Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on July 14, 2015, 05:43:49 PM
-
From the "SSPX Faithful" Facebook group.
Vanessa Dredger is one of the Admins.
Vanessa Dredger
June 20 at 2:30pm · Union, KY
No further posts concerning the Pope's encyclical "Laudato Si" will be allowed on this page until further notice. An exception will be made for any posts on this topic from the SSPX website. This topic has been sufficiently discussed and moderated in previous posts below, which you may read through if you wish to join the conversation. As always, any flippant remarks will be immediately deleted.
Vanessa Dredger: Though your assumption that I have not read the complete encyclical from cover to cover is true: I've only read parts of it. I've been busy curtailing the flagrant dissension over it. I will say at as an admin of this page I have no more restraint in me to keep myself from taking action upon those who cannot follow the rules here. I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained. I will no longer babysit you as you sit and make this situation worse than it needs to be.
What exactly is "rampant" dissent? Lots of people being upset about something?
-
No, we mustn't have "dissent" when it concerns Francis. Does Ms. Dredger also wear pink, use a blow comb, and go on cruise ship "retreats?"
-
This is the logical extension of the new Menzingen orientation which started out a few years back. They may have the windowshades drawn in the back seats so as not to seen, but make no mistake they are already riding the conciliar bus. The one with Francisco Cramden in the driver's seat.
-
I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained.
Well, this statement is actually quite true. RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION is owed to all Encyclical Letters of the Vicar of Christ. Religious Submission does at the very least rule out "rampant dissent" and requires "respect and honor of the position of the pope". She has this ABSOLUTELY right. What's at issue is whether Francis is certainly a legitimate Vicar of Christ. If you're dogmatic R&R and entertain no doubt whatsoever about the legitimacy of Francis, then Vanessa's position is in fact the ONLY Catholic position.
I defy anyone here to demonstrated any Church Father, Doctor, or approved theologian EVER in the entire history of the Church who has stated that Catholics can sit around "ripping" a papal encyclical. What does that do to the Catholic Church? It's at that point where R&R becomes absolutely pernicious and harmful to the faith.
Bishop Fellay is in fact acting consistently with a dogmatic sedeplenist stance. If you absolutely have no doubt that Francis is the pope and believe it to be true with the certainty of faith, then you absolutely must try to find a way to get into submission with him and you MUST at the very least RESPECT his Magisterium, attempting to the absolute best of your ability to apply a hermeneutic of continuity to it.
So the more that the Resistance wishes to remain dogmatic sedeplenist, the more and more it departs from Catholicism.
And this tension here between +Fellay SSPX and the Resistance is nothing other than an expression of the tension naturally caused by this decidedly non-Catholic notion that one can recognize someone as a Vicar of Christ and then absolutely blow him off, disrespect him, and criticize him at every turn ... the same tension that over the years has CONSTANTLY been trying to resolve itself either into some form of union with and submission to Rome or else to sedevacantism. That dogmatic R&R position is abhorrent to Catholicsim and NOT REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE. And the more you start thinking that this is even remotely acceptable, the more of a sectarian Protestant / Old Catholic / Gallican you turn into. I'm sorry, but that's a simple fact.
Father Chazal articulated a position on the papacy which mirrors my own ... somewhere along the spectrum of sedeprivationism. Something along those lines is absolutely necessary to maintain any objection whatsoever to the +Fellay position. [I'm not talking about ancillary issues such as +Fellay's persecution of dissenters, etc., but just about the position itself.] Archbishop Lefebvre publicly expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes. Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier have also acknowledge the possibility of vacancy. WITHOUT THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, +Fellay's position is in fact the only Catholic one.
-
I invite all of those sincerely seeking Catholic truth to read Monsignor Fenton's The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
-
Ladislaus,
You could replace "Papal encyclical" with "Pope" and we could have the same discussion -- it's the classic "To be Sede or not to be Sede" argument.
Of course Catholics don't normally "rip" an encyclical -- or a Pope for that matter. But we're in a unique situation where the Pope -- the principle of unity -- has become a revolutionary and a principle of DISunity and a principle of rupture from the Catholic Faith. He has worked tirelessly to DESTROY the Catholic Church from within.
To me, it goes without saying that "dogmatic sedeplenism" is an error in this Crisis. No one has received from God the assurance that the recent popes are even popes. Of course, the Sedevacntists also can't be dogmatic, since God hasn't told anyone that the recent popes are NOT popes. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly entertained the possibility, but for various reasons did not take the step of becoming sedevacantist.
It rings true for me that Catholics only have to keep the Faith. I don't see it as self-evident that we laymen must figure out a solution to this Crisis. That's ludicrous. It sounds much more likely and truthful to me that God will solve the problem in His good time. What we MUST do, however, is withdraw ourselves from the wanton destruction (leave the conciliar structures) and keep our Faith -- since this might take a while (so far, it's taken 45 years and counting)
I believe embracing formal sedevacantism inflicts mortal wounds on the concept of authority -- that is why +Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, etc. "don't go there". But that's another discussion for another day.
Nevertheless, we mustn't downplay the Crisis to be some kind of "the pope just doesn't understand. Maybe we can help him understand!" No, it's much more grave than that.
And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis. But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.
I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.
-
Well....there are many flavors among SSPX chapel attendees. Even Fr. Laisney preached against Laudato Si.
-
You could replace "Papal encyclical" with "Pope" and we could have the same discussion -- it's the classic "To be Sede or not to be Sede" argument.
Not entirely. Msgr. Fenton focuses on the Encyclical because it's addressed to the Universal Church (vs. an allocution, Wednesday audience, off-the-cuff remarks on a plane, etc.)
Of course Catholics don't normally "rip" an encyclical -- or a Pope for that matter. But we're in a unique situation where the Pope -- the principle of unity -- has become a revolutionary and a principle of DISunity and a principle of rupture from the Catholic Faith. He has worked tirelessly to DESTROY the Catholic Church from within.
That this could be the case with regard to the Pope per se as a person, concedo. That this could be the case with regard to the Magisterium, nego. That's the blur that the old "faith is greater than obedience" dictum causes. What you're effectively saying here is that THE MAGISTERIUM has become a "principle of rupture from the Catholic Faith".
