In the old days, the manuals of moral theology used to handle these matters in Latin, in order that they. Not scandalize the faithful.

Not all of them did. For example, Jone is in the vernacular.

Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara (SSPX) *hated* Jone's Moral Theology -- mostly just the concept of a layman's Moral Theology manual distributed by a popular Catholic publisher like TAN Books.

His reason?  It makes the Faithful that much more "uppity" -- they are inclined to think themselves an expert, and they think they're equal to the priest's advice -- and they go with Jone of course, if it pleases them. Even though the priest is more qualified to apply moral theology to a particular case...

It can be very frustrating for a priest to deal with a bunch of Faithful who think they know it all -- "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You know, the old "He reads 1 book and thinks himself an expert". You've also heard of the "Armchair theologian" -- I hope so; CathInfo is full of them!

It makes the Faithful that much more "uppity" -- they are inclined to think themselves an expert, and they think they're equal to the priest's advice -- and they go with Jone of course, if it pleases them. Even though the priest is more qualified to apply moral theology to a particular case...

It can be very frustrating for a priest to deal with a bunch of Faithful who think they know it all -- "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You know, the old "He reads 1 book and thinks himself an expert". You've also heard of the "Armchair theologian" -- I hope so; CathInfo is full of them!

Exactly! This seems to be common in all spheres of traditional Catholicism.

If one is to seek an education in sacred doctrine, whether Dogmatic or Moral Theology or Sacred Scripture, &c., it is indispensable for one to have recourse to prayer and meditation, and to exercise oneself in self-abnegation and mortification (especially mortification of self-will), in order to have the requisite self-knowledge necessary for humility and thereby attain to the graces necessary for temperance in all things. Studiousness, as the Angelic Doctor taught, “is a potential part of temperance, as a subordinate virtue annexed to a principle virtue," for the moderation of the natural desire that all men have for knowledge pertains to the virtue of studiousness (Summa IIa IIæ, q. clxvi., art. 2).

Learning without prayer and humility will always lead to error, absurdity, and ultimately to reprobation if one remains obstinate in intellectual pride.

Quote from: Matthew

Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara (SSPX) *hated* Jone's Moral Theology -- mostly just the concept of a layman's Moral Theology manual distributed by a popular Catholic publisher like TAN Books.

His reason?  It makes the Faithful that much more "uppity" -- they are inclined to think themselves an expert, and they think they're equal to the priest's advice -- and they go with Jone of course, if it pleases them. Even though the priest is more qualified to apply moral theology to a particular case...

It can be very frustrating for a priest to deal with a bunch of Faithful who think they know it all -- "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

You know, the old "He reads 1 book and thinks himself an expert". You've also heard of the "Armchair theologian" -- I hope so; CathInfo is full of them!

With all due respect Matthew, the problem these days is that priests make up their own rules as they go.

Laity who are traditional Catholics have had to learn to go their own way.  That's why they're traditional.  It's very very wrong for SSPX priests to start pretending they're the authorities in the Church and their word goes when the only reason they have lay people attending their masses is because they are going against their own diocesan bishops and priets.

It doesn't hurt priests to have to explain and justify their positions.  And uppity lay people (and people who've found tradition are by necessity "uppity") will do what they think is right.  So the important thing for priests is to be able to justify their positions.  Not to demand unquestioned cult-like submission.  It's about time the SSPX priests got the memo.

I think there is a bit of truth in what each of you says here.

I would side with Matthew regarding armchair quarterbacks thinking they know what they are talking about just because they have a nice book collection.

I remember in the seminary, the upper level seminarians were not even allowed to discuss matters of moral theology casually with the lower level seminarians because the matter was so nuanced, and easy to head full speed over the theological cliff.

If men with 4 years of systematic philosophical and theological training -and a prayer life to supplement it- we're not thought fit to pontificate on it, how much less us?

On the other hand, Tele makes a good point about blind obedience.  Bishop Williamson always told us that if we ever heard him teach heresy at the seminary, he hoped we would bring it to the attention of Bishop Fellay.  

The point being that we were there to learn the truth, but the SSPX was only deserving of obedience in such proportion as it remained faithful to true doctrine (which unlike Tele, I believe it has....so far).

When I think of complex issues like eens, sedevacantist, any casuistry in moral theology, etc., I have to be humble enough to ask for opinions I hope to be sound.

In the end, I have placed my trust in ABL.

Trust being the operative word.

If you can't trust, you can't practice the moral virtue of obedience.

I attend a formerly independent SSPX chapel which was until very recently independent.

You should see these people now: talking bad about the priest openly in the church hall mad because they can't claim permanent seating in the chapel and leave all their crap in the pews, cluttering up the church; mad because they can't have coffee before mass; mad because there are too many high masses that take too long.

The point is that if you become your own boss and authority in the spiritual life, you will subtly goo off the deep end without ever perceiving it.

These people at my church have no idea how stupid they sound to those of us who have kept this in sight.

Being suspicious, reserved, cautious, etc is all well and good, but it cuts both ways.

I think it is a very serious error to rely on untrustworthy priests when one can find the answers to the questions oneself.

Are priests these days generally untrustworthy?

How could someone be a sedevacantist or even a trad and think otherwise?

I can see your point of view, and I myself have repeatedly pointed out how problematic is the predicament wherein the clergy find themselves (in the sedevacantist context, that is, since I know of no other world). However, there has to be an equilibrium, a tranquility of order, wherein one judges all things in light of the principles of the holy Faith, and on clarity of perception founded on the firm rock of self-knowledge and humility.

Now, a Priest may not be learned, nor have much unction in his preaching or writing, according to the standards of the world or according to the expectations of the faithful. However, there is one thing to consider: the Priest has the grace of Holy Orders, and if he earnestly endeavors to fulfill the will of God and correspond faithfully to the inspirations of grace and the duties of his sacred state, he will accomplish more than any lay autodidact, who may have the entire Scriptures and the entire Summa memorized, ever can. For a layman has not the graces that Our Lord reserves for those whom He has chosen for Himself as Priests and ministers of the sacred Altar.

This is the fault I have noticed in certain learned laymen (particularly the bloggers I have been striving to expose recently): their utter naturalism, an abhorrent disdain and insensibility to what Rev. Fr. Scheeben had called "super-nature" -- supernatural grace. This naturalism leads them to the most obscene and gross errors (such as "lay-board ecclesiology" in the case I cited), and dooms the individual to be ineluctably blinded and entrapped in pride and egocentricity. Whereas they may have began with a sincere desire to learn and to discern, they end up erring and dissenting, causing much disedification and scandal for the faithful.

It is one thing to endeavor to learn, in order to guard oneself against the naivete and slavish partisanship that would make one prey for those clerics that are indeed incompetent, malicious, or even charlatans who are not clerics at all (like Ryan Scott, for example), but it must be done so prayerfully; for it is a far different thing to deliver oneself over to a sort of anti-clerical vigilantism and rely too much on self.

Who else will give you the Sacraments, if not the Priest? Who else will absolve you from your sins, if not the Priest? Who else is to guide you in the ways of the interior life, if not the Priest?

Relying on books can only take you to a certain distance, but never shall one reach the goal by relying on self. That is not how Christ founded the Church: not on lay autodidacts, not on "lay-boards," not on internet promulgators, but on the divinely established hierarchy of the Apostles and their successors, subordinate to St. Peter and his successors (how this exactly applies in our day would be a matter for discussion in the Crisis in the Church subforum).

Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara (SSPX) *hated* Jone's Moral Theology -- mostly just the concept of a layman's Moral Theology manual distributed by a popular Catholic publisher like TAN Books.

Hated or not, it was a widely-used manual for confessors for many years. Pruemmer too (I think his shorter work was entirely in the vernacular, though I don't have it so I could be wrong). And I think I've run into more armchair theologians who just try to work stuff out on their own than I have who have actually done a little bit of studying.

Tele, you sound more like Martin Luther every day, shaking your fist at priests.

Hobbledehoy said:  

Now, a Priest may not be learned, nor have much unction in his preaching or writing, according to the standards of the world or according to the expectations of the faithful. However, there is one thing to consider: the Priest has the grace of Holy Orders, and if he earnestly endeavors to fulfill the will of God and correspond faithfully to the inspirations of grace and the duties of his sacred state, he will accomplish more than any lay autodidact, who may have the entire Scriptures and the entire Summa memorized, ever can. For a layman has not the graces that Our Lord reserves for those whom He has chosen for Himself as Priests and ministers of the sacred Altar.

This is the KEY.  Whatever their faults, these are the priests God gave us.  We can rationalize in a million ways why WE would make better priests, and in this jealousy, we will look for reasons to disobey and to scorn the priests that we do have.  But with grace you will see this is wrong.  Obedience is emphasized repeatedly by all the saints; no saint has ever had an anti-clerical attitude like you have, Tele.  

I was talking with Alex about St. Therese of Lisieux, who said that she would have never become a saint if she didn't end up with the confessor she did.  This bothered me.  I thought "What if my potential isn't being reached because my confessor is imperfect?"  But Alex made a good point, which is that, when St. Therese was with her imperfect confessors, she did not fight them or scorn them.  She trusted in God and He brought her to the right confessor eventually.

There were times I was wracking my brain about some complicated moral question, without any result.  I talked to my priest, and within a split second he had cut to the heart of the problems.  My priest is very busy and often seems distracted, but as if on the fly, he tends to give me advice that opens up new perspectives for me.  Does that mean he is perfect?  No, but he is the priest God gave me, and God will not let me slip if I trust him with my soul.  It is certain this is the priest God gave me, because how many other sede priests are there around here?!  So I KNOW that this is the priest I am meant to obey.

If I wanted to concentrate on their faults, I could, and I have, but that is not spiritually fruitful.