Monday, July 10, 2006

Followup to Flesh of My Flesh

In the previous post there were interesting comments about the article by Dr. Peter Chojnowski. To illustrate the importance of the article I am going to highlight some quotes of especial interest that I think make the case for why this article had to be written:

One commenter wrote that the last thing we need is a man telling women how to be women. Well if we didn't have 4400 babies killed a day by abortion and all the other attendant evils of feminism I might I might agree with you. What do you think of this quote:

A husband's constitutional helplessness in the face of his wife's desire to abort their unborn child is one of the gravest manifestations of his legal and social castration.


Overall I thought the article was about MEN and not women. It was demonstrating the massive and awesome responsibility that men have to society and the family. This section of what should occur with courtship and dating especially stood out for me because it just doesn't happen anymore. Women are running after men, trying to make up their minds for them and passive men wake up one day and find themselves married, strong men can't find a woman who won't throw herself at him first.

The quote:

Just as it was the male's place to work to establish the nascent relationship by indicating interest and by struggling to win the affections of the female, who should only reciprocate interest if he struggles in a manly way to get her attention so too must he be the one, in the social and economic ventures of the family are to suceed, who injects his ideas, talents, labors into both family life and the civic order.


I should say too that I don't see the role of raising childen, homemaking and being a wife as inferior or of less importance than manly endeavor. I think if you have that view perhaps subconsciously you will be offended by these statements.

And to the lady who objected to the article because the author lectured for the Society of Pius X I would say that if the Jews are our "elder brothers" and the Protestants are our "separated brethern" then surely there must be a place for the SSPX.

122 comments:

A. Figuerado said...

"surely there must be a place for SSPX".

There might eventually be some place for SSPX, but for now the Vatican has officially declared that faithful Catholics should have nothing to do with this group because their bishops were ordained without approval from the Vatican.

As a faithful Catholic, I follow the church's official teachings and I can't pick and chose which teachings/declarations to follow.

In terms of the Harry Potter discussion, you had said that one reason you were against them is because the Holy Father warned about these books (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger). In term of SSPX, the Vatican has officially asked Catholics not to associate with the Society.
Why do you reject the Vatican's ruling in this case? (This is an honest question, I'm not trying to start a fight -- it seems to me that the schisms within Catholic church an extremely problematic and potentially dangerous)

Violet said...

The issue of SSPX has been discussed on other blogs (such as the Cafeteria is closed). This quote is especially important to know about.

Apostolic Letter "Ecclesia Dei," of 2 July 1988

"In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law. "

Terry said...

Please define formal adherence.

And why is it that no one wants to answer Ms. Alexander's bigger question? The Jews are our elder brothers; the Protestants are our separated brothers; the Orthodox are our Siamese brother's lung; the Muslims are our brothers in the Book, but the Society of St. Pius X is to be treated like the red-headed stepbrother.

It should be noted I live roughly five miles from a Society chapel; I drive 35 miles to an indult. But this constant slamming of the Society in favor of gushing over heretics and the true schismatics never ceases to amaze me.

violet said...

Terry wrote:
"Please define formal adherence."

The quote comes from an Apostolic letter issued by the Vatican in which they discuss this issue in more detail.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

The letter begins:
"1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)"

As for your question about why the society is treated as "red-headed stepbrother", the letter outlines the issue quite well. See, for example, paragraph 3 "3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act"

In short, the group has rejected apostolic succession yet still claims to be Catholic. This is a contradiction. As we know from other discussions on this blog and other Catholic blogs, apostolic succession is an essential aspect of the Catholic faith.

Thus, this society projects an incorrect view of what the Catholic church teaches. The other relations you mention don't claim to be Catholic (obviously).

Terry said...

I'm familiar with Ecclesia Dei.

And nothing you posted answers the bigger question. Can a layperson be a formal adherent or member of a priestly fraternity? Certainly, I'm no canonist, and the canonists' arguments on both sides regarding this issue as it relates to the layperson leaves me with a headache. But that still remains the question to be answered.

The other relations you mention don't claim to be Catholic(obviously).

The Orthodox do quite frequently.

And to dismiss a work because of the publication in which it appears or due to the writer's affiliation, formal or not, is fallacious.

violet said...

"Can a layperson be a formal adherent or member of a priestly fraternity?"

OK. I see what you're getting at now. Here's the way I view it, if a group is not in communion with the Holy See, why would I (a Catholic) want to attend their masses (which are illicit), or take their views seriously? They are entitled to their opinion (like ever other Tom, Dick, and Harriet in this country) but they do not represent the Catholic church and I would never take my spiritual guidance from a member of or supporter of this schismatic group.

"And to dismiss a work because of the publication in which it appears or due to the writer's affiliation, formal or not, is fallacious."

I disagree, it's called good scholarship. The place and quality of the publication is a good indication of whether the articles should be given serious consideration. Put it in another context, would you take this article seriously if it was written in Protestantism Today, or The Occulist? If not, why? It's because these (fictious) publications don't represent the Catholic church and are likely to project views that are contrary to its doctorine (in this case SSPX rejects apostolic succession -- which is NOT a minor issue).

About the Orthodox comment -- some of the Orthodox churches ARE (unlike SSPX) in communion with the Holy See, some aren't. Which one are you referring to?

thefeds said...

Where there is Peter, there is the Church! Look to the Church Fathers. There emphasis was always in preserving the Truth, passed from Christ to the Apostles, always with Peter at the head. In breaking that chain, SSPX has made a mockery of their own claim of being the True Church. They are now nothing more than one more in a long line of heresies!

There is a big discussion of this awhile back at http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43878

Screwtape would have loved these people. The devil has twisted them through their pride. Their "bishops" have position and an adoring group to tell them they are wonderful. Admit mistakes, rejoin Rome? Certainly not. What? give this all up? We can pray for them; indeed we must pray for them. But an honest contempt for what they have done cannot be avoided by long-suffering, faithful Catholics.

jack said...

Terry,
There are materials on the web that are helpful for determining what the Ecclesia Dei implies for laypeople.

Here is one (letter):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

Here are some passages.
"First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility."

"In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X."

hilary said...

I think the point of the post is the double standard.

Why is the SSPX treated like lepers of old, but the Holy Father sends 'fraternal greetings' to Anglicans, (as well as eipiscopal rings the way he is supposed to do to real bishops), kisses the Koran, and visits Jewish synagogues with this same 'fraternal' love, but the SSPX has had to wait until this year even to receive an invitation to discuss matters with the Pope personally?

Why do we knock ourselves out trying to make nice with the Russian and Greek Orthodox, take their insults on the chin with a simper and not give the SSPX a glance since the schism?

A schism that is based not on fundamental matters of doctrine, but on matters (admittedly very serious ones) of discipline? The SSPX has been in schism for less than thirty years and they have indeed been treated as pariahs, but we fall all over ourselves to effect ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox who have vitriolically hated us for a thousand years?

No one else see a leeeeetle double standard here?

Could it be because the doctrinal matters which the SSPX have raised (and Rome has refused to answer) are exactly these? Ecumenism, so they assert, is active religious indifferentism and true evangelization, the desire to bring everyone under the wing of Holy Mother Church has been abandoned for the sake of, as they say, a false unity.


Let's not confuse the issues.

If the SSPX is in schism, the Orthodox are a thousand years more in schism. And they are at least Christians.

But everyone gets the polite nod except those who are trying to be Catholic and long for Rome to do the same.

hilary said...

"formal adherence" means being a priest, seminarian, member of the lay associates or female religious of the Society of St. Pius X.

lay people who only go to their masses do not fit this bill.

The fact that Msgr Perl said that a Catholic may go to their Masses and even contribute to the collection plate and fulfill his Sunday obligation, indicates clearly that he and the Ecclesia Dei Commission acknowledge that there could be situations in which a Catholic of good conscience could not fulfill his obligation in his local parish. Or want to risk taking his children there to be corrupted. The Church's law recognizes grave incovnenience as a reason for an exemption from some normal disciplinary laws. It is expected that in the normal course of things, one should be able to go to the local parish and sit through it, with gritted teeth perhaps, but sit through for the sake of obeying the normal requirements.

But it is also understood that these are not normal circumstances and if, for example, the local bishop allows or winks at certain liturgical practices that actually invalidate the Mass, or certain types of preaching that would place the souls of the simple in difficulty, then it is understood that a Catholic can go somewhere else. In many places, small towns for example, and rural areas, and even some larger towns, a place nearby that does not place such problems before the faithful is not readily available. Not everyone has the means to drive 30 or 70 miles to the nearest reliably valid (never mind Tridentine Indult) Mass and a Catholic can, with a clear conscience attend an SSPX chapel when there is no other way to fulfill one's religious obligations.

Of course, it is understood that the intention has to be correct. One cannot with a good conscience go to the SSPX as a means of "leaving the Church" when one is finally fed up with the clowns and balloons and homosexual priests leering at one's young sons from the pulpit.

These are difficult and confusing times and it is no longer enough to shrug and say "I'm with the Pope" and leave it at that.

Very often this simplistic attitude is one that will itself lead one into doctrinal trouble and conflicts.

hilary said...

in this case SSPX rejects apostolic succession


here's where you are plainly mistaken Violet.

The SSPX do not deny the doctrine of the apostolic succession, nor are they sedevacantists who believe the current pope is invalidly elected.

I can see that it would be very helpful for you to read what they actually say before diving in.

And note, I do not attend their Masses because I believe they are out of Communion with the Holy Father (at the moment) but their criticisms of the current state of things are often spot on and they have a unique perspective.

One advantage they have, if I may say something a bit untoward, is that not being "in the company" they are not constrained by what the current official line is on many matters and one hears quite frank assesments quite often from them that could be made public by no other body in the Church.

I know that many MANY priests and not a few bishops have listened very carefully to their analysis of what is wrong and are taking it very seriously indeed, and all without worrying very much over "disloyalty".

Truth is truth and when one side is saying two and two equal four, and the other is trying as hard as it might to distract attention from this, it is best to listen with an impartial ear.

hilary said...

their own claim of being the True Church.

Here again, an error in fact. the SSPX do not claim this.

jack said...

Hilary:
"But everyone gets the polite nod except those who are trying to be Catholic and long for Rome to do the same."

But there are two problems with that opinion.
First, Catholics are held to a higher standard because they are obligated to uphold the teachings of the church. Someone who is Catholic KNOWS the teachings and, thus, disobeying those teachings is a serious error. Someone who is NOT Catholic is not fully information about the facts and thus cannot be expected to abide by those teachings and beliefs. Eventually, non-Catholics might convert once they are more fully aware of the Truth (see the Journey Home website for countless examples). The goal of ecuminism isn't to say that everything goes. It's to create a connection between Catholics and Non-Catholics so that we (Catholics) can better bring the True Faith to non-Catholics. After all, if you were a non-Catholic, do you think you'd be willing to join the church (or even learn about the Church) if the dominant message you got is that "We're perfect because we're Catholic and we don't want anything to do with non-perfect heathen like you".