That is NOT CATHOLIC, Matthew. It completely blows away the indefectibility of the Church.
To me, it goes without saying that "dogmatic sedeplenism" is an error in this Crisis. No one has received from God the assurance that the recent popes are even popes.
Under normal circuмstances, Matthew, we DO have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of popes. Without that certainty of faith, we cannot have certainty of faith regarding any dogmas they promulgate either. That's why papal legitimacy is classified as a dogmatic fact.
In saying that we do not have divine assurance of papal legitimacy, then you are not in fact truly a sedeplenist. If you cannot aver legitimacy with the certainty of faith, then you are not a sedeplenist. You are a sede-doubtist, just like myself. And it is on the basis of such a doubt and only on the basis of such a doubt that we can justify a categorical refusal to submit to and give religious submission to the MAGISTERIUM. We are NOT talking about Popes, but about the MAGISTERIUM.
Msgr. Fenton articulates the same point I have been trying to make for years. We can talk all we want about whether or not any give line in Vatican II is strictly infallible. But that's missing the forest for the trees. It can NEVER HAPPEN that Catholics can jeopardize their faith by giving religious submission to the universal papal magisterium ... whether fallible or not. That's the principle of infallible safety.
I will quote salient points from the Msgr. Fenton article in a little bit.
Of course, the Sedevacntists also can't be dogmatic, since God hasn't told anyone that the recent popes are NOT popes. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly entertained the possibility, but for various reasons did not take the step of becoming sedevacantist.
Absolutely correct. And this is where I take the SVs to task. In fact, I have said that they do not have the right to consider these men deposed absent the authority of the Church ... the missing ingredient in SVism. Archbishop Lefebvre then is also in the category of sede-doubtist ... because he lacked the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of the V2 popes, a certainty that's automatically precluded by merely entertaining the POSSIBILITY of vacancy.
R&R dogmatic sedeplenism leads to Protestant Magisterium-sifting. Correct from the SV camp. But SVism leads to Protestant pope-sifting ... something which they fail to recognize.
I believe embracing formal sedevacantism inflicts mortal wounds on the concept of authority -- that is why +Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, etc. "don't go there". But that's another discussion for another day.
Absolutely agreed, Matthew. SVism completely ignores the role of "authority" in this entire matter. By sifting popes, no dogma is safe. Even if the pope were to declare a dogma that some Catholic found unpalatable, all he'd have to do is to state "Aha, see, that Pope must not be a pope because he just defined a false dogma." At that point the ultimate criterion for dogma becomes private judgment and the Magisterium becomes subjected to a constant convalidation feedback loop (not unlike the modernist concept of Magisterium). This is what I called the modus tollentis SV position whereby they argue a posteriori from a perceived false teaching to papal illegitimacy. It rules out any a priori certainty of faith regarding any given Church dogma.
And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis. But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.
If this were just hypothetical "philosophizing", I could hardly care less. What I'm more concerned with are the practical implications. When you create generations of Catholics who think it's OK or normal to essentially "flip off" any given Pope, you're starting to create something that's inherently non-Catholic. We must not get so mired in the notion of "rebellion" as to forget this. WE OWE AT LEAST RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION TO ALL THE TEACHINGS OF THE PAPAL MAGISTERIUM.
THIS is why the question is important, not because of hypothetical speculation regarding papal legitimacy.
I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.
Agreed. SVism solves absolutely nothing ... unless you think the crisis was solved by the election of Pope Bawden. I'm interested in the PRINCIPLES. Whatever we do in this crisis, we must not and cannot abandon Traditional Catholic principles regarding the papacy or even compromise in the least bit our sensus fidei regarding the attitude of respect, loyalty, and submission which we owe to the Magisterium of the Holy See. Be the Pope as a person the greatest scuмbag on the planet, the Magisterium remains unsullied by it.
-
As I've repeatedly mentioned, Father Chazal's position was music to my ears. He avoids both the R&R trap and the SV trap.
-
The issue is the efforts on behalf of SSPXism to protect the pope and his ideas from serious scrutiny.
Why are they concerned about this? There is likely nothing Catholic to be read in these letters, but there are however, modernist and marxist ideas masquerading as teaching.
Why would they not discourage the reading of these docuмents, as they can clearly infect souls with errors and worse?
This fellow, as were his recent predecessors, is a Modernist by any reasonable standard, and if a Modernist, then a Heretic, clearly demonstrated via Pacendi.
Who is interested in what a heretic has to teach? It should certainly not be a group which claims to defend Catholic truth.
They have nothing to teach except how to lose your Faith. Wolves among the sheep being led to the slaughter.
The Church and Her souls need to be defended against the wickedness of Modernists, and not sacrifice their innocence to please them.
The SSPX is on the bus!
-
From the "SSPX Faithful" Facebook group.
Vanessa Dredger is one of the Admins.
Vanessa Dredger
June 20 at 2:30pm · Union, KY
No further posts concerning the Pope's encyclical "Laudato Si" will be allowed on this page until further notice. An exception will be made for any posts on this topic from the SSPX website. This topic has been sufficiently discussed and moderated in previous posts below, which you may read through if you wish to join the conversation. As always, any flippant remarks will be immediately deleted.
Vanessa Dredger: Though your assumption that I have not read the complete encyclical from cover to cover is true: I've only read parts of it. I've been busy curtailing the flagrant dissension over it. I will say at as an admin of this page I have no more restraint in me to keep myself from taking action upon those who cannot follow the rules here. I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained. I will no longer babysit you as you sit and make this situation worse than it needs to be.
What exactly is "rampant" dissent? Lots of people being upset about something?
It's the rampant dissent from the SSPX rank and file...that's her real problem.
Mrs. Dredger is a School Administrator for the SSPX, in Kentucky, and her husband is a Vice Principal. Clearly, they toe the line and regurgitate the talking points from SSPX Corporate.
Another gatekeeper, making safe the ground for the revolution to continue.
Top shelf FSSP/Remnant stuff.
-
Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these docuмents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.
