What will become of the Jesuits?

Libertas Humanae

by John Pacheco

The very essence of God is love. We know this because God is a Trinity of three persons who give and share this love. But true love can only be realized where there is a total and free reciprocation of this love. To be truly free, this love must be fully consensual, with no inhibitions or obstacles being present in the relationship. It therefore demands a free and complete abandonment by one person to the other person.

In the Catholic faith, we understand this practically through the sacrament of marriage. As we all know, one of the essential conditions of a valid marriage is the free and unimpeded consent of both parties to the marital bond. No party to a marriage wants his beloved to be coerced or immorally influenced into the bond. To do so would be to destroy the complete and total union of what marriage is supposed to be: a free and whole sacrifice to the other person of body, soul, and mind.

Since the sacrament of marriage is a reflection of how God Himself relates to us, He expects nothing less from His creation if it wishes to commune with Him. Hence, like us, God insists that His Bride (the members of the Church) be free to enter the spiritual marriage covenant with Him.

In order for this fullest expression of love to be authentically manifested, both persons in the relationship must therefore be free and un-coerced to choose the beloved. Marriages are initiated when one lover proposes to another: Will you accept me to be your spouse? Yet, the joy and fulfillment resulting from consent draws all of its significance and power from the lover’s entirely free and unencumbered decision. Anything less will simply not do.

The Garden of Eden is a perfect example of God giving Adam and Eve the total and complete freedom to either choose him or to reject him. This is why in creating our first parents God told them:

In other words, while they were free to eat from any tree, there were still mortal consequences of eating of the tree of knowledge. In this passage, we see that freedom in itself is a positive good willed by the Creator . In fact, we see this freedom emphasized in the very next chapter:

Of course, God knew where Adam and Eve physically were in the garden of Eden. By asking such a question, Scripture is trying to teach us the gift of freedom which is intrinsic to us as persons. God plays “dumb” in order to emphasize the sovereignty we have over our own wills. Hence, without a genuine human freedom to act and profess one’s belief, the whole foundation of the Christian faith is undercut. Our faith presupposes man is both free and culpable for all of his actions. In the case of our first parents, we see that God respected their choice in rejecting His commandment. He did not inhibit their sin or coerce them into remaining in His love. He let them act freely.

In acknowledging man’s freedom to act, the question of religious freedom is of paramount importance since it has a direct bearing on how Catholics are to approach and evangelize the world. Since our vocation as Catholics is to share the Good News of Jesus Christ, we are called to invite non-Catholics into our familial communion with God as symbolized by the divine marriage between Christ and His Church. And because our relationship to God is characterized as a marriage between God and His people, we are to respect the freedom that God’s potential spouse has been granted – either to reject Him or to accept Him.

In the decades following the Second Vatican Council and the promulgation of the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitas Humanae), there has been much controversy on how to reconcile Dignitas Humanae with previous Church teachings on the objective necessity of non-Catholics to convert to the Catholic faith. In particular, criticism has been raised that the Declaration is too “man-focused”. The Declaration, its critics say, neither adequately addresses the objective necessity of converting to the Catholic Faith, nor satisfactorily condemns the idea that “any religion is as good as another”. Furthermore, it leaves the impression, these critics maintain, that the Church is promoting, at least implicitly, objective theological and even moral error through its promotion of civil freedom of religion.

Yet, contrary to these claims, the Declaration explicitly answers the first two charges at the very beginning of the document:

In this one sentence, the Declaration not only rejects the idea of religious relativism by affirming the objective necessity to convert to the Catholic faith, but it also touches on the very reason why the Declaration was issued; namely, to assert that man has a right to religious freedom, and that the actual meaning of this phrase “has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society”.

The Declaration implicitly affirms many biblical and Catholic principles. First, it reflects God’s dealings with our first parents. God gave Adam and Eve the same freedom that the Church is seeking in civil society. It affirms the truth about the Catholic faith, and binds all persons to seeking after the truth since there is a moral compulsion to do so. Yet, the Declaration also affirms that there is no absolute compulsion to embrace that truth (DH,11). We can understand this distinction more fully when we remember Our Lord discussion with the rich young man:

In this scene, Our Lord affirms that salvation must always remain a free and un-coerced offer to a person. In seeking to protect this important principle, the Church has wisely recognized that each person must be in a position where his choice is not unduly influenced by civil means. Practically speaking, this means that everyone is free to worship according to their consciences without the threat of veiled persecution and discrimination. Since the Church wishes to preserve Our Lord’s offer of salvation, She must work against those forces which seek to pervert the offer into an imposition. For the Church’s witness to the Gospel to be fully received and embraced, there can be no *******ization of the Gospel by having the State enforce policies which cause resentment and alienation among non-Catholics. For then, the Church’s mission in challenging modern man becomes even more difficult. Moreover, the Church can appeal to its Declaration when She dialogues with repressive regimes and ideologies which seek to undermine or even exterminate the Catholic Faith. In upholding man’s right to religious freedom, the Church’s enemies cannot justify their religious repression under the pretense of ‘combating error’. In short, our enemies cannot appeal to a means which the Church Herself rejects, namely, taking civil action to repress religious error.

Second, the Catholic view of justification sees human merit, responsibility, and culpability as indispensable elements of God’s plan. Without genuine freedom, these ideas lose any relevance or significance in Catholic teaching. In opposing such freedom, the Church would become an obstacle to God’s intention for the human person. Man has been created with complete autonomy in either accepting or rejecting the fullness of truth found in the Catholic Faith. And precisely because this autonomy is divinely granted to every person and intrinsic to his very being, it cannot be suppressed in any forum – either private or public. Therefore, any human law which seeks to detract from man’s inherent dignity through political, social, or religious means is really an attack on the Creator’s design for man.

When these obstacles are removed, however, there might be a temptation by some to believe that man’s freedom exonerates him from moral culpability. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth (no pun intended)! Indeed, the removal of these obstacles places a grave weight of moral (not absolute) compulsion on all persons in society. For then, there can be no excuses or pretenses for seeing the Church as “repressive” or “despotic” in suppressing religious freedom. With the promulgation of the Declaration on Religious Liberty, the Church has obliterated these lies and pretenses so that man is both free and responsible to consider the offer of salvation.

No longer can the Church’s enemies count on a perceived fear and domination accompanying the Catholic Faith’s propagation. The Church has pulled the rug out from beneath them, and given us a formidable evangelizaton weapon in confronting an anti-religious, bigoted western culture. Instead of seeing the Declaration as a capitulation to liberalism, our opponents should consider that this document could well serve as an effective defensive armor against an increasingly hostile culture. In the past, the Declaration was used against communist and other dictatorial political structures when they tried to suppress the Catholic Faith. But now in the western democracies, an increasingly visible anti-Catholic sentiment is confronting us. It is only a matter of time before ‘freedom of religion’ is challenged by those who trumpet ‘hate crimes’ as the next bastion of civil rights. When the supreme courts of our democracies consider applying ‘hate crime’ laws against professing Catholics because they speak out against homosexuality, where will the Church turn to protect the rights of professing Catholics? It will turn to this Declaration.

Third, the Declaration’s opponents say that the Church is implicitly approving other religious professions by allowing their followers the civil right to publicly profess their faith. Yet, the fallacy in this reasoning rests in a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of freedom. Freedom is a good because it acknowledges the dignity of God since man chooses Him before all else and without compulsion. By man’s complete and un-coerced choice for God, God is glorified by an immortal being (man) who has chosen God completely for His own sake. It stands to reason, therefore, that if man is to choose God, he must be able to explore the truth about God unencumbered. He may begin with a very false understanding of God and fully experience the shortfall that inevitably comes with the error. If he is vigilant in his search, he will one day find the true God in the true Church. But the point here is that he must be allowed to make that journey freely and publicly. To thwart his journey would cause his human nature to rebel against his suppressor and stunt his inquiry, or even turn him off a serious inquiry into the Faith if the members of that Faith are acting dishonorably.

While the Declaration is called “Human Dignity”, its ontological foundation does not rest on human dignity per se. Rather, it rests on the dignity and glory owing to the Creator. Because man is created with an immortal soul, his ultimate destiny and purpose is directed to God. His whole dignity and worth, therefore, is predicated on the value which His Creator places on him. Being created in His likeness, man retains the dignity and honour which comes with this, not the least of which is sovereignty over his will and actions. This is why God permits the most horrendous crimes which mankind inflicts on itself. He respects our choice because he respects His creation. Thus, man’s moral right to be free is directly proportional to the glory which God receives from the choice that man makes.

