Skip to main content

SSPX Marriages and Sundry

+
JMJ


As the 'distance' between Rome and the SSPX lessens, peoples assumptions are going to be tested.

Why?  Because, in this conflict (read: Fog of War), the guiding principles have become obscured or lost.

 If decisions are made upon unvalidated assumptions, independent of principles, then mistakes will be made.

An example of a mistake is the letter written in La Chardonnet and signed by 7 priests. In this letter they took it upon themselves to put forth their opinions (it was also read from the pulpit), that could be interpreted as being at odds with that of their superiors.

So, here we hit disobedience again.

Here's the key points from the  final paragraph that gives us a hint of the underlying issues.
  1.  Personal Prelature ... was supposed to recognize us as we are, and to maintain our independence vis-à-vis the local Ordinaries.
  2. First decisions taken consist in unjustly submitting our marriages to these very Ordinaries
  3. Tomorrow the opening of any new Houses will have to meet their approval
Looking at the first and third point we have the 'independence' from the local ordinaries assumption. What we want it to mean and what it can mean are two different things.  I prefer to look at what it can mean.

The geographic delegation of authority is Apostolic.  This means you need to be very careful when dealing with it, otherwise we could become little modernists in altering the constitution of the Church.



Changing Church doctrine because of our sentiments or distrust of the persons in places of authority is not a good principle, let alone a Catholic one.

Now to address point 2 and a specific aspect of point 3.

It may be an element of FUD, but it seems that they are hinting at a couple of things, but not being specific.

The core element can be summed up as decisions taken to (in their opinion) unjustly submit SSPX marriages and the opening of new priories to the Ordinaries.

In the both cases they are touching upon submission to an authority that is based in Apostolic tradition.

That is strike one.

In the case of marriages, it is necessary that the local ordinaries are made aware of marriages (and perhaps baptisms, deaths) within their dioceses.  This is not submission, this is common Church practice.

That is strike two.

Then there is the underlying issue, the implication that the Superiors are doing something wrong. This would their opinion, however they did not provide any evidence in this case - only inuendo.  Invoking the FUD principle is a sure sign that they are dealing out opinions that are based on conjecture.

That is strike three.


So what should we do?


  1. Understand the principles - obedience is good place to start
  2. Study the Faith and seek to understand it in context. Don't proof-text.
  3. Pray.  A solid Spiritual Life is essential to attaining and maintaining a Godly perspective on this crisis.

P^3







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Curious Case of Steve Skojec and the Dangers of Deep Diving into the Crisis Sub-Titled: The Failings of Others

 + JMJ It's been a while now since Steve Skojec sold 1P5 and abandoned the Catholic Faith. I've been a 'Trad' since 1982 and in those 40+ years I seen this death-spiral before with a similar end point. It seems that anyone who jumps into the fray unprepared for the enormous task of righting wrongs will, eventually, become discouraged by not the task but the people who surround them.   I remember when Skojec complained of the treatment his family received from a traditional priest.  This seems to have been the start of the end for him. So what can we learn from the likes of Steve Skojec, Michael Voris (maybe?), Louie Verrecchio, Gerry Matatix and other celebrity Catholics? Probably quite a lot about what not to do. First, don't burn out on the crisis?  When you burn out, on work or anything else, little things assume a more greater importance than they are due.   This is one of my 'canary in the coal mine' signals that I've been stretching myself too thin

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent wrot

Rorate-Caeli: New Interview with Fr. Charles Murr on what Mother Pascalina Knew about Bugnini, Paul VI, and Other Major Figures

 + JMJ    Rorate has posted an interesting interview that includes details about Bugnini.  I have quoted below the key elements.  This will come as nothing new to seasoned Trads, but represents another step in understanding how we got to this point! P^3 Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli   Fr. Murr, if Archbishop Bugnini was somehow involved with Freemasonry, what can we say, then, about Bugnini and the Conciliar liturgical reforms? MURR: I think it is better to ask whether “Freemasonic designs” had something to do with the liturgical reforms that Bugnini  decided  the Second Vatican Council desired. Were Bugnini’s reforms concerned with a more perfect adoration and worship of God, or with celebrating the Freemasonic concept of the brotherhood of man?  When certain Council Fathers insisted that not one word of the 1,600-year-old Roman Canon be touched, by any stretch of the imagination, could that be taken to mean they wanted to concoct entirely new canons? 10  When Archbishop Carlo Ma

Cathinfo and the 'resistance' perspective (updated with response to comment)

+ JMJ Matthew, the owner of Cathinfo - a resistance forum has posted a response to a person that indicated his reasons for continuing to go to the SSPX.