Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: CathMomof7 on October 01, 2012, 10:33:55 PM
-
For two weeks in a row, now, our parish family has had to listen to a sermon on obedience. Particularly, the Rules of St. Ignatius Loyola. Two weeks ago, we had a lengthy sermon regarding the 10th rule, specifically how it is necessary for us to obey our superiors and not speak ill of them. This forum was mentioned by name. I came here, out of concern and good faith, to present this as information, so that people would understand that something is not quite right in the Society right now.
Last Sunday, we were greeted to another lengthy talk with father standing right in the aisle and a print out of these 18 rules. Every single word I mentioned in my previous post was addressed in this sermon. We were reminded that there is "no Jim Jones here" and that we can leave if we want to. We were chastised for being critical of decisions that are being made and we were downright demanded not to judge even our priest's behavior.
I left Mass with a heavy heart.
But later that evening I received information that really shocked and enraged me. It involved events that happened the week before, only part of which I was witness to.
I have mentioned before the long history of the small chapel that I attend. A few people have invested their whole lives into this chapel, hoping only to offer a place for traditional Catholics to be able to assist at Mass. All of these people are incredibly, amazing people. Although, I have only known them a short while, I know they only want what is best for the chapel and the parishioners. They have been through a lot, suffered a lot, struggled a lot, and prayed even more.
As such, when they saw there was a reasonable need for our parish, to change the time of the Mass, and they recognized that it wouldn't be a conflict for the priests who come to offer Masses, they asked. They waited for a response for a long time and were finally told no. But when some people heard why the answer was no, they become really concerned and hoped to bring attention to the matter.
The 4 pm. Mass could not be changed to a morning Mass because the priests were to soon take responsibility for chapel not managed by the SSPX but vacated by one of the priests who was present in Vienna, VA in early August. This chapel has been privately managed and comes attached to a nice summer camp for families.
Considering that, most of the long time members of our little chapel felt a little sting of treachery. So they decided to start a petition to request a change in the Mass time. After careful consideration, I signed this petition, not to create controversy, but because it seemed reasonable to me. Who doesn't want a morning Mass??
There is no way you could possibly imagine the outcome of that little petition. So as not to cause rumors to be spread or to be guilty of detraction, I will only say publicly that this priest became hostile and violent. Some of these events I personally witnessed, others I was shocked to learn.
This priest declared that we did not have permission to pass around a petition. That what was being done was not only disrespectful but disobedient. Some people involved were basically thrown out and asked not to return until they could offer a formal apology.
Personally, I had hoped not to get involved and ordinarily I wouldn't have, but I was dragged into this, entirely. I am being spied on. I fear that because I have come to this forum to state, matter of factly my concerns and opinions, that I will be discovered and denied Holy Communion.
My exact words, words that I have posted here, have been repeated in sermons. It was suggested that "whoever has a problem should see me after Mass." This I would not do.
So I am going to repeat this again. This is creepy and cultish.
To tell a entire chapel that they cannot use the internet to find information is wrong. To tell people they shouldn't worry about whatever crisis is in the Society is wrong. To tell us that we must obey without question is wrong. To force people out of chapels because they passed a petition around is wrong. To deny people Holy Communion because they question what is happening with their priests and within the Society is more than wrong. And to stand up and tell us we are uncharitable or not "real" Catholics is an outright lie.
And so not to give the impression that I am bitter or ungrateful for this experience, I am not. I am grateful to Our Lord for allowing this all to happen. He has willed this to happen in my chapel at this time. It has opened my eyes to what I could not see.
There are many, many problems within the Society. I don't pretend to know what they are or even how to fix them. What I do know, is that faithful Catholics do not need to or wish to be exposed to this kind of behavior from their priests. They wish only to come to Mass, receive the Sacraments, receive good counsel, and hear a sermon that aids in their spiritual survival in this modernistic world. That is certainly all I ever wanted to do.
But to KNOW that a priest, who seems to be incredibly busy with running so many things, has time to troll around forums to see who is talking about him or is concerned about how he manages the affairs of his chapel is absolute insanity.
I don't know if this happens at all chapels but it is happening at mine. IF you are thinking of coming here---DON'T! Find another place to go to Mass. This place is embroiled in chaos! Our Lord has allowed them to be exposed!
Let those who can see, see and those who can hear, hear.
Farewell and Persevere!
Holy Guardian Angels, Protect Us!
-
Thank you for sharing that, CathMomof7. I am sorry that this is happening at your SSPX chapel. Mind-control through the use of psychological guilt and intimidation is a technique most unworthy of a man of God. If it is unacceptable as a means of communication amongst loved ones at home, it has even less of a place at Church.
The abusive, bullying style is a classic tell-tale sign that its proponent has run out of intelligent arguments rooted in the truth.
What caught my attention as I was reading through your description was how the priest in question discouraged the use of the internet--especially as it related to reading up on the crisis within the SSPX. Though the SSPX chapel I attend is far from the situation you describe (so far), its out-going prior expressed the very same admonition in his last sermon--adding that he "knew" that some of the bloggers were from our chapel. Creepy, eh?
To the best of my knowledge, our new prior has not made a public stand on the crisis and has certainly not gone down the road to tell us what to do or not to do as far as reading up on the crisis. He seems like a genuinely nice man--a gentle, pious soul with a likability factor that's simply off the charts!
Your desire to conduct yourself charitably and not to succuмb to detraction and bitterness, all the while holding fast to your sound Catholic principles, indicate to me that you are on the right track! What an admirable attitude you show when you say that you will bear these heavy trials in a spirit of gratitude before Our Lord. Your courageous example is truly edifying!
In closing, I will say that the only (materially) effective means of dealing with a bully is to call his bluff and thereby knock the wind right out of his sail. This means (ideally) the faithful of your chapel uniting as a cohesive force and publically standing up for the one wrongfully denied Holy Communion--telling the bullying priest in no uncertain terms that he needs to get his act together or leave. But as long as this person feels he can divide and intimidate, expect no end to the chaos and abuse anytime soon. Abusers keep abusing with impunity because they think they can. There is a certain puffed-up "invincibility" factor that is well overdue for a kind but firm "deflating," it seems.
I suspect I haven't mentioned anything here that hasn't already crossed your mind. As far as the things immediately within our purview of control, let us never underestimate the special supernatural graces granted to the holy rosary in this time of crisis/apostasy. My prayers are with you! God bless!!!
-
I can see on the list that someone is printing these right now. :-/
Very frightening.
Many prayers CathMomof7.
-
CathMomof7, I suggest you don't leave the fora you're informed by. If you feel intimidated now that your handle can be identified, just re-register with a new one (not so identifiable) and let this one go to fallow. When this type discover their threats are effective, they only become more emboldened & things will get worse for you.
-
Be assured of my prayers and full support for you and family.
-
Thank you for sharing that, CathMomof7. I am sorry that this is happening at your SSPX chapel. Mind-control through the use of psychological guilt and intimidation is a technique most unworthy of a man of God. If it is unacceptable as a means of communication amongst loved ones at home, it has even less of a place at Church.
The abusive, bullying style is a classic tell-tale sign that its proponent has run out of intelligent arguments rooted in the truth.
What caught my attention as I was reading through your description was how the priest in question discouraged the use of the internet--especially as it related to reading up on the crisis within the SSPX. Though the SSPX chapel I attend is far from the situation you describe (so far), its out-going prior expressed the very same admonition in his last sermon--adding that he "knew" that some of the bloggers were from our chapel. Creepy, eh?
In closing, I will say that the only (materially) effective means of dealing with a bully is to call his bluff and thereby knock the wind right out of his sail. This means (ideally) the faithful of your chapel uniting as a cohesive force and publically standing up for the one wrongfully denied Holy Communion--telling the bullying priest in no uncertain terms that he needs to get his act together or leave. But as long as this person feels he can divide and intimidate, expect no end to the chaos and abuse anytime soon. Abusers keep abusing with impunity because they think they can. There is a certain puffed-up "invincibility" factor that is well overdue for a kind but firm "deflating," it seems.
I would like to hear the priests side of the story.
What is "creepy" here, Skunk, is that everyone assumes that everything "CathMomof7" says is true, even though we don't know her real identity or whether she is a credible person. Then you all pile on, calling the priest a "bully" and hollering about "abuse" and mind control.
How about controlling your OWN mind first — as in NOT MAKING RASH JUDGEMENTS — and then working on not "abusing" your tongue (or keyboard) by always assuming the worst is true?
-
Two weeks ago, we had a lengthy sermon regarding the 10th rule, specifically how it is necessary for us to obey our superiors and not speak ill of them.
No one in Traddieland is a legitimate superior with a canonical mission to govern anyone. They need to learn and accept the facts...and cut their endless nonsense. Cannot say much now, but I am sorry for your trouble and will pray for you and yours. Godspeed.
-
Two weeks ago, we had a lengthy sermon regarding the 10th rule, specifically how it is necessary for us to obey our superiors and not speak ill of them.
No one in Traddieland is a legitimate superior with a canonical mission to govern anyone. They need to learn and accept the facts...and cut their endless nonsense. .
And the same goes for you.
-
I have a thought for canute, why don't you, or anyone, that is unsure there are problems with the SSPX authority, talk about the deal with Rome, about expelled priests, websites that point out the issues, pass along cd's from Father Pfeiffer or Chazal, and then let us know the priests reaction.
-
I would like to hear the priests side of the story.
You mean, you don't care if the priest just makes some excuse, you're siding with the priest, and you're going to RASHLY cast suspicion on this woman's words. She hasn't even named the priest. She simply recounting what she heard. There's no reason to disbelieve her.
What is "creepy" here, Skunk, is that everyone assumes that everything "CathMomof7" says is true, even though we don't know her real identity or whether she is a credible person.
There's absolutely no reason to believe she's not telling the truth.
Then you all pile on, calling the priest a "bully" and hollering about "abuse" and mind control.
Then the cult freaks come out of the woodwork to say someone is fake, not real, crazy.
How about controlling your OWN mind first — as in NOT MAKING RASH JUDGEMENTS — and then working on not "abusing" your tongue (or keyboard) by always assuming the worst is true?
How about lifting your head out of the sand.
You DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to cast aspersions on cathmom's credibility, just because she says something about your precious cult priests.
THAT is rash judgment.
-
Two weeks ago, we had a lengthy sermon regarding the 10th rule, specifically how it is necessary for us to obey our superiors and not speak ill of them.
No one in Traddieland is a legitimate superior with a canonical mission to govern anyone. They need to learn and accept the facts...and cut their endless nonsense. .
And the same goes for you.
GV has been gone from CI for a year now, give or take....
-
This priest declared that we did not have permission to pass around a petition. That what was being done was not only disrespectful but disobedient.
Oook, so, you all asked for a different time for Mass and he went :really-mad2: and some how a petition for a different time now equals, what, heresy? This is an over the top reaction and response......yet these types think THEY are the sons of ABL, when in the 70's, they would be quick to attack ABL as many did for "disobediance"
There is a good video compilation on + Williamson on youtube that a "Iamsteak" did, yet he has posted updates on descriptions now 2x stating he thinks + WIlliamson is a nut and disobediantto Fellay,et al and states he, Fellay and others are the "true sonsof ABL"...really?? I posted a response and last I saw, its in "moderation"...will see if it gets posted and if so, the :fryingpan: :really-mad2: :argue: that follows my short "o really, what a crock" response....
-
Thank you for sharing that, CathMomof7. I am sorry that this is happening at your SSPX chapel. Mind-control through the use of psychological guilt and intimidation is a technique most unworthy of a man of God. If it is unacceptable as a means of communication amongst loved ones at home, it has even less of a place at Church.
The abusive, bullying style is a classic tell-tale sign that its proponent has run out of intelligent arguments rooted in the truth.
What caught my attention as I was reading through your description was how the priest in question discouraged the use of the internet--especially as it related to reading up on the crisis within the SSPX. Though the SSPX chapel I attend is far from the situation you describe (so far), its out-going prior expressed the very same admonition in his last sermon--adding that he "knew" that some of the bloggers were from our chapel. Creepy, eh?
In closing, I will say that the only (materially) effective means of dealing with a bully is to call his bluff and thereby knock the wind right out of his sail. This means (ideally) the faithful of your chapel uniting as a cohesive force and publically standing up for the one wrongfully denied Holy Communion--telling the bullying priest in no uncertain terms that he needs to get his act together or leave. But as long as this person feels he can divide and intimidate, expect no end to the chaos and abuse anytime soon. Abusers keep abusing with impunity because they think they can. There is a certain puffed-up "invincibility" factor that is well overdue for a kind but firm "deflating," it seems.
I would like to hear the priests side of the story.
What is "creepy" here, Skunk, is that everyone assumes that everything "CathMomof7" says is true, even though we don't know her real identity or whether she is a credible person. Then you all pile on, calling the priest a "bully" and hollering about "abuse" and mind control.
How about controlling your OWN mind first — as in NOT MAKING RASH JUDGEMENTS — and then working on not "abusing" your tongue (or keyboard) by always assuming the worst is true?
and we dont know YOUR real identity, either! If said priest wishes to respond, either in a thread, a letter, a email to Matthew,etc, fine and good......your response is a bit revealing as you seem to either be a priest, that priest or a supporter, your response and capitalizing letters is a touch over the "lets be charitable"
-
Two weeks ago, we had a lengthy sermon regarding the 10th rule, specifically how it is necessary for us to obey our superiors and not speak ill of them.
No one in Traddieland is a legitimate superior with a canonical mission to govern anyone. They need to learn and accept the facts...and cut their endless nonsense. Cannot say much now, but I am sorry for your trouble and will pray for you and yours. Godspeed.
Hey, GV, your back!!!! :applause: :dancing-banana:
I thought Canute pulled up an old post.......welcome!! I came back in August after something like 19 months away!!!!
GV back, excellant
-
I have a thought for canute, why don't you, or anyone, that is unsure there are problems with the SSPX authority, talk about the deal with Rome, about expelled priests, websites that point out the issues, pass along cd's from Father Pfeiffer or Chazal, and then let us know the priests reaction.
I understand why everyone is worrying about the deal and wants to get as much information about it as possible, from the Internet or otherwise. There's nothing wrong with that because of what is at stake.
But CathMomof7's post was not a complaint about some issue of faith, but over how a priest reacted to people signing a petition over MASS TIMES. Why go on a forum to attack him about something so small? And then say he's a bully or a mind controller too?
It's an overreaction, don't you think?
And CathMomof7, put yourself in the priest's place. What if your seven children wrote up a petition to demand steak and ice cream for dinner every night, even though you have no way of giving it to them? Would they have the right to get on this forum and complain about you so people like Skunk and Telly could say that you are guilty of abuse and mind-control?
Or would you be at least a little offended that your seven children didn't have more respect for your authority? I know what my reaction would be.
-
I have a thought for canute, why don't you, or anyone, that is unsure there are problems with the SSPX authority, talk about the deal with Rome, about expelled priests, websites that point out the issues, pass along cd's from Father Pfeiffer or Chazal, and then let us know the priests reaction.
I understand why everyone is worrying about the deal and wants to get as much information about it as possible, from the Internet or otherwise. There's nothing wrong with that because of what is at stake.
But CathMomof7's post was not a complaint about some issue of faith, but over how a priest reacted to people signing a petition over MASS TIMES. Why go on a forum to attack him about something so small? And then say he's a bully or a mind controller too?
It's an overreaction, don't you think?
And CathMomof7, put yourself in the priest's place. What if your seven children wrote up a petition to demand steak and ice cream for dinner every night, even though you have no way of giving it to them? Would they have the right to get on this forum and complain about you so people like Skunk and Telly could say that you are guilty of abuse and mind-control?
Or would you be at least a little offended that your seven children didn't have more respect for your authority? I know what my reaction would be.
Please, please, just stop. Now, I'm probably the last to defend anyone that assists at an SSPX Mass, mainly because I feel that there has been enough equivocating and deception about the whole matter to warrant washing one's hands of the whole Society. Any cultish behavior on the part of the reconciliationist Menzingen contingent, and the danger that its lies pose to one's faith and the formation of one's family, should be sufficiently apparent to question one's continued association therewith.
That said, someone really needs to take this priest down a peg or three. Yes, as a priest, his office is due our respect. But as the holder of that office, it is his duty to confer the sacraments of the Church, without prejudice, to any worthy Catholic that presents oneself, and to work with his congregation to see that those sacraments are conferred in the most solemn and efficient manner. Most traditional Catholics go out of their way, sometimes many hours, to assist at Mass, and they often don't have the luxury of conforming their schedules to a Mass offered at an odd or otherwise especially late time.
Also, this priest has no authority to try and bend the minds of faithful Catholics in a direction contrary to the immemorial Faith and the praxis of the late Archbishop, or to demand silent obedience to the political decisions of a blatantly inept, priggish and duplicitous snake like Bernard Fellay.
-
and the faithful have a right and duty to make their needs known to him.....he is not a dictator over all life.......
-
. Why go on a forum to attack him about something so small? .
you seem to miss the boat, it is not a simple "hey he wont talk about mass times" ,but a larger issue with him and others, this is part of a larger MO and mindset.....further, CM did not give us his name, nor exact info on the parish, priest,etc......so cannot be lacking in charity.
Tell us, is it really bothering you or you have a motive to attack a longtime and honest CI poster......a hidden agenda to defend the Fellay gang or...????
-
But CathMomof7's post was not a complaint about some issue of faith, but over how a priest reacted to people signing a petition over MASS TIMES.
If a priest has a draconian reaction to people signing that they want mass in the morning, then that's a serious problem. A very serious problem of having an abusive, bullying attitude.
-
. Why go on a forum to attack him about something so small? .
you seem to miss the boat, it is not a simple "hey he wont talk about mass times" ,but a larger issue with him and others, this is part of a larger MO and mindset.....
Yeah, whenever people make a really petty accusation and they're called out for it, they always say "It's a part of a larger issue."
Tell us, is it really bothering you or you have a motive to attack a longtime and honest CI poster......a hidden agenda to defend the Fellay gang or...????
What's bothering me is that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You can criticize "the Fellay gang" all you want over the deal, but going ape over a Mass time or because you think a priest reacted the wrong way to a petition tells me you've lost your sense of proportion.
I go back in this movement to basement and hotel Masses beginning in the early 1970s when everyone was happy to get any old priest to say Mass for them ANYTIME, even once a month on a weekday evening. But now that there are churches everywhere and many more priests than we old-timers every imagined there could be again, everyone has gotten spoiled and complains over every little thing.
THAT bothers me. Keep it up and God will take it away from you again.
-
The woman was telling a story that happened to her, then was all but accused of making it up, then accused of being petty about "some mass time"
It is part of a larger issue of how they are treating parishoners and how there seems to be a motive of squashing any dissent or questioning outright-ergo, a call by several parishoners for better time for mass is greeted as a crack down, as if they were demanding altar girls or something
so then,your comment "Keep it up and God will take it away from you again. "
So, then, we are to be obediant little serfs keep giving our bucks and just zip it up, when there is clearly some issues at hand with Fellay, the other three bishops, Krah, deals, agreements,etc? and your implication, is then that God is on the Fellay side and that any objections to Fellay, et al wil lbring God's wrath? So, keep the Mass and go along to get along? Is not that what got us into this mess to begin with, remaining silent as Fr. So and So gave us the wreckavation and NO...?perhaps, your long basement experiences have made you, perhaps, soft or compromising....got a priest, church,etc and no rocking the boat now? maybe going back to the basement might be a useful reminder.....
and again, why do you attack someone for sharing THEIR experiences and call into question their sincerity?
John Grey was right, please, stop whilst you are ahead.....
-
because you think a priest reacted the wrong way to a petition tells me you've lost your sense of proportion.
so, insteadof talking with his parishoners, who are paying is salary and upkeep, his reaction to you seems normal/ something IS out of proportion....
-
perhaps it a symptom of something deeper than just the Mass times, with the priest..... its the little things that tip us over the edge.....
-
true enough and plenty of people to defend status quo
-
The woman was telling a story that happened to her, then was all but accused of making it up, then accused of being petty about "some mass time"
It is part of a larger issue of how they are treating parishoners and how there seems to be a motive of squashing any dissent or questioning outright-ergo, a call by several parishoners for better time for mass is greeted as a crack down, as if they were demanding altar girls or something
so then,your comment "Keep it up and God will take it away from you again. "
So, then, we are to be obediant little serfs keep giving our bucks and just zip it up, when there is clearly some issues at hand with Fellay, the other three bishops, Krah, deals, agreements,etc? and your implication, is then that God is on the Fellay side and that any objections to Fellay, et al wil lbring God's wrath? So, keep the Mass and go along to get along? Is not that what got us into this mess to begin with, remaining silent as Fr. So and So gave us the wreckavation and NO...?
I don't buy the idea of Krah or a sell-out or a wreckovation any more than you do, and these are things people should protest against. But being against these things should not make us petty and mean-spirited about everything else.
The woman was telling a story that happened to her, then was all but accused of making it up, then accused of being petty about "some mass time"
It is part of a larger issue of how they are treating parishoners and how there seems to be a motive of squashing any dissent or questioning outright-ergo, a call by several parishoners for better time for mass is greeted as a crack down, as if they were demanding altar girls or something
====
and again, why do you attack someone for sharing THEIR experiences and call into question their sincerity?
John Grey was right, please, stop whilst you are ahead.....
And I AM ahead, because CathMomof7 still hasn't responded to this:
"Put yourself in the priest's place. What if your seven children wrote up a petition to demand steak and ice cream for dinner every night, even though you have no way of giving it to them? Would they have the right to get on this forum and complain about you so people like Skunk and Telly could say that you are guilty of abuse and mind-control?"
If she thought seriously about this question, I'm sure that "good old mother's common sense" would lead her to get my point.
-
Supporting dishonest, bullying priests, who kick people out for circulating a petition for a change of mass time, is sick. It's what SSPX cultists do.
This is not how decent Catholic priests behave. It's how cult priests behave, priests who demand blind cult loyalty.
-
bullying priests dont just kick people out of chapels... they kick the heart out of them... they made people sad... and then we know who is hovering....
-
It seems there's something seriously wrong with the priest, since he doesn't have the trust of his flock. In fact, there appears to be great distrust on both sides.
The priest's behavior should obviously be brought to the attention of his priory superior and Father Rostand.
Now the question to be answered:
Are the priory superior and Father Rostand supervising this situation?
In reading this account, the thought crossed my mind that either the priest was very green or the confrontation might have been planned?
Could this be the new "Chapel management" program the District Superior is condoning ? I certainly hope not.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5oZIT-zw_pN7Z4oK9FTY63oIGPtn_dCOg1JxDxvwSuW5jzmu2jg)
-
It would be very surprising if the SSPX Superiors were not in full support of this priest; otherwise, I doubt he would have the nerve to exhibit such harsh behavior from the pulpit. Ethelred is correct, Stalinist tactics have invaded the SSPX and they are employed at the very top. So very, very heartbreaking.
When is it ever appropriate for a Roman Catholic priest to create a climate of fear and intimidation within his parish?
-
It would be very surprising if the SSPX Superiors were not in full support of this priest; otherwise, I doubt he would have the nerve to exhibit such harsh behavior from the pulpit. Ethelred is correct, Stalinist tactics have invaded the SSPX and they are employed at the very top. So very, very heartbreaking.
When is it ever appropriate for a Roman Catholic priest to create a climate of fear and intimidation within his parish?
Perhaps you and Ethelred are right?
I've haven't experienced it yet, but have heard that tension is mounting in most of the SSPX chapels.
Stalin "pacified" the Russian peasantry by starvation.
We'll soon know if Bp. Fellay and "Maxie" are running their own chapel pacification program ?
-
I would like to hear the priests side of the story.
What is "creepy" here, Skunk, is that everyone assumes that everything "CathMomof7" says is true, even though we don't know her real identity or whether she is a credible person. Then you all pile on, calling the priest a "bully" and hollering about "abuse" and mind control.
How about controlling your OWN mind first — as in NOT MAKING RASH JUDGEMENTS — and then working on not "abusing" your tongue (or keyboard) by always assuming the worst is true?
Hmm... so here we have an SGG-supporting sedevacantist siding with a pro-sellout SSPX priest. That is odd.
-
I would like to hear the priests side of the story.
What is "creepy" here, Skunk, is that everyone assumes that everything "CathMomof7" says is true, even though we don't know her real identity or whether she is a credible person. Then you all pile on, calling the priest a "bully" and hollering about "abuse" and mind control.
How about controlling your OWN mind first — as in NOT MAKING RASH JUDGEMENTS — and then working on not "abusing" your tongue (or keyboard) by always assuming the worst is true?
Hmm... so here we have an SGG-supporting sedevacantist siding with a pro-sellout SSPX priest. That is odd.
Exactly. The only thing both have in common is...
-
I would like to hear the priests side of the story.
What is "creepy" here, Skunk, is that everyone assumes that everything "CathMomof7" says is true, even though we don't know her real identity or whether she is a credible person. Then you all pile on, calling the priest a "bully" and hollering about "abuse" and mind control.
How about controlling your OWN mind first — as in NOT MAKING RASH JUDGEMENTS — and then working on not "abusing" your tongue (or keyboard) by always assuming the worst is true?
Hmm... so here we have an SGG-supporting sedevacantist siding with a pro-sellout SSPX priest. That is odd.
Exactly. The only thing both have in common is...
… a low tolerance for those who spread rash judgments, and for those who cry "abuse" and "cult" whenever they don't get their way on everything in their local chapel.
-
I would like to hear the priests side of the story.
What is "creepy" here, Skunk, is that everyone assumes that everything "CathMomof7" says is true, even though we don't know her real identity or whether she is a credible person. Then you all pile on, calling the priest a "bully" and hollering about "abuse" and mind control.
How about controlling your OWN mind first — as in NOT MAKING RASH JUDGEMENTS — and then working on not "abusing" your tongue (or keyboard) by always assuming the worst is true?
Hmm... so here we have an SGG-supporting sedevacantist siding with a pro-sellout SSPX priest. That is odd.
Not really. In both cases, he's supporting priests accused by members of their congregations of conduct unbecoming of a member of sacerdotal priesthood. I do not, as such, have an opinion as to either situation as I do not know either of the priests personally. What I can say is that, while I abstractly like to give priests the benefit of the doubt, I have to look at the practical reality of the current apostasy. In an environment hobbled by disunity, and where bishop and priest lack canonical authority to govern, a certain amount of frustration on both sides is inevitable. More than ever, the priests that have undertaken their vocation at a time of such perilous danger to the perseverance of faith, should marshal the many graces afforded one of God's chosen towards being loving and long-suffering, even in the face of contention from their flocks. They must understand that the conditions of present coupled with the inherent weariness of traditionalists towards those in authority (given the the hierarchy of the Church appears to have apostatized en masse), means a certain diligence that can give rise to suspicion and disquiet, especially when the priests act in an intemperate manner.
-
There is no way you could possibly imagine the outcome of that little petition. So as not to cause rumors to be spread or to be guilty of detraction, I will only say publicly that this priest became hostile and violent. Some of these events I personally witnessed, others I was shocked to learn.
So I am going to repeat this again. This is creepy and cultish.
To tell a entire chapel that they cannot use the internet to find information is wrong. To tell people they shouldn't worry about whatever crisis is in the Society is wrong. To tell us that we must obey without question is wrong. To force people out of chapels because they passed a petition around is wrong. To deny people Holy Communion because they question what is happening with their priests and within the Society is more than wrong. And to stand up and tell us we are uncharitable or not "real" Catholics is an outright lie.
But to KNOW that a priest, who seems to be incredibly busy with running so many things, has time to troll around forums to see who is talking about him or is concerned about how he manages the affairs of his chapel is absolute insanity.
I don't know if this happens at all chapels but it is happening at mine. IF you are thinking of coming here---DON'T! Find another place to go to Mass. This place is embroiled in chaos! Our Lord has allowed them to be exposed!
Let those who can see, see and those who can hear, hear.
Farewell and Persevere!
Holy Guardian Angels, Protect Us!
Hey CathMom, I edited your post down to the cult behavior our family experienced from another trad society. Thank God this doesn't happen at all traditional Catholic chaples, but it most certainly does happen.
In my case, they eventually had a meeting about what I was writing here at Cathinfo at their camp.
As an ex member of the cult, I was specifically forbidden to be the sponsor for my friend's Confirmation.
Some of the trad chapels are just cults, period. (most likely any number of the Prot sects are, too)
Gag order enforced when a group of staff suddenly left = check
Hostile and when respectfully questioned about certain matters = check plus off the charts
Send over spies for info gathering= check
Have their people scouring the forums, PM-ing and doing damage control = double check
Then try explaining it to friends and family -- they become convinced you've finally lost your marbles, because it sounds so much like you're in a cult! :laugh1:
May God bless you, CathMom.
-
There is a big difference that a professed religous owes to his religous superior and the obedience that is owed to the pastor of the church. Prudence is the best rule to follow in these circuмstances. Even a professed religous is required to disobey if the order given is contrary to the law of God. (ie an order to steal )
-
Hmm... so here we have an SGG-supporting sedevacantist siding with a pro-sellout SSPX priest. That is odd.
Not really. In both cases, he's supporting priests accused by members of their congregations of conduct unbecoming of a member of sacerdotal priesthood. I do not, as such, have an opinion as to either situation as I do not know either of the priests personally. What I can say is that, while I abstractly like to give priests the benefit of the doubt, I have to look at the practical reality of the current apostasy. In an environment hobbled by disunity, and where bishop and priest lack canonical authority to govern, a certain amount of frustration on both sides is inevitable. More than ever, the priests that have undertaken their vocation at a time of such perilous danger to the perseverance of faith, should marshal the many graces afforded one of God's chosen towards being loving and long-suffering, even in the face of contention from their flocks. They must understand that the conditions of present coupled with the inherent weariness of traditionalists towards those in authority (given the the hierarchy of the Church appears to have apostatized en masse), means a certain diligence that can give rise to suspicion and disquiet, especially when the priests act in an intemperate manner.
A very balanced response which puts a practical disagreement like CathMomof7 described into perspective. On one hand, maybe a petition wasn't a very prudent way to ask for what you wanted, but on the other hand, maybe the priest DID overreact. But it was just a practical disagreement, not an argument over the faith and certainly not a cause for war.
-
Hmm... so here we have an SGG-supporting sedevacantist siding with a pro-sellout SSPX priest. That is odd.
Not really. In both cases, he's supporting priests accused by members of their congregations of conduct unbecoming of a member of sacerdotal priesthood. I do not, as such, have an opinion as to either situation as I do not know either of the priests personally. What I can say is that, while I abstractly like to give priests the benefit of the doubt, I have to look at the practical reality of the current apostasy. In an environment hobbled by disunity, and where bishop and priest lack canonical authority to govern, a certain amount of frustration on both sides is inevitable. More than ever, the priests that have undertaken their vocation at a time of such perilous danger to the perseverance of faith, should marshal the many graces afforded one of God's chosen towards being loving and long-suffering, even in the face of contention from their flocks. They must understand that the conditions of present coupled with the inherent weariness of traditionalists towards those in authority (given the the hierarchy of the Church appears to have apostatized en masse), means a certain diligence that can give rise to suspicion and disquiet, especially when the priests act in an intemperate manner.
A very balanced response which puts a practical disagreement like CathMomof7 described into perspective. On one hand, maybe a petition wasn't a very prudent way to ask for what you wanted, but on the other hand, maybe the priest DID overreact. But it was just a practical disagreement, not an argument over the faith and certainly not a cause for war.
And if it were just a matter of disagreement over the Mass time, and the prudence of organizing support for an earlier Mass, I would be inclined to suggest that a greater cultivation of Christian charity on both parts might both end the matter completely and prevent such occasions in the future. But that's not all we're really discussing. We also have the accusation (again, not an impugnation of CMof7's honesty, just an admittance of lack of personal knowledge) that the priest in question is vociferously attacking the just and lawful resistance of the SSPX laity under his care against the mendacious and diabolical attempts of Bernard Fellay and his cronies in selling out the late Archbishop's life's work to the conciliar heretics. There's also the unfortunate phenomenon, much and rightly publicized, of sacramental terrorism on the part of pro-capitulation priests against those that are openly against the sellout, in gross and damnable violation of their duties to offer the sacraments of the Church, without prejudice, to any Catholic seeking them properly disposed and in good faith. These things, more than the fracas over the Mass time, seem to be the source of CMof7's sorrowful fear and doubt; the priest's ire over the petition is, as portrayed, merely one more facet of the psychological warfare by which the Menzingen traitors are seeking to muzzle the Athanasian voice of those faithful in the SSPX that, though I disagree with them on a number of doctrinal points, are my brothers and sisters in seeking the Church and her graces without compromise.
-
There is a big difference that a professed religous owes to his religous superior and the obedience that is owed to the pastor of the church.
FWIW, none of those in question are pastors, canonically speaking.
Then try explaining it to friends and family -- they become convinced you've finally lost your marbles, because it sounds so much like you're in a cult!
I thought that, after all was said and done, you concluded that y'all just didn't fit in at IC? All joking aside, I pray you and yours are well, my lady, in body, mind, and soul. I am sorry I got out of sorts with you, however briefly, and said unkind things I should not have. Please forgive me and know that I love you dearly. I shall always be grateful for your numberless kindnesses in my regard. God bless and keep you, today and always.
-
May I ask which chapel this is? And how does it relate to the Vienna, VA priests? If this is not suitable for public talk, please send me a PM. My priest at my chapel (which sounds like in your area CathMom) is definitely an anti-cultist and is a traditional Catholic priest against the regularization nonsense with Rome.
Youre in my prayers , Cathmomo7.
-
I'm going to copy this and give it to the people making the decisions at our Church. THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING OUT!