Three points on the recent SSPX ordinations [Peters]

[maurin]

Again, that’s the point. What did they stay true to: the Church and Her Immutable Teachings, or the Popes, some of whose teachings are in contradiction the Church’s, such as the Liturgy, the definition of the Church and those that have lead to ecumania.

I have respect for the FSSP. And a lot more respect for the FSSP than those you mentioned.

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul, of course the NO has a role in that–all of that. The changes in teaching that lead to ecumania, the rendered distinction between the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ in the change of the definition of the Church, the diluting of Eucharistic Theology in the paring down of the Canon which is similar to the paring down by Cranmer 500 years ago…Of course the NO has a role in all of that. The Clergy is only taking the illogical to the “logical” ends.

I agree with I Believe. Pull the weed out by its root and plant the flower we already possess.

My point is that, by now, forty years later, just dropping the TLM into diocesan parishes with the same unrenewed clergy and the same unrenewed laity won’t have the effect you think it will.

In my job , I work on forcing people with good ideas to take the idea and make it implementable. Sometimes good ideas can not be implemented as easily as people think. That is the problem here.

Yes, it’s a good idea. But, it’s very jingoistic to say, “Pull the weed out by its root and plant the flower we already possess”. Yeah, that’s great. But how do you take the TLM (and traditional practice in general) out of the niche of SSPX and FSSP and roll it out to a diocese?

I’ll take you guys seriously as a source of renewal for the Church when you present an actual, real, live plan to do it, instead of slogans and unimplementable ideas.

 

[maurin]

My point is that, by now, forty years later, just dropping the TLM into diocesan parishes with the same unrenewed clergy and the same unrenewed laity won’t have the effect you think it will.

In my job , I work on forcing people with good ideas to take the idea and make it implementable. Sometimes good ideas can not be implemented as easily as people think. That is the problem here.

Yes, it’s a good idea. But, it’s very jingoistic to say, “Pull the weed out by its root and plant the flower we already possess”. Yeah, that’s great. But how do you take the TLM (and traditional practice in general) out of the niche of SSPX and FSSP and roll it out to a diocese?

.

I don’t wish to be unkind, but that some fancy foot work you’ve got going on there. You assume that you know what the weed is, and what the flower is. But you don’t Paul. Otherwise you wouldn’t have said:

I’ll take you guys seriously as a source of renewal for the Church when you present an actual, real, live plan to do it, instead of slogans and unimplementable ideas

the weed is the Novus Ordo. The Flower is the Changeless Teaching of the Church. The TLM is not the Flower being referred to. The NO Mass is not the weed being referred to. If noone minds, I will quote Dorothy Day: Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy rotten system. And his name modernism. Rip the filthy weed out by the roots, and replace it with the Traditional Teachings of the Church.

One of the problems which stem from that filthy rotten system of modernism is that many Catholics accept modernism as the Traditional Teachings.

And again, Paul, it seems to me that this is exactly at the root of our dialogue. You’re speaking in the externals of the Faith, which of course is important. We talk about the externals, too. But at heart, we are talking about the those issues which are the stepchildren of modernism: distinguishing 2 entities, one subsisting in the other, The Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ, and voila–ecumania! Denude the Liturgy of most references to Christ-as-Sacrifice, and voila–circus like atmospheres before, during and after the Liturgy, a declining belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist… the list goes on, ad absurdum, ad nauseum.

We’ll take you seriously when you begin to understand the problems, and understand that they are problems.

And Paul, in my job I do the training. Anyone who wishes to be trained meets a certain level of success proper to their acumen. Those who do not wish to be trained are cut loose, after being given every opportunity to learn. But because everyone is trainable. If they want to be.

 

[JReducation]

I would add to this thread that we beware of not making too many assumptions. I think this is a CAF sin. I just made up that sin.

But I have seen too many assumptions made about the SSPX, the Holy Father and other popes, the people who love the Ordinary Form and those who love the Extraordinary Form, and almost every cleric, bishop and religious in America.

We have to be very careful not to become a forum of assumptions, trying to imagine that we know what is right for everyone or that we know what the Church wants or what the Holy Father wants and so forth.

As I posted somwhere, I traveled on a plane with an SSPX priest and was very surprised that he is not a firm supporter of Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Fellay. He loves the principal of preserving tradition, but not at the expense of the OF. One thing that he said when I asked him made me feel very comfortable. “The TLM must be preserved for the sake of continuity; but the NO has already found a home in the Church and the spiritual life of many people and it would be just as cruel to strip it away as was once done with the TLM.”

This is a man after my own heart. I tried to recruit him to join the Francican Brothers, but he said that he does not have a vocation to the consecrated life. DARN IT!

The point is that assumptions don’t always work. I’m not an SSPXer, obviously. But I don’t think that I am an enemy of any of the folks on either side of this issue. We can talk and live together in peace. We can find solutions to difficulties and answers to questions. The key word here is BROTHERHOOD. We have to drop assumption and pick up brotherhood. Let’s work on the premise that we are brothes, rather than work from assumptions about things that we do not know for sure.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[maurin]

I have a hard time believing that JR. And we’re friends, so I know and am certain that you are not telling us a tale.

 

[PaulinVA]

the weed is the Novus Ordo. The Flower is the Changeless Teaching of the Church. The TLM is not the Flower being referred to. The NO Mass is not the weed being referred to. If noone minds, I will quote Dorothy Day: Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy rotten system. And his name modernism. Rip the filthy weed out by the roots, and replace it with the Traditional Teachings of the Church.

One of the problems which stem from that filthy rotten system of modernism is that many Catholics accept modernism as the Traditional Teachings.

And again, Paul, it seems to me that this is exactly at the root of our dialogue. You’re speaking in the externals of the Faith, which of course is important. We talk about the externals, too. But at heart, we are talking about the those issues which are the stepchildren of modernism: distinguishing 2 entities, one subsisting in the other, The Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ, and voila–ecumania! Denude the Liturgy of most references to Christ-as-Sacrifice, and voila–circus like atmospheres before, during and after the Liturgy, a declining belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist… the list goes on, ad absurdum, ad nauseum.

We’ll take you seriously when you begin to understand the problems, and understand that they are problems.

I think we agree on the problem. We are looking at it from different perspectives, but basically I agree with you, even if I don’t express it the same way you do.

Still, what I ask still remains. How? What do you mean in practice, not in SSPX chapels, but in the diocesan parishes? I’m on board with the idea - how does this happen?

 

[pnewton]

I think we agree on the problem.

I don’t know if I could ever agree that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a “weed”, though. Something seems wrong in treating where Heaven meets Earth and Jesus becomes our food with such a lowly term.

 

[JReducation]

I have a hard time believing that JR. And we’re friends, so I know and am certain that you are not telling us a tale.

Yes, we are good friends. And now I have made another good friend in the SSPX. The point of the story is that there are many good men on both sides of this issue. I’m speaking about the priests and bishops involved, including the Holy Father.

While they may not voice many opinions in public, they have opinions, feelings, concerns, fears, desires, hopes and perceptions of events that we are not privy to until we share with them, both side.

I don’t think this young man (young compared to me) was just telling me what he thought I wanted to hear, just because I was sitting next to him on a plane wearing a Franciscan habit. People do that. But I did not get this sense from him. I got a sense that he had met someone who understood his perspective from the inside, in this case, a religious.

Often, we religious and priests do not always say the same thing from the pulpti or in the seminary classroom that we share with each other. It would be inappropriate. It may even confuse people or muddle the waters even more.

Since we do not have the Holy See onlie (on CAF) of the SSPX priests, we tend to assume to know what they are thinking, what they want, what they are willing to do, or what they are going to do.

Speaking as my holy Father Francis would speak, I encourage everyone to stop assumming to know the heart and mind of another. A man’s heart and mind are the domain of the Holy Spirit, not the domain of man. To invade that domain is a sin of pride. It is an attempt to be God, omniscient. In charity, we must limit ourselves to describe what we see, without making inferences about those whom we see.

Our holy Father Francis said something that applies in this situation. I shared it with my friend, Rev. SSPX (not his real name). “Even when a prelate asks you to do something that you believe is less than what you know ought to be done, offer it up as a sacrifice and obey, for this is holy obedience that is pleasing to God.” We had a great discussion about this.

A trip from Miami to St. Paul allows you lots of time for conversation. Anyway, I also met another SSPX priest a few years ago. He was arrogant and angry. But we don’t judge people by their feelings. Feelings are like sleep. They are part of the human condition and they come and go with a good rest.

By the way Marin, I’ll be in your neck of the woods in August for a chapter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[I_Believe]

If no one minds, I will quote Dorothy Day: Our problems stem from our acceptance of this filthy rotten system. And his name modernism. Rip the filthy weed out by the roots, and replace it with the Traditional Teachings of the Church.

One of the problems which stem from that filthy rotten system of modernism is that many Catholics accept modernism as the Traditional Teachings.

Yep, and The Bishop of Rome has recently said as much

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

 

[Hyacinth_II]

How does this help the Church as a whole? How does the Society become more than a niche?

I’m sorry, but I see this as good for the SSPX, but I don’t see what the greater Church gets out of it.

Returning to our core beliefs and practices helps to clearly define who we are. Embracing sacred traditions renews within us the majesty of God. Ceremonies for His praise and adoration should be like no other celebration on earth… our traditonal Mass is like that and it also is a unifying factor in that anyone, no matter what language you speak, can come to Mass and understand what is going on…just bring your missal for translation.

I understand what you are saying about Catholic identity. I agree that too few people are properly enculturated as Catholics. I don’t see a return to parochial schools taught by nuns (and nuns are pretty liberal nowadays, anyway).

Some are…but many are returning to traditional ways, like Mother Angelica’s convent. They have figured out that the relaxed habit also has caused people to treat them with less respect. We live in a world where there is little respect for the individual. Parochial schools teach self respect. Children need to be taught how to defend themselves against all the assaults against their pure nature. We need to pray for more vocations to the religious life so that our schools can flourish again.

I don’t see the TLM replacing the NO. I agree that we have devolved into a great mess. But I don’t know what the answer is.

How about having the choice of which you want to attend? How about offering people a choice? Maybe then you could see how others feel. Right now we are not given the choice, so we go to the NO. I for one cry during the NO mass because I feel the it has reduced in splendor (less praise and adoration, less prayers, less reading of scripture)…and God deserves the best. But, that is my opinion.

So, the task is how to bring back certain traditional elements without the faithful and semi faithful bolting.

Slowly…perhaps by providing both Masses at all parishes for a few years…so people have a choice. Then is will become more clear.

These things are heavy on the mind of our Holy Father. Pray for him. Pray for our holy church. Jesus wants us to be united.

 

[numealinesimpet]

H H Benedict did not declare the excommunications were invalid or illegal,

No indeed, & Bp Fellay never asked for that. He knew that the Pope would never say, “Well, yes, we made a mistake and then did nothing about it for twenty years” (I’m not claiming at this point that this is what he would have had to say: but if, ‘for the sake of argument’, the excommunications were actually invalid, what is the situation?) Bp Fellay was asking for two things: that the Vatican tell the truth about the TLM (that it had never been abrogated); and that the decree of excommunication be lifted “without prejudice” to their original validity.

…just that they were lifted as a “life-giving gesture”. The sanction was therefore legal (aka licit) and very much valid.

Their lifting does not prove that they were origially valid, neither does it prove that they were invalid.
As I wrote on another thread: if an excommunication is an objective, automatic fact, which proves that the excommunicand has placed himself outside the church by his own actions, then it could not have been lifted unilaterally, as was done in this case. If, on the other hand, it is an act of the Pope over and above the original alleged offence, then the imposing (and subsequent lifting) does not, in itself, prove its validity. There is a very strong case for their having been illegal and invalid, that was never ‘tested in court’, as we have discussed already. The SSPX is willing to let hat rest and move on.

Also, even if they were valid, the case of S. Athanasius shows that this does not end the matter.

There are innumerable orders and societies in the Church, including the FSSP. If more than just SSPX chose to follow the path they did, existing in an irregular status, I would say ok. But since they were apparently the only ones who did so without lapsing into heresy (aka s-v’s), perhaps they are not the best “thermometer of the state of the Church”.

I’d have to say that is not a strong argument. It has happened often in both the Old Testament and the time A.D. that just one individual or group has held on and been vindicated.
I’m not saying at this point that the SSPX were completely right and all the others were completely wrong. Yet it seems that Providence has operated through the SSPX to preserve alive many treasures that would have been lost: the TLM. the Ignatian Retreats, the Children’s Eucharistic Crusade; and they are a gadfly that is now, after so many decades, the impetus for a real clarification of the ambiguities of Vatican II. But I’ll respond to JREducation’s posting on that.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Yes, we are good friends. And now I have made another good friend in the SSPX. The point of the story is that there are many good men on both sides of this issue. I’m speaking about the priests and bishops involved, including the Holy Father.

