists in charge of their liturgy, adult catechesis, religious ed. in the Catholic school, etc.

For several years they try to speak to their pastor, etc. about the problem, only to be told repeatedly that there really is no problem, it is all in their imagination. They get involved in their parish, try to help with catechesis, etc. only to find out that they are one voice among many and they are more often than not, drowned out.

After several years of this something crops up which affects their family directly such as getting told that they cannot teach their kids religious ed themselves, but that their children have to go through the parish’s formation program or that they cannot receive the sacraments. Unfortunately, they know that some of what is being taught is objectively wrong and that the DRE openly dissents from the Church on some teachings. Now, they have a choice to make. 1) allow their kids to be taught improper information regarding the faith; or 2) move to a place where things are properly done.

If they move to a place where there is a good diocesan parish, it might not be good in 10 years. Priests get moved around all the time, and so do Bishops. So, where can they go where that isn’t going to happen?

Now, in case someone gets the wrong idea, I am actually working with a friend of mine right now who has some members of his family that have left and joined the SSPX. We are trying to convince them to look to a place where there is a group such as the FSSP so that they can be under the umbrella of Rome, but still have their spiritual needs met. In short, we are trying to help to get them back into the fold of the Church.

So please understand that I am not in anyway supportive of disobedience to Rome. That is the wrong thing to do. However, we also have to understand that there are reasons, often serious ones, which push people in that direction. If we do not address those reasons and, as we can see here on CAF and elsewhere, demonize those who express them, then we are part of the problem.

I also believe we need to consider that there are multiple levels in which this issue has manifested. Some seem to be focusing on the level of the entire Church, which is fine and important. However, we also need to recognize that there are real people, with real souls, and real concerns who sincerely believe, often for good reasons, that there are indeed problems. The Holy Father himself has indicated that there are problems with catechesis. The Holy See has indicated that there are problems with how the Mass is celebrated in many places. Trying to pull a Jedi Mind Trick on people and tell them there is no crisis, when they can see it right in front of their faces, does no one any good.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Of course I have children! I am Catholic and it isn’t like I live in Europe or anything.
4 Kids, 7, 5, 3, 1 month. I am a stay at home, homeschooling dad.

Good man, like myself, 20 years ago. My personal advice is: don’t go this far and then let the bishop control your family, when it is you yourself will have to answer for them at the judgment. He has not absolute authority over your family: you do, subject to the Commandments. We are not under a Vow of Obedience to the bishop. There is a very deep reason why Vows of Obedience (except to one’s spouse) are reserved to the celibate. If we are misled, we have already Offered up our Will. If we are celibate, our superior will answer for it, and the matter will end there. But a Father has no excuse for abrogating his God-given right to make judgments. His progeny, and their descendants, might still be on the Earth on the Last Day. Will they still have the Faith? What can I, as a father, best do to make this the most likely outcome?
I hope I am not offending: You are bearing the Heat of the day. God bless your efforts. I have been there and done that.

 

[pnewton]

I agree. I also think it’s beyond shocking that he thinks he should “make a case” to the public as if we are able to sit as judges and jurors over what he has chosen to present.

I want to clarify something, less I get accused of imputing motives (again). When someone reasons backwards from a position he wishes to arrive at, he does not always do so consciously, though he might. A wide receiver who foot barely falls out of bounds may jump up and scream that he was in bounds, lying to make his point, or his perceptive may based on his desire to be in bounds and he honestly thinks he was. This is why refs are impartial (in theory) and science is blind (in theory).

 

[Julia_Mae]

Bro JR, my problem with that is the practical one that I have a large family to raise in the Faith. I frankly do not care too much who helps me, so long as they can be shown to be true to the Faith. As soon as our diocese begins to come anywhere near what the SSPX are achieving in that direction, I will be delighted. As they still are not doing so, I see no point in blaming the SSPX for their emergency work : indeed I am eternally grateful to them.

The SSPX are teaching you and your children to disrespect authority, stand in judgment of your superiors and take matters into your own hands when you think your judgement should replace that of those God placed in charge.

Is that what you want your children to learn? Because regardless of what Dogmas are presented to them, this is what they are learning.

You have a Catechism that the Church has provided so that you can look up all sorts of issues with your children and learn the true Faith. You have a computer where you can see what your Pope, speaking to you now in this time wants you to know.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Then before this thread is closed, care to explain your accusation and use of the word “liar”? In American, the word means “one who knowingly says something contrary to the truth.” Thus, I would think questioning facts would be implicit in using such a word.

Bp Fellay made very definite statements that he claimed were made to himself. Either these statements were really made, or they were not. If they were not, then Bp Fellay must be a liar. It is not very difficult. I do not believe he is, and I never said anybody else said this, But if anybody else, at some future date, rejects Bp Fellay’s statement, then they must ipso facto be calling him a liar. I don’t remember making any accusations.

