M
MarkThompson
Guest
You mean, converted Newrome, right?
.
- Status
.
P
pnewton
Guest
Can’t we get past nastiness and rhetoric for one month at least? :nope:
J
jmj1984
Guest
:tsktsk:
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I guess you missed the SSPX announcement about the upcoming talks, then:
Now by all accounts the Discussions made clear that no doctrinal agreement is possible between the SSPX as cleaving to the age-old Church doctrine, and today’s Rome as set upon the Conciliar teaching of the Newchurch, and moreover persevering in this disorientation, as is clear from the Newbeatification of John-Paul II in May and from Assisi III due to happen this coming October. So the situation coming out of the Discussions remains exactly where it was two years ago, going into the Discussions: on the one hand, for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls, the SSPX strives to help Rome back to the true Catholic Faith, whilst for the glory of modern man and for the satisfaction of his ignoble media (as in January and February of 2009), Conciliar Rome is doing all within its power to induce the SSPX to blend into the mind- and soul-rotting ecumenism of the Newfaith.
J
jmj1984
Guest
ahem you mean the comments by Bishop Williamson I assume his ‘announcement’ is just as unofficial as it was last time when he was reprimanded by Bishop Fellay, get your facts straight
And now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go back to praying for unity rather than engaging in polemic
P
pnewton
Guest
I listen to the Catholic Church and do not appreciate insulting rhetoric like was in that post, so I would never read stuff like that. This is a Catholic website, after all, not SSPX. The only Church we follow is the Catholic Church. There is no such church as newchurch. That is why I am praying for the SSPX, so they can be a ministering part to that Church, not an enemy.
I hope that is not the case. It will bode ill for part of the SSPX, as JR suggests.
J
jmj1984
Guest
:clapping:
H
Hokomai
Guest
1 + 1 = 3:sad_yes:
C
Cat
Guest
The unwillingness to compromise seems to be a world-wide phenomenon lately.I think that there are several things to consider here.
As someone said, the Church is not asking our opinion on the matter. At this venture, what the rest of us want is irrelevant to the Cardinal Levada, who is the one who will be making the final recommendation to the Holy Father. Cardinal Levada is not one who can be intimdated with the threat that “we’ll leave”. He wants unity, but he does not yield to that kind of pressure. He is very faithful to the Holy Father. He will demand whatever the Holy Father wants.
When a reconciliation does come, there will be a shism. There are certain SSPX priests and at least one bishop who will not submit until they have converted Rome. That’s like painting yourself into a corner. Everyone has to be willing to come part of the way.
The restoration of canonical status is going to come with conditions. The bishops of the SSPX will either be isolated in some structure just for the SSPX unless they agree to join their brother bishops in the mainstream.
I agree that the SSPX can do a great deal of good, but they will have to make some sacrifices.
We have to pray that this and other things that may go down, will happen smoothly and with great charity.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I have to admit that I personally have a difficult time with the modern idea of “compromise.” It seems that in modern times, “compromise” means, “Do things entirely the way the reigning power wants you do to do them” rather than, “Both sides will make some sacrifices but retain some essentials.”
OTOH, the Vatican is not the mere leader of a country. We’re talking about the Church of Christ. Christ gave up so much to die on the cross for sinful man. To disobey His Church–well, a lot of Catholics do, don’t they?
P
ProVobis
Guest
My fault. I should have separated person and group.
Partial as a group (it seems to me) means some will be in full communion, others will not. If I were a betting guy, I would say 50% will take whatever deal and form some newly named order, 50% of the SSPX priests will not and the SSPX controversy will continue. (Just trying to be realistic here. It’s almost certain not all will “convert.”)
I think you’re right in one respect, there is no partial comm+union as an individual. You’re either in union or not. (At least that is what the Latin prefix or lack of it suggests.)
J
jmj1984
Guest
Perhaps but speculation won’t help at this point, we can always pray and hope for a miracle
As in all things though ‘But not my will be done but thy will be done’
H
HOLYHEARTS
Guest
I agree…What is needed is much prayer & especially the light, the grace & the action of the Holy Spirit…Let Us Pray! Oremus!
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I agree except that I believe there will be a formal declaration of schism on that group that chooses not to reunite.
M
Mark1970
Guest
I would tend to agree with this. And even if there was no formal statement, it would become more difficult to say that such a group wasn’t in schism.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Okay, but couldn’t we be just thankful if one bishop and a few priests would accept the terms? Would that be a failure?Perhaps but speculation won’t help at this point, we can always pray and hope for a miracle
J
jmj1984
Guest
As I said I’m just going to Pray, hope and wait
M
malphono
Guest
If the “terms” are accepted, I’d venture to say it would be by the Superior-General, and given what I’ve come to understand of the character of the other bishops, two would follow his lead. That, of course, leaves one,
hmmm: I wonder who it could be???) who might spurn any “terms” but his own. Again, from what I have come to understand, that one bishop has a certain following within the ranks, and so I imagine it likely that those would do whatever he does. If it were to happen that way, it is more than likely that the dissenter(s) would face a formal declaration by Rome and expulsion by the S-G. But of course at this point, it’s all conjecture. We’ll just have to wait and see how it all plays out in real life.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In those conjectures, I wonder if one can also include the possible Anglican Ordinariate route for the said bishop.
M
malphono
Guest
Just MHO, but I also have a feeling that said bishop would likely not accept those “terms” either. Albeit that he’s English (and, IIRC, possibly former CoE at that), I also have this feeling that Rome wouldn’t have him under any guise.In those conjectures, I wonder if one can also include the possible Anglican Ordinariate route for the said bishop.
M
Mark1970
Guest
I think I agree with you, for reasons I’m not sure I can repeat in public…Just MHO, but I also have a feeling that said bishop would likely not accept those “terms” either. Albeit that he’s English (and, IIRC, possibly former CoE at that), I also have this feeling that Rome wouldn’t have him under any guise.
- Status