SSPX - Fr. Violette's Letter to the Faithful

SSPX ^ | December 2003 | Fr. Violette

[sinkspur]

They won't listen to reason and enjoy tearing down tradition with an unearthly glee.

Tradition? The SSPX knows nothing of tradition. It has no intention of unifying with the successor of Peter; in fact, the bug-eyed soutanes in charge seem intent on driving out anyone who even speaks to someone "on the other side."

It's very likely the next Pope will ignore your newly-chosen home, and you guys can go merrily into oblivion.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

And to think the fingers that typed that touch the Eucharist.

[ultima ratio]

An orthodox pope? Is it orthodox to pour libations to the Great Thumb, or to award the cardinalate to a bishop who has publicly doubted the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection, or to do away with standards for heroic sanctity in order to canonize more "saints" than all his predecessors put together? I don't think so.

As for the mention of the "excommunication", this was a reference to the latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication publicly touted by JnPII in his Ecclesia Dei letter, but never acknowledged as valid by SSPX by reason of the Archbishop's inculpability. Here the good father is speaking in a very off-handed, unofficial way of the public event. It has no theological significance.

In my opinion this letter reflects the clear thinking and sobriety of the Society's present leadership. It will not be pressured into a premature agreement with a Rome that has no intention of following the path of Catholic orthodoxy and Tradition.

[sinkspur]

And to think the fingers that typed that touch the Eucharist.

Yes. At least once a week. Most weeks, two or three times.

Of course, you don't have permanent deacons in your sect, so you likely have people dying without receiving the Eucharist in the moments before they do.

But, that's what you get when you follow a man, who has to rely on circuit riders.

[Polycarp IV]

Dr. Kopp and I agree about the Church's teachings. Some of the nuances of pastoral practice are where the disagreements arise.

He is a very good man, as are all of the members of the Catholic Caucus here

Thanks Sink. The feeling is mutual. God Bless.

[sinkspur]

BTW, took the Eucharist to a dying man yesterday morning. He did die, last night.

Spent time with him, and his family, and prayed his favorite prayer (The Litany to the Sacred Heart) and prayed the Scapular Prayer with him, and gave him my scapular to wear.

We're not window-dressing, lady. This man is with God, now, I have no doubt, and he received his Lord in the hours before He met Him face to face.

[ultima ratio]

Modernists are clever. They don't assault traditional doctrines directly. They act instead by indirection. For instance, some doctrines will simply never be mentioned, disappearing into a black hole of silence. When was the last time you heard a sermon on Hell? Or on Mary's Virginity--or on mortal sin? Another modernist technique is to use certain words by subtley altering their definitions. Words such as "sacrifice", "eucharist", "sacrament" are still part of the theologian's vocabulary, but they now carry different theological connotations. Most of all, worship itself has been radically changed in both language and rubrics. It undermines traditional faith in a thousand ways. Why do you suppose 70% of Catholics under 40 no longer believe in the Real Presence? One would think Rome would try to do all it can to support an orthodox liturgy to shore up this very essential dogma. One would think it would insist on more, not fewer, genuflections during Mass; on kneeling, rather than standing, for Communion; on communion on the tongue instead of in the hands, etc. But the opposite is the case: Catholics are being URGED to act and think as Protestants.

None of this is orthodox. All this is a departure from 2000 years of Catholicism. It is insidious and very damaging to the faith.

[ultima ratio]

You miss the point: the pope is not lord of Sacred Tradition, he is its servant. His power is given not for his own glorification but expressly to defend and protect Tradition. It is the pope who must serve Tradition, not the other way around. If he fails to pass on what he has received, then he has failed in his primary function as a pontiff. Nothing else he does matters.

[sinkspur]

You're back!

Well, I think Aulaigner was the best thing you guys had going, and now you show him the door.

What are you left with? A Nazi sympathizer in Williamson? A gutless wimp in Fellay?

I'll take a lion like John Paul II.

[ultima ratio]

Yes, I'm back--sort of. I will be gone again pretty soon. I liked being away--it refreshed me and gave me more time for reflection. I am more convinced than ever the SSPX has taken the right course, by the way. Aulaigner doesn't matter. Neither do Williamson or Fellay. This thing is bigger than any individual, including the Pope. There are principalities and powers at play in the Church these days. Better that the Society should stay clear of them for a while longer--till Rome comes to its senses.

