#Unite The Clans!
#1
Michael Matt has the right idea for how to move forward.

Jesus said that he that is not against us is for us!

#Unite The Clans   !!!



Quote:Unite the Clans – is it just a call for a great big ecumenical group hug? Or is there more to it? 

Michael J. Matt traces the history of the traditional Catholic movement, especially as relating to the Society of St. Pius X and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and then asks the question: Despite three decades of bitter intermural squabbling, can we get out of the way long enough to the let the old Faith unite us in battle against those who would crush us all? 

Here's the thing: We don't have to like each other...but can we go to war together? 

As was the case in the American Civil War, the Church in her human element after Vatican II found herself at war with herself—pitting father against son, mother against daughter, bishop against pope. But might there have been good men on both sides? 

The Modernist hierarchy of the Church divided us all. Will we stand by and let them conquer us, too?  

Thirty years later, what do you think? Where do you stand? Can we unite the clans against a common enemy, or must we let them polarize us forever? 

Plus, Michael calls for an end to clericalism, whether Father says it’s okay or not. 

Finally, the Catholic Identity Conference. What it’s all about, and how will the Superior General of the SSPX give a talk at the same conference as a prominent priest of the Fraternity of St. Peter? 

History is changing, friends. Join us, and let's watch it happen...together at last. 




Quote:Here's a sermon many have waited 30 years to hear. Ironically, it comes from a diocesan priest, fighting Modernism right from within the belly of the beast. 

In this Sunday Sermon of South Saint Paul, Father explains his own history growing up Catholic, recalling his childhood in the traditional Church and then recounting how the Revolution tore it all apart. 

He explains how he eventually rediscovered Tradition, fell in love with the Latin Mass and decided to dedicate his life to Catholic counterrevolution. 

In this sermon, he begs all traditional Catholics--especially the SSPX and the FSSP-- to unite--not in emotions or feelings--but rather in the Catholic counterrevolution, against the forces of darkness that would destroy everything we all hold sacred. 

Think all diocesan priests have sold out to the Novus Ordo? Think again and #UniteTheClans



Quote:On the famous Borgo Pio in Rome, LifeSiteNews co-founder John-Henry Westen interviews Remnant editor-in-chief Michael J. Matt. 

Think the 'Unite the Clans' initiative is pie-in-the-sky nonsense? Well, think again!  It's already happening.

Shot during the Amazon Synod, this interview covers everything from the 'ugly traditionalist,' to #UniteTheClans, to the history of the traditional Catholic movement and to the establishment of a united Catholic front against the anti-Christians who hate everything we all believe. 


[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • meandmyshadow
Reply
#2
I totally agree we should #UniteTheClans, but unfortunately we suffer from the same malady extreme left and right political tendencies often do. If the extreme right OR extreme left had been able to unite in this country (and several others, like the UK and Canada), the US would either be a fascist state today or a communist one. Another example is Spain during the Civil War. Franco only won because he forcibly united the right, the Carlists, the Falangists, and the Alfonsistas. If the left had been able to unite, the combined forces of the Anarchists (CNT/FAI), the POUM, the liberals, and the Stalinists would very likely have won.

Too often, Trads make the perfect the enemy of the good. I belong to several Trad groups on Facebook. In some of them, if you're not a sede, you're a heretic. In others you don't have to be a sede, but if you EVER attend the NO, even out of necessity, you're a modernist, and the list goes on. 

What we need to win the battle, is first of all some charity! The vitriol between different 'flavours' of Traddom is no advertisement for Tradition. Without a conversion of heart amongst ALL the Trad groups, we're doomed to remain a fringe movement for the next generation or two. We'll win in the end of course, simply by out reproducing the modernists, who are contracepting themselves out of existence. But if we want to win in the short term, we'd better shape up and learn to love our neighbour Trad, no matter what flavour he is!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 5 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Fionnchu, HailGilbert, Ioannes_L, meandmyshadow, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#3
There was a new article on 1Peter5 about this.  The idea was that VII was about liberals and conservatives uniting against the Magisterium/Traditionalists.  This was never previously the case, with conservatives typically uniting with the Magisterium against the liberals.  The solution they propose is nothing more than a return to form, with everyone ganging up on the liberals and suppressing them.  

https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-barron-unhappy-trad/

#MakeLiberalsAfraidAgain
[-] The following 2 users Like Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • Fionnchu, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#4
I hate to be the Debbie Downer, but Matt does not have the right idea. I'm inclined to think the whole thing is a marketing ploy, but who knows. The differences between the FSSP and SSPX are not a matter of being unfriendly towards each other. Here we have to make a sharp distinction between layfolk who attend these chapels and the formal members of each priestly society themselves. The layfolk are not members of either group, and their feelings towards people of the other group, whether lamentable or praiseworthy, are irrelevant.

The FSSP exists because Fr. Josef Bisig believes (note: present tense) that the SSPX and every member of it are in open schism, and any layman who attends or participates in SSPX sacraments or liturgy are "adhering to the schism" according to the language of JPII's 1988 Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. And this isn't just Fr. Bisig speaking in a strong, rhetorical style. He is still close friends with Fr. Schmidberger. The specific difference between the FSSP and the SSPX, according to the Constitutions of the FSSP itself, is that the FSSP is the "pars sanior," the healthier part because they are non-schismatic, of Abp. Lefebvre's work. This is why FSSP priests can say they are "truly" following in the footsteps of Lefebvre. This is why every priest who has a position of decision-making power within the FSSP is a vetted company man. One may meet FSSP priests here and there who don't believe the SSPX is in schism or think it would be better to downplay this point, but they are going against the very raison d'etre of the FSSP and how it formally defines itself in its documents.

This is why any FSSP priest who actually cares what the FSSP is all about and is bold enough to preach so will tell you, the layman, NOT to attend the SSPX because to do so is to participate in the schism, or at the very least to begin to foster a schismatic mindset.

Today no one really cares about theology, which sounds like a bunch of highfalutin talk, but if one takes the theology seriously, which as a Catholic one is expected to (otherwise you would just be a Protestant and make theology up on the fly), the issue comes down to whether one is in the Catholic Church or not. Period. The differences between the clans come down to matters of theology. To put theology aside out of "pastoral or practical considerations" is exactly what the Novus Ordo has done. Charity without truth is not charity at all. 

You cannot unite in any meaningful supernatural sense with what is outside the Church without cutting yourself from the Church or by bringing that which is cut off from the Church back into the Church. Until then you cannot unite the clans.

As a note, I will also say that I'm not all for layfolk teaching themselves theology and doing armchair theology. I think that's been a huge part of the splintering among traditionalists. Theology is a science just as technical and complex as any other. I think encouraging people to stop thinking they know theology and start living a spiritual life is a move in the right direction, but I think the unite the clans business is a move in the wrong direction.
[-] The following 5 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, Fionnchu, Imperator Caesar Trump, MagisterMusicae, The Tax Collector
Reply
#5
(10-28-2019, 01:41 PM)piscis Wrote: I hate to be the Debbie Downer, but Matt does not have the right idea. I'm inclined to think the whole thing is a marketing ploy, but who knows. The differences between the FSSP and SSPX are not a matter of being unfriendly towards each other. Here we have to make a sharp distinction between layfolk who attend these chapels and the formal members of each priestly society themselves. The layfolk are not members of either group, and their feelings towards people of the other group, whether lamentable or praiseworthy, are irrelevant.

The FSSP exists because Fr. Josef Bisig believes (note: present tense) that the SSPX and every member of it are in open schism, and any layman who attends or participates in SSPX sacraments or liturgy are "adhering to the schism" according to the language of JPII's 1988 Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. And this isn't just Fr. Bisig speaking in a strong, rhetorical style. He is still close friends with Fr. Schmidberger. The specific difference between the FSSP and the SSPX, according to the Constitutions of the FSSP itself, is that the FSSP is the "pars sanior," the healthier part because they are non-schismatic, of Abp. Lefebvre's work. This is why FSSP priests can say they are "truly" following in the footsteps of Lefebvre. This is why every priest who has a position of decision-making power within the FSSP is a vetted company man. One may meet FSSP priests here and there who don't believe the SSPX is in schism or think it would be better to downplay this point, but they are going against the very raison d'etre of the FSSP and how it formally defines itself in its documents.

This is why any FSSP priest who actually cares what the FSSP is all about and is bold enough to preach so will tell you, the layman, NOT to attend the SSPX because to do so is to participate in the schism, or at the very least to begin to foster a schismatic mindset.

Today no one really cares about theology, which sounds like a bunch of highfalutin talk, but if one takes the theology seriously, which as a Catholic one is expected to (otherwise you would just be a Protestant and make theology up on the fly), the issue comes down to whether one is in the Catholic Church or not. Period. The differences between the clans come down to matters of theology. To put theology aside out of "pastoral or practical considerations" is exactly what the Novus Ordo has done. Charity without truth is not charity at all. 

You cannot unite in any meaningful supernatural sense with what is outside the Church without cutting yourself from the Church or by bringing that which is cut off from the Church back into the Church. Until then you cannot unite the clans.

As a note, I will also say that I'm not all for layfolk teaching themselves theology and doing armchair theology. I think that's been a huge part of the splintering among traditionalists. Theology is a science just as technical and complex as any other. I think encouraging people to stop thinking they know theology and start living a spiritual life is a move in the right direction, but I think the unite the clans business is a move in the wrong direction.

Have the FSSP ever acknowledged or addressed Francis's Year of Mercy olive branch to the SSPX?  Or does that not make any difference to them?  I can't imagine it would because they have zero organizational/political initiative to change their mind, but I'm curious.

On the subject of laymen and theology, I'm inclined to agree with you.  I've written recently about how I stopped bothering with theology generally because I find it is not a particularly useful tool for me to figure out things like where I want to attend church or what I think about the pope.  And there just isn't enough time in the day for me to dedicate thought to it.

However: I see you and Magister throw around the term "theologian" like it has a specific meaning.  What is that meaning?  I ask because you refer to theology and theologians as if they don't include what the Vatican would refer to as theologians.  Your definition, I assume, simply cannot include the Chairs of Theology at major Catholic universities, for instance.  What are the limiters which would exclude them?
Reply
#6
(10-28-2019, 01:41 PM)piscis Wrote: I hate to be the Debbie Downer, but Matt does not have the right idea. I'm inclined to think the whole thing is a marketing ploy, but who knows. The differences between the FSSP and SSPX are not a matter of being unfriendly towards each other. Here we have to make a sharp distinction between layfolk who attend these chapels and the formal members of each priestly society themselves. The layfolk are not members of either group, and their feelings towards people of the other group, whether lamentable or praiseworthy, are irrelevant.

The FSSP exists because Fr. Josef Bisig believes (note: present tense) that the SSPX and every member of it are in open schism, and any layman who attends or participates in SSPX sacraments or liturgy are "adhering to the schism" according to the language of JPII's 1988 Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. And this isn't just Fr. Bisig speaking in a strong, rhetorical style. He is still close friends with Fr. Schmidberger. The specific difference between the FSSP and the SSPX, according to the Constitutions of the FSSP itself, is that the FSSP is the "pars sanior," the healthier part because they are non-schismatic, of Abp. Lefebvre's work. This is why FSSP priests can say they are "truly" following in the footsteps of Lefebvre. This is why every priest who has a position of decision-making power within the FSSP is a vetted company man. One may meet FSSP priests here and there who don't believe the SSPX is in schism or think it would be better to downplay this point, but they are going against the very raison d'etre of the FSSP and how it formally defines itself in its documents.

This is why any FSSP priest who actually cares what the FSSP is all about and is bold enough to preach so will tell you, the layman, NOT to attend the SSPX because to do so is to participate in the schism, or at the very least to begin to foster a schismatic mindset.

Today no one really cares about theology, which sounds like a bunch of highfalutin talk, but if one takes the theology seriously, which as a Catholic one is expected to (otherwise you would just be a Protestant and make theology up on the fly), the issue comes down to whether one is in the Catholic Church or not. Period. The differences between the clans come down to matters of theology. To put theology aside out of "pastoral or practical considerations" is exactly what the Novus Ordo has done. Charity without truth is not charity at all. 

