SSPX Update - Redux

[numealinesimpet]

I have no idea what the arrangement the SSPX has with its benefactors, nor is it any of my business, so I won’t ask. We’re living in a world where people feel entitled to ask for information to which they have no right. Having said that, I would say that if it’s possible for Bishop Fellay to say less to his benefactors, it would be the prudent way to go right now.

Sometimes, benefactors place conditions on their gifts. My policy has always been to accept donations only from those who go no further than to ask for receipts of how the donation was spent. Any request for information about what happens in-house is not going to be shared. If that’s the condition for the gift, then we’re sorry, but we cannot accept the gift. It’s not a matter of having something to hide. It’s a matter of being practical. Sometimes, the more you share the greater the number of people involved in a situation. That makes for chaos.

If I may say so, Bro. JR, you are nobody’s fool. I have reservations about the rest of your posting, but will reserve them for now.

 

[numealinesimpet]

In defense of our differences, some of it may be attributable to our own experiences. The only time I have ever seen a Sunday Mass less than, say half empty is early morning or a downtown cathedral. I have seen many standing room only. Our school here is first rate and our priest the right mix of contemporary Catholicism and traditionalism.

Yes, pnewton, I think you are right. And I envy your situation. (Not that it’s totally hopeless here … but I don’t know of anywhere here at all that answers to your description)…GKChesterton always said that, when the revival of Western Civilisation finally came it would be from America. Always the first to rush energetically into a mistake, they are still the first to say “Hey! that was wrong! So we’ll fix it!”
The Irish are too proud - despite a habit of ritual self-denigration. Ten - twenty years ago we were still preening ourselves as ‘the Land of Saints and Scholars’ and blaming ‘a nearby nation’ for everything even as the children were being defrauded of their Catholic formation in the schools for which we had fought and bled for so long, and as the country was being handed over to the EU with enthusiastic support from the more gullible of the population. The revelations about clerical abuse (most enthusiastically hyped to the hilt by the Anti-God Establishment, which Belloc wrote will always find its way to the top of a Catholic country) have been unbearably painful. The miracle, in my mind, is how many still hold to the Faith. Long may your parish, school and priest prosper.

 

[PaulinVA]

As I was saying, I personally now believe it is a mistake to introduce these more popular songs and musical instruments into the Mass, although that has not stopped me from organising such things in school when it has been my professional duty…

Nice hymns.

I prefer organ or keyboard accompaniment now. I think that my wife and I associate guitars and drums with our high school and college years, and it’s time to move on. I don’t think that organs are more holy than guitars, but the perception of laxity in liturgy associated with “folk” Masses versus more complete liturgy in organ-accompanied Masses is something I do indeed carry over from the seventies.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae
The SSPX are teaching you and your children to disrespect authority,

Yes, numealinesimpet,

In speaking about the Pontiff and the law one must keep in mind some very important theological and practical points.

1. The Law Giver is Christ, not the pope.
2. Christ places the law in the heart of the pope (St. Boniface V).
3. All Church law comes from the heart of Peter, placed there by Christ.
4. Other than Christ, no one else has the authority to interpret law, to apply law, to dispense with law, to bypass law or to abrogate law except Peter.

There is no contradiction when Peter says, “The law does not apply to you.” He has the authority to do so. This is what St. Boniface made very clear during his pontificate and has remained the tradition in the Church every since.

If you review the history, the SSPX has been directly and purposefully disobeying and disregarding and placing its own judgement above the Popes since 1976. And this is obvious from your own posts where you work so hard to justify their disobedience. In fact, neither you nor I nor anyone else nor anyone in the SSPX gets to make these judgments. Not in the Catholic Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Nice hymns.

I prefer organ or keyboard accompaniment now. I think that my wife and I associate guitars and drums with our high school and college years, and it’s time to move on. I don’t think that organs are more holy than guitars, but the perception of laxity in liturgy associated with “folk” Masses versus more complete liturgy in organ-accompanied Masses is something I do indeed carry over from the seventies.

The problem is that we have no organised situation where we can have a good old ‘blow-out’ and sing these little ditties to Our Lord…

 

[Julia_Mae]

You folks wouldn’t be having this discussion if there were not all of this information floating around. There is too much material floating around that really belongs between the SSPX and the Vatican.

Exactly. Brother, do you think it would be the responsible thing to do to actually ask CAF, in support of the Pope, to ban SSPX discussions and delete these threads? CAF is the largest Catholic forum in the world, I believe.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, just as a point of fact, I know that there are things that Bichop Fellay does not report.

I see, I didn’t know you were part of the hierarchy of the SSPX and had personal access to Bishop Fellay - are you his secretary? Would you tell us what your relationship to the SSPX is? Are you a priest?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, numealinesimpet,
If you review the history, the SSPX has been directly and purposefully disobeying and disregarding and placing its own judgement above the Popes since 1976. And this is obvious from your own posts where you work so g hard to justify their disobedience. In fact, neither you nor I nor anyone else nor anyone in the SSPX gets to make these judgments. Not in the Catholic Church.

I am preparing a respectful reply to Bro **JR **on this. I maintain that the actions of Mgr Lefebvre and his successors can be shown to be fully within Catholic teaching. But given the present perceptions, I accept that the onus of proof must lie with the SSPX. Nevertheless, there is a very strong and consistent case that can be made. I am no paid apologist for the SSPX. But over the years I have discovered certain things, some of which are relevant to this discussion. I have also spent 40+ years in three countries, in nominally Catholic schools, seeing the children being systematically deprived of their faith. For the record, I believe it is intimately linked with the Message of Fatima.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I am preparing a respectful reply to Bro **JR **on this. I maintain that the actions of Mgr Lefebvre and his successors can be shown to be fully within Catholic teaching.

This isn’t meant to be rude, but your opinion and ideas on this matter are irrelevant. So are mine and Br J’s and Bishop Fellay’s. Irrelevant. The whole point of what’s been told to you, which you have ignored in every response, is that in this Church there is only one opinion that counts at any time: The Pope’s.

Now I’d like you to answer a direct question directly: **do you acknowledge that Benedict XVI is the rightful occupier of the Chair of Peter and the genuine Roman Pontiff, your Pope?
**
Yes or no.

 

[Melchior_1]

I maintain that the actions of Mgr Lefebvre and his successors can be shown to be fully within Catholic teaching

You will have to do some serious digging to find any documentation that supports;

1. Disobeying several popes.
2. Breaking Canon Law.
3. Hearing invalid confessions and passing them off as being valid.
4. Celebrating illicit Masses.
5. Celebrating invalid marriages.
6. Flagrant disobedience against the Pope, the CDF, and E.D.
7. Maintaining that the SSPX, not the Pope, is the final judge of Canon Law.
8. Find documentation that supports the rhetoric on their American site.
9. How they were initially offered the largest and best “package” when it comes to Societies and Religious Congregations since the Jesuits, and they still went ahead and did what the Pope told them not to do.

If a “modernist” or “liberal” group did this, they would be destroyed by others on this board and other boards. Can you imagine if a Noe-Caticummumn or Charismatic group did the above? The traditionalists such as yourself would decry them all. Yet when the SSPX acts in this fashion, it is condoned?

 

[Melchior_1]

This isn’t meant to be rude, but your opinion and ideas on this matter are irrelevant. So are mine and Br J’s and Bishop Fellay’s. Irrelevant. The whole point of what’s been told to you, which you have ignored in every response, is that in this Church there is only one opinion that counts at any time: The Pope’s.

Now I’d like you to answer a direct question directly: **do you acknowledge that Benedict XVI is the rightful occupier of the Chair of Peter and the genuine Roman Pontiff, your Pope?
**
Yes or no.

We’re at the point now where I’m going to call “checkmate”. Julia hits the crux of the matter right here.

The Pope and CDF say there is nothing wrong with Vatican II, and it is in-line with Sacred Tradition.

We must now obey, and either;

1. Start with what the Church says, and work from there to figure out how they got there (aka the Dominican/Franciscan method).
2. Exercise what I call “holy obedience” and obey, and while obeying wait for God to reveal to you as He revealed to the Church.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I see, I didn’t know you were part of the hierarchy of the SSPX and had personal access to Bishop Fellay - are you his secretary? Would you tell us what your relationship to the SSPX is? Are you a priest?

A very fair question. I have never believed I had a religious vocation, am a Catholic dad, married with nine children, three of whom are in Religion - two in a ‘Traditional’ Order and one in an order that has availed of the provisions of Summórum pontíficum. One is married with 3 children and one on the way. All nine, for the record, not only adhere to but show love of the Faith. You will find them in some photos of the pro-life rallies. All have individually thanked my wife and me for teaching them the Faith when they were young. They are sorry for their companions whom they see as adrift without an anchor. I have spoken to Bp Fellay several times and know several SSPX priests, some of whom have been less than discreet with laypeople (something I did not welcome) - and one of whom was expelled for, among other things, disobeying an instruction to say nothing about the negotiations with Rome. I do know (assuming they were not lying or misled) certain things that are not public knowledge. With your indulgence, I will maintain these confidences. For many years I kept away from the SSPX because all I knew about them was what I had read in the papers.
I am not asking anyone to join the SSPX. I am trying to contribute to debate, particularly by contributing relevant information.
The following is not confidential, however: the SSPX are now moving into a new field, and one that has been long foreseen. Mgr Lefebvre said, ‘we are keeping the pilot light going until the Church sees fit to turn back on the gas’.
The island of Samoa has a population of several thousand Catholics, in one diocese. Last year the bishop of Samoa asked two SSPX priests to come and preach the annual retreat for his 40 priests. One of the SSPX priests was Fr Couture SSPX, Superior for Asia. At the end of the retreat one of the priests approached them and said that he had been on the point of leaving the priesthood but now for the very first time had learned what the priesthood was really about, and would stay. Shortly after the retreat, the bishop issued a directive throughout the diocese that Holy Communion was to be received kneeing and on the tongue, and directed that the altar rails be restored to all churches in Samoa. Last year in Western Europe, three diocesan bishops have asked SSPX priests to preach retreats to their priests. I heard all this from Fr Couture 3 weeks ago when he gave us a talk on the SSPX’s work in Asia, during a visit back here. He was previously Superior to Ireland. This info might be on the SSPX Asia website. I was going to look it up today, but your post has forestalled me.

 

[numealinesimpet]

This isn’t meant to be rude, but your opinion and ideas on this matter are irrelevant. So are mine and Br J’s and Bishop Fellay’s. Irrelevant. The whole point of what’s been told to you, which you have ignored in every response, is that in this Church there is only one opinion that counts at any time: The Pope’s.

Now I’d like you to answer a direct question directly: **do you acknowledge that Benedict XVI is the rightful occupier of the Chair of Peter and the genuine Roman Pontiff, your Pope?
**
Yes or no.

Yes, and with God’s help I would die rather than deny it.

 

[numealinesimpet]

We’re at the point now where I’m going to call “checkmate”. Julia hits the crux of the matter right here.

The Pope and CDF say there is nothing wrong with Vatican II, and it is in-line with Sacred Tradition.

Only by re-defining ‘Tradition’. S. Thomas Aquinas would respectfully disagree with this approach. It is indeed one of the major sticking-points with the SSPX.

The documents of Vatican II leave gigantic loopholes, which have since been exploited to the hilt. My wife and I saw that as soon as we started to read them. I can give examples, but they are there for anybody to read. That is why His Holiness has had to begin a ‘Hermeneutics of Continuity’ - something which was never necessary or even crossed anybody’s mind for the last 19 ecumenical councils.

We must now obey, and either;

1. Start with what the Church says, and work from there to figure out how they got there (aka the Dominican/Franciscan method).

Agreed. For the record, I accept Vatican II as a valid ecumenical council. I have for many years asked (on this Forum and elsewhere) exactly what are the ‘teachings’ that we are all required to obey. To date, nobody has replied. I would be happy to hear a reply now.

