As promised, I want to fill readers in on the response that I received from the Society of St. Pius X concerning donations to Rome.
Today I was told that the answer is exactly what I had hoped it would be – the the Society does not donate to Peter’s Pence, nor to any other charitable organization depending on the Holy See.
Their focus, I was informed, is on funding their own activities; including their missionary works in Africa, Asia, Oceania, Central and South America, etc., which is challenging enough.
I would also like to let readers know that, this morning, I had the privilege of engaging in a fairly lengthy (one hour plus) conference call with two members of the Society’s leadership team at the U.S. District House.
Our conversation was very frank; yet characterized by charity and motivated by a shared love for tradition.
I’ve said it before a number of times, both here in this space and privately, but it bears repeating:
While I have noted a discernible softening of tone on the Society’s part, I do not believe for a moment that the SSPX has “lost the Faith” or is somehow less intent on bringing souls to tradition. I have reason to believe that now all the more.
In our conversation today, I was afforded an opportunity to explain to them, in some detail, my reasons for concern. I was likewise afforded the courtesy of an “explanation” (for lack of a better word) for the aforementioned shift in tone.
It would be impossible for me to give a blow-by-blow account of the entire call – and yes, we did exchange a number of blows, the kind soldiers for Christ should be willing to both give and take if necessary.
To sum up the Society’s point of view, I can perhaps do no better than to provide the following quote from their recent article on Bishop Schneider’s latest essay on Vatican Council II. (Those who have read both my own assessment of Bishop Schneider’s remarks and that of the Society will note the stark difference between the two):
“Knowing how to be suaviter in modo [gentle in manner] when the circumstances require it is not a sign of weakness but of strength: in general, someone who always needs to shout doesn’t know how to find any other arguments to be persuasive.”
Do today’s circumstances require a certain gentleness in manner? Do they require something more akin to shouting; i.e., sounding alarm bells loudly and clearly while denouncing every error? Do they require a little of both depending on specifics?
I cannot say that our call ended with everyone seeing eye-to-eye; nor can I say that my (or their) concerns have vanished.
That, however, doesn’t mean that we no longer stand shoulder-to-shoulder in these trenches in some very important ways; in spite of whatever fair criticism our various approaches and conclusions may invite.
The truth is, my interlocutors at the District House didn’t owe me anything. That these busy men would freely give so generously of their time tells me, and it should tell you, that goodwill endures, and their concern for individual souls – not just mine, but everyone who visits this space – is genuine.
None of us are immune to the diabolical disorientation that has come to characterize this age – and that includes me as much as anyone. As I wrote last year, there is evidence that not even Cardinal Ottaviani could escape it entirely!
As such, I know very well that I can do better; all of us can.
Let’s resolve to keep the Society, its leadership, and our efforts at akaCatholic in prayer – that all concerned may serve Our Lord and His Church well in these uniquely difficult times, all under the protection and intercession of Our Lady of Fatima.
I also believe the SSPX does not want to ‘give up the fight’. But what concerns me is the change in tactics. ‘suaviter in modo’ is all well and good ‘when the circumstances require it’. But when it becomes an habitual line of conduct then, if it isn’t a ‘a sign of weakness’, it most certainly is most certainly the sign of a politician.
In a similar way, the new SSPX worldwide branding is a grave concern. It seems the SSPX is now in the business of ‘selling’ Tradition as if it was something to be marketed. This shows the influence of the world, which many have noted here is affecting the SSPX at parish level, has also affected it’s leadership.
If you want people to buy a sodapop, brand it and market it. But if you want to convert them, preach the cold hard Truth in season and out of season.
In any case, there is something about political speak which the average person (Catholic or not) finds suspicious hence the great suspicion of the SSPX recently. If they wish to lose this stigma, they need to get back to some good old fashioned polemics.
Polemics maketh a man
Archbishop Lefebvre was kind and gentle one on one. According to Bishop Tissier his sermons were full of zeal and powerful because the Holy Ghost spoke through him.
SSPX does not donate to Peter’s Pence. Great! Then why publicize it?
Just a thought…I think they did “owe” you a response. That’s the problem with government and hierarchy, we support through them with our blood, sweat, tears, prayers and money and they should be accountable. If we need clarification on an issue that may go against the Faith, we deserve an answer. Not to mention, you have been a supporter of the SSPX and many of their members (including me) look to you for clarification and guidance on issues that are questionable. Like it or not, your popularity warranted an answer whether they wanted to answer you or not.
I’m at a loss trying to understand why anyone would support an organization financially but not know what their contributions are being used for.
But isn’t it a kind of hypocrisy where the SSPX says it does not support Peter’s Pence or any other charitable organization depending upon the Holy See when they recognize that Holy See as the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church and with that same authority, have the right to distribute money as they see fit? Why withhold financial support from the charitable works of the Pope?
One shouldn’t forget that there were always supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre among the Bishops and Cardinals. Here he is in an interview on June 1,1987:
“Does not your growing isolation in the Church increase some doubt in you?
Archbishop Lefebvre – Our isolation is more apparent than real. Many bishops and at least a dozen cardinals have told me privately that they share our positions. I could disclose their names and surnames. We know, for example, that a number of cardinals did not agree with the Assisi meeting and expressed their reservations to the Pope. But also, and above all, we do not feel isolated in relation to the past, to Tradition. We are strong about the words and the Magisterium of the Church that preceded us.”
The ontological reality remains as it only can. Sorrowfully, the SSPX lives an internal contradiction which will never be reconciled unless or until they acknowledge the reality as reality, that neither Jorge Mario Bergoglio nor any of the other “Popes” who overtly embrace or embraced heresy can in fact be or have been the Pontiffs of the One, True Church of the Son of God as God, made man. This internal contradiction is diabolical from its essence as it is of the Evil One as if in the Garden again: “Did God really tell you that His Vicar on earth in the Chair of Saint Peter, as the one who would guard the Faith against the gates of hell, until he be taken out of the way (2 Thess 2, 7), could not simply make an error in his own free will assent, and then in his exigent catechesis; not even just one error? Surely God didn’t mean even just one?”.
You see just how this goes Louie, as there is simply nothing new under the sun? “Not even just one (error)?”. As we know with metaphysical certitude, NOT EVEN JUST ONE, as being cannot both be and not be, at the same time and under the same respect, ever or anywhere, ever and into eternity. Hegel’s dialectic of synthesis is the master, intellective stroke of Lucifer himself, as it is and will only ever remain until the end of time, the summa and summit of deceptive devices. This dialectic is as the Stradivarius of the maestro violinist and writ large and it is the language of the Modernist quo Modernist.
This suggestion that “Amoris Laetitia”, “does not promote heresy”, is in reality a duplicitous as effeminized conception of a reality which is so stark for those with eyes that see and ears that hear, that the cacophony which it invokes is as the disharmonic noise of hell itself. And finally, this time of the Great Apostasy is not a time to dance ever so gingerly around the stark lies that are proffered by the serpent in Rome, all dressed up as a “Bishop in white”, as though he could ever have been the Vicar of Christ in this godless world, as the Shepherd of the sheep who know His True Voice. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Katherine–the word “hypocrisy” has come to mind regarding many statements and behaviors coming from the SSPX leadership on various issues within their Churches, Chapels and schools. If they said they support Peter’s Pence etc., they know they will lose financial support from their parishioners. If they admit they don’t, it leaves open the question regarding their allegiance to a legitimate Pope. They’re between a rock and a hard place.
^^^^^^Louie, you have some smart readers!!
“…the word “hypocrisy” has come to mind regarding many statements and behaviors coming from the SSPX…”
Translation: To validate my dubious Sedevacantist position, I must trash everyone else.
Rush–Please translate your Translation.
Rushintuit: Can you answer my question as to why the SSPX refuses to support the Pope in his charitable endeavors which seems to be an act of disobedience and division and the revelation by My2cents that the SSPX website publicizes Peter’s Pence which seems rather odd, at least to us, if they aren’t making contributions to it?
