The Gullible Theme - Part 5: Examining the Calgary SSPX School Policy

The Gullible Theme - Part 5: Examining the Calgary SSPX School Policy - Conclusion

JMJ

So, whether or not Fr. Couture found that the text was 'bad' as related by Mr. Verrecchio is not relevant to the analysis.

Instead of relying on hearsay, I'm forming my own opinion based upon the facts that I was able to obtain.

In the full context, the school was not obliged to sin and the "context is that St. John Bosco is a Catholic school and it will foster an "inclusive, safe and caring learning environment within our district must be in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church."

Following the principle of obedience they had an obligation to either obey or withdraw from the sphere of authority.

Was the mandated inclusion of those phrases in the policy desirable? Of course not. However, that is not the point. Many things in Canadian Law are not desirable. Is what was required sinful? The answer is no.

As a judge recently said to a plaintiff, "we deal with reality here". That the 'resistance' had their feathers ruffled by this is obvious, but their fear and narrow perspective doesn't change the reality. The SSPX is out in the open and unlike the 'resistance' who hide in the sewers, has to deal with the reality of being Catholic in a world hostile to Catholicity.

I'm confident that the 'resistance' will add it to their little book of supposed compromises of the SSPX. Yet, they ignore the real compromises of their position ... denying the reality (see this part 1 and part 2 of an article comparing the SSPX and the 'resistance' ecclesiology).


Is this the 'resistance'?

Source: Wikipedia - Fair Use

Well, they can isolate themselves from civil society as much as they like, but the reality is that the Catholic Church (of which the SSPX is part) is not currently in the catacombs in Canada. Being afraid of the possibilities and retreating at this point is simply an act of cowardice.

I look forward to cogent responses that deal with the points made and will look with a jaundiced eye upon those that simply bring up new objections without dealing with the material I have presented in this five part series.

Historically I don't receive comments on this type of analysis ... either because they believe I'm too far gone or are unable to pull together a logical response.

Either way, please remember to:

P^3

Comments

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

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

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

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

+ JMJ Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX. In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below) items 2 and 3 are key. Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess! This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him

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.

Tradicat

Search This Blog