Quote from: Machabees

Quote from: Seraphim

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

It's not?

It's "official" when the Superiors punish severely anyone who does NOT agree with the new orientation of their new policy -That's pretty "official".

Excerpt from:

"When the salt loses its flavour..."
 
An Open Letter from
Fr. Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
to the Faithful of Mexico City

"...An external policy corresponds to an internal 'policy': which is to say that within the Society, each time in an increasingly obvious way, the existence of a policy of repression against anyone who does not agree with the new orientation of the Society is confirmed. Pressuring, harassing, discrediting and punishing in various different ways anyone who shows that they disagree. Many more disturbing statements and actions could be added. Like, for example, what Fr. Raphael Arizaga heard from the mouth of Bishop Fellay in a conference to seminarians at Winona, on 21st December last year: "Because I wanted to preserve the internal unity of the Society, I withdrew the docuмent in which I said 'I do not reject all of Vatican II' - which is what I really said."

http://www.therecusant.com/fr-hugoruizvallejo

Sure, if you make up your own definition of "official."

In reality, the situation described above is the textbook definition of "de facto" (i.e., common practice not established by law), and is therefore not official (i.e., de jure: official legislated policy).

Don't you just love legaleeze?  If one attends Novus Ordo Mass, he is de facto not a Catholic.  Period.  We all probably agree on that here.  Legally, de facto simply means that something is done by practice without a law put into place demanding such.  This "rule" or "standard operating procedure" is not de jure--by written law.  However, legally once a practice becomes de facto, they are easily accepted as de jure, at least by all those involved.

In our own Legal system, companies defend themselves all the time by arguing desuetude---these laws on the books haven't been followed, obeyed, or punished in a long time, therefore they are of no merit.

So in fact, if a policy is de facto accepted by a groups members, it essentially becomes de jure without anyone having to make anything "official."

Just ask those who were around at Vatican II.  Nothing "official" but what is the church now?  Officially unrecognizable.  Officially not Catholic.  Officially Protestant.

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: Seraphim

1) Contra factum non argumentum ("Against a fact there is no argument"): The rejected doctrinal preamble is not official SSPX policy;

Wrong.  The Doctrinal Preamble of Bishop Fellay is official SSPX policy de facto.  

I am impressed:

You have managed to contradict yourself in one short sentence.

Something cannot be both de facto and official at the same time.

De jure means official ("by law").

De facto means unofficial ("by the fact rather than law).

There is only confusion on this point for those who have an agenda which they see benefiting by defections from the sspx.

Interesting you and Fr Rostand have the same desire to eliminate internal resistance.

Im sure he French 37 would be quite perplexed to hear that by your logic they are traitors.

Faulty principles yield faulty conclusions.

Ps: Do you regularly attend an sspx chapel?

Uhmmm, did you see my post above.  Do not be confused by these purely legal terms.  Yes, by definition de jure means "by law."  Yes, by definition de facto means "by fact or practice."  But these are just definitions.  In legal terms, for legal issues, when a group or company has de facto practices they are just as good as written down, codified law.  Many cases like these come to courts all the time.

 Do not go down this path, you will only set yourself up for failure and disappointment.  

The leadership of the SSPX wish to take the Society to a position that will be accommodating with Rome.  Is it not true that Maximilian Krah is a lawyer?  Do you not believe that he understands perfectly well, legally, what he is doing?  

There is a hole in the side of the SSPX boat and it is sinking.  Don't be the person standing on the pier jumping up and down telling people shouting "But the Captain said there is no hole in the bottom of the boat!"  

By practice or by law, does not matter.  The Society is over.  Wait around until you can see it for yourself, but leave everyone else alone to make their own determination.  

CathMom,

Words like yours should be spoken to those who deny there is a problem in the SSPX.

Of course there's a problem. Of course there's a new orientation. Of course there's a hole in the ship, and it's going down. Some might even argue that there's no hope, humanly speaking, to turn the SSPX around.

That having been said...

Saying that the SSPX has officially changed its policy, and therefore all priests and laity are bound in conscience to distance themselves from it, and are forbidden to attend its Masses in any chapel whatsoever, is a completely different question.

If the situation is sufficiently hazy that many don't understand what has changed, that goes to show you how unofficial these changes are.

If Fr. Pfeiffer just had to borrow a priest's SSPX Member Statutes Handbook and show him how the organization is different, don't you think we'd have 200 Resistance priests right now instead of 20?


I'm afraid we're still in that phase where only the clear-thinking, well-informed, or forward-thinking Catholics are aware of the problems. There is still plenty of confusion and ignorance at this point. It is WAY too soon to say that everyone must shake the dust off their feet and abandon "what's left" of the SSPX.

The SSPX is almost completely intact, if you look at the whole organization! The damage is what, less than 5 or 10%?

You don't abandon a sinking ship at the first sign of taking on water. First you get as many people to the lifeboats as possible. It's common sense.

I completely agree with you, Seraphim.

Regarding the "red-light" idea, if all those supporting the Resistance left their SSPX chapel,

1. They would be doing exactly what the accordistas and liberals want them to do.

2. They would weaken the SSPX just when it most needs strengthening and bringing back to its original mission.

3. They would deprive themselves (and their families) of the sacraments. How many Masses can the Resistance priests say? And in how many countries? Suddenly depriving the majority of the Resistance laity of the grace of the sacraments would be disastrous!

That said, of course people should avoid SSPX chapels where the priest has a policy of liberalism and persection. But they are not so common - yet. We must resist them to the face if we can do so without endangering our faith, and not run away and become home-aloners, leaving them in possession.

I completely agree with you, Seraphim.

Regarding the "red-light" idea, if all those supporting the Resistance left their SSPX chapel,

1. They would be doing exactly what the accordistas and liberals want them to do.

2. They would weaken the SSPX just when it most needs strengthening and bringing back to its original mission.

3. They would deprive themselves (and their families) of the sacraments. How many Masses can the Resistance priests say? And in how many countries? Suddenly depriving the majority of the Resistance laity of the grace of the sacraments would be disastrous!

That said, of course people should avoid SSPX chapels where the priest has a policy of liberalism and persection. But they are not so common - yet. We must resist them to the face if we can do so without endangering our faith, and not run away and become home-aloners, leaving them in possession.

All very sensible but personally I don't intend to ever stand in an SSPX chapel again. A clean break is necessary.

SSPX Priests Need to Start Barking:

www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2013_03_24_-_Fr._Hewko_Sermon_- Kansas_City,_MO_-_Extract.mp3

Of course there's a problem. Of course there's a new orientation. Of course there's a hole in the ship, and it's going down. Some might even argue that there's no hope, humanly speaking, to turn the SSPX around.

At least on this part we can agree.  

Saying that the SSPX has officially changed its policy, and therefore all priests and laity are bound in conscience to distance themselves from it, and are forbidden to attend its Masses in any chapel whatsoever, is a completely different question.

I said none of this.  What I said was that we are swimming in murky waters here making the distinction between de facto and de jure.  Whether or not something is "official" or not regarding the new orientation of the Society is just a matter of semantics.  As such, I never said anyone was bound to go or to stay.  Instead I said that individuals must work this out for themselves.  Telling people that they must not leave is quite troubling to me.  The Society is the not the Church.

If the situation is sufficiently hazy that many don't understand what has changed, that goes to show you how unofficial these changes are.

This is exactly what happened in the wake of VII.  It wasn't "official" to rip out the altar rails.  It wasn't "official" to give COT.  But they happened anyway.  People were confused then and still are now.

I'm afraid we're still in that phase where only the clear-thinking, well-informed, or forward-thinking Catholics are aware of the problems. There is still plenty of confusion and ignorance at this point. It is WAY too soon to say that everyone must shake the dust off their feet and abandon "what's left" of the SSPX.

This statement bothers me the most.  We have an obligation to our Faith and the people in the pews.  We don't have an obligation to the SSPX.  I know where there is a Mass with a true priest, not affiliated with SSPX.  My obligation is to tell the people I know about that.  If they come, then good.  If they stay at their SSPX chapel, fine.  But my obligation is not to keep people in the pews at SSPX until they can work out their problems.  

The SSPX is almost completely intact, if you look at the whole organization! The damage is what, less than 5 or 10%?

I don't know if you can really defend this statement.  How do you know?  The Society is rotten at it's core.  Are you suggesting the +Fellay doesn't know what is going on?  What about Fr. Rostand?  Who knows what else is going on?  Do you?  Perhaps there is more that no one knows about because the leaders are either silent or continue to make plans in private.  The damage may well be 50% for all you know.

You don't abandon a sinking ship at the first sign of taking on water. First you get as many people to the lifeboats as possible. It's common sense.

If I am on a sinking ship, I am going to load my family into the life boat and encourage as many people as I can to go too.  But I'm not going to tarry too long hoping they will listen.  Otherwise, I risk losing my whole family to drowning in the water.  It's common sense.