Fr Gruner status

[Titus]

le tme make this clear, and friendly so,so that there is no misunderstanding. the SSPX does NOT deny the authority of the pope, and to so state is inaccurate and wrong.
Neither does the SSPX ignore the authority of the pope. that is an inaccurate and miselading statement to make. This statement is found at sspx.org: ( underlined by me for emphasis )

The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.
The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.

so please friend, do not make inaccurate and misleading statements.

What I said in my post is that the SSPX, by consecrating new bishops without the approval of the Holy See, ignored the authority of the Pope. Indeed Pope John Paul II said in a personal letter to Lefebvre that he was about to perform a ‘schismatic act’. This went unheeded. This was ignoring the authority of the Pope. It’s great that they pray for and profess devotion to B16, but doesn’t change the schismaticity *(if that is a word) *of their action.

 

[netmilsmom]

This is another example of why I find it absolutely bizzare that Catholics who desperately want to hold fast to the ancient traditions and expressions of the Church are labeled “rad-trads” and are seen as disobedient, while progressive groups like the Charismatic Renewal are given full sanction and approval by the Church and EWTN. Pre VII Popes would have shut that movement down in a heartbeat, and if Mother Angelica wasn’t ill and could still run things, I guarantee you, she would not approve of the Charismatic programming on her network. Would anyone here ever dare label her an “armchair Pope”? I doubt it!

What Charismatic programing? I truly asking. I don’t have the time to watch as much as some and I am NOT Charismatic, I’m just asking. Mother was Charismatic BTW like every other person who was into the latest fad in the 70’s, according to R. Arroyo’s book.

I don’t agree with everything Fr. Gruner says, or how he says it, but people treat this man like he’s the devil incarnate and practically worship people like Scott Hahn for his amazing theological “insight” and “discoveries”.

Scott Hahn has his place too.
I do give him and my wonderful orthodox pastor (may God Bless him and grant him long life) the credit for my hubby’s conversion.

Thanks Scott!

 

[childofmary1143]

Ah, Mother Angelica herself was one of the first to express that conclusion.

Really? as James Akin sure thinks Father Gruner is wacky

 

[paramedicgirl]

Well then, I’m makin a 14x18 of it framed on my really nice garage wall!angelqueen.org

Here’s a great one for Immersion-obsessed:http://www.barricksinsurance.com/image00111.gif

Reminds me of the weather we’re having here. minus 30
celsius, of course.

 

[Marilena]

What I said in my post is that the SSPX, by consecrating new bishops without the approval of the Holy See, ignored the authority of the Pope. Indeed Pope John Paul II said in a personal letter to Lefebvre that he was about to perform a ‘schismatic act’. This went unheeded. This was ignoring the authority of the Pope. It’s great that they pray for and profess devotion to B16, but doesn’t change the schismaticity *(if that is a word) *of their action.

you did not specify that this was what you were alluding to. you made it sound like it was today.

 

[Marilena]

Only yesterday I checked out the SSPX website for the first time - I’ve heard so much about them here on these forums, yet know so little. I found most of the information offered there for public view pretty vague, to say the least. And that part in particular sort of jumped out at me: “filial devotion and loyalty”.

What of “filial obedience” or “filial submission”? Those words, I would understand.

With just one toe in the water…

here is meaning for you:

fil·i·al (fl-l, fl-)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or befitting a son or daughter: filial respect.
2. Having or assuming the relationship of child or offspring to parent.
3. Genetics Of or relating to a generation or the sequence of generations following the parental generation.

thefreedictionary.com/filial

Main Entry: fil·ial
Pronunciation: 'fi-lE-&l, 'fil-y&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin filialis, from Latin filius son – more at FEMININE
1 : of, relating to, or befitting a son or daughter
2 : having or assuming the relation of a child or offspring
m-w.com/dictionary/filial

2 a : the act of devoting b : the fact or state of being ardently dedicated and loyal m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=devotion

 

[Titus]

First of all I apologise if I did not make it clear, and if my tone has been combative. I have the utmost respect for the TLM and believe it could be an important part of the Church’s recovery. However I believe my post did make it clear that it was the consecrations that caused the exclusion.

They are surely being excluded for ignoring the authority of the pope? Not because of their ‘traditional convictions’. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops in defiance of the Holy Father, thus performing a ‘schismatic act’: that is why his group has been excommunicated. Many Traditional Catholics are within the church- see FSSP, ICRSS.

you did not specify that this was what you were alluding to. you made it sound like it was today.

