Catholic Answers?

+

JMJ

I noticed a blog post on 'Catholic Answers' titled: How to respond to SSPX followers.

As is their wont, the posters demonstrated a lack of understanding of the SSPX position and, I assume, instead of going to the SSPX to find out have resorted to 2nd, 3rd, 4th - hand accounts.

Once poster even went so far as to post the following:



I recommend a few resources:

One of them is Dave Armstrong's page on "Radical Catholic Reactionaries."

1. Radical Catholic Reactionaries (Index Page)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearm...lic-quasi.html

It's got hundreds of links to resources that are useful for responding to SSPX people and sedevacantists, with good info for how to bring them into full communion with the Church.

If I may be so bold as to self-promote, I've written eight articles that I think are also helpful:

2. Ten Objections to the New Mass: Answered
http://historyandapologetics.com/201...-answered.html

3. List of Arguments Against Sedevacantism
http://historyandapologetics.com/201...vacantism.html

4. Invincible Ignorance: Backed Up by Church History
http://historyandapologetics.com/201...-medieval.html

5. Religious Liberty: Backed Up by Church History
http://historyandapologetics.com/201...octors-on.html

6 .Baptism of Desire: Backed Up by Church History
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=12319161

7. Death Penalty Limitations in Ancient and Modern Catholic Teaching
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=12486685

8. Pope Francis Is No Liberal: 24 Examples 
http://historyandapologetics.com/201...-examples.html

9. Five Ways Vatican 2 Condemned Modernism
http://historyandapologetics.com/201...modernism.html

Looking at this 'answer' to Catholics who seek the sacraments from the SSPX, it is likely to cause more confusion that clarity.

First the author starts by muddying the waters by mixing the SSPX with sedevacantists.  A typical approach as superficially they 'look' the same. In short the author is stereotyping.

Of the '9' answers, we can ignore 3,4,6 immediately as these are not positions of the SSPX.

Religious Liberty (#5) misses the point completely.  The position of the Church, upto V2, was one of religious tolerance.  In short, it is doctrine that Catholics do not convert by the sword. However, it is also Catholic doctrine that the efforts of false religions can and in some cases should be constrained in the public forum. That is, of course, if one believes with the Church that there is no salvation outside the Church.

I have no idea why they included 7, 8 and 9 as they do not respond to any of the 'Four Points' of the SSPX etc.

Seriously, any 'response' that ignores the real question is simply not an 'answer' it is an 'evasion'.  Why evade, unless they really aren't listening to the question. Perhaps it would cause them to think too much.

That leaves us "1' and '2'.

The first reference provided is a link to David Armstrong's opinions on Traditional Catholics.

His 'definition' of radtrads is found here and as is the case misses some points. Here's my quick thoughts:

1. "fullness of the Catholic faith": Always an interesting thought - except that one either has the Faith or Not.  To pick and choose from the Catholic Faith is to render oneself a heretic and to lose the Faith.
2. "Church allows and encourages liturgical diversity": He has missed the point.  The discussion about the Novus Ordo is is not about 'received and approved' rites of the Catholic Church. It is about a banal on the spot fabrication that deliberately suppressed elements of the Mass that were 'barriers to heresy'.  Just like the suppression of the Filioque by the Ukranian Bishops, the suppression of these elements is bad - in an of themselves.
3. Nothing really of substance in this point.
4. This point is a non-answer with a reference to the catch all: The Holy Ghost protects the Church.  Sorry Dave - either there is objectively a problem with the Documents of V2 or there is not. Throwing your hands in the air and invoke the Holy Ghost doesn't cut it when we stand before the Throne of God at our Judgement.
5. Yep, here let me get a Koran for you to kiss.  There is definitely room for legitimate criticism.
6. This one was rich. "“Traditionalists” accept the notion of the indefectibility of the Church."  This isn't a notion it is a doctrine (more info here).  
7. I think Dave is trying to put lipstick on a pig.  The 'ecumenism' practiced since V2 is definitely not the same as that prior to V2.  Really, Dave needs to dig into what the real arguments are not just what he 'thinks' they are.
8. meh
9. Finally, we get to the 'meat' of Dave's opinion piece.  I shan't quote it here because he goes on at length. The key issue is that the entire piece is just that it is his opinion.  I know Traditionalists that in the 70's were cast out of their parishes (along with the communion rails, statues etc) because they adhered to the Catholic Faith.  I know others that couldn't handle the transition into the New Mass and EVERYTHING that went along with it.  Frankly, criticising these people because of their reaction does not answer their concerns - it is simply a whitewash.  My question to Dave would first be - are their concerns legitimate?  Is studying Doctrine etc not a good thing?
10. Dave believes that the root of 'radcath' is to "identify the faulty arrogant and “private judgment” attitude.  Really?   Once again Dave has missed the point.  It is not 'private judgement' to hold up Mystici Corporis and V2's "subsist" and say - hello can you spell rupture?  It is not arrogance to ask why the 'Filioque' was taken out of the Creed.  
11. meh
12. meh
13. meh
14. Here come to the final point for Dave: "Radical Catholic reactionaries, on the other hand, are a completely different group, which is very seriously in error; on a dangerous slippery slope that may lead to schism and/or heresy, and need to be refuted and warned about. That is the purpose of this book."  Nice opinion - but what is the error?  I know of a number of Tradical's who depart from doctrine.  Does that undermine the arguments of those who adhere to doctrine and decry the dangers of the departures from that same doctrine since V2?  Nope

Here's my answer to 'Dave':

Finally, we have #2, Ten Objections to the New Mass: Answered.

I'm going to be short with this one.

Points 1,2,4 - 10 miss the points and are red herrings.

Point 3 "Objection 3: The New Mass is objectionable because it permits receiving Communion in the hand."

Here we go again.  The New Mass is objectionable in its own because of elements.  Communion in the hand is objectionable on its own because it started as an abuse, is not how it was practiced in the early Church, is how it is practiced by the Protestants and is the result of sacrilege because the 'mainstream'  Catholics don't follow the rules put in place to prevent that sacrilege (see here and here).

Specifically:

Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that there comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples (source)

Anyway, Dave should step back and consider his accusation that Trads are arrogant and practice private judgement because he is obviously guilty of that which he accuses others.

P^3