Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#81
(10-22-2012, 10:55 AM)Old Salt Wrote: In over 5 years of going to SSPX Masses ,in several different US states, I have never seen anyone or myself been denied the Blessed Sacrament from a priest of the Society.

In fact in over 40 years of going to Mass I have only seen one person denied Communion, and that was at a NO Mass, because he was a Protestant and he had no idea of the truth and presented himself for Him.

I have seen it in St Mary's Kansas, over the Father Rizzo case, London over a fairly pious girl who was dressed in a suit jacket and skirt and blouse, but her mother was disliked by the district superior as she had left to attend FSSP masses. The priest refused her communion on the basis of having the top button of her blouse undone
If after 40 years in the SSPX you have not seen examples then I am surprised.

Another poster here has said there are examples in Asia too.
Reply
#82
(10-24-2012, 03:07 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 10:55 AM)Old Salt Wrote: In over 5 years of going to SSPX Masses ,in several different US states, I have never seen anyone or myself been denied the Blessed Sacrament from a priest of the Society.

In fact in over 40 years of going to Mass I have only seen one person denied Communion, and that was at a NO Mass, because he was a Protestant and he had no idea of the truth and presented himself for Him.

I have seen it in St Mary's Kansas, over the Father Rizzo case, London over a fairly pious girl who was dressed in a suit jacket and skirt and blouse, but her mother was disliked by the district superior as she had left to attend FSSP masses. The priest refused her communion on the basis of having the top button of her blouse undone
If after 40 years in the SSPX you have not seen examples then I am surprised.

Another poster here has said there are examples in Asia too.

A button?!?!  Doesn't this strike you as excessive and wrong?  The choice of the mother should have absolutely no impact on the daughter's ability to receive communion in this case. 
Reply
#83
I'm gonna be honest, its recently struck me as weird that people expect the SSPX to be perfect or there not to be problems in it or with some of its priests, these things happened even in the pre conciliar church, so why aren't they going to happen in the SSPX? Does someone think that the SSPX is actually better than the pre conciliar church? The SSPX merely guarantees a well formed priest, decent doctrine and sound sacraments, by no means does it guarantee priests that won't have human flaws, that won't make mistakes, that sometimes might be less than priestly, these things happened in the pre conciliar church and of course they will happen in the SSPX. The same applies with SSPXers losing the faith or becoming apostates etc... these things happened in the pre conciliar church so why can't they happen in the SSPX?

I think that I and others sometimes have unrealistic expectations of the SSPX and its priests, of course there might be problems and even scandals, but whats new? This happened in the pre conciliar church and it no more proves that they are good or bad, right or wrong than it would prove that the pre conciliar church was good or bad, right or wrong. Of course certain scandals to do with liturgy and the faith and even piety are much less likely or even close to impossible when compared to the conciliar church but serious errors and scandals can and still do happen. Priests can gossip, they can backbite, they can be human etc... by no means should I or do I intend to judge them, but we shouldn't let such things scandalise us.

Again with +Fellay and others, the popes even pre conciliar ones have somtimes made serious mistakes and errors, albeit not often doctrinally, and bishops even more so, so why expect him to be perfect or better? This doesn't exculpate any wrong actions, though I don't believe he has done anything wrong, but it does reduce unrealistic expectations.
Reply
#84
(10-24-2012, 08:25 AM)Fontevrault Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 03:07 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 10:55 AM)Old Salt Wrote: In over 5 years of going to SSPX Masses ,in several different US states, I have never seen anyone or myself been denied the Blessed Sacrament from a priest of the Society.

In fact in over 40 years of going to Mass I have only seen one person denied Communion, and that was at a NO Mass, because he was a Protestant and he had no idea of the truth and presented himself for Him.

I have seen it in St Mary's Kansas, over the Father Rizzo case, London over a fairly pious girl who was dressed in a suit jacket and skirt and blouse, but her mother was disliked by the district superior as she had left to attend FSSP masses. The priest refused her communion on the basis of having the top button of her blouse undone
If after 40 years in the SSPX you have not seen examples then I am surprised.

