Author Topic: How much control should a Trad chapel have over its members? (Read 7900 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #30 on:** August 05, 2014, 02:18:15 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: Matthew

........It got me thinking; how far can a chapel morally go to protect itself against the "competition" -- and should there be there any "competition", properly speaking, between a Catholic chapel and another Catholic chapel?

.........Unless you have to competing CULTS which are merely herds of cattle owned and harvested by their respective warlords. If that is the case, then of course you want exclusivity, cut-throat competition, etc.

......So all the things that apply to false religions (error has no rights, acquiescence to Catholic authority, etc.) DO NOT APPLY when you're talking about ONE TRAD GROUP vs ANOTHER. Get it?

Who would have imagined we would ever need to think about these things?

This is why Catholics must be careful to which group/priests that try entrust their families with.

Any organization or priest that unlawfully (for reasons not specifically in the Code) denies the sacraments to Catholics is one that I would be very cautious about entrusting myself, my family or friends with.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** August 05, 2014, 02:32:02 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: J.Paul
By what authority do these chapels provide sacraments? Well, there is a legitimate case to be made on this point.

But, by what authority does this group tell the laity not to receive sacraments from another, or the other tell you that you are refused the sacraments?

By their own self interested, self endowed authority, and by no other. Certainly not by any authorization of the Church.

They exceed what moral legitimacy that they have, when doing so.

The wise course is to receive the valid sacraments where you can for as long as you can, and avoid becoming too involved in these groups beyond that. And when they are talking about their fraternal difficulties, press the ignore button, and do not listen.
It can do great harm to one's interior peace, because they seek to involve you in their conflicts, in one manner or another.

I agree for the most part, but you're forgetting something.

When "politics" hits home, for example an SSPX chapel spouting lies from the pulpit, being more open to Vatican II, perhaps defending V2 from the pulpit -- then it does affect the man in the pews.

And don't ever forget -- ideas form our actions. If the priest is convinced that Vatican II isn't so bad, that it's 95% good, etc. he will eventually put that into practice in some way. Perhaps inviting the local Bishop to visit, arranging events in conjunction with the local Diocese, etc. and then you'll have your practical things to worry about!

So promoting the Resistance, for example, is not about "getting involved in organizational politics", but rather helping to assure that you'll have a truly Traditional venue for Mass and the Sacraments for the next decade or two. It's very much practical, and sticking to basics.

And if all you're loyal to is "Traditional Catholicism" in general, that is, the fight against Modernism and for the preservation of the Catholic Mass and Catholic Faith (they go together), you should ALSO act like you have a dog in the SSPX fight. Because the SSPX is the largest Traditional group in the world. Even the #2 group is dwarfed by the SSPX. Why do you think Rome wants them neutralized so bad?

The SSPX is the anchor man in the tug-of-war with Modernism. When the anchor man gets knocked out, the Trad side of the tug-of-war is in big trouble.

So once again, promoting the Resistance (and/or attacking the current SSPX perfidy) is a matter of self-preservation for anyone who values the Traditional cause.

Thank you Matthew, for providing the true answer.

I was hoping you'd say that so I wouldn't have to. Because if I had said it, then Nadir and Ambrosia would have accused me of attacking Ambrosia, like they did here:

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: Neil Obstat
Quote from: Nadir
Neil, why are you changing the subject?

Perhaps you didn't notice what the subject is?

Quote
(TT = How much control should a Trad chapel have over its members?)

The word "members" I would suspect might be equivalent or inferior to "parishioners," since SSPX pastors refer to their chapels as "parishes." And laymen are not, properly speaking, "members" of the SSPX unless they're Third Order members. But all you have to do is at least occasionally attend there to be considered a "parishioner."

.

Are you serious? That was basically a barely veiled attack on ... Ambrosia, and on CMRI which is NOT the subject of this thread.

So why are you changing the subject?

Last time I checked, Nadir, CMRI was a trad chapel. Maybe you got a memo I missed?

You see, Nadir, unlike a liberal (e.g., Ambrosia), I am addressing the principle of the thing, which is AUTHORITY IN TRAD CHAPELS -- and it doesn't matter what stripe of trad chapel that is, as Matthew specifically addresses here. It should even apply to Indult trad chapels, for crying out loud. Of course, petwerp and andy's loan and poched and John McFartland wouldn't have any idea what I'm talking about, but I would expect that you, Nadir, could manage to claw your way out of the pit of unknowing that they, along with Ambrosia, are stuck in. No?

And then again, maybe not.................... In the meantime,

Maybe you should ask Matthew why HE'S "changing the subject."

Quote from: Matthew

When "politics" hits home, for example an SSPX chapel spouting lies from the pulpit, being more open to Vatican II, perhaps defending V2 from the pulpit -- then it does affect the man in the pews.

For example, when a CMRI priest utters objective lies and heresy from the pulpit (phrased in such a way so that MOST of his listeners don't notice that it's a lie or a heresy), and is more open to Vat.II, perhaps using veiled defense of Vat.II (while not identifying it as such, of course), then it does affect the man in the pews. And if you dare to ask the priest about it in private (so as not to embarrass him) he tells you that you're not welcome to receive the sacraments from him. He seems to be having a big problem with the FACT that he has no jurisdiction except for the fact of SUPPLIED jurisdiction consequent to your asking him for the sacraments!

Maybe you should ask Matthew why HE'S "changing the subject."

Quote from: Matthew

And don't ever forget -- ideas form our actions. If the priest is convinced that Vatican II isn't so bad, that it's 95% good, etc. he will eventually put that into practice in some way. Perhaps inviting the local Bishop to visit, arranging events in conjunction with the local Diocese, etc. and then you'll have your practical things to worry about!

Ideas form our actions. If the CMRI priest is preaching the same principles found in Vat.II, he can hardly avoid putting that into practice, such as by OMITTING the words in the doxology, "May their souls and all the souls of the Faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace," when he just says, "May they rest in peace." He even says "may they rest in peace" right out of the BLUE at the end of prayers, with no reference to who 'THEY' are! You're supposed to KNOW! The reason he says this is because he agrees with the Vat.II false doctrine of universal salvation, which is the heretical denial of EENS. But he doesn't have the honesty to admit it. He claims to believe EENS but he de facto denies it.

You can probably expect the CMRI group in your area to never arrange any "group events in conjunction with the local Diocese," however, because the CMRI doesn't want to encourage the faithful to have anything to do with the "invalid Novus Ordo popes" and the "invalidly ordained priests" who recognize them as popes.

Nonetheless, the CMRI practices the same errors of Vat.II, in select ways -- not the full enchilada, but like "one taquito" worth of it. It's the lowball unclean spirit of Vat.II.

It's the muted version of the satanic scourge on the Catholic Church. If you don't like my terminology, perhaps you ought to consider whether the Apostles recognized the scourging of Our Lord as "satanic" ---- or not. And while you're at it, ask yourself if Pope Pius XI was out of line somehow when he used "satanic scourge" in reference to atheistic Communism in 1937. If the errors of Russia have spread into the XSPX, why would you expect the CMRI to be somehow exempt? Or ANY Trad chapel?

Maybe you should ask Matthew why HE'S "changing the subject."

Quote from: Matthew

So promoting the Resistance, for example, is not about "getting involved in organizational politics", but rather helping to assure that you'll have a truly Traditional venue for Mass and the Sacraments for the next decade or two. It's very much practical, and sticking to basics.

So promoting the Resistance is not about "getting involved in organizational politics," for example, but rather it's about doing your part to support your local TLM venue(s) for Mass and Sacraments in the short term at least, and perhaps the long term. It means trying to recognize the importance of doctrine, even when the priest offering your Mass is starting to slip away from Catholic doctrine. Your challenge is to remain on good terms with him and gently urge him to be more doctrinally-based, and you can't do that by getting huffy and fuming and pounding your fists, :really-mad2: can you?

Maybe you should ask Matthew why HE'S "changing the subject."

Quote from: Matthew

And if all you're loyal to is "Traditional Catholicism" in general, that is, the fight against Modernism and for the preservation of the Catholic Mass and Catholic Faith (they go together), you should ALSO act like you have a dog in the SSPX fight. Because the SSPX is the largest Traditional group in the world. Even the #2 group is dwarfed by the SSPX.

Why do you think Rome wants them neutralized so badly?

In answer to the question, why is this SSPX and +F stuff important to me, unless I only assist at SSPX Masses. Rome wants the SSPX neutralized so badly because Newrome is engaged in a FIGHT TO THE DEATH with Sacred Tradition, in case you haven't been paying attention to Franky-baby lately.

It's a good thing Ratzinger didn't choose "Francesco" as his pope-name because when he holds a beer stein in his hand, they would have said, "Frank an' stein." [rim shot]

Maybe you should ask Matthew why HE'S "changing the subject."

Quote

The SSPX is the anchor man in the tug-of-war with Modernism. When the anchor man gets knocked out, the Trad side of the tug-of-war is in big trouble.

Anyone who has ever played tug-of-war knows what this means. Unfortunately, liberals like Ambrosia probably never played it because their mothers would have written a nasty note to the Principal of the child's school, telling him in no uncertain terms that imperialistic, ultramontane, elitist, capitalistic training exercises will have no part of their child's liberal and politically-correct upbringing. Boys play with dolls and girls play with trucks. Get it? NOBODY plays tug-of-war under MY watch!

Maybe you should ask Matthew why HE'S "changing the subject."

Quote

So once again, promoting the Resistance (and/or attacking the current SSPX perfidy) is a matter of self-preservation for anyone who values the Traditional cause.

The same applies to the current CMRI perfidy. The same applies to the current SSPV perfidy. The same applies to the current Indult perfidy. The same applies to the current "loose association of independent priests" perfidy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

................Wait...................
And then again, maybe not..................... :kick-can:

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #32 on:** August 05, 2014, 02:37:35 PM »

.

So, here is Ambrosia recommending that one does NOT trust the CMRI
with one's family, one's self or one's friends.

How honest of you, Ambrosia! :smile: :rahrah:

Quote from: Ambrosia

Any organization or priest that unlawfully (for reasons not specifically in the Code) denies the sacraments to Catholics is one that I would be very cautious about entrusting myself, my family or friends with.

.

peterp · « **Reply #33 on:** August 05, 2014, 04:53:28 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

As a perfect example, you have the common misconception (actively taught by Menzingen and company) that SSPX Catholics-in-the-pews owe a special "obedience" to Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rostand, etc.

No, they don't.

They owe obedience to the FAITH and to their local Ordinaries in the dioceses where they live.

We legitimately disobey our local Ordinaries because they are leading us away from the Faith. So we scurry around looking for a place to receive the Sacraments that will not harm our Faith. We find various safe harbors here and there.

The SSPX is merely operating with supplied jurisdiction, like all the other Trad groups. They have no special claim to obedience. They deserve our respect only insofar as they are fighting the good fight for the Faith itself. If that ever ceases, they will be worthless and have no God-based claims on our obedience whatsoever.

This isn't strictly true. It depends on what exactly is being asked for. If Mrs. X is treating a Society priest as a parish priest then all the parochial jurisdictional activity of the priest will be validated. The more you ask, the more is 'supplied'.

As Archbishop Lefebvre said "Your chapels are your parishes, consider your priories and your chapels as your parishes, that is where you are. Do not return to your former parishes, which have fallen into the hands of the modernists."

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais explains what the Archbishop meant: "He had the intention of making you realize and making you understand, you faithful laymen and laywomen, that it is your duty to ask from your traditional priests and chapels for the entire priestly ministry which is normally exercised in a parish. It is your duty to ask for all of the priestly ministry that they are able to provide for you. It is your duty to entrust yourselves completely to your traditional priests. You have not simply to ask of them a Mass, a Baptism, or a sermon and that is all. If this were the case you would paralyze the priest. He cannot exercise his total ministry in all of its fullness under such circuмstances."

