SSPX update?

[JReducation]

The punishment to abortion in the other cases is 3 years. Since 2006, women can get abortions without problem (in the 3 cases). And now, there is a campaign to allow abortion in all cases. I find problematic that he said that, because there was opposition to the 2006 law from the Church, and now he says another thing. Maybe he had a poor choice of words, but that is what the majority of population are going to read/hear.

Blessings!

The Church takes two separate stands. One is against legalizing abortion. The other is against criminalizing it in such a way that it fails to examine the subjective condition of the person involved. A doctor who performs an abortion is in a very different place than a woman who procures an abortion under stress. Because of these kinds of differences and others that are more remarkable, the Church is very careful to prescribe criminalization. She does not oppose penalties that are proportionate. This is the part that the bishop failed to mention or was lost in the interview. I do think that this would have helped people to understand a little better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Boulder257]

First of all, I don’t believe I am wrong to support the traditionalism expressed by those who assist at SSPX Masses; this is not the same thing as being “rebellious” or having a “schismatic spirit,” etc. etc. it is most importantly the traditional Catholic values which traditionalists seem to practice which I support. I also don’t believe I’m wrong to rail against the heterodox attitudes of the “modernists,” for lack of a better term, including those who have introduced non-Catholic, secular and moral relativistic views into aspects and institutions of the faith, perhaps most importantly into religious education, including college and university education. This phenomenon has produced at least two generations now of poorly catechized Catholics and the result is the election of pro-abortion and pro-same sex “marriage” candidates and the passage of legislation that is contrary to Catholic teaching. So yes, I am consistent- but not consistently wrong, in my opinion. I am sure I am consistently wrong in the opinion of the leftist/secularist/moral relativist heterodox Catholics who seem to comprise a near majority in the Church today, however. I’m not labeling anyone here as one of these; CAF is one of the shining lights, overall, of the battle against heterodoxy, although highly tolerant of those who practice and preach it.

Echoing the Magisterium, I believe that secularism and moral relativism are the greatest danger to the Church today. I believe that this danger far outweighs whatever “danger” might accrue from repatriating a half million traditionalists who, at least in their laity numbers, simply want to be able to observe the EF mass and to see the Church membership return to traditional* morality*. Further, I believe that the solution to the crisis of heterodoxy is religious education. Catholic religious education needs a total overhaul and a strong re-emphasis on traditional Catholic morality needs to be re-inculcated. As a youth ministry coordinator and confirmation teacher, I’m doing my own little part in this regard.

Whatever horrible rebelliousness the traditionalists might be accused of, as a group whether they attend SSPX masses or diocesan EF masses or OF and EF masses I posit that they monolithically oppose abortion, euthanasia, and same sex “marriage.” The papal nuncio has just reminded us that the issue of abortion in particular trumps all others. Same sex “marriage” may not be as vital an issue as abortion and euthanasia- it does violate Church teaching, however, and desacralizes what Catholics are required to believe is a Holy Sacrament.

(My membership in Mensa and the Dead Poet’s Society are irrelevant to the discussion.)

I appreciate your taking the time to help me understand your reasoning.

 

[Faithdancer]

It is against current Ecclesia Dei regulations to attend the chapels and mass at the SSPX because one embraces a schismatic mindset or because one wants to lend support to their irregular status. It would constitute an objectively grave sin to pass up a licit Latin mass to attend an illicit one to support disobedience. You need to think about the greater picture here.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I know we discussed this on another thread a while back, where you told of your own attendance at an SSPX chapel and how you struck up an acquaintanceship with one of their priests- correct me if my recall is inaccurate. Anyway I thought that kind of olive branch approach is just what is needed.

At any rate, it seems still to be okay to assist at SSPX masses for love of the EF Mass. It also doesn’t seem to me to be wrong to want to reach out to SSPX faithful in some small way- i.e. by attending their masses in addition to diocesan masses, by engaging them in dialogue and charity. By reach out, I don’t mean encouraging continued separation or a “schismatic mind set.” I mean reaching out to show fellow Catholics that they are loved, respected as faithful pilgrims, and to gently encourage them to understand that their rightful place is in the main body of the Roman Catholic Church, under the pastoral care of Pope Benedict XVI. I don’t believe that the SSPX laity are, by and large, sedavacantist; they simply want to have their EF Mass and a return to traditional Catholic morality, as founded in Scripture and in the deposit of faith. Certainly Pope Benedict XVI and those he has elevated to archbishop are on the same page in terms of traditional Catholic morality, but they can’t do it alone, without the effort of the populi.

So, I understand the exasperation of catholicjames and the concern that many in the Church continue to slide into moral heterodoxy. I disagree that SSPX should not reconcile, however.

 

[Faithdancer]

The Church takes two separate stands. One is against legalizing abortion. The other is against criminalizing it in such a way that it fails to examine the subjective condition of the person involved. A doctor who performs an abortion is in a very different place than a woman who procures an abortion under stress. Because of these kinds of differences and others that are more remarkable, the Church is very careful to prescribe criminalization. She does not oppose penalties that are proportionate. This is the part that the bishop failed to mention or was lost in the interview. I do think that this would have helped people to understand a little better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I don’t believe that women who obtain abortions should be criminalized as they are also victims, whether they realize it at the time or many years later. We’ve all probably heard how devastating the long term negative psychological effects of abortion can be, particularly on the potential mother but also on her family and even on the potential father.

 

[JReducation]

I know we discussed this on another thread a while back, where you told of your own attendance at an SSPX chapel and how you struck up an acquaintanceship with one of their priests- correct me if my recall is inaccurate. Anyway I thought that kind of olive branch approach is just what is needed.

I’ve attended two masses at the local SSPX chapel, one was a funeral and the other a First Holy Communion. I did not attend because I support their choice not to reunite with Rome. The person to whom I was responding said that he attends an EF mass, but maybe he should transfer to an SSPX chapel, because he agrees with their choice not to return to Rome. That’s not offering an olive branch. That’s feeding the flame.

A Catholic who has no access to an EF mass can attend the mass at the SSPX to fulfill his Sunday obligation as long as he does not feed into or encourage the SSPX position. This is the rule of the Ecclesia Dei Commission and it has not been revoked. Of course, if you attend mass at their chapel, a small donation to help them pay the electric bill is justified. After all, you did use their lights.

Here is the contradiction in the speech of some of the SSPX clergy. I speak of the clergy, because most laymen don’t understand Canon Law. Heck, most clerics don’t either.

They know that celebrating the sacraments when a priest is suspended is illicit. They also know that they are suspended and they do not deny the suspension. They continue to celebrate the sacraments illicitly.

Then comes Bishop Fellay in his speech and says that the OF is illicit and illicit means that something is “Bad”. Those were his exact words.

Now, here is where we can’t lend them support. According to them, the OF is illicit. They have no ground for making such a statement. Canon Law determines what is and is not licit. Only the pope can make Canon Law. In essence, they are quoting a canon that does not exist. Therefore, the OF is not illicit.

Secondly, he says that illicit means “bad”. OK, the law does not define illicit that way, but let’s work with his definition. The law defines illicit as forbidden. Something can be forbidden for many reasons. Bad is one of many possibility. Something can be forbidden as a punishment, as is the case with the SSPX clergy. Back to the Bishop’s nuance of illicit. If illicit means bad, if they acknowledge that they are suspended, then their celebration of the sacraments is bad. So why do it?

This begs the question, why would a Catholic who has the EF available through a licit means, want to move over to an illicit EF mass just to support disobedience? How is this not a schismatic act on the part of that individual? A schismatic act that is done with full knowledge and full consent constitutes grave sin. I was speaking to that.

I’m not speaking to the layman in the pew who just wants his EF mass and could care less whether it’s an SSPX priest or a Sulpician celebrating it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

I don’t believe that women who obtain abortions should be criminalized as they are also victims, whether they realize it at the time or many years later. We’ve all probably heard how devastating the long term negative psychological effects of abortion can be, particularly on the potential mother but also on her family and even on the potential father.

I believe that this is what the Bishop was trying to address, but it did not come out well. Evangelium Vitae does not call for such criminalization, because it recognizes exactly what you have said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

I agree that one should not attend an SSPX Mass out of a spirit of rebellion, to encourage continued separation, due to a “schismatic mind set,” etc. etc. That was not the point of my post.

I don’t believe that wanting to build bridges of mutual understanding with members of SSPX congregations is wrong, when the goal is to help encourage them to move closer to the Magisterium and not farther away. It means attending an SSPX Mass with both a spirit of charity and a love for the EF Mass and not because of a spirit of disobedience. Only a careful examination of one’s own conscience can determine if one is attending an SSPX Mass for the right reasons, or the wrong reasons.

Until the Magisterium declares that the SSPX are in schism and excommunicates them, I will follow my own examination of conscience in choosing whether or not to attend any services at SSPX chapels whether they be weddings, funerals, baptisms, or Sunday masses.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I don’t believe that women who obtain abortions should be criminalized as they are also victims, whether they realize it at the time or many years later. We’ve all probably heard how devastating the long term negative psychological effects of abortion can be, particularly on the -]potential/-] mother but also on her family and even on the -]potential/-] father.

Not being a smart aleck, but there is nothing potential about it, at all.

I actually do believe they should be criminalized. A murder is a murder, no matter the age of the victim.

If it were criminalized, the number of abortions would drop by 98%, I bet. Sexual promiscuity would drop by x%, as well.

 

[Dee_S]

Extracts (in black) from Bishop Fellay’s sermon of nov 16 2012
Extracts (in blue) from Bishop Fellay’s response to the letter of the 3 bishops of the SSPX condemning him wanting to reconcile with Rome.

"… This letter of June 30 shows that he, the Pope, was indeed the one who intervened to oblige us to accept the council, to reintroduce into the document everything that I had removed from it and that we could not subscribe to. It was all put back in. And he continues, saying that in order to reach a juridical recognition, there are three conditions, three things that the Society must accept:

Accept that **“the Magisterium is the judge of the apostolic Tradition,” **in other words that it is indeed the Magisterium that tells us what belongs to Tradition. That is de fide, an article of faith. Obviously, in this context, the Pope is utilizing it so as to oblige us to accept the innovations."

“You blame all the current evils on the authorities even though they are trying to extricate the Church from them (eg the condemnation of the hermeneutic of continuity) … and are thus not all obstinate in heresy. That is clearly false. Hence when it comes to the crucial question of making an accord, we do not come to the same conclusion as you.”

“Church history shows that we only recover gradually from heresies and crises, so it is not realistic to wait until everything is sorted out. If we refuse to work in this field, we fall foul of the parable of the wheat and the cockle in which Our Lord warns us that there would always be internal conflict.”

"And above all, we are asked to accept that** “the Council is an integral part of this Tradition.” **That means that the Council would be “Tradition”, would be traditional. For forty years now we have been saying the contrary, not just for fun but, in keeping with that hallowed expression that we find so many, many times on the lips of our revered founder: “We are obliged to note”—the facts demonstrate it to us—that this council is an agreed-upon decision to do something new. …And here’s what they tell us: the condition is to agree that “the council is an integral part of Tradition”…

“Likewise you lack realism, just as the liberals make the Council a superdogma, you are making the Council a superheresy. Archbishop Lefebvre made distinctions about liberal Catholics, and if you do not make them, your caricature of reality could lead to a true schism."

”Archbishop Lefebvre, would have accepted what is proposed; we must not lose his sense of the Church”.

“Your all too human and fatalistic attitude implies that we should not count on God’s help, his grace or the Holy Spirit. If Providence guides men’s actions, has it not been guiding the movement back to Tradition? It makes no sense to think God will let us fall now, especially since we only want to do his will and please him.

Finally one other condition, which concerns the Mass this time.** We must accept the validity of the new Mass, but not only its validity. We would have to accept also its liceity. **We speak about validity when we ask, “does the thing exist?” A Mass that is celebrated validly means that Our Lord is there… “Licit” means permitted because it is good.

We, however, we have observed the ravages caused by this new Mass, we have noted how it was made, for what purpose it was made, for the sake of ecumenism. And we see the results, the loss of the faith, the empty churches, and we say: it is bad. This is how I replied to Rome. Usually we do not even speak about liceity, we simply say about this Mass that it is bad. That is enough."

“Do you still believe that the Church is the Church and that the Pope is Pope? Can Christ still speak through him? If he expresses a legitimate desire or decision, should we not obey, and will not God help us?"

 

[Faithdancer]

Not being a smart aleck, but there is nothing potential about it, at all.

I actually do believe they should be criminalized. A murder is a murder, no matter the age of the victim.

I do agree that biologically, there is a mother and a father from the moment of conception. Socially, there is not, and that is primarily what I was referring to.

As far as the mortal sin of murder, that is a complicated moral theological question which takes into account not only the act but the circumstances, the intention, the state of ignorance of the actor, etc. That’s not to say it isn’t murder, but determining the degree of guilt on the part of the mother, for example, is complicated.

I would disagree with anyone who maintains that incarcerating mothers who have abortions is appropriate.

 

[Faithdancer]

Dee, just to clarify, but did you mean that the responses highlighted in blue are from the ED bishops? Black are Bishop Fellay’s words and blue are from the other side, correct?

 

[JReducation]

Extracts (in black) from Bishop Fellay’s sermon of nov 16 2012
Extracts (in blue) from Bishop Fellay’s response to the letter of the 3 bishops of the SSPX condemning him wanting to reconcile with Rome.

"… This letter of June 30 shows that he, the Pope, was indeed the one who intervened to oblige us to accept the council, to reintroduce into the document everything that I had removed from it and that we could not subscribe to. It was all put back in. And he continues, saying that in order to reach a juridical recognition, there are three conditions, three things that the Society must accept:

Accept that “the Magisterium is the judge of the apostolic Tradition,” in other words that it is indeed the Magisterium that tells us what belongs to Tradition. That is de fide, an article of faith. Obviously, in this context, the Pope is utilizing it so as to oblige us to accept the innovations."

“You blame all the current evils on the authorities even though they are trying to extricate the Church from them (eg the condemnation of the hermeneutic of continuity) … and are thus not all obstinate in heresy. That is clearly false. Hence when it comes to the crucial question of making an accord, we do not come to the same conclusion as you.”

“Church history shows that we only recover gradually from heresies and crises, so it is not realistic to wait until everything is sorted out. If we refuse to work in this field, we fall foul of the parable of the wheat and the cockle in which Our Lord warns us that there would always be internal conflict.”

"And above all, we are asked to accept that** “the Council is an integral part of this Tradition**.” That means that the Council would be “Tradition”, would be traditional. For forty years now we have been saying the contrary, not just for fun but, in keeping with that hallowed expression that we find so many, many times on the lips of our revered founder: “We are obliged to note”—the facts demonstrate it to us—that this council is an agreed-upon decision to do something new. …And here’s what they tell us: the condition is to agree that “the council is an integral part of Tradition”…

“Likewise you lack realism, just as the liberals make the Council a superdogma, you are making the Council a superheresy. Archbishop Lefebvre made distinctions about liberal Catholics, and if you do not make them, your caricature of reality could lead to a true schism."

”Archbishop Lefebvre, would have accepted what is proposed; we must not lose his sense of the Church”.

“Your all too human and fatalistic attitude implies that we should not count on God’s help, his grace or the Holy Spirit. If Providence guides men’s actions, has it not been guiding the movement back to Tradition? It makes no sense to think God will let us fall now, especially since we only want to do his will and please him.

Finally one other condition, which concerns the Mass this time.** We must accept the validity of the new Mass, but not only its validity. We would have to accept also its liceity. **We speak about validity when we ask, “does the thing exist?” A Mass that is celebrated validly means that Our Lord is there… “Licit” means permitted because it is good.

We, however, we have observed the ravages caused by this new Mass, we have noted how it was made, for what purpose it was made, for the sake of ecumenism. And we see the results, the loss of the faith, the empty churches, and we say: it is bad. This is how I replied to Rome. Usually we do not even speak about liceity, we simply say about this Mass that it is bad. That is enough."

“Do you still believe that the Church is the Church and that the Pope is Pope? Can Christ still speak through him? If he expresses a legitimate desire or decision, should we not obey, and will not God help us?"

These statements do not agree.

Not being a smart aleck, but there is nothing potential about it, at all.

I actually do believe they should be criminalized. A murder is a murder, no matter the age of the victim.

If it were criminalized, the number of abortions would drop by 98%, I bet. Sexual promiscuity would drop by x%, as well.

Morality has a subjective and objective dimension. It is gravely immoral to punish those who are subjectively innocent of sin, even though they have committed an objectively immoral act.

Catholic morality does not condemn individuals. It condemns actions. Individuals are judged according to subjective culpability. Therefore, one cannot make universal subjective laws, only objective laws.

To say that every woman who procures an abortion is a criminal is a subjective statement. To say that every abortion is a crime is an objective statement that can be upheld by moral and canon law. The former cannot. Therefore, one has to prove that the woman intended to commit a crime, not that she committed a criminal act.

