"1789 within the SSPX?"

Dear Faithful,

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. (Mt v, 13)

Salt is good as long as it preserves its strentgth and sharpness; it seasons meat, it gives as it were a soul to that flesh that is dead; it prevents worms from growing on it, and that rot forms in it.

In the current storm, we should expect from our priests that they be the salt of the earth, men of God, animated by the spirit of Jesus Christ. There is nothing that is as useful as this to souls, or more advantageous to their salvation; because the former have this mission of preserving the latter from the corruption of customs with the teaching of the Gospel, and by example, inspiring in them love and regard for perfection.

And yet, it is quite regrettable for the Society of Saint Pius X and for the souls in our priories to find out, day after day, these inconvenient declarations, these calls to disobedience do authority, these states of mind displayed on the net... What a scandal for the faithful!

While it is legitimate to appraise the situation of the Society and of its position in the Church, it seems important to me to recall that this text should be an occasion to display our attachment to the order willed by God and assured by legitimate authority, despite differences of opinion in matters of prudence. Never before has Faith been more invoked in order to justify our temptations of pride and independence, the sign of a resolutely modern spirit!

For salt loses its strength in water, from where it originates... It comes from sea water; but if dispose of it there, it dissolves immediately and it is lost. Let us flee from the sea of the world, let us flee from the customs of the world. The amazing sight of division, that of silent but nevertheless real struggles, of political tactics, are unworthy of the Society and of our priories!

Have salt in you, and have peace among you. (Mk ix, 49)

Let us have within ourselves the salt of evangelical wisdom, before sharing it with others. Let us savor the things of heaven ourselves before offering their savor to others.

Let us have within ourselves the salt of mortification: our sacrifices will not at all be pleasing to God unless they come from a perfectly mortified heart.

Let you have within yourseles the salt of discretion. (Lv ii, 13) Let your speech be always in grace seasoned with salt: that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Cl iv, 6)

Let us have, finally, the salt of perseverance, and of stability in love for God and neighbor.

It will be divine love, joined with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and the grace of baptism, that will make the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X truly apostolic men, as salt is extracted with the heat of the Sun and the blow of the wind over the waters of the seas.

Father Renaud de la Motte
Prior

[From the July-August issue of Apostol, the newsletter of the priories of Frabrègues and Perpignan (Languedoc-Roussillon, France) of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX). Source: La Porte Latine, via Le Forum Catholique]

According to this letter (and many others like it), it would seem that any letter -- even the most humble and respectful -- expressing concern about a practical agreement with Rome (passing over issues of doctrine) is automatically rebellious, proud, and evidence of a modern spirit.

Not true.

Let's lob this tennis ball back in their court.

Let's talk hypothetically here.

Please describe to me a situation where the SSPX priests and/or Faithful could lawfully disobey the superior(s) of the SSPX.

What if a Superior General were to be imprudent and go for an agreement with Rome that would not benefit the SSPX? What if a Superior General were to do something harmful to the SSPX -- whatever his personal motivation (pride, vainglory, avarice, naivete, lack of prudence, etc.)

It's not too ridiculous to ask this question, since we're not dealing with a person or organization that "can't fail" because of Christ's promise, or the doctrine of infallibility as defined at Vatican I.

If a Superior General WERE to go into error -- to follow an imprudent course, to allow Jєωιѕн interests to gain a foothold in the SSPX, or any other dereliction -- should all opposing priests automatically be described as proud, having issues with obedience, having no supernatural spirit, etc.?

Let us have within ourselves the salt of mortification: our sacrifices will not at all be pleasing to God unless they come from a perfectly mortified heart.

Who is more mortified --

The one who is willing to hold to tradition, trampling human respect underfoot and suffering persecution for decades on end, by the grace of God -- and is willing to fight the good fight until the battle is over...

Or the one who is chomping at the bit for recognition from the modern Vatican and the modern world, who chafes at the opposition felt from modern Catholic friends and family members, who desires a larger church, a larger congregation, and more recognition by the world in general that he's a "good person", etc.

According to this letter (and many others like it), it would seem that any letter -- even the most humble and respectful -- expressing concern about a practical agreement with Rome (passing over issues of doctrine) is automatically rebellious, proud, and evidence of a modern spirit.

Not true.

Let's lob this tennis ball back in their court.

Let's talk hypothetically here.

Please describe to me a situation where the SSPX priests and/or Faithful could lawfully disobey the superior(s) of the SSPX.

What if a Superior General were to be imprudent and go for an agreement with Rome that would not benefit the SSPX? What if a Superior General were to do something harmful to the SSPX -- whatever his personal motivation (pride, vainglory, avarice, naivete, lack of prudence, etc.)

It's not too ridiculous to ask this question, since we're not dealing with a person or organization that "can't fail" because of Christ's promise, or the doctrine of infallibility as defined at Vatican I.

If a Superior General WERE to go into error -- to follow an imprudent course, to allow Jєωιѕн interests to gain a foothold in the SSPX, or any other dereliction -- should all opposing priests automatically be described as proud, having issues with obedience, having no supernatural spirit, etc.?

Matthew, the one thing I've noticed about those in the current leadership of the SSPX and their cheerleaders like Rorate Caeli who make these kinds of statements above is that they tend focus too much on particulars, which as one would expect they sever from universals. They then also make some of those same particulars like obedience, ends in themselves.

 A lot of talk about salt this and salt that...... when what is really needed is a healthy dose of pepper! Did I miss that part?