 

[pnewton]

If Bp Fellay attributes these statements to a Cardinal, either the Cardinal really said that or he didn’t. … because I don’t believe he is lying.

No one has said he is lying. (again) However, there are three other possibilities other than “he did or didn’t”. One is that what was said may have been heard differently by Bp. Fellay that what was said. (married people get this). Another is that the reporter may have heard differently than what was said (ditto). The third is that the reporter is deliberately reporting what he knows to be, let’s say, modified. (I consider this unlikely).

 

[pnewton]

As I noted earlier, if a fire breaks out in my house but no one declares a state of emergency, it is still an emergency to me based upon objective, not subjective criteria, and all of the legalese and feigning that no emergency really exists, does not make it so.

That is true for fire as well as many other emergencies. No one said an emergency can not be objective when you have physical evidence, house burning, bone sticking out of arm, etc.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae
This story was your response to: where is the crisis in the Church?

And you know this, how? Do you think everyone is like Fellay, publishing every message from Rome? .

I was making the point that there are cases of real emergency rampant for decades on end at present.

Then you didn’t make your point or don’t know the meaning of the word rampant or some other thing happened. And, even if what was reported were completely true to fact, this hardly justifies the SSPX rebellion against Papal authority which began in 1976.

 

[numealinesimpet]

The SSPX are teaching you and your children to disrespect authority, stand in judgment of your superiors and take matters into your own hands when you think your judgement should replace that of those God placed in charge.

Is that what you want your children to learn? Because regardless of what Dogmas are presented to them, this is what they are learning.

You have a Catechism that the Church has provided so that you can look up all sorts of issues with your children and learn the true Faith. You have a computer where you can see what your Pope, speaking to you now in this time wants you to know.

With respect, if you could see what they are teaching them (and not teaching them) here in schools designated as Catholic, I do not think you would maintain that position. If it is better where you are, I am very pleased. We do not disrespect authority, but we follow Catholic teaching about where it reaches. As you say, the documents of the Church, from the 1st to the 20th centuries, are available to us all at the click of a mouse. It is no longer difficult to see where many recent statements contradict all the previous teachings.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This is not Scriptural, nor is it Traditional. The Pope is the Chief Judge of Canon Law. By the nature of his “office”, he can decide which laws apply and which ones do not. He is a one-man Supreme Court.

It’s the Catholic faith.

When he says all the SSPX are suspended, they lose their faculties.

it is not an abuse of authority when others excommunicate themselves for breaking Canon Law, nor is it an abuse of authority to suspend a society who shows no regard to lawful and just authority.

Of course he had the right to present a case, which he did. What he did not have the right to do was to tell the judge “you’re wrong, I am doing this anyway”. This would not fly with the Supreme Court, and surely would not fly with the Pope.

And a part of said faith is to be subject to the authority of the Pope.

Modern documents shed new light onto existing doctrine. It’s like presenting water as liquid instead of ice.

All the modernist hippies use Macs, didn’t you know that?

Guess what? This very well may have happened anyway, or could have been worse. Two world wars and a sexual revolution sort of impacts a generation of folks.

I’ll give a proper response later … but I admit I’ve never been a Modernist Hippie…

 

[Melchior_1]

With respect, if you could see what they are teaching them (and not teaching them) here in schools designated as Catholic, I do not think you would maintain that position. If it is better where you are, I am very pleased. We do not disrespect authority, but we follow Catholic teaching about where it reaches. As you say, the documents of the Church, from the 1st to the 20th centuries, are available to us all at the click of a mouse. It is no longer difficult to see where many recent statements contradict all the previous teachings.

So to counter the school that disobeys and refuses the authority of the Pope, you will let them be taught by…a group that disobeys and refuses the authority of the Pope?

 

[Julia_Mae]

I want to clarify something, less I get accused of imputing motives (again). When someone reasons backwards from a position he wishes to arrive at, he does not always do so consciously, though he might. A wide receiver who foot barely falls out of bounds may jump up and scream that he was in bounds, lying to make his point, or his perceptive may based on his desire to be in bounds and he honestly thinks he was. This is why refs are impartial (in theory) and science is blind (in theory).

I agree. It’s why I used the analogy about the family fight, no one is lying, people are experiencing reality differently.

That’s why in courts we have closing arguments using the same evidence that don’t come to the same conclusions. I was just saying none of us are qualified jurors and should not be placed in such a position.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’ll give a proper response later … but I admit I’ve never been a Modernist Hippie…

I await your response. Good thing I have Scriptural and Magisterial support for my position, and Church history and Tradition. You know, considering I have the traditional viewpoint on this issue.

Except for the Mac thing. 'Fraid no one can help you with your Fisher Price “My First Computer”…er, iMac.