Hence, so long as you are treating the Society's priest as one who has parish ministry you do owe an obedience.

peterp · « **Reply #34 on:** August 05, 2014, 05:09:50 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: Matthew
As a perfect example, you have the common misconception (actively taught by Menzingen and company) that SSPX Catholics-in-the-pews owe a special "obedience" to Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rostand, etc.

No, they don't.

They owe obedience to the FAITH and to their local Ordinaries in the dioceses where they live.

We legitimately disobey our local Ordinaries because they are leading us away from the Faith. So we scurry around looking for a place to receive the Sacraments that will not harm our Faith. We find various safe harbors here and there.

The SSPX is merely operating with supplied jurisdiction, like all the other Trad groups. They have no special claim to obedience. They deserve our respect only insofar as they are fighting the good fight for the Faith itself. If that ever ceases, they will be worthless and have no God-based claims on our obedience whatsoever.

This isn't strictly true. It depends on what exactly is being asked for. If Mrs. X is treating a Society priest as a parish priest then all the parochial jurisdictional activity of the priest will be validated. The more you ask, the more is 'supplied'.

As Archbishop Lefebvre said "Your chapels are your parishes, consider your priories and your chapels as your parishes, that is where you are. Do not return to your former parishes, which have fallen into the hands of the modernists."

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais explains what the Archbishop meant: "He had the intention of making you realize and making you understand, you faithful laymen and laywomen, that it is your duty to ask from your traditional priests and chapels for the entire priestly ministry which is normally exercised in a parish. It is your duty to ask for all of the priestly ministry that they are able to provide for you. It is your duty to entrust yourselves completely to your traditional priests. You have not simply to ask of them a Mass, a Baptism, or a sermon and that is all. If this were the case you would paralyze the priest. He cannot exercise his total ministry in all of its fullness under such circuмstances."

Hence, so long as you are treating the Society's priest as one who has parish ministry you do owe an obedience.

And following on from this, if Mr. Y who attends the chapel - but only to fulfill his Sunday obligation and rejects the Society priest as his 'parish' priest - starts to disrupt the 'parish', Mrs. X has a strict right as a 'parishioner' to complain to her 'parish priest' AND demand he do something about it AND expect he do something about it. And if Mr. Y is disrupting the 'parish' the priest has a duty to do something about it.

2Vermont · « **Reply #35 on:** August 05, 2014, 05:19:04 PM »

Neil, is there some reason why you seem to have an obsession with Ambrose? It seems like you take a jab at him whenever you possibly can and quite frankly it's annoying as hell.

Matthew · « **Reply #36 on:** August 05, 2014, 05:36:23 PM »

Quote from: peterp

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Matthew
As a perfect example, you have the common misconception (actively taught by Menzingen and company) that SSPX Catholics-in-the-pews owe a special "obedience" to Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rostand, etc.

No, they don't.

They owe obedience to the FAITH and to their local Ordinaries in the dioceses where they live.

We legitimately disobey our local Ordinaries because they are leading us away from the Faith. So we scurry around looking for a place to receive the Sacraments that will not harm our Faith. We find various safe harbors here and there.

The SSPX is merely operating with supplied jurisdiction, like all the other Trad groups. They have no special claim to obedience. They deserve our respect only insofar as they are fighting the good fight for the Faith itself. If that ever ceases, they will be worthless and have no God-based claims on our obedience whatsoever.

This isn't strictly true. It depends on what exactly is being asked for. If Mrs. X is treating a Society priest as a parish priest then all the parochial jurisdictional activity of the priest will be validated. The more you ask, the more is 'supplied'.

As Archbishop Lefebvre said "Your chapels are your parishes, consider your priories and your chapels as your parishes, that is where you are. Do not return to your former parishes, which have fallen into the hands of the modernists."

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais explains what the Archbishop meant: "He had the intention of making you realize and making you understand, you faithful laymen and laywomen, that it is your duty to ask from your traditional priests and chapels for the entire priestly ministry which is normally exercised in a parish. It is your duty to ask for all of the priestly ministry that they are able to provide for you. It is your duty to entrust yourselves completely to your traditional priests. You have not simply to ask of them a Mass, a Baptism, or a sermon and that is all. If this were the case you would paralyze the priest. He cannot exercise his total ministry in all of its fullness under such circuмstances."

Hence, so long as you are treating the Society's priest as one who has parish ministry you do owe an obedience.

And following on from this, if Mr. Y who attends the chapel - but only to fulfill his Sunday obligation and rejects the Society priest as his 'parish' priest - starts to disrupt the 'parish', Mrs. X has a strict right as a 'parishioner' to complain to her 'parish priest' AND demand he do something about it AND expect he do something about it. And if Mr. Y is disrupting the 'parish' the priest has a duty to do something about it.

That's some novel ecclesiology there, both from peterp and from +TdM.

It's something not easy to refute, it sounds good at first glance (what assertion doesn't?), but I have my serious doubts.

Especially your last bit -- an excuse and justification for a priest coming down hard on pro-Resistance types! He's just acting out his role as Mrs. McGillicutty's parish priest, which she has near-explicitly asked for, so he must deliver! Mrs. McGillicutty has unilaterally decided to treat Fr. SSPX as her parish priest, and given him too much obedience (objectively speaking), so now he's obligated to play "parish" and not allow any "subversive activity" in the parish.

I'm sorry, but that kind of subtlety, hard-to-refute and twisted logic has a bit of a sulfurous odor about it -- maybe it hails from the nether regions of Hell?

Here's the part that gets me -- what would priests have done in the 1950's? But more importantly, what would the "Resistance" be doing back in the 1950's anyhow? There wasn't a Crisis yet! They "have" apparently no reason for being!

You see, you can't escape the fact that priests are treating the Resistance promoters as some flavor of heretics or non-Catholics. Think about it: Who would oppose the "Catholic Church", or a "parish" of the One Catholic Church? Only a heretic. You can't say "I'm a Traditionalist, opposing the institutional Conciliar, post-V2 Church" because when you had parishes, it was 1950 and there was no crisis yet!

According to peterp/TdM's interesting interpretation, one can "summon" the 1950's like Call magic in a Role-Playing Game and make it somehow present again -- and everything that flows from that.

Matthew · « **Reply #37 on:** August 05, 2014, 05:37:35 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Neil, is there some reason why you seem to have an obsession with Ambrose? It seems like you take a jab at him whenever you possibly can and quite frankly it's annoying as hell.

Neil seems to have some bad blood with the CMRI, and he's grinding his axe. Ambrose is a very vocal CMRI proponent, so he's a handy whipping boy for him.

I'm not fond of the behavior either. You kind of took the words out of my mouth. That's why I thumbed you up just now.

Ambrose · « **Reply #38 on:** August 05, 2014, 05:54:16 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: 2Vermont
Neil, is there some reason why you seem to have an obsession with Ambrose? It seems like you take a jab at him whenever you possibly can and quite frankly it's annoying as hell.

Neil seems to have some bad blood with the CMRI, and he's grinding his axe. Ambrose is a very vocal CMRI proponent, so he's a handy whipping boy for him.

I'm not fond of the behavior either. You kind of took the words out of my mouth. That's why I thumbed you up just now.

I only support CMRI because the truth and the facts support CMRI. I have only spoken the truth about them, and will continue to spread the truth about them until a Pope comes again, and CMRI is no longer necessary.

This man is a venomous snake and I have chosen to put him on ignore, but in reality he should be banned. He is a grave danger to Catholics as are his other comrades on here who deny Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.

They hate CMRI because CMRI defends the Catholic doctrine, but they are inconsistent, because the SSPX, SSPV and the Resistance all say the same as CMRI on EENS, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. They will trash CMRI but hold back against the others who say the same.

Heretics hate the truth and all who speak the truth.

