Author Topic: A Criticism of RECUSANT 10 (Read 10049 times)

hollingsworth · « **Reply #20 on:** September 29, 2013, 10:21:57 AM »

Neil Obstat:

Quote

It was earlier than '97. I heard him give a conference in '96 wherein he openly promoted the concept, using the words "luscious plumb" as
the image of what 'normalization' would be for the Society. He said it
is like a very attractive and delicious fruit that is there for the taking
if we would only reach out and pick it from the tree.

This is a fascinating remark! You don't have the notes from that conference, do you? Is it available online anyplace? I take it that you mean by "promoted the concept" that Bp. Fellay spoke positively and encouragingly about possible normalization with Rome in the forseeable future.

John Grace · « **Reply #21 on:** September 29, 2013, 10:39:36 AM »

The SSPX used to resist Modernism but formally gave up the fight. Perhaps those who want the Latin Mass can go to an Anglican service.

Those that still attend the SSPX need to be challenged because it is a matter of doctrine.

Azul · « **Reply #22 on:** September 29, 2013, 04:19:45 PM »

Quote from: denniswhiting

I don't agree with "How to help the cause revisited" (p8). I became a Catholic in 1984 under the instruction of Fr. Edward Black and have been a SSPX supporter ever since. But I've never seen anything wrong in attending indult masses and see nothing wrong now in attending SSPX masses. It's all very well bleating on about the moral danger of human respect but there is such a thing as common sense. Common sense tells me that Frs Morgan and Lindstrom do not accept all or any of the false notions that your paragraph 2 says they must have accepted; common sense tells me they are neither half-wits nor moral cowards. It is frustrating that Fr. Morgan is keeping his lips buttoned from responding in any detail to the accusations made against the Society, and i do accept that if nothing changes in this regard over the next 3 to 4 years then the SSPX GB District will almost certainly be finished as a fighting force. But it's not all so cut-and-dried as you claim. I'm for giving our priests another 18 months to sort themselves out.
Fr. Lindstrom made some intersting remarks after mass in Herne recently. How can he justify trespassing on the territory of the local diocesan bishop to offer mass without permission? It is not on the rival authority of the Superior of his Order, Bishop Fellay, but simply as a priest of the Church responding to what he perceives, whether rightly or wrongly to be the needs of the faithful in the extraordinary circuмstances of the true mass not being available otherwise. The Whiting family (husband and wife) are part of that faithful. They are not an especially devout family: if they cannot continue to attend the true mass at their normal place of worship, they are in dander of lapsing from the practice of the faith.
We should heed Fr. Chazal's warning that the one thing we must avoid like the plague is to turn into the"Holier than thou" brigade. I also, perversely take heart from Fr Pfeiffer's cheerful assertion that we are all in a sense "unjust stewards". These are confusing times. I am confused; maybe Fr Morgan and Fr Lindstrom are confused - perhaps even Bp Williamson is a little bit confused? We cannot all be stampeded into adopting a uniform stance. DENNIS WHITING

Bravo! We must use the wits that the Good God gave us. We are all gleaners in these times. We must glean what is good where we can. On the Indult, there would have to be qualifiers. Since the inception of the Indult, close associates and myself have not all gotten the same advice from our SSPX priests. Advice on whether one may occasionally attend the Indult is from my experience tailored to the individual asking. Some people would be very quick to spot problems with a Mass or priest and some would not. It is as simple as that. Personally, I do not like to attend, but there have been circuмstances where it was the only thing that could be done in charity.
It is normal for different priests to differ on questions like this. The SSPX is after all made up of human beings with their own minds and consciences, they are not robots.
It seems to me that no one is above danger from lapsing from the Faith without regular Mass and sacraments and if they believe they are, they are in more danger than they realize.

denniswhiting · « **Reply #23 on:** September 30, 2013, 12:30:12 PM »

It is not necessarily irrational to judge an authority figure's rightness or wrongness on a particular issue from what you know of their character. Even if, for the time being and for reasons which may be sound, they refuse to give out detailed reasons for their choice. When you are aware of strong arguments for them to choose the other way, it is an uneasy situation to be in. There has to be a time limit. Is there not room for an honest differrence of opinion as to whether that time limit has already expired or whether it can go on for a bit longer?
As to Indult masses, I thought the objection to them was not that they were bad in themselves but that they tended to weaken the position of the SSPX. A Tridentine mass celebrated with due reverence is surely always valid and legitimate, even if the celebrant has unnecessarily sought the permission of the diocesan bishop?
Dennis Whiting

John Grace · « **Reply #24 on:** October 02, 2013, 03:06:43 PM »

For clarification, I have no quarrel with denniswhiting. I have met him more than once and have no reason to question is sincerity.

I wouldn't attend the Indult (Approved Mass). I don't see any difference between the Indult and the SSPX. I don't dispute the SSPX have good priests but my support is with the resistance.

I never kept one foot in the Novus ordo and another in Tradition. It's unfortunate I can't support the SSPX.

I don't believe outside of the resistance there is no salvation.