You cannot unite in any meaningful supernatural sense with what is outside the Church without cutting yourself from the Church or by bringing that which is cut off from the Church back into the Church. Until then you cannot unite the clans.

As a note, I will also say that I'm not all for layfolk teaching themselves theology and doing armchair theology. I think that's been a huge part of the splintering among traditionalists. Theology is a science just as technical and complex as any other. I think encouraging people to stop thinking they know theology and start living a spiritual life is a move in the right direction, but I think the unite the clans business is a move in the wrong direction.

From what he says in the videos, Matt isn't saying that the clans have to agree on everything or attend each other's services, or that theological differences don't matter.  They do.  

What he is proposing is uniting them on those things they can agree on, specifically the culture war and calling out the heresy taking place in the Vatican.

Again, as Jesus said, if they aren't against us they are for us.

Luke 9:49 [b]49[/b]And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name: and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. [b]50[/b]And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not: for he that is not against you is for you.
Reply
#7
(10-28-2019, 02:26 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: Have the FSSP ever acknowledged or addressed Francis's Year of Mercy olive branch to the SSPX?

Not officially, as far as I know, but informally, they accept and have helped the SSPX obtain the delegation for marriages in certain countries. This because it came from the Pope.

The FSSP (as an institution) is very legalistic in this regard. They officially think that every SSPX priest commits a objectively grave sin every time he celebrates Mass or offers any of the Sacraments because according to their reading of Canon Law he is canonically suspended. This is because of Pope Benedict's words that the SSPX has no official ministry. Some FSSP priests think an SSPX priest is not culpable for this subjectively, because the SSPX priest is firmly convinced and has a certain, but erroneous conscience, and so he is not violating his conscience. The official position, however, is that every SSPX Mass is a grave sin.

Since the Pope has given them permission and jurisdiction for marriage and confessions, they, of course, can exercise these functions. Thus the official FSSP position is that it is a grave sin to attend an SSPX Mass, but fine to go to confession or be married by them. Since the Pope said that in marriages the SSPX can celebrate the Mass, I imagine they would have to accept that that nuptial Mass is permitted and so not sinful and people could attend it.

Many FSSP priests deviate from this line, but as picis writes, none of them are in positions of power or authority and none who have this attitude ever will be, thus there is no effort to revise these foundational documents. One FSSP priest I know well says nothing against the SSPX unless privately asked, and then will gently lead people to the conclusion that there is some problem with SSPX Masses and eventually if they push him to go into detail he will tell them it is a grave sin to attend SSPX Masses.

The only thing that would change this attitude would be a legal recognition, and this would, I am certain, be claimed by the FSSP as the SSPX finally giving up their schism and returning to the Church, not a recognition.

(10-28-2019, 02:26 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: However: I see you and Magister throw around the term "theologian" like it has a specific meaning.  What is that meaning?  I ask because you refer to theology and theologians as if they don't include what the Vatican would refer to as theologians.  Your definition, I assume, simply cannot include the Chairs of Theology at major Catholic universities, for instance.  What are the limiters which would exclude them?

You're right. "Theologians" is a theological term which is somewhat vague and refers in general to the major schools of theology and their proponents not to actual individual persons. Generally these will be the major theological writers whose writings have been adopted as reference works.

So, in short, it's not certain Vatican figures, or persons on theological commissions or academics, but the persons well studied in theologian who have written the manuals and are renowned for their expertise, and general those who are long gone so their entire corpus of work can be vetted as orthodox.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Imperator Caesar Trump, piscis
Reply
#8
(10-28-2019, 03:38 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: From what he says in the videos, Matt isn't saying that the clans have to agree on everything or attend each other's services, or that theological differences don't matter.  They do.  

What he is proposing is uniting them on those things they can agree on, specifically the culture war and calling out the heresy taking place in the Vatican.

But how is this even practically possible when you get together given what picis notes.

What actions could an FSSP and SSPX congregation be united in where those differences could be put aside?

I could see an anti-abortion march or protest, for instance, or a conference on other social issues, but what about Holy Hours of Reparation? The FSSP priest would need to tell his faithful that they commit a sin by going to the SSPX church to do this. The SSPX priest would need to dissuade his faithful from going to the FSSP church because of the stance of the FSSP.