1. Exercise what I call “holy obedience” and obey, and while obeying wait for God to reveal to you as He revealed to the Church.

I do believe I am exercising Holy Obedience, if by that you mean the obedience appropriate to a Catholic dad. I am not under a Religious Vow of obedience. The two are not the same. It is all there in Catholic teaching.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I have spoken to Bp Fellay several times and know several SSPX priests, some of whom have been less than discreet with laypeople (something I did not welcome) - and one of whom was expelled for, among other things, disobeying an instruction to say nothing about the negotiations with Rome. I do know (assuming they were not lying or misled) certain things that are not public knowledge…

Assume as you may, it doesn’t constitute “certain knowledge.” In any case, the original point is that when you said the Vatican hadn’t dealt with the situation in Phoenix, you have no way of knowing that and made another assumption.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yes, and with God’s help I would die rather than deny it.

Oh, I don’t think anyone is going to require you to do that.

So, the Pope is our Pope. That’s good. Is what you disagree with what Br JR explained? That he is Supreme Pontiff and only his decisions and his judgments are final in all matters pertaining to the Church?

 

[numealinesimpet]

Assume as you may, it doesn’t constitute “certain knowledge.” In any case, the original point is that when you said the Vatican hadn’t dealt with the situation in Phoenix, you have no way of knowing that and made another assumption.

I gave one example - the worst I knew of personally - to illustrate the ‘agonising crisis of conscience’ referred to in the Ottaviani Intervention. There were thousands of souls at that stadium. What has become of them? Such a thing would have had any pope for the last thousand years (although possibly not those of the tenth century) absolutely apoplectic. How did we get to this situation, and how do we get out of it?

I know personally a priest, ordained in the ‘mainstream’, who was at a large open-air Mass – I prefer not to name the celebrant – where he witnessed consecrated hosts being trampled into the ground. He spent the rest of the Mass trying to gather them up. He was laughed at by some of the other priests. After that, as he told me, he was 99% sedevac. He went to Bp Fellay and it was Bp Fellay who re-assured him that yes, the Pope really was the Pope and the successor of Peter, that yes, the Church is going through one of the worst crises in history, but that there were ways to deal with it without leaving the Church. Particularly by praying for the Pope and all the clergy and exercising true obedience. The last time I heard, he was in a religious Order in full communion with Rome.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Oh, I don’t think anyone is going to require you to do that.

Not so sure at all. Not joking. The younger brother of a friend of mine was one of the men killed in Algeria last week. One day Our Lady will convert the Moslems. Until then …

So, the Pope is our Pope. That’s good. Is what you disagree with what Br JR explained? That he is Supreme Pontiff and only his decisions and his judgments are final in all matters pertaining to the Church?

See later, with your patience. That statement cannot actually be sustained given the historical record, not to mention theology.

 

[Melchior_1]

I gave one example - the worst I knew of personally - …

I know personally a priest…

Lets talk examples, then. I gave this one before in this section of CAF:

I moved to Eastern Ontario in the summer of 2000. 18 years of age from a small town and moving to the big city. Considering I had not yet hit puberty, you could probably guess this was a recipe for disaster.

After a couple of years, I met up with some Catholic folks who were doing a summer mission within the city. It was through those people I occasionally attended St. Mary’s Catholic Church, the home base of a little group called the Companions of the Cross. Their founder, Father Robert Bedard, started the group for a few reasons. Eventually, they became a Society of Apostolic Life of Diocesan Right. At the time I met them, they were undergoing the process of getting installed with Pontifical Right. In 2002, at Notre Dame Cathedral, they celebrated this event. I was there for the event, in person.

I met Father Bob a few times before and after that event. A holy and humble man. If there was anyone around here who could brag a bit, surely it’s someone who founded a Society of Apostolic Life of pontifical right. But he didn’t brag, instead he gave God the glory. His favorite expression was “give God permission!”, which he extorted people to do.

There was a stretch of time a few years later I hit a rough patch. Namely; I stopped goign to Confession and receiving the Eucharist. I went to Mass every Sunday, but refused to receive. Simply put; I didn’t think I should go to Confession if I wasn’t sorry for what I did. And without Confession, I’m under mortal sin. So no Eucharist. At Mass I would literally only say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you”, and didn’t finish the rest. I simply didn’t believe that I could be healed, so why say it?

I said this to my roommates, of who I was in a share group with. One of the guys (now in the Diocesan seminary) went out and set up a one-on-one meeting between myself and Father Bob. We met for an hour or two, and we talked about my struggles. Among other things he mentioned to me “the fact you’ve though it out this much means you actually are sorry and repentful for what you’re doing, you’re just angry at yourself and this is how you’re punishing yourself for your own actions. You don’t know how to repent right now, but you are repentful. Besides, if you weren’t sorry why go to Mass every week?”. We talked a bit more, about a few things. He listened, gave me some advice and spiritual direction.

He didn’t have to see me, but he did. I wasn’t a part of his parish. The man was a busy fellow. He founded and ran a Society, His health was starting to fail a bit. he was writing a book, gave talks, helped with formation. He was all over the place doing things. But he still made time for me.

A few more years passed, and eventually Father Bob began suffering from dementia. It was a slow process, and eventually he was in the hospital long term. Father Robert Bedard (CC) passed away a few months ago. His funeral was at the same Cathedral where they celebrated his Society back in 2002. He’s with the Lord now, likely informing Jesus Christ that Jesus has the permission to tell Father Bob whatever Jesus wants him to do. His Society now runs five parishes in my diocese, including my own. He’s impacted several lives.

If you look at the four pillars of the Companions, you see: Eucharistic, Marian, Magisterial, and Charismatic. That’s right, charismatic. I bring it up now for an important point; this is one of the four pillars of the Society. It’s an important aspect of the Society. Father Bob went through the lengthy approval process with Rome, and got the statutes for the Society approved, including that aspect. There was some back and forward between him and Rome, and Rome then sent the approval. Everything was signed, sealed and delivered.

I witnessed this all happening. I saw it unfold. They did (and still do) everything by the book, and Father Bob was rewarded. This diocese was, and still is, rewarded. They run five parishes, do countless events at the diocesan center, several different aposolates, run theology programs, incredibly active in the pro-life movement. They even celebrated a chanted Mass ad-orientem not too long ago, if I recall correctly. They’re a solid group of people.

What bothers me, is that I knew this man. And I know several people on this board would call this man into question. They’ll raise His Grace Lefebvre as a hero, as a Saint, despite his questionable actions. They will raise up the SSPX as a bastion of greatness, Yet ignore or chastise the Companions without even meeting them, and call into question their founder. Their founder who did it all by the book, who followed the rules. Their founder who enacted change within the Church, revitalized the Catholic community here in Ottawa, the man who inspired others to found their own aposolates.

Seeing this man in action, seeing him found his Society, seeing him do everything within the Church. I guess that what makes the SSPX situation a bit of a sore point with me sometimes. Not only did my heroes Dominic and Francis affect change and founded their orders while staying within the Church, but a Society which was founded in my city, and the founder whom I met with, did it that way too. Looking at those three, that’s how I see how things should be done. based on all of that, there’s little wonder why I disagree with the actions taken by members of the SSPX, including their founder.

Tell me, who played by the rules and did things the traditional way? My money is on Father Bob.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I gave one example - the worst I knew of personally - to illustrate the ‘agonising crisis of conscience’…

This is a non-sequitur - unresponsive to my post. My point, again - is that you do not know what action the Vatican did or did not take in respect to this. This can be related to the thread topic by making the connection to the habit of Bishop Fellay of publishing Vatican communications and commenting on them to the laity and criticizing the Pope publicly thereby causing scandal and trying to transform this very serious sin into something to be… admired, I suppose is the best characterization.

This is essentially unheard-of and completely unacceptable behavior which undermines the authority of the Pontificate.

How do you acknowledge the Pope, but not acknowledge his authority over the Church?