We don't have 79 seminarians who prefer authority to truth, but we do have 2 bishops, 9 priests, 3 oblates, and 6 seminarians who prefer truth to authority.
What happened to his beard?
Theologically, they probably have very few differences with the Conciliar Church..
Sherlock Holmes might deduce that he shaved it off?
Perhaps you're wondering why he shaved it?
Part of that might be where in the world you're working of course. In some parts of the world, a man without a beard is considered effeminate, while in others it demonstrate brutish lack of civility (aka barbarism). Or maybe he just didn't like the look of it and wanted a change.
I know one Traditionalist Bishop/Priest who disliked giving Holy Communion to men with beards (as he feared Particles of the Sacred Host getting in their beards).
IMO, however, there are very few men who don't look more masculine and virile and don't command more respect when they have some facial hair ... especially those of us with, uhm, well, certain challenges regarding hair on top of our heads (I think of it as God's tonsure).
I thought that SSPX priests were forbidden to sport a beard:confused:
I would presume that the SAJM would mirror this rule too.
Is there really a rule for this?Yes, there certainly was when I was in the seminary in the late 80s.
IMO, however, there are very few men who don't look more masculine and virile and don't command more respect when they have some facial hair ... especially those of us with, uhm, well, certain challenges regarding hair on top of our heads (I think of it as God's tonsure)..
He looks pretty manly to me.
... unless of course your culture consider that to be a sign of being an uncivilized barbarian.Still, uncivilized barbarians usually look manly and menancing.
Yes, there certainly was when I was in the seminary in the late 80s.
All members had to be clean shaven unless they were assigned to missionary countries where men without beards command no respect as religious leaders - India I know of for sure.
There was one non-missionary priest I recall obtained special permission from his superiors to grow a beard because of his very fair skin and issues with skin cancers.
Fr Picot was a missionary in Africa when he left the SSPX for the Resistance, and then he was with Fr Chazal in the Philippines. However, he is now back in France which probably explains both why he has joined the SAJM and why he has lost his beard!
Fr. Salenave is based in France too but he is with Fr. Chazal rather than the SAJM. How exactly does it work and what are the differences?
Fr. Salenave is not with Fr. Chazal's MCSPX, but with Bishop Faure's SAJM in France.
Fr. Chazal has no operations in Europe, and the SAJM has no operations in the Pacific.
Obviously both groups are on friendly terms, and there is communication and collaboration between the two (e.g., ordinations; confirmations; fundraising; etc), but they are distinct bodies with distinct membership. I believe in the early days of the formation of both groups, there may have been 1-2 cases of "dual membership," and Fr. Salenave was one of those instances.
Not so if based on the list published by SAJM on December 10th.
SAJM MEMBERS CURRENTLY
HE Bishop Christian Jean-Michel Faure (France)
HE Bishop Gerardo Zendejas (Mexico - United States)
Father Jean Baptiste Brocard (France)
Father Alois Brühwiler (Switzerland)
Father Daniele Chirico (Italy)
Father Stéphane Grenon (Switzerland)
Father Deivid Nass (Brazil) )
Father Etienne Perez (France)
Fr. Rémi Picot (France)
Fr. Paul Rousseau (France)
Fr. René Trincado (Chile - Croatia)
6
Oblate seminarians:
Sister Marie-Elisabeth (France)
Sister Maria Salomé (Thailand)
Sister Dorothée (Germany)
Deceased members:
Father Maurice Duployez (France)
Good catch!
I am awaiting an email response on this development.
A definitive answer from +Zendejas: "He was never engaged in the SAJM, but merely worked under its umbrella as a collaborator."
Another priest confirms Trento's earlier response that Fr. Salenave appears to have some kind of loose asssociation with Fr. Chazal's MCSPX, but not sure in what capacity; I don't know if the MCSPX has Constitutions, or if its just a loose association of friend priests like the old USML was. Apparently, being in Asia, Trento is more up to speed on matters out there than I am.
But shouldn't there be more Resistance priests that we know of? Or are they remaining independent? You brought up USML, and now I'm wondering if it is no more. I do recall how it all began with a myriad of names such as SSPX-SO, SSPX-MC, MCSPX, USML, SAJM.
I saw a list of MCSPX priests from Fr. Chazal before in 2016 and it was as follows:
Fr. Chazal
Fr. Suneel
Fr. Valan
Fr. Picot (joined the SAJM in 2022)
Fr. Salenave
There's some cultural subjectivity to it obviously. Some cultures would find him to be effeminate. And there's no doubt he'd look even MORE "manly" if he had facial hair ... unless of course your culture consider that to be a sign of being an uncivilized barbarian..
I realize this probably sounds like an overly simplistic analysis, but I believe it is a matter of simple observation that in modern times a shaved face has been a symbol of those who build up, while the beard has been the symbol of those who destroy. Why this is the case, I can't say for sure, but I think part of it has to do with the fact that shaving is itself a product of civilization. To shave, you need finely-sharpened razors, soap, shaving cream, or electric devices -- all of which can only be produced by civilization. Any savage running around naked in the woods can grow a beard; in fact, growing a beard indicates either that you do not have access to such products of civilization at all, or that you eschew the use of such technology and prefer to look like a savage.Actually it sounds like an extremely unbalanced view.
A man is immediately identifiable by his beard, or lack thereof, whether he lives in a civilized society, or takes advantage of what it offers. And someone who lives in a civilized society and despises the technology that such a society creates shows that he despises the advancement of that society, and therefore civilization in general.
There are about 47 priests who were expelled of resigned from the SSPX over the ralliement.
If you add to these the numbers of priests and religious found within the once-allied congregations (e.g., Avrille, Santa Cruz, FBVM, Fr. Britto's group, Carmels, etc.), and also add the once-allied independents (e.g., Fr. Ringrose, et al), the tally is somewhere around 100.
If you added the perpetual fence-sitters (i.e., still going along with the SSPX, but opposed to the ralliement) of the Transfiguration, Bellaigue, and Morgon, that number climbs to about 150.
There are about 47 priests who were expelled of resigned from the SSPX over the ralliement.So where does Fr MacDonald fit in?
If you add to these the numbers of priests and religious found within the once-allied congregations (e.g., Avrille, Santa Cruz, FBVM, Fr. Britto's group, Carmels, etc.), and also add the once-allied independents (e.g., Fr. Ringrose, et al), the tally is somewhere around 100.
If you added the perpetual fence-sitters (i.e., still going along with the SSPX, but opposed to the ralliement) of the Transfiguration, Bellaigue, and Morgon, that number climbs to about 150.
I was only wondering about the small number of priests listed in both SAJM and MCSPX lists. Where are the likes of Fr. Morgan, Fr. Girouard, Fr. Pivert, and many more?
So where does Fr MacDonald fit in?
I thought that SSPX priests were forbidden to sport a beard:confused:Father Chazal had a beard the last two times I saw him. :popcorn:
I would presume that the SAJM would mirror this rule too.
Fr. MacDonald spends most of his time traveling between New Zealand and Ireland (with occassional visits to the USA).Ireland is where we met him a few years back. This has been a good thread! It is nice to hear of how many SSPX priests are waking up.:popcorn:
Actually it sounds like an extremely unbalanced view..
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Padre_Pio_portrait.jpg/220px-Padre_Pio_portrait.jpg)
When you rely so heavily on generalizations, your arguments sound empty and meaningless.
Beards, like clothes, are about what is fashionable.
There's nothing intrinsically evil in facial hair. Neither in the absence of it.
We could find numerous examples of civilized men from the 18th century with very vigorous beards.
These days, beards don't mean much, since fashion has become more diverse.
In the 60s, you could say that a bearded man was probably a sort of revolutionary. Since the 70s, it has lost this stigma.
I always have thought that well-trimmed beards gave priests an extra air of respect. My favorite pictures of Archbishop Lefebvre are from when he was a missionary priest with a beard. Sort of like the old Southern beard you would find on Robert E Lee. 😅
.
Well, you are from a different country, so maybe the cultural dynamics I'm describing aren't the same down there. I don't know.
A picture of one extremely exceptional person is not relevant in a discussion about general social trends. You'd have to support your position (whatever it is) by pictures of random people that can be taken as representative of the population, or of social trends, as I did.
I simply pointed out an observable fact, supported by evidence (though I think it's pretty self-evident in itself) that people shaved their face in civilized times, and that the enemies of civilization make a point about not shaving. I speculated on why this should be the case. But as a cultural trend it is unmistakable.
Why do you think it is that the hippies didn't shave?
Fr. MacDonald spends most of his time traveling between New Zealand and Ireland (with occassional visits to the USA).Sean, I know he spends his time between Oz and NZ, but I meant what group does he belong to. if any?
Sean, I know he spends his time between Oz and NZ, but I meant what group does he belong to. if any?
He is independent.Thanks for clearing that up, Sean.
I agree. I too like the pictures of the bearded +Lefebvre. Of course, each culture is different. It was primarily the Romans who equated being clean-shaven with being "civilized" or "cultured" ... and the term "barbarian" derives from the Latin word for beard ("barba"). But in most cultures, a clean-shaven man was thought of as effeminate, similar to a young man who hadn't reached maturity and was incapable of growing a beard.Oo!!! That is my favorite picture of the Archbishop so far! Thanks for sharing! :cowboy:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/4b/03/234b0311b6e6c9139025e3e5391db25c.jpg)
I think that I am not mistaken to think that most man in the middle ages had some kind of facial hair. Most portraits of kings from that era show bearded and long haired men.It my opinion the difference of hippie and barbaric beards and gentleman beards is that hippie beards tend to be wild and not trimmed and a gentleman has a well-trimmed beard... :popcorn:
The middle ages were the climax of our civilization. So, I don't see a relation between lack of facial hair and "civilized times".
The hippies surely wore long beards and long hair as a sign of protest. We agree here. But, as I see it, it is something that stayed in the 60s. In the 70s, beards were common enough that most people wouldn't see a bearded man as a revolutionary.
Before World War I, long, bushy beards were very fashionable. The hippie movement started about forty years after that was was over. So, it seems obvious to me that their rebel beards were something that had significance for a relatively short amount of time.