F
Famulus
Guest
But they reject the Church and refuse to cede on Teachings. That is why I say they are practically in schism, because they are schismatic
- Status
A
AngelusDomini
Guest
Apologies if already been mentioned but the FSSP also have a fantastic app - iMass
M
Maximian
Guest
This statement is repeated like a slogan but it is in fact not so in this case. I urge you, if you are objective, to listen to the whole interview of Taylor Marshall and Father Robinson to hear the other side of the argument. It is long, but quite well discussed.
M
Maximian
Guest
You are saying that the Pope gives faculties to schismatics? Seriously?
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
This is not the proper use of these words.
N
new-kirishitan
Guest
Just want to let you know, the Japanese and Chinese words you used were wrong. You probably got it off of Google Translate or something. 番号 means an ordinal number, and 没有 means “no” as when something that doesn’t exist, instead of the “no” in a “yes/no” question. The correct words you should have used are いいえ and 不是. Sorry for being a smart aleck, but I just can’t stand to see people using wrong words that just came off of Google Translate.
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
I did use Google Translate. It gave at least 3 different versions for Japanese & traditional Chinese.
It frustrates me too because when I use it to translate different languages it’s really crazy what comes out.
Btw, when I used Google Translate to read the words in your post, the Japanese came up as “no” and the Chinese came up as “not”.
It frustrates me too because when I use it to translate different languages it’s really crazy what comes out.
Btw, when I used Google Translate to read the words in your post, the Japanese came up as “no” and the Chinese came up as “not”.
Last edited:
I
InThePew
Guest
Ah yes, the whole “even if the Archbishop was wrong it’s okay because he thought it was necessary” argument. Unfortunately, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (whose job it is to issue definitive interpretations of laws) doesn’t agree with that interpretation, noting that such a state must be verified objectively (in other words, it can’t just exist because someone says it does) and “there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff” (their emphasis).
Of course, all that’s really water under the bridge now since SSPX are no longer in schism or excommunicated and have full and universal faculties to hear confessions and celebrate matrimony. When all’s said and done, the only thing keeping SSPX from regularising their status within the Church is SSPX. The problem though, is that leaving is a lot easier than coming back!
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I remember my French teacher telling us, in college to use word reference because of how poor Google Translate is
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I thank you for pointing this out, because if I did it people would just attack me on how I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I
InThePew
Guest
In fairness, there’s more than a few people who have no wish to see SSPX go anywhere except as far away as possible. Under Francis’ pontificate, the theological details aren’t as much of an issue as they once were although accepting the novus ordo (while obviously not being obliged to celebrate it) would obviously be required but I don’t think that this is as much of an issue as it might once have been. Accepting the Sainthood of John Paul II might be more of an issue given his excommunication of their founder! I still think though that the biggest difficulties are within SSPX itself in that there are no doubt some within their membership who have no desire to even dialogue with Rome and consequently, the leadership will likely be concerned about the risk of (further) splinter groups breaking away. The thing with breaking away is that the initial break is always the hardest; after this initial taboo has been surpassed, then it’s much easier to do it again.
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, in all honesty, the thing I really can’t understand about Archbishop Lefebvre is that he should have had an easier time with Pope John Paul II than he did.Maximian:
Ah yes, the whole “even if the Archbishop was wrong it’s okay because he thought it was necessary” argument. Unfortunately, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (whose job it is to issue definitive interpretations of laws) doesn’t agree with that interpretation, noting that such a state must be verified objectively (in other words, it can’t just exist because someone says it does) and “there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff” (their emphasis).
Of course, all that’s really water under the bridge now since SSPX are no longer in schism or excommunicated and have full and universal faculties to hear confessions and celebrate matrimony. When all’s said and done, the only thing keeping SSPX from regularising their status within the Church is SSPX. The problem though, is that leaving is a lot easier than coming back!
Some of the Archbishop’s demands were pretty paranoid. It’s almost if he was trying to make the SSPX the ONLY group controlling the Latin Mass.
There are few things agree with Archbishop Lefebvre on (or at least I can appreciate his view).
But the way he dealt with & mistrusted Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II, I simply cannot comprehend. I’m sure Archbishop Lefebvre had some enemies in the Vatican, but all things considered, one would think he should have been able to foster a better working relationship with Pope John Paul II than he had with Pope Paul VI?
Afterall, JPII had no issue with the creation of the FSSP.
M
Maximian
Guest
M
Maximian
Guest
This is definitely the subject of debate in the SSPX world. As a general rule I would say that most SSPX members (bishops priests and religious) regard it as essential to work for a “deal” with the Vatican. The minority view is “never trust the Vatican.” Fellay was firmly of the former school; the new superior general is more of the latter.
The complication is in the lay faithful, who tend to be much more anti Vatican than the SSPX clergy. This explains the phenomenon which many people experience if visiting an SSPX Mass: perfectly reasonable sermon followed sometimes by quite unreasonable conversation with laypeople after Mass.
P
phil19034
Guest
For starters, when the Pope was in talks with the Archbishop about creating the Ecclesia Dei Pontifical Commission, the Pope was going to grant the SSPX 2 of the 7 permanent members on the commission. However, the Archbishop wanted the majority of the commission members to be from the SSPX. In other words, he wanted the SSPX to control the commission.phil19034:
Such as?
Ten characters
In May 1988, the Pope agreed to consecrating a bishop from the SSPX on Aug 15, 1988 (which the Archbishop originally agreed to with Cardinal Ratzinger on May 5, 1988) But before May was over, the Archbishop changed his demands & was willing to be excommunicated over the following:
- the proposed episcopal ordination must take place on 30 June
- not one, but three bishops, must be consecrated
- a majority of members in the proposed pontifical commission must be SSPX members
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
There is really no reason for the SSPX not to accept the 1988 Protocol now. It’s obvious that the Church has enough bishops willing to ordain members of traditional orders.InThePew:
This is definitely the subject of debate in the SSPX world. As a general rule I would say that most SSPX members (bishops priests and religious) regard it as essential to work for a “deal” with the Vatican. The minority view is “never trust the Vatican.” Fellay was firmly of the former school; the new superior general is more of the latter.
The complication is in the lay faithful, who tend to be much more anti Vatican than the SSPX clergy. This explains the phenomenon which many people experience if visiting an SSPX Mass: perfectly reasonable sermon followed sometimes by quite unreasonable conversation with laypeople after Mass.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
Here is a list of Traditionalist Catholic Orders organized first by those in Full Communion (which includes the FSSP), Canonically Irregular (such as the SSPX) and Sedevacantists.
- Status