Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Liturgical Abuses

The Inquisitor Generalis noted an interesting admission from the Head of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Archbishop Ranjith. To read some of the comments on this blog I was ready to conclude that I could emerge from my self imposed Traditional ghetto as illicit Masses and other liturgical abuses were nearly unheard of. Sadly this does not seem to be the experience of the Congregation. The relevant quote from CWNews:

"Every day, the archbishop [Abp. Ranjith] disclosed, the Congregation for Divine Worship receives new complaints about serious liturgical abuses, and complaints that local bishops have failed to correct them. If the Church fails to curb these abuses, he said, "people will attend the Tridentine [sic] Mass, and our churches will be empty."


But I still can't figure out what to do with Catholics who actually enjoy this type of buffoonery:

61 comments:

Snicket said...

Yawn....how original. The Cafeteria is Closed showed the clown photo MONTHS ago. Get with the times, Mary, and stop copying other blogs.

For the record, I do not enjoy clowns at my masses.

Madeline said...

Snicket;
The little blue text (underlined) will link to the blog from which M. Alexander received her information. As a matter of fact, for this particular article, the title of the blog is the link.

As you seem to recieve all of your information direct from Heaven itself, perhaps it would be unwise of you to continue to bore yourself with what we mere mortals can receive and pass on, from other mere mortals.

BTW, I contend there is a clown at any mass you attend.

Snicket said...

"BTW, I contend there is a clown at any mass you attend."

Why yes, Madeline, you are correct. I thought I recognized you in the red rubber nose at the back of the church!

About the link -- my point was that the whole "clown theme" has already been discussed at great length in other blogs, most notatably CisC, a long time ago, so this whole clown issue isn't exactly current.

M. Alexander said...

Snicket wrote:
"...this whole clown issue isn't really current"

Whatever made you think I'm trying to be "current". I'm a Traditionalist- get it?

Snicket said...

"Whatever made you think I'm trying to be "current". I'm a Traditionalist- get it?"

Oh, I didn't realize this applied to news items, too. In that case here are some other hot news items you might want to cover:
Women get right to vote
German invades Polands
Man lands on moon

Who knew that being traditional means being so out of touch with current events

Anonymous said...

Here's a quiz you might find useful

Are you a heretic?
http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=131773

hilary said...

Oh come on Mary, everyone knows that this pic comes from an Episcopal church.

Now This:
http://www.churchbuilding.com/interactive/swf/html/sn_procession.html

is what you want to link to...

hilary said...

http://www.churchbuilding.com/inter
active/swf/html/sn_procession.html

J D Carriere said...

"Women get right to vote"

Oh my. That is very bad news.

Democracy was itself bad enough! Now things are really going to go down the tubes.

Is it too late to go back?

Anonymous said...

That's a good one -- Gerald linked to that video a long time ago on his blog. It's still funny.

snicket said...

"As you seem to recieve all of your information direct from Heaven itself,"

Huh?? I said I got this info months ago from another blog. repeat after me...blog does NOT equal heaven.

Madeline said...

Snicket said "Huh?? I said I got this info months ago from another blog. repeat after me...blog does NOT equal heaven."

Not feeling the need to repeat.

My first comment assumed that your invective to "get with the times" referenced the text of the post; which post was about a statement made by a Vatican official on July 13 (I wasn't too distracted by the pretty colors and by the man with the big, red nose to actually read the post).

If you had all of this info "months ago" as subsequent comments assert, the only possible source is divine revelation.

However, the facts that you 1) didn't bother to read the post; ad 2) felt immediately inspired to write a nasty comment just because you weren't sufficiently entertained by the visual aid, and 3) decided to take an obviously humorous reference by M. Alexander to Trads being behind the times, as another opportunity to attack the blogger, reveals a great deal about your purpose in leaving comments here.

snicket said...

the only possible source is divine revelation.

OOPS. i blew my cover. You found me out. I know all and see all (careful you don't spill that on the keyboard!)

qlinger said...

Maddie, I don't think that snicket likes you very much. Maybe if you realy annoy him, he will go away.

Anonymous said...

Are you'all really Catholic? Nobody would think so by the fruits displayed here. Grow up already!

snicket said...

"Nobody would think so by the fruits displayed here."

Anonymous, personally I think there are more nuts than fruits here. (I'm referring to the regular gang, not to you). You see, they aren't really open to people with dissenting views.

Anonymous said...

Um...Mary, you forgot to quote the first part of the article. Once again, you've left out information that goes against your thesis that Vatican is doing nothing to address liturgical abuses. Seems to me that they ARE doing something.

Also, the comments about "liturgical free-for-all in which "every priest of bishop does what he wants" applies to SSPX as much as it does to left-wing weirdos.The second statement "complete abandonment of liturgical reforms" is directly applicable to SSPX

Jul. 13 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican is planning to restore some disciplinary control of the liturgy, according the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in response to widespread abuses.

Speaking to the I Media news agency in Rome, Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don will soon take steps to indicate the importance of following the Church's liturgical guidelines. Asked whether Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) is preparing a document on the liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith answered indirectly, noting that the Holy Father has written and spoken extensively on liturgical issues in past years. Pope Benedict is keenly aware of today's challenges, he said, and determined to restore a proper sense of reverence to the liturgy. The Sri Lankan prelate said that some of his thoughts had been taken out of context after a previous interview with the French newspaper La Croix. He had not intended to suggest that the liturgical reforms of Vatican II had failed, he stressed; rather, he meant that some liturgical changes had produced an overreaction, and a loss of appreciation for Church traditions. As a result, he said, "the reforms of the Council did not bear the expected fruit, because of the way in which they were interpreted and put into practice." Now, he continued, the great challenge for the Church is to promote a deeper understanding of the liturgical reforms: one in keeping with the constant traditions of Catholicism.

Archbishop Ranjith said that two extremes must be avoided: a liturgical free-for-all in which "every priest of bishop does what he wants, which creates confusion;" or a complete abandonment of liturgical reforms, leading to a vision that is "closed up in the past." Today, he said, those two extremes are becoming more prominent, and the Church needs to establish a middle ground.

Anonymous said...

PS. I'm the anonymous of the most recent post -- not the fruit and nuts anonymous.

Call me ANON2

Madeline said...

snicket and anonymous (the first);

What exactly leads you to doubt that any of the commentors on this blog are Catholic?

Do you subscribe to the popular notion that a Catholic must mince words, and pussyfoot around contentious topics? Is it "un-Catholic" to point out an error to someone? Or, in your view, is it "un-Catholic" to defend someone from an unwarranted attack? I must disagree with you, if your answers to any of the above are "yes."

Perhaps it is the tone of the posts to which you both object? I couldn't find the Canon where it said I had to be nice (especially in light of your very, very genteel manner of expressing your opinions). Sorry.

However, the "dissenting" views you have expressed here, have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post. In a "nut" shell, Snicket, you have implicitly asserted:

1. Mary is not "with the times"
2. Mary is "copying other blogs."
3. You are omniscient

[pause while I wipe the tears from my eyes and catch my breath, after that last one.]

Your complaint that the people who frequent this blog "aren't really open to people with dissenting views" couldn't possibly have any bearing on the current post because you NEVER ADDRESSED IT in any of your diatribes against M. Alexander and this blog.

Further, why would people who have access to the Truth (as passed down through the Magesterium of the Holy Mother Church) be open to untruths? That's like saying, "people who frequent this restaurant aren't really open to eating poison." Well, duh!

BTW, the topic of the post was that Abp. Ranjith refered to the Tridentine mass and the Catholic Church as two different Churches. Any thoughts?

Anonymous II: Thanks for the rest of the article (to which we all had access via the link, provided by M. Alexander);however, I think you may be misreading the intent of M. Alexander's post (see paragraph above). Again, any thoughts?

Anonymous said...

" Abp. Ranjith refered to the Tridentine mass and the Catholic Church as two different Churches. Any thoughts?"

yes, that is true. Schism, Schism, Schism

Madeline said...

Anonymous;

Do you contend that those who practice the Tridintine Rite, with the approval of their local Bishop are in schism? How's that?

J D Carriere said...

How can you all still be nattering about this? Haven't you heard the really big news? Some fools given in to those nasty suffragettes! Before long, women will be having jobs and wearing shoes.

Anonymous said...

"Before long, women will be having jobs and wearing shoes."

Nah, surely it won't come to that!

If it does,then the next thing they'll want is to be become priests and bishops.

Susan B. said...

"Abp. Ranjith refered to the Tridentine mass and the Catholic Church as two different Churches. Any thoughts?"

He didn't say that they were two different churches.
He said " If the Church fails to curb these abuses, he said, "people will attend the Tridentine Mass, and our churches will be empty." "

Notice, he used the plural. He is referring to churches in dioceses that do not offer the Tridentine Mass. If he meant to convey that there were two churches, he would have said our CHURCH.

Use different words and you can see the linguistic inference. Pretend that there are two stores, then you would say If people shop at Mr. B's store, then our STORE (singular) will be empty.
If there are one store, but only some are run by the person speaking and the other by Mr B (for example) you would say If people shop at Mr B's store, then our stores (plural) would be empty.

Violet said...

For those "Traditional Catholics", why are so so stuck on the Latin Mass?
It's liturgy only goes back to 600 AD.. Shouldn't you be lobbying for the rite that was used BEFORE 600 AD (ie the ORIGINAL mass)??
If you want tradition, go to the original not to the newer 600 AD version!

Anna said...

D Carriere said...
"Some fools given in to those nasty suffragettes! Before long, women will be having jobs and wearing shoes.

We can joke about this, but some priest in the SSPX group and supporters have made some pretty bizarre statements that are pretty scary.
Need examples? Here are some

people were told not to vote in elections
it was wrong for women to drive cars
the Society condemns Natural Family Planning,
at one of the Society schools, girls were told that it was a mortal sin to have any lace on their underwear;
the Society, has been issuing Decrees of Nullity—annulments—in violation of Canon Law how is THAT consistent with Tradionalist ideas???
Society priests have called the indult Tridentine Mass "satanic.
Source: William P. Grossklas, "An Overview —What is the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)? and Homiletic & Pastoral Review 1999

Scary stuff, kids. Scary stuff.

Tradcatholic said...

anna wrote, after siting several comments re: SSPX, none of which she would understand the meaning of,

Scary stuff, kids. Scary stuff

Well, read "Cranmer's Godly Order", and the documents of VII, and books on the lobbying of the periti (it's OK to correct my spelling) the speech of Cardinal Kasper in Germany, etc. etc. These are much more scary...eternally scary.

anna said...

" said...
anna wrote, after siting several comments re: SSPX, none of which she would understand the meaning of,

Scary stuff, kids. Scary stuff"

Tradcatholic, Do you drive a car? Are you a women? If so, did you realize that according to SSPX you have committed a mortal sin??

Anonymous said...

The docs of vatican II encourage the use of Gregorian Chant and lots of other things that traditionalist allegedly like. What's so scary about that, missy?

Tradcatholic said...

Anna said (believe it or not!):
Tradcatholic, Do you drive a car? Are you a women? If so, did you realize that according to SSPX you have committed a mortal sin??

Now, now, Anna. My horse and buggy is just fine with me! The feed bill is cheaper than gas for Rcia -that's my horse's name.(pronounced "See-ya" (the 'R' is silent, like you should be) Honestly, what kind of stupid statement was that!?!? Mortal sin to drive - -why, all our eucharistic ministeresses drive to church!! Find a different source of 'information', please.

Anna said...

"Honestly, what kind of stupid statement was that!?!? Mortal sin to drive"

That's MY point exactly...it IS a stupid statement. Yet it is a statement made by some members of SSPX. My earlier comment has the reference.

HSarsfield said...

madeline said:
"BTW, the topic of the post was that Abp. Ranjith refered to the Tridentine mass and the Catholic Church as two different Churches. Any thoughts?"

Hi Madeline,
I'm a bit late on this one (trying to pack up and move a house of 13 people is not an easy task!), but I did want to address what you said here. Abp. Ranjith is a good friend of the SSPX, so I would doubt that he meant the comment in the way far too many people seem to want to take it (that he's is implying we Trads are not in the Church). I'm not sure if this interview was even in English (I haven't had the time to look into it), and since it IS the media, I wouldn't put it past them to warp and pervert as they always seem to enjoy doing. At any rate, I think it's far more prudential to look upon his statement as positive rather than as a slam aganist us.

Lemon said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Charles Hayes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Charles Hayes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
HSarsfield said...

anna said:
"Society priests have called the indult Tridentine Mass "satanic."

The opinion of a few does not constitute the position of the whole, and it's very wrong to insinuate otherwise. The official position of the SSPX is NOT that the indult is satanic, nor that it's a sin to attend. If one were to play the same type of semantics that you are playing here, one would also have to conclude that the official stance of the Vatican is that anyone who attends the TLM in ANY capacity (including the indult) is being disobedient, and is schismatic, because there are a few priests that hold to that very position. I think we both know to affirm something such as that would be ludicrous, for making such a sweeping statement is sinful and a complete rash judgment. Despite your feelings for the SSPX, it is also sinful and rash judgment to apply these opinions of a few to the whole. If you are going to take them to task, please at least be fair about it, not to mention accurate.

M. Alexander said...

Dear Charles,
I removed your posts because you want to denigrate the SSPX. That position is certainly your own affair but that is not the purpose of this blog. I support the restoration of Tradition and though I do not agree with everything the SSPX does and says I recognize their contribution to the renewal of the Church. If you would like to warn people about the SSPX I recommend that you get your own blog to do so.
Best wishes,
Mary Alexander

HSarsfield said...

anna said:
"Tradcatholic, Do you drive a car? Are you a women? If so, did you realize that according to SSPX you have committed a mortal sin?? "

anna, could you please explain this? Where has the SSPX ever said that it is a mortal sin to drive a car or be a woman? It would be exceptionally helpful if you would cite something OFFICIAL that they have put out concerning these topics.

HSarsfield said...

anna said:
"That's MY point exactly...it IS a stupid statement. Yet it is a statement made by some members of SSPX."

Grossklas (or however his name is spelled) is hardly without bias in his "reporting" nor is HPR. Please show me where the SSPX has OFFICIALLY stated these things. I don't want a regurgitated version from people with an agenda...I want it from the source. I'm sure that if what a few may have stated is the OFFICIAL position of the SSPX, it shouldn't be hard for you to find it on their site. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Anna said...

HSarsfield said "Please show me where the SSPX has OFFICIALLY stated these things."


Certainly. Many of these statements were made verbally, rather than in print, but there are specific sources you can consult.

Education of Women
Here is a letter posted on SSPX.ca about why woman should NOT attend university. (Despite the fact that the early Catholic church supported the education of woman)
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm

NFP
Arguments against the use of Natural Family Planning [Hope none of you "tradCatholics" are using NFP!]
http://www.sspx.org/against_the_sound_bites/marital_love_and_fidelity.htm

Education of Women
Arguments about co-education
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/October1-1998.htm

Dress
Why wearing trousers is a sin (for woman)
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm

Segregation from other Catholics
The need to avoid other Catholic groups
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/October1-1994.htm

Annulments
http://www.sspx-schism.com/Fedeli.htm
and (for larger discussion http://www.sspx-schism.com/main.htm)
[These are the first links to come up but you can verify the info yourself by working through the original sources]

Scandal within SSPX (one example)
SSPX priest jailed for manslaughter (This is the first site that comes up, but you can find the original news story yourself)
http://www.sspx-schism.com/Cottard.htm

For a longer list, see the Homiletic & Pastoral Review 1999 and
An Overview -- What is the Society of St. Pius the Tenth (SSPX)? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/941270/posts (This includes clippings from various publications and also clips from a letter written by a Fr. Terence Finnegan, one of the many priests who have left the Society, to Fr. Franz Schmidberger, then Superior General of the SSPX, he made comments which show the un-Catholic and outlandish dispositions of Bishop Williamson, t These comments centered on the 1991 Tridentine Rite Conference (TRC) sponsored by a Fr. LeBlanc, of Arizona, and a Fr. Wickens of New Jersey.)

Anna said...

Hsarsfield,
I provided a response with some of the sources. Hopefully the blog moderator will allow them to be posted.

Anna said...

HSarsfield "If you are going to take them to task, please at least be fair about it, not to mention accurate."

I have posted a comment with the sources.

Charles said...

"M. Alexander said...
Dear Charles,
I removed your posts because you want to denigrate the SSPX. That position is certainly your own affair but that is not the purpose of this blog. I support the restoration of Tradition and though I do not agree with everything the SSPX does and says I recognize their contribution to the renewal of the Church."

I know it is not the purpose of the blog (you clearly support SSPX). However, does this mean that all comments must also support them, or is there room for open discussion? No group is perfect.

There are other options for Traditional Catholics.
What is your position on other Traditional Catholics that are currently in communion with the Vatican?
Such as FSSP (http://www.fssp.com/)?

I happen to be a Traditional Catholic, but I do not (as you know from my other comments) support the SSPX for a variety of reasons.

M. Alexander said...

Dear Charles,
I allowed this comment through but I want to be very clear that the purpose of this blog is to support and defend Tradition not bash those who in their own way are dedicated to restoring it. We can argue about tactics all day long (sort of like the prolife movement) but at the end of the day every baby saved is a victory and every Latin Mass is a sucess for the Church and the souls entrusted to it.

I have no problem with people disagreeing if they can do so respectfully and substantively, otherwise I will use the "smite" button.

What do you think my position is on the FSSP? I welcome their contribution to the Church. There have been comments left on this blog that state that Una Voce is "satanic". I'm just not going to allow that type of drivel. It's not productive.

M. Alexander said...

Dear Anna,
I'm familiar with some of the links that you publish and I totally agree that NFP has become ridiculously overused and is not the equivalent of "catholic" birth control. I'm all for avoiding it. On the higher education of women, while I have a college degree and my daughters will probably go to college I think that some excellent points are made about the dangers. Just because you disagree with some of these statements does not mean that the individuals in question do not have the right to state them. I welcome any substantive advice to Catholics on moral issues. It is sadly lacking in most Churches.

Violet said...

m. alexander said: " On the higher education of women, while I have a college degree and my daughters will probably go to college "

You are fortunate that your parents did not strictly adhere to the views put forth on sspx.ca, then. Otherwise, you would not have gone to university.If you buy into Williamson's argument then your daughter should not attend university.

Bishop Williamson wrote: "That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls."
My fear is that many people will take this kind of statement at face value and many fathers will use the Bishop's statement as justification for preventing their daughter from getting a good education.

With so many parents deciding to home-school, a propery education for both sexes is vital.


"Just because you disagree with some of these statements does not mean that the individuals in question do not have the right to state them."
Unless you say them on someone else's blog, right. ;-)

SuzyQ said...

I for one do NOT agree with the majority of Williamson's statements. Especially:

"At any true university, the worthwhile students do not want to be distracted by girls. Those are exactly the potential husbands that the really intelligent girls will go after. That is why even really intelligent girls should not be at university."

"to read at home on their own (for instance Jane Austen, a classic example of how much domestic woman can do)"
He obviously forgot that Austen and her sisters went to school and (as was current for the time) home-schooled and had tutors (plus their father educuated them). It is ironic that Williamson cites Austen as an example -- her main theme was about the problems of being a female without any hope of being able to earn money on ones own (e.g., to work) or to go away to university!

" if a girl devotes several years of her youth and much money of her parents to acquiring a university education, especially a decent one, how easily will she submit to her husband, especially if he has not had that education? "
Many problem marriages occur when the spouses are not alike in education. This is especially true when the husband is highly educated and the wife is not. A mother plays a large role in educating the children and this is difficult to do without a proper education.

"women are- not to be superior, but subject, to their men "
Disagree. That discussion has been done to death elsewhere (including the flesh of my flesh post here).

I could go on but won't hog any more space.

HSarsfield said...

suzyq said:
"Many problem marriages occur when the spouses are not alike in education. This is especially true when the husband is highly educated and the wife is not. A mother plays a large role in educating the children and this is difficult to do without a proper education."

This is just silly....do you have any statistics to back these claims up? I'm not one who is against higher education for women, UNLESS all that is produces is a rather large loan payment later one which makes things difficult for both her and her spouse should she get married. It's not really fair to saddle a husband, and a new family, with a payment like that especially if the wife/mother is going to be a stay at home mom anyway.
As for education of children without a degree of some sort, I've found myself to be very capable of educating my children without said degree under my belt. And any person I know that is big into homeschooling (including people like Kimberly Hahn) would take issue with what you have said here.

HSarsfield said...

anna said:
"Many of these statements were made verbally, rather than in print, but there are specific sources you can consult."

Did you hear them say these things yourself? If not, this is pure hearsay.

Also, again, the statements of a few priests within the SSPX does NOT constitute the official stance of the SSPX as a whole. I would even go so far as to say that the statements of Bp. Williamson are not the official stance despite his office. Unless it's coming from the General Superior, then you have no right in saying that it is the stance of the SSPX. You are rashly judging here, which is a sin. Not to mention the fact that you have repeatedly exaggerated each of the charges you have thrown at the SSPX. Whether that was for effect or to make your point, it makes no difference. It's still purposfully misleading, and therefore it is also sinful. A talk with your confessor might be a really good thing for you to do right about now, anna.

And by the way, I did receive your email, but since this was here, I decided to respond to some of it (I may have more to say later). If you go back in other postings on this blog, you will see where I stand in regards to the SSPX (the Flesh of my Flesh post is where I said the most on this issue, I think). I do not attend an SSPX chapel; I don't even like the SSPX in general. But what irritates me to no end are people like you who refuse to deal with the truths of the matter and attempt to slander people just because you yourself hate them. You have never done any real study on the topic, and really don't care if what people like Grossklas or Matt16:18 is even accurate. It sounds good to you, so it must be correct. This kind of thinking is why it has taken so long for the SSPX to come back to the Church. People like you HINDER this from happening rather than help them to come back. People like you are all for putting those of heretical sects and denominations on the same plane as Catholics (we're all saved, right?), but condemn the Traditionalists (most of which are in the same Faith as you are!!) at every chance you can get. I find this attitude to be disgusting, and as unCatholic as you can get. Please, if you want to find fault in something, stay off the "controversial" NeoCon sites that have no theological background, and are only on a search and destroy mission. And stop trying to cultivate the division that is already there, and actually do something to bring us all back together. That is the CATHOLIC thing to do.

suzyq said...

"This is just silly....do you have any statistics to back these claims up? I'm not one who is against higher education for women, UNLESS all that is produces is a rather large loan payment later one which makes things difficult for both her and her spouse should she get married. "


There are several published studies in academic journals. Search the science databases (such as PsycLit and sociology dbases) for keywords "divorce" and "education".

University doesn't necessarily mean debt. There are lots of scholarships available, plus many students take on part time jobs. I put myself through university and graduate school this way, and had no debt upon graduation.

Plus, women who have university degrees tend to get higher salaries, so they can save up much more money before marriage (or while they are looking for a husband). This can make a huge difference.
For example, U of North Texas published some stats that people without high school earn $26000, with high school only, $36000, but with a college degree $65000. That's huge! That means a woman with a college degree can earn $30 000 more per year than one with just high school. If she gets married just 3 years after graduation that's an extra $90 000 to bring to the household!!

Not everyone gets married (not necessarily out of choice, they might not just meet someone suitable), so not going to university due to plans of being a stay-at-home mom might not be the best choice (it only "pays off" if one becomes married).
Also, even in Catholic households divorce is fairly prevalent. A degree is a good thing to fall back on if the marriage falls apart. Hopefully this won't happen, but we can't always control what our spouse does (many a husband has abandoned his wife).

About homeschooling. Although it IS possible to educate children (especially younger children) at home without a college degree, it is easier with one. There are many things that are taught in college (especially topcis related to liberal arts such as grammar, logic, higher mathematics, syntopical reading....) that just are not taught at the high school level. (Obviously not all universities are created equal, so be careful when picking a place to study). Knowledge and skills in this area are a huge asset to homeschoolers.

anna said...

"Also, again, the statements of a few priests within the SSPX does NOT constitute the official stance of the SSPX as a whole. I would even go so far as to say that the statements of Bp. Williamson are not the official stance despite his office."

The letters were not on his personal webpage, they were on the Official sspx webpage which indicates that they endorse his views. (Can't imagine the Vatican publishing Milingo's stupid statements, can you?) They were listed under the official SSPX document section. Seems clear that his statements are the official stance (or at least endorsed).

"A talk with your confessor might be a really good thing for you to do right about now"
Not that old mantra again! Hold your horses. That tact didn't work with Mary and it's not going to work with me. (besides didn't Mary's recent post point out that accusing people in this matter is a desparate attempt by people who have lost the argument). Don't go down that road, heather. I did nothing wrong.
Let's review the facts. My original post gave the reference for the original article (did you even read the original article, by the way), but you wanted additional sources. Which I provided. The vast majority came from SSPX sites themselves (so the excuse that the society doesn't really believe those statements does seem justified, does it) and the original sources for the others can be found by linking from the links I gave. Also, the information is public information available for all who looks for it.

"But what irritates me to no end are people like you who refuse to deal with the truths of the matter and attempt to slander people just because you yourself hate them. "
Again, I am dealing with the truths. You wanted sources. I gave you sources. Done deal. You are slandering me by claiming that I hate them. I don't. In fact I don't care about them one way or the other.

"People like you HINDER this from happening rather than help them to come back. "
In what way? I don't make the decisions in the church. I'm not part of the Vatican.

What bugs me (since you brought it up) are people who seem to think that SSPx is the only alternative. There are other options (such as the FSSP).

M. Alexander said...

Dear Anna,
It depends very much on where you live what your options are. In some states there are no FSSP Masses. For example in Massachusetts where I unfortunately live the FSSP is banned, likewise in Rhode Island. Why? Too much competition for the local seminaries. It is well known that some and I dare say many Indults are intentionally staffed with priests who do not want to say the Latin Mass. They are as miserable as possible, exhorting and complaining about Traditionalists in every sermon, refusing the Sacraments to people arbitrarily. My brother and sister lost a baby at 24 weeks and the priest who said Mass at the Indult refused to baptize the baby for them. Disgraceful.

Rome permits people to attend SSPX chapels so why would you forbid it? Or even denigrate it?

Anna said...

"Rome permits people to attend SSPX chapels so why would you forbid it? Or even denigrate it?"

Rome does permit attendance (under certain conditions).

I'm not denigrating. But I do think it is important for people to realize that not all SSPX groups (in areas/countries/etc) hold the beliefs that you think they do. Just as there are crazy bishops like Milingo, so to are there priests/bishops/even whole SSPX groups (the Canadian group is frequently in the news with strange statements and actions) that say things that might seem outlandish or might even be dangerous. It's important for people to keep their eyes and ears open and not to think of them as 100% good guys.

While on vacation I attended an SSPX mass (out of curiousity to honest) and the experience was horrible. The priest's homily was focused on how much he hated the tourists that filled the town during summer, how he wanted to run them all over with his car, how he would beat them all with sticks if could get away with it, and much much more. I kid you not. This is what his homily was about! No exageration. Not one word about anything remotely related to the readings. I was shocked.

I spoke to one of the regulars after mass and they said that he is usually like that, but they attended anyway because they loved the beauty of the latin mass (!?) Unfortunately, the priest's odd behaviour and rant totally ruined the mood and purpose of the mass.

M. Alexander said...

Dear Suzy,

Let's be honest, after graduating from college you don't begin making $65K- at least I didn't. The best paying job I could get was as a secretary. And I asked mysel many times why I had gone thru 4 years of college to work as a secretary. Even w/ a master's or law degree I doubt you would begin at that salary.

Let's not make the mistake of believing that a woman's value is enhanced by her education. Many women struggle through college, establish a well paying career and then do not want to give it up for homemaking and motherhood.

suzyQ said...

"Let's be honest, after graduating from college you don't begin making $65K- at least I didn't. Even w/ a master's or law degree I doubt you would begin at that salary."
My first job was close to that (I had a PhD). I'm in a science field and my first job after graduating with a PhD was around $55 000 with an annual automatic increase of $2000 plus additional bonuses for performance.
Graduate students (people who are current going to university to obtain master's or PhD degrees) in my field receive $30 000 per year while they work on their degree (which already is more than a high school graduate), even before they have their degrees. In exchange they work as research assistants or teaching assistants (that's why it's easy, for some, to get an advanced degree without going into to debt).

"Let's not make the mistake of believing that a woman's value is enhanced by her education. "
That is true. I would not believe that. It's not about the dollar value. My reason for mention this was directed at the comment about bring debt to a marriage. My point was that in some cases a degree could be a financial benefit (not a financial burden).

M. Alexander said...

Dear Suzy,
As a scientist I'm surprised at your lack of precision. You said that a college graduate would make $65K. You didn't make that much even with a PhD. And even at your generous salary it will take you 5 years of working to earn $65K/year.

There is a huge difference between a college degree and a PhD. Doesn't it take about 3-5 years to earn a PhD after college?

Your example does not prove the point. I wonder if there are any statistics on the likelihood of women who earn PhD's being less likely to marry?

SuzyQ said...

"As a scientist I'm surprised at your lack of precision. You said that a college graduate would make $65K. You didn't make that much even with a PhD. And even at your generous salary it will take you 5 years of working to earn $65K/year.
There is a huge difference between a college degree and a PhD. Doesn't it take about 3-5 years to earn a PhD after college?"
Oh, sorry about the confusion. Yes, it takes 3-5 years. I could have obtained my first job after 1 year with a MA degree, but opted to go for the PhD due to greater opportunities at promotion (so after working for 3 years, I received a new position due to my PhD with a starting salary of over $95000 plus bonuses). Typically in my field the first year or so at the job has a lower salary which jumps by a lot in the 2nd or 3rd year.

My peers who got undergraduate degrees at the same time I did, went on the job market and all received starting salaries that were greater than $50000 with rapid increases after the first two years with their company and are within 4 years of graduating from college (with bachelor's degrees) make over $80000.

" I wonder if there are any statistics on the likelihood of women who earn PhD's being less likely to marry?"
I'm not sure of that. I can look into it. From personal experience, I doubt if that is true.
All of my female friends and work-colleagues that have Master's degrees or PhD's are all are married. Most met their husbands either at work or at university (while working on their advanced degrees).
For comparison, the friends I have from high school who married while in high school or shortly after are all divorced (except for one person). But I don't know if this pattern is generally true.

SuzyQ said...

Found a quick stat for you from a study at washington.edu

76% of the woman with PhD's in their study were married.
Not sure what % of woman in the general population are married, though.

SuzyQ said...

Was able to find a few more stats.
Seems that my observation of friends married in or shortly after highschool being more like to divorce is consistent with US data. Keep in mind that these are national (US) data across everyone (e.g., not just Catholics)


I'll just paste the info from the website
A: What is the breakdown of likelihood of a marriage ending in divorce
broken down by age (either age of bride, or average age of couple?)


The Center for Disease Control provides a wealth of useful statistics.


Probability of first marriage disruption by duration of marriage and
wife’s age at marriage

“First marriages by wife’s age at marriage—If the wife was a teenager
at first marriage, the marriage is much more likely to dissolve than
if the wife was at least 20 years of age at marriage. The first
marriages of brides under age 18 years are the most likely to dissolve
at all marital durations, followed by the marriages of women 18–19
years of age at marriage. Marriages of women at least age 20 years at
marriage are much less likely to dissolve (table 3 and figure 1).
After 10 years of marriage, 48 percent of marriages of women under age
18 years at marriage have disrupted compared with 40 percent of
marriages of women who were 18–19 years of age at marriage, 29 percent
of marriages of women who were 20–24 years of age at marriage, and 24
percent of marriages of women at least 25 years of age at marriage.”

See Table 3 on page 5 and Figure 1 on page 6 for detailed data

Download publication here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad323.pdf

Data from divorcepeers.com:

Age at marriage for those who divorce in the United States

--------------------------------------------------
Age Women Men
--------------------------------------------------
Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7%
20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%
25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%
30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%
35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.divorcepeers.com/statistics.htm

From a Catholic perspective the following is a scary statistic:
95 percent of all divorced people eventually remarry . . . 76 per
cent of second marriages fail within five years . . . .87 per cent of
third marriages fail and 93 per cent of fourth marriages end in
divorce within five years.”
http://www.allaboutfamilies.org/00aaf14.html

SuzyQ said...

Here are the 2005 US Census stats (they are more reliable than the ones I sent). These are based on actual reported salaries from people with various degrees.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/004214.html
New information from the U.S. Census Bureau reinforces the value of a college education: workers 18 and over with a bachelor’s degree earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915. Workers with an advanced degree make an average of $74,602, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734.

Lester said...

Interested in liturgical abuses and sspx ?
see

http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2006/07/father-z-on-sspx.html