Author Topic: A Criticism of RECUSANT 10  (Read 5571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline denniswhiting

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Reputation: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
« on: September 28, 2013, 10:59:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 circumstances 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

    Offline hugeman

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 342
    • Reputation: +669/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #1 on: September 28, 2013, 11:57:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dennis,

       You note sounds quite sincere. I know little of what father Morgan or the other priests do or do not say in Great Britain. But you have eyes in your head, and a brain God gave you to think with. Bishop Fellay agreed with Ratzinger that the Vatican II was valid, that it's decrees were valid, that it's "bastard " mass was promulgated validly, and promised to obey and follow Ratzinger. He also promised to work tirelessly to get the SSPX fully within this sodomite -infested conciliar church.

       You don't need a degree in theology, and you don't have to be a canonist, to know that the law of prayer is the law of belief. We all begin to believe the way we pray. When you pray with heretics like Bergoglio, sooner or later you have to justify him, and then you have to accept his beliefs. That's how the English lost their faith. You know they didn't start out one Sunday morning, saying, ' hey, let's adopt a new religion!" They just stayed in the pews, knew the King was fighting the Church, accepted the "little" changes as they came along, and all  then became protestants.

       Fighting for the faith is not supposed to be easy. if it were, would Our Lord have asked "think ye, when the Son of Man returns, He will find the faith?"


    Offline TheRecusant

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 160
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #2 on: September 28, 2013, 01:25:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hello Dennis!

    Criticise away, please do! And I hope you don't mind if I criticise your criticisms in turn.

    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 [...]

    Then you are at odds with Fr. Morgan and Fr. Lindstrom, who do. And (as it happens, with Archbishop Lefebvre, who saw the indult Mass as a trap and who said of indult priests "They are betraying us!"



     
    Quote
    It's all very well bleating on about the moral danger of human respect

    Is it? Good. In that case, we'll continue to bleat about it!  

    Quote
    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.

    Deciding what a priest might be thinking and not saying is a tricky business. In the end, all we have to go on is what he publicly says and does. But let that be. The main point here is that, by making your argument with reference to the character/personality of Frs. Morgan and co. you are making the issue a personal one. You are deciding based on your assessment of the character of various priests. But I hope you notice that I'm not arguing from personalities but from principles. That, I think, is where you and I differ.

     
    Quote
    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.

    Another 18 months? And how is that not an arbitrary figure, decided by yourself, and on the basis of...what?
    And do you have the faculty of granting yourself another 18 month extension in the event that when the first 18 months runs out you are still not happy with the idea of leaving?


    Quote
    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 circumstances 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.

    And yet, as I am sure you realise, it is perfectly possible to fall away and/or live a life displeasing to Almighty God whilst still attending Sunday Mass. Just as there are Saints who had to forswear any attendance at Mass since doing so would have involved compromise with the enemy. It all rather depends on why you are there, and other things besides...

    Quote
    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?


    This is where we agree entirely.
    Quote
    We cannot all be stampeded into adopting a uniform stance.  DENNIS WHITING

    Perhaps I don't know how to recognise a good stampede when I see one, but I hardly think that is the right term. You ought, on the other hand, very much to allow yourself to be persuaded into adopting a stance if it is the right one to take. And we are convinced that it is.

    Best wishes to yourself and your good lady wife. God bless,

    Ed.

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2464
    • Reputation: +2663/-330
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #3 on: September 28, 2013, 02:15:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • denniswhiting said:
    Quote
    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 [...]  

    The Recusant:
    Quote
    Then you are at odds with Fr. Morgan and Fr. Lindstrom, who do. And (as it happens, with Archbishop Lefebvre, who saw the indult Mass as a trap and who said of indult priests "They are betraying us!"


    Well, for that matter Dennis is at odds with three sspx priests of our acquaintance, stationed here at Immaculate Conception in Post Fall, ID.  They are Frs. de L'estourbeillon, Haynos and Johnson.  We attended an indult Mass briefly, viz. FSSP.  The three told me to my face at the time that it was wrong for us to go to the indult, i.e. St. Joan of Arc in  Coeur d'Alene.  One of these priest berated me severely, practically at the top of his lungs, right there in the Sacristy while he vested for Mass.  The other two were a bit more discreet about it.  Strangely enough, when we went to the prior of ICC, Fr. Paul Vassal, he said it was OK for us to go to St. Joan's.  He has given others the same permission lately, especially some who expressed misgiving about what is going on in the SSPX.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 23079
    • Reputation: +20237/-244
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #4 on: September 28, 2013, 02:23:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't understand why anyone would flee the SSPX and take refuge in the Indult.

    Isn't that like jumping from the frying pan into the fire?

    However low the SSPX has sunk, I assure you that the Indult is always going to be lower. The Indult is pretty much where the SSPX is headed, but they're not there yet.

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline Johnnier

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 99
    • Reputation: +0/-1
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #5 on: September 28, 2013, 02:51:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I think Matthew is spot on. It would be totally illogical and foolish to point the finger at the SSPX and then go to the Indullt. While in principle such people are decrying that the SSPX is on the path of the Indult societies and then they themselves go there. I think that would be hypocrisy or double standards. This is  something that Our Lord constantly spoke out about in the gospels.

    I think that some people are generating a personal hatred/dislike for the SSPX and or its priests to the extent of missing the point in the present situation.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5679
    • Reputation: +3098/-145
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #6 on: September 28, 2013, 03:01:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    I don't understand why anyone would flee the SSPX and take refuge in the Indult.

    I don't understand it either, but two people from my chapel who were important people, did just that and went to the indult.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2464
    • Reputation: +2663/-330
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #7 on: September 28, 2013, 03:02:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    I think that some people are generating a personal hatred/dislike for the SSPX and or its priests to the extent of missing the point in the present situation.


    Lest anyone think we go to an indult, let me disabuse them.  We saw the error of our ways.  However, though Matthew claims that the indult goes lower than the SSPX, I remind him and others again that the prior at ICC tells folks it is OK to go to the indult.  Perhaps, he can write Fr. Vassal and take this complaint up with him.  The point being that all priest in the Society are, apparently, not on the same page when it comes to indult attendance.


    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #8 on: September 28, 2013, 03:19:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am not at all clear of what the position of the SSPX is in relation to the Indult. I started to wonder as I never recall SSPX priests in Ireland having a word with those promoting 'Catholic Voice' outside of chapels. I suppose newspapers advertising the Indult Mass and articles written by Institute of Christ the King priests are ok.

    Fr Morgan, who stated Catholics shouldn't attend the Indult needs to be clearer. What is the position of the SSPX in relation to Motu Proprio Masses?

    I have encountered plenty of SSPX laity in Ireland, who stated to go to the Indult if unable to attend the SSPX.

    Those who attend the Indult are not one of us. They are not Traditionalist Catholics.

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #9 on: September 28, 2013, 03:30:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It's a bit of mystery though how people can keep a foot in all camps. I was speaking to a man I know on a related topic. He is a pro-SSPX, Indult goer.  He would go to any Traditional Mass. He feels "Tradition" is too small in Ireland not to support each other.

    I have encountered several others who expressed this opinion. Some of the pro-life SSPX youth would also go to the Indult.

    There are few really in Ireland, who are SSPX 100%  

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #10 on: September 28, 2013, 03:36:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Many or indeed most of the softline SSPX folk are more suited to the Indult.


    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #11 on: September 28, 2013, 03:37:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree fully with "How to help the cause revisited" (p8). When I read it, I thought it made perfect sense and is a practical and logical step by step.

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +120/-6
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #12 on: September 28, 2013, 03:48:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Recusant

    Quote
    adopting a stance if it is the right one to take. And we are convinced that it is.


    The only stance I am adopting is supporting the resistance. I am convinced it is the right stance to take.

    Offline TheRecusant

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 160
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #13 on: September 28, 2013, 03:53:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: hollingsworth
    The point being that all priest in the Society are, apparently, not on the same page when it comes to indult attendance.

    No of course they're not.
    Inconsistency on this question is one of the many signs of decay in the modern SSPX. In France there is a fashion for getting married with two priests: an indult priest who does the exchange of vows and a Society priest who says the Mass. It is iniquitous, because it is tantamount to approving the old lie that SSPX marriages are not valid. But it happens all the time now. Fr. Chazal's niece was married that way.

    The priests of the Society are not "on the same page" on the question of the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo, whether Vatican II should be thrown out or merely 'reformed', or whether it can be simply 'read in the light of Tradition', and so many more things besides.  It has lost its unity after having first having seen a diminishing of its Apostolicity, its Catholicity and its holiness.

    It might be useful to listen again to Fr. Pfeiffer explaining the crisis in the SSPX in relation to the Four Marks of the Church:
     

    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2464
    • Reputation: +2663/-330
    • Gender: Male
    A Criticism of RECUSANT 10
    « Reply #14 on: September 28, 2013, 03:56:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    There are few really in Ireland, who are SSPX 100%


    That may have to do with the fact that SSPX is not 100% SSPX any longer.  If you have a superior general who admits that 95% of V2 can pass muster, (and did so now more than a decade ago), and if, furthermore, he states that the New Mass was "legitimately promulgated," how could one expect that the Fellay-flavored sspx might be 100% Lefebvrian SSPX.  Add to that our knowledge that as early as 1997, Bp. Fellay was actively conspiring with others to find a way of being practically reunited with Rome.  Is it any wonder that the faithful are all over the lot on this one?  It's been years since SSPX priests and leaders have not blown a clear trumpet blast from the pulpit.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16