SSPX

[JReducation]

Don’t forget, humility is easier if one has a sense of humor.

It’s not that one takes sin lightly. It’s that one does not take himself too seriously. I learned that from my friend Thomas a Kempis.

Kempis said that attachment to one’s opinion led to pride and ignorance, because such a person does not listen.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I might add the qualification of perfect obedience to truth. Obedience to sin and error doesn’t get us anywhere. Obedience must always be qualified as being obedience to the proper authority in truth. There have been times in the Church’s history when obedience to truth meant disobedience to bishops (but never the Pope, of course). The blaring example, of course, is the Arian heresy, but there are many smaller ones.

Let us be obedient to truth in unity with the Pope.

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

I might add the qualification of perfect obedience to truth. Obedience to sin and error doesn’t get us anywhere. Obedience must always be qualified as being obedience to the proper authority in truth. There have been times in the Church’s history when obedience to truth meant disobedience to bishops (but never the Pope, of course). The blaring example, of course, is the Arian heresy, but there are many smaller ones.

Let us be obedient to truth in unity with the Pope.

• PAX

I’ve always felt very comfortable with Thomas a Kempis and St. Francis of Assisi’s explanation of obedience. They both say the same thing.

1. Authority has no right to command sin.
2. One has every obligation to obey legitimate authority.
3. Legitimate authority is not always right.
4. Being wrong, does not forfeit authority’s right to our submission, unless it violates rule one.
5. Put aside you opinion, even if it’s correct. God is not pleased by your opinion, but my your willingness to swallow and be humble.
6. This is what pleases God and man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I’ve always felt very comfortable with Thomas a Kempis and St. Francis of Assisi’s explanation of obedience. They both say the same thing.

1. Authority has no right to command sin.
2. One has every obligation to obey legitimate authority.
3. Legitimate authority is not always right.
4. Being wrong, does not forfeit authority’s right to our submission, unless it violates rule one.
5. Put aside you opinion, even if it’s correct. God is not pleased by your opinion, but my your willingness to swallow and be humble.
6. This is what pleases God and man.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I have a desktop calendar from the Our Lady of Guadalupe Benedictine Monastery that has a quotation from the Rule for each day (along with beautiful pictures of the monks and monastery). The past few days have seen a slew of quotations involving obedience, such as the need to obey one’s superior instantly and as if one were obeying God.

It must have been very difficult to have been a Catholic during the Arian heresy or the Protestant revolt, when, for many people, their legitimate authority was heretical, schismatic, or both.

It is a comfort knowing that the Church of Rome will never fall into heresy. I am constantly in awe at how the Church has weathered the heresies and controversies over the years. Our Lord’s promise to Peter has certainly seen the test of time, eh?

• PAX

 

[jwinch2]

I have a desktop calendar from the Our Lady of Guadalupe Benedictine Monastery that has a quotation from the Rule for each day (along with beautiful pictures of the monks and monastery).

Is there a link for that?

Peace,

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Is there a link for that?

Peace,

Here’s the monastery homepage: ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/

Here’s a link to their gift catalog: ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/2012_giftcatalogue_christmasedition%20%20.pdf

The calendar (and order form) are on page 2. I don’t see any sort of preview besides the one picture that is shown there.

• PAX

 

[JReducation]

I have a desktop calendar from the Our Lady of Guadalupe Benedictine Monastery that has a quotation from the Rule for each day (along with beautiful pictures of the monks and monastery). The past few days have seen a slew of quotations involving obedience, such as the need to obey one’s superior instantly and as if one were obeying God.

It must have been very difficult to have been a Catholic during the Arian heresy or the Protestant revolt, when, for many people, their legitimate authority was heretical, schismatic, or both.

It is a comfort knowing that the Church of Rome will never fall into heresy. I am constantly in awe at how the Church has weathered the heresies and controversies over the years. Our Lord’s promise to Peter has certainly seen the test of time, eh?