We apply here the same process that we would apply to a child who shoots his brother with his parents gun. Did he murder his brother? Yes. Is he guilty of murder? No. Why not? He lacks knowledge and consent. He must meet the three point test: grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.

For years Franciscans of Life, Priests for Life and Sisters of Life have dealt with post abortive men and women, we find that less than 10% meet the three point test. Such punishment would be disproportionate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Faithdancer]

Dee, do you know when Bishop Fellay’s letter to the other three bishops was written (the words in blue, right?) Since you mentioned “three” and not two bishops, I assume it was some time ago?

I agree that the two sets of statements do not agree. The question, is- why? Has Bishop Fellay suddenly reversed his moderate and conciliatory course…or is he following a strategy of some kind, intended to hold the remainder of the SSPX together while still covertly pursuing reconciliation?

I suppose the former could be true, although I pray that it is the latter. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to high level ecclesiastic “politics.”

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

These statements do not agree.

Morality has a subjective and objective dimension. It is gravely immoral to punish those who are subjectively innocent of sin, even though they have committed an objectively immoral act.

Catholic morality does not condemn individuals. It condemns actions. Individuals are judged according to subjective culpability. Therefore, one cannot make universal subjective laws, only objective laws.

To say that every woman who procures an abortion is a criminal is a subjective statement. To say that every abortion is a crime is an objective statement that can be upheld by moral and canon law. The former cannot. Therefore, one has to prove that the woman intended to commit a crime, not that she committed a criminal act.

We apply here the same process that we would apply to a child who shoots his brother with his parents gun. Did he murder his brother? Yes. Is he guilty of murder? No. Why not? He lacks knowledge and consent. He must meet the three point test: grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.

For years Franciscans of Life, Priests for Life and Sisters of Life have dealt with post abortive men and women, we find that less than 10% meet the three point test. Such punishment would be disproportionate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I truly appreciate (and accept) the clarification, fratello.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Addendum:

Absolutely no question that minds and hearts need to be changed, and that doing so is by far the most effective way of combating the scourge of abortion.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Dee, that was a very interesting exercise. Seeing his words intertwined like that makes you begin to wonder which position is what he really thinks. It may be that in the sermon he was trying to ‘rally the troops’, but it doesn’t seem like that train of thought is the best way to get them to the place he was trying to take the bishops in his letter this summer.

Sigh. Let’s all keep praying…

 

[JReducation]

Dee, that was a very interesting exercise. Seeing his words intertwined like that makes you begin to wonder which position is what he really thinks. It may be that in the sermon he was trying to ‘rally the troops’, but it doesn’t seem like that train of thought is the best way to get them to the place he was trying to take the bishops in his letter this summer.

Sigh. Let’s all keep praying…

Forget that I’m a Franciscan Brother of Life. Let me just take off my habit for a moment and speak as an anonymous human being.

OK, habit’s off.

What amazes me is how they (the SSPX leadership) has the stamina to go through these exercises, events, sermons, talks, conflicts and more day after day for years. I would be burned out. At some point, I would have just said to the troops, “OK, we’re going to do this. If you want to come along, please line up on the right side of the room. Those who do not want to come along, thank you for your years of support and friendship. We wish you well.”

Ahhhhh, that feels better now that I’ve said that. OK, putting on my habit again. Please hold.

OK, habit’s on.

"Thank you Jesus for putting me in a community

a. that is small;

b. where obedience is absolute and immediate, no questions ever asked;

c. where superiors have the power and authority to make unilateral decisions;

d. when he says ‘conversation is over,’ it’s truly over;

e. those decisions give the rest of us freedom to live, pray, work, rest, study and exist with some degree of interior silence;

f. I can walk my dog as I pray the LOTH or my rosary without any other concerns. God has a plan. Right now, his plan is that I walk the dog while I pray Matins.

Amen."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

Dee, do you know when Bishop Fellay’s letter to the other three bishops was written (the words in blue, right?) Since you mentioned “three” and not two bishops, I assume it was some time ago?

I agree that the two sets of statements do not agree. The question, is- why? Has Bishop Fellay suddenly reversed his moderate and conciliatory course…or is he following a strategy of some kind, intended to hold the remainder of the SSPX together while still covertly pursuing reconciliation?

I suppose the former could be true, although I pray that it is the latter. Nothing would surprise me when it comes to high level ecclesiastic “politics.”

Me too. Perhaps it is a strategy he is using to restore confidence in the faithful that their ‘mission’ has not changed - before he takes the next step. Bearing in mind that St Nicholas du Chardonnet where this sermon of November 16 took place, has the largest and most fervent congregation in their organization. In fact this church was seized by force by the SSPX in 1977.

"In 1977, eleven years before the Ecône Consecrations, members of the Society of St. Pius X led by François Ducaud-Bourget expelled the parish priest and his assistants and occupied the church.[2]
Shortly afterwards, the city of Paris gave an eviction order. In 1978, the Court of Cassation confirmed that the occupation was illegal but the order of eviction was never implemented.[3] On February 20, 1987, the Conseil d’État ruled that the disturbance to public order resulting from an expulsion would be higher than that resulting from the illegal occupation. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet#cite_note-4

“It is now the society’s only church in the city of Paris itself (others exist in the Île de France) and although it is not their official French headquarters[7] it is seen as their de facto national centre.
On a typical Sunday there are about six Masses sung back to back, with almost no interruption”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet
(sorry, i’m feeling lazy so it’s wikiagain)

The other 3 bishops of the SSPX wrote to Bishop Fellay on April 7 2012 (it seems in a attempt to pre-empt the reply to the Doctrinal Preamble that he was to hand in to the Vatican on Apri 14), claiming that a “doctrinal agreement with present-day Rome is impossible,” and that they therefore formally oppose “a practical agreement” with the Church."

“In a subsequent letter responding to the group, Fellay condemned “the lack of supernatural vision and of realism” of those criticizing him.”

"After affirming that Benedict XVI is the legitimate Pope and saying that that God speaks through the pontiff’s words, Fellay asked, “If he expresses legitimate will towards us, which is good, and that is not against God’s commandments, do we have the right to ignore or reject that extended hand?”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/leaked-sspx-letters-reveal-internal-discord-over-vatican-negotiations/

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Forget that I’m a Franciscan Brother of Life. Let me just take off my habit for a moment and speak as an anonymous human being.

OK, habit’s off.

What amazes me is how they (the SSPX leadership) has the stamina to go through these exercises, events, sermons, talks, conflicts and more day after day for years. I would be burned out. At some point, I would have just said to the troops, “OK, we’re going to do this. If you want to come along, please line up on the right side of the room. Those who do not want to come along, thank you for your years of support and friendship. We wish you well.”

Ahhhhh, that feels better now that I’ve said that. OK, putting on my habit again. Please hold.

OK, habit’s on.

"Thank you Jesus for putting me in a community

a. that is small;

b. where obedience is absolute and immediate, no questions ever asked;

c. where superiors have the power and authority to make unilateral decisions;

d. when he says ‘conversation is over,’ it’s truly over;

e. those decisions give the rest of us freedom to live, pray, work, rest, study and exist with some degree of interior silence;

f. I can walk my dog as I pray the LOTH or my rosary without any other concerns. God has a plan. Right now, his plan is that I walk the dog while I pray Matins.

Amen."

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Glad the habit is back on.

I agree with you about how tiring those kinds of discussions are. I have been through almost 2 years of that sort of thing in my professional life as our group has been building concensus to go in direction X. Even though the president of the organization could say “We are going here. Conversation over” without the vow of obedience and the goodwill of the group, he’d have a hard time!

 

[Dee_S]

Forget that I’m a Franciscan Brother of Life. Let me just take off my habit for a moment and speak as an anonymous human being.

OK, habit’s off.

What amazes me is how they (the SSPX leadership) has the stamina to go through these exercises, events, sermons, talks, conflicts and more day after day for years. I would be burned out. At some point, I would have just said to the troops, “OK, we’re going to do this. If you want to come along, please line up on the right side of the room. Those who do not want to come along, thank you for your years of support and friendship. We wish you well.”

Ahhhhh, that feels better now that I’ve said that. OK, putting on my habit again. Please hold.

OK, habit’s on. Fraternally, Br. JR, FFV

seeing as I have no habit to put on or off, this “anonymous human being”:tanning: (are dark glasses anon enough?) can say with candid generalization -

“:egyptian:They must all be:choocho: hyper-active”:takeoff: