Thursday, September 17, 2015

Michael Voris Continues Attack On SSPX

Michael Voris continues his relentless attack on SSPX with today's Vortex explaining why Catholics should not attend SSPX masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation. While he's not certain why Voris has gone on an all-out offensive against SSPX at this particular time, the Bear's opinion hasn't changed. SSPX is what lawyers call "an attractive nuisance."

Imagine you had a junk yard, and you hadn't bothered to fence it in. In the junkyard was an enormous, rusted bulldozer. Every kid in the neighborhood sneaks into the junkyard after hours to play on this bulldozer. It even runs -- some. The owner of the junkyard has every reason to know the kids are playing on his bulldozer, but doesn't bother to get rid of it or put up a fence.

[UPDATE: it occurs to the Bear that the Church is also guilty of allowing this situation -- the bulldozer -- to go on, for whatever reason, probably to avoid an open, unmistakable schism. SSPX is never going along with the demand to agree with everything that came out of Vatican II. The Bear's position is he agrees with all things -- if any -- clearly articulated, which he has a duty to believe.]

Then one night the inevitable happens, The kids get the bulldozer started and do a Rachel Corrie on one of their friends. The junkyard owner gets sued. The judge says, "That bulldozer was obviously attractive to kids. It was what we call "an attractive nuisance." What happened was foreseeable. Give everything you own to the dead kid's family."

SSPX is undeniably attractive. It offers nearly everything the most ardent Catholics want. It is an attractive alternative to banal or disrespectful Novus Ordo masses. It is a nuisance, however, because it is undeniably leading people away from the Church and toward a kind of simulated Church of the past, cut off from the vine.

This isn't about whether the SSPX is technically in schism, a question that will not be resolved on some poor old Bear's blog. The best the Bear can do is ask if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck.

Do you really want to trust an SSPX priest with your absolution, when the Church is telling you he can't do that? Do you believe little old SSPX when it tells you they are deciding what masses are valid and what aren't, and that you must boycott all Novus Ordo masses to avoid offending God? (That was a wake-up call for the Bear, he's got to say.)

The Bear hopes any damage to the souls of rank and file Catholics is attributed to the SSPX. The kids? Well, they can't help themselves. It is the SSPX that created this problem.

Maybe because authority impresses lawyer-Bear, or because he already bolted from the Church for Orthodoxy -- twice -- he is very sensitive to this issue. That is why he always says, "Nail your foot to the floor in front of your favorite pew and die there." Whatever else is going on, that's on them. You can show your humility and obedience by putting your head down and stubbornly staying by Christ's side no matter what.

Aside from the merits of Voris' arguments, this is a preview of coming detractions in the Church as a whole. ("Detractions" in the sense of "making less," not speaking ill of someone.)

The Bear predicts (rather safely, he fears) that we will see more and more exercises of raw authority at the highest levels that won't make sense in the context of 2000 years of morals and dogma. But we will be expected to swallow it because it is all official. Looking as far into the future as he can, the Bear sees a strange Church. Yet, it will have all the bona fides of the one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Loyola said, “What seems to me white, I will believe black if the hierarchical Church so defines.”

We're there. God help us.


  1. It's time to get an FSSP parish in every diocese! Write a check out to them today and include a letter to Father Pendergast (I think that is his name) expressing hope that
    The FSSP will not cave to any novelty that comes out to of the Synod.

    I see the FSSP as perhaps the only viable alternative to the Novus Ordo Nuchurch Abomination.

    Again, support the FSSP with $$$$ so that they might prosper in these dark days.

    1. Great idea. Fr. John Berg, the Superior General of the FSSP, would also benefit getting a note, in addition to sending a note to Fr. Pendergraft, Director of Development for the North American District. And Fr. Saguto, the District Superior.

  2. Would it be alright just to nail your shoe to the floor, with firmly tied laces?

  3. Actually, I'm going to find an SSPX parish for The Year of Mercy and go to confession. I'm hoping that if they see that being in a "regular situation" with Rome will bring people to their doors, maybe they will work a bit harder to be "regular".

  4. Obedience to Truth is required, and you must inform your conscience sufficiently to know when you are being lied to. Abuse of authority is rampant today, and just wait until that Sin-od.

  5. "Do you really want to trust an SSPX priest with your absolution, when the Church is telling you he can't do that? Do you believe little old SSPX when it tells you they are deciding what masses are valid and what aren't, and that you must boycott all Novus Ordo masses to avoid offending God? (That was a wake-up call for the Bear, he's got to say.)"

    I love you , Bear, but I have to counter.

    When I am dying, I want a priest ordained in the old rite by a bishop consecrated in the old rite. Vatican 2 changed everything so drastically that I truly wonder if it is The Church anymore. And if it is not, then we are in emergency mode meaning that bishops must consecrate other bishops and ordain priests without permission as there is no authority power on earth to give that permission.

    If by some chance I am wrong in my sedevacantism and the church of Vatican 2 is The Church, I have nothing to fear. I am merely a Protestant, a separated sister who subsists in the Catholic Church and is bound for heaven-----all according to Vat 2.

    Seattle kim

    1. Your points just really, really can't be logically argued with Kim. Funny, you kept coming to my mind at Mass today; and prayers were going up for you. We are indeed in confusing and dark times....may God have mercy on us all who love him and try to do the best we can in figuring out what's what (I would NEVER trust what comes out of francis' mouth to tell me).

      "Zeal for Thy house consumes me"...may He have mercy on us who try to live this out according to His words....even when we can no longer trust His vicar to feed us other than poison.

      God have mercy on us.

    2. Kim, please see my answer to Michael. Badger, being Catholic has always meant belonging a simple thing, not passing individual judgment on everything the Church does. Anyone who imagines his possession of the truth demands he leaves the Church should consider how he differs from the Reformers. Suspend judgment on what appears to be error. God will correct, although we may not live to see it. The important thing is to remain in the Ark, not become a shipbuilding critic and dive off because you disapprove of the design or course. There is only one Ark. There is nowhere else to go. Now we can argue the niceties of canon law or what some saint said 800 years ago or whatever, but it is really very simple. You're either on board or you're not. And Vatican II does NOT give any pass to CATHOLICS who defect. In fact, if you read Lumen Gentium, apostate Catholics are the ONLY people who appear to be in danger of hellfire, do don't get cute ;-)

    3. Bear, you seem to be asserting that the SSPX don't "belong"; I assert that they do. That's the crux of the issue (for me). And I can very clearly see the badger family worshiping in their chapels, REMAINING RC (in fact, no doubt, becoming moreso). That's what I referred to with seattle kim 'leaving' the Church...the sede groups have done that; the SSPX has not. No 'cuteness' intended...badgers don't do cute.

    4. and sorry, I meant to say that I can see the badger family worshiping at an SSPX chapel IF this sin-nod turns out as hereticaly as they've given all of signs of it going. Though in reality, I think we've already passed that event horizon with frank's Catholic divorce decree. That's dogma change on 3 (count'em, 3!) Sacraments. Sorry it just is...don't give me the old "oh it's just praxis"...what a load of crap. There is such a thing as dogmatic praxis , and if this ain't it, ain't nothin' it.

      Everyone, EVERYONE, will have to make some very life-altering, potentially eternity-altering decisions soon, calling into use all the powers of a well-formed conscience, and we may be on different sides of the be it. Fun times for Catholics these days.

  6. Seems to me we have a duty to abandon the Church if it abandons the truth of Christ's teaching. One cannot subject themselves or their children to lies and heresy.

    1. Bingo, Mr. Dowd. My children were raised Novus Ordo and both have left. I hear that from lots of N.O. parents.

      Seattle kim

    2. Bingo. Raised my younguns N.O.. All have left; even the one that wanted to be a priest.

      Seattle kim

    3. Please, no. If you leave the Church, you're no longer Catholic. There is very little hope for Catholics who knowingly leave the Church. Please remember that there are other baleful influences in play since the 60's besides Vatican II. Don't commit a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    4. I agree...leaving the Church is not the answer; NEVER The is GRAVE mortal sin. The question is what shifts to, "where is the Church?" And that is looking more and more likely (with each idiocy against the Deposit of Faith uttered by this BofR) to be with the SSPX. Just MHO. A bit more time will show.

  7. Why do you perceive me as leaving the Church because I believe we're in a period of interregnum? There have been periods of up to 7 years in Church history where there was no lawful pope. Just because I receive the sacraments from a Thuc line priest, I've left the Church?

    Seattle Kim

  8. Originally, I was going to reply to the following:

    "Do you believe little SSPX when it tells you it is the only group offering valid masses (point a), and that you must boycott all Novus Ordo masses to avoid offending God?(point b)"

    As point a is not a reflection of their position, and point b is a straw-man.

    Point A: The reality is that the SSPX holds that the Novus Ordo Missae when meeting the normal requirements is valid.

    Point B: The reason that a person is counseled to avoid the New Mass is because it presents a danger to the Faith - even as promulgated but the suppression of expressions of the Faith. A more explicit example is the suppression of the Filioque in the Ukranian Catholic Masses in Canada. Lex Orandi Lex Credidi is more than just a maxim. If the beliefs, dogmas, values are not reflected in the Liturgy, then they are not reinforced. If they are not reinforced they will (and have) subside.

    Last point - seeking the sacraments from the SSPX is not leaving the Church. In order to do that the individual needs to either commit heresy,schism or be subject to a particular level of excommunication.

    Obviously the first and third are not applicable. As to the second, the CDF holds that they (SSPX et al) are simply not in full communion.

    I know this as a fact as differing from Mr. Voris' opinion because I asked for and received that information from the CDF (see link).

    As you will note the CDF does not say that the SSPX et al are in schism. They simply state that they are not in full communion.

    Meaning? Good question, that phrase is used as a label for various groups of people including those who are in schism and heresy to the SSPX who are not in heresy and recognize the Pope but who (for various reasons) do not have a canonical structure.



Moderation is On.

Featured Post

Judging Angels Chapter 1 Read by Author

Quick commercial for free, no-strings-attached gift of a professionally produced audio book of Judging Angels, Chapter 1: Last Things, read...