So, I'd be curious to know what practical activities or in what these two groups could be united.

If we cannot come up with anything that would practically work, then this all seems like utopian dreams and beautiful language without any grip on reality.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • piscis
Reply
#9
Quote:Have the FSSP ever acknowledged or addressed Francis's Year of Mercy olive branch to the SSPX?  Or does that not make any difference to them?  I can't imagine it would because they have zero organizational/political initiative to change their mind, but I'm curious.

Officially, I don't recall them making a statement about it. It depends on which priest you talk to. I've heard hardline FSSP priests range in their response to the Year of Mercy permissions. Some admit that while Francis can make such a permission (to deny so would be to deny papal supremacy, hence heretical), there are 100 reasons + why the circumstances are such that no one should ever go to a SSPX priest anyway or that it is still somehow covertly sinful to attempt to do so. At the root is an inability to reconcile the idea that the SSPX is in schism with, well, reality.

I also know FSSP priests who will encourage faithful to go to SSPX chapels. But like I said, they are not speaking "officially" as a member of the FSSP when they say such a thing but giving their private judgment.


Quote:However: I see you and Magister throw around the term "theologian" like it has a specific meaning.  What is that meaning?  I ask because you refer to theology and theologians as if they don't include what the Vatican would refer to as theologians.  Your definition, I assume, simply cannot include the Chairs of Theology at major Catholic universities, for instance.  What are the limiters which would exclude them?

I don't mean anything too technical by it (since I'm not a theologian. See what I did there?). There are several meanings depending on context. Sometimes MM and I will refer to "theologians" meaning the classic theologians who belonged to major schools of thought. These could be the commentators on St. Thomas, the Carmelite commentators, the Jesuit commentators, or the writers of the great manuals.

There was an understanding in classical theology that Divine Revelation is formally transmitted by the teaching authority of the Church. It is the responsibility of that teaching authority to spread the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. So basically, apostolic succession, the powers of orders and jurisdiction. This is why, for example, you can't have lay people give sermons even though you very well may have a layman who knows far more theology than a priest. Laity cannot teach formally in the way that a bishop or priest can. They can't "do" theology in the same way.

The Church Fathers also had a general idea that you could really only do theology if you first of all had the Faith, which seems obvious, but that seems to be completely denied by most of those "chairs of theology." 

But the way I was using "theologian" in this particular context was referring more to the idea that theology should be left to those given an apostolic mission (the bishops and then priests) who also have received formal training in theology. More specifically, I think it's best to leave delegated theologians among groups like the FSSP or SSPX to speak to theologians in Rome to work out the exact problems between those groups, and not leave it to laity. Laity often bring to theology their own preconceived notions and errors, but because of their lack of formal training, they think their opinions should be reflected in theology.

But of course, the reason we layfolk are teaching ourselves theology is because the shepherds have completely abandoned that office of teaching... I don't have any brilliantly worked out solution to it. It just seems evident from the splintering that having layfolk teach themselves theology isn't the right answer in the long run and is turning out to be a new form of Protestantism. I guess it's what happens when the teaching authority abdicates its responsibilities to teach. We need a certain amount of it to protect ourselves from the dangers and confusions of our times, but the exact amount depends on each person's capacity and circumstances, and I think people tend to imagine they understand it better than they actually do.
[-] The following 4 users Like piscis's post:
  • Fionnchu, Imperator Caesar Trump, jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#10
Quote:MagisterM:  I could see an anti-abortion march or protest, for instance, or a conference on other social issues...

And this forum is a good example.  We have members from NO, SSPX, FSSP, ICKS, eastern rites, and others, all encouraging one another in the pursuit of holiness.  

We are united when we inform each other about what's going on as we fight the anti-Christian forces we are all facing.  It encourages us in knowing that we are not alone and not as small as we may feel.

It will be interesting what comes out of the Catholic Identity Conference.  Not all dialogue is futile.  

Foxholes can bind people together.
[-] The following 3 users Like Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • Fionnchu, MagisterMusicae, piscis
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)