Second, SSPX are NOT trying to be faithful Catholics.

Rather than (me) rehashing arguments elsewhere please see these two sources:
1) http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.6/lefebvre.htm
The article is by someone who used to hold the same view as you seem to. He gives a balanced argument and makes a valid argument for his decision to leave SSPX
2) "Terrible things are happening in the Church, but I don't see anything that the Society of St. Pius X can fix." http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2864

Comments on catholic World News are more blunt: 'Where Peter is, there is the Church. The men of SSPX have refused obedience to Peter; professing their own beliefs that suit them. We call these men heretics and shoud let the penalties stand. Humility and obedience cannot stand in the face of such arrogance and pride. Let them stand "out in the snow" for awhile - until they repent. They are not the kind of bishops and priests the church needs - now or ever. Let them learn to languish and yearn for their Father's House."

hilary said...

is a good indication of whether the articles should be given serious consideration.


No. Again this is a logical fallacy. If a bad source says four and four are eight, is the fact incorrect?

Read widely, and understand your Faith. You cannot be led astray by falsehood if you know the truth (and pray and receive the sacraments a great deal). But the Holy Father (JPII) himself read and praised in his writing the work of all kinds of non-Catholics, people who were so far away from the truth of the Holy Faith that previous generations would have been deeply scandalized to find them mentioned favourably in Papal writings.

Read and learn things, everything you can but hold to the truth.

Didn't St. Paul say as much?

Consider the source indeed, but look at what he is saying and see if there is something useful to be learned.

Jack said...

A recent article on SSPX includes the following:

"Any traditional manual of moral theology would show to the authors of this [SSPX] manifesto that we should never do evil to obtain good ."
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6848

A few days ago, the Harry Potter post lead to discussion in which the dominant view was that evil should never be used to obtain good. (I agree)

Here in this real life example, SSPX has chosen to do things that are harmful to the Catholic Church in order to do what (they, and Hilary) imply is for the greater good.

hilary said...

Put it in another context, would you take this article seriously if it was written in Protestantism Today, or The Occulist?

Actually, the more I htink about it, Violet, the more this is revealed as a terribly silly thing to say.

Not everythign worth reading is Catholic, not everything that is non-Catholic is dangerous, not everything that is dangerous to children and the uninformed is dangerous to the baptized and catechized.

Even ignominious dreck like Dan Brown and Harry Potter present no danger to a man like Benedict XVI. I would not place them into the hands of what passes for a catechized Catholic in our times, and someone like Fulton Sheen would eat it up and spit it out for breakfast.

But the position, "not Catholic=evil" lets us out of a great deal of suprememly valuable real literature and philosophy. And is very convenient I might add. But somewhat selective I see. We are all for Harry and his training in wizardry, his assertion of his own will using powers specifically forbidden to man, but we don't like a salient and forthright examination of the problems in the Church by men who could run theological circles around most priests of our time who remain in good standing with their equally ignorant or heterodox bishops.

I have heard some pretty funny stuff coming from the commbox of this blog. Harry Potter is a "deeply Christian" work because he sometimes displays some of the natural pagan virtues - but only when it suits him of course - but the analysis by hte SSPX, taken seriously by some of the Church's most pre-eminent scholars and ecclesiastics is anathema?

Very odd indeed.

I do hope you are never stranded on a deserted isle with only the Odyssey or Iliad to read. Heaven forfend you might find something true in them.

Perpetua said...

Hilary wrote:
"Consider the source indeed, but look at what he is saying and see if there is something useful to be learned."

I DO know my faith and I did read the article, and what struck me is that his main premise contradicts official Church teaching that woman is not inferior to man (2334 "In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity." "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God.")
2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.

The claim that man can exist without woman but not vice-versa is ludicrious. The Church teachings us that one of the reasons for their creations is to procreate. How can man do that on his own?
(For example: 1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."
2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." All human generations proceed from this union.


Pretty much every main point in his article can be contradicted with a quote from the Catechism, but I won't bore you with the details. You are Catholic and also know the faith so you can do that on your own.

Given that the main theses in the article contradict the Church's teaching I conclude that there is nothing useful in the article.

Anonymous said...

hilary wrote:
"everything that is dangerous to children and the uninformed is dangerous to the baptized and catechized."

So are you now in favor of ADULTs reading Harry Potter? I thought you were against the book for all ages?

Jack said...

Hilary wrote:
"The fact that Msgr Perl said that a Catholic may go to their Masses and even contribute to the collection plate and fulfill his Sunday obligation, "

Where did he say this? Can you send the source so I can read it?

His letter DISCOURAGES people from attending SSPX masses.
"While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith"

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently
DISCOURAGED THE FAITHFUL FROM ATTENDING MASSES celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X."

Jack said...

Hilary wrote:
"The fact that Msgr Perl said that a Catholic may go to their Masses and even contribute to the collection plate and fulfill his Sunday obligation, "

Where did he say this? Can you send the source so I can read it?

His letter DISCOURAGES people from attending SSPX masses.
"While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith"

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently
DISCOURAGED THE FAITHFUL FROM ATTENDING MASSES celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X."

hilary said...

It's to create a connection between Catholics and Non-Catholics so that we (Catholics) can better bring the True Faith to non-Catholics.


I wish that you were right about this, but I have read many official documents from the Vatican office related to "dialogue" with other Christian communities and it does not fill me with the hope that this is the goal in mind. In fact, of course, you are right about this. This is the proper goal of 'ecumenism' as it is now called. But it used to be called more forthrightly Evangelization, and we did not try to gussie it up or deny its real purpose for fear of offending. We have become the Stockholm Syndrome Catholics, so afraid to offend, we have effectively given away the whole shop.

I have noted, not without alarm, that Cardinal Kasper has lately cleaned up his act publicly at least, but it does not ameliorate his previous statements. One likes, as the saying goes, to keep the wasp in the room in full view. Not nice when it crawls off somewher you can't see it.

Nor does it set my mind at ease when a man like Michael Fitzgerald (since 'exiled' to Cairo, thanks be to God) is allowed to squire around town a man like Tariq Aziz while Christians are being murdered, raped and killed all over the Muslim world.

The same goes for the communist world. Under John Paul II (may God grant him pardon and peace) we had Roger Cardinal Etchegaray going to China and patting the communists on the back and telling them the Church in China has 'two faces' while the commies bulldozed churches and arrested and tortured bishops, priests, seminarians and lay catechists. Well, someone has two faces, but I'm not sure it is the People's Catholic Patriotic Association.

I thank God for giving us Papa Ratzinger, but we have a long way to go to undo the damage of the last thirty or forty years.

hilary said...

His letter DISCOURAGES people from attending SSPX masses

yes it does. But it also gives permission.

The usual caveats apply. One must have a grave reason and the Church has an established list of these kinds of things. They used to be well understood, but then so many things did.

Anonymous said...

Hilary wrote:
"I do hope you are never stranded on a deserted isle with only the Odyssey or Iliad to read. Heaven forfend you might find something true in them."

ohhh. I LOVE the Odyssey. I just finished reading it last week. I think I'll become a pagan!
Actually it IS true that I read it last week and that I did enjoy it, but AS A WORK OF FICTION. Also, it is necessary reading for those studying Plato's Republic because he (Plato) debunks a lot of the view presented by Homer, and it is also useful for understanding the mindset of the ancient Greeks.

Jack said...

Hilary wrote:
" we have a long way to go to undo the damage of the last thirty or forty years."

Agreed! that points you raised are certainly prime examples of how NOT to be ecumenical.

hilary said...

We call these men heretics


But, oddly enough, the Vatican does not.

Who is being more Catholic than the Church here?

hilary said...

Any traditional manual of moral theology would show to the authors of this [SSPX] manifesto that we should never do evil to obtain good ."



now again, we must carefully consider the source. While I would agree with this, and even (generally) as applied to the SSPX, but just because a publication claims fidelity to the Church does not make every one of their pronouncements correct. This is a delicate enough matter that Rome herself is treating it (now and finally) with kid gloves. I have found a great deal of gratiuitous hatred of the SSPX and what we now call traditionalists, gets disguised as 'charity' and orthodoxy in many of what we call 'conservative' Catholic publications.

Reading one of these, or more specifically, relying exclusively on them for your information, is a bit like relying on one side in a divorce case. (perhaps not the best analogy). I have noted that ignorance and hatred of 'tradition' in general with the worst kind of disinformation is often taken as 'fact' in places like this. There are many issues upon which one can rely quite comfortably on something like EWTN (more than most I would say) or the self-styled Catholic apologists like the Jimmy Akins of the world, but I have noted that accurate reporting and analysis of the so-called "traditionalist questions" is not among them.

Far better to read what the Vatican officials are saying yes? And none of them are saying anything like "they're heretics."

hilary said...

I'm sorry Perpetua, I don't know what article you are referring to. I am only really responding to what I have seen of the errors of fact and analysis, many of which have become cliches, that have been made in the comments.

hilary said...

Can you send the source so I can read it?


Jack, please. Do your own research. and try looking at sites other than ...which is it? Catholic.org? Catholic Culture?

Just do what I do, Stick the name into google.

Do some work.

hilary said...

Well it certainly is a good thing I spent so many years fencing and stage fighting in my frivolous youth. I learned to hold a weapon in each hand and fight two or three on every side.

Often won. And it was gobs of fun.

In those days, they called me "shredder".

Hah!

Well, this was fun, but I need to finish the laundry. But I think the point is worth summing up.

If the Vatican prelates delegated to deal with the problem do not consider the SSPX heretics, we do not have the competency to judge them so.

The question is still valid. If the Orthodox schismatics are worthy of sitting down with in 'ecumenical dialogue,' courting at things like the (in my opinion disastrous) Assisi meetings, holding summit discussions with, why is the same courtesy not shown these others?

Best to do one's own research and take all sources with the grain or two of salt of which we are all supposed to be in posession.

And yes, I think most adult Catholics today are so badly catechized they are plainly sitting ducks for something as insidious and externally attractive as Harry Potter.

I didn't read them for this reason. Just a glance at the cover and I was brought back to earlier times in my life when I was presented with equally "harmless" material as a child.

My mother, having been taught nothing of her Faith, abandoned it easily enough when presented with such things.

I don't read them now, because they stink of brimstone and I have better things to read. Lots of better things. Even most non-Catholic literature. Harry Potter is plainly meant as a tool of creating confusion in the faithful. If you want to read non-Catholic literature I'd say more power to you, and go for it. I can recommend lots, but I take one look at Harry and see a trap.

