Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on December 29, 2018, 11:12:53 AM
-
Today I got an Unsubscribe request for my chapel bulletin e-mail list. The man (we'll call him "Bob") even gave a reason:
"I have no intention of ever attending a resistance function."
Now he has been on my list for a long time, and up till now Bob just ignored my e-mails. He's sick of getting them; he probably wants to clean up his inbox and reduce his junk e-mails going into the new year 2019. Think no more, right?
Not so fast.
I thought about it for a couple minutes, and realized just how messed up Bob's thinking is, and for several reasons:
1. Bob doesn't even know what he's permanently rejecting. Bob never even checked out the chapel. It's not as though it's schismatic to attend one "unapproved" chapel but perfectly great to attend another "unapproved" chapel every Sunday. Irregular status is irregular status. It doesn't matter how big the organization behind the chapel is, their bank account balance, # of parishioners, etc.
2. Bob has as much faith in the SSPX as he does in God or His Church. Bob has eliminated the very possibility of EVER leaving the SSPX and finding another Traditional/independent chapel where he can attend the Tridentine Mass and receive the Catholic Faith untainted by Modernism and other errors. It's SSPX or bust, baby! Does anyone else see anything wrong with this mode of thinking?
3. Bob believes that the official Catholic Church (founded on Peter and Christ's promise) can fall to a state where "bugging out" is necessary -- but not the SSPX! What if the SSPX continues down its current path for 2, 5, 10 more years and eventually starts saying some Novus Ordo Masses on occasion? You know, if the local Bishop is there, maybe just once a year like the FSSP, and of course done in the most reverent manner, no Communion in the hand, with Gregorian chant, no handshake of peace, using the first Canon, etc. You're never going to leave the SSPX under any circuмstances, eh? So, Bob, you think you can see the future with the clarity of a prophet such that you can confidently declare that I am wrong?
4. On the contrary, I (and those supporting the Resistance) am more likely to be right about the future of the SSPX. Related to #3, I would throw that back in Bob's face: I am the one who is right, and you are the one who is wrong about the SSPX, based on all available evidence and reality. But yet Bob foolishly boards up and seals off the emergency exit. That's real smart. (NOT!)
-
So many Trads have fallen for the errors of the world, its conveniences, its siren song, etc.
-
Or maybe Bob is busy and someone is sending him too much email.
-
Or maybe Bob is busy and someone is sending him too much email.
:laugh1: Occam's razor.
-
Bob is typical of the thousands who scrupulosity believe in blind obedience, whether it be following the directions of the priests of SSPX or those of Opus Dei.
-
Bob is typical of the thousands who scrupulosity believe in blind obedience, whether it be following the directions of the priests of SSPX or those of Opus Dei.
We don't know anything about Bob. He could just be too lazy to drive the extra miles to a Resistance center or doesn't like the time of day they have Mass.
-
Agree. There are plenty of people i've talked to who swallow errors #1-4 above, but based on "Bob's" short reply, it's hard to assume he falls into these categories.
-
PV: There are plenty of people i've talked to who swallow errors #1-4 above, but based on "Bob's" short reply, it's hard to assume he falls into these"
You are right. But you make the assumption that Maria Valtorta described an illicit blasphemous relationship between St. Peter and the Blessed Virgin. You "assume" that the specific text exists, but you can not reproduce it here. You merely "assume" that it exists.
I fully expect the resident Hungarian 'Bela Kuhn' to supply a comment or two. LOL.
-
... saying some Novus Ordo Masses on occasion? You know, if the local Bishop is there, maybe just once a year like the FSSP, and of course done in the most reverent manner, no Communion in the hand, with Gregorian chant, no handshake of peace, using the first Canon, etc. You're never going to leave the SSPX under any circuмstances, eh?
Realistically, it was the the handshake of peace, communion in the hand, liturgical dances, and so on, that got many people thinking about tradition in the first place. [For those old enough, the constant liturgical changes in the 1960s did a lot too - many people were going to several different churches each Sunday trying to find one that wasn't nuts.]
Near me is a conservative church that does only the NO in latin (and occasional TLM, I've heard). I have never been but I know people who have, and I get the impression that, yes it's the NO, but the rest of the culture around the Mass is there (benediction, no communion in hand, etc.), and people pray. I think most who were searching in the 1960s would have found a church like that home, and I suspect a lot of the younger traditionals too. (At least while it lasted.)
-
But you make the assumption that Maria Valtorta described an illicit blasphemous relationship between St. Peter and the Blessed Virgin. You "assume" that the specific text exists, but you can not reproduce it here. You merely "assume" that it exists.
You “seem” obsessed about this whole affair. The “poem” is not necessary for salvation so quit defending it like it’s a dogma.
-
Did I miss something how did we get from foolish Bob to Valtora?
-
Did I miss something how did we get from foolish Bob to Valtora?
They have foolishness in common ;)
-
I'm sorry, but many of you missed the point. I said right at the beginning that Bob might have been just too busy/annoyed with the bulletin e-mails.
But if you're a deep thinker, a philosopher, there is much more there.
For example, even if you HATE what is known as "the Resistance" today, what guarantee do you have that another such movement won't be 100% necessary in the future? Unless you think the SSPX is sitting on a SUPERIOR promise from Christ than the official Catholic Church has. And there is nothing fundamentally evil -- or even undesirable -- about a Resistance movement in the abstract. A word to the wise: the Traditional Movement is VERY MUCH a "Resistance" movement.
This man has ruled out "resistance" for the rest of his life. He's done going against the grain. The only thing he's "game for" at this point is showing up at an established Trad chapel -- he hopes that will be available and continue until he receives Extreme Unction and dies. All the best of luck to him. But some of us have to plan for the long haul. When I see apologetics for Vatican II appearing in a concerted pattern out of the highest levels of the SSPX, I can read the writing on the wall. I have kids to raise Traditional Catholic.
The man in question is older, BTW. Probably about retirement age. It's sad to see the 1st Generation of Trads totally weary and cowardly of The Fight. This generation was responsible for putting together and setting up most of the Trad chapels we have today -- but now, if Vatican II happened again, many in this same generation would stay behind and keep their heads down this time around. Sad.
-
Another point I forgot to mention --
Maybe he wanted the regular (once a month) e-mails to stop, because each one tweaked his conscience. They were constant reminders that he is attending a comfortable, FSSP type chapel every Sunday with NO effort, NO fight, NO resistance of any kind, and our chapel is what his chapel USED to be. We have the fervor, the fidelity, and the fight that his group USED to have.
Perhaps the reminder makes him uncomfortable.
-
Agree. There are plenty of people i've talked to who swallow errors #1-4 above, but based on "Bob's" short reply, it's hard to assume he falls into these categories.
Except he's cutting off communication with the one Resistance group in his area. He thinks he's LITERALLY NEVER going to need it. What, logically, can you conclude from that?
"Not only is there nothing dangerous or ominous in the SSPX today, but there never WILL BE!" That's a lot of misplaced human faith right there. I detect a bit of SSPX Exceptionalism here. In other words, the belief that the SSPX is "special" or confusing the SSPX with the Catholic Church itself. "Extra SSPX Nulla Salus" and all that.
The Conciliar Church (which most of us boycott completely, even if we have no other option for Mass) has a promise from Christ Himself that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." What has the SSPX got?
Even if I were pacified or convinced of EACH of the anti-Resistance arguments (by the likes of John McFarland, for example), no one would EVER convince me that resistance to the SSPX is fundamentally wrong or unnecessary, and would always be so until the end of time. Re-read my sentence in bold, above.
-
Matthew, you're beginning to bore me, quite frankly. ::)
-
With the added info/quotes from Bob, then yes, I agree with you, Matthew. The many Bobs of this world have drunk the koolaid, they are tired of fighting new-Rome, they are tired of fighting for Tradition and yearn for “normalcy” and “peace” in the Faith.
I’m sure the early Christians were tired of being scared of persecutions constantly, but instead of giving up to lukewarmness, their fears, worries and exhaustion drove them to prayer and a deeper attachment to God, who provided them with strength to carry on through the tribulations of the day. Sadly, most of us fail to learn this lesson too. But today is a new day and we can start again. Yet the Bobs of this world have, seemingly, given up. Let’s pray they come to their senses and aren’t lost due to spiritual sloth. For we all must pray for the grace of perseverance and patience, lest our human nature get overwhelmed.
-
Matthew, you're beginning to bore me, quite frankly. ::)
1. I'm not your entertainment. I'm not here to entertain you.
2. You can have a full refund on the price of admission -- all 0 cents of it.
3. You clicked on this thread, and you're still here. If you don't find a particular thread interesting, don't read it!
-
PV: You “seem” obsessed about this whole affair. The “poem” is not necessary for salvation so quit defending it like it’s a dogma.
Pax, let me give it another shot. After all, it’s a lazy Sunday afternoon, and I have nothing better to do before the Eagles game.
On the thread in which Valtorta and the Poem were scurrilously attacked , never once did I make the claim that her work was necessary for salvation. Nor was I defending it as “dogma,” which all Catholics must agree to. I was reacting to an allegation by certain low-life members of CI, that within the pages of the Poem, viz. Vol.2 N199, an episode occurs in which St. Peter and the Blessed Virgin have an alleged affair, and that Our Lord Jesus angrily chides and scolds the apostle for having carried on in such a manner.
Yes, I am deeply troubled by that kind of talk, and in that context, yes, I am, perhaps, presently “obsessed.” Slanderous remarks, be they made about a putative heretic or a canonized saint, (or Bob), are not becoming Catholic behavior. But let’s not suggest that I was pushing Valtorta’s works as dogmatically binding on Catholics in order to achieve salvation. I was not. That is simply not true. Go back and read the sequence.
-
Anyone who inserts a defense of the “poem” in a thread not talking about it, is obsessed.
-
Anyone who inserts a defense of the “poem” in a thread not talking about it, is obsessed.
THIS ^^^
-
scurrilously [attached]
:laugh1: