I think one thing Sedes and SSPX'ers can agree on is that the Neo-Cath admonition to stay at your local diocese and allow your faith to be destroyed and your children scandalized is a maddening and insane response to the crisis.

This mindset espoused by Traditional Neo-Caths is exemplified in the comments to this article.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-more-oasis-in-desert-of-evreux.html

I wrote a lengthy comment including the example of a priest in the early 80's who struggled with the same things in the article, but it was, of course censored and not posted. Any information which upsets their apple cart "too much" seems to be witheld from the sheep.

In any case, I encourage you to try to get some Cath Info voices heard on this thread. There are souls on there wondering how to respond to the crisis and the most common answer is "suck it up and suffer". I think we can all agree this is not satisfactory as we all have left our NO Matrixes to grow our Faith.

Here are some of the Crisis response ideas being bandied about over there...

beng said...
Yes, Denis. It's better to have full communion with all of its craziness than to NOT be in full communion with all its liturgical beauties.

Remember the adagium extra ecclesiam nulla salus? I know you do.

JulieC said...
So sad to hear of a diocesan priest joining the SSPX. It's not that I don't have immense sympathy for his dilemma, or that I don't have immense sympathy for the SSPX, but I've seen many similarly righteous-minded people join the SSPX and end up in trouble. At least ten people I know have jumped ship for the SSPX and have ended up shortly thereafter as hardened schismatics and sedevacantists.

The problem seems to be that people who are running from the problems in the Catholic Church don't stop long with the fairly moderate SSPX; that is merely the first step down the slippery slope; there are more attractive extremist positions as you go further down.

Giles, please tell your friend to beware.

You guys sound like somone I have heard of before...oh yes, Martin Luther! The Church has endured scandals before, and in each case, yes, communion with the Church, even when the Popes lived like spoiled princes in Avignon, when sodomites were prevelant in the Priesthood as in St. Peter Damian's day, and when the average parish Priest was comprimised in french revolution times, was more important than "following your conscience" like you wannabe protestants are suggesting. Act like you believe Our Lord when he promised the gates of hell would not prevail. Do you not trust that God's providence is still operable? With St. Gregory the Great, I remind you that people get the leaders they deserve. So stop this lollard-esque proto-protestant rabble rousing, accept the fact that God is punishing us, and take it like a Catholic, doing reparation and penance rather than congratulating Priests for abandoning their posts and fommenting rebellion. God will punish the clergy--it is not the job of laity and peasants. You all sound like modernists with your "rights of the laity" schtick.

Okie

Gregory said...
And there we have it, in the space of just one thread on just one blog, a wavering trad (me) runs the entire gamut of faith emotions and convictions and, like the would-be parachutist, all-hooked-up and adrenaline-fuelled moves from a position of relative security at the back of the plane, feels all gung-ho for a moment or two, peers over the edge of the leap-hatch, is ready to jump into freedom and is then hauled back in, secretly relieved, and sits back down again. Let me explain.

Stage 1: I read the original post and thought "Rome, just what are you doing? How much more justification will I need to jump from the safety of the EF Motu Proprio position to the fuller experience of the SSPX? It took me 10 years to jump into indult land (2006) and then along came SP to make me feel more 'rubber-stamped'. Hmmm, five years on, I think it's high time to complete the leap, because if things like this are still being allowed to continue in the mainstream..."

Stage 2: Still feeling all imbued with inner convictions and a sense of "right, this is it, it's now or never", I read Giles' post and that seemed like the clincher. That's it. I'm jumping!

Stage 3: Ah, but then I read JulieC's post and thought "ooh, actually, that looks like a longer, more dangerous jump than I first thought" but I'm still peering over, however.

Stage 4: And then Anonymous at 15:56 comes on, mentions the bad word (Luther), strikes more than a few bells loudly for me and hits several other nails squarely on the head (and for obvious reasons I'm always a sucker for Gregoriana) and so I retreat from the perilous edge, trudge back to my seat and look out of the window admiring the view above the clouds. As I was. Show over.

And I'll probably repeat the whole routine again next week, and the week after on someplaceblogelsewhere...and the week after.

Please tell me I'm not alone in this?

I mean, really, it's mentally exhausting. It would be just good to know there are others like me.

Next time: I'll use the endless-tennis-rally-being-watched-from-the-sidelines-neck-twisting-metaphor. Deuce.

Gregory,

I completely agree with you. Our Holy Church is a Divine institution with some many human flaws (including this scribe!).

When I look at things like this happening, I hesitate the same way you do... Then I can't but go back to our Lord's promise not to leave His Church defenseless.

Even in the worst of times, I try to remember: 'Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam'

With Peter? or without Peter? Last time I checked, Peter resides in Rome, not in Econe...

JC @ LAS

 

Enoch said...
As Holy Week is fast approaching, perhaps we, as Catholics, should ask ourselves: did Our Lord suffer brutal tortures and crucifixion on the Cross so that we may be comfortable? So that we should not be subjected to unfairness? Or weak or bad liturgy? Are we not called upon, too, to carry our own crosses with faithfulness to Him, even if it means attending a church that is not traditional, or seriously lacking?

By retreating to the comfort of a church or chapel where we are not likely to hear or see anything which causes discomfort, isn't that the same thing, or similar to, the Apostles who denied Our Lord before He was crucified? They, too, did not want to suffer; instead - they fled. Surely Our Lord understands our weakness in the face of adversity, but which is more pleasing to Him?

It is a favorite theme of theirs. It makes sense in their Neo-Cath mind as a knee-jerk justification to reject the Society.

Stevus,
Trying to have a real and serious conversation with a "neo-Cath" is practically pointless.  

I spent about 2 weeks attempting to have such conversation with friends of ours, godfather to our children.  

He wanted to hear none of it, refused to answer most questions, and conceded that he was happy where he was and was doing the "right" thing by "weathering the storm" because he trusted the "Holy Spirit" was guiding the whole process.

I lost sleep.  I finally gave up.

They are stuck and it takes a huge act of courage to do anything about it.

I find this attitude prevalent amongst a vast majority of Neo-Caths. They get angry if you start pointing out the obvious inconsistencies and derelictions of duty in the NO. They shoot the messenger. As if the bad stuff would just cease to be true and go away if you just stop talking. They get upset at you for upsetting the apple cart and their comfortable hand shaking, guitar playing, Sunday NO where they punch their ticket for the week and forget about it until next Sunday.

I share your frustration. I've had many NO "friends" including a priest, cut off all communication with me simply because I spoke about this topic with them. I presented arguments, they became incensed, and like 5 year olds, took their ball and went home "excommunicating" me for daring to even think VCII and the post-conciliar novelties were bad or that the last two Popes have much in common with Modernism.

If I were a Protestant, they'd debate and discuss with me all day long showing the utmost patience and charity. But because I'm a Traditionalist, they feel they have a free pass to treat me, or other Traditionalists, with nothing but contempt leading to a private excommunication. What strange times we live in!

Saying there is no Masonic conspiracy and calling people who do point it out "αnтι-ѕємιтєs" is about as neo-Cath as it gets.  Actually it's worse.  My dad is Novus Ordo, and he isn't big on conspiracy theories, but he wouldn't call me a tinfoil-hatter or an αnтι-ѕємιтє.  

I'm not sure this Stevus guy is Catholic at all.  But that could happen to someone who thinks it's irrelevant what the Pope says unless he says something ex cathedra.  He accepts it when a dogma is defined, once a century or so, and ignores everything else, including the flood of pages against Masonry apparently.  What an inspiring respect for the papacy this engenders!  

Just because Vatican II said, ex cathedra, that a Pope is infallible when he pronounces something ex cathedra, does not mean that he isn't infallible in other circuмstances.  It also doesn't mean a Pope can be a raging heretic and somehow still be Pope.  Distinctions!

Saying there is no Masonic conspiracy and calling people who do point it out "αnтι-ѕємιтєs" is about as neo-Cath as it gets.  Actually it's worse.  My dad is Novus Ordo, and he isn't big on conspiracy theories, but he wouldn't call me a tinfoil-hatter or an αnтι-ѕємιтє.

 

Raoul,

When did I call people who point out Masonic cօռspιʀαcιҽs "αnтι-ѕємιтєs"? This is a serious public accusation and you owe me an explanation, though I don't expect one, as you've proven yourself time and again to be an intellectual and moral coward.

I'm not sure this Stevus guy is Catholic at all.  But that could happen to someone who thinks it's irrelevant what the Pope says unless he says something ex cathedra.  He accepts it when a dogma is defined, once a century or so, and ignores everything else, including the flood of pages against Masonry apparently.  What an inspiring respect for the papacy this engenders!  

  Not sure who this "Stevus" guy is either! Must be a phantom Cath Info poster only you can see, since I espouse none of those strawmen views.

Just because Vatican II said, ex cathedra, that a Pope is infallible when he pronounces something ex cathedra, does not mean that he isn't infallible in other circuмstances.  It also doesn't mean a Pope can be a raging heretic and somehow still be Pope.  Distinctions!

As my sig states, you have fallen for the ridiculous notion of infallibility as have the Neo-Caths. You'd do well to debate them as you guys share the same insane notion that the Pope can do no wrong. Your first step is to prove any Post-Conciliar Pope has been a formal heretic which you never have done and never will do. The best you could do is point out the pope stood next to and prayed to Christ standing by Muslims.  

Thanks for your intellectual honesty, Spiritus, that is good to see.  You will go far with that kind of self-critical spirit and earnest desire for improvement!  

You're right, I don't use Assisi much against JPII because a certain amount of ecuмenism was permitted by Pius XII and there's just too much grey area.

Let me put it another way -- those who want to use legalistic / Pharisiacal loopholes to deny the obvious can do so if they choose when it comes to JPII at Assisi ( for instance, that the woman putting a dot on his forehead was as harmless as a wahine at Honolulu airport putting a lea around someone, and that it doesn't mean worshipping a false god or that if it does he didn't know, and really I can see myself being polite and letting someone put a dot on my forehead as long as it's just some kind of local non-religious custom ).  The impression given at Assisi with all the representatives of the false religions standing there and holding plants along with JPII certainly smacks of the New Age, but the problem is the same as it is with Novus Ordo art -- it's hard to judge heresy based on aesthetics, on something that just comes off as "wrong."  
The ritual with the plants probably has some kind of occult meaning, but not being one of the initiates, that is hard to prove.  

There was no communicatio in sacris going on because Assisi was a pan-religious festival, it didn't really take place in any real religious context.  If JPII can be proven to have shown any sort of approval of these false religions, then we have a problem, but there are just so many ways around that since Pius XII opened the door to ecuмenism.  Someone can just say "He was being polite in order to convert the others," like when you or I go to a Christmas dinner with our Protestant uncle or what-have-you.  It's not as if, during the whole dinner, we are shaking our fists and saying "YOU'RE A HERETIC!!!"

So Assisi, believe it or not, can be defended ( minus the kissing of the Koran, if that was at Assisi ).  But there are no such loopholes when it comes to the Joint Declaration on Justification, to the Blue Mosque incident with Ratzinger, to the errors of Vatican II, etc.

So Assisi, believe it or not, can be defended

No, it can't.  You can't invite a bunch of groups to engage in false worship at a Catholic shrine without showing approval of that worship.

( minus the kissing of the Koran, if that was at Assisi ).  But there are no such loopholes when it comes to the Joint Declaration on Justification, to the Blue Mosque incident with Ratzinger, to the errors of Vatican II, etc.

The heretical actions are so numerous - it's really intellectually dishonest the way anti-sedes treat each act brought up in isolation as though it's not part of an overall recognizable pattern of behavior with very deliberate intentions behind it.

Telesphorus said:

The heretical actions are so numerous - it's really intellectually dishonest the way anti-sedes treat each act brought up in isolation as though it's not part of an overall recognizable pattern of behavior with very deliberate intentions behind it.

It's all random, all this happened by accident, no plan here, that would be tinfoil-hat stuff.  JPII and Ratzinger are just well-meaning bumblers...

Yeah, it's Pharisaical, and worse than that, it is an offense against common sense itself.  It is like asking someone to believe that frozen water becomes gelatin, and not ice.  And then they're outraged when you question them.