Author Topic: Want to make - 1 page popular PDF about Traditional Chapels justification (Read 1199 times)

Matthew · « **on:** March 20, 2016, 01:05:27 PM »

It bothers me that

* some neo-SSPX priests are telling their Faithful (in confession, etc.) that they "do not advise" going to other Traditional Catholic chapels not in union with the SSPX.
* some neo-SSPX faithful act as if leaving their neo-SSPX chapel for an independent chapel is equivalent to leaving the Church
* some neo-SSPX faithful seem to believe that the neo-SSPX today is equivalent to the mainstream Catholic Church in 1970. That is to say, to leave your "default parish" requires a serious reason, like dancing in the pews, rather than any old reason, such as "I prefer this other chapel better."
* In short, many in the neo-SSPX consider their organization to have jurisdiction and/or to BE the Catholic Church, such that leaving it is inherently disobedient, schismatic, or even mortally sinful.

Obviously this is wrong, and I'd like to correct that in a clear, concise manner.

And these are not just any Independent chapels either -- we're talking about the neo-SSPX priest(s) in San Antonio advising parishioners away from St. Dominic's Chapel, where Fr. Zendejas and Fr. Garcia are pastors.

Now Frs. Zendejas and Garcia are 100% rock-solid as to their formation, the validity of their ordination, and even their reputation!

I'd *love* to press him for reasons, because there's no possible justification for him to say this, outside of the truth: "Don't go there, pretty please, they're my competition! We'll miss your money... I mean, your family!"

Anyhow, as usual, I like to cover all my bases and meet any "objections", however ignorant. So for anyone who has been fooled (or is honestly wondering about this), I'd like to give them a refresher on the basis for the Trad movement, including our right to attend Tridentine Mass chapels outside the normal diocesan structures, due to the Crisis in the Church.

As always, I'm mostly concerned with any innocent lamb(s) of good will being deceived by this bunch. Obviously some are simply making malicious excuses for their own compromises/evil, and I can't really help them except by praying for them.

Specifically what I'm asking for from you (the CathInfo membership) is any good quotes from +ABL about this. Notice that all sides acknowledge the power of +ABL's testimony, even today. Some complain that we're putting too much emphasis on this one man, but I'm passing over that argument for now. The reality is what it is. When you're in marketing, you don't complain about how illogical human psychology is -- you use it to your advantage! Both the neo-SSPX and the Resistance leans heavily on +ABL and being in continuity with him. His persona still carries a lot of weight, and that's a fact. Long story short, I want to include some +ABL quotes because I acknowledge the reality (for good or ill) that many SSPX/Resistance Catholics still look up to him very much and hold him up as a model.

(Personally, I have no problem with continued veneration of +Lefebvre. I personally believe he went straight to heaven, and that he will someday be canonized after the Crisis of the Church is over.)

I have some of the Crisis in the Church type books +ABL wrote, but it's hard to find the good stuff without a digital search function like Google.

So if there's any point, argument, quote, etc. you think I should include in this concise, popular-level, 1-page, easy-to-read PDF on this topic, please respond to this thread and chime in.

Thanks!

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** March 20, 2016, 01:10:22 PM »

"Not in union with the SSPX"?

Sounds like these people have established a new church.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** March 20, 2016, 01:21:24 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

"Not in union with the SSPX"?

Sounds like these people have established a new church.

I know, right?

SSPX priest: "Mr. faithful of this canonically irregular chapel, I do not advise you to go to that other canonically irregular chapel. Because...reasons. Or...I mean...that priest was ordained without approval from Rome just like I was...by the same bishop...with the same training...I mean... err...um....just obey and trust me, because I said so!!!"

wallflower · « **Reply #3 on:** March 20, 2016, 02:01:26 PM »

I do not have the quotes you're looking for but I must point out that the SSPX has always been like this. It's something people have complained about (and we have defended, I might add) for years.

The problem is that when they discourage attendance at the Fraternity or the Sedevacantist chapels, those differences in philosophy towards the crisis are easier to point out and discourage. The line between the SSPX and the Resistance is so much finer that it's tough for them to justify discouraging attendance. "Oh that Resistance! Wanting doctrinal solution before practical agreements! So misleading!" I mean, really, what can they say? The only effective argument against the Resistance is the lie about schism or sedevacantism etc... And we know very unfortunately that that is not above some of the priests. The more honest ones will have a tougher time of it and rightly so. But their solution seems to depend on the, ahem, virtues of obedience and prudence.

Whatever you say in a nutshell you have to include the Resistance's raison d'etre. Clarify that +Fellay thinks the SSPX can be safe with a practical agreement whereas +ABL in the end knew that only Rome's conversion would keep the SSPX safe. So the Resistance is in effect that part of the SSPX that is holding out for the conversion of Rome whereas +Fellay believes an SSPX agreement will help bring about the conversion of Rome. Opposing quotes would amazing if you could find them.

Whatever view appeals to people (be they following their heads, their hearts, their guts, their ideals, their hopes or dreams) is where they will go. But clarity on the differences is what's going to draw people who think alike. After all that's what always drew and still draws people to the SSPX instead of the Fraternity or sedes.

cathman7 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 20, 2016, 02:02:29 PM »

Ironically, I am sure you could find various principles in Bishop Tissier de Mallerais' own study of supplied jurisdiction for the pdf in defense of Fr. Zendejas/Garcia's chapel.

McCork · « **Reply #5 on:** March 20, 2016, 02:38:50 PM »

Quote from: wallflower

I do not have the quotes you're looking for but I must point out that the SSPX has always been like this. It's something people have complained about (and we have defended, I might add) for years.

The problem is that when they discourage attendance at the Fraternity or the Sedevacantist chapels, those differences in philosophy towards the crisis are easier to point out and discourage. The line between the SSPX and the Resistance is so much finer that it's tough for them to justify discouraging attendance. "Oh that Resistance! Wanting doctrinal solution before practical agreements! So misleading!" I mean, really, what can they say? The only effective argument against the Resistance is the lie about schism or sedevacantism etc... And we know very unfortunately that that is not above some of the priests. The more honest ones will have a tougher time of it and rightly so. But their solution seems to depend on the, ahem, virtues of obedience and prudence.

Whatever you say in a nutshell you have to include the Resistance's raison d'etre. Clarify that +Fellay thinks the SSPX can be safe with a practical agreement whereas +ABL in the end knew that only Rome's conversion would keep the SSPX safe. So the Resistance is in effect that part of the SSPX that is holding out for the conversion of Rome whereas +Fellay believes an SSPX agreement will help bring about the conversion of Rome. Opposing quotes would amazing if you could find them.

Whatever view appeals to people (be they following their heads, their hearts, their guts, their ideals, their hopes or dreams) is where they will go. But clarity on the differences is what's going to draw people who think alike. After all that's what always drew and still draws people to the SSPX instead of the Fraternity or sedes.

The bottom line is....all the chapels are uncanonical, and therefore private enterprises, which means you choose which ones you want to go to, unlike canonical parishes where you go to the parish that has jurisdiction in your territory (unless travelling of course). In a real parish, the priest can order you to do things. In a uncanonical setup the priest gives his advice, just as a spiritual director would give advice. Giving advice not to go to another uncanonical parish is not a contradiction (as long as the reason isn't because the other is uncanonical). Just like a mother who orders her son to not play with the Catholic boy next door because he tells dirty jokes and uses profanity, this doesn't mean the mother is declaring anything about his Catholicity, just the danger of corruption.

However, it might be another story going to confession to a priest in an uncanonical mission church. He is given supplied jurisdiction to be the judge of your sins, and you should do as he says in regard to those sins. What happens if he tells you it is a mortal sin to go another uncanonical parish and you don't agree? Well, that may be the point to choose another chapel/confessor. That is just hypothetical, not sure if this is really happens.