S
StarMapp
Guest
"might offend people who have different beliefs”
Did the priest say this?
Did the priest say this?
Last edited:
- Status
E
ErraticFaith
Guest
I can’t say for that case in particular but I can’t imagine it being a very large extension of the the Truth.
Christianity is dead in the UK for this very reason. That same excuse. It’s all the various churches and clergy seem to be able to say over here.
Of particular timeless insult; was the point at which one of our soldiers was beheaded by a jihadist and the church met the uproar with the extremely politically correct ‘we are all Muslims’ campaign.
Effectively showing solidarity with the faith that killed him, because if not the ‘religion of peace’ political charade might have been undermined.
Any priest who thinks we are ‘all muslims’ to avoid offence, might want to reconcile Muhammad’s famous chant of ‘I have been made victorious through terror’ and a dozen other calls to slaughter those who lack the stupidity to bow to pagan moon God Allah. While at it, they might also seek out a thing formerly known as a ‘backbone’. Seems those are all too lacking today.
Christianity is dead in the UK for this very reason. That same excuse. It’s all the various churches and clergy seem to be able to say over here.
Of particular timeless insult; was the point at which one of our soldiers was beheaded by a jihadist and the church met the uproar with the extremely politically correct ‘we are all Muslims’ campaign.
Effectively showing solidarity with the faith that killed him, because if not the ‘religion of peace’ political charade might have been undermined.
Any priest who thinks we are ‘all muslims’ to avoid offence, might want to reconcile Muhammad’s famous chant of ‘I have been made victorious through terror’ and a dozen other calls to slaughter those who lack the stupidity to bow to pagan moon God Allah. While at it, they might also seek out a thing formerly known as a ‘backbone’. Seems those are all too lacking today.
Last edited:
J
jas84173
Guest
Yes 1 and 2 Esdras were 3 and 4 Esdras in the Latin Vulgate as Ezra and Nehemiah were 1 and 2 Esdras. I believe before the Council of Trent they followed 1 and 2 Esdras in the Vulgate. And I believe the Prayer of Mannaseh followed Chronicles.
I could be wrong. I do know that the Council of Trent did not reaffirm these as Canon, and I’m not sure if they ever were Canon in the Church ( I do know they have some status in some Orthodox Churches. )
But yah following the Council of Trent, I forgot the Pope who did it but he put these three texts in an appendix "Lest they perish all together ". It is interesting . Part of me wishes Catholic Bibles had them as an appendix. I believe the original Douey Rheims did however following the Challoner version they no longer were. However it isn’t hard to get these texts in any common Bible. The RSV and NRSV had them as they include books Orthodox consider scripture.
I could be wrong. I do know that the Council of Trent did not reaffirm these as Canon, and I’m not sure if they ever were Canon in the Church ( I do know they have some status in some Orthodox Churches. )
But yah following the Council of Trent, I forgot the Pope who did it but he put these three texts in an appendix "Lest they perish all together ". It is interesting . Part of me wishes Catholic Bibles had them as an appendix. I believe the original Douey Rheims did however following the Challoner version they no longer were. However it isn’t hard to get these texts in any common Bible. The RSV and NRSV had them as they include books Orthodox consider scripture.
C
commenter
Guest
It is not really more “strict” for a priest to say he will only obey some pope or bishop-ordinary of the past. Genuine strictness is when a priest will actually obey the pope and bishop-ordinary of the present.
With dead popes, you can always hunt around to find a quote from 1910, another quote from 1937, and so on, to justify whatever you want to do at the moment. You can easily talk about the importance of apostolic succession, as long as you only obey it up till 1958 or so.
It is harder to obey the current pope in your lifetime; it is harder, let’s say stricter observance, to obey the current ordinary in your own diocese, this year. Unlike the dead bishops of the apostolic succession theory, that current bishop downtown does know you personally. His direction may call you to greater conversion, he may point out some blind spots you don’t want to think about.
This strictness is what the SSPX priest misses out on.
With dead popes, you can always hunt around to find a quote from 1910, another quote from 1937, and so on, to justify whatever you want to do at the moment. You can easily talk about the importance of apostolic succession, as long as you only obey it up till 1958 or so.
It is harder to obey the current pope in your lifetime; it is harder, let’s say stricter observance, to obey the current ordinary in your own diocese, this year. Unlike the dead bishops of the apostolic succession theory, that current bishop downtown does know you personally. His direction may call you to greater conversion, he may point out some blind spots you don’t want to think about.
This strictness is what the SSPX priest misses out on.
S
Spyridon
Guest
You’re correct - the 1582-1609/1610 Rheims-Douai original Bible included 1/2 Esdras and The Prayer of Manasseh in an appendix.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
That is true…by the extraordinary magnanimity of the Holy See – and actually of Pope Saint John Paul II because the norm would be excommunication for formal adherence to a schismatic act as what was perpetrated, as the Pope himself declared.
It was, moreover, easy to know that the Pope, toward whom Lefebvre acted so despicably, was in fact a man of extraordinary holiness who would be raised to the altars. He was a spiritual father to so many who had the privilege to know him. Not everyone lived to see that happy moment…but a number did, by God’s goodness.
This is most true…and forever to remembered. The fruit does not fall far from the tree.
This, however, is not correct. They were founded canonically. Their status was subsequently revoked by the Church’s Supreme Authority. Lefebvre refused, repeatedly and with malice, that submission which he was strictly obliged to give to the head of the College of Bishops. The Vicar of Christ therefore suspended him for being so prodigal and faithless to the Church. I remember the events as though they were yesterday.
It was, moreover, easy to know that the Pope, toward whom Lefebvre acted so despicably, was in fact a man of extraordinary holiness who would be raised to the altars. He was a spiritual father to so many who had the privilege to know him. Not everyone lived to see that happy moment…but a number did, by God’s goodness.
This is most true…and forever to remembered. The fruit does not fall far from the tree.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
Prayer is needed for all persons involved in or with the SSPX, including any officials from the Vatican or dioceses who make decisions related to the SSPX.
K
Kei
Guest
I believe the SSPX are in dispute as they don’t accept Vatican II as a legitimate council.
I do not know if they have valid masses or not.
I do not know if they have valid masses or not.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Well, I don’t know the depth of your interest but this would give you a reasonably comprehensive treatment:
www.catholicculture.org
Library : A Canonical History of the Lefebvrite Schism
A Canonical History of the Lefebvrite Schism An in-depth look at the legal creation of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. Was the Society canonically established as it claims? As what, exactly, was the Society established; a Priestly Fraternity, or, something else?
www.catholicculture.org
C
commenter
Guest
History is crucial. It is important to know the events and persons involved, in Vatican II, in the movement developed by the Archbishop while still in communion with the Church, and the consecrations of the 1980s. Having said that, I wanted to focus on the OP topic, are the SSPX priests now “more strict”?
Keep in mind the SSPX clergy now are very different from the 1970s. In the 1970s the great majority had worked and trained extensively in different ministries of the Church itself, ministered under a bishop - ordinary, and alongside many religious orders, participated in diocesan ministries.
In 2017, relatively few SSPX priests have worked much in any diocese, have not worked under a bishop - ordinary, have not worked alongside religious orders, have no experience working or training in most kinds of Catholic institutions. In recent years, most of their seminary teachers and superiors got almost all their own training and experience only in SSPX.
SSPX seminarians in the 1970s were trained by priests who had a long history of strict obedience to popes, at least till a few years earlier. Seminarians in recent years had teachers who likely had no history of strict obedience to any pope.
This huge difference between SSPX 1977 and SSPX 2017 is relevant to the OP. One can argue that in terms of Catholic “strictness”, it is much less now than it was then.
Keep in mind the SSPX clergy now are very different from the 1970s. In the 1970s the great majority had worked and trained extensively in different ministries of the Church itself, ministered under a bishop - ordinary, and alongside many religious orders, participated in diocesan ministries.
In 2017, relatively few SSPX priests have worked much in any diocese, have not worked under a bishop - ordinary, have not worked alongside religious orders, have no experience working or training in most kinds of Catholic institutions. In recent years, most of their seminary teachers and superiors got almost all their own training and experience only in SSPX.
SSPX seminarians in the 1970s were trained by priests who had a long history of strict obedience to popes, at least till a few years earlier. Seminarians in recent years had teachers who likely had no history of strict obedience to any pope.
This huge difference between SSPX 1977 and SSPX 2017 is relevant to the OP. One can argue that in terms of Catholic “strictness”, it is much less now than it was then.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Yep. They strike me as pretty darn liberal in their open defiance of the successors of the apostles… it’s very progressive.
C
commenter
Guest
In fairness to them, they might argue they are “strict” in the Catholic Faith, though they can’t be “strict” in the drifted-away Catholic Church. There is a part of me that is sympathetic to this, after seeing abuses at the parish, diocesan, institutional, and national level.
I think their current position is wrong, for the reasons given in my post 35. Those priests who have now joined their diocese and/or FSSP are more likely to be able to live and share the “strict” Catholic Faith, and also be a part of the effort towards reduction of abuses within the Church, and the exterior foes of the Gospel. The SSPX is absent in those 2 efforts.
But make an effort to understand those current SSPX priests and attached laity, how they got to this position. Attack and ridicule hardens them in their current position. Quoting documents and citing events from the 1970s and 1980s is ok, but people act based on their feelings in 2017.
I think their current position is wrong, for the reasons given in my post 35. Those priests who have now joined their diocese and/or FSSP are more likely to be able to live and share the “strict” Catholic Faith, and also be a part of the effort towards reduction of abuses within the Church, and the exterior foes of the Gospel. The SSPX is absent in those 2 efforts.
But make an effort to understand those current SSPX priests and attached laity, how they got to this position. Attack and ridicule hardens them in their current position. Quoting documents and citing events from the 1970s and 1980s is ok, but people act based on their feelings in 2017.
Last edited:
- Status