Friday, January 15, 2010

Cheeky Pink Girl: Latin Mass Funeral - Part I (Or Why the SSPX [explitive])

Link to the original article, while it lasts.

We'd like to address a sociological reality which most people have experienced with their families and/or who love someone or is loved by someone who is what is commonly referred to as the "Traditional" Catholic. We noted a Catholic Blogger called, "Cheeky Pink Girl" who seems like the kind of girl who lives on the periphery of an SSPX Community and possibly even has a few relatives who belong to it. She herself is fairly conservative, probably fairly pious, goes to communion on Sundays, every Sunday, and regularly goes to confession. In short, she's the kind of person we tend to respect and look up to as an example, even if she "participates" at the Novus Ordo and doesn't wear a veil. She's one of us, right?

And yet, perhaps under the pernicious influence of folks (neo-cons) like Mark Shea, Michael Mazza or Scott Hahn, she thinks the SSPX is a cult and moreover, thinks it is somehow harmful, although she is at some pains to identify just what it is about the SSPX that is harmful. We think it is presumption on her part to make these kinds of rash judgements she's making about the SSPX and a woman who appeared at an approved Diocesan, Latin Mass, with a head covering, sat in the back row and didn't "participate" in her mother's funeral. Unfortunately, this blogger erroneously believes that the SSPX is in schism:

Instead, what I think is sad is that she believes she's bigger and more right that the Body of Christ, which is represented by the Holy Church. It's sad that at her own mother's funeral, she believes that schismatic rupture [Wow! How about love thy neighbor, or your relative?] provides a (loving?/prideful?/necessary?) [How about loving her in return instead of judging her motivations on the basis of a false principle?] testimony to the gospel of Christ, not to mention the Christian fruits of humility and obedience. Throw in patience, too.

Perhaps the blogger is unaware of the fact that we're allowed to attend SSPX chapels and even give them financial support according to Ecclesia Dei Commission and Cardinal Hoyos and that the SSPX is NOT in Schism?

As an anecdote to illuminate the story a bit, we hope, this author was once afrighted of the behaviors he saw in chapels and the kinds of people he met there. Unfortunately, some people are broken and shattered by life's woes and not everyone is "well-adjusted" or even wholesome or undivided in their loyalties. Many of us are not as single-minded as we'd like to be, and some Catholics are scoundrels, or mad as in crazy, but that is certainly NOT something we'd say about the Society of Saint Pius X or the majority of the people who attend their chapels. Most of them are sane, well adjusted, kindly people who are terribly devout and sincere. Perhaps those of you who are afrighted by the sartorial conservatism of the chapel-goers should get to know them better before hosting a bitter fire of angry and contempt inside for them?

We think this is a fairly common sort of occurance, even among "Traditional" Catholics, a sociological phenomenon related to being around human beings, especially those people who are part of a movement of dissent from an established ecclesial norm and it's really nothing to get too afeared of, unless you might, perhaps, fail in your Easter Duty and don't go to confession...

Having said that, this blogger, "Cheeky Pink", talks about a funeral where a woman sits in the back and doesn't "participate" and presumes to judge the person's state of mind and seems to say that she is herself "presuming" to judge the Church when she doesn't go up to communion at her sister's funeral Mass.

Funerals are emotional things and it might be hard to make a rational case to this individual blogger about the legitimate aspiration of the woman (presumeably a relative) who sits in the back and doesn't "participate".

Actually, if this blogger knew anything about participation, she'd know that to participating in Holy Mass does not necessarily equate to dancing, holding hands or going up to embarrass themselves by giving a eulogy.

It's not just that this blogger agrees with the "reforms" of Vatican II, or the various deviations from sound liturgical practice that took place in its wake, it's that she despises what Catholicism was before the council, and what it is today.

Now, we shouldn't be too hasty to participate in the same pharisaism as the blogger does when she criticizies the veiled woman (most likely a relative), quietly praying in the back of the church and grieving at her mother's funeral. But in many of these cases, what we feel is the issue is a kind of angry reaction based on not possessing something that another person has, whether that's integrity, piety, modesty or what not. Seeems that liberal women, the kind who don't wear veils at Mass out of a spirit of rebellion (we're not talking about women who do so either out of ignorance or for other reasons we don't understand), or people in general who aren't as observant a Catholic as another, might be "put out" by shows of piety and even the kind of shunning behavior we see here.

We think we detect the vice of jealousy. It's the kind of jealousy which Joseph suffered at the hands of his brothers when he was thrown into the bottom, of a well, and it's the kind of intolerance for diversity which breeds hate. Our response to all of this should simply be, "what are you doing next Sunday, want to come to an SSPX Mass?". We should renew the invitation too even when we're put off and make a firm resolution to get our relatives, conservative or liberal, to come to the Immemorial Mass of Ages and participate in the Sacrament of Penance.


Charlotte said...

1. I have no SSPX relatives.
2. This funeral, if you read corrently, was NOT a Novus Ordo mass. It was a high requiem mass in Latin. So no, I was not expecting mid-mass eulogies, etc., and was thrilled that were none. See subsequent post "Latin Mass Funeral - Part II."
3. I do NOT support all aspects of the Novus Ordo, nor Vatican II. Because I criticize SSPX does not mean any of those things. I'm sick to death of liberal, feel-good Catholicism. But in saying this, I am asking for moderation in reform. Which does not make a defect.
4. I don't care what official documents you cite claiming SSPX is not in schism with the Church. The bottom line is that SSPXers often behave in a manner indicative of schism. They also write and communicate on numerous Catholic blogs and bulletin boards in a clear spirit of rupture and schism. Schism is as schism does.
5. I go to confession at least once a month. How dare you insinuate otherwise. It's none of your business. It's private matter. A funeral mass, on the other hand, is a very public affair.
6. Reading ONE blog post on my blog does not qualify you to judge that I despise the pre-Vatican II church. (Not that I could, since I was born AFTER Vatican II.) If you read through large quantities of my blog, you'd find I am very sympathetic to TRADS. See, you're guilty of the same that you accuse me of.
7. The fact that you even found what I wrote proves my point - you're desperately trolling the internet looking for something to bitch about. Desperately looking for a reason to defend SSPX. If a regular reader of my blog actually had a commentary like yours, I'd take it much more seriously. But when people are out there TRYING to be contentious and judegmental (the hallmarks of SSPX), well then, I just have to consider the source.

Tancred said...

Try to step back a minute and distinguish between what we actually said and what you think we said. You're making accusations that are not correct, and it might go at least to some length to explain why it is you dislike the SSPX, or a woman, which we now know, you aren't even related to.

We say, live and let live, but your opinion about schism and the SSPX are completely inaccurate and unfair. That's what we [speaking as Tradionalists in general] take issue with, and if you don't like it, it really doesn't matter in the end, because we are, by virtue of our increasing numbers and influence, the future.

Perhaps you are being a bit on the pharisaical side here?

littlerose said...

I think it is disgusting to describe someone's behavior at a funeral on the internet. Who knows what private sorrows were holding that woman to the back pew? Charlotte, you should be ashamed!

Charlotte said...

The family themselves predicted she would do exactly what she did. It wasn't about sorrow. It was about proving a point that she was right. Like I said over at Fisheaters - all she needed to do was sit with her family upfront, offer the few needed responses in Latin (yeah, because it would KILL her to respond "and with your spirit" two or three times), and then refrain from receiving communion if that's what her SSPX sensibilities told her to do.

I maintain there's no better way to evaluate an SSPXer than by watching one in person.

Tancred said...

Charlotte, I think your caricature of the SSPX is self-serving and dishonest, not that what you say is completely inaccurate, but you're really no better than the most mean-spirited "Traditionalist".