And the comments I have read here and in most places where Harry is so vigorously defended by "devout Catholics" have only confirmed that opinion.

Perpetua said...

Hilary wrote:
"I'm sorry Perpetua, I don't know what article you are referring to."

I was referring to the Article that started these comments. (Mary wrote: "In the previous post there were interesting comments about the article by Dr. Peter Chojnowski.")

My quotes are from the Catechism of The Catholic Church (with the numbers being paragraph numbers)

Jack said...

Hilary wrote:



Is this the letter you mean? (see below)
If so, I can see why you were reluctant to link to it.
It is hardly a ringing endorsement and it is clear that in in another letter (not published on the website) he explained WHY the person should not attend the SPSSx mass. In addition, it also sounds like this is a special case in that the person seemed to give other arguments about why they could not attend the licit masses in their area.


"ECCLESIA DEI" Pontifical Commission's Msgr Camille Perl
Second Reply to unknown person #1, Sept. 27, 2002
From 15th December 2002 REMNANT Dear Mr. ....... We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 August 2002 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos along with the enclosures. In our letter to you of 7 November 2001 we provided you with important information about the status of the Society of St. Pius X according to the law of the Church and told you that we cannot recommend your frequenting their chapels, but you indicate that you are not satisfied with our responses and have raised three more specific questions. We will deal with them in logical order. 1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. 2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attendance at such a Mass were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. 3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at mass could be justified.... Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary


By the way, the reason I quoted from catholicculture is that it has been verified to be faithful to the Church's teaching

Susan Wise said...

"The fact that Msgr Perl said that a Catholic may go to their Masses and even contribute to the collection plate and fulfill his Sunday obligation"

I have read the full letter and your quote does not accurately reflect his comments. For example, his comment about the collection plate was in response to whether it was a sin to contribute, not in response to whether it was permissible. "In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation" Notice the word "strict" which implies that it is technically OK in some cases but not encouraged in normal situations.
He clearly did not endorse these actions

In the same letter he wrote: The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

Msgr Perl also wrote that Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."

My Google search also turned up this information.

The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.
and Catholics are not legally permitted to receive the sacraments from the SSPX.
PS I know your comment was directed at Jack

Susan Wise said...

"I have noted that ignorance and hatred of 'tradition' in general with the worst kind of disinformation"

I'm all for tradition and the Church is based on that (the first section of the Catechism makes that clear) but if the SSPx and their supporters claim to adhere strictly to Tradition, then they cannot do what they have done without violating fundamental principles of the Catholic faith which teaches that it is the Magisterium who interpets and guides the church.

CCC 83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.


I don't understand how SSPX and their supporters can claim to be faithful Catholics who adhere to tradition, yet act in opposition to these (and other) statements in the Catechism.


Tradition, the Pope said, "is the living Gospel pronounced in its integrity by the apostles." The history of the Church, with each generation passing along the truths of the Gospel to the next, is "the history of the Spirit, working in the life of the Church through the apostles and their successors, in faithful continuity with the original experience." The tradition of the Church, the Pontiff continued, is "not a collection of things," but an active involvement of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the faithful. Through it, he continued, "the Church transmits all that she is and all that she believes." This process will continue until the end of the world, with the faith of the original apostles preserved and practiced in every generation.

The mandate given by Christ to the 12 apostles, the Pope said, is equally valid for their successors. The original twelve, he observed, "not only express the continuation of the holy race, the twelve tribes of Israel, but also the universal destiny of its ministry." And the tradition that they preach and protect is "a source of all truth and moral law."

Christ's mandate, the Pope [Benedict XVI] continued, involves not only the apostles' duty to pass along the teaching of the Church, but also their work of pastoral, liturgical, and prophetic leadership. Through this apostolic work, he said, "Christ himself comes to the one who is called to the faith, overcoming the span of the generations, and offering Himself-- alive and active-- in the Church today."


The SSPX rejects the judgement of Rome. This is the problem. The fact that the SSPX is sincere doesn't change anything. They have no authority within the church to decide matters of faith, tradition, law or sacramental rites. They only have their own human opinions.

HSarsfield said...

Jack,
I am hardly one to give a ringing endorsement of the SSPX, but while I see what you are saying, you did seem to gloss over one important part of Msgr. Perl's letter:

"If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. 3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at mass could be justified..."

So while I agree that the Msgr. is hardly saying that attending an SSPX Mass would be the best thing, he is in no way saying that it is a sin, in most cases, to attend, and it would even be appropriate to contribute to the collection. This is to make sure that those that are against the Masses of the SSPX are aware that the average participant is doing nothing wrong by their attendance.

hilary said...

Notice the word "strict" which implies that it is technically OK in some cases but not encouraged in normal situations.
He clearly did not endorse these actions


and this is what I have said.

Don't go unless you have to. Which situation can arise, but for most, not very often.


And no, Jack, I was not "reluctant" to link to the letter. I've read it. Yes, in its entirety. I was wondering if you were willing to read it in its entirety too.

Or do a little of your own research work.

HSarsfield said...

Hilary said:
"A schism that is based not on fundamental matters of doctrine, but on matters (admittedly very serious ones) of discipline?"

This is exactly the crux of the issue. If their problems HAD been doctrinal, then they would have had no choice but to disobey (had they been right on their doctrinal stance). But because their disobedience is based on discipline, they had no choice but to obey the HF's direct orders. Obedience is king on issues of discipline, and always has been.

hilary said...

yet act in opposition to these (and other) statements in the Catechism.


neither do I. But I also do not know why so much of the catechism is so flagrantly ignored by so many in the Church who receive no censure whatever.

Only those who make the particular mistakes made by the SSPX. It seems only excess in favour of a strict interpretation of Tradition are punishable. Invalid matter at Mass, ordaining and consecrating to the episcopate men who do not believe in matters pertaining to the Faith (inerrancy of scripture, divinity of Christ anyone? Bishop Grahman?), and to say nothing (more) of the overwhelming majority who either wink at or personally participate in sodomy,

but in all this, only the SSPX are beyond the pale?

Why?

that is what I want to know.

I am not asking questions about who can or cannot or should or should not attend the SSPX. I don't and I am not going to judge the whole question. (Am I alone here in being willing to admit that I don't understand it well enough to pass judgement?)

But I do want to know if Abp Lefebvre was excommunicated, why has not Mahoney, and Daneels, and Kasper, and Lynch, and even men who are actually convicted of molestation of their own seminarians...

not?

WHY?

hilary said...

and Walsh and Bernardin, and Trautman, and Gumbleton, and Hume and Murphy O'Connor, and Tettamanzi, and Martini, and Lehman, and Niederauer, and O'Brien, and Law, and De Roo, and frankly the entire French Canadian episcopate, and and and...

why haven't the nuns who are dancing around trees and worshipping the goddess sent packing? Why are they still afforded full honours as Catholic religious in Rome?

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD!???

Is anyone iterested in this?

The SSPX can rot in the outer darkness for all eternity for all I care, if they are guilty of whatever people say they are guilty of,

but would someone please tell me once and for all,

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD?!!

Jack said...

"This is to make sure that those that are against the Masses of the SSPX are aware that the average participant is doing nothing wrong by their attendance."

Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying they are doing nothing wrong. It is not a sin, but it is also something that the Vatican explicitly discourages.

Hilary, yes, I did read the entire letter...it doesn't endorse SSPX masses. It only permits them in very specific cases

Jack said...

Hilary wrote:
" so flagrantly ignored by so many in the Church who receive no censure whatever."

well, if no one else is following the Catechism, then I guess it's OK if SSPX clergy don't either. You've convinced me.

Besides the whole book must take days to read anyway ;-)

jack said...

"Invalid matter at Mass, ordaining and consecrating to the episcopate men who do not believe in matters pertaining to the Faith (inerrancy of scripture, divinity of Christ anyone? Bishop Grahman?), and to say nothing (more) of the overwhelming majority who either wink at or personally participate in sodomy,"

I don't think you're painting a fair picture of the church here. Those comments are only a very small VERY small portion of clergy (the stats are on the web). By stating this as if the problem is wide spread your pandering to the atheists and nonCatholics who make the same outrageous claims about our church based on the misconduct of a few individuals.

Besides if the vast majority of clergy were like this,who in their right mind would want to become catholic!

Anonymous said...

"But I do want to know if Abp Lefebvre was excommunicated, why has not Mahoney, and Daneels, and Kasper, and Lynch, and even men who are actually convicted of molestation of their own seminarians...

not?

WHY?"

This answer has been answered on several other Catholic blogs. Google and read.

Anonymous said...

OK. I feel sorry for you and geniunely want to help with the WHY...

"He could have been "subtly disobedient" to the Pope like Cardinal Mahony and the USCCB, but he wasn't. He committed an act of public defiance to the Papacy. His excommunication was a face-saving gesture. I'd never advocate disobeying the Pope, but the Church can't pick and choose on Ecclesial discipline."

"Archbishop Lefebvre subsequently repudiated his agreement and an examination of recent public statements of the SSPX, including the current exchange of correspondence between Fr. Scott and Bishop Bruskewitz, leads me to conclude that the Society has gone beyond castigating the distortions and spurious interpretations of the Council and has, for all practical purposes, rejected the Council itself.


As far as I am concerned, there is no argument that the SSPX has considered itself absolved from any obligation of submission to the pope or any diocesan bishop. It conducts public worship and administers the sacraments wherever it chooses without so much as a nod in the direction of the competent authority. It reserves the right to alienate itself from the teaching authority of the pope and, in effect, has instituted its own canons of orthodoxy."

"The leaflet's unmistakable message is that the SSPX and its priests are under no canonical sanction whatever and that the Catholic faithful are as free to attend Society Masses as they are to attend Masses celebrated in diocesan parishes. This is, at the very least, sheer balderdash and is obviously intended to entice the unsuspecting and the uninformed."

There are more detailed analyses but these are just a quick clips.

Short answer -- Lefebvre engaged in formal, objective acts that defined the Church's authority over him. Mahony (and the others) didn't (yet) go that far, although they are getting close.

hilary said...

This answer has been answered on several other Catholic blogs. Google and read.

no s___.

mine included.

But the smugness was getting to me here.

No one wants to look at the nasty implications of the actual question Mary asked.

Only too easy to shift attention and blame on the SSPX.

Makes a convenient scape goat and distraction from the issue. It's the issue they themselves keep bringing up of course. Which is why I think people have so much stake in proving they are the enemy.

Well? Anyone want to address the actual issue? Anyone?

Same old same old here I see. Business as usual. Everyone's head firmly planted in the ground.

I think, personally, the SSPX are hated by 'conservative' Catholics because they ask awkward questions. Their very existence is a giant awkward question.

but no one wants to answer.

hilary said...

endorse SSPX masses

you're the only one using the word "endorse", Jack.

I'm beginnig to wonder if you are an honest person. I've seen a lot of Straw Man fallacy in many of your posts.

Anonymous said...

" defined the Church's authority "

that should be defied, not defined.
Yikes. Should get some sleep.

It's not a double-standard. The actions by those groups were not the same.

hilary said...

very small VERY small portion of clergy


but a great majority of bishops who colluded.

Diocese after diocese. And I am not only talking about offenses that could be prosecuted in a criminal court.

my my, you are a past master at deconstructing and deflection aren't you?

Anonymous said...

"Well? Anyone want to address the actual issue? Anyone?"
Didn't one of the other (earlier) commenters already answer the question -- the original article was full of crazy statements that went against Catholic teachings about the equality of men and women. What more needs to be answered? The author is starting his argument from an incorrect (and heretical) position. 'nuff said. Why bother debating the merits of an argument that has a false initial premise??? Unless you want to debate the validity of the Catholic church's beliefs about this issue, but hopefully the answer to that has already been decided (ie it is true!)



"Same old same old here I see. Business as usual. Everyone's head firmly planted in the ground. "
Please, don't be cranky because you've lost the argument.

"I think, personally, the SSPX are hated by 'conservative' Catholics because they ask awkward questions. Their very existence is a giant awkward question. "
Yep. they are soooo superior in intellect to the rest of us peasants that we are unable to answer their wonderful questions.

hilary said...

I feel sorry for you and geniunely want to help with the WHY...

more of a rhetorical question really. I have already answered it sufficiently for myself.

But it is one that is obviously ignored, and particularly when the SSPX is brought up.

And it was, again, the point of Mary's post.

And normally, I never discuss anything, particularly not matters pertaining to the Faith, with people who refuse to give their names. On myblog, you would have been deleted for hte offense.

Anonymous said...

"
but a great majority of bishops who colluded. "

what percentage, hilary? Look up the numbers; it's public record. It's not as great (or even a majority) as you think.

Anonymous said...

" you would have been deleted for hte offense."

But is it really an offense if the Protestants do it, too??
Doesn't the Vatican have to say that it is an offense before you rush to judgment?
(a joke..just a late night joke!)

I'm just too lazy to type in my name.

hilary said...

Boy oh boy, you people are REALLY determined to ignore the elephantine point of the whole matter.

I DO"NT GIVE A RATS ASS about the SSPX. Their fate is not mine to decide.

But I have to live in a Church that considers them fair material for excommunication and not Cardinal Mahoney. Or a man like Lynch who sat back making sophistries while Terri Schiavo was dehydrated to death before the eyes of the whole world.

COULD WE PLEASE STOP AVOIDING THE ISSUE?!

Anonymous said...

hey, fair is fair. You accuse me of not answering Mary's question, but I did and you ignored it.

"Didn't one of the other (earlier) commenters already answer the question -- the original article was full of crazy statements that went against Catholic teachings about the equality of men and women. What more needs to be answered? The author is starting his argument from an incorrect (and heretical) position. 'nuff said. Why bother debating the merits of an argument that has a false initial premise??? Unless you want to debate the validity of the Catholic church's beliefs about this issue, but hopefully the answer to that has already been decided (ie it is true!)"

Violet said...

"I DO"NT GIVE A RATS ASS "

keep it clean! This is a Catholic blog!

hilary said...

the original article was full of crazy statements that went against Catholic teachings


no dear.

the double standard question.

Why did the SSPX have no place at the 'dialogue' table for so long when we are expending so much energy on being friendly to those who have been out of communion with the pope for a thousand years?

Is there an awkward question here no one wants to think about?

no no.

everything's fine here.


you don't need to see his identification...

you can go about your business...

move along!

hilary said...

But is it really an offense if the Protestants do it, too??


are you blind?

the offense is posting under 'anonymous'

one that garners summary execution in my empire.

hilary said...

Please, don't be cranky because you've lost the argument.

I didn't .

You refused to address the issue.

I'm not talking about the SSPX. I keep saying I don't have the competence to judge the issue. Y'all keep pretending you do.

I have been asking about an issue that you clearly do not want to address.

The men I cited are notorious public heretics. An excommunicable offense in any other time in the Church.

And yet, most of them I mentioned have been raised to the highest honours of the Church.

WHY?

hilary said...

Grow up Violet.

Jack said...

"ut I have to live in a Church that considers them fair material for excommunication and not Cardinal Mahoney. Or a man like Lynch who sat back making sophistries while Terri Schiavo was dehydrated to death before the eyes of the whole world.

COULD WE PLEASE STOP AVOIDING THE ISSUE?!"

Guess, what? I have to live in that Church, too, you know!
Do I agree with what they are doing? No, of course not. But the fact is that there actions are not on the same level as the actions taken by the majority of the SSPX, and hence they do not yet warrant excomminication. That's canon law for you. It does NOT mean that the Vatican supports Mahony et al and agrees with what they are doing.

The issue isn't being avoided. Mahony and Lynch have been discussed over and over on many, many blogs. They manage to make a weekly appearance on the Cafeteria is Closed blog.

But realize that there is only so much the Vatican can do for the nature of their transgretions (wrongly spelled, but you get the point).

Don't loose hope. We're all Catholic and all on the same side. Pray that they will stop what they are doing. The Holy Father has already spoken out about the music (hopefully that will be step 1 on the way to gettting rid of liturgical dance and drums on the altar, don't get me started on that).

I'm going to have that thought as my intention for tonights rosary. Maybe you can do the same and let's pray for our Church. (And anyone else who wants to join in).

My strong belief is that change must be done by working within the Church, not by formally opposing it as SSPX has done.

Anonymous said...

"notorious public heretics"
They haven't been officially deemed heretics. YET.

violet said...

"Grow up Violet."

Ok. I couldn't resist. Especially after the discussion of vulgarity on the other post.

Jack said...

About the Double-Standard,
Here are some articles to help understand this.

Bishop Bruskewitz has criticized SSPX
"The Foundation has received more compliments on the lead article in the last issue than any article which has appeared in CHRISTIFIDELIS since the newsletter began publication in 1984. The Diocese of Lincoln has received thousands of letters expressing support and gratitude for Bishop Bruskewitz’s action and only an insignificant number criticizing him, so I am not surprised that our readers would react as they did. Even so, there is one category of criticism received by the Diocese of Lincoln and the Foundation which deserves a response. I am referring to the members and sympathizers of the Society of St. Pius X (hereafter the Society or SSPX) who objected to the Society’s being named at all and its being lumped together with such groups as Call To Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood and the Freemasons.

For an organization to be included in Bishop Bruskewitz’s legislation three conditions must be present: (1) It must have members in the Diocese of Lincoln; (2) membership therein is deemed by the bishop to be perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic faith; (3) it asserts falsely that membership does not contradict membership in the Catholic Church."
Full article at: http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/cfd14-4.htm

What about Mahony, etc?? Well, Bishop Bruskewitz criticized them, too.
For a recent account see: http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/03/bishop-bruskewitz-kicks-ass.html

So, both the severe Right and the severe Left are coming under scrutny and criticism.

There really isn't a double-standard. It's just that those on the Left (Mahony, and the gang) haven't yet done anything as systematic and formal.
Also, Mahony et al aren't really getting off scott-free (as the expression goes). There will be consequences.

hilary said...

They haven't been officially deemed heretics. YET.



nooowww we're getting somewhere.

I believe I have asked this a number of times already, but it's good for one more desperate shot:

WHY NOT?

No one who is a Catholic, or even knows in a general way, the teachings of the Church could possibly miss it.

So,

again,

WHY NOT?

And if not them, then why the Lefebvrists alone among the heretics (conceding the title only for argument's sake).

What on earth does it take?

Lefebvre's act was, in effect, to set up a parallel Church. A schismatic act, no doubt.

But is that last possible straw the ONLY thing in our times that will qualify a man?

And I repeat, they have not only not been excommunicated, they have, to a man, never been publicly corrected, censured, or called to task.

Indeed, they have been elevated, as I have said and said, to the highest levels of the Church.

And still we persist in ignoring the elephant?

No double standard here at all?

hilary said...

taken by the majority of the SSPX, and hence they do not yet warrant excomminication.

wrong again Jack.

Setting up an alternate Church with valid orders is a schismatic act.

But it isn't the only schismatic act that has been committed by bishops. It is, or was, enough to be a notorious public heretic. and many of these men have made their careers on defying and denying the Church.

So, are we saying there is ONLY ONE excommunicable offense now?

Jack said...

Neglected to give you the first article about

Here it is (from the st joseph foundation website)
The Bishop's Bombshell



Presumably, there are few if any CHRISTIFIDELIS readers who are unaware that the bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, the Most Rev. Fabian W. Bruskewitz, on March 19, 1996, using his legitimate authority to make laws which bind members of his flock, published a legislative pronouncement naming twelve organizations, membership in which was defined to be "always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith." (Southern Nebraska Register, March 22, 1996.)

The list of organizations contained in the law includes: the Society of St. Pius X and a chapel served by its priests; three non-Catholic organizations which are openly opposed to and contemptuous of the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life; the Freemasons and four subsidiary groups. Also named are two organizations whose inclusion is sure to cause the most controversy: Call to Action (CTA) and its Nebraska chapter, Call to Action Nebraska. The legislation went on to state: "Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto-latae sententiae) under interdict and are absoutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on [the] part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto-latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated..."

As we know, there are other organizations and groups which hold views which are perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic Faith. Why the twelve organizations named were included in the legislation was explained in an editorial in the same March 22 issue of the Southern Nebraska Register:

"Because certain organizations and groups have been, either directly or indirectly, asserting that membership in them does not contradict membership in the Catholic Church and leading even some people of good will astray in this, our Bishop has found it necessary to dissipate ambiguity and overcome any confusion in the minds of Catholics in the Diocese of Lincoln about these matters. Despite the fact that the anti-Catholicism of most of these organizations and groups is frequently open and apparent, some of their members and leaders have been trying to sell their evils to the unwary and uninformed, and sometimes to give the impression that the Catholic Church is divided or undecided about some of these groups and organizations. We applaud and thank our Bishop for this service of clarification."

Since March 22, it has become obvious that many more Catholics also applaud and thank Bishop Bruskewitz. The Diocese of Lincoln has announced that it has received over 4,000 messages from all over North America, more than 95% of which support the bishop’s action.

hilary said...

The Holy Father has already spoken out about the music


The MUSIC?!!!

Could he please speak out about Cardinal Mahoney proudly hosting pro-abort politicians? Or ordaining to the diaconate an unrepentant active homosexual?

And this one very popular prelate is only a drop in the giant bucket.

I have plenty of hope, but it is placed where it should be. In Christ and His promises.

I know what the Papacy is for and what it is capable of and I do not see it being used by any of the men in Peter's chair in a way that would even slightly give relief to the souls in peril of eternal damnation by the huge mass of bishops who are determined, aparently, to squire as many of them there as possible.

I am well known among bloggers as a fan of the current Holy Father, and it is a genuine filial devotion that springs from my Catholic soul, but I know that his polite phrases are not going to make a difference to men hardened in their sins.

I do not doubt that he will do better at these things than did John Paul, but he is not a young man and it takes a great deal more time and effort do undo damage than to do it, even by neglect.

Jack said...

"I believe I have asked this a number of times already, but it's good for one more desperate shot:

WHY NOT?"

We need to ask a Canon Lawyer to be sure but from what I've read on this matter, the SSPX has formally disobeyed the Vatican and have published leaflets, set up webpages, etc, expressing dissenting views. The article on Bruskewitz that I posted also touches on this.

Mahony and the gang have not gone this far. They have not formally declared they will be disobedient. Also, many of their actions are not dissenting. Liturgical Dance (for example) is hideous but not directly contrary to the Catechism, Canon Law, etc.

I think that's why not.

hilary said...

One thing I know, is that avoiding the question and bolting on the rose coloured glasses is not going to help us.

Only squarely facing the difficult questions is going to do that.

Reality is always of more use than fantasy, no matter how rosy the latter and how grim the former.

hilary said...

It does NOT mean that the Vatican supports Mahony et al and agrees with what they are doing.


There is an ancient legal axiom:

he who remains silent is understood to agree.

Jack said...

"Could he please speak out about Cardinal Mahoney proudly hosting pro-abort politicians? "

Some of this he has to delegate and sometimes he has to allow his bishops to use their judgment.

"On January 8, 2004, Archbishop Raymond Burke, then bishop of La Crosse, promulgated a diocesan 'canonical notification' based on canon 915, saying, "No good bishops could stand by and let this happen. These public legislators are in grave sin." Burke said he would deny Kerry Communion because Kerry's conduct is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm (EE n.37). Kerry's own Archbishop, Sean O'Malley, said he wouldn't go that far and would give Kerry the Eucharist."

In doing so, we will know who the "good" Bishops are and who the "bad" ones are.

Be patient. All will be well. Pray and trust in God.
(I"m being sincere, not trite).

hilary said...

Who appointed Mahoney Jack?

Who?

Since your so generous with the articles, here's one back atcha. by a guy who tried to keep the awkward questions at bay.

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html

hilary said...

We need to ask a Canon Lawyer to be sure but from what I've read on this matter, the SSPX has formally disobeyed the Vatican

Jack.

I.

am.

not.

talking.

about.

the.

SSPX.

YOu are still avoiding the awkward question.

If I concede, as I have, that the SSPX are rightly excommunicated for a schismatic act, why is not brazen and unrepentant and public heresy punished with equal fervour?

Why hasn't Mahoney been at least "retired"?

Why hasn't Lynch been demoted or punished?

Why hasn't the axe fallen ANYWHERE else?

Jack said...

"One thing I know, is that avoiding the question and bolting on the rose coloured glasses is not going to help us. "

True, but also we can't let ourselves get so angry and focused on what the "bad guys" are doing that we forget that our mission is to be holy, too.

It is easy to point fingers and say "He's a sinner, don't give him communion", but we're sinners, too, and need mercy. I'm NOT saying let's just ignore Mahony and the lot, but at the same time, we do not have the authority to judge who and who cannot get communion. How do we know, for example, that Kerry didn't just go to confession and has been forgiven?

We can speak out about these people and question why things are being done, but we must do so in a way that doesn't give nonCatholics reason to confirm their negative beliefs about our church. Otherwise, we do more harm than good. Sure we might get rid of one bishop, but we might prevent 100's of nonCatholics from considering conversion due to our apparent division within the church and our bickering.


Last month, I went to a Lectio Divina with our Archbishop and he said that we should have hope (about the evils in the world in general, war, poverty, etc). Being positive and having hope doesn't mean ignoring reality. It means rising above it and not letting it get us lose sight of our mission on Earth.

Jack said...

"One thing I know, is that avoiding the question and bolting on the rose coloured glasses is not going to help us. "

True, but also we can't let ourselves get so angry and focused on what the "bad guys" are doing that we forget that our mission is to be holy, too.

It is easy to point fingers and say "He's a sinner, don't give him communion", but we're sinners, too, and need mercy. I'm NOT saying let's just ignore Mahony and the lot, but at the same time, we do not have the authority to judge who and who cannot get communion. How do we know, for example, that Kerry didn't just go to confession and has been forgiven?

We can speak out about these people and question why things are being done, but we must do so in a way that doesn't give nonCatholics reason to confirm their negative beliefs about our church. Otherwise, we do more harm than good. Sure we might get rid of one bishop, but we might prevent 100's of nonCatholics from considering conversion due to our apparent division within the church and our bickering.


Last month, I went to a Lectio Divina with our Archbishop and he said that we should have hope (about the evils in the world in general, war, poverty, etc). Being positive and having hope doesn't mean ignoring reality. It means rising above it and not letting it get us lose sight of our mission on Earth.

hilary said...

I"m being sincere, not trite


you're being desperate actually, because I have backed you into a corner.

There are better answers than you have yet given. But they are harder.

Maybe you're not ready for them.

I'll leave you alone now.

The Rosary, BTW, was an excellent suggestion.

Good night.

Jack said...

Hilary,
guess you're not going to say the rosary about this tonight. I'm going to log off and say it now.

My intention is that Mahony, Lynch, and all others who are disgracing the Church will stop these actions.

Jack said...

"guess you're not going to say the rosary about this tonight. I'm going to log off and say it now."

Oops...missed that before hitting send.
I'll say TWO rosaries, so in case you're tired, you can say yours tomorrow.

about the other message, I know you weren't referring to the SPSSX in the whynot but I think the answer is partly based on a comparison between the two actions. The church is recluctant to condemn and excommunicate people unless there are formal acts of dissent (hence the hestitancy in the Mahony, et al).

Jack said...

Maybe you can answer the other side.
What is YOUR reason for WHY NOT?

hilary said...

How do we know, for example, that Kerry didn't just go to confession and has been forgiven?


It is for his public sins that he was being called to task by every believing Catholic in the Americas. When one is a notorious PUBLIC sinner, a private confession is not sufficient to avoid grave scandal. He gave grave scandal and continues to do so. Going to confession would require repentance, and when a politician sins on so grand a scale as that man, a public retraction is the LEAST that is required.

A point I made to Cardinal Turcotte when he gave Pierre E. Trudeau a state Catholic funeral in Montreal's Cathedral. After a 40 year political carreer systematically dismantling protecttions in Canada for the unborn and the family.

How many deaths are enough?

This is something that you really should not be bringing up with a person who has been a staff writer for three years for one of the most prominent daily pro-life news sources on the net.

It's not an argument I want to get into, and not one that you want to bring up with me. Riled up as I already am.

Jack said...

One last thought, then I really am logging off

"Why hasn't the axe fallen ANYWHERE else?"

My pessimist answer is politics. Mahony (for example) depends on the support of local politicians.

But say it ain't so...it's just too sad to admit.

Jack said...

"Going to confession would require repentance, and when a politician sins on so grand a scale as that man, a public retraction is the LEAST that is required.

A point I made to Cardinal Turcotte when he gave Pierre E. Trudeau a state Catholic funeral in Montreal's Cathedral. After a 40 year political carreer systematically dismantling protecttions in Canada for the unborn and the family."

Agreed!
As a Canadian I am NOT a huge fan of Trudeau even though 99.9% of the people I work with think the guy was some kind of god.

Now don't get me started on the ProLife group in Ontario inviting Bill "Partial-Birth Abortion is OK with me" Clinton to speak at their fundraiser!!!

hilary said...

it's not a pro-life group. Its the Kitchener Family Counselling Centre.

I do this for a living Jack. Been deep in the political pro-life fight for seven years and writing for lifesite for three of them.

a. figuerado said...

Fidei Defensor has some insightful ideas about why the Pope is not dealing with Mahony and others more directly. He addresses your (Hilary) question head on.

Mahony using kool-aid pitchers seems a lot less serious compared to what's happening in China and Saudi Arabia


Some Catholics have been asking, when is Benedict XVI going to crack down on dissidents? When is going to reorganize the curia, give a universal indult for the Latin Mass, start sacking heretics teaching at "Catholic" universities, excommunicate those pro-abortion politicians, put the kneelers back in my parish and tell the liturgical dancers to knock it off? Is he truly content with being the interim Pope? Is he simply a kindly old man keeping Peter's chair warm for the next guy? I asked these questions myself, many times. Then I stumbled across a quote in a forum that put everything into perspective...

"In the last week, Pope Benedict XVI has managed to inflame the leaders of China, of Venezuela, and even the new Roman left-of-center Italian leader, which only tells me one thing ... this Pope knows the Lord has his back, and he's not going to let any punks on Earth, large or small intimadate him or throw him off course of the mission God has sent him here to complete. Watch out, world! This new Pope on the block is NO pushover!"

There are major problems in the Church in America, Canada, and Western Europe. However the Holy Father has bigger fish to fry. All the reforms of the reform we want to see in the west could happen pretty darn quickly if our bishops got busy. The power and might of the Papacy has more pressing concerns than being brought to bear against your local Cafeteria Catholics. He is focusing his effort on powerful nations where the bishops may not be able to speak out safely. This is especially true of China. China is a super-power, its military could dwarf NATO forces, it will some day have an economy greater than that of the US (and probably even that of the US and EU combined) it is one of the last bastions of communism. The west could never muster as many divisions as the Chinese. Yet the Pope, sitting in the smallest country on earth, is willing to call the Chinese out in a way George Bush or Tony Blair never would dare to. In the Mass we all hear the words “Holy Holy Holy Lord, God of Power, God of Might,” yet none of us can comprehend the meaning of this to the extent the Holy Father does.

hilary said...

Mahony using kool-aid pitchers

and ordaining open and boastfully active homosexuals? Being complicit in what is estimated to be the biggest sex abuse coverup so far? Being the kingpin (after the death of Bernardin) of the appointment process in which all his sodomistic buddies were appointed to be some of the worst pack of pederasts the Church has seen since the 1600's?

They call him the Patriarch of the West and not without justification.

None of this counts?

a. figuerado said...

"and ordaining open and boastfully active homosexuals? Being complicit in what is estimated to be the biggest sex abuse coverup so far? ..."

All of that is currently being investigated.
Stay tuned to the Cateteria is Closed blog for updates. He frequenty posts about these kinds of issues and was voted the best new Catholic blog of the year.

