The Latest Public Statement of the SSPX

[ProVobis]

A teacher in Catholic education expressing what I observe in my day to day job. And even very young children these days are very good, if given the right opportunities, to discuss, question and critically explore the basic theology of their faith. Listening to 8 year olds logically discussing the incarnation, why Jesus had to fully die as a human to atone for human sin, yet be Divine in order to save humanity, what role original sin played in this, and bringing in Old Testament Scripture to support their views (despite the fact that none of them would be able to quote a single line of Catechism verbatum) is very heartening.

I was taught in the U.K. for the first nine years of my life back in the 50’s and we had everything you mentioned, and also about ecumenism. And in art form as well. In fact, I still have my workbooks from back then. That and the Polish school my parents sent me on the weekends provided a valuable resource of catechism. Also my parents approved of the Baltimore Catechism. I’m not in the U.K. now but I doubt if the numbers of kids in Catholic education are anywhere near what they were back then.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

And how exactly would that help our mission to evangelise?

We need to convince the world that our Church is a place where they ought to be. Creating unnecessary distance between ourselves and the world does nothing other than hinder our mission on Earth.

We were not put on Earth to close our door, pull up the drawbridge and defend the walls against anyone outside who does not think like us. We should open the doors wide, fill in the moat, dismantle the drawbridge, and invite the world to enter inside (whether they consider themselves one of us or not).

There is a difference between convincing the world and letting the world convince us. As Catholics we have an identity: we have a precise Faith, morality and spiritual outlook that colours how we see this world and our purpose in it. This identity must be preserved at any cost - no compromise. This is what Christ meant by being in the world but not of the world.

Preserving this identity does not hinder our mission to evangelise, quite the opposite. Take the Church of the first three centuries. A lot of contemporary Catholics would consider it sectarian. It imposed a Law of the Arcane on its members, whereby one could not reveal the Church’s intimate teaching and practices to the pagans willy-nilly. It called the capital of the Roman Empire ‘Babylon’. It required that its faithful preserve themselves from the practices and morals of their time. The emphasis was very much on keeping the Church’s house in order by protecting it from the corrupting influence of the pagan society around it. Yet that did not prevent it from evangelising and finally christianising that same pagan society.

What was the secret of its success? A lot of it had to do with the fact that the secular sword was poised over the Church’s head for nearly three centuries. From Nero onwards it was illegal to be a Christian. Emperors could invoke Nero’s law anytime they liked and put Christians to death. In actual fact most of them didn’t, nonetheless the threat was always there. Being proscribed by the Roman legal system also meant that Christians were social personas non gratas. In fact it was non-U to even mention them in educated pagan society.

It was during this time that the Church was at its best. To be a Catholic meant something. You were putting your reputation, livelihood, even your life, on the line. You had to be serious about it. You couldn’t be a Catholic and a socially acceptable citizen. That meant that you knew what you belonged to and were prepared to sacrifice a lot, perhaps everything, for it. That is the stuff evangelists are made of.

My pricking thumbs tell me we are headed back to those times by the simple fact that secular society and Catholicism have a shrinking common ground, and more and more fundamental issues over which they are at loggerheads. Secular governments must eventually marginalise the Church, with legal consequences for its members. When that happens, Catholics will rediscover what it means to be Catholic and the Church will experience the renewal Vatican II intended it to have.

 

[Brendan_64]

There is a difference between convincing the world and letting the world convince us. As Catholics we have an identity: we have a precise Faith, morality and spiritual outlook that colours how we see this world and our purpose in it. This identity must be preserved at any cost - no compromise. This is what Christ meant by being in the world but not of the world.

I agree with you. We must have a precise Faith, morality and spirituality, and we must not let the world convince us. But that does not mean we should cling to every single tradition, rubric and custom, for fear that to let go of any of these will lead to secularism taking hold within the Church, leading to the demise of our Faith.

The Church has continued to adapt and change throughout the 200 years of its history. Rubrics, traditions, customs have changed continuously throughout our history (while faith and morals remain constant) why are the rubrics, customs and traditions of the Church in the 1950’s so particularly sacred that they (unlike what went before them) must not be changed?

We should not deal with the secular world with a sense of fear and an inward looking desire for self-preservation. We should not fear the modern world in which we live. We should embrace it (while keeping our faith and morality firm) and open our doors to welcome all to partake in the wonders that we have. we need to take our faith to the world in a language in which the world understands and relates to, and present ourselves as an organisation in tune with and meeting the needs of 21st century humanity.

 

[Brendan_64]

I was taught in the U.K. for the first nine years of my life back in the 50’s and we had everything you mentioned, and also about ecumenism. And in art form as well.

Yes, ecumenism, religious art too. We work Catholicism into Maths, Science (all subjects really).

It’s good to see then that things haven’t really changed as much as many people would like to portray.

 

[ringil]

As for learning by rote: to know anything, you have to remember it. If you can’t remember it, you don’t know it.

To pass exams, I had to use various mnemomic tricks. Talking, reading, discussing, writing essays: not as much help at all.

Here in the UK they’re producing scholars who can’t read, write or do arithmetic properly, after 10 years+ in school. I have the idea that a school which taught in old-fashioned ways would not want for students.

Memorization of a given get or concept as formulated is not akin to understanding that concept.

Memorizing is but the very lowest level of learning and is hollow without the subject delving into the meaning of that memorized text. Sometimes this was done Pre-VII and sometimes it wasn’t.

I do agree that “some” memorization of religious concepts may be helpful but not absolutely necessary in catechesis.

Memorization should be only an element of learning not the entirety. My mother can still rattle back answers from the Baltimore Catechism but says that she had absolutely no idea the meaning behind her words as a kid.

One very pertinent, it seems to me, role of memorization can lie in the teaching of prayers. After learning the prayers the students should be taken through the text to “learn” what they are actually saying.

 

[ringil]

This is a forum, but it is a Catholic forum. It is not a Protestant forum or an SSPX forum. I think your statement is untrue. People do not need a “problem” to debate. It is in our base nature to argue over the most mundane things, or even to seek argument for the sake of the fight itself.

Well, I would say that the SSPX certainly has a problem.

The Church on the other hand has no problem.

 

[Brendan_64]

One very pertinent, it seems to me, role of memorization can lie in the teaching of prayers. After learning the prayers the students should be taken through the text to “learn” what they are actually saying.

Most definitely.

I would argue that that is all they really need to memorise exactly word for word as regards their Faith. With other things it is important that they know what is there and what it means, but being able to rattle off lines of the Catechism has no great value in itself.

 

[ringil]

AFAIK, it looked like the SSPX were near-reconciliation at one point. Then the discussions went back square one. If the SSPX have arguments, contra the V2 documents or their interpretation, then they should be refuted line-by-line publicly once-and-for-all, rather than just saying “the documents are fine”. That’s my understanding of what’s gone on to date.

Though BXVI took the highly charitable road- nearly saintly in patience, he had no obligation to hear the SSPX arguments.

They were in discussions with Rome at the pleasure of the Holy Father. The Church owes them nothing.

Benedict showed them ENORMOUS patience in the face of their arrogance. Sadly they ducked at every turn- in a way taking advantage of the good will of the Holy Father.

I found myself getting a bit unnecessarily defensive of the Pope.

 

[ringil]

Most definitely.

I would argue that that is all they really need to memorise exactly word for word as regards their Faith. With other things it is important that they know what is there and what it means, but being able to rattle off lines of the Catechism has no great value in itself.

I acknowledge your thoughts on this as an educator. I am a therapist so really don’t have the best sense of what is the most effective way to form kids in the faith.

I know that No Child Left Behind is garbage as far as teaching children secular matters and that relies more on rote than on actually “learning”.

I do like that Benedict encouraged the faithful to learn the basic prayers in Latin and I will teach my kids those- if they will participate that is.

 

[JM3]

It’s clear you have a very limited perspective & experience with “modernist” Catholics, as you call them, and pre-V2 Catholics. Just FYI, pre-V2 Catholics were well-formed,

I’m wondering where these, so called, “modernists” Catholics came from. Did they just pop into existence after Vatican II or were they also formed “pre-V2”?

 

[Justin_Swanton]

I agree with you. We must have a precise Faith, morality and spirituality, and we must not let the world convince us. But that does not mean we should cling to every single tradition, rubric and custom, for fear that to let go of any of these will lead to secularism taking hold within the Church, leading to the demise of our Faith.

The Church has continued to adapt and change throughout the 200 years of its history. Rubrics, traditions, customs have changed continuously throughout our history (while faith and morals remain constant) why are the rubrics, customs and traditions of the Church in the 1950’s so particularly sacred that they (unlike what went before them) must not be changed?

We should not deal with the secular world with a sense of fear and an inward looking desire for self-preservation. We should not fear the modern world in which we live. We should embrace it (while keeping our faith and morality firm) and open our doors to welcome all to partake in the wonders that we have. we need to take our faith to the world in a language in which the world understands and relates to, and present ourselves as an organisation in tune with and meeting the needs of 21st century humanity.

Sure. Nobody is saying that there is an intrinsic need to stick with Latin. At least I’m not saying it. The Church adopted Latin for its liturgy only in those regions where Latin was the lingua franca. It adopted Greek in the Eastern Mediterranean, Slavonic in Russia, Aramaic in the Middle East, and so on. The point is that the liturgy must through any changes remain supernatural: God and Christ centred, enabling a supernatural participation. What applies to Latin applies to the rest.

We do not need to fear the world, but we must mistrust it, especially the contemporary world. By ‘world’ I don’t mean people. I mean the underlying assumptions, priorities and principles of which the people themselves are perhaps hardly aware, but which nonetheless mould their thinking and shape their lives. You can like an individual and still be at utter variance with his convictions. One has to make the distinction.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do we want thinking Catholics or do we want Catholics who simply recite and nod

False dichotomy. You are poorly informed about what was and was not taught pre-v2, and how it was and was not taught. You have some strong prejudices that knowing facts is somehow not important to education and understanding, or somehow excludes understanding and exploration. It didn’t and it doesn’t. Your claims are anti-historical. If you’re going to make statements about the Catholics who preceded you, you’re going to have to first actually learn that part of history.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m wondering where these, so called, “modernists” Catholics came from. Did they just pop into existence after Vatican II or were they also formed “pre-V2”?

It’s a fair question, and it’s used in two different ways. I was responding to someone else’s use of it, actually.

In some quarters the terms just refers to your date of birth. It has also been applied to people of all ages (some formed pre-V2) who have adopted contemporary secular mores and then “applied” those to Catholicism. Their view of Catholicism is informed largely by the world, not by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Thus, one finds some elderly people who think that V2 “changed” Church doctrine, and who now want female priests, etc.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

False dichotomy. You are poorly informed about what was and was not taught pre-v2, and how it was and was not taught. You have some strong prejudices that knowing facts is somehow not important to education and understanding, or somehow excludes understanding and exploration. It didn’t and it doesn’t. Your claims are anti-historical. If you’re going to make statements about the Catholics who preceded you, you’re going to have to first actually learn that part of history.

You are still erroneously attributing to me a post that belongs to Brendan 64, who has, since I previously informed you, posted a reply - see post #262

While I’m at it, your insults are intolerable (whether they be mistakenly directed at myself or intended for Brendan 64) uncharitable, and unnecessary and I expect an apology by reply for the two of us so treated. Thank you

 

[ProVobis]

The Church has continued to adapt and change throughout the 200 years of its history. Rubrics, traditions, customs have changed continuously throughout our history (while faith and morals remain constant) why are the rubrics, customs and traditions of the Church in the 1950’s so particularly sacred that they (unlike what went before them) must not be changed?

