Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you  (Read 3895 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
« Reply #20 on: September 17, 2018, 12:36:24 PM »
What do you know, you haven't been censored OR banned. So much for that little dig!

I won't tolerate emotional zealots against the Resistance, no. But you yourself admit and point out that many CathInfo members aren't involved with the Resistance, or even sympathetic to it. So much for your BASELESS assertion that CathInfo doesn't tolerate free speech or a variety of opinions.

I sincerely hope you discovered what you were after. There are plenty of posts on this forum giving you all the arguments and evidence why the Resistance exists. I'm happy for you that you find your local SSPX chapel unchanged, but mark my words the changes at the top WILL percolate down to the chapels and individual pews eventually, if they haven't already. The leadership molds and directs an organization. The superiors form the inferiors. Ideas matter.

I've repeated many times my own scientific data on this heading, for example interviewing people who stayed with the SSPX. They spout total nonsense now, such as the idea that an independent chapel is somehow "disobedient" or "less legit" than the local SSPX chapel. How so? Because the SSPX gets auto-jurisdiction after their 5,000th parishioner, their 30th year in business, their 100th piece of real estate, or their $5,000,000th dollar in the bank? Give me a break! Who gave these parishioners these ideas? They certainly didn't have them 5 years ago. What else can I conclude? There is only one possibility: the recently-ordained priests who served the San Antonio chapel for over 1 year have taught this in sermons, confession, and through peer pressure. They must have brainwashed these and other individuals. There is a groupthink going on there, and it isn't good.


If I recall correctly, I believe it was a Fr. Scott article that explained why an independent chapel is "less legit". It had to do with not having a Bishop or superior to answer to. Bishop Zendejas, also said something similar, stressing the importance for a priest to be part of a structure/organization or group. He then emphasized that his chapels are not independent chapel but part of SAJM with Bishop Faure as it's superior.
I remember also, Bishop Fellay gave a ordination sermon some years ago with a similar message, that priests should not be independent. Fr. Stretenovic, had a reply with some good counter points.
Given what happened to the SSPX, I think it s understandable for some priests not wanting to join up with an organization just yet.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
« Reply #21 on: September 17, 2018, 12:42:22 PM »
The only thing that I could see tweaking would be the Anonymous subforum.  It appears that it is often used by people who wish to express unpopular opinions or nastiness while avoiding repercussions.

Or it's used by people who have been banned or who claimed they were leaving ... to continue grinding the same ax that got them banned in the first place.


Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
« Reply #22 on: September 17, 2018, 01:23:43 PM »
Quote
If I recall correctly, I believe it was a Fr. Scott article that explained why an independent chapel is "less legit". It had to do with not having a Bishop or superior to answer to. Bishop Zendejas, also said something similar, stressing the importance for a priest to be part of a structure/organization or group. He then emphasized that his chapels are not independent chapel but part of SAJM with Bishop Faure as it's superior.
I remember also, Bishop Fellay gave a ordination sermon some years ago with a similar message, that priests should not be independent. Fr. Stretenovic, had a reply with some good counter points.
Given what happened to the SSPX, I think it s understandable for some priests not wanting to join up with an organization just yet.
It's obvious to any catholic with sense that an independent priest is unnatural.  But so is the ENTIRE TRAD MOVEMENT!  

We've had 50 years to experiment with the various ways in which a priest can operate outside of rome and the results are very mixed.  No one can say that an independent priest can help keep the Faith of his flock any worse than a "group" priest (i.e. sspx or sede).  In fact, it could be argued that those priests within groups have the extra temptation of getting sidetracked with issues of theology or controversy and causing turmoil (i.e. Fr Cekada), instead of concentrating on the "the basics" (i.e. catechism classes, schools, frequent confessions, etc), which many independent priests excel at, since they don't have to worry about travelling around the country and are able to offer daily mass and have consistant devotions (Fr Ringrose in VA).

Fr Scott's attitude is just another example of the "we're better than everyone else" sspx-elitist mindset.  Which is why many of their faithful will accept a deal with rome - because they think the sspx will "save the Church".  Pride goeth before the fall...

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
« Reply #23 on: September 17, 2018, 02:03:17 PM »
For years I searched for the Church of my youth and many years later found it with the SSPX. Where else could one rear children in the Catholic faith if there was not a church to bring them to on a Sunday or Holy day of obligation in the company of other like-minded Catholic families. Where else would they get to receive Holy Communion or Confirmation like I got as a child? Until I hear a teaching that contradicts my Catholic understanding, I will continue to go to my little SSPX chapel and support children growing up in an environment that I was reared in. A hotel room is not an option for me, my children or my grandchildren..

I appreciate your life-long perseverance and your love of the Catholic Faith.

But why do you preemptively reject hotel room Masses? The Irish used to say Mass on rocks. Masses used to be said in the Catacombs in early Church history. How can modern-day Catholics consider themselves "above" such behavior? Isn't that a dangerous attitude?

When Catholics insist on professional buildings for Mass or other smells & bells, doesn't that place them in a rather vulnerable position, open to blackmail and manipulation from priests and organizations with less than pure motives? After all, there are only so many groups that can offer church-like buildings for Mass. The SSPX could require a lot more compromises than they do today, but most people would go along with it -- because it's either A) stay with them, B) back to the Novus Ordo, or C) it's back to garages, warehouses, hotels -- and many Catholics (including you?) would rather die than go with option C.

Personally, attending the Holy Sacrifice of Mass in a humble location is not beneath me. I am just grateful for the Mass and for the Catholic Faith without compromise.

And you'd be surprised what kind of middle ground there is, between SSPX chapels and Mass in a temp location like a hotel room. My local Resistance chapel is in a converted warehouse of sorts, and we have the whole package -- stations, statues, a real altar and step, incense, High Mass, benediction, pews, the list goes on.

For that matter, I've seen some of the Resistance chapels in Ireland and they are small but very beautiful. It doesn't take much for a small but fervent group of Trads to put together a workable chapel. I believe the SSPX monopoly or virtual-monopoly on Traditional Mass & the sacraments must be destroyed. Having control of 90% of Traditional Mass centers is too much power for a handful of unaccountable (answering to no man on earth) individuals.

Bishop Fellay, and now Fr. Pagliarani, have no charism or authority whatsoever to rule 90% (just a rough estimate; I might be wrong on the percentage) of the world's Trad chapels. Their authority is completely man-made, like the current CEO of Wal-mart. There is absolutely no difference. Both are in power by God's permissive will. The SSPX is indeed part of the Catholic Church, but they are not the Church. God never promised that no priest or bishop would ever fall or make a mistake. Only St. Peter received this promise, as well as the Catholic Church in general.

Here is the difference between the Church you remember before V2 and the SSPX today: The priests at your parish before Vatican II were under the authority of their local bishop, who in turn answered to the Pope. Today, the whole Trad world is made up of individual lifeboats. The SSPX is just the Wal-mart of lifeboats, consolidating over 90% of the lifeboats into their own organization, putting all the other mom & pop lifeboats (independent chapels) out of business.

And we all know what happens when a Wal-mart takes over and becomes a monopoly: the company's profit becomes king and 1st priority, they forbid any kind of employee unions, they force employees to work extra hours without pay, they pay as little as possible, etc. A monopoly is not a good thing, unless it's a God-appointed one, like the Catholic Church. But the SSPX is not the Church; it was not founded or appointed by God. It is a purely human organization, even though they happen to deal in sacred things. God never made a promise to +Lefebvre that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" or, "Behold I am with you all days".

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Ladies and Gents, I have a question for you
« Reply #24 on: September 17, 2018, 02:11:16 PM »
Agree.  The fact that canon law allows Mass to be said in unique places, many times with only a few items (i.e. wine, water, bread, candles), shows that Holy Mother Church puts a priority on the Holy Sacrifice being offered, which is more important than liturgical norms.