Author Topic: Formerly unchanged SSPX chapel - changed today (Read 8519 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** April 19, 2015, 05:05:46 PM »

Bad news at my local SSPX chapel today.

Before today, I had hoped and believed that my SSPX priest was somewhat unique. He was among the number that I had no problems with, even in the current crisis in the SSPX. Our priest certainly wasn't looking forward to any deal with Rome, and if anything he was quite sympathetic to the Resistance. For various reasons, our chapel avoided much of the controversy and changes arising from the new orientation in the SSPX. I even thought it would be the last chapel to experience change.

Well, I wasn't necessarily wrong about all that. But let's just say that the waves of change arrived at my chapel today.

Before today, I could honestly say that nothing had changed at our chapel. But if I said that today, I'd be lying.

Today, Good Shepherd Sunday, our priest didn't deliver his usual sermon for Good Shepherd Sunday. His usual sermon was pretty hard hitting (at least for this priest), talking about how we should pray for our Pope, but also criticizing him and talking about the Crisis in the Church. And at the end of the sermon he gravely and ominously concluded with "...even when our shepherd turns out to be the wolf. In the name of the Father and of the Son..." or something to that effect.

This year, however, I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say, I was listening to every word, searching in vain for anything that would be out of place at an FSSP or Indult chapel. I searched in vain. His sermon was exactly like what I would expect at the Indult. His sermon was completely toothless, telling us to mind our own spiritual lives, pray for the pope "even naively", and even this Fall when the anticipated Conference on the Family takes place, we should continue to stay calm and keep praying. But we are not to criticize the pope.

Since when?

My understanding as a Trad (non-sedevacantist) is that we can criticize, especially when it's simply discussing reality, pointing out errors, and telling the truth. What we can't do is be uncharitable/childish, call the pope silly names, disrespect his office, and/or hate the man.

My firm impression was that we were being converted or prepared for a near-future day when we will be in union with Rome. Why did our priest give this sermon? Was it due to pressure from district HQ or even his immediate superior (who changed recently to someone more antagonistic to the Resistance)? Who knows. But regardless, he got behind it. He compromised. And I am still reeling from disappointment.

Common sense dictates that naively adopting a passive attitude of "Pay, pray and obey" will result in *at least* the next generation losing the Faith. Never uttering a critical word about the Pope and his actions will result in people eventually heading for the Indult and even the Novus Ordo, at least in the next generation.

I hope that no one reading this is so foolish as to believe that ideas and words (for example, a priest's sermons) don't mean anything, as long as the Tridentine Mass is being said according to the rubrics. Even a non-Catholic like Rush Limbaugh has the common sense to know that "words mean things".

Fortunately, I have trust in God that He will take care of us.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 19, 2015, 06:21:55 PM »

Sounds like there's one less chapel for yellow-lighters to attend.

How many chapels does that leave, I wonder?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2015, 06:38:18 PM »

http://romancatholicism.org/duty-resist.html

That and Canon 212.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

GMU

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 19, 2015, 10:44:10 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Bad news at my local SSPX chapel today.

Before today, I had hoped and believed that my SSPX priest was somewhat unique. He was among the number that I had no problems with, even in the current crisis in the SSPX. Our priest certainly wasn't looking forward to any deal with Rome, and if anything he was quite sympathetic to the Resistance. For various reasons, our chapel avoided much of the controversy and changes arising from the new orientation in the SSPX. I even thought it would be the last chapel to experience change.

Well, I wasn't necessarily wrong about all that. But let's just say that the waves of change arrived at my chapel today.

Before today, I could honestly say that nothing had changed at our chapel. But if I said that today, I'd be lying.

Today, Good Shepherd Sunday, our priest didn't deliver his usual sermon for Good Shepherd Sunday. His usual sermon was pretty hard hitting (at least for this priest), talking about how we should pray for our Pope, but also criticizing him and talking about the Crisis in the Church. And at the end of the sermon he gravely and ominously concluded with "...even when our shepherd turns out to be the wolf. In the name of the Father and of the Son..." or something to that effect.