-
This comes down to the point of does this man speak with the authority of, and as the pontiff of, the Catholic Church, or does he speak as himself by the teaching "authority" of the conciliar entity, which in general, has departed from Catholic teaching and doctrine. and is untrustworthy.
Msgr, Fenton's references apply to the first, but, the second situation was not even conceived when these declarations were formulated, so paraphrasing what Father Hesse always said, "until he says something Catholic about Faith or Morals,.....I'm not interested".
-
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema."
"A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:"
Why can't theologians use these rules ?
-
[...]
And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis.
I resemble that remark!
But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.
I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.
What head-in-the-clouds philosophers? Just about every trad of which I am aware believes there is no move which can or should be made in the direction of restoration. Trads agree on almost nothing, but on this one issue, they are strangely unanimous. It has become a de fide tenet of the traddy faith that calls to action are grave error and tantamount to the rejection of prayer. The SSPX, SSPV, and even FSSP all walk in lockstep along with most others. What's to account for this improbably consensus? They have all fallen for the same bluff of invulnerability from a dog who is chained to a stake.
Nobody can know how long the bi-party, progressive establishment, which is highly self-destructive and even suicidal, will continue in power. More importantly, that should not be a primary concern. Instead, the only concern should be whether one is fulfilling his Catholic duty.
It is often said that there is no way to defend the Church today. However, that is only a sleight-of-hand covering the lack will to do so. Once a core Church Militant is reestablished, they will find no shortage of ways to defend the Faith and move toward eventual Church restoration.
Even a lone-wolf, individual Catholic has ways to fight for the Faith, such as by working to reestablish the Church Militant. All that's lacking is the will.
-
Unless you count "training ourselves to be militant Catholics" which means
becoming saints, or smashing as many bad habits/vices as possible and growing in the spiritual life
learning and knowing our Faith, including the liturgy, serving Mass, etc.
So we set a good example to those around us, and get them interested in Catholicism. We should be able to "give an answer when unbelievers ask for a reason for that hope that is in you" -- the mission statement of Apologetics.
But beyond that, I don't see what concrete steps we can take as organized groups to "restore the Church". The problem is too big. And I don't say that lightly.
It doesn't mean we can't do our best. But don't expect to fix the Crisis in the Church. It's a God-sized problem.
If there was some "programme" that we Trads have all overlooked, then WHY IN THE WORLD DIDN'T OUR LADY MENTION IT at Fatima or all the other recent apparitions? Hmmm?
The only thing she recommended was the Rosary, First Saturdays, penance, etc.
-
Unless you count "training ourselves to be militant Catholics" which means
becoming saints, or smashing as many bad habits/vices as possible and growing in the spiritual life
learning and knowing our Faith, including the liturgy, serving Mass, etc.
So we set a good example to those around us, and get them interested in Catholicism. We should be able to "give an answer when unbelievers ask for a reason for that hope that is in you" -- the mission statement of Apologetics.
But beyond that, I don't see what concrete steps we can take as organized groups to "restore the Church". The problem is too big. And I don't say that lightly.
It doesn't mean we can't do our best. But don't expect to fix the Crisis in the Church. It's a God-sized problem.
If there was some "programme" that we Trads have all overlooked, then WHY IN THE WORLD DIDN'T OUR LADY MENTION IT at Fatima or all the other recent apparitions? Hmmm?
The only thing she recommended was the Rosary, First Saturdays, penance, etc.
If Pope Francis converted and became a Catholic and then started trying to clean up the Vatican and bring tradition back, what would we do? Would we accept him as Pope and follow him? I do not know what I would do and what would the sedevacantists do? What if he ordered the SSPX Bishops to conditionally ordain and consecrate all of the faithful Novus Ordo Bishops who renounce modernism and follow him after his conversion? I don't think it will ever happen but what would we do if he did?
-
J Paul,
We may have disagreed on previous topics (in a semantic way) but I can't agree more with your statement below:
The issue is the efforts on behalf of SSPXism to protect the pope and his ideas from serious scrutiny. Why are they concerned about this? There is likely nothing Catholic to be read in these letters, but there are however, modernist and marxist ideas masquerading as teaching.
Why would they not discourage the reading of these docuмents, as they can clearly infect souls with errors and worse?
I just joined the "sspx" group on Facebook, because I heard the rumors of the crazy lady (and a few men, but mainly her) who was "administering" the site's posts. You've never seen the definition of "censorship" put in action until you see her posts. Any crazy little criticism of the sspx is defended, ridiculed, and argued about. It's beyond ridiculous and shows "blind obedience" to the nth degree. So sad.
But we see the same thing when it comes to US politics, so why am I surprised? I think it goes to show that when God wants to punish us, he gives us bad leaders....or NO leaders at all!!!!
Kyrie Elieson!!
-
Unless you count "training ourselves to be militant Catholics" which means
becoming saints, or smashing as many bad habits/vices as possible and growing in the spiritual life
learning and knowing our Faith, including the liturgy, serving Mass, etc.
So we set a good example to those around us, and get them interested in Catholicism. We should be able to "give an answer when unbelievers ask for a reason for that hope that is in you" -- the mission statement of Apologetics.
This is the foundation but not the entire building.
But beyond that, I don't see what concrete steps we can take as organized groups to "restore the Church".
Catholic guilds could be restored in the form of loose-knit corporations to become competitive and perhaps dominant it particular niches. Organizations resembling Catholic military orders could be restored and employed in the burgeoning security business.
Priest societies are necessary for the sacraments but cannot facilitate holistic Catholic living by themselves. Lay-dominated institutions as existed in traditional Catholic cultures are required for that. Such institutions could be restored today legally, without much risk, and with great reward. Objectively, one must admit this is possible because other groups have done the same. However, I would admit that such a movement will be an uphill battle because trads as a whole have no collective will to succeed. Collectively, trads seem to mirror the death-wish evident in the broader Western civilization collapsing around them.
I think the solution to this problem is for Catholics to consciously secede, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually, from the surrounding despair and to purposefully re-found Christendom as islands of order and life amidst the sea of chaos and death. Such a venture would require lay aristocratic leadership. (Aristocrats are those willing to take responsibility and able to deliver.)