This internal contradiction which you allude to is as a continuous thread, which weaves through the entire fabric of the SSPX, as any metaphysical absurdity proffered in praxis can only allow for. The Holy Roman Pontiff of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church cannot even first embrace intellectively, in his person, any error in the Faith, as to do so would deem him to be intrinsically, as internally, a material heretic. As the free will is moved into its assent, as potency is moved into act, this intellective embrace must first occur, as Saint Thomas Aquinas taught in his Summa Theologiae, whereby the intellect must first inform the free will, which then by virtue of grace alone, can the will and only then, embrace the good over the privation of the due good (as the “evil”). This all before he would then make yet another free will assent into error as to teach it to the Church, or in the now infamous words of Fr Michel Gleize, to “promote heresy” to the Ecclesia. Saint Robert Bellarmine, as Doctor of Holy Mother Church, held this position as the most likely of the major five or so, in his 5 book treatise on the Papacy (“De Controversiis On the Roman Pontiff”). Because this circumstance had not yet occurred in his time, as only “that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way” (2 Thess 2, 7), he offered theological speculation, as it relates to how the Church may appear, in such a circumstance whereby the Roman Pontiff had succumbed to this utter violation, as an affront to the Faith, which heresy is. As heresy places this affront to the Faith, as it only can do in its opposition to said Faith, it immanently induces schism, whether recognized in the externals (aka: metaphysical accidentals) or not, as from its substantial essence as heresy, it has by its very nature induced schismatic separation from the Church, by the one who holds this heretical belief. This truth is again understood metaphysically as potency is moved into act. It is as a poison which laces the cup of drink, indistinguishable in its metaphysical “accidentals” and yet ever present, as to ultimately cause the death of the one who consumes it. I pray this helps. In caritas.
Correction: “does not promote heresy” should read as Amoris Laetitia is not teaching heresy but rather it is only ‘ “promoting heresy” ‘. In caritas.
I don’t know, it seems very odd, but I’m not going to push the panic button. The SSPX remains true to their primary mission at the Parish level. I’m not going to nurture negative opinions of the SSPX until they really screw up.
Rush, I thought SSPX primary mission was to preserve the priesthood. The parish function belongs to the appointed bishop. Seems SSPX is encroaching where it has no authority.
Those who dance with the devil usually lose. No, waging a charm offensive with the devil isn’t a winning tactic.
You know what’s been lacking here for some time now? Suaviter in modo. I believe that what we see today as weakness–and what is increasingly so characterized here, it seems–is only “weakness” in comparison to a society which has become completely devoid of any semblance of dignity or charity. Everybody is owed something from just about everyone today. Entitlement. Self-centeredness. And, again, we expect everyone to say, do, react as we would in any circumstance because, after all, we’re right and others who would say something else or in a different way are wrong…or not faithful enough…or traditional enough. Suddenly a growing list of trads–cardinals, other bloggers, priests, faithful–are not just wrong…they are portrayed as evil. Just a suggestion: a little more suaviter in modo and a whole lot less of the criticisms of others who, like us, know they are suffering until a corrupt, most likely illicit, hierarchy. All Louie did in his conversation with the SSPXers was see the common ground the remaining faithful all share. We dwell on and get exorcized by the isolated differences.
That Amen is for Rushintuit’s comment, certainly not some of the others.
The SSPX cranks out Catholic Priests so they can care for their parishioners. The SSPX gets jurisdiction from the Church as specified in Canon Law. Nothing makes more sense to me, than the Church being able to defend herself in a crisis.
Thanks for all the hard work Louie that you continue to do and put forth on this blog.
Is there any chance you might be able to get in contact or as a guest writer something from Hugh Akins on this particular subject ???
Rush, defend Herself from who? Who is the danger to the Church? Francis and all the modernists are the danger to the Church, but you insist they are the Church. Do you see this crisis as some sort of auto immune disease? The Body of Christ devouring the Body of Christ?
I am speaking of answers here and accountability, not hatred. Not sure what you read into what I remarked but it wasn’t meant to be evil. I am not even saying I or anyone else is right or wrong, just that, if there are important questions (the dubia comes to mind) those in charge should take the appropriate measures and time to answer said questions which could impact the Faith of the Faithful or scandalize us in any way. That is owed to us.
Rushintuit: What seems odd to me is how the SSPX has always been disobedient to those they believe are valid popes. And the infighting within the organization leading to some to leave is ongoing. It was just reported that Fr. Paul Morgan, who had recently been District Superior of the United Kingdom and Scandanavia, then moved on to become a Prior of Canada and had been a great missionary for the Society, having founded its mission in the Philippines has quit as of August 10th, following seven leading Prior-Pastors in France who recently quit Fellay when he placed the control of SSPX in the power of Francis.
You say that the 7 Priors “quit” Bp. Fellay. What do you mean by this? To my knowledge, they didn’t quit anything. They were taken from their posts by Bp. Fellay and sent away. They have not, to my knowledge, left the SSPX.
Amen. The truth does not need false language and ideas to peddle it.