This year, however, I don't know where to begin. Suffice to say, I was listening to every word, searching in vain for anything that would be out of place at an FSSP or Indult chapel. I searched in vain. His sermon was exactly like what I would expect at the Indult. His sermon was completely toothless, telling us to mind our own spiritual lives, pray for the pope "even naively", and even this Fall when the anticipated Conference on the Family takes place, we should continue to stay calm and keep praying. But we are not to criticize the pope.

Since when?

W

My understanding as a Trad (non-sedevacantist) is that we can criticize, especially when it's simply discussing reality, pointing out errors, and telling the truth. What we can't do is be uncharitable/childish, call the pope silly names, disrespect his office, and/or hate the man.

My firm impression was that we were being converted or prepared for a near-future day when we will be in union with Rome. Why did our priest give this sermon? Was it due to pressure from district HQ or even his immediate superior (who changed recently to someone more antagonistic to the Resistance)? Who knows. But regardless, he got behind it. He compromised. And I am still reeling from disappointment.

Common sense dictates that naively adopting a passive attitude of "Pay, pray and obey" will result in *at least* the next generation losing the Faith. Never uttering a critical word about the Pope and his actions will result in people eventually heading for the Indult and even the Novus Ordo, at least in the next generation.

I hope that no one reading this is so foolish as to believe that ideas and words (for example, a priest's sermons) don't mean anything, as long as the Tridentine Mass is being said according to the rubrics. Even a non-Catholic like Rush Limbaugh has the common sense to know that "words mean things".

Fortunately, I have trust in God that He will take care of us.

Where was this at?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 19, 2015, 11:23:44 PM »

I'm not being sarcastic, but isn't this ironic.

Our family used to go to an SSPX chapel but the sermons stopped addressing the crisis and the after Mass discussions also became less inclined to controversy. Little by little people have been leaving.
On a recommendation we checked out a nearby FSSP church. The priest is exactly as you describe your priest used to be. Hard hitting is an understatement. Today's sermon was more serious than ever. Everyone was talking about it after Mass, his most critical sermon yet regarding Francis.

Those of us who have lost our SSPX churches, we grieve with you.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2015, 12:04:20 AM »

OP here

This sermon caught me by surprise today and so I've naturally been thinking about it most of the day.

I've conferred with my family members and wanted to post a few specifics here for posterity's sake. I also would like to know if anyone else heard any of these "talking points" in SSPX sermons today because we're wondering if any part of this sermon was something the priests were told to mention today.

The sermon began with Father accusing himself of having previously criticized the Pope. He said that we shouldn't be so critical because, for one example, in the past, before advances in world-wide communications, we wouldn't have known every utterance of the Pope. The suggestion here was that perhaps even pre-VII Popes might have said things contrary to the Faith that simply didn't make it to the world-wide audience. He also wanted us to sympathize with how incredibly difficult a job the papacy must be in having to bring together so many heretics and schismatics.

Father said that for Good Shepherd Sunday this year, he'd like to speak not about the Shepherd, but would focus on the sheep. He repeatedly said that we should not criticize or judge the Pope. (Now, he's told us every year that we shouldn't "judge" the Pope, but that was in reference to whether or not he was actually a legitimate pontiff; now Father is telling us not to evaluate his individual actions and statements.) He said we should instead pray and have trust in God.

He continued by telling us about how he reflected on the lives of the saints to find if any of them criticized the popes of their times. He had two examples, the first I don't recall, but he attributed the Saint's actions to being "more of a complement than a criticism". The second was St. Catherine of Siena who wrote repeatedly to the Pope asking him to return to Rome, but said this was not being critical.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2015, 01:19:41 AM »

Where is this at?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2015, 01:28:35 AM »

St. Thomas Aquinas advised us that we should correct our superiors even publicly when they say or do things that put souls and the Catholic faith in danger

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2015, 01:40:07 AM »

“…cry out…”
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”
– St. Catherine of Siena

Stubborn · « **Reply #9 on:** April 20, 2015, 02:50:30 AM »

Quote from: Guest

OP here

This sermon caught me by surprise today and so I've naturally been thinking about it most of the day.

I've conferred with my family members and wanted to post a few specifics here for posterity's sake. I also would like to know if anyone else heard any of these "talking points" in SSPX sermons today because we're wondering if any part of this sermon was something the priests were told to mention today.

No, I did not hear anything like that, although at my chapel, it's been a few years since my priest or any of the visiting priests have even talked about the pope or the NO or V2 let alone criticize them. I cannot remember the last time any priest at my chapel spoke about the crisis for more than a sentence or two.

Our Good Shepherd Sunday sermon was about vocations, their need and their necessity. It was actually a pretty good sermon, then again, they are trying to get donations for vocations this week, but for the last few years at lease, I cannot remember a sermon that would have been deemed offensive to NO ears.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2015, 03:44:30 AM »

my chapel has changed utterly utterly utterly in the last nine years, and still some people refuse to admit the changes. :sign-surrender:

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 20, 2015, 07:03:31 AM »

Quote from: Guest

my chapel has changed utterly utterly utterly in the last nine years, and still some people refuse to admit the changes. :sign-surrender:

What changes did you see?

TKGS · « **Reply #12 on:** April 20, 2015, 07:20:14 AM »

I find this an interesting topic because there does seem to be contradiction within the forum.

Didn't Matthew just recently ask if every sermon really has to be about the Crisis in the Conciliar church? Is "one sermon" really a sea-change? Before complaining, why not watch and see.

Clearly Good Shepherd Sunday is practically a softball pitch to condemn the Modernists running the Conciliar church whether you are sedevacantist, or R&R, but does it really have to be? Frankly, I reject the proposition that a "formerly unchanged SSPX chapel changed today" just because one sermon did not slam the Modernists running the Conciliar church. And, frankly, I think it is unfair to make such a charge on the basis on one sermon on one Sunday.

Might there be a change of the wind at that chapel? There might. But, then again, there might not be. Was the sermon orthodox? If you were not expecting a sermon to highlight the problems of the Modernists, would you have considered it a good sermon? Is anything else going on in the chapel that supports your "firm impression"?

I attended Mass at a CMRI chapel last Sunday and there was no mention at all of the Crisis in the Conciliar church in the sermon. Yet, I haven't the slightest concern that this chapel in particular or the CMRI in general is caving to the Modernists. While you have a reason to wonder, given what the SSPX has been doing the past couple of years, I think you owe your pastor a little more than one sermon where he doesn't pounce on Modernists.

wallflower · « **Reply #13 on:** April 20, 2015, 07:35:20 AM »

Quote from: TKGS

While you have a reason to wonder, given what the SSPX has been doing the past couple of years, I think you owe your pastor a little more than one sermon where he doesn't pounce on Modernists.

My impression is that the change noticed is not necessarily that he didn't pounce on Modernists but that in addition to that he accused himself of having done so before. The whole theme was not to criticize the Pope and included "shaming" the congregation (look into the lives of the saints and see if they criticized the Pope) into not criticizing the Pope.

Sometimes it really does only take one sermon.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #14 on:** April 20, 2015, 07:37:12 AM »

The Novus Ordo has also changed. After the Church closures and mergers, many more left the Church. Many parishes were merged to modern looking worship sites where the spirit of Vatican II is promoted as if it was a religion itself. There are more woman serving as altar servers. Divorced and remarried men and women as Eucharistic ministers. There are Protestant ministers with wife and children who recently convert to Catholicism then are made head pastors of Vatican II communities. There are gαy Catholic parishes and communities. All are welcomed to the table. After the synod on families, more sodomist priests are coming out and announcing it publicly.

Then at the same time, there are more Latin Mass being offered at parishes. More traditional orders growing within dioceses. More priests are offering Latin mass. Many people are seeking the truth faith and teachings of the Church. Cloisters orders are growing.

And yet there have been many diocesan priests who speak out against sodomy, abortion, contraceptives, feminism, liberalism during homilies and publicly are persecuted and silenced. More and more a Catholic clergy and laity are being persecuted for defending the Catholic Faith.

Author Topic: Formerly unchanged SSPX chapel - changed today (Read 8519 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus