Traditional Catholics Unite the Clans (Dr. Marshall and Michael Matt)
#11
(03-21-2019, 03:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(03-21-2019, 05:55 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: We can't afford any squabbling. There's no way we can restore Tradition if we're divided. 

Squabbling is inherently defined as petty bickering, so again, we need to go back to the reality of the situation and ask precisely what divides these groups? Merely charism? Different tactics and weapons?

That's Michael Matt's view, I am sure, but I think it is myopic and idealistic.

As above, however, there are deeper issues here including theological positions on indispensable points.

I understand the unfairness of the position from the Society's point of view.... I'd liken it to someone undercutting the competition. Guy #1 sells an item for $2.00 and guy #2 comes along and sells the same product for $1.50. It's not fair, but to say that the fundamental reason groups like the Fraternity and the Institute exist is to undermine the SSPX is frankly an insult. In addition, it's to not see their usefulness to the Society.  Sure, the local Bishop may see it that way, he may think something like, 'Let's get one of these groups in here that will say the Latin Mass, but essentially keep their mouths shut--more or less. 

SSPX needs FSSP and vice versa. Why?  They can keep each other in check. FSSP holds a necessary place same as the Society, albeit they each have a different task. For example, as you know the Society just had a big split a few years back and now there's yet another group (The Resistance) that's accusing the Society of having sold out. Groups in an irregular position within the Church are prone to go too far afield and a variety of organizations under the same banner of traditional Catholicism can help each other to keep the balance. Too fringy, and you got trouble. But on the other hand no Society and we're back to square one, imo.

In addition, the FSSP can reach new traditionalists who are just getting their feet wet, so to speak. It can be intimidating and off putting for a woman to be told "no slacks" and "where's your veil?" at the chapel. They need some place that will work with them.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#12
(03-21-2019, 03:56 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: It's not fair, but to say that the fundamental reason groups like the Fraternity and the Institute exist is to undermine the SSPX is frankly an insult.

First, I never said the purpose of the Institute (of Christ the King) was to undermine the SSPX. It isn't.

Secondly, it's not an insult. It's the stated purpose of the FSSP. It's in the founding documents of the FSSP. It would be an insult to the FSSP to say that their purpose was not this, because it would ignore their very constitutions.

The reason for the FSSP, as stated by the very founding documents and words of the founders, was to firstly provide a place for former SSPX priests who felt Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX had gone into schism in 1988 and to draw more of these "schismatics" away from Lefebvre. Secondarily, the purpose was to provide the faithful of the SSPX with a means of getting out of this "schism."

That was the stated goal. It is proven not only by the words of their founding documents and founders, but by their actions. The only places that the FSSP set up chapels was near SSPX chapels. That has slowly started to change, and there are a few places where the FSSP is and the SSPX is not, but to this day if you search out an SSPX chapel, you can guarantee that for 90% of them within 25 miles you will find an FSSP chapel.

I hold no animus towards FSSP priests themselves, some of whom have no issues with the SSPX. I am speaking of the institution, which again, officially holds the SSPX to be in schism (which is provably false), and still has as their foundational purpose the destruction of the SSPX (which they see as a virtuous goal, because it protects the faithful from "schism"). Personally, because I would like to attribute intellectual honesty to the FSSP, I think this is why they refuse to acknowledge that the SSPX is not in schism. If they did, it would mean their purpose would need to change.

If there is to be some "unity" as Marshall and Matt desire, foundational principles need to change, and that's not mere squabbling.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • BC, jovan66102
Reply
#13
(03-21-2019, 04:38 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: ....It's the stated purpose of the FSSP. It's in the founding documents of the FSSP. It would be an insult to the FSSP to say that their purpose was not this, because it would ignore their very constitutions.

The reason for the FSSP, as stated by the very founding documents and words of the founders, was to firstly provide a place for former SSPX priests who felt Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX had gone into schism in 1988 and to draw more of these "schismatics" away from Lefebvre. Secondarily, the purpose was to provide the faithful of the SSPX with a means of getting out of this "schism."

That was the stated goal. It is proven not only by the words of their founding documents and founders, but by their actions. The only places that the FSSP set up chapels was near SSPX chapels. That has slowly started to change, and there are a few places where the FSSP is and the SSPX is not, but to this day if you search out an SSPX chapel, you can guarantee that for 90% of them within 25 miles you will find an FSSP chapel.

Well, I think you have an interesting perspective.  I am unaware that it's written in their by-laws. Where in writing does the FSSP state that their mission is specifically/purposefully to destroy the SSPX? Can you do me the favor of providing a link?  


Quote:I hold no animus towards FSSP priests themselves, some of whom have no issues with the SSPX. I am speaking of the institution, which again, officially holds the SSPX to be in schism (which is provably false), and still has as their foundational purpose the destruction of the SSPX (which they see as a virtuous goal, because it protects the faithful from "schism"). Personally, because I would like to attribute intellectual honesty to the FSSP, I think this is why they refuse to acknowledge that the SSPX is not in schism. If they did, it would mean their purpose would need to change.

I'm a Jersey girl. I've heard any number of Fraternity priests from the pulpit and none has ever come out against the SSPX. So if that is their mission, they've failed miserably. Mainly I'm at the Institute though, and I know the priest there was on friendly terms with the local Society priests. I just have a hard time with believing the traditional priests, at least here in NJ, are as concerned with all this stuff as you seem to be.

Could the Fraternity come out and write a formal document saying the SSPX is all fine and good? No, it's not their place to do so. That'd be nice if they could do that... Look, this post VII stuff as you well know is messy. It's a spiritual war. Let's pick the battles carefully. Having all the i's dotted and t's crossed isn't gonna happen. Everybody in traditional circles with at least half an understanding of all the dynamics (at least that I know of) knows the SSPX isn't in schism. They're irregular, and that's a good thing as I've already said. And as stated before B16 and Francis fixed all that schism talk by their actions. As for the squabbles, God will straighten it all out in the end. Let's just forgive and move on. We have everything to gain by doing so and nothing to lose.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
[-] The following 1 user Likes JacafamalaRedux's post:
  • HeadRusch
Reply
#14
Obvious what the goal here is.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#15
(03-21-2019, 05:33 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: Well, I think you have an interesting perspective.  I am unaware that it's written in their by-laws. Where in writing does the FSSP state that their mission is specifically/purposefully to destroy the SSPX? Can you do me the favor of providing a link?  

The quotes were above in Post #3.

Quote:The founders of the FSSP claimed they "remained within the Catholic Church as the pars sanior [sane portion]" of the SSPX, in their 2 July 1988 declaration. The FSSP constitutions indicate they are "founded in the spirit of the apostolic letter Motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of Pope John Paul II (2 July 1988)." That motu proprio states that the commission which would establish the FSSP, and by extension the FSSP itself exists "for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Msgr. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions."

It's not stated outright "The mission of the Priestly Fraternity of St Peter is to destroy the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X because they're schismatics," but if one follows the thread, it's not hard to see that this was at least part of their original purpose.

The July 2 letter of the founders rejecting the consecrations and claims they they were the "sane part" of the SSPX, which obviously means the other part is not sane, and the only possible meaning of this is that this other part is schism. The constitutions themselves explicitly say that the FSSP is founded on the principles in the letter Ecclesia Dei adflicta and that letter explicitly calls the actions of Lefebvre schismatic and seeks to facilitate religious priests, seminarians and faithful to return to "full ecclesial communion."

Or backwards : the purpose of Ecclesia Dei adflicta is to condemn Lefebvre and the SSPX as schismatic, and provide means for people to leave. The FSSP founders immediately take this goal calling themselves the "sane part" of the SSPX, and form a priestly society based on the SSPX statues, with the addition that their founding principles are found in the letter Ecclesia Dei adflicta which condemns the SSPX and seeks to provide the faithful an alternative.

Just connect the dots.

(03-21-2019, 05:33 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: I'm a Jersey girl. I've heard any number of Fraternity priests from the pulpit and none has ever come out against the SSPX. So if that is their mission, they've failed miserably.

I was at an FSSP Mass about 12 years ago. Fr Berg, the Superior General, was visiting and explicitly stated from the pulpit that to go to the nearby SSPX church was a schismatic act, sinful and risked automatic excommunication. Yes, one incident, but the Superior General. I have heard of plenty of others.

Most FSSP priest I know don't believe this, nor do they preach it, but that's because they are not following "company policy." Again, institutions, not people. Most FSSP priests I've met are great. A few are not so great, but same could be said for the SSPX or any group.

(03-21-2019, 05:33 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: Mainly I'm at the Institute though, and I know the priest there was on friendly terms with the local Society priests. I just have a hard time with believing the traditional priests, at least here in NJ, are as concerned with all this stuff as you seem to be.

The Institute doesn't have any baggage with the SSPX, and nothing in their official documents references the SSPX, as far as I am aware. I know of no Institute priest that has ever taken a stance on the SSPX, or any official policy. While they may be used against the SSPX, that is certainly not one of their principle purposes.

(03-21-2019, 05:33 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: Could the Fraternity come out and write a formal document saying the SSPX is all fine and good? No, it's not their place to do so. That'd be nice if they could do that... Look, this post VII stuff as you well know is messy. It's a spiritual war. Let's pick the battles carefully. Having all the i's dotted and t's crossed isn't gonna happen. Everybody in traditional circles with at least half an understanding of all the dynamics (at least that I know of) knows the SSPX isn't in schism. They're irregular, and that's a good thing as I've already said. And as stated before B16 and Francis fixed all that schism talk by their actions. As for the squabbles, God will straighten it all out in the end. Let's just forgive and move on. We have everything to gain by doing so and nothing to lose.

Bishop Morlino had no issue publicly correcting his mistaken statements about the SSPX. I don't see why the FSSP could not do so at least on some level. at the very least a top level gesture. Plenty of opportunities have existed, like the granting of faculties to the SSPX, election of a new Superior General, etc. Even a "not in full communion" but not schismatic statement on such occasions might go a long way. Nothing, however, as far as I am aware, to counter the institutional position that the SSPX is schismatic.

Add to this people like Cardinal Burke continue to say "schism" while the Francis mess gets deeper. That's not squabbles. It's a lie.

If there really are squabbles, then fine, forgive and forget, but the issues are deeper. Several touch on doctrine, so can't just be glossed over.

I appreciate that on the level of most faithful these things seem perhaps petty. They are not, however.
Reply
#16
I know plenty of FSSP priests who hold to the idea that the SSPX is in schism, and I know some who will publicly preach that. I know plenty of current US seminarians who also hold the same although not all do.

The FSSP's principal founder, Fr. Bisig, understands and explicitly explains the FSSP constitutions and the meaning of "pars sanior" to be that the FSSP is not in schism while the SSPX is. He teaches this every year to all first-year seminarians at Nebraska in their class on the constitutions (De Constitutionibus). He gave presentations at the El Paso parish last year in which he also made the same point. He uses Cdl. Burke's recent comments reaffirming the supposed schismatic position of the SSPX. He personally affirms that the very raison d'etre of the origin of the FSSP is because he believed the consecrations of '88 was a schismatic act. In his mind, as long as the SSPX exists, the schism must be affirmed, and mere attendance at SSPX Masses constitutes "adherence to the schism." Fr. Berg, although no longer superior general, is also in agreement with Fr. Bisig's position. The current vocations director for the US FSSP seminary, Fr. William Lawrence, also agrees with this position and was elected as one of the counselors to the superior general at the most recent general chapter. People need to make it perfectly clear in their mind: they may not hear their FSSP priests ever once discuss the schismatic position of the SSPX, and they may even hear their priests say they disagree with this point of view, but the priests who count and are in positions of authority and influence in the FSSP, who screen all incoming seminarians and hence future FSSP priests, all adhere to this position, and the founding priest maintains that it is essential to the proper understanding of the constitutions, which forms the specific difference or essential, defining characteristic of the FSSP.

The restoration of Tradition is not simply a matter of how many people attend the Latin Mass or receive 1962 Sacraments. The restoration of Tradition is the restoration of the true understanding of Tradition (which is simply the integral Faith) and the concrete application of THAT in society, the reign of Christ. When understood in this light, it is very easy to see how having more and more people attend Latin Mass but disregard the theological implications of which group they decide to support (and dismiss these differences as petty squabbles) are comparable to the proverbial frog in boiling water. The fall of Christendom was due to both the corruption of morals as well as the overturning of the Faith by a fundamentally anti-Catholic philosophy. Hence there is a moral/spiritual AND intellectual aspect to the restoration, and it matters therefore exactly what the FSSP officially claims is Tradition and the position of the SSPX. A FSSP seminarian/cleric who disagrees with Fr. Bisig and Fr. Lawrence must keep his head down for the remainder of his time in seminary and his ministry.
Reply
#17
So MM, you're essentially saying that nothing can happen in terms of these groups working together until the FSSP says, "Uncle", and "We're sorry." Well, in the end it's not up to us so we'll just have to wait and see. Granted, it'd be nice. I'm not against their doing so.

But you still haven't responded to my point made in a couple different posts on how it actually benefits the groups that the other exists. Pragmatically speaking, it's a good thing they do. I think it's providential.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#18
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  :D
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#19
(03-22-2019, 08:20 AM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  :D

That is a very dangerous philosophy to abide by, especially when souls are involved. It also demonstrably isn't the case.

Many 3rd wave feminists and post-feminist academics (usually lesbians) have come out very strongly over the years against queer theory and its push of transgenderism because they rightly see that queer theory destroys any hope for saying that the feminine gender/sex is a "real" thing. They're opposed to this because if there's no such thing as "female," then the entire work of feminism has been undone. Hence some among them are advocating a rethinking of the LGBTQ+ label, which includes all these diverse and contradictory ideological groups as if they were compatible.

Yet many in the LGBTQ+ group are hesitant to force this issue because they think that their individual gender/sexual/identity cause will be strengthened by added numbers in their group. Hence the more people who protest and show up, the better that their minority identity can receive some sort of recognition and benefits. In fact, such people, and I know many of these as well, delude themselves into thinking that because their agenda is being pushed everywhere that they are making great strides forward, that progress is being made for their gender ideology. But as the more critical feminists would point out, all of this is actually destructive of each group's cause because they are turning a blind eye to the fundamental conceptual contradictions that exist in how they view gender/sexuality. The feminists would say the others are blinded by a false sense of security, and it's only a matter of time before it all comes to a head.

In this case, feminists are still not my friend. Both are in fervent service of the devil.

Another good example of this, perhaps one less obviously diabolical but still so: Medjugorje. A supporter would say, "Look at the huge increase of Marian devotion, of conversions, of possible miracles!" And we might believe that something supernatural and blessed is happening. But all the while, the seers and pilgrims were in disobedience to the bishop's ruling. Now the situation is more complicated since although the Catholic Church hasn't officially approved the supernatural origins, the papal envoy encouraged pilgrimages and said, "It's no longer a problem." Even Cardinal Arinze said that grace may still be dispensed there even if our Lady didn't appear there; the place may still be a shrine for our Lady. Well, this is a sleight of hand. The only reason the place became a "shrine" was because of the supposed apparitions. And while grace may be dispensed, it would be working through a fundamental attitude of disobedience to Church judgment. Hence a supporter can pat himself on the back and think that he is pious because of his Marian devotion, all the while he is actually being swept away by extraordinary spiritual phenomena and can easily be manipulated by sinister forces. Are his Rosaries useless? No, I can't judge that, and probably not. But is this still a situation of the frog being boiled slowly to death? Yes.

Medjugorje enthusiasts are not my friend just because they're somehow supposedly helping spread Marian devotion. St. Louis de Montfort would probably be appalled. This of course doesn't mean I don't pray for them and love them supernaturally.

How do you know that a comparable situation isn't also happening among traditional Catholics, specifically between the FSSP and SSPX? The fact is, we know that a comparable situation is happening because the founder of the FSSP has made it perfectly clear, and the previous problems of unity in the FSSP all circled around these foundational issues. The FSSP is the true SSPX without the schism; it is the "healthier part" (pars sanior) according to its own founding documents. What is it a part of? Part of the SSPX. In what way could it possibly be healthier? It isn't in schism--it is connected to the life-giving Church. There's no way to get around this. It is a matter of one group saying to the other: "You are cut off from the Church. You may be administering Sacraments, but you are leading souls out of the Church with an illusion of Tradition. You are doing the work of the devil." This is why the anti-SSPX priests will also say such things like, "We are the true followers of Abp. Lefebvre." What could that possibly mean? We all know what it means.

The fact that people would be flippant about this means they don't really understand the serious implications of such an accusation.
[-] The following 1 user Likes piscis's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#20
[quote pid='1394789' dateline='1553279423']

Quote:That is a very dangerous philosophy to abide by, especially when souls are involved. It also demonstrably isn't the case.

Many 3rd wave feminists and post-feminist academics (usually lesbians) have come out very strongly over the years against queer theory and its push of transgenderism because they rightly see that queer theory destroys any hope for saying that the feminine gender/sex is a "real" thing. They're opposed to this because if there's no such thing as "female," then the entire work of feminism has been undone. Hence some among them are advocating a rethinking of the LGBTQ+ label, which includes all these diverse and contradictory ideological groups as if they were compatible.

Yet many in the LGBTQ+ group are hesitant to force this issue because they think that their individual gender/sexual/identity cause will be strengthened by added numbers in their group. Hence the more people who protest and show up, the better that their minority identity can receive some sort of recognition and benefits. In fact, such people, and I know many of these as well, delude themselves into thinking that because their agenda is being pushed everywhere that they are making great strides forward, that progress is being made for their gender ideology. But as the more critical feminists would point out, all of this is actually destructive of each group's cause because they are turning a blind eye to the fundamental conceptual contradictions that exist in how they view gender/sexuality. The feminists would say the others are blinded by a false sense of security, and it's only a matter of time before it all comes to a head.

In this case, feminists are still not my friend. Both are in fervent service of the devil.

Another good example of this, perhaps one less obviously diabolical but still so: Medjugorje. A supporter would say, "Look at the huge increase of Marian devotion, of conversions, of possible miracles!" And we might believe that something supernatural and blessed is happening. But all the while, the seers and pilgrims were in disobedience to the bishop's ruling. Now the situation is more complicated since although the Catholic Church hasn't officially approved the supernatural origins, the papal envoy encouraged pilgrimages and said, "It's no longer a problem." Even Cardinal Arinze said that grace may still be dispensed there even if our Lady didn't appear there; the place may still be a shrine for our Lady. Well, this is a sleight of hand. The only reason the place became a "shrine" was because of the supposed apparitions. And while grace may be dispensed, it would be working through a fundamental attitude of disobedience to Church judgment. Hence a supporter can pat himself on the back and think that he is pious because of his Marian devotion, all the while he is actually being swept away by extraordinary spiritual phenomena and can easily be manipulated by sinister forces. Are his Rosaries useless? No, I can't judge that, and probably not. But is this still a situation of the frog being boiled slowly to death? Yes.

We're not talking about feminists or LGBQXYZ. We're talking about traditional Catholic priests.


Quote:Medjugorje enthusiasts are not my friend just because they're somehow supposedly helping spread Marian devotion. St. Louis de Montfort would probably be appalled. This of course doesn't mean I don't pray for them and love them supernaturally.

Or these either. My gosh I didn't mean to apply that phrase to everything under the sun.


Quote:How do you know that a comparable situation isn't also happening among traditional Catholics, specifically between the FSSP and SSPX? The fact is, we know that a comparable situation is happening because the founder of the FSSP has made it perfectly clear, and the previous problems of unity in the FSSP all circled around these foundational issues. The FSSP is the true SSPX without the schism; it is the "healthier part" (pars sanior) according to its own founding documents. What is it a part of? Part of the SSPX. In what way could it possibly be healthier? It isn't in schism--it is connected to the life-giving Church. There's no way to get around this. It is a matter of one group saying to the other: "You are cut off from the Church. You may be administering Sacraments, but you are leading souls out of the Church with an illusion of Tradition. You are doing the work of the devil." This is why the anti-SSPX priests will also say such things like, "We are the true followers of Abp. Lefebvre." What could that possibly mean? We all know what it means.

Who said 'The SSPX's work is 'of the devil?' You? Anyone else?


Quote:The fact that people would be flippant about this means they don't really understand the serious implications of such an accusation.

That's interesting you feel that way; that you feel people are being flippant. 
[/quote]
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)