Frances · « **Reply #39 on:** August 05, 2014, 06:43:44 PM »

:dancing-banana:
Back to the topic! The sign in the Cebu chapel brings to mind the catty behavior of middle-school aged girls. "You're not my friend if you're gonna be friends with _________!"
Denying the sacraments on the basis of not liking one's personal associations is an abuse of priestly authority.

peterp · « **Reply #40 on:** August 06, 2014, 02:20:43 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: peterp
Quote from: peterp
Quote from: Matthew
As a perfect example, you have the common misconception (actively taught by Menzingen and company) that SSPX Catholics-in-the-pews owe a special "obedience" to Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rostand, etc.

No, they don't.

They owe obedience to the FAITH and to their local Ordinaries in the dioceses where they live.

We legitimately disobey our local Ordinaries because they are leading us away from the Faith. So we scurry around looking for a place to receive the Sacraments that will not harm our Faith. We find various safe harbors here and there.

The SSPX is merely operating with supplied jurisdiction, like all the other Trad groups. They have no special claim to obedience. They deserve our respect only insofar as they are fighting the good fight for the Faith itself. If that ever ceases, they will be worthless and have no God-based claims on our obedience whatsoever.

This isn't strictly true. It depends on what exactly is being asked for. If Mrs. X is treating a Society priest as a parish priest then all the parochial jurisdictional activity of the priest will be validated. The more you ask, the more is 'supplied'.

As Archbishop Lefebvre said "Your chapels are your parishes, consider your priories and your chapels as your parishes, that is where you are. Do not return to your former parishes, which have fallen into the hands of the modernists."

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais explains what the Archbishop meant: "He had the intention of making you realize and making you understand, you faithful laymen and laywomen, that it is your duty to ask from your traditional priests and chapels for the entire priestly ministry which is normally exercised in a parish. It is your duty to ask for all of the priestly ministry that they are able to provide for you. It is your duty to entrust yourselves completely to your traditional priests. You have not simply to ask of them a Mass, a Baptism, or a sermon and that is all. If this were the case you would paralyze the priest. He cannot exercise his total ministry in all of its fullness under such circuмstances."

Hence, so long as you are treating the Society's priest as one who has parish ministry you do owe an obedience.

And following on from this, if Mr. Y who attends the chapel - but only to fulfill his Sunday obligation and rejects the Society priest as his 'parish' priest - starts to disrupt the 'parish', Mrs. X has a strict right as a 'parishioner' to complain to her 'parish priest' AND demand he do something about it AND expect he do something about it. And if Mr. Y is disrupting the 'parish' the priest has a duty to do something about it.

That's some novel ecclesiology there, both from peterp and from +TdM.

It's something not easy to refute, it sounds good at first glance (what assertion doesn't?), but I have my serious doubts.

Especially your last bit -- an excuse and justification for a priest coming down hard on pro-Resistance types! He's just acting out his role as Mrs. McGillicutty's parish priest, which she has near-explicitly asked for, so he must deliver! Mrs. McGillicutty has unilaterally decided to treat Fr. SSPX as her parish priest, and given him too much obedience (objectively speaking), so now he's obligated to play "parish" and not allow any "subversive activity" in the parish.

I'm sorry, but that kind of subtlety, hard-to-refute and twisted logic has a bit of a sulfurous odor about it -- maybe it hails from the nether regions of Hell?

Here's the part that gets me -- what would priests have done in the 1950's? But more importantly, what would the "Resistance" be doing back in the 1950's anyhow? There wasn't a Crisis yet! They "have" apparently no reason for being!

You see, you can't escape the fact that priests are treating the Resistance promoters as some flavor of heretics or non-Catholics. Think about it: Who would oppose the "Catholic Church", or a "parish" of the One Catholic Church? Only a heretic. You can't say "I'm a Traditionalist, opposing the institutional Conciliar, post-V2 Church" because when you had parishes, it was 1950 and there was no crisis yet!

According to peterp/TdM's interesting interpretation, one can "summon" the 1950's like Call magic in a Role-Playing Game and make it somehow present again -- and everything that flows from that.

It is really the ecclesiology of Abp. Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais and Fr. Miaskiewicz. The latter's work must be seen as authoritative. He was a canonist, a doctor of canon law and the topic of his doctoral distertation was supplied jurisdiction (canon 209).

Fr. Miaskiewicz wrote the following (published in 1940): ... supposing that X is falsely, but commonly, regarded to be pastor of parish Y, one concludes that all parochial jurisdictional activity of X is valid because of the operation of the suppletory principle. For, when the people erroneously consider X as legitimate pastor, there is an implicit, if not an explicit, judgment on their part that X, in view of his title as pastor, can perform all properly parochial functions. In such a frame of mind any of these people might approach the pastor for his ministration to them in their individual needs.

And we can draw parallels here with the Society. They enter a diocese (without permission) at the request of some faithful, set up shop, and begin their ministry. And as more faithful recognize the state of necessity it really becomes a duty on them to ask from the priests the entire priestly ministry which is normally exercised in a parish.

There is a danger in only asking for the sacraments and nothing more. Bp. Tissier de Mallerais calls it:

Error by Defect: "Our Priests do not have Jurisdiction. Therefore, we are Free!"
The error in the direction of too little would be to say that the traditional priests in our priories and in the convents have not received jurisdiction from the Pope or the bishop and have therefore no power over us. "What right have they to require something of us? We are indeed free! Let us stay free! We are free to place ourselves under their authority or not."

Such a mentality is opposed to the sense of the Church; to dispense oneself entirely from every link with the hierarchy. Since if you are dispensing with all links to the hierarchy - refusing all jurisdiction - you risk cease being members of the Church.

http://archive.org/details/Supplied_jurisdiction_Miaskiewic_canon_209
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm (Members of the Church)

It obviously follows that if someone is disrupting the 'parish' the priest has a duty to do something about it. And he has the authority, as any actual parish priest would have in disciplining someone disrupting his parish. Now the Society doesn't prevent Sede Vacantists or 'Indultarians' from attending their chapels; they are accepted so long as they refraining from disrupting the 'parish'. And it is clear they also accept Resistance members, but 'Resistance promoters' should not expect to be treated any differently than 'SV promoters' or 'Indult promoters' whose behavior would not be tolerated either (note: it is only the SV chapels where the sacraments are denied to all but their own faithful).

And remember what these Resistance promoters want: "a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience ...". Their declared aim is to draw both priests and laity from the Society - ultimately all priests and laity - to destroy the Society.

Matthew · « **Reply #41 on:** August 06, 2014, 05:45:15 PM »

Quote from: peterp

And remember what these Resistance promoters want: "a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience ...". Their declared aim is to draw both priests and laity from the Society - ultimately all priests and laity - to destroy the Society.

You presume that the Society doesn't deserve to be destroyed.

If it is destroyed, it is Bishop Fellay's fault, for pursuing the dead-end path of Modernism and compromise with Modernist Rome. The Society's strength was its lack of compromise, its firm principled opposition to Modernism and its defense of the Faith/Mass/Priesthood.

You act like the Society should exist forever until the end of time, because of Christ's promise to St. Peter.

You're confusing the Society with the Church!

The Society is a lowly lifeboat; nothing more. When that lifeboat starts springing leaks (like the Barque it was launched from), it is fit to be abandoned so it can sink to the bottom of the sea. There will be other lifeboats, and some kind of floating vessel (which will be the Catholic Church), until the End of Time.

Matthew · « **Reply #42 on:** August 06, 2014, 05:51:22 PM »

I used to criticize those SSPX parishioners who stand aloof from all; not looking to socialize or seek anything more than the basic Mass and Sacraments from their SSPX parish. They leave in silence every Sunday, going straight for their cars. They refuse, on principle, to treat it like a parish or "get involved" in any way.

I used to find fault in this, but if peterp's assertion were true (note: I don't believe it is), then I would quickly join them! I'm not looking for a pretend Parish. I'm only looking for the Sacraments.

I want the Crisis to end, don't get me wrong. But I don't want a Parish unless it's an actual Parish, sans-Crisis. I'm not interested in PLAYING 1950's parish.

It's a rickety lifeboat. Nothing more. It's the catechombs -- no matter how many millions of dollars are raised, or how many thousands of dollars are spent on equipment. A Trad chapel will never be more than an "expedient", or emergency, Mass location. Let's not kid ourselves.

I don't want to empower any priest with a blessing from on high to use Gestapo powers on good-willed Trads who disagree with him, or any would-be whistleblowers who are trying to defend the cause Tradition against an organization that is decaying!

Again, I doubt that God would empower priests in this way, especially to use tactics that are morally forbidden (lies, propaganda, ostracism, demanding blind patriotism for a given leader, etc.)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #43 on:** August 06, 2014, 06:02:36 PM »

Quote from: Ambrosia

Quote from: Matthew
Quote from: 2Vermont
Neil, is there some reason why you seem to have an obsession with Ambrose? It seems like you take a jab at him whenever you possibly can and quite frankly it's annoying as hell.

Neil seems to have some bad blood with the CMRI, and he's grinding his axe. Ambrose is a very vocal CMRI proponent, so he's a handy whipping boy for him.

I'm not fond of the behavior either. You kind of took the words out of my mouth.

I'd be perfectly happy to explain anything you question, Matthew, but I'd prefer not to cause any undue embarrassment.

Quote

Quote
That's why I thumbed you up just now.

Ditto.

Quote from: Ambrosia

I only support CMRI because the truth and the facts support CMRI.

Ambrosia: Incorrect.

Quote

I have only spoken the truth about them,

False.

Quote

and will continue to spread the truth about them until a Pope comes again, and CMRI is no longer necessary.

This man is a venomous snake and I have chosen to put him on ignore, but in reality he should be banned. He is a grave danger to Catholics as are his other comrades on here who deny Catholic teaching on Baptism of Desire and Blood.

Calumny.

Quote

They hate CMRI because CMRI defends the Catholic doctrine,

Half-truth: which is a whole lie.

Quote

but they are inconsistent, because the SSPX, SSPV and the Resistance all say the same as CMRI on EENS, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. They will trash CMRI but hold back against the others who say the same.

More whole lies, which see.

Quote

Heretics hate the truth and all who speak the truth.

You don't know what heresy means or what heretics are.

Maybe you're invincibly ignorant. But since you believe that it's your ignorance that saves, well then...

you do the math.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #44 on:** August 06, 2014, 06:17:40 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Neil, is there some reason why you seem to have an obsession with Ambrose? It seems like you take a jab at him whenever you possibly can and quite frankly it's annoying as hell.

In answer to your question, 2Vermont, the "reason" you perceive is a consequence of your subjective outlook, which is tending to favor the fantasy the CMRI has presented to you, through such as the means of Ambrosia, which see.

It is not anything personal with Ambrosia, but rather his pernicious and pertinacious behavior against the truth, which is unbecoming of someone who has dared to take the name of one of the Great Fathers of the Church and one of the original 8 Doctors thereof, consequently, he does not deserve to be referred to, by that name, which is why I have chosen to use a similar name, one which describes something that is quite appealing, acutally, and therefore ought not be a matter of offense, as it is an objective compliment. But Liberals, true to form, do not recognize anything objective, so that particular thing is not only lost on him but he takes it and runs with it making up more of his nonsense (which is no surprise since that's what he does all the time anyway) and continues to make of himself a laughing stock, that is, for those with eyes to see.

And like all Liberals, Ambrosia cannot stand to see himself being exposed for the joke of which he makes himself, so then he lashes out with his hatred speech and somehow it's allowable here. Whatever. But if you're really "annoyed" you can put me on "hide" and then you don't have to read my posts. It would seem, though, that you're enjoying them, even if you claim that it's 'annoying...'. Do you enjoy being annoyed?

Any more questions?

.