While they may not voice many opinions in public, they have opinions, feelings, concerns, fears, desires, hopes and perceptions of events that we are not privy to until we share with them, both side.

I don’t think this young man (young compared to me) was just telling me what he thought I wanted to hear, just because I was sitting next to him on a plane wearing a Franciscan habit. People do that. But I did not get this sense from him. I got a sense that he had met someone who understood his perspective from the inside, in this case, a religious.

Often, we religious and priests do not always say the same thing from the pulpti or in the seminary classroom that we share with each other. It would be inappropriate. It may even confuse people or muddle the waters even more.

Since we do not have the Holy See onlie (on CAF) of the SSPX priests, we tend to assume to know what they are thinking, what they want, what they are willing to do, or what they are going to do.

Speaking as my holy Father Francis would speak, I encourage everyone to stop assumming to know the heart and mind of another. A man’s heart and mind are the domain of the Holy Spirit, not the domain of man. To invade that domain is a sin of pride. It is an attempt to be God, omniscient. In charity, we must limit ourselves to describe what we see, without making inferences about those whom we see.

Our holy Father Francis said something that applies in this situation. I shared it with my friend, Rev. SSPX (not his real name). “Even when a prelate asks you to do something that you believe is less than what you know ought to be done, offer it up as a sacrifice and obey, for this is holy obedience that is pleasing to God.” We had a great discussion about this.

A trip from Miami to St. Paul allows you lots of time for conversation. Anyway, I also met another SSPX priest a few years ago. He was arrogant and angry. But we don’t judge people by their feelings. Feelings are like sleep. They are part of the human condition and they come and go with a good rest.

By the way Marin, I’ll be in your neck of the woods in August for a chapter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well done, JREd. “The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God”.
I was going to respond to your earlier posting on this topic.
You are right: there are things that can be said in the Officer’s Mess that cannot be said in the Recruiting Hall.
You wondered are the SSPX - attending Faithful drifting further from the clergy.

Well, I think there are two facets to this. First is the perennial problem of ‘the over-zealous layman’. G.K. Chesterton in his autobiography writes that, about 1930 when he was on the brink of converting, there came a point when the only thing keeping him from making the step would have been precisely those individuals.
My point is that these have always been a feature of a congregation; they are neither new nor exclusive to the SSPX.

The second point is that Bp Fellay & His Holiness are very clearly working towards a regularisation (I know I insist in other posts that the sanctions were always unsustainable, but obviously they are still, in part, in the public forum and not fully rescinded).

Now, as has been mentioned before on this thread, the SSPX are not a Religious Order under vows. pnewton, we were beginning to discuss this on the Bp Williamson thread when the modertors closed it down. You remarked that there was a difference between Mgr Lefebvre & S. Athanasius: the latter did not set up a schismatic order. No. Athanasius did not (although it is not true that he worked within the then official boundaries of the structure of the Church). But Mgr Lefebvre did not do this either: the SSPX (called, in non-English-speaking Europe the FSSPX or Fraternity of Saint Pius X) are a priestly fraternity without vows, dedicated to becoming holy, Catholic priests. Lefebvre was very punctilious about avoiding going into schism. The aim was nothing less than to avoid the corruptions of Faith and Liturgy that were at that time rampant, with the aim of keeping alive what was in danger of being lost. For decades the Vatican refused to address the real issues behind the rift.
But now that the Pope is taking the steps he has, Bp Fellay has the delicate task of steering as many souls as possible into a full reconciliation. The laypeople who attend the SSPX Masses are simply lay Catholics who have made that free choice. There is a full spectrum of opinions, from ‘covert sedevacs’ to very occasional attenders, who fully support the NO alongside the TLM. Likewise the priests will have different takes on the whole situation. Bp Fellay has called for patience, charity, firmness, and above all, prayer.

Apropos of which, I hope you will join the Rosary Crusade for the consecration of Russia and the Reign of the Immaculate Heart. You will find out about it on the main SSPX website. But it is tangential to this thread, albeit not entirely off-topic.

 

[JReducation]

I’m responding on a separate post for the sake of space and because in charity, I don’t want to turn this into a conversion between two people at the exclusion of our other brothers and sisters who want to share as well.

Although I am not a member of the SSPX and completely disagree with the actions taken by Archbishop Lefevbre (RIP), I still believe in the goodness of man. I have to speak from my own perspective and my Franciscan perspective, because I cannot claim to know what is in the heart and mind of others. In addition, this perspective is one with which I am familiar.

Being on the formation team for my own religious community and having taught some courses at the regional Catholic seminary, I have become more sensitive to the feelings of young men who want to be either priests or brothers. I see in them an innate goodness and a genuine desire to love and serve God. These are not things that are easily kept hidden. When a man has this desire it comes through in his actions and in his words. These are the observable behaviors upon which we must rest every argument for or against something.

As I mentioned above, I have had only two exposures to priests of the SSPX, one was less pleasant and the other very interesting and warm. I would even say that it awakened in me a sense of sensibility for the plight of the young men who want to serve God as priests in the SSPX.

Though I have never been in this situation and pray that I never will be, I can’t imagine what the pain must be like to be a suspended priest. Whether the SSPX members believe it or not, I can’t speak for all of them, for those who accept that they are suspended, this must be very painful and a difficult cross to bear. I can and do strongly support their prayers for a quicker resolution to the situation, not only for the good of the universal Church, which is important, but also for the individuals who are suspended. It’s funny, but when you put a face to a situation, you cannot help but change your mind about certain things.

I cannot say that I agree with the issues that the Society is placing on the table. But whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant. The fact that I believe that the Archbishop acted without prudence and the consecration of the four bishops was the wrong thing to do is also irrelevant. In the great scheme of things, only God, the Church and history can judge. I’m not too sure about the judgement of the latter.

This is the point that I’m trying to drive home to both sides within the laity, because I see the laity up in arms about these issues. If you visit a religious house, such as my friary, you don’t hear about the SSPX. Our brothers are well aware of their existence and of their circumstances. I believe the difference is that we know that God and the Church are at work here. We also know our place. And our place is not to push things faster than they should go or slow them down by planting more division than what is already growing among Catholics over this situation.

Just as I would take to task any priest or religious, either from the SSPX or those in communion with Rome, I also take to task the laity. You do not reconcile with your borther by throwing stones at him. The question has to be asked and answered by everyone. At this point, is throwing stones over the wall the solution? Or is the solution as Ronald Reagan once said, “Tear down the wall”?

I believe that the deed is done. Whatever his convictions, right or wrong, Msgr Lefebvre’s actions created a situation that is intolerable in the Church. It is intolerable for both the priests of the SSPX and for their brother priests who enjoy full communion with Rome.

Here is why I say that the situation is intolerable. It is intolerable, because the priesthood of Jesus Christ is one. It is the same for all ordained priests, in communion with Rome, in irregular states such as the SSPX or separated such as the Orthodox. Unknown to the priests themselves, while there is division, the Eucharist that they celebrate, the sacrifice that they reenact on the altar, is the same sacrifice of Calvary. It is the same Supper of the Lord. There is only one Lord and only one sacrifice and only one Eucharistic supper. Therefore, it is theologically reprehensible that the men who act in Christ’s place not be in full communion with each other while they partake and minister to others the sign of communion, the most holy body and blood of Christ.

From my perspective, the unity of the Church and with the Church must be preserved at all costs, out of love and respect for the Eucharist which is our communion sign. I’m using the word sign as it is used in sacramental theology, that which is instituted by Christ to give grace, not as it is often used by Protestants. My meaning here is the traditional Catholic meaning for the worlds “sign” and “sacrament”.

That being cleared up, before someone beats me over the head, I will again dare to speak as a Franciscan and proclaim the Gospel as Francis understood it and taught it to us and as it was approved by the Church that he do so.

From the year 1209 when we came into existence, our role in the Church was clearly defined by our profession ritual. I don’t know how many people know it. When we make vows we say,

“I, Brother N, vow and promise to almighty God, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, to our Holy Father St. Francis, to all the angels and saints, and to you brother (superior), to observe the rule of St. Francis, living in OBEDIENCE, without property and in celibate chastity all the days of my life.”

Observe that the first word that Francis puts into the promise is obedience. Contrary to popular belief, it is not poverty. Poverty resulted from obedience to the command of Christ to go and sell everything and then come follow him. We begin with obedience.

 

[JReducation]

Conclusion

When the Holy Father lifted the excommunication of the four bishops he made it very clear to the SSPX that the Church is not frozen in 1962 and they must accept that and move forward with the Vatican Council and so forth. But he also said to the rest of us that we must also remember that the Church did not begin in 1962 and that the Council was built upon the tradition of the Church going back to the Apostles. Therefore, both sides have a moral obligation, for the sake of unity, especially the unity of our priests and sacraments, to move.

Those who are stuck at 1962 must move forward with the Church and face the difficulties of today’s Church, whether they like it or not. This is the obedience that I learned to live by and which I promised until death. HOWEVER, those who trace the birth of the Church to 1962 need to go back into history, all the way back to the Apostles, whether they like it or not. This too is part of the obedience that I promised until death.

Therefore, it is my vocation, not only to live obedient to the Holy Father’s requirements, but it is also my vocation to live according to the requirements that St. Francis set forth in our holy rule. That is . . . that we lead the laity in being obedient by example and by word. That’s what I’m trying to do here.

I don’t know if I’m doing a good job or not, only God knows. But my hope is that the laity in the SSPX will stop the defense of the SSPX. This is not the time to be defensive. This is the time to admit that what happened is over. Whether it was the prudent thing to do or not, it cannto be undone. But what can be done is to look for those points that they have in common with the universal Church, including the NO people. I hate that term.

Second, my hope is that the laity outside of the SSPX will stop the condemnation of what happened. It’s water under the bridge at this point. Whether it was right or wrong, is there anyone here who can go back and change the past? Those who are not part of the SSPX must also find the common point with the SSPX laity and build from there. They must ask themselves the question, why should I love my brother? The answer will always be the obvious one, because he’s my brother.

Like the beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son, if the SSPX is the Prodigal Son, let us celebrate that he wants to come home. And if the ordinary Catholic person in the pew is the brother who remained home and is now less than welcoming, let the Prodigal Son not take to heart his brother’s anger, but continue on the road home.

I sincerely believe that there are more lay people making this reunification more difficult than it need be. When you begin to voice your assumptions of what people are thinking, feeling, desiring you place tremendous expectations on them. Expectations can be heavy crosses. They can impair the leaders who are trying to work out a lasting reconciliation. These assumptions of who is right and wrong and who should do what, place heavy expectations on the leaders. They often must feel weighted down by their fear of letting people down and the responsibility that comes from people leaving the Church, because they are let down.

Let us not place these crosses on the leaders in the Vatican or within the SSPX. There are good priests out there who need to be in full communion with their brother priests so that the unity of Christ’s priesthood is more visible to society. We live in a world that needs a visible presence of Christ brother and Christ priest more than ever.

As good brothers, as St. Francis would say, let us not dwell too much on the sins of the prelate, but on the graces that are made available to the Church through unity, even if it is the unity of the most sinful priests. The grace is in the unity of the sacraments, not in the priest who brings us the sacraments. Let us work for this unity by checking ourselves before we open our mouths to speak. Let us show our desire for this unity by speaking only of what we can see and that in very descriptive terms, not moral judgements. Let us leave the moral judgements to God and those in the Church who have the authority to make them.

As Francis said, “Let us begin brothers, for up to now, we have done nothing.” Let us begin to find the good and the holy on both sides and to speak about those things on these threads. Let us begin to put proposals on these threads that will help the laity be reconciled. Let the clergy and the hierarchy do their work of reconciliation at their level and let us do our work of reconciliation at our level. Let us be true instruments of peace.

I apologize for the lenfth of this post and also if I have offended anyone. It is not my intention to offend.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PaulinVA]

Hyacinth - thank you for your post. Yes, perhaps a period of teaching and availablity of both forms. Latin classes for all!

pnewton - the NO, in and of itself, isn’t that bad. It’s how it is delivered in practice. But, I will admit that in making it more accessible to the people, it has been watered down.

JR - I always enjoy your well-thought-out posts.

To all - how can the traditional elements of the faith be emphasized in a way that it looks like we are moving forward, not reverting to the past? I think it’s a big problem if people perceive we are moving backwards.

 

[maurin]

Yes, we are good friends. And now I have made another good friend in the SSPX. The point of the story is that there are many good men on both sides of this issue. I’m speaking about the priests and bishops involved, including the Holy Father.

While they may not voice many opinions in public, they have opinions, feelings, concerns, fears, desires, hopes and perceptions of events that we are not privy to until we share with them, both side.

I don’t think this young man (young compared to me) was just telling me what he thought I wanted to hear, just because I was sitting next to him on a plane wearing a Franciscan habit. People do that. But I did not get this sense from him. I got a sense that he had met someone who understood his perspective from the inside, in this case, a religious.

Often, we religious and priests do not always say the same thing from the pulpti or in the seminary classroom that we share with each other. It would be inappropriate. It may even confuse people or muddle the waters even more.

Since we do not have the Holy See onlie (on CAF) of the SSPX priests, we tend to assume to know what they are thinking, what they want, what they are willing to do, or what they are going to do.

Speaking as my holy Father Francis would speak, I encourage everyone to stop assumming to know the heart and mind of another. A man’s heart and mind are the domain of the Holy Spirit, not the domain of man. To invade that domain is a sin of pride. It is an attempt to be God, omniscient. In charity, we must limit ourselves to describe what we see, without making inferences about those whom we see.

Our holy Father Francis said something that applies in this situation. I shared it with my friend, Rev. SSPX (not his real name). “Even when a prelate asks you to do something that you believe is less than what you know ought to be done, offer it up as a sacrifice and obey, for this is holy obedience that is pleasing to God.” We had a great discussion about this.

A trip from Miami to St. Paul allows you lots of time for conversation. Anyway, I also met another SSPX priest a few years ago. He was arrogant and angry. But we don’t judge people by their feelings. Feelings are like sleep. They are part of the human condition and they come and go with a good rest.

By the way Marin, I’ll be in your neck of the woods in August for a chapter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

JR, pm me where you will be and when, and if you’ll have the opportunity to meet. By the way, your trip from Miami to St. Paul–I know both the Priests who have served this area–our Chapel in Davie and in Lake Worth, for the past 5 years. There’s no way it was one of them that you met. Neither are bitter or angry men. But neither are either infected in the way you describe.

 

[maurin]

To all - how can the traditional elements of the faith be emphasized in a way that it looks like we are moving forward, not reverting to the past? I think it’s a big problem if people perceive we are moving backwards.

Paul, it’s quite simple: the long awaited Doctrinal discussions. A reevaluation and reimplementation of the Council. Most of the Councils documents can be interpreted and implemented according to Tradition. Some must be clarified and re-written. The NO Mass wasn’t asked for by the Council Fathers. We can only pray it too receives the same treatment.

 

[maurin]

I don’t know if I could ever agree that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a “weed”, though. Something seems wrong in treating where Heaven meets Earth and Jesus becomes our food with such a lowly term.

pnewton, c’mon. did I or did I not say that the NO Mass is not the weed? It’s the filthy rotten system of modernism. the modernists were so clever that most Catholics believe modernism is Tradition. And modernists invade the Traditional Forum with the firm belief that they are the Traditional ones.

Please re-read my post and respond to what I actually said. Please?

But since you did bring it up, something does seem very wrong in treating where Heaven meets Earth and Jesus becomes our food with such a protestantized service–where most references to Him as Sacrifice have been eschewed. Where the Communion of Saints and Our Blessed Mother are invoked less than are our brothers and sisters–as in the NO Confiteor…

 

[PaulinVA]

Paul, it’s quite simple: the long awaited Doctrinal discussions. A reevaluation and reimplementation of the Council. Most of the Councils documents can be interpreted and implemented according to Tradition. Some must be clarified and re-written. The NO Mass wasn’t asked for by the Council Fathers. We can only pray it too receives the same treatment.

maurin, so you see the doctrinal discussions with SSPX as an opportunity for the Church to change, to get back on course?

A few months ago I would have laughed at you for holding that view. Now, not so much. I am trying to move past where the renewal or revival comes from, just that we see it starting. So, yes, maybe that’s the ticket.

 

[maurin]

maurin, so you see the doctrinal discussions with SSPX as an opportunity for the Church to change, to get back on course?

A few months ago I would have laughed at you for holding that view. Now, not so much. I am trying to move past where the renewal or revival comes from, just that we see it starting. So, yes, maybe that’s the ticket.

It’s funny–do you see ICK asking for these discussions? The FSSP? The Dominicans, Franciscans, Cathusians, the Benedictines? Nope. Only the SSPX.