[pseudo-ignatius]

And, so are you. I take it you're in the seminary?

Nope, just an undergraduate university student. I've spent quite a bit of time in discernment, and right now it seems that God is calling me to marriage. But I won't speak for what He may have to say in the years to come, before it is actually possible for a student planning on graduate studies to marry.

[Dajjal]

Yes, I'm back--sort of. I will be gone again pretty soon.

Your words are always appreciated. A Happy and Holy New Year to you and yours!

[Dajjal]

What have been the doctrinal statements, if any, from John Paul II?

Don't forget "The Theology of the Body."

[Aquinasfan]

Oh, the irony.

I have to admit it. I think it's pretty funny.

[Selous]

Please cite a single instance where the Pope is not orthodox. I have already explained that the Koran kissing is not a doctrinal statement. Please name one TEACHING statement that is unorthodox.

I am not SSPX, so my question is neither partisan nor intended to be provocative. Does the following qualify as TEACHING?

FALSE RELIGIONS STARTED BY GOD ACCORDING TO JOHN PAUL II

( Comentator)
Consequently, he believes that the false religions were started by God; he wrote in his General Audience of September 9th 1999:

( His Holiness )
“It must first be kept in mind that every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God’s Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions.”

( Commentator )
Thus, we see that he believes that the “Spirit of truth” influences men so as to produce the false religions.
In the same Audience he wrote:

( His Holiness )
“The “seeds of truth” present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who “enlightens every man coming into world” (cf. Jn 1:9) and who became flesh in Christ Jesus (cf. Jn 1:14). They are together an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body” and which “blows where it wills” (Jn 3:8; cf. Redemptor hominis, nn. 6, 12).”

( Commentator )
The “truth[s]” in the false religions are implanted by God, being an “effect of the Spirit of truth”.
And later in the Encyclical he wrote:

( His Holiness )
“Although the Church gladly acknowledges whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people, [...]” (RM 55)

( Commentator )
So, anything “true” in the false religions comes from the Spirit, who started them.

[Desdemona]

Wish this was satire, then it would be hilarious.

Yep. What a shame.

[sydney smith]

LOTI isn't being deserted Slinky. The novus ordo church is. It's so old, feminized, and crotchety that even the hispanic immigrants are leaving it for Islam and evangelicism. There's no-one left in the n.o. but old people and soccer moms. Look at the numbers. Go back to your altar girlies, us trads will be the Church eventually. You'll end up someday saying "Et cum spiritu tuo" instead of "And also with you" whether you like it or not.

[Unam Sanctam]

So I guess you cannot come up with one statement that is unorthodox. Please cite the specific language and document.

[Unam Sanctam]

The Catholic faith has the fullness of truth. Other religions contain mixture of error and truth. To the extent that the beliefs of other religions coincide with the Catholic faith, then they are true and God has at the very least allowed such seeds of truth to arise in the other religions. The Moslems believe that Allah is beneficent and merciful. Are we to deny that God is such because the Moslems say so? Recognizing the Christian and Catholic teachings of other religions is not the same thing as saying ALL the teachings of another religion are inspired by God. God does not promote error, although he may allow them to exist within his own inscrutable plan.

[Unam Sanctam]

An orthodox pope? Is it orthodox to pour libations to the Great Thumb, or to award the cardinalate to a bishop who has publicly doubted the divinity of Christ and the Resurrection, or to do away with standards for heroic sanctity in order to canonize more "saints" than all his predecessors put together? I don't think so.

You have cited no unorthodox statement. I'm afraid I missed the encyclical (or was it an apostolic constitution) on the Great Thumb, whatever that is.

As for the mention of the "excommunication", this was a reference to the latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication publicly touted by JnPII in his Ecclesia Dei letter, but never acknowledged as valid by SSPX by reason of the Archbishop's inculpability. Here the good father is speaking in a very off-handed, unofficial way of the public event. It has no theological significance.

The Archbishop consecrated bishops in violation of an express command from the Pope. The Archbishop is culpable.

In my opinion this letter reflects the clear thinking and sobriety of the Society's present leadership. It will not be pressured into a premature agreement with a Rome that has no intention of following the path of Catholic orthodoxy and Tradition.

The Pope has been a consistent defender of orthodoxy and Sacred Tradition in the Church. He deserves our support in his battle against dissident heresy within, even if we don't always agree with his prudential judgments as to how to deal with that heresy.