Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew on December 09, 2006, 01:41:01 PM
-
There was a discussion about St. Mary's telling a student to close his blog (because that is their policy now -- no personal websites for the students there)
The discussion swerved into talking about the SSPX itself.
I posted a pretty big post about this issue, so I thought I'd post it here too.
------------------------------------
I agree that the SSPX isn't infallible, especially the individual priests and members. Like any legitimate branch of the Catholic Church, you have saints and sinners.
However, I support the SSPX because their charter -- what they stand for -- is rock-solid. Again, I am following the wise advice to overlook particulars and stick to principles.
The SSPX is a legitimate order of the Catholic Church, which is fighting for not only the defense of Tradition and the TLM, but the complete overthrow of Modernism and other modern errors. That is something I can believe in and fight for. I would be foolish to expect to meet only perfect people in the SSPX -- but I'll tell you what -- I can expect to meet more wise (and intelligent, pious, what have you) men and women there than in any other group. The odds are better, so I'll take those odds.
I hope you understand what I mean. I also imply that there are good people who do not attend SSPX chapels. But I believe it is the best solution for a Catholic trying to get by today -- though it's a sloppy 2nd to "Catholic Church united under a traditional pope and cardinals -- i.e., a Catholic Church not in crisis".
When that choice is denied to us, ALL OTHER solutions are going to be sloppy at best. When that is considered, I think the SSPX is doing quite well.
I have met BOTH Fr. Angles and Fr. Post. I am not omniscient, but I can say that neither of them exhibited "bad behavior" -- so if you concede that you just want them to clean up their act, I can tell you that they did so, and years ago at that! So much for that issue.
As for the "St. Mary's rules" issue, I would point out that they are a private school, and can set whatever rules they wish. If you look into most private schools, they have all kinds of seemingly illogical rules. Schools are meant to set rules and be strict. Remember, too, that you can't make an exception for ONE GUY who isn't letting his website interfere with his academic life. Schools can't be "nice" and make exceptions... a line must be drawn, and that usually is the rule itself.
I heard a story about "evil nuns" in the 1960's slapping a boy for opening his milk before the blessing before meals. But it was justified -- if they allowed it, then would they allow a boy to take a bite? If they allowed that, would they allow a boy to sit down and begin eating? And so on. With a large group of kids, you pretty much have to be strict or you have chaos.
I think the distaste for such rules comes from the liberalism which is all around us. And anyone who says they have none inside them is lying to themselves, or isn't very good at entering into themselves. I got that from Fr. Iscara -- he knows liberalism, and he told the seminarians that they almost certainly were somewhat tainted by it, and their job is to understand liberalism well, so they can root it out of themselves.
As an interesting tidbit, there are VERY FEW works in English on Liberalism. There are many in French, Spanish, etc. (both of which Fr. Iscara speak) but about the only one in English is "Liberalism is a Sin", published by TAN.
Rousseau's fingerprint is also to be found here. He was completely against "external laws" which attempted to control one's feelings and impulses. He considered such laws to be destructive of our freedom. Rousseau is another big "maker of the modern mind" who has highly influenced the modern world in which we live.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
I think that's very true about liberalism having deeply penetrated each of us. For instance, when my fellow students around me dress or behave in an indecent or offensive manner, I usually say to myself, "as long as it doesn't affect me, let them do what they will". But in essence, I'm thereby sanctioning and condoning this sort of behavior. It's pretty hard to avoid in our modern world, though, which is completely infested with liberalism.
-
While St. Mary's can have the rules it wants, that doesn't mean that these SSPX schools are to be trusted.
Max Krah was (or still is) on the board of an SSPX girls school.
Should I trust SSPX schools?
Decisions about blogs and such should be made in the bosom of the family.
I don't have a problem with the St. Mary's policy in this instance, but when there are not good social norms established about public behavior, as is the case in this modern society, then any outfit that purports to be "different" can quickly become rigorist.
I think moving to St. Mary's is not a sound choice.
-
I don't advocate everyone move to St. Mary's, but for a different reason.
We can't all just move to St. Mary's and let the rest of the world go to hell.
SOMEONE has to take care of Churches and hold the torch of the Faith in other places around the country. There is also something to be said for "If God put you there, maybe he wants you there."
Is EVERYONE called to be a Kansan just because the SSPX started a college and community there?
Let's face it -- if all good Catholics went to St. Mary's, we'd basically be letting the rest of the country go to hell. Who would convert the Californians, Texans, etc.?
Who would set a good example, answer their questions?
-
That reminds me, the Society is building a new seminary in Virginia!!!
-
That reminds me, the Society is building a new seminary in Virginia!!!
Yes, I heard.
It's to replace the one in Winona, MN., which has grown too small.
Great -- so when the poles shift (or the nukes start dropping -- mostly on the two coasts, since that's where most of the US population lives) the SSPX will lose its only American seminary.
The one in Winona was high on "Stockton Hill" so it probably would survive any "pole shift" flooding. Likewise, it would probably survive WW3 since there aren't any good nuclear targets nearby. They had a nice basement everyone could hang out in, so even nuclear fallout from other areas wouldn't be a problem.
The good Bishop even had a farm, orchard, garden, etc. which is all gone now.
But Bishop Williamson was aware of such things -- I'm pretty sure that most SSPX priests are not like him (unfortunately).
-
I don't advocate everyone move to St. Mary's, but for a different reason.
We can't all just move to St. Mary's and let the rest of the world go to hell.
SOMEONE has to take care of Churches and hold the torch of the Faith in other places around the country. There is also something to be said for "If God put you there, maybe he wants you there."
I wonder if this has something to do with the good number of trads being from California on this forum :laugh1:
-
Great -- so when the poles shift (or the nukes start dropping -- mostly on the two coasts, since that's where most of the US population lives) the SSPX will lose its only American seminary.
Don't forget about the Jesuits who survived Hiroshima. And they'll be on a mountainous area.
-
One of my aunts moved to St. Mary's a few years ago. They stayed there for about two but moved to She has 5 children, the youngest a girl. I haven't seen my cousins for about 3 years, but they flew back here for Christmas this past year. I was talking with one of my cousins, Michael, and asked him about his thoughts on his experiences in St. Mary's.
I was actually surprised. He essentially hated the school, but loved the Church, people, and St. Mary's itself. I asked why he disliked the school so much. He said they were too controlling. "They would look through your backpack; they separated the boys and girls to the extreme; the wanted to control you." I think what surprised me most, was that Michael told me he actually wanted to move back to St. Mary's! His two brothers, not so much; they were more indifferent about going back.
As I listened to him, I couldn't help but think that these things were not wrong, and actually Catholic, but that my cousin's had grown up in public schools all their life, and throwing them into a the SSPX school at St. Mary's was probably such a shock to them, it wasn't really a wonder that they had so much disdain for the practices there. They've been brought up with so much 'freedom', that when they got there, they were unable to recognize the Catholicity of the school's practices. If they were born and raised in St. Mary's, I'm certain it would have been a different story. They're good boys, and naturally good hearted. I hope they keep the faith.
-
Great -- so when the poles shift (or the nukes start dropping -- mostly on the two coasts, since that's where most of the US population lives) the SSPX will lose its only American seminary.
Don't forget about the Jesuits who survived Hiroshima. And they'll be on a mountainous area.
You mean they were in the mountainous area in Hiroshima? Nice! Hopefully the nukes hit when I'm at home! I'm about 80 miles outside LA, but am 5,500 feet up!
If I'm at work, I'm toast!
Please let it be my day off, please let it be my day off, please let it be my day off! :pray:
-
Edited:
One of my aunts moved to St. Mary's a few years ago. They stayed there for about two but moved to Texas last year for my uncle's work. There was little work in St. Mary's. She has 5 children, the youngest a girl. I haven't seen my cousins for about 3 years, but they flew back here for Christmas this past year. I was talking with one of my cousins, Michael, and asked him about his thoughts on his experiences in St. Mary's.
-
Great -- so when the poles shift (or the nukes start dropping -- mostly on the two coasts, since that's where most of the US population lives) the SSPX will lose its only American seminary.
Don't forget about the Jesuits who survived Hiroshima. And they'll be on a mountainous area.
You mean they were in the mountainous area in Hiroshima? Nice! Hopefully the nukes hit when I'm at home! I'm about 80 miles outside LA, but am 5,500 feet up!
If I'm at work, I'm toast!
Please let it be my day off, please let it be my day off, please let it be my day off! :pray:
They'll be in a mountainous area of Virginia for pole shifting, and they'll survive the nukes the way the Jesuits did at ground zero in Japan. :gandalf:
-
Great -- so when the poles shift (or the nukes start dropping -- mostly on the two coasts, since that's where most of the US population lives) the SSPX will lose its only American seminary.
Don't forget about the Jesuits who survived Hiroshima. And they'll be on a mountainous area.
You mean they were in the mountainous area in Hiroshima? Nice! Hopefully the nukes hit when I'm at home! I'm about 80 miles outside LA, but am 5,500 feet up!
If I'm at work, I'm toast!
Please let it be my day off, please let it be my day off, please let it be my day off! :pray:
They'll be in a mountainous area of Virginia for pole shifting, and they'll survive the nukes the way the Jesuits did at ground zero in Japan. :gandalf:
:pray: May I be in the state of grace and faithful to our lady for the latter.
-
As I listened to him, I couldn't help but think that these things were not wrong, and actually Catholic
That's a dangerous attitude to have.
What's actually Catholic and what's cultish and totalitarian is not something you can judge by your gut instincts. There has to be principle and real tradition to back it up. This is where traditionalism starts to be sort of like "cινιℓ ωαr re-enactment." - just without the authenticity.
-
I don't believe that the Catholic Church should ever compromise for the sake of more modern times.
-
As I listened to him, I couldn't help but think that these things were not wrong, and actually Catholic
That's a dangerous attitude to have.
What's actually Catholic and what's cultish and totalitarian is not something you can judge by your gut instincts. There has to be principle and real tradition to back it up. This is where traditionalism starts to be sort of like "cινιℓ ωαr re-enactment." - just without the authenticity.
I was saying that the separation of boys and girls, etc. That is very Catholic my friend. I didn't mean I agreed w/ my cousin.
-
As I listened to him, I couldn't help but think that these things were not wrong, and actually Catholic
That's a dangerous attitude to have.
What's actually Catholic and what's cultish and totalitarian is not something you can judge by your gut instincts. There has to be principle and real tradition to back it up. This is where traditionalism starts to be sort of like "cινιℓ ωαr re-enactment." - just without the authenticity.
I was saying that the separation of boys and girls, etc. That is very Catholic my friend. I didn't mean I agreed w/ my cousin.
is co education catholic then?
-
As I listened to him, I couldn't help but think that these things were not wrong, and actually Catholic
That's a dangerous attitude to have.
What's actually Catholic and what's cultish and totalitarian is not something you can judge by your gut instincts. There has to be principle and real tradition to back it up. This is where traditionalism starts to be sort of like "cινιℓ ωαr re-enactment." - just without the authenticity.
I was saying that the separation of boys and girls, etc. That is very Catholic my friend. I didn't mean I agreed w/ my cousin.
is co education catholic then?
I take the +Williamson position:
Co-education, educating boys and girls together, has always been condemned by the Catholic Church. For instance, Pope Pius XI on 1929 called it a "pernicious error, which, to the immense harm of youth" is "spreading far and wide among Christian peoples". Why then can many "Catholics" today not see what is wrong with it? Because it naturally follows from four great false principles of the modern world, universally held to be true.
-
And:
Third great modern error behind co-education: the denial of original sin. "Boys and girls are just friends". "The more they are mixed together, the less they notice one another". "Separation is artificial". "Mixing is necessary to teach and test virtue". "Amongst Catholics everything should be fine". And, of course, "MY children are angels".
Well, as the saying goes, if you believe that, you can believe anything. Yet it is astonishing how many "Catholic" parents do believe it! They have all learned about original sin in their catechism, but of course the catechism is only a book and their children are of course the exception! I can remember how, when the mother of a teen-age girl wanting to hang around seminarians tried to re-assure the suspicious Seminary Rector that her daughter was "not like that", he snorted. "Oh," she pouted at him, "I do wish you wouldn't be like that!" He snorted again.
-
Something Tele quoted as well:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04088b.htm
-
I was saying that the separation of boys and girls, etc. That is very Catholic my friend. I didn't mean I agreed w/ my cousin.
Not only very Catholic, it was the norm in public schools also to separate at high school.
There are a number of VERY sound reasons for separating boys and girls at schools.
-
There are indeed sound reasons. Thank God I went to an all-boys Novus Ordo high school. That certainly kept me out of trouble.
-
There are indeed sound reasons. Thank God I went to an all-boys Novus Ordo high school. That certainly kept me out of trouble.
Thats funny, the local NO all-boys school here seems to have the opposite effect; my best friend growing up went to one. Same for the all girls schools. St. Lucy's is know too all locals as the 'whore house on the hill' school; it lives up to its reputation.
-
Well besides the idea of segregation due to the birds and the bees, boys need a different style of teaching.
You can't tell these days because the curriculums are geared for the success of girls.
-
I never said I thought separate education of boys and girls was tyrannical, and more than coeducation was mentioned.
I would never, ever, in a milliion years entrust children of mine to an SSPX school. You'd have to be crazy.
-
I agree that coeducation is a serious issue and that schools should abide by what Pius XI taught in Divini Illius Magistri. That said, boys and girls should have some ability to associate with one another, as Pius XI writes (my emphasis below):
False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society.
Now I don't have any first-hand information about St. Mary's, so I don't know whether they take separation of sexes to an extreme. I do pay attention when fellow Catholics I know and trust express misgivings about something, though.