Today he posted info about Seattle and outlined what has been done about it.

a. figuerado said...

Gerald's blog also has some well-presented data concerning sex abuse cases.

http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/05/priestly-sex-abuse-facts.html

The notice that the incidences have steadily been decreasing since the Election of JPII.
The Vatican IS doing something about the kinds of abuses that you listed in your comment.

HSarsfield said...

Susan Wise said:

"For example, his comment about the collection plate was in response to whether it was a sin to contribute, not in response to whether it was permissible."

Forgive me if this has already been pointed out, but you must realize that what you are saying is oxymoronic. If something is not a sin, then it is permissible, because anything that is not a sin is a degree of good. It is irrelevant what Msgr. Perl was in response to, and by pointing out what you have here, you have proven the point even moreso that attendance fulfills obligation and is allowed.

HSarsfield said...

Hilary said:
"Grow up Violet. "

Come on, Hilary. The language IS inappropriate, and just because you don't wear jumpers and despite how fashionable pea-coats seem to be these days, it still doesn't mean you have to resort to talking like a sailor.

Susan Wise said...

"you have proven the point even moreso that attendance fulfills obligation and is allowed."

allowed only in a very restricted set of circumstances (some of which have been posted here). It's not allowed in general, only as an exception. Many of the webpage I consulted claimed that Perl said it was OK to attend mass, without mentioning that this is true only in a few exceptional cases. Also, if you happen to live in the Archdiocese of Lincoln you can be excommunicated if you regularly attend SSPX masses.

I was trying to make the distinction between something that is a sin and something that isn't technically a sin, but is not encouraged or recommended.

There are many things we can do that are technically OK, but really shouldn't be done on a regular basis. For example, technically, I could commit a mortal sin 1/2 hour before mass, go to confession, receive communion. However, it's not recommended that I do this on a regular basis.

HSarsfield said...

Susan Wise said:

"For example, technically, I could commit a mortal sin 1/2 hour before mass, go to confession, receive communion. However, it's not recommended that I do this on a regular basis. "

But you are comparing apples to oranges here because attendance at an SSPX chapel is NOT a sin. It is ALLOWED, so long as you are not doing it to separate yourself from the Church. That was the only criteria mentioned by Msgr. Perl...and he even stated that one could absolutely contribute to the collection if they are indeed attending. So unless you are prepared to judge the intention of every average Joe in the pew of an SSPX chapel, you have no right to say that they are sinful or even wrong, for the Church has said they can absolutely attend.
I am a parent...if it comes to attending a typically celebrated N.O. Mass with the usual shenanigans..the ILLICIT readings (which renders the Mass illicit as well), altar girls, the sermons which at best say nothing, and at worst are erroneous/heretical, or taking my child to the SSPX with him knowing NOTHING about the politics surrounding them, where the priest is NOT explicit in his denunciations of the hierarchical Church, tell me what you think I should choose here? Should I expose my child to the scandal of the local N.O. which WOULD be a sin (albeit a small one), or should I take them to the SSPX which is no sin at all, according to Msgr. Perl. (by the way, I do realize that not all N.O. Masses are like this, but despite Jack's rosy outlook, most of them ARE)

" Also, if you happen to live in the Archdiocese of Lincoln you can be excommunicated if you regularly attend SSPX masses."

Bp. Bruskewitz knows that this would never stand. The SSPX begged him to pronounce sanctions against them so they could appeal to Rome where they KNEW they would win just like they won against the Bishop of Honolulu. But Bp. Bruskewitz didn't dare do it because he knew he couldn't win. It's an accepted principle of Canon Law that you cannot be excommunicated unless you commit a mortal sin, and attendance at an SSPX chapel is NOT a mortal sin according to the Church. Even once you commit a mortal sin, it has to be for some grievous type of mortal sin. So despite his warnings and threats, Bp. Bruskewitz cannot carry out what he claims will happen to those that attend an SSPX chapel.

Jack said...

HSarsfield said...
"if it comes to attending a typically celebrated N.O. Mass with the usual shenanigans..the ILLICIT readings (which renders the Mass illicit as well), altar girls, the sermons which at best say nothing, and at worst are erroneous/heretical, or taking my child to the SSPX with him knowing NOTHING about the politics surrounding them, where the priest is NOT explicit in his denunciations of the hierarchical Church, tell me what you think I should choose here? "

I would choose to attend a N.O. Mass. Ask around. Not all NO Masses have the problems you described (in fact, it is not hard to find one that doesn't, several blogs keep lists of churches that would be appropriate for your situation). In your question you have set up a false dichotomy -- illicit mass vs licit mass that doesn't suit your personal tastes.

The reason for this choice is simple.
Choosing to attend an SSPX when another licit mass is available contradicts Canon Law 844.2


The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses. and Catholics are not legally permitted to receive the sacraments from the SSPX.


"(by the way, I do realize that not all N.O. Masses are like this, but despite Jack's rosy outlook, most of them ARE)"
I don't think what you have described is a TYPICAL NO Mass
I've been to N.O. masses in several cities (and provinces) and I have yet to encounter the things you described (female altar girls, liturgical dance, etc). Perhaps I've been fortunate, but from what I have heard and read all large cities have a range of choices for licit masses. There is no need to attend an illicit one.

violet said...

Hsarsfield,
Why not attend an Indult mass?

There is a listing of locations at various websites including.
http://web2.airmail.net/~carlsch/MaterDei/churches.htm

Joe said...

I frequently see people state that they prefer to attend SSPX masses because they are more traditional, but it's worth remembering that the traditional mass isn't really all that traditional.

The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” written and published in 1913 revealed that the “Latin Mass” was a radical and unprecedented break from tradition unlike any that had ever gone before. Just read these quotes from the article “Liturgy of the Mass”:

“The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question. We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.” “He [Justin Martyr] describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated in Rome in the middle of the second century…we have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries…By the fifth century, we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change.”

“at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the faithful before Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was trasferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer.

Finally, the article quotes the liturgical historian Rauschen as saying:

“We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon.”

Here is the source: http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/1406639/posts

In addition, Latin was the "vernacular" between the 3rd and 6th centuries. It was introduced to the liturgy by Pope Victor I...an African.

I have a great love for the Tridentine Mass, and it is undoubtedly imoportant to the Church. However, I get frustrated by these"neotraditionalists" who call Pope John XXIII and Paul VI heretics and that the "Novus Ordo" mass is invalid (though I do think it opened itself up to problems).

HSarsfield said...

Violet,
I do attend an indult. :-) Believe it or not, I'm actually very anti-SSPX. There is far more to blast the SSPX about than whether or not their Masses are licit or not, and that point shouldn't be a focus. Too many people get too hung up on the Masses of the SSPX, and forget that the people attending lawfully are also going to confessions that very well could be invalid (just to name one of the problems...there are more). That, to me, is a far worse thing than whether the Mass itself should be attended, especially when many of these same people are attending illicit N.O. Masses on at least a weekly basis.

HSarsfield said...

Jack said:
"I don't think what you have described is a TYPICAL NO Mass
I've been to N.O. masses in several cities (and provinces) and I have yet to encounter the things you described (female altar girls, liturgical dance, etc). Perhaps I've been fortunate, but from what I have heard and read all large cities have a range of choices for licit masses. There is no need to attend an illicit one. "

Whether a Mass is licit or not really isn't the issue here, in the end. You'd actually be surprised at how many N.O. parishes DO have illicit Masses. If the priest comes down out of the sanctuary for the "Kiss of Peace", he renders the Mass illicit (I have yet to go to a N.O. Mass where the priest does NOT do this); if the priest changes the words of the Creed (I have heard them change "For us men and for our salvation" to "For us, and for our salvation"), this renders the Mass illicit; if children act out the Gospel, or even only have the children come up to surround the altar during the Our Father, this renders the Mass illicit; having a nun give the homily, this renders a Mass illicit; overuse of EM's renders a Mass illicit; when the priest comes out, and he doesn't say "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" and says something different (like Good Morning or some such thing), that renders the Mass illicit. I don't know where on earth you have been to Mass, but I encounter many of these things on a regular basis where I live, and in the places that I visit (btw, I live in Steubenville). Most people are not fortunate enough to live in an area where there is a good bishop and therefore a good N.O. Mass. And then this doesn't even begin to touch the things that have nothing to do with the licitness of the Mass, but merely cause scandal to my children. Women who wear teeny tiny skirts, or even shorts, and sheer shirts or excessively revealing tops; people who have absolutely NO reverence for the Eucharist at all, and run up for Communion, grab the Host, and pop it into their mouth like it's a Ritz cracker; people talking ALL during Mass (older people who really ought to know better); sermons which contain erroneous, and sometimes even heretical points (it totally undermines the authority of the Church in my children's eyes when I have to take them aside after Mass to explain to them that Fr. Soandso was totally wrong in what he said, and the Church teaches differently..or to explain to them why it was wrong for Fr. Soandso to come over and shake their brother's hand in the middle of Mass. It makes makes a mockery of the Church and of the priesthood); being the ONLY large family at the Mass, and having people point and stare at us all through Mass like we're a bunch of freaks (I am the mother of 11, by the way). If it were just my husband and I, I wouldn't care so much about all of these things. But I cannot, in good conscience, take my children (whom I have been given to by God to raise in the Faith) to something which very well might compromise the very Faith I have been working so hard to teach them.
This also doesn't include the rotten religious education courses that I'm forced to send my children to if I want them to receive the sacraments (from what I understand, in one of the parishes here the standard class for FHC comprises of watching "Veggie Tales"...and this is supposed to be one of the "good" churches here). Or have to sit through the diocesan run "sex ed" classes which masquerade as "child safety" classes (this one is quite big in Pittsburgh right now, which is the only large city I live close to).

Perhaps you don't have a problem with these things. I do, and I shouldn't be forced to attend something which I know very well could compromise the Faith of my children. If the local N.O. parish is going to do that, then I will not attend. But conversely, if the Traditional Mass near me could do the very same thing (and there are Trad Masses that are just as bad in so many ways), I would also not attend. I'm not singling out the N.O. here....my main objective is the salvation of my children, and I will attend the Mass that I believe will help me further that rather than one that will bring me further behind each time I attend.

HSarsfield said...

Joe said:
"However, I get frustrated by these"neotraditionalists" who call Pope John XXIII and Paul VI heretics and that the "Novus Ordo" mass is invalid (though I do think it opened itself up to problems). "

I do not hold to these opinions, and I hope that I did not make it seem that I did in anything that I have written.

Jack said...

" I don't know where on earth you have been to Mass, but I encounter many of these things on a regular basis where I live, and in the places that I visit (btw, I live in Steubenville). "

That's too bad that you've seen these things first hand. I can see how frustrating it must be. I've heard of such cases (on the web) and in some cases the problems were fixed after enough parishers talked to their priest (and sometimes bishop) about the problems. Other cases (as you know) don't get fixed so easily because the priest sometimes think that they have to do stuff like that to "draw crowds" or "bring in the young people", etc.

I've been to masses in London, Toronto, Chicago, Montreal, Vancouver, and Edmonton and none have had the problems you mention (fortunately).

Joe said...

HSarsfield said...
Joe said:
"However, I get frustrated by these"neotraditionalists" who call Pope John XXIII and Paul VI heretics and that the "Novus Ordo" mass is invalid (though I do think it opened itself up to problems). "

I do not hold to these opinions, and I hope that I did not make it seem that I did in anything that I have written."

No, sorry to imply that. I was speaking in general terms. Your comments just reminded me of other conversations I've had about this.

Sorry to hear about the frustrations you've had with some of the masses in your area. A major problem seems to be the congregation (with their attire and casual attitude). I was getting a little annoyed at some people at my church (they would arrive late, receive communion and walk out immediately, etc).

Then I read Scott Hahn's The Lambs Supper.
It helped because it drove home the message about the real meaning of the mass and how it's beauty doesn't depend on what those around you are doing. It really helped me to focus back on the mass itself and to ignore (and in some cases pray for) those around me who are not paying attention to it.

I highly recommend that book (I got mine from the library and it's a fairly easy read).
The Church is very fortunate to have a family like yours. You can help the other people in your parish and even your priest.

With your family all setting a good example, you can make quite a statement just by being yourselfs (without saying a word).
For me, it's just my husband and myself and we noticed that some of the people around started genuflecting when they saw us doing it (we had recently started attending our church). I think they didn't know what to do before (or had forgotten) and sometimes it takes some kind-hearted reminders (or just silent examples).

As for mistakes in the homily, I wonder if the priest realizes what he said. Maybe it was taken out of context, or maybe he said things without realizing it. (To give him the benefit of the doubt). Or maybe he just was poorly trained. I wonder if just mention it to him might help. This can be done in a kind way such as saying "Father, I noticed today that you said X. I had always thought Y. Can you explain"

rosa puella said...

Gerald has an interesting essay on SSPX, the tradional mass, the N.O. mass and more on his blog today.

http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-sspx-and-related-topics.html

Anonymous said...

There is a great quote in that article.

To jump ship and create Utopia with a handful of people is easy. Sticking with the Church through hard times, like the Pope did, that's the hard and good thing to do.

Anonymous said...

With the exception perhaps of one or two comments, the majority of this board is filled with intellectual idiocies. Where, I might ask, is a single quote from the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre justifying the idea that they reject Apostolic Succession or that they tried to set up a "parallel church." Where is a single quote from Canon Law explaining the situation? Furthermore, why is it that everyone is so apt to assume that John Kerry went to confession or that our local priest unintentionally preached heresy? Why is everyone given the benefit of the doubt except the Society. The issue is certainly complicated and difficult. However, polemics from johnny-on-the-spot armchair theologians doesn't really accomplish anything.

I would reccomend reading the SSPX website before making blanket statements regarding them. Just a quick sidenote (I'm sorry this post is a trifle rambling), there is a difference between committing disobeying orders of a superior and rejecting that the superior has the the authority to give orders. For example, a teenage boy may refuse to take out the trash. However, this is not, in itself, a denial of the father's right to command that the trash be removed.

Msgr. Pearl did not give all of these specifications that you pretend. He merely says that you can attend Mass, fulfill your Sunday obligation and give to the collection plate, so long as you're not committing yourself to a schismatic mentality. And guess what, not many people who assist at Society Masses have this phantom attitude.

Perhaps this forum should change tracks and consider the extensive crisis in the Church, and then the origins of that crisis. After honest and thorough research, one may be obliged to conclude that the Society was not legitimately excommunicated because there was/is a state of necessity in the Church. With all of this random talk about Canon Law, one should consider that the first and highest principle of Canon Law is:
The salvation of souls is the highest law. Couple that with a principle of reason:
Necessity knows no law, and you may have a very simple understanding of a very complicated issue.

HSarsfield said...

" Where, I might ask, is a single quote from the SSPX or Archbishop Lefebvre justifying the idea that they reject Apostolic Succession or that they tried to set up a "parallel church." "

I don't believe for a moment that the Archbishop's intention was to reject Apostolic Succession (the idea seems rather ludicrous ), but despite the intentions, I don't think you really can hold that they don't have at least some semblance of a "parallel Chuch"...they have their own tribunals for annulments, they have their own hybrid Code of Canon law (a mix between the 1917 and the 1983), AND they consecrated a Bishop for Campos Brazil and he was the Traditional Bishop for a specific geographical region . These things DO make it seem that a parallel Church has been set up, despite what I HAVE read from the SSPX. I do realize that the SSPX points to the crisis in the Church (of which I do believe there is one), but the Archbishop took his stand on the Mass, which is a discipline...if it had been doctrinal, then I would have understood it completely, but in cases of discipline, obedience is ALWAYS king.

" Just a quick sidenote (I'm sorry this post is a trifle rambling), there is a difference between committing disobeying orders of a superior and rejecting that the superior has the the authority to give orders. For example, a teenage boy may refuse to take out the trash. However, this is not, in itself, a denial of the father's right to command that the trash be removed."
First off, let's deal with your analogy. The child refuses to take out the trash, so the father punishes the child. The child refuses to comply with the punishment of the father. And then the child sends the father a note, saying "until you do this, this, and this, to prove that you are a good father, I'm not going to do anything at all for you." The child might insist to others that he recognized his father's authority, but the child is very clearly only going to do what the child himself agrees with. That's not recognizing the authority of the father in a practical way.
Moving on to your claim that eveyrone gets the benefit of the doubt except the Archbishop and the SSPX. You cannot name a single N.O. bishop or priest that was directly told by the Pope, "Do not do X, or you will be punished" and then the N.O. priest or bishop DOES X and the Pope doesn't punish him. For example, Cdl. Mahoney wanted to build a monstrosity of a cathedral. The Vatican told him that he HAD to have kneelers in the cathedral. He didn't disobey...he put kneelers in the cathedral. The Archbishop was told "If you consecrate these people, you WILL be excommunicated" and yet he did it anyway. There IS no parallel to this situation happening with N.O. bishops. Every time a N.O. bishop has been told to do something, they have done it. The Archbishop committed an "objective" sin, whose punishment, by Canon Law, (both old and new) was excommunication. Show me ANY bishop, or priest, that has committed an objectively grave act with the penalty of excommunication whom the Pope didn't punish.

" With all of this random talk about Canon Law, one should consider that the first and highest principle of Canon Law is:
The salvation of souls is the highest law. Couple that with a principle of reason:
Necessity knows no law, and you may have a very simple understanding of a very complicated issue"

While this all sounds well and good, every other heretic, and every other schismatic who has ever left the Church, has used this same argument. Martin Luther would have told you that the reason why he did what he did was because the Church was in a state of crisis and had lost the Gospel message. The spiritual Franciscans did the same thing; the list goes on and on. The only difference that the SSPX can point to is that the SSPX priests have well formed consciences and these other people did not, or did not follow their conscience. At the end of the day, what the SSPX did is not objectively different than what the Protestants did, that what every other Schismatic has done (such as the Eastern Orthodox); the only difference you could point to would be subjective differences that would require Catholics to read hearts to see the differences.

Anonymous said...

"I would reccomend reading the SSPX website"

But then take what they say with a grain of salt.
The Cafeteria is Closed blogs (and comments) list several aspects of the SSPX faq and website that are inaccurate.

"Msgr. Pearl did not give all of these specifications that you pretend. He merely says that you can attend Mass, fulfill your Sunday obligation and give to the collection plate, so long as you're not committing yourself to a schismatic mentality. "
That is not accurate. Don't read the clips from SSPX's webpage. Go elsewhere (there are some links listed on these comments) and see the ENTIRE letter (and the letter prior to it). These letters put his response in context. The clips don't give an accurate portrayl of what was really said (and I think it is unethical for websites to post the clips without the full dialog because this knowingly misleads people about their content!)


" After honest and thorough research, one may be obliged to conclude that the Society was not legitimately excommunicated because there was/is a state of necessity in the Church."
Please take a look at the http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/
There are several good arguments about why SSPX is not acting in the best interests of the Church.

"Couple that with a principle of reason:
Necessity knows no law, and you may have a very simple understanding of a very complicated issue."
I disagree with the premise that their actions are a necessity. As one commenter on another blog aptly pointed out: SSPX members just like to sit back and complain. They're good at it. I commented on another blog before about this--I call them "hilltop soldiers." They sit on the hill, critiqing the battle that rages in the valley below. They say they know how to win the war yet refuse to enter the fight.
Veritas | 07.12.06 - 5:56 am |

Jack said...

Excellent points, Hsarsfield!

Anonymous said...

"But the fact is that there actions are not on the same level as the actions taken by the majority of the SSPX, and hence they do not yet warrant excomminication. That's canon law for you. It does NOT mean that the Vatican supports Mahony et al and agrees with what they are doing.

The issue isn't being avoided. Mahony and Lynch have been discussed over and over on many, many blogs. They manage to make a weekly appearance on the Cafeteria is Closed blog.

But realize that there is only so much the Vatican can do for the nature of their transgretions (wrongly spelled, but you get the point)....
"

This and other posts like it demonstrate one thing that gets to the heart of why Hilary's question isn't really being answered. I see a whole lot of appeals to "the law, the law, the law," such that it would appear that conformity with Canon Law is more important than using one's noggin, trusting the instincts of a genuine sensus Catholicus, and seeing the point-blank, obvious evidence that pro-secularist heresy and moral perfidy have solidly entrenched themselves in the fabric of that which passes for the "official" Church....

... while a relatively obscure priestly fraternity is the target of swift and severe official sanction, because behind its acts of disobedience lies the argument that Church authorities stopped speaking and teaching in the way logically consistent with ages past, and instead endorsed the "new gospel" of which St. Paul, in the first chapter of Galatians, told Christians to reject unequivocally regardless of who it was coming from!

To those who give Pope Benedict a pass because this geopolitical stuff is "more important" than what Cardinal Ecumania, Bishop Papershuffler, Fr. Limpwrist, and Sr. Feminoid are doing in the name of Catholic religion and worship in the parish down the road, you miss the entire point of it all. The Church is obliged, first of all, to the worship and glory of God in dignified rites and upright hearts, and of course, the salvation of souls, one condition of which is one's rectitude of doctrinal belief.

The supernatural sphere is far more important than geopolitics, which are a concern of the order of nature. And the one faction that is most obviously concerned about the supernatural order, the SSPX and its allies, are the ones singled out for "special treatment," while the rest enjoy their "regular" status.