The Church cannot allow a civil right if it does not have a moral right as its foundation. For without a moral right, there can be no licit civil right. A moral right to exercise his opinion in religious matters is the same thing as saying man has the freedom to choose. This exercise is a good in the sight of God because it allows God to accept man’s choice of Him above all else. It is in this open and free relationship that glory is given to God. Such a choice, therefore, is properly termed a “right” since it is an inherent part of man’s dignity. While it is true that any particular choice in religious matters may not be a right, nevertheless such a choice is to be tolerated in order to uphold man’s freedom.

The fundamental underlying basis for religious freedom rests on the dignity God affords to man. Before any appreciation can be given to submitting to the truth, there must be a mechanism – a mechanism which respects his intrinsic dignity - to allow man to arrive at that truth. In one fundamental respect, the moral right to religious freedom comes before the obligation to submit to the truth once it is found. To suppress religious expression – even erroneous religious expression – does not and indeed cannot be seen as an authentic call to submit to the truth in freedom.

John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
June 24, 2004

___________________________________________________

This article originally appeared in Catholic Exchange.

What Makes Us Catholic Traditionalists

by I. Shawn McElhinney and Pete Vere, JCL

Judging by the mixed response towards Msgr. Calkins' recent talk to the Latin Liturgy Association, there appears to be some confusion over what constitutes a traditional Catholic. This seems rather strange to the present authors, who are both traditional Catholics, since we both presume a traditional Catholic is one who adheres to Catholic Tradition. Therefore, let us examine five criteria from Catholic Tradition so that we may, we hope, resolve this controversy.

Papal Perpetuity

First, a traditional Catholic recognizes not only the authority of the Roman Pontiff as the Successor of Peter, but also the permanence of the primacy for all time. This would include the reign of Pope John Paul II. In short, as traditional Catholics we declare with one voice the following words from the First Vatican Council:



In other words, we affirm our traditional Catholicism because we recognize the authority of the current Roman Pontiff within the institution of the Catholic Church. Those who disagree with us may be traditional, but not within the context of Catholic Tradition.


Submission in Disciplinary Matters

Second, as traditional Catholics we submit ourselves in obedience to the current Roman Pontiff. To quote from the First Vatican Council:


In short, Catholic Tradition maintains we must submit to the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline and governance, not merely in faith and morals.


The Pope Judges Tradition

Third, some folks infuriated by the Ecclesia Dei Commission are confused over who is the final arbiter of Catholic Tradition. A sample of their writings includes the following:



As one can see, these folks claim the ability to judge the Roman Pontiff if they feel he is departing from God's teaching. In practical terms, these folks claim a higher competency than the Roman Pontiff to judge sacred Tradition. Their claim however is not in accordance with the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Rather, their claim appears to be more in keeping with the tradition of Fr. Martin Luther, who claimed at the Diet of Worms, I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other."


As for those who claim Pope John Paul II has misinterpreted Catholic Tradition, this claim follows the tradition of Calvin's following assertion: "Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction that judging the Scriptures is in the Church and that on her nod its certainty depends."

Thus, in keeping with Catholic Tradition, as traditional Catholics we submit to, rather than undermine, the judgment of Pope John Paul II when mediating sacred Tradition.

Submission to Vatican II

Fourth, we do not as traditional Catholics impugn the legitimacy of the ecumenical councils. Rather, we recognize and submit to the teachings of all of the Church's ecumenical councils, including the Second Vatican Council. This is because in keeping with Catholic Tradition, we recognize that the teachings of an ecumenical council, including ones called for pastoral reasons, are an act of the Church's teaching Magisterium. As the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explains in its entry under "General Councils":


Therefore, even when a matter raised in an ecumenical council is not definitively settled, as in the case of some of the Second Vatican Council's teachings - we recognize that the truth of a doctrine does not depend upon the express invocation of infallibility, but rather infallibility is intrinsic to an ecumenical council.


All Approved Liturgies are Traditional

Fifth, traditional Catholics worship according to a rite of Mass permitted by the Bishop of Rome. Some of the more common liturgical forms within the Latin Church are Pope Paul VI's reformed usage of the Roman Missal, the 1962 Indult permitted by Pope John Paul II, and the Anglican Usage in the Roman liturgy. As traditional Catholics, we do not impugn any of the Church's approved liturgical forms. Rather, in keeping with Catholic Tradition, we adhere to the seventh canon on the Sacrifice of the Mass from the Council of Trent. This canon states:


Because Pope Paul VI validly promulgated his reform of the Roman Missal, traditional Catholics recognize the Novus Ordo as an approved liturgy of the Catholic Church. Some traditional Catholics may prefer to worship according to the former 1962 liturgical usage; however, they recognize in keeping with the Council of Trent that the Novus Ordo is an office of piety.


Conclusion

We do not as traditional Catholics pay lip service to the obligations of a faithful Catholic, and upon our own private judgment decide when to comply with lawful ecclesiastical authority. Rather, in keeping with Catholic Tradition, we submit to the Roman Pontiff and the diocesan bishop in communion with him. Therefore, with regards to Msgr. Calkins' most recent critics, we need not be concerned with false allegations claiming that traditional Catholicism is under attack. Rather, we must ask ourselves as traditional Catholics whether those who perpetuate such criticism truly conform to Catholic Tradition.

I. Shawn McElhinney and Pete Vere
The Catholic Legate
March 9, 2004


[font=Arial,Helvetica]Originally Published in The Wanderer December 6, 2001[/font]

Bibliography:

[1] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §2,1 (July 18, 1870)

[2] Vatican I: Dogmatic Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" §3,1,2 (July 18, 1870)

[3] Society of St. Pius X: "Where is Catholic Obedience Today?"

[4] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "General Councils" (c. 1913)

[5] Council of Trent: Canon Seven on the Sacrifice of the Mass from Session XXII (September 17, 1562)


Other Notes:

The citations from the First Vatican Council were obtained at the following link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

The citation from a Society of St. Pius X Pamphlet on "Obedience" can be

edited: deleted site

Warning: The nature of the above site is one of promoting disobedience to the Supreme Pontiff and a refusal to maintain communion with those who are subject to him. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church §817 on schism and the Code of Canon Law 751 which the section references.) For this reason, the present authors cannot in conscience recommend the site at all and post the above link for verification purposes only.

The citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article "General Councils" was obtained at the following link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

The citation from the Council of Trent was obtained at the following link:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html


©2003, 2001 "What Makes Us Catholic Traditionalists", written by I. Shawn McElhinney and Pete Vere JCL. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

plainswolf said:

This curious double standard is one of the issues Pope Benedict XVI will have to address. Optimistically at least, Cardinal Ratzinger himself declared in an address before he became Pope Benedict, concerning negotiations to "regularize" the SSPX: "We must do everything possible to return to these brothers their lost confidence."

Now I'm not so much trying to defend the SSPX, but pointing out what seems a double-standard sometimes..

J.M.J.
Mark

Click to expand...

It's interesting to compare SSPX with the Chinese CPA. The one thing that I find odd is that the CPA is blatantly against the Church's moral teachings concerning contraception, abortion, etc, yet SSPX doesn't stray from the Church's teachings. Both consecrated illicitly, yet so many Catholics say it's ok to receive the Eucharist at a CPA parish. Many also say we shouldn't receive at an SSPX parish. Having been to China quite frequently, I've received twice, yet now that I know better I refuse to do it again.

Anyway, I don't think all Jesuits are the same. Here in S. Korea, there are TONS of great Jesuits. One even says the Novus Ordo Mass in Latin, with gregorian chant. It's quite beautiful!

-Jason

Hi Jason,

I don't know very much *YET* about the Society of the Jesuits... I'll continue to seek info though...

I don't know that much about the CPA either. I'm just starting to learn about the SSPX and even though you and Mark have made some valid points... I think there is one consideration that is missing.

Anytime, an individual or an organization of believers rebell and/or disobey against Rome... that will cause them to be "excommunicated", if they do not cease the wrongful behavior.

It is sad that there are any schisms... and it is quite easy to have empathy... but we cannot go and become rebellious ourselves... we can not become disobedient to Rome. We must pray for those who are in schism with Rome. We cannot allow ourselves to become confused with the way some of these groups will "word" their writings... or speech... We must pray and be careful and yes...we must love them as Christ loves us and gave His life for us to receive Salvation through grace.

I don't think that it is wise that we compare the CPA or the SSPX or the Society of the Jesuits to each other... each situation does seem to be somewhat different from each other. Of course... like I said... I don't know too much about those groups.

God's Peace,

Debbie

p.s. now, ya'all know why I copy and paste... I'm not a good writer or teacher... LOL

Nobody has said that the Jesuits are heretics, schismatics or apostates. What has been said is that there are some priests within the Society of Jesus who are heretics, and that this should be adressed as it is more rife in this Order than in most others in communion with Rome.

I don't know whether this is true or not, but all I'm saying is that we really ought not jump to the conclusion that those who claim there is heresy amongst the Jesuits are saying that the Jesuits are all evil...and there is certainly no question that they could be in schism:they are fully in communion with the Church and the Pope.

Those who commit formal heresy are, of course, excommunicated latae sentinae, but as has been pointed out regarding the Confraternal Society of Saint Pius X, the canonical implications of this are only existent when the excommunication is confirmed by Rome.

Please let us not make this a personal issue along the lines of "I know good Jesuit priests and you are talking of bad Jesuit priests. Therefore you are insulting the good priests I know." There is no logic there, and it is those who are in danger of misrepresenting the arguments of some in an attempt to vindicate good Jesuits who are the ones in danger of judging the whole Order by some of it's members, because they seem to assume that is what others are doing.

Heresy is heresy. If someone is in material heresy that is an objective fact. Let us not shy away from the matter by claiming that we lay people have not the right to judge material heresy when we see it or pretending there is no use in pointing out the lies of Satan where we see them. If we were a little more open to making the distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy then we would greatly help the faithful who have doubts and who are exposed to the latter.

There are orthodox Jesuits. There are heretical Jesuits. Let us not ignore the reality of the latter to defend the reality of the former and let us not do the reverse and ignore goodness because of evil.

Ramble over--you can wake up now.

Pax,
Rob

Hi Rob,

Do you know of any websites that I can utilize to learn more about the Jesuit priests... This is an area that I know very little about. (as you can probably tell).

God's Peace,

Debbie

Irish Melkite said:

Mark,

Thank you for that well-documented factoid about "a Jesuit parish", somewhere in Ireland, regarding which you "think" your friend "mentioned a couple of other abuses" in addition to a "different creed, ... very liberal and certainly not an official one." Now, I know for a fact that the Society needs to be interdicted.

Click to expand...

It did sound a bit ridiculous

Debbie,

I myself know very little about the Society. This Catholic Encyclopedia article describes them (rather concisely...well, for the Catholic Encyclopedia anyway ). It includes links to an article about the founder, Saint Ignatius of Loyola, and other related articles at the bottom.

--The official website for the Jesuits in the UK

Pax,
Rob

Robbie_James_Francis said:

Debbie,

I myself know very little about the Society. This Catholic Encyclopedia article describes them (rather concisely...well, for the Catholic Encyclopedia anyway ). It includes links to an article about the founder, Saint Ignatius of Loyola, and other related articles at the bottom.

--The official website for the Jesuits in the UK

Pax,
Rob

Click to expand...

Thanks Rob, these sites should keep me busy for awhile....

In the article that I have put in spanish, say in the most important jesuits magazine in Spain, that jesuits want more "democracy" in the church, that the system to elect the Popes would be "changed", there are to be more equality into men and women, they want that bishops would be elected depending the faithful there and not the Pope´s opinion, they want a "modern" liturgy, they put all of this to Benedixt XVI
Well I don´t see marvellous these things.

Franze said:

In the article that I have put in spanish, say in the most important jesuits magazine in Spain, that jesuits want more "democracy" in the church, that the system to elect the Popes would be "changed", there are to be more equality into men and women, they want that bishops would be elected depending the faithful there and not the Pope´s opinion, they want a "modern" liturgy, they put all of this to Benedixt XVI
Well I don´t see marvellous these things.

Click to expand...

Hi Franze,

I really don't know that much about the Jesuits... but what little that I'm noticing is that there are different groups or societies of Jesuit priests... Maybe most of them are fine and a few others are in schism?... I really don't know.

One thing that I do know... Dogma is Dogma... and it will not and cannot change. We all can hold onto this promise.

God's Peace,

Debbie

D'Ann said:

Hi Franze,

I really don't know that much about the Jesuits... but what little that I'm noticing is that there are different groups or societies of Jesuit priests... Maybe most of them are fine and a few others are in schism?... I really don't know.

One thing that I do know... Dogma is Dogma... and it will not and cannot change. We all can hold onto this promise.

God's Peace,

Debbie

Click to expand...

Yes but it isn´t beautiful that the jesuits tell things totally different of the doctrine of the church.

Oh goodness- really, OBOB is the only place in the world where a discussion about the Jesuits could somehow suck in both SSPX and the CPA, and talk of Protestant schismatism....isn't it tiring being so much holier than everyone else???

Franze said:

Yes but it isn´t beautiful that the jesuits tell things totally different of the doctrine of the church.

Click to expand...

show me one concrete example-please before making broad statements like these. The one example in this thread refers to an individual priest who was investigated for his teachings- and TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY OBEDIENT to the Church and Her requests of him.

i must have missed soething What is the CPA?

Franze said:

Yes but it isn´t beautiful that the jesuits tell things totally different of the doctrine of the church.

Click to expand...

Amen... any group that does not follow Church Doctrine/Dogma is in trouble and we must pray. I really don't know that much at all regarding the Jesuits... Thank you for sharing.

deleted

CPA:


In China, the Communist have set up a puppet Catholic Church refered to as the 'Patriotic Association' controlled by the state while the real Catholic Church in China is under severe persecution and has to operate underground situation.. On April 28, 2005 AsiaNews reported that, according to the Kung Foundation, "Seven priests of the underground Church were arrested last April 27 in the village of Wuqiu, near the city of Jinzhou (Hebei). The priests, whose age range from 30 to 50 years, had gathered for a spiritual retreat together with Bishop Julius Jia Zhiguo, unofficial bishop of Zhengding." By "unofficial" bishop, the communist regime in Beijing means a true Catholic bishop not hand picked by the communist government.

The arrested priests were on a religious retreat at the time of their arrest. The AsiaNews story further reports that "the arrests were made by the Security Bureau and Religious Affairs Bureau of Shijiazhuang at 5:30 p.m., with dozens of policemen and 9 police cars surrounding the retreat site." The leader of the retreat, Msgr. Jia Zhiguo, "had just been released from a period of round-the-clock surveillance, from the time of John Paul II’s death to Benedict XVI’s election, March 20 to April 25. Security forces and the Religious Affairs Bureau had warned Msgr. Jia to refrain from all religious activity."

The story provides a succinct summation of the Beijing regime’s policy of forcible suppression of the Roman Catholic religion: "The government in China allows religious activity only in places and with people registered and monitored by the state and the Patriotic Association. Any religious activity outside of state control is considered unlawful and a threat to public order. Control by the Patriotic Association aims at fostering the birth of a national church, independent of relations with the Pope."


quoted by Mark on page 3.

As for the CPA, exactly how are we tolerating it?

Should the Vatican invade China and put down this puppet church established by the Chinese government?

Original Op quote written by PeterPaul:

What will become of the Jesuits?

Click to expand...

One wonders in today's age how the SSPX are considered schismatic and the Jesuits are not. Considering the volume of apostacy to come from their apostolate and the souls they have led astray from the Barque of Peter one can not hesitate to say that this once golden society with the great St. Ignatius of Loyola has done more to harm Catholics in their care in recent history than any SSPX member ever could.

Certainly for those not familiar, the Jesuits closing shop is not new. In history they had been disassociated from the Holy See (unjustly at that time) only to return at the request of the contemporary pope. They had been barred in many nations over the centuries (not for heterodoxy but the opposite) and one wonders if the Church needs to distance Herself from them today.

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Hi Shannon,

here is what you previously wrote:

Oh goodness- really, OBOB is the only place in the world where a discussion about the Jesuits could somehow suck in both SSPX and the CPA, and talk of Protestant schismatism....isn't it tiring being so much holier than everyone else???

Click to expand...

Did I and others misunderstand the original OP? Somehow, it seems that the OP was already talking about the SSPX and someone brought up the CPA too...


Personally, I don't know that much about the Jesuits and I was hoping that someone would post some information about them... positive information...


Since others already mentioned the SSPX, I thought that maybe it would be a good idea to clarify what the SSPX is... because I didn't know myself until awhile ago.

I'm not trying to be hurtful or unkind.. only want to protect us from believing non-truths... sorry if I offended you or others... Although, I still would like to know more about the various groups of the Jesuit priests.


Debbie