CI-

Hopefully by now, I have written enough on the subject of my concerns regarding the recent orientation of Menzingen to draft a thread on this subject, without running the risk of being accused of being soft or compromised.

But it seems to me that some lack a properly Catholic spirit in the manner in which they post on the crisis within the SSPX.

It seems to me a proper spirit would be at perfect liberty to:

1) Compare/contrast current v previous statements and positions;

2) To voice concerns over phrases, interviews, communiques, etc which appear to present a danger to the Faith;

3) Even to denounce those who have done so, if this can be done without ad hominem.

To do these things represents no injustice to the SSPX, or members thereof.

On the contrary, it is a charitable rebuke, and in justice is done publicly because the perceived damage was done publicly.

That said, we must ask ourselves whether we post on sites like this because we want to convert the other side, or simply vent and rant.

Consider this post (taken today from another forum):

"Well , father Rostand. Nowadays, there is paypal. No problem. I put my money where my mouth is, all of it going to the Holy Resistance. They never threaten with holding the sacraments if you don't give money, like yourself."

In this case, this person has committed multiple sins in a single post:

1) He has accused Fr. Rostand of simony, which is calumny;

2) He has sinned against justice in making this allegation without supporting evidence;

At this point you need to ask yourself the question: What will be the effect upon the subject?

Certainly it will not be a good disposition toward the resistance!

That this person and I happen to share the same conclusion (i.e., The new orientation in Menzingen should be resisted, for reasons stated elsewhere), certainly does not mean we share the same spirit.

One of the reasons I started posting in my own name was to help ensure I did not fly off the handle, and descend into mud-slinging contests, such as that evinced in the quote posted.

We are not free to "T-off" without regard to moral theology simply because someone is on the other side.

And when this person should someday receive a letter in the mail informing him that he is no longer welcome at his SSPX chapel (if he goes to one), how will he defend himself as being the victim of injustice?

As I understand it, having recently spoke with an SSPX priest on the matter, we would be allowed to voice our concerns, lay out contradictions, repudiate error, etc, so long as all of this can be done without sin (i.e., insults, ad hominems; etc), and in such cases it would not be just for the SSPX to ban us from our chapels, since it is only by notorious public sin that moral theology would support a ban.

The whole point is that as Catholics, we should have a certain savoir faire in airing our concerns.

Are my arguments any less forceful because I choose not to incorporate allegations of simony, etc?

My way has the chance of receiving a fair hearing, keeping a properly Catholic spirit, and continued attendance at my chapel.

The other way, such as quoted above, probably loses all three.

And if we should violate this higher standard from time to time by getting caught up in the heat of battle, let us at least acknowledge it and try to correct the damage.

Just saying...

Great post!

To whomever gave the thumbs-down:

Which part of what I said do you take issue with?

Without defending your thumb-down, you leave the impression that you simply prefer an invective spirit to a Catholic one.

Consider this post (taken today from another forum):

"Well , father Rostand. Nowadays, there is paypal. No problem. I put my money where my mouth is, all of it going to the Holy Resistance. They never threaten with holding the sacraments if you don't give money, like yourself."

In this case, this person has committed multiple sins in a single post:

1) He has accused Fr. Rostand of simony, which is calumny;

2) He has sinned against justice in making this allegation without supporting evidence;

At this point you need to ask yourself the question: What will be the effect upon the subject?

Not necessarily. What about intent? I didn't interpret it in the manner you do. Perhaps there is supporting evidence.

Voicing Concerns About the SSPX

My understanding is all is ok within the SSPX. A couple of rebels are causing trouble but apart from that there is confidence in Bishop Fellay and Menzingen. There is no deal nor will there be a deal and please ignore the wackos and never read Cath Info.

The neoSSPX operates just like a cult from the top.  They seek to have a monopoly on information, don't want their faithful (or their priests for that matter) to be using the internet or thinking for themselves, they're wasting money and let's not forget they've arranged for the train to be on the wrong tracks, heading in the wrong direction.  They're conditioning the laity into a groupthink and a herd mentality.  Not a bad thing when the principles are based on Catholic dotrine, but here they're based on unquestioning and unconditional allegiance to authority.  It's like Alladin on the flying carpet-- "trust me."  

They seek to have a monopoly on information, don't want their faithful (or their priests for that matter) to be using the internet or thinking for themselves

I experienced this. As I said before yes we should be cautious what we read on the internet and some material is false but when I did phone up the SSPX, I had nothing to gain but everything to lose including my good name and reputation.

I got the be careful what you read on the internet from the cleric but when I presented evidence that (a) can be  substantiated with (b) based on information that is factual and in public domain, the cleric then stated he would speak with his Superior and took on board my valid concerns.

At I not pressed the issue, he would have been happy to have dismissed me as a child, who had read internet rumour. Sadly the "internet rumour" was the truth.

I have no issue with urging caution with what is available on the internet but assume people think for themselves and discern and know the facts.

I presented facts to the SSPX cleric, who to be fair stated he would discuss with his superior.

The reason the SSPX has gone so badly off the rails is because of conditioning to accept cultish behavior, scape-goating, ostracism, dishonesty, and an extreme degree of controlling behavior.  None of that is good or necessary for people united by Faith.  It is necessary for control.  A cultish obsession with control is the reason why the group is in the sad state that it's in.  It's why people care more about going along with the group than about the principle the group was founded upon.