Another SSPX superior speaks on Rome/SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter EcceAgnusDei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EcceAgnusDei

Guest
Have you noticed how many SSPX superiors are speaking out in terms and in a tone that seem to be pro-reconciliation? It appears to me as if they are preparing the society. Yes, it is speculation, but something feels good and right. Let’s keep praying that God’s will be done.

Here’s an excerpt from an editorial written by the SSPX superior for Belgium and surrounds:

(full text here)
He [Archbishop Lefebvre] who, amidst the complete conciliar debacle, had enjoyed for a decade the official blessing of the Church would have accepted, “without any bitterness”, and without any compromise, a canonical recognition, even coming from an authority still strongly tainted by modern errors, but willing to correct the course of the great boat of the Church, “taking in water on every side”.
Click to expand...
Father Benoît Wailliez
Superior for the District of the Benelux
Click to expand...
 
What exactly is “the complete conciliar debacle”? And what is “even coming from an authority still strongly tainted by modern error”?

I’m sorry, but the expert you provided is more alarming than hopeful. I’d really wish people on all sides would keep quiet until something official gets announced.
 
Melchior said:
What exactly is “the complete conciliar debacle”? And what is “even coming from an authority still strongly tainted by modern error”?

I’m sorry, but the expert you provided is more alarming than hopeful. I’d really wish people on all sides would keep quiet until something official gets announced.
Click to expand...
Given the obvious coordination of message going on the the Society, something is brewing.
Get used to hearing things like this Melchior. They aren’t going to stop after they have their status. 👍
 
EcceAgnusDei said:
Have you noticed how many SSPX superiors are speaking out in terms and in a tone that seem to be pro-reconciliation? It appears to me as if they are preparing the society. Yes, it is speculation, but something feels good and right. Let’s keep praying that God’s will be done.

Here’s an excerpt from an editorial written by the SSPX superior for Belgium and surrounds:

(full text here)
Click to expand...
Yes, it is extremely evident that elements in the Fellay/Krah wing of the Society are trying to raze the bastions of oppositionalism and '88ism in an attempt to smooth the way for a rapprochement with what their mortal foes, the Williamson/Scott wing, would term “modernist Rome.” Best of luck to them. The only problem is their shortsightedness: if they had started this move to temper their rhetoric and introduce themes of obedience five or even two years ago, then this sudden reversal would not have the transparent look of ad-hoc hastiness that it unfortunately does. Well, the Society was never exactly known for masterful PR, was it.
 
MarkThompson said:
Yes, it is extremely evident that elements in the Fellay/Krah wing of the Society are trying to raze the bastions of oppositionalism and '88ism in an attempt to smooth the way for a rapprochement with what their mortal foes, the Williamson/Scott wing, would term “modernist Rome.” Best of luck to them. The only problem is their shortsightedness: if they had started this move to temper their rhetoric and introduce themes of obedience five or even two years ago, then this sudden reversal would not have the transparent look of ad-hoc hastiness that it unfortunately does. Well, the Society was never exactly known for masterful PR, was it.
Click to expand...
The Fellay / Krah wing?

Krah is not even a member of the Society. Perhaps you’ve been reading too much traditio.
 
We must not forget that “the complete conciliar debacle” is something that Archbishop Lefebvre himself helped to perpetuate by signing the documents of the Vatican II council.

Once reconciled and brought into regularization with the Church, the SSPX will not be able to dis-associate itself with the Vatican II Council, as it is an official and ecumenical council of the Church. If I am not mistaken, its documents are still binding on the faithful.
 
Big_Feet said:
We must not forget that “the complete conciliar debacle” is something that Archbishop Lefebvre himself helped to perpetuate by signing the documents of the Vatican II council.

Once reconciled and brought into regularization with the Church, the SSPX will not be able to dis-associate itself with the Vatican II Council, as it is an official and ecumenical council of the Church. If I am not mistaken, its documents are still binding on the faithful.
Click to expand...
Are all its documents binding on the faithful? Does this include the documents that call for the continued use of Latin, Gregorian Chant and Sacred Polyphony?
 
Big_Feet said:
We must not forget that “the complete conciliar debacle” is something that Archbishop Lefebvre himself helped to perpetuate by signing the documents of the Vatican II council.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that, by “the complete conciliar debacle”, more is meant than just the literal text of the documents of the council.
Once reconciled and brought into regularization with the Church, the SSPX will not be able to dis-associate itself with the Vatican II Council, as it is an official and ecumenical council of the Church. If I am not mistaken, its documents are still binding on the faithful.
Click to expand...
The only thing that would be binding on the faithful is any obligations the documents laid on the faithful. Are there any such obligations? I’m not aware of any.

I’m also not aware of anything preventing theologians from questioning the teaching of the council, especially when/if it seems to contradict earlier magisterial doctrine.
 
Wow. “Ominous pontificate” “authority tainted by modernism” “complete conciliar debacle”

Such inflammatory rhetoric does not bode well for a complete reconcilliation. Just looking at the emotional content, charity and respect on both sides of the issue, is revealing. Instead of debating the fruits of Vatican II, if we look for the fruits of the Holy Spirit we can see where God is at work.

Galations 5:22 - 23 *But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity,*Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law.
 
pnewton said:
All three are still used.
Click to expand...
Yes, but with a vote of 2147 to 4 from the assembled Vatican 2 bishops in favor of the SC documents, one wouldn’t expect that during the next 7 years, those same bishops would be removing virtually all Latin, chant, and polyphony from the liturgy. I doubt if more than 1% of all total Masses have any of them today.
 
roadsend said:
They sure don’t have pride of place. A huge percentage of kids grow into adulthood without ever experiencing them.
Click to expand...
It is continued to be used though, in answer to your post #7. In our diocese these are all fostered and have a place of pride. In any case, the application of such practices are not a matter of Faith and justify none of what has happened. The place of music in this thread is a traditional strawman.
 
ProVobis said:
They keep saying this but Session 22 of the Council of Trent stated AS DOCTRINE that the vulgar tongue was not to be used everywhere.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html
Click to expand...
As doctrine? I didn’t see that, not that anyone has suggested discontinuing Latin 100%. I did find:
Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue.
Click to expand...
There was a subsequent command that anyone who suggested that the Mass was to be said in the vulgar tongue only that they should be anathema.
If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
But anathema is a disciplinary penalty and is not indicative of whether the matter is doctrine or discipline. Still, this is a matter of canon law and might best be addressed by experts. I only note that Trent addressed this matter as on of expediency, which at the cusp of the Protestant Reformation, expediency was extremely important.

We just underwent a change in the English translation of the Mass. I can not imagine that such things as language and music are anything but disciplines. The Church has changed these things over the last 2000 years.
 
MarkThompson said:
Yes, it is extremely evident that elements in the Fellay/Krah wing of the Society are trying to raze the bastions of oppositionalism and '88ism in an attempt to smooth the way for a rapprochement with what their mortal foes, the Williamson/Scott wing, would term “modernist Rome.” Best of luck to them. The only problem is their shortsightedness: if they had started this move to temper their rhetoric and introduce themes of obedience five or even two years ago, then this sudden reversal would not have the transparent look of ad-hoc hastiness that it unfortunately does. Well, the Society was never exactly known for masterful PR, was it.
Click to expand...
Does anyone subscribe to Bishop William’s “Eleison Comments”? A weekly or biweekly (I think) email.
 
pnewton said:
As doctrine? I didn’t see that, not that anyone has suggested discontinuing Latin 100%. I did find:
Click to expand...
It says that at the top of the document: “DOCTRINA DE SACRIFICIO MISSÆ ( DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.)”

Now one, I guess, can make a claim that 99% isn’t “everywhere” (though I’m sure the Trent or Vatican II Council Fathers didn’t forsee that one) but I don’t think one can simply dismiss what’s clearly stated as doctrine (and which has never been abrogated) as disciplines which can be easily changed or redefined by anyone. I would certainly avoid making statements like “This isn’t doctrinal.”
 
pnewton said:
We just underwent a change in the English translation of the Mass. I can not imagine that such things as language and music are anything but disciplines. The Church has changed these things over the last 2000 years.
Click to expand...
There is evidence that Latin and Greek were used as early as the first century. Sure they’ve added new prayers and readings along the way but they managed to keep Latin almost exclusively in the liturgy until the Reformers told everyone that it was a bad idea. And they still do. There is theology in the Latin (which can’t be translated) and it’s still authoritative. Not a discipline, it’s just the way to prevent corruption of the texts. Although some like me have resolved not to attend any more English Masses, at least the reason for the new translation is somewhat consistent with the notion that the basis of all Mass translations stays in Latin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top