It's a crime crying to Heaven for vengeance. And vengeance will come.

Rosarium said...

Anonymous wrote:
"This and other posts like it demonstrate one thing that gets to the heart of why Hilary's question isn't really being answered. I see a whole lot of appeals to "the law, the law, the law," "

BUT IT HAS BEEN ANSWERED! Read Hsarsfield's point: You cannot name a single N.O. bishop or priest that was directly told by the Pope, "Do not do X, or you will be punished" and then the N.O. priest or bishop DOES X and the Pope doesn't punish him. For example, Cdl. Mahoney wanted to build a monstrosity of a cathedral. The Vatican told him that he HAD to have kneelers in the cathedral. He didn't disobey...he put kneelers in the cathedral. The Archbishop was told "If you consecrate these people, you WILL be excommunicated" and yet he did it anyway. There IS no parallel to this situation happening with N.O. bishops. Every time a N.O. bishop has been told to do something, they have done it. The Archbishop committed an "objective" sin, whose punishment, by Canon Law, (both old and new) was excommunication. Show me ANY bishop, or priest, that has committed an objectively grave act with the penalty of excommunication whom the Pope didn't punish.
Other commenters make the same point. THE ANSWER IS THAT SSPX FOUNDER OPENLY DISOBEYED THE POPE. MAHONY AND THE OTHERS DID NOT FORMALLY DISOBEY.
Why is that so hard for you to figure out?? It seems very obvious to me. It's not rocket science.

The other thing that should be obvious is that it crazy to try to justify the actions of SSPX by pointing at Mahoney and others. They are both doing things that are not in the best interest of the church, but SSPX's actions are more severe for reasons that have been discussed early in the comments and in other blogs.

" the SSPX and its allies, are the ones singled out for "special treatment," while the rest enjoy their "regular" status."
That's an exaggeration and you know it. The actions of the two groups are NOT equivalent for reasons pointed out by Hsarsfield et al.

You just want to be justified in your hilltop soldiering. Why not come down off the hill and do something productive? SSPX are NOT Catholic.


"It's a crime crying to Heaven for vengeance. And vengeance will come."
I agree.. Both the cafeteria catholics on the right (SSPX) and on the left (Mahoney and the rest) WILL GET what's coming to them.

Anonymous said...

"The Church is obliged, first of all, to the worship and glory of God in dignified rites and upright hearts, and of course, the salvation of souls, one condition of which is one's rectitude of doctrinal belief."

agreed...so why ISN"T SSPX doing that?? Why have they gone off on their own to make up their own rules.

Anonymous said...

"agreed...so why ISN"T SSPX doing that?? Why have they gone off on their own to make up their own rules."

Oh, and don't say it's because it was a necessity because I'm not buying that line. (Never have, never will).

After all, wasn't it a "necessity" for Henry VIII to break from the Church so that he could have heirs? Wasn't it a necessity for Luther to break away? etc. etc.

SSPX leaders are ofter power and they didn't want the pope to get in the way of their ambitions.

HSarsfield said...

"He merely says that you can attend Mass, fulfill your Sunday obligation and give to the collection plate, so long as you're not committing yourself to a schismatic mentality. "
That is not accurate."

I'm still not understanding what you feel is not accurate about this. Either the Faithful can attend and fulfill their obligation or they cannot. While the Church does not recommend attendance, she still does recognize that the Faithful can do so, and not be sinful while attending. I have read all of Msgr. Perl's correspondence regarding this issue, and have found nothing to the contrary. As I think I have sufficiently pointed out in previous posts, I am NOT a fan of the SSPX, but to harp on this point when the Church has already made a decision becomes tedious as best. You either accept what the Church has said, or you don't, but if you choose not to, do not make it seem that you are any better than those that you are condemning.

HSarsfield said...

"SSPX leaders are ofter power and they didn't want the pope to get in the way of their ambitions. "

I don't think this is a very fair comment to make. I do believe that the Archbishop, as well as most of his bishops, had the best of intentions when they did what they did. I do not believe that it had to do with power or ambition, but because they truly did feel that there was something that needed to be fixed within the Church (which I absolutely agree with). It was the way they did it that is wrong, not the reasoning behind it, per se.

This type of statement is better left unsaid, IMHO, for it smacks of rash judgment. You have no idea of the motives, and it's best that you not pretend that you do.

HSarsfield said...

"This and other posts like it demonstrate one thing that gets to the heart of why Hilary's question isn't really being answered."

I actually attempted to....if you feel that I did not do so adequately, could you please point out why? In other words, address the issues that I brought up?

Also, and this is totally off topic, I don't mean to sound like I'm part of the "name nazis" here, but it would be nice to have a name to quote rather than just having to deal with "anonymous" continually. There are quite a few people here who are posting under this name, and it makes it rather difficult (not to mention confusing) to know whom one is speaking to. I personally don't care about a real name, but anything other than anonymous would be nice. :-)

Julian said...

Perpetua

The sexes were not created "for each other". Woman was created for man, as St Paul averred.

I believe that the sexes are equal in dignity, but not in their relationships and roles. This is traditional Catholic belief.

Julian

Julian said...

I should add that the current Catechism is ambiguous or unclear in many areas, and it may tactfully state or imply that men and women were created "for each other", but Genesis itself and St Paul make it clear that woman was made for man. How else can one read the story of Eve's creation?

There are a number of areas where the new Cathecism "soft pedals", particularly in areas that might offend feminists.

Finally, the Catechism is not infallible. In fact, it has been subject to some changes already, and I suspect there are more to come.

Julian said...

Here is what the current pope has written, in Deus Caritas Est:

"The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God's decision to give him a helper."

God gave the woman to the man as a helper. The woman was made for the man.

I think that Benedict XVI is less swayed by a certain political correctness about the ladies than John Paul II was.

M. Alexander said...

Excellent comments Julian.

Perpetua said...

Julian wrote:
"God gave the woman to the man as a helper. The woman was made for the man."

This only reflects the reason for the creation,and does not address the issue of their nature and dignity.

Julian's quote in no way contradicts CCC 2334 "In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity." "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God.")

This has nothing to do with so-called political correctness. The truth is that men and women were given equal dignity.

Anonymous said...

On another blog, Father Fox had some good comments about how nutty the SSPX folks are and how they make many of the same arguments as feminists.

"The reason a lot of us get ticked off by SSPX arises from the rhetoric and sweeping statements that poison the well as far as enduring unity with the Catholic Church; I mean the rhetoric about the evilness of an ecumenical council, and the nasty descriptions of popes, and dark, bizarre conspiratorial claims that sound like a right-wing version of the DaVinci Code; sadly, as this latter book shows, being ridiculous doesn't keep something from being destructive.

Again, it is so fascinating to me to see the justification for the rancor and bile: "oh, you have to understand, how hurt they are." OK; same thing we hear from the strident feminists.

Who thinks the liberals and progressives are sorry Lefevbre et al. took a hike?

The reason more conservative Catholics are irked is because they could use the help of SSPX'ers; instead, they get called adherents to a "Jewish Masonic Cryto-Protestant conspiracy" or some such nuttiness.

And let's be clear: any time anyone starts a new movement, it doesn't take long before a certain center of gravity forms, a certain institutional defensiveness arises. The longer this break between SSPX and Rome continues, this natural phenomenon will work against reconciliation.

You will see this institutional defensiveness at work if, should there be moves toward reunion (and hence, the eclipse of the new institution), if someone acts to sabotage things; or if institution that would be eclipsed, finds new reasons to object, to replace old ones as they are being dealt with.

With God's help, this break will be resolved, with justice, truth, charity and humility all around.
Fr Martin Fox"

M. Alexander said...

Perpetua,
I don't think anyone is saying that women do not have equal dignity. Afterall I'm a woman and have daughters. Our Lady was not equal to the apostles but their superior, morally. That did not lead her to ask for "equal time" in the NT, or a chance to preach or teach. Her role was to serve. That is not a lesser role. An assumption that caring for the children and the home is lesser is the problem.

Men have a God given role that is vitally important. They are being pushed aside (you could take as an example the "pastoral associates" who will be running parishes instead of priests)and for women to fill a power vacuum is not the answer.

First we had altar girls and now we have pastoral assistants. See what I mean?

Marcie said...

"They are being pushed aside (you could take as an example the "pastoral associates" who will be running parishes instead of priests)"

I don't think that they are being pushed aside, so much as they (priests) are allowing woman to help with day-to-day running of the church (booking rooms, co-ordinating weddings, organizing meals for the elderly and homeless, booking appointments etc).

The assistantship of woman goes all the way back to the early church.
The New Testament has several examples of woman and/or couples assisting in the early church (e.g., Priscilla; Phoebe was a deacon (Phoebem sororem nostram quae est in ministerio ecclesiae ut eam suscipiatis in Domino digne sanctis et adsistatis ei in quocumque negotio vestri indiguerit etenim ipsa quoque adstitit multis et mihi ipsi - LatinVulgate). Paul instructions include a request to "you assist her (Phoebe) in whatsoever business she shall have need of you. For she also hath assisted many, and myself also"

Also, nuns have always taken an active role in assisting priests.

However, this is NOT a statement in support of altar girls, and women becoming involved in the Mass itself. That's a completely different situation.

Anonymous said...

One of the author's main premises is that "" It will be my contention that women have their being as women actualized only through their relationship with men. Women need men in order to be truly women. Men, however, do not need women in order to be truly men. ""


This is false and contradicts the meaning of Genesis.

In Deus Caritas Est, B16 wrote ""the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).""

Man is NOT complete without woman! That is why woman was created!

M. Alexander said...

Marcie,
When have women NOT helped w/ planning meals for the elderly, etc.? But that is not enough for the new woman. She wants a degree in Pastoral Ministry. She wants to become a priest. She wants to kick men out of the Church just like she has managed to kick man out of the family. These women aren't after "service" they are after status, power and control. They must be stopped. One way to stop them is to exhort men to assume the leadership roles that God has planned for them. This article attempts to explain that.

Anonymous said...

"When have women NOT helped w/ planning meals for the elderly, etc.? But that is not enough for the new woman. She wants a degree in Pastoral Ministry. She wants to become a priest."

I'm not sure what's causing that. Woman have always been assistants, and only recently (in the past few decades) has female ordination become an issue.
I don't think that the problem is due to woman being assitants per se (because that has always been the case). I think the problem lies elsewhere. Probably in ideas inflicted by the feminist movement.

Men should take on more responsiblity in the Church, but at my Chuch most of the volunteers are senior citizens (who have more time often than people working/raising families/whatever) and many of these people are female (the men have already died).
I think that woman who offer to serve as assistants should be happy with that and not to see it as something temporaryl until something better comes along (e.g., until a promotion to the priesthood or something silly like that).