The problem is too big. And I don't say that lightly.
It doesn't mean we can't do our best. But don't expect to fix the Crisis in the Church. It's a God-sized problem.
And is God not still with us? My argument is that collectively we are not doing our best or anything close to it. If this is true, then it is likely God will withhold portions of His grace until His faithful start pulling their weight again.
If there was some "programme" that we Trads have all overlooked, then WHY IN THE WORLD DIDN'T OUR LADY MENTION IT at Fatima or all the other recent apparitions? Hmmm?
The only thing she recommended was the Rosary, First Saturdays, penance, etc.
Does Our Lady of Fatima have to reiterate every jot and tittle of the bible and 2000 years Tradition? It is already firmly established that we have to defend the Church. Our Lady never said that has changed.
-
Columba,
I agree with you that some catholics aren't "pulling their weight"; this is apparent. And we could all say, in some degree, that we could do more.
But God doesn't require perfectionism in order to be saved. On the contrary, how many times has He revealed to his mystics that He enjoys and accepts "our will" even when we cannot fulfill it? For example, if we will to attend daily mass, but cannot, due to our daily work schedule.
Our desire for holy acts and sanctity makes God more happy than any "revolutionary" or "pro-Church" change that we could organize, achieve or proclaim, on our own. Because God blesses humility over ALL 1,000,000 + forms of pride that exist.
I'm not saying that you are promoting pride, I'm not saying you are promoting "actions" that don't need to happen, but I'm saying, for the vast majority of people, God would be pleased with their "daily duty", if they performed it well, and He doesn't require more than that. AND, He would bless the world if MORE would do their DAILY duty.
Peace be to you!
-
Unless you count "training ourselves to be militant Catholics" which means
becoming saints, or smashing as many bad habits/vices as possible and growing in the spiritual life
learning and knowing our Faith, including the liturgy, serving Mass, etc.
So we set a good example to those around us, and get them interested in Catholicism. We should be able to "give an answer when unbelievers ask for a reason for that hope that is in you" -- the mission statement of Apologetics.
This is the foundation but not the entire building.
But beyond that, I don't see what concrete steps we can take as organized groups to "restore the Church".
Catholic guilds could be restored in the form of loose-knit corporations to become competitive and perhaps dominant it particular niches. Organizations resembling Catholic military orders could be restored and employed in the burgeoning security business.
Priest societies are necessary for the sacraments but cannot facilitate holistic Catholic living by themselves. Lay-dominated institutions as existed in traditional Catholic cultures are required for that. Such institutions could be restored today legally, without much risk, and with great reward. Objectively, one must admit this is possible because other groups have done the same. However, I would admit that such a movement will be an uphill battle because trads as a whole have no collective will to succeed. Collectively, trads seem to mirror the death-wish evident in the broader Western civilization collapsing around them.
I think the solution to this problem is for Catholics to consciously secede, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually, from the surrounding despair and to purposefully re-found Christendom as islands of order and life amidst the sea of chaos and death. Such a venture would require lay aristocratic leadership. (Aristocrats are those willing to take responsibility and able to deliver.)
The problem is too big. And I don't say that lightly.
It doesn't mean we can't do our best. But don't expect to fix the Crisis in the Church. It's a God-sized problem.
And is God not still with us? My argument is that collectively we are not doing our best or anything close to it. If this is true, then it is likely God will withhold portions of His grace until His faithful start pulling their weight again.
If there was some "programme" that we Trads have all overlooked, then WHY IN THE WORLD DIDN'T OUR LADY MENTION IT at Fatima or all the other recent apparitions? Hmmm?
The only thing she recommended was the Rosary, First Saturdays, penance, etc.
Does Our Lady of Fatima have to reiterate every jot and tittle of the bible and 2000 years Tradition? It is already firmly established that we have to defend the Church. Our Lady never said that has changed.
A couple of upvotes doesn't adequately express my joy at reading such a refreshing post. Thank you, Columba.
-
Unless you count "training ourselves to be militant Catholics" which means
becoming saints, or smashing as many bad habits/vices as possible and growing in the spiritual life
learning and knowing our Faith, including the liturgy, serving Mass, etc.
So we set a good example to those around us, and get them interested in Catholicism. We should be able to "give an answer when unbelievers ask for a reason for that hope that is in you" -- the mission statement of Apologetics.
This is the foundation but not the entire building.
But beyond that, I don't see what concrete steps we can take as organized groups to "restore the Church".
Catholic guilds could be restored in the form of loose-knit corporations to become competitive and perhaps dominant it particular niches. Organizations resembling Catholic military orders could be restored and employed in the burgeoning security business.
Priest societies are necessary for the sacraments but cannot facilitate holistic Catholic living by themselves. Lay-dominated institutions as existed in traditional Catholic cultures are required for that. Such institutions could be restored today legally, without much risk, and with great reward. Objectively, one must admit this is possible because other groups have done the same. However, I would admit that such a movement will be an uphill battle because trads as a whole have no collective will to succeed. Collectively, trads seem to mirror the death-wish evident in the broader Western civilization collapsing around them.
I think the solution to this problem is for Catholics to consciously secede, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually, from the surrounding despair and to purposefully re-found Christendom as islands of order and life amidst the sea of chaos and death. Such a venture would require lay aristocratic leadership. (Aristocrats are those willing to take responsibility and able to deliver.)
The problem is too big. And I don't say that lightly.
It doesn't mean we can't do our best. But don't expect to fix the Crisis in the Church. It's a God-sized problem.
And is God not still with us? My argument is that collectively we are not doing our best or anything close to it. If this is true, then it is likely God will withhold portions of His grace until His faithful start pulling their weight again.
If there was some "programme" that we Trads have all overlooked, then WHY IN THE WORLD DIDN'T OUR LADY MENTION IT at Fatima or all the other recent apparitions? Hmmm?
The only thing she recommended was the Rosary, First Saturdays, penance, etc.
Does Our Lady of Fatima have to reiterate every jot and tittle of the bible and 2000 years Tradition? It is already firmly established that we have to defend the Church. Our Lady never said that has changed.
Exactly my position.
-
Columba,
I agree with you that some catholics aren't "pulling their weight"; this is apparent. And we could all say, in some degree, that we could do more.
But God doesn't require perfectionism in order to be saved. On the contrary, how many times has He revealed to his mystics that He enjoys and accepts "our will" even when we cannot fulfill it? For example, if we will to attend daily mass, but cannot, due to our daily work schedule.
Our desire for holy acts and sanctity makes God more happy than any "revolutionary" or "pro-Church" change that we could organize, achieve or proclaim, on our own. Because God blesses humility over ALL 1,000,000 + forms of pride that exist.
I'm not saying that you are promoting pride, I'm not saying you are promoting "actions" that don't need to happen, but I'm saying, for the vast majority of people, God would be pleased with their "daily duty", if they performed it well, and He doesn't require more than that. AND, He would bless the world if MORE would do their DAILY duty.
Peace be to you!
In the time of the Battle of Lepanto, organized by the pope to save Europe from being overrun by Muslims, there was no tension between action and prayer. Those praying the Rosary did not consider themselves more pleasing to God than those who gave their lives at sea, nor the other way around. One can take heroic action without becoming prideful and, when the situation calls for it, one is obligated to do so.
The current ongoing succession of bad or fraudulent popes may indicate that God is displeased with Catholics today. If you could transport to the present a Catholic from the time of Lepanto or any other time prior to the mid-Twentieth Century, they would almost certainly diagnose our main problem as a failure to act. I think a subtle brain-washing has almost universally blinded even the most pious of modern Catholics in this regard.
-
Does Our Lady of Fatima have to reiterate every jot and tittle of the bible and 2000 years Tradition? It is already firmly established that we have to defend the Church. Our Lady never said that has changed.
Yes, but she could have said SOMETHING along the lines of
"Act now, my children, and be of good heart"
or something optimistic or call-to-action.
All she said was that her Immaculate Heart would triumph, and that we were to pray and do penance for sinners, especially the Rosary and Five First Saturdays.
Yes, she couldn't state every obvious thing. But SOMETHING along the lines of "get out of your depression, Catholics!"
"stop warming your seats and re-take Christendom!"
or something along those lines, if that was the path God wanted us to take.
And how can you criticize the entire body of Trad-dom, from the first to the last?
You realize, of course, that many of us thought of those things a long time ago, but there aren't enough of us, or we're too spread out. It sounds great when conceived (in the ivory tower), but on the ground it's not so feasible.
Just for starters, when the shepherd is struck you have no unity among Catholics. Or at least not much. Look at CathInfo over the years. Look how many can't get along here. Everyone strong enough to keep the Faith is strong enough to have strong opinions of his own, which he is quite partial to.
The devil keeps us fighting among ourselves, so we can't mount any sort of counter-attack. But remember the world keeps us pretty busy (and relatively poor) too, so our available resources are minimal.
The Millennial generation is having a hard time moving out of Mom's house, let alone getting married or getting well established. How can they change the world when they can't even find work?
-
She could also have warned us about the Jєωs, but, to my knowledge, she never has. Maybe because there would have been nothing new about this need to be on guard against them. But that would also apply to having to act. That might have also been taken for granted.
A very good priest once said we're all effected by the freemasonic, modernist, etc., culture we live in, and one difference between the elect and the damned is in whether we recognized how these evils effect us personally, and of course, how we resisted them.
I don't think anyone is saying that we should all involve ourselves in some particular kind of activity. I'm sure that many of you here already do enough.
-
Our Lord himself, clearly warned against these malcontents, as does Sacred Scripture. "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees", such a small bit can poison the whole body.
Some of us are aware and wary, which is a requisite if one wishes to avoid being seduced or overwhelmed by the poisoned world in which we are living.
Beware the "errors of Russia" is a clear enough warning to those who are listening.
A dire warning and prediction which was made at the very moment when that unfortunate country was already under the assault of the Bolshevik revolutionaries sent among them by the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.
She warned, too few heard, and the foul leaven reached into Vatican II, and even beyond the Vatican, where the sins of the flesh are rampant and the loss of souls has been catastrophic, just as She predicted.
The conciliar now Church leads souls away from Christ the Master and into a demon filled world.
-
This really is a good topic for its own thread
"Catholic Action"
But it seems to me that we are SO outnumbered in this world, that talking about "conquering" is more or less crazy-talk.
At best, we can survive by guerilla warfare. But anything more ambitious than that is crazy talk.
Just look at how few chapels the Resistance has. Throw in some sedevacantist chapels, and how many REAL traditionalists are left out there? How many haven't compromised with the modern world and made peace with Vatican II?
How many places can't get a Resistance priest, because A) they are so rare, and B) they don't have enough faithful in a given area to support a priest coming even once a month.
Like I said -- we're vastly outnumbered. Our pagan neighbors DON'T WANT the yoke of Christ. It's a hard sell. The modern world is so far from Christ, that its denizens want no part of self-abnegation, sacrifice, and practice of Christian virtue.
That's why many wise prelates like +Williamson are expecting a chastisement to set things right. Anything short of that would be vain politics, doomed to fail.
How do you get people to put down the iPads and Xboxes, and turn off the TVs and other screens? Only the power going out FOR GOOD will ever force them. And it will take forcing them. They're all too addicted.
-
But it seems to me that we are SO outnumbered in this world, that talking about "conquering" is more or less crazy-talk.
That's why many wise prelates like +Williamson are expecting a chastisement to set things right. Anything short of that would be vain politics, doomed to fail.
Yes. I do not think it is likely for the world to become Catholic without divine intervention. There are so few true Catholics left to convert people. Maybe 100 thousand out of seven billion. That's not much.
-
I just think it's crazy when, every so often, you get some antsy pro-action sort that says, "What's the matter with the WHOLE of Tradition? You're all a bunch of depressed losers! Get off your ___es! Let's starts some guilds! Raise an army! Let's not let those __stards win! Let's physically take back all the churches!
etc."
But this same sort is lacking in one department: reliance on God's strength (rather than our own) and humility (maybe ALL the trads are right, and it's me that's wrong)
Perhaps there's a REASON why we haven't started a new militant Catholic order with branches all over the world.
Maybe we all have LEGITIMATE excuses why we haven't "done more". I don't think these action-heroes realize just what a challenge it is JUST to raise a family and keep everyone Catholic in this world. You have to homeschool, that takes a lot of time. The whole world is against you, that's a huge challenge. How many of us have extended family we can rely on? Less than 1% of us. Many of us are the only Trads in our extended families. At best, some of us managed to find a spouse and start a Trad Catholic family. But there's a lot of isolation.
That really limits what you can do. It's like expecting survivalists (who try to rely on themselves for everything) to create beautiful architecture such as a cathedral. No, they're lucky to make their own food, meat, soap, clothing, etc. and don't have leisure for anything else.
Until you get a FEW families, you can't start specializing and making masterpieces of art -- or politics.
Catholics today are spiritual lone-wolf survivalists. And just study survivalism for a few days -- you'll quickly conclude that FEW can actually do it successfully. How many are cut out to be a jack-of-all-trades renaissance man? Likewise, many Catholics are barely making it as spiritual "lone-wolf survivalists".
Don't get me wrong -- they've been thrown into the role involuntarily, so God will provide. But you certainly can't get your hopes up.
They're in a bunker mentality because they face 10000 to 1 opposition, that's why! Hunkering down in a bunker is the only way in that situation! What did they do at the Alamo?
The world today is every bit as corrupt as Sodom and Gomorrha, or the world before the flood. Actually, it might be worse. That isn't my opinion either, but that of a famous saint. I'm bad with names though; maybe someone can fill in the blank.
-
It is my personal belief that the world is worse now than it ever was since Christ's time and that fewer souls are saved now than at any point in the past, since the crucifixion. I believe the main reason for this is because the Church had been taken over by the devil and turned into a Church of devil-worship with only a small remnant of the true Church remaining almost in hiding. Remember the New Mass was created by a Freemason and Freemasons are devil-worshipers so the Novus Ordo is truly a devil-worshiping sect (though it doesn't admit this openly and pretends to be the Catholic Church).
-
The whole of the Western world is as was, Wiemar Germany in 1930, a picture of Sodom and Gomorrah, a window into the hopelessness of hell.
And the Lord will reward me according to my justice; and will repay me according to the cleanness of my hands: Because I have kept the ways of the Lord; and have not done wickedly against my God. For till his judgments are in my sight: and his justices I have not put away from me. And I shall be spotless with him: and shall keep myself from my iniquity. And the Lord will reward me according to my justice; and according to the cleanness of my hands before his eyes.
With the holy, thou wilt be holy; and with the innocent man thou wilt be innocent. And with the elect thou wilt be elect: and with the perverse thou wilt be perverted.
-
And how can you criticize the entire body of Trad-dom, from the first to the last?
If one citizen sees over the city walls the dust of an approaching army that is too far away for anyone else to see, should he be silent? No.
I believe I see that the enemy has successfully deployed a subtle strategy of demoralization against us. Even if nobody else sees this, I will speak out. The enemy has deep knowledge concerning subtleties of the mind, heart, and spirit that increasingly superficial generations have now long forgotten. This leaves us defenseless against even the most simplistic of deceptions for which our ancestors never could have fallen.
I myself and all trads I know have been deeply imbued with liberalism since before we came out of the womb. This weeds in this garden are like a thick forest of trees with deep roots. The only solution is a wholesale replacement of modern sensibilities with the mindset of pre-liberal civilizations.
For instance, we have to varying degrees swallowed the wholly fraudulent principles of democracy and equality such that we are incapable of forming effective organizations except for those that are religious. Yes, we retain a remnant of Catholic traditional hierarchy and aristocracy in our religious institutions but the way we approach making a living and political organization is entirely modernist because we are too blinded to perceive the necessary alternative.
Modernist egalitarianism has blinded us to the necessity of groups consisting solely of men without exception. Not only must women be kept out but also kept largely ignorant of male group activities. This was the uniform practice of pre-liberal civilizations and so we must do the same. Actually there are very important and practical reasons for this policy but giving voice to them in post-"Enlightenment" society could produce accusations of criminal insanity. Nevertheless, I proceed.
All-male organizations spontaneously form into hierarchies with those most able rising to the top and those less able cheerfully following orders of the leadership for the greater good of all. If women are allowed to observe this process, they become uncontrollably attracted to the highest ranking men as toward celebrities and despising of the lower.
Thus, a lower-ranking married man will begin to experience trouble at home if his wife is allowed too close an observation of his status. In such a mixed environment, lower-ranking men begin to resent their status and those in leadership are tempted exercise power more ostentatiously as a way to further attract the ladies. The lower-ranking man is thereby motivated to separate in search of "freedom" and to avoid being the "sucker."
Catholic men as unnaturally atomized and alienated individuals will always be weaker, poorer, and less inspired than those connected in a natural state of brotherhood. sɛҳuąƖ egalitarianism is only one of the many modernist mind viruses preventing such organization, but it serves as a signal example. Putting oneself in the shoes of a time traveler from the Twelfth Century can make apparent the many ways Catholics today have been deceptively convinced to self-sabotage.
You say that trads cannot get along with those whom they disagree, but every day they go to work alongside pagans, liberals, and perhaps even trannies. Would you really be so adverse to collaborating with an organization that included sedes and accordistas if it enabled you to better support your family and your wife could not see from whom you were taking orders?
-
Columba,
I believe I see that the enemy has successfully deployed a subtle strategy of demoralization against us. Even if nobody else sees this, I will speak out. The enemy has deep knowledge concerning subtleties of the mind, heart, and spirit that increasingly superficial generations have now long forgotten. This leaves us defenseless against even the most simplistic of deceptions for which our ancestors never could have fallen.
This is the truth. A true sense of combat has disappeared from among us, as it was slowly replaced by the thoughts and "feelings" which are alien to the Christian spirit.
In most cases you are speaking to ears that can no longer hear or recognize the speech of what you are are proposing. It is a long ago forgotten vocabulary.
Take heart, I said most, but, not all.
I was cast upon thee from the womb. From my mother' s womb thou art my God, Depart not from me. For tribulation is very near: for there is none to help me.
-
But it seems to me that we are SO outnumbered in this world, that talking about "conquering" is more or less crazy-talk.
That's why many wise prelates like +Williamson are expecting a chastisement to set things right. Anything short of that would be vain politics, doomed to fail.
Yes. I do not think it is likely for the world to become Catholic without divine intervention. There are so few true Catholics left to convert people. Maybe 100 thousand out of seven billion. That's not much.
It can be depressing to think of the state of the Church and how few are practicing the faith but I remember reading from the life of St John Vianney, that the devil told him that if there were just two more priests in the world like him in sanctity then his power in the world would be broken. That is encouraging to think on. It isn't all about the numbers, we need to be saints and God will do the rest!
Keep the Holy Catholic faith, pray the Holy Rosary daily (the weapon as Padre Pio said) and trust compete in the Providence of God.
-
But it seems to me that we are SO outnumbered in this world, that talking about "conquering" is more or less crazy-talk.
That's why many wise prelates like +Williamson are expecting a chastisement to set things right. Anything short of that would be vain politics, doomed to fail.
Yes. I do not think it is likely for the world to become Catholic without divine intervention. There are so few true Catholics left to convert people. Maybe 100 thousand out of seven billion. That's not much.
We should not be concerned over whether we can conquer or convert the world, only with conquering and converting ourselves. What God does with us after that is entirely up to Him.
-
It isn't all about the numbers, we need to be saints and God will do the rest!
Inordinate concern over numbers indicates unconscious acceptance of the error and falsehood of democracy. Doctrinaire democracy stands condemned by the popes:
Indeed, very many men ... say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.
Leo XIII--DIUTURNUM--ON THE ORIGIN OF CIVIL POWER (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061881_diuturnum.html)
History repeatedly demonstrates that the most powerful forces on earth are hierarchically-ordered groups of Catholic men with leadership looking upward to the hierarchy of Heaven. All power is miniscule next to that of God. Armies fully and properly aligned with His will simply cannot lose.
-
Ok, let me play devils advocate here. All of you preaching Catholic Action and rebuilding the guilds and all of this, i'm all for it, and IN THEORY, it's a great idea. But how do we do it, PRACTICALLY? I think that's what Matthew and I are arguing, the practicality of it.
But, as you say, God will bless efforts if we start. I don't want to be pessimistic and use that as an excuse to be lazy.
But the main problem, and a MAJOR difference between now and "Lepanto" times is that we catholics have no leader. We're fragmented (to put it mildly).
So, who's gonna lead this movement? More importantly, who's gonna FOLLOW the leader? What's the plan? I cannot be more serious when i say that i will help in any way I can.
-
Pax Vobis,
But the main problem, and a MAJOR difference between now and "Lepanto" times is that we catholics have no leader. We're fragmented (to put it mildly).
There is a primary problem in this whole crisis. There are no leaders in what should be the Church Militant of this world.
-
Someone should start a thread in the mens' forum on all-male organizations, if he hasn't already. I would like to think something will come of this great idea.
-
After some thought on this, I think there should be a movement to "re-promote" the following devotions, at each church/chapel, in each state, in each country, all over the world:
1. Daily Rosary - I know, it seems basic, but how many catholics are there that don't say 5 mysteries daily. If we only knew, my gut tells me we'd be shocked.
2. First Saturday Mass - We need to re-promote the Fatima message. I know that at my chapel, first saturdays are MORE attended than at other saturdays, but it's still below 40% of sunday mass attendance. We need REPARATIONS! It brings MERCY.
3. As others have mentioned, there are other "societies" that we could setup. The Holy Face "society" where prayers are said each Sunday, in reparation for blasphemies, profanation of Sundays/Holydays, etc would be one that people could stay after mass on sundays and be a part of.
Many of these things do not require people to come BACK to church. They are a good reminder for them to do AT HOME and it gets people ENERGIZED for the faith, because they are part of a group.
Many times, in our day and age, we lose our hope because the devil has made us all to feel "alone" or "separated". These types of groups can fix that. And they are simple and for the lay society that is a large part of traditional catholicism today.
-
Ok, let me play devils advocate here. All of you preaching Catholic Action and rebuilding the guilds and all of this, i'm all for it, and IN THEORY, it's a great idea. But how do we do it, PRACTICALLY? I think that's what Matthew and I are arguing, the practicality of it.
But, as you say, God will bless efforts if we start. I don't want to be pessimistic and use that as an excuse to be lazy.
We have no power to reform the existing governments and culture of Western nations, yet we do currently have the power to internally secede to varying degrees from the dominant culture. The goal of this movement should be to facilitate such in-place or virtual secession to a much greater degree than is now practical. For the purpose of this post, I will refer to this movement as the Catholic Cultural Reconstruction (CCR). A successful CCR movement would start to rebuild Catholic alternatives for:
1. Secular corporate and governmental employment
Example: Facilitate development and promote the patronization of guild-member businesses especially family business to begin while the main bread-winner is still conventionally employed.
2. Career education, training, and apprenticeship
Example: Guild-members with marketable skills could compile training materials such as publications, videos and software for preparing aspirants to join their field. Members could profit by hand-picking the most able of the aspirants for workers in their own consulting businesses.
Much of engineering these days involves the specialized use of powerful engineering software. A bright junior guild-member who took the time to learn software like AutoCad, MathCad, LabView, Solidworks, Flow-3D, HydroCad, ArcGIS, PetroMod, etc. could be a great asset to senior guild-member's engineering consultancy. This software is usually expensive but can be obtained for free or at a discount for educational purposes. The senior member could start his consultancy part-time while he was still employed or have a guild-brother start it if there were contractual impediments with his employer. Members seeking a mid-life career change could also benefit from such an arrangement.
Software programmers along with systems, network, and database administrators would be even more able to train junior partners because there is so much free and low-cost online material for available for training, almost too much. So trainees would greatly benefit from experienced mentors curating a curriculum for them based on what is really most demanded in the current marketplace.
Electricians, HVAC technicians, auto mechanics, and many other trades could also train or partially train apprentices in this way.
3. Hollywood/pop music entertainment
Example: Train and promote classical and folk musician and collaborate to develop small-time, traditional-themed video productions. Entertainment may not seem like a high priority but Hollywood and pop music serve as powerful vectors for incrementally corrupting the minds of everyone and especially the youth. Many trad families imagine they can screen Hollywood movies to allow only the "good ones" but they are naive. Their faith may survive but will almost certainly be weakened. We need more who are powerful in the faith instead of just hanging on.
Collaborative studio production of music and video can take place remotely over the internet. Guilds should prioritize the patronage of traditionalist audio and video productions so that Catholic culture may once again flourish through the medium of art.
4. Central bank currencies
Example: Creating a Bitcoin-style crypto currency for particular interest groups is technically feasible and increasingly commonplace. Central banks literally "make" money and lend it to us at interest. Why not do the same for ourselves internally?
5. Food and consumer goods
Example: Guild-affiliated suppliers and co-ops
But the main problem, and a MAJOR difference between now and "Lepanto" times is that we catholics have no leader. We're fragmented (to put it mildly).
This issue is frequently brought up so let's analyze. The man the world recognizes as pope is heard breezily implying that "gαy" is okay and stating countless other outrages. Whatever our position on the legitimacy of his office, we trads do not follow in the direction he is leading or if we do then to that extent we are not traditional. When the king cannot lead, a steward or stewards are appointed. Traditionalist priest societies are providing stewardship in the religious sphere, but what of the temporal? The necessary temporal component for the Social Kingship of Christ has been mostly dormant for considerably longer than 1965. The prolonged temporal power vacuum may have made the 1960's religious collapse practically inevitable.
A fruitful CCR movement would decrease the vacuum in the temporal sphere as priest societies currently do in the religious.
So, who's gonna lead this movement? More importantly, who's gonna FOLLOW the leader? What's the plan? I cannot be more serious when i say that i will help in any way I can.
Who's gonna lead? Let's take a vote! (Just kidding.)
As a people seeking to throw off the tyrannical yoke of "Enlightenment" and the errors which led to it, we may find the currently dominant ideologies of political organization to be insufficient. We should demand a higher standard of leadership such as was enjoyed in healthier times. If the CCR movement begins to bear fruit, it will draw many newcomers to the faith. Some will see joining a guild as a pathway to wealth and power but will care little for the Church mission. Such people cannot be kept out of the church and will be difficult to keep out of the guilds entirely.
To deter the slide toward laxity which so often plagues traditionalist groups, we must erect safeguards in the form of barriers to positions of leadership. Untested newcomers should not be able to vote one of their own to guild leadership. Only those possessing the greatest aristocratic qualities of proven faith and ability should be allowed in the highest leadership positions and those of medium aristocratic qualities in the mid-level positions.
If we were fighting physical battles, then those most warlike would simply gravitate to the top. In our technological society, we must devise other means of determining rank. I have suggestions of how this might work but each guild would have to develop its own ranking system by trial and error. One method might be a weighted points scale measuring aristocratic qualities. Such qualities objectively measurable could include:
1. Faithfulness as measured by daily mass attendance.
2. Wealth as measured by religious donations and patronage of guild-affiliated businesses.
3. Seniority
4. Age
5. Number of children and grandchildren (overall, those who keep the faith, and those who join a guild)
6. Technical skills
7. Martial arts competition
8. Marksmanship
9. Worldly wisdom determined in chess or poker tournaments
10. Intelligence as measured by IQ score
11. Father or grandfather having membership in a guild
12. Parents and grandparents having the faith
13. Weight-lifting competition
There are many other potential measurements of aristocracy. Guild founders and leadership could weight the measurements according to whom they wished to see rise in rank for the purpose of ensuring worthy successors. Such a system might not pick the best leader but it probably would not pick the worst. If the leadership of a guild liberalized or became incompetent, lower-ranking members could break off and form their own guild. Some guilds might include all trad types while others might be sede or indult exclusive. However, I anticipate that most guilds will maintain business and cultural ties with the central CCR movement for the financial benefits alone, if nothing else.
-
So we shouldn't discuss how Pope Francis condemns transgenderism and abortion as evil in Laudatio Si?
-
So we shouldn't discuss how Pope Francis condemns transgenderism and abortion as evil in Laudatio Si?
No, not at all. If he gets it right 5% of the time, or even 90% of the time, that doesn't even come close to salvaging his papacy. So unless he denies 100% of Catholic doctrine, he's a good guy?
-
So we shouldn't discuss how Pope Francis condemns transgenderism and abortion as evil in Laudatio Si?
Being that his writings contain much that is doubtful, in a Catholic sense, and that he holds many erroneous positions, reading his letters can only confuse and endanger a true Catholic, and there is no good reason to read them at all.
Whatever he might say that is true, is always mixed in with conciliar falsehoods.
-
Ok, let me play devils advocate here. All of you preaching Catholic Action and rebuilding the guilds and all of this, i'm all for it, and IN THEORY, it's a great idea. But how do we do it, PRACTICALLY? I think that's what Matthew and I are arguing, the practicality of it.
But, as you say, God will bless efforts if we start. I don't want to be pessimistic and use that as an excuse to be lazy.
But the main problem, and a MAJOR difference between now and "Lepanto" times is that we catholics have no leader. We're fragmented (to put it mildly).
So, who's gonna lead this movement? More importantly, who's gonna FOLLOW the leader? What's the plan? I cannot be more serious when i say that i will help in any way I can.
Pax, I have answered you with a detailed plan on what I consider a practical strategy for rebuilding the guilds. Any thoughts?
-
Hi Columba,
I think all your ideas are great but I can't really comment/connect with them because I am not self employed, and I have no opportunity to train/be trained in any areas that would benefit from a "guild" type industry. Further, as the economy increasingly is concentrated and merged to become a monopolistic one, I see that self employment will become harder, not easier. Not trying to be pessimistic, just realistic. But for those that do exist, starting a catholic network of catholic businesses is a great idea.
Apart from this area, which you seem to be very focused, what else can we do? Certainly the realm of employment is not the only thing we can "re-Catholicize".