But why change things when they work? We must remember that as late as the mid-19th century, Catholicism was virtually non-existent in the U.K. Or in the U.S. for that matter either. No one can deny Catholicism made brave and bold strides in both countries up until the 50’s. Yes, the Baltimore Catechism was largely responsible for it IMO. And Latin was not seen as an insurmountable obstacle in the liturgy. In fact it helped promote it given the differing cultures (Poles, Anglos, French, etc.) which were brought together, especially in the world war years.

 

[Dee_S]

It’s a fair question, and it’s used in two different ways. I was responding to someone else’s use of it, actually.

I was not using the term ‘modernist’ to describe or label any group of Catholics. That is not allowed on CAF, for obvious reasons. Below is the extract from my post, which must not be misinterpreted.

“It was put about in traditional circles, around the time when the scandal became public, that it was a result of ill formation in the ‘modernist’ seminaries etc.It does make one question just how good the good old days were, after all.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Their view of Catholicism is informed largely by the world, not by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

So that would not presumably include those Catholics who prefer OF to EF, standing and receiving Communion in the hand, those who prefer some of the more modern hymns in the authorised Church hymnal, and those who quite like accompanying acoustic guitars and perhaps a slow fiddle, don’t mind female altar-servers, prefer to see less-fussy vestments without brocade, prefer Churches with a more modern style of architecture etc? As far as I’m aware all of the above is completely permitted and none of it is discouraged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith.

It’s nice to know then that I won’t be accused of being a ‘Modernist’.

 

[Dee_S]

False dichotomy. You are poorly informed about what was and was not taught pre-v2, and how it was and was not taught. You have some strong prejudices that knowing facts is somehow not important to education and understanding, or somehow excludes understanding and exploration. It didn’t and it doesn’t. Your claims are anti-historical. If you’re going to make statements about the Catholics who preceded you, you’re going to have to first actually learn that part of history.

You continue to erroneously attribute to me a post that belongs to Brendan 64, who has posted a reply quite some time back- see post #262

While I’m at it, your insults are intolerable (whether they be mistakenly directed at myself or intended for Brendan 64) uncharitable, and unnecessary and I expect an apology for Brendan and/or myself.

 

[ProVobis]

So that would not presumably include those Catholics who prefer OF to EF, standing and receiving Communion in the hand, those who prefer some of the more modern hymns in the authorised Church hymnal, and those who quite like accompanying acoustic guitars and perhaps a slow fiddle, don’t mind female altar-servers, prefer to see less-fussy vestments without brocade, prefer Churches with a more modern style of architecture etc?

Which of these are theological issues, worthy to be brought up at all in catechism classes? Seems like you as a teacher are tackling etiquette or cosmetic issues when they have not much to do with the Holy Sacrifice, Calvary, Passion, Transubstantiation, the Trinity, etc.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So that would not presumably include those Catholics who prefer OF to EF, standing and receiving Communion in the hand, those who prefer some of the more modern hymns in the authorised Church hymnal, and those who quite like accompanying acoustic guitars and perhaps a slow fiddle, don’t mind female altar-servers, prefer to see less-fussy vestments without brocade, prefer Churches with a more modern style of architecture etc? As far as I’m aware all of the above is completely permitted and none of it is discouraged by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith.

It’s nice to know then that I won’t be accused of being a ‘Modernist’.

Brendan, I don’t have categories in mine, actually. I was trying to clarify a point another poster asked about.

Modernist, as it is used often in Catholic media, refers to particular theological preferences, some of which are merely willed by the practitioner (who could be of any age and actually received authentic formation), others of which are a result of poor formation long before you had your function within the Church. It refers (as I understand it; I didn’t create the term) to those who reject both tradition and (much of) Tradition.

IOW, a modern Catholic is not necessarily a modernist, if you get my drift. Modern Catholics include traditionalists and those with contemporary preferences; they include those poorly formed and those well-formed. But ‘modernists’ are formed by the secular culture and do not accept the absolute authority of the Holy See.

Have a nice day.