Skip to main content

The Gullible Theme - Part 2: Examining the Calgary SSPX School Policy - Introduction, Perspective and Principles

+
JMJ



Introduction

Gullible made a number of comments regarding the SSPX school in Calgary and the wording that they were compelled to add to the school policy.

Actually, as noted here, Gullible made lots of comments, but they don't contain the reflections on why these proof texts are important and how they apply.

This is where I find most people (even myself upon occasion) fall short.  In essence, when we just react (posting proof-texts) we become the blog equivalent of script kiddies. Context is king and if you don't make the message explicit you lose your impact ... and your readers.

There is one thing worse than not communicating your message, it is communicating the wrong message.

However, there is a problem.

Humans read correspondence through a perceptual lense.  This lense causes them to misinterpret and even miss whole sections of the text.  Why?  Is it on purpose?  Not usually,  its just that our brain continually seeks the most efficient way to process information and uses mental models to accomplish this goal.

When something doesn't align with the model, there's a good chance it will get dropped or re-framed.

For example ...

Recently, I was involved in a negotiation via email.  It wasn't small potatoes either, each party represented organizations with thousands of members.  One morning I received a copy of the latest position from the 'other side'.  I read the first sentence and got angry and frustrated.  I stopped reading.  The next day I picked up the email and managed to get through two sentences before the same thing happened.  Again, I set it down to look at later.  It took me four days before I could read the entire email without being upset.  The result: I noticed something that the other half-dozen reviewers had missed - an offered compromise.

What's my point?

People allow emotions to skew their perception of what they are reading, hearing, seeing.  In some cases, they re-frame information to align with what they WANT to read / hear / see.

That's how wars get started.

That's how the 'resistance' got started and continues to perpetuate itself, inspite of its doctrinal errors the 'resistance' keeps on claiming that they are 'following the line of Archbishop Lefevre'.

I mean seriously, the claim is ludicrous - especially for the sede and benny vacantist factions.  They have departed from the line of the Archbishop because he always abided by the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I digress.

So, in order to make certain that I really understand a piece (written or otherwise) I try to be aware of how it is affecting me emotionally (NB: I am still working on this ...).  I've even read some criticisms of my posts by 'resistance' authors and in one case I can see how I missed an aspect of the question that was posed to me. In the other, they simply had re-framed what I said.

Perspective


Now how does this apply to Gullible et al?

The 'resistance' has, like many Traditional Catholics, an automatic emotional response to anything that 'sounds' modern.

Which is ok ... if they don't stop there. What's happening is their subconscious is alerting them to something that falls out of tolerance.  The next step is critical: Think.

Yep, you read it right, I quoted Bishop Williamson.  Unless someone is attacking you, you don't need to react, you need to respond. In order to respond you need to stop and think.  Easy acronym:  Don't answer until you've SAT on it for a while.

When we think and re-construct the context around what we are thinking about, we are more likely to come to valid conclusions and make good decision.

That is what I'm going to do as I review the principles, context and text of the 'Calgary School Question'.

Principles

As any regular reader will know, I take Catholic Doctrine seriously.

The principle that I will use as a reference point is obedience.  I've studied and written a number of articles on obedience that can be found here.

I summarized it in the above matrix.  The left hand part of the matrix is clear - if sin is involved then a Catholic MUST disobey the order.  If no sin is involved, obedience is subject to whether the order is within the sphere of the superiors authority.

It is that simple.

P^3




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

CMTV's Latest Attempt to Slag the SSPX

 + JMJ   It has been a couple of months since the last significant attempt to slag the SSPX and I was beginning to wonder if the clicks were subsiding.   ... then another article popped up this week.   I was wondering if it would contain a new case or simply repeat old allegations and FUD and Ms. Niles did not disappoint.  A technique that I learned in dealing with negotiations and conflicts is to review the correspondence with a critical eye and black out all irrelevant contents. This helps to remove all the distracting attacks, innuendos, assumptions, and FUD from view so a person can focus on the important aspects ... like the facts. How much of Ms.Niles text survived my review? About 17.5% or 347 words out of ~1983. The rest was either repeated information or opinion as opposed to fact.  Just in case you are curious as to what that looks like, I have attached the blacked out document at the end of this post. Now on to a review of the words that actually bore on the case at hand ...