**Sorry if we were at cross-purposes. **

 

[Marilena]

First of all I apologise if I did not make it clear, and if my tone has been combative. I have the utmost respect for the TLM and believe it could be an important part of the Church’s recovery. However I believe my post did make it clear that it was the consecrations that caused the exclusion.

**Sorry if we were at cross-purposes. **

me too!

 

[tassitus]

here is meaning for you:

fil·i·al (fl-l, fl-)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or befitting a son or daughter: filial respect.
2. Having or assuming the relationship of child or offspring to parent.
3. Genetics Of or relating to a generation or the sequence of generations following the parental generation.

thefreedictionary.com/filial

Main Entry: fil·ial
Pronunciation: 'fi-lE-&l, 'fil-y&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin filialis, from Latin filius son – more at FEMININE
1 : of, relating to, or befitting a son or daughter
2 : having or assuming the relation of a child or offspring
m-w.com/dictionary/filial

2 a : the act of devoting b : the fact or state of being ardently dedicated and loyal m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=devotion

How very, very informative…[overly sarcastic portion of post deleted]

Marilena, you stated that SSPX neither denies nor ignores the authority of the Pope. But does SSPX “obey” the Pope or “submit” to him? If not, how is this different from “ignoring” his authority?

Please keep in mind that 3 months ago I had not even heard of SSPX, so I am truly trying to determine what I am to think about them.

 

[Titus]

How very, very informative…[overly sarcastic portion of post deleted]

Marilena, you stated that SSPX neither denies nor ignores the authority of the Pope. But does SSPX “obey” the Pope or “submit” to him? If not, how is this different from “ignoring” his authority?

Please keep in mind that 3 months ago I had not even heard of SSPX, so I am truly trying to determine what I am to think about them.

I am sure Marilena will post here, but I think her view- which is actually the view of the church- is that although they have committed a schismatic act they are not in schism. They did fail to obey the Pope- that’s for sure.

 

[Marilena]

How very, very informative…[overly sarcastic portion of post deleted]

Marilena, you stated that SSPX neither denies nor ignores the authority of the Pope. But does SSPX “obey” the Pope or “submit” to him? If not, how is this different from “ignoring” his authority?

Please keep in mind that 3 months ago I had not even heard of SSPX, so I am truly trying to determine what I am to think about them.

we both obey him and accept him, and submit to him, one and the same. we do obey him. we never have not. the pope is the head of the church and Christ’s vicar on earth.

 

[Titus]

we both obey him and accept him, and submit to him, one and the same. we do obey him. we never have not. the pope is the head of the church and Christ’s vicar on earth.

I don’t want to restart the disagreement above, but to say the SSPX has always obeyed the Pope is untrue- see 1988 consecrations.

 

[TNT]

I’d like to poke in here.​

The SSPX is like your son who, when you (the Conciliar popes) told him to go steal grandma’s heirloom jewelry and throw it in the Tiber River, he refused to do so.
You’ve thrown him out of the house & been chastising him for disobedience ever since.​

The SSPX is in a state of disobedience to the Conciliar (Since VAT II) popes.​

However, it is difficult to claim they are in disobedience to the Encyclicals, Bulls, Councils etc. prior to VAT II. (Except the insane idea that any catholic should obey any pope no matter what he commands.)​

Now the problem is this:
Is VAT II a legitimate overthrow of those prior popes & councils or is it guilty of disobedience itself, from the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church?​

The SSPX says it is guilty as above…that they are the ones disobedient to the perennial teaching of Catholicism, not the SSPX. (In that they want us to throw grandma’s Jewelry into the Tiber.)​

They base their disobedience on the Divine Law that God must FIRST be obeyed when one believes a directive is in conflict with it. Thus the attempt to preserve their position by perpetuating it through consecrating like-minded priests as bishops…the APPARENT disobedience. But the REAL underlying issue is VATII & the resulting overthrow of the TLM.​

In short, they claim a moral and/or theological necessity for their disobedient status just as your son would.​

Now, you may remember the Great Lutheran/Vatican Accord. If not look it up. It is in essence throwing out the anathemas on Luther at Trent without the Lutherans really changing any of their dogmas.
Well, someday in the future, such an Accord will occur between the Vatican and their “disobedient” son, the SSPX.
It will, in the true Liberal style, agree to those certain “knotty” documents of VAT II WITHOUT accepting them in their historic interpretation. (Just like the Lutheran Accord.)
At that point they will get an apostolate of their own, separate from