Another poster here has said there are examples in Asia too.

A button?!?!  Doesn't this strike you as excessive and wrong?  The choice of the mother should have absolutely no impact on the daughter's ability to receive communion in this case. 

I agree, I am just stating what I know for the record.
Reply
#85
TrentCath,

I certainly don't expect the priests of the SSPX to be anything other than sinners like the rest of us.  But, denial of communion is a serious matter.  To glibly dismiss such an act as a non-issue seems wrong too.  

I have only seen denial of communion in a TLM setting and only once.  I was in France when a man came up at the very end of communion.  The priest met his eyes and with a very sad face shook his head.  I remember being struck by how dejected the priest was to have to deny anyone communion - on Christmas of all days.  The man hung his head and returned to his seat.  The whole thing took mere seconds and could easily have passed unnoticed by most of the congregation.  I assume it was done with a fair bit of forethought and communication between the two men.  I had the feeling that it hurt both of them.  

It seems to me that this is the way denial of communion should be.  It shouldn't be done in anger or out of pettiness.  It should be something done carefully, with forethought and communication about the circumstances.  It should be done as a corrective - out of charity for the sinner involved.  Anything else seems wrong.
Reply
#86
(10-24-2012, 09:09 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 08:25 AM)Fontevrault Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 03:07 AM)ggreg Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 10:55 AM)Old Salt Wrote: In over 5 years of going to SSPX Masses ,in several different US states, I have never seen anyone or myself been denied the Blessed Sacrament from a priest of the Society.

In fact in over 40 years of going to Mass I have only seen one person denied Communion, and that was at a NO Mass, because he was a Protestant and he had no idea of the truth and presented himself for Him.

I have seen it in St Mary's Kansas, over the Father Rizzo case, London over a fairly pious girl who was dressed in a suit jacket and skirt and blouse, but her mother was disliked by the district superior as she had left to attend FSSP masses. The priest refused her communion on the basis of having the top button of her blouse undone
If after 40 years in the SSPX you have not seen examples then I am surprised.

Another poster here has said there are examples in Asia too.

A button?!?!  Doesn't this strike you as excessive and wrong?  The choice of the mother should have absolutely no impact on the daughter's ability to receive communion in this case. 

I agree, I am just stating what I know for the record.

Ok.  Sorry.  I shouldnt' have assumed otherwise.  I just was struck by the pettiness of the act.
Reply
#87
(10-24-2012, 09:18 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: TrentCath,

I certainly don't expect the priests of the SSPX to be anything other than sinners like the rest of us.  But, denial of communion is a serious matter.  To glibly dismiss such an act as a non-issue seems wrong too.  

I have only seen denial of communion in a TLM setting and only once.  I was in France when a man came up at the very end of communion.  The priest met his eyes and with a very sad face shook his head.  I remember being struck by how dejected the priest was to have to deny anyone communion - on Christmas of all days.  The man hung his head and returned to his seat.  The whole thing took mere seconds and could easily have passed unnoticed by most of the congregation.  I assume it was done with a fair bit of forethought and communication between the two men.  I had the feeling that it hurt both of them.  

It seems to me that this is the way denial of communion should be.  It shouldn't be done in anger or out of pettiness.  It should be something done carefully, with forethought and communication about the circumstances.  It should be done as a corrective - out of charity for the sinner involved.  Anything else seems wrong.

You are missing the point completely:
a) no one is being glib and no one is saying its a non issue, that is you reading your frustrations into other peoples words
b) the point is that these things happen and people who want to use as a stick to bash the SSPX with need to be aware they prove too much and bash the Church with it too. These sorts of purported mistakes, happened in the past history of the church and no doubt will happen in the future history too.
Reply
#88
It's not really a 'mistake' though is it? Not in the normal sense of that word.

You don't mistakenly deny communion to a 16 year old because her mother has voiced concerns or has disagreements.

That's just catty and vindictive and an abuse of power.  It is not a mistake.

Of course the SSPX has priests who do uncharitable and vindictive things, gossip, bicker and carry on like teenage girls sometimes.  No human institution is perfect.  The point for discussion is whether this is characteristic of how the SSPX deals with the laity it does not like.  I've not seen the FSSP do this.  SSPX has a very distinctive way of dealing with disagreement as the latest kicking out of +Wiliamson demonstrates as do the threats to the owner of the Ignis Ardens forum.

There is a definite tendancy in my opinion in some branches of the Church to refuse to engage in any discussion about what is wrong and what might be improved.  It appears to me to have existed for a couple of hundred years at least.  The child abuse scandal reveals the same blinkered refusal to see something wrong at the level of the institution itself.
Reply
#89
(10-24-2012, 09:49 AM)ggreg Wrote: It's not really a 'mistake' though is it? Not in the normal sense of that word.

You don't mistakenly deny communion to a 16 year old because her mother has voiced concerns or has disagreements.

That's just catty and vindictive and an abuse of power.  It is not a mistake.

Of course the SSPX has priests who do uncharitable and vindictive things, gossip, bicker and carry on like teenage girls sometimes.  No human institution is perfect.  The point for discussion is whether this is characteristic of how the SSPX deals with the laity it does not like.  I've not seen the FSSP do this.  SSPX has a very distinctive way of dealing with disagreement as the latest kicking out of +Wiliamson demonstrates as do the threats to the owner of the Ignis Ardens forum.

There is a definite tendancy in my opinion in some branches of the Church to refuse to engage in any discussion about what is wrong and what might be improved.  It appears to me to have existed for a couple of hundred years at least.  The child abuse scandal reveals the same blinkered refusal to see something wrong at the level of the institution itself.

Actually yes it is, it is perfectly normal for someone when admitting something they have done wrong to say "sorry i made a mistake", you are simply pedantic for no good reason.

I can no correlation between the way the SSPX has dealt with Bp W, the way some of its priests have allegedly dealt with members of the laity and the threats allegedly made against ignis ardens.
Reply
#90
(10-24-2012, 09:23 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-24-2012, 09:18 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: TrentCath,

I certainly don't expect the priests of the SSPX to be anything other than sinners like the rest of us.  But, denial of communion is a serious matter.  To glibly dismiss such an act as a non-issue seems wrong too.  

I have only seen denial of communion in a TLM setting and only once.  I was in France when a man came up at the very end of communion.  The priest met his eyes and with a very sad face shook his head.  I remember being struck by how dejected the priest was to have to deny anyone communion - on Christmas of all days.  The man hung his head and returned to his seat.  The whole thing took mere seconds and could easily have passed unnoticed by most of the congregation.  I assume it was done with a fair bit of forethought and communication between the two men.  I had the feeling that it hurt both of them.  

It seems to me that this is the way denial of communion should be.  It shouldn't be done in anger or out of pettiness.  It should be something done carefully, with forethought and communication about the circumstances.  It should be done as a corrective - out of charity for the sinner involved.  Anything else seems wrong.

You are missing the point completely:
a) no one is being glib and no one is saying its a non issue, that is you reading your frustrations into other peoples words
b) the point is that these things happen and people who want to use as a stick to bash the SSPX with need to be aware they prove too much and bash the Church with it too. These sorts of purported mistakes, happened in the past history of the church and no doubt will happen in the future history too.

No I'm not missing your point.  

To not address the issue is to be glib about it.  To not be outraged when injustice happens - in the rest of the church or the SSPX - is not appropriate.  

It seems very easy to say something like "you just hate the SSPX and are using this as an excuse to attack it."  That lets everyone off the hook way too easily.  If we can sit around and bash the church when stupid crap happens, like clown masses and refusal to deny communion to very public supporters of abortion, then we should be equally able to address injustice and inappropriatness when it happens in the SSPX. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)