• PAX

Bold is mine. The part that I bolded is covered by rule number one. Since authority has not right to command sin, there is no obligation to obey.

Everything else, does fall under the rights of authority. St. Benedict was the master of obedience. Every other religious founder took from the writings of Benedict.

In my community, the constitution says, “The superior is to be obeyed before the command is complete, just as one would obey Christ. Obedience is the greatest act of charity.”

“The superior must be like Christ, willing to lay down his life for his brothers.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jwinch2]

Here’s the monastery homepage: ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/

Here’s a link to their gift catalog: ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/2012_giftcatalogue_christmasedition%20%20.pdf

The calendar (and order form) are on page 2. I don’t see any sort of preview besides the one picture that is shown there.

• PAX

Thanks. I had been to the monastery website but had not seen the catalog. I also misunderstood you in thinking that you were referring to your computer’s desktop, not a physical desktop.

 

[Lormar]

This is from a book I am reading:

No matter how much events seem to be working against the Church I must preserve a perfect tranquility…I must beware of the audacity of those who, with unseeing minds led astray by secret pride, presume to do good without having been called to do so by God speaking through His Church, as if the divine Redeemer had any need of their worthless cooperation, or indeed of any man’s.

Journal Of A Soul
The Autobiography of Pope John XXIII

 

[BobCatholic]

The excommunications were not suspended or reduced to time served. The wording is very clear. The censure was remitted. That is similar to a pardon. And you say that they are still excommunicated. That is not true. They are not excommunicated in any way, shape, or form.

• PAX

Interesting interpretation. Please show me the word “pardon” anywhere in the statement.

What I saw was the penalties of excommunication have been basically declared “time served”

If the penalty for a particular crime is 6 months in jail upon conviction, and the judge calls the defendant to appear and now the sentence has been reduced to “time served” that is not a pardon. The conviction still is there.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Interesting interpretation. Please show me the word “pardon” anywhere in the statement.

What I saw was the penalties of excommunication have been basically declared “time served”

If the penalty for a particular crime is 6 months in jail upon conviction, and the judge calls the defendant to appear and now the sentence has been reduced to “time served” that is not a pardon. The conviction still is there.

An excommunication does not work like that and it is based on matters of fact. For the excommunication to change (cease), the facts it is based upon would have to change or simply not actually apply. In this way can those who are wrongly excommunicated (perhaps through a campaign of calumny) not fear for their souls if they are excommunicated because they did not actually profess and insist others believe X or Y heresy, for example; however, if the facts apply then they would have reason to fear. If the man didn’t say/teach/do this or that, and he is excommunicated for saying it, then he is not excommunicated; if, however, he did or does, then he is excommunicated. Repentance, confession, penance and amendment of life are always, however, available - at least for so long as we live. For the former case one would need to clear their name in order to receive the sacraments again; in the latter, they would have to denounce X or Y heresy and commit to never profess it again.

Excommunications are not punishments in the sense of a jail term: hell is eternal and nothing is or could be remitted in hell (such as guilt), else hell would not be permanent. The souls of the damned suffering the pains of hell are simply unworthy, through their own fault, of the Beatific Vision: nothing can change that fact. Now the Church might order a man to live in a monastery, for example, as a kind of penance for something or to remove him from occassion(s) of sin based on his aptitude, so to speak, toward it in given situations or circumstances, but the object is still the salvation of his soul and all souls, just as an excommunication is or would be: the excommunicate is on notice that their soul is in danger and that he needs to change his way, and the public is on notice that this or that man is not a Catholic and a sinner in the sense of one who obstinately persists in sinning (e.g. a notorious adulterer). Generally the Church’s punishments aim at some interior change followed by an exterior profession or manifestation of that change in words or deeds, owing to the simple fact that we cannot read hearts or minds and necessarily must base our judgement on externals.

 

[JReducation]

This is from a book I am reading:

Journal Of A Soul
The Autobiography of Pope John XXIII

One of the best books I’ve read.

---

On excommunication

I was just sharing on another thread that there are too many people on CAF who seem to misunderstand the purpose of an excommunication.

An excommunication is not meant to get rid of the undesirables. The Church considers no on undesirable.

An excommunication is not meant to punish or get even.

And excommunication is equivalent to an expulsion from the Church until you come to your senses. Then you can come back. It’s not like an expulsion from school.

When the pope lifts an excommunication or remits an excommunication, he simply saying that as of the date of his statement, the excommunication no longer has force. In American English, you can come back into the building. It does not mean that you can go to class yet. You may still have to deal with the principal.

In summary, an excommunication is a medicine. If the medicine does not work, you don’t use it. Excommunications are much more effective on those who take their Catholic faith seriously than on those who are too casual about their faith.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

In summary, an excommunication is a medicine. If the medicine does not work, you don’t use it. Excommunications are much more effective on those who take their Catholic faith seriously than on those who are too casual about their faith.

This reminds me of the debate about whether the Pope during the beginnings of the English Reformation should have issued an order to cease all the sacraments and have all the clergy leave England until Henry came to his senses. Such a thing had been done before, but there was doubt that such a thing would have been effective since, perhaps, it might have be sufficiently ignored and only worsen the situation. Personally, knowing in hindsight what sort of man Henry VIII was from my research, I believe it more arguable that such a measure would have worked especially early on when Henry VIII was still completely Catholic; however, only if the clergy would have been willing to obey it. Henry throughout his life tended to capitulate when faced with strong and bold resistance, and move on to other things and perhaps try again later. The combined tumult from the general laity, combined with Henry’s own yet still Catholic conscience, might have been enough to dissuade and, hopefully, humble him and avoided the catastrophes that followed. But Providence had others plans.

Regardless, the clergy in England effectively did disappear into a schism such that none were left, so it’s hard to say that such a Papal order could have made things worse: at worse, it would have resulted in the same situation but at least the faithful in England would have had no doubts whatsoever where the Church stood about the situation; for a long time it was hard for the faithful to tell, though instinctively most must have known that what Henry was doing was completely wrong, especially once saints started having their heads cut off.

 

[JReducation]

This reminds me of the debate about whether the Pope during the beginnings of the English Reformation should have issued an order to cease all the sacraments and have all the clergy leave England until Henry came to his senses. Such a thing had been done before, but there was doubt that such a thing would have been effective since, perhaps, it might have be sufficiently ignored and only worsen the situation. Personally, knowing in hindsight what sort of man Henry VIII was from my research, I believe it more arguable that such a measure would have worked especially early on when Henry VIII was still completely Catholic; however, only if the clergy would have been willing to obey it. Henry throughout his life tended to capitulate when faced with strong and bold resistance, and move on to other things and perhaps try again later. The combined tumult from the general laity, combined with Henry’s own yet still Catholic conscience, might have been enough to dissuade and, hopefully, humble him and avoided the catastrophes that followed. But Providence had others plans.

Regardless, the clergy in England effectively did disappear into a schism such that none were left, so it’s hard to say that such a Papal order could have made things worse: at worse, it would have resulted in the same situation but at least the faithful in England would have had no doubts whatsoever where the Church stood about the situation; for a long time it was hard for the faithful to tell, though instinctively most must have known that what Henry was doing was completely wrong, especially once saints started having their heads cut off.

Except that I often get the impression that More and Fisher were not well liked by the general population. Actually, Henry liked More and kept dragging things out hoping that More would capitulate. But the common man associate More with the crown, because he was the chancellor. The common man certainly did not like the crown. If ever there was a dysfunctional family on England’s throne, that was it.

Fisher was not as well known as Wolsey. But they hated Wolsy and for good reason. He was a rascal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

Except that I often get the impression that More and Fisher were not well liked by the general population. Actually, Henry liked More and kept dragging things out hoping that More would capitulate. But the common man associate More with the crown, because he was the chancellor. The common man certainly did not like the crown. If ever there was a dysfunctional family on England’s throne, that was it.

Fisher was not as well known as Wolsey. But they hated Wolsy and for good reason. He was a rascal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Those are interesting points, but nonetheless Bp. Fisher and Thomas More were certainly renowned for their learning and enjoyed a sort of international celebrity, which by extension gave prestige to the whole country; no one dislikes prestige.

Henry’s popularity declined in time from his youth. He enjoyed a time when he was undoubtedly beloved for all his excellent qualities that all commentators admit he possessed. Even the men he put to death all gave testimony that they felt that, in the depths of his soul somewhere, there was a good man. He serves an example of the dangers of human pride and how monstrous it can make us, such that it consumes and finally overshadows every virtue.

Queen Catherine and Princess Mary were certainly beloved by the people (their hatred of Henry’s second wife, Anne, largely drew from this fact - it was more of a projection), and they were devoutly Catholic. There may have been fear at the Papal Court that if such orders were issued then the King might have taken his anger out on them - and those fears would have been well founded. Such action, however, might have provoked Spain and certainly would have made it difficult for Henry’s allies at home and abroad to defend him without raising more troubles for themselves.

As for a dysfunctional family - absolutely. The later Tudors serve as a testimony to the damage and dangers of divorce and mixed families. I recall reading about the girl Princess Mary being admonished by the King’s men to cease saying that she was a princess and her little half-sister was not; or the much later King Edward VI’s shock and horror at the outrageous Popery of his elder half-sister, since he had been strictly raised in an environment devoid of Catholic influences and with an extremely anti-Catholic, evangelical education. King Edward VI would have gone to the stake had he been a commoner in his father’s England, so he was carefully brainwashed and misled about the facts concerning his father’s religious views. Worlds constantly collided in Tudor England and no more evidently than in the Tudor family itself.

 

[JReducation]

Those are interesting points, but nonetheless Bp. Fisher and Thomas More were certainly renowned for their learning and enjoyed a sort of international celebrity, which by extension gave prestige to the whole country; no one dislikes prestige.

Henry’s popularity declined in time from his youth. He enjoyed a time when he was undoubtedly beloved for all his excellent qualities that all commentators admit he possessed. Even the men he put to death all gave testimony that they felt that, in the depths of his soul somewhere, there was a good man. He serves an example of the dangers of human pride and how monstrous it can make us, such that it consumes and finally overshadows every virtue.

Queen Catherine and Princess Mary were certainly beloved by the people (their hatred of Henry’s second wife, Anne, largely drew from this fact - it was more of a projection), and they were devoutly Catholic. There may have been fear at the Papal Court that if such orders were issued then the King might have taken his anger out on them - and those fears would have been well founded. Such action, however, might have provoked Spain and certainly would have made it difficult for Henry’s allies at home and abroad to defend him without raising more troubles for themselves.

As for a dysfunctional family - absolutely. The later Tudors serve as a testimony to the damage and dangers of divorce and mixed families. I recall reading about the girl Princess Mary being admonished by the King’s men to cease saying that she was a princess and her little half-sister was not; or the much later King Edward VI’s shock and horror at the outrageous Popery of his elder half-sister, since he had been strictly raised in an environment devoid of Catholic influences and with an extremely anti-Catholic, evangelical education. King Edward VI would have gone to the stake had he been a commoner in his father’s England, so he was carefully brainwashed and misled about the facts concerning his father’s religious views. Worlds constantly collided in Tudor England and no more evidently than in the Tudor family itself.

This is totally off topic. But just a quick question of curiosity, because you seem to be knowledgeable of English history. Is there any modern trace of the Tudors?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

This is totally off topic. But just a quick question of curiosity, because you seem to be knowledgeable of English history. Is there any modern trace of the Tudors?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Nope. All of Henry’s zeal for a son came to nothing. King Edward VI, his son by I can’t remember which marriage, would be the last male heir of his family and would die young before being married; Princess Mary would become Queen Mary but dies childless, and Elizabeth I would reign for a long time but never marry or produce children.

Henry’s enterprise was completely for nothing.

 

[severus68]

Nope. All of Henry’s zeal for a son came to nothing. King Edward VI, his son by I can’t remember which marriage, would be the last male heir of his family and would die young before being married; Princess Mary would become Queen Mary but dies childless, and Elizabeth I would reign for a long time but never marry or produce children.

Henry’s enterprise was completely for nothing.

Edward was the child of Jane Seymour. Mary was known as “Bloody Mary”. While Catherine of Aragon was devout and continued to have the love of the people, Mary went on a killing rampage and did not really earn the love of the people. She was more into reacting to how her mother and she herself was treated rather than trying to prioritise unity in the country. She was rather a sad figure.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Edward was the child of Jane Seymour. Mary was known as “Bloody Mary”. While Catherine of Aragon was devout and continued to have the love of the people, Mary went on a killing rampage and did not really earn the love of the people. She was more into reacting to how her mother and she herself was treated rather than trying to prioritise unity in the country. She was rather a sad figure.

Queen Mary was beloved by the people and English historians share in a crime when they suffer her name to calumniated and even perpetuate it:
The Tudors:

It was a genuine emergency. The capital [London] was virtually undefended, the queen [Mary] in real danger of losing the crown she had won scarcely a year before. The imperial ambassador offered to request troops from the continent, while many of Mary’s councilors urged her to flee. Once again she was saved by her own courage. She refused the offer of foreign military support and refused also to leave London. Instead she put her faith in her subjects, and her fate in their hands. She went to the Guildhall, one of London’s gathering places, and in an impromptu speech addressed a gathering of citizens assembled by the lord mayor. She denounced the [rebel] Wyatt and his fellow conspirators, accusing them of wanting not only to prevent her marriage but to usurp the authority of the Crown and use it for their own narrow purposes. Scepter in hand, she declared her confidence that her subjects would never allow the rebels to prevail.
“As for this marriage,” she said, “ye shall understand that I enterprised not the doing thereof without the advice of all our Privy Council. Nor am I, I assure ye, so bent to my own will, or so affectionate, that for my own pleasure I would choose where I lust, or needs must have a husband. I have hitherto lived a maid [virgin]: and doubt nothing, but with God’s grace I am able to live so still. Certainly, did I think that this marriage were to the hurt of my subjects, or the impeachment of my royal estate, I would never consent thereunto. And I promise you, on the word of a queen, that if it shall not appear to the Lords and Commons in Parliament to be for the benefit of the whole realm, I will never marry while I live. Wherefore stand fast against the rebels, your enemies and mine. Fear them not, for I assure ye I fear them nothing at all.” … Mary departed to shouts of approval, and within hours more than twenty thousand men had volunteered to defend her and the city.
[The rebels attack London] and again cause a panic that only Mary’s resolution prevented from turning into a headlong flight of the entire court. Finally… the rebellion fell apart. …] For the second time in half a year Mary had been tested, as had the loyalty of the kingdom, and neither had been found wanting.

The woman was absolutely courageous and her people loved her enough to voluntaily shed their blood to defend her and rescue her from danger.

 

[severus68]

Queen Mary was beloved by the people and English historians share in a crime when they suffer her name to calumniated and even perpetuate it:

The woman was absolutely courageous and her people loved her enough to voluntaily shed their blood to defend her and rescue her from danger.

She was loved by the Catholics - at least those who could stomach her bloodlust. You do know what happened to her ‘marriage’?

I am just speaking on history. She could never have united the people. Elizabeth did. I am no fan of Elizabeth I but that is the truth.

Just my bit, totally digressing, my apologies to all.