“1,000 soldiers fall to the left, 10,000 to the right." This Scripture quote from Psalm 90 reminds us that false brethren (those on the right) are more dangerous than true enemies (those on the left).
It's been a long time since I've seen the plain meaning of a scriptural text so utterly discarded. Here's the whole text:
He will overshadow thee with his shoulders: and under his wings thou shalt trust. His truth shall compass thee with a shield: thou shalt not be afraid of the terror of the night. Of the arrow that flieth in the day, of the business that walketh about in the dark: of invasion, or of the noonday devil. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee. (Ps 90. 4-7)Clearly the words of the text are directed toward the faithful, who in the perilous fight are surrounded, on the left and the right by the death of comrades, the only difference being that they are not specially called and protected by the mercy of God. They are neither false brethren or enemies, per se. They are simply those who do not trust in God. The analogy is clear: God protects those who trust in Him.
Only a small mind would reduce the words of this psalm to rank animus.
It is for this reason that so many traditional Catholics can't stand the sight of the everyday SSPXer, priest or faithful. They often demonstrate an unrestrained conceit and vanity, coupled by a degree of theological ignorance that is surpassed only by their imprudent rhetoric and out-and-out stupidity.
To characterize the monastery of Le Barroux, the Fraternity of St. Peter, Bishop Rifan and Campos, the Institute of Christ the King, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, as "mute dogs" for no other reason than that they enjoy canonical regularity is just as ignorant and idiotic as this priest's interpretation of Psalm 90.
For the last year I've defended the SSPX, both on-line and in face-to-face debates with other traditional Catholics. When the SSPX was called "schismatic" I've demonstrated that they are not. When the SSPX has been accused of not being in "full communion", I've decried the lunacy of whole notion of "full" and "partial" communion. I've defended the communion of the SSPX bishops, priests and faithful with the Church, pointing out that the only difference between the SSPX and other religious fraternities was their lack of canonical recognition.
I will still defend the SSPX in this manner until my dying breath, but I will not countenance the same manner of attack from an SSPX priest leveled against any of the traditional Catholics from other fraternities or orders who happen to be canonically regular. This priest is essentially using the same illogical reasoning that is leveled against the SSPX by its detractors. To say that a traditional Catholic is any less traditional based on whether or not that Catholic is canonically regular or not is absolutely ridiculous.
Indeed, to belittle those fighting on the front lines for Tradition, in this "guerrilla war" against Modernism based on canonical regularity is, indeed, divisive and will not serve the cause of Tradition in the least. This degree of unjustified animus is what will divide our ranks, adding to the confusion and ambiguity. For the US district of the SSPX to post this degree of idiocy on their website is, well, to use Bishop Fellay's words, a real "mystery".
Shame on this SSPX priest, and shame on the SSPX US District.
"When the SSPX has been accused of not being in 'full communion', I've decried the lunacy of whole notion of 'full' and 'partial' communion."
ReplyDeleteThe "lunacy" to which you refer originated in Rome. Without the ties to a living magisterium, sooner or later the nuts come out of the woodwork. That they exist within communion (and thus are not tied to communion, at least in spirit) only proves the point.
Nice blog, by the way.
Thank you for this insight, I too have defended SSPX but have had their arrogance, "above thou" attitude to those of us who follow the Supreme Pontiff (Rome) Novus Ordo a slap in the face. Thank you for all you do, I love your blog/web pages, God Bless you for your hard and dedicated work.
ReplyDeleteSadly, I agree. There are elements within the SSPX that really do need reining in.
ReplyDeleteWe have a priest in the UK who is obsessed with women's dress sense at Mass. He preaches for 30 minutes or more almost every Sunday on the topic. It has reached an unhealthy degree but Bishop Fellay does nothing.
All things said in the dark will be revealed in the light.
ReplyDeleteWait until you find out what His Eminence Bishop Fellay and his regime really feel about you.
*
"Wait until you find out what His Eminence Bishop Fellay and his regime really feel about you."
ReplyDeleteI already know what he thinks about me.
What SSPX is really stating is that if Vatican II and the new mass are valid expressions of the true teachings of the Church, then what was taught for the preceding 1900 plus year is in error. That is how much different the new mass and the teachings of Vatican II are. Unfortunately, most Catholics will not investigate as to how the new mass came to be and what teaching of Vatican II fly in the face of true Catholic teaching. Remember that Jesus stated that, "...take the narrow gate though it is harder only a few will persevere, but many will take the wide gate for it is easy and many will be lost." Simply being a "Catholic" is no guarantee of be saved. We must pray for the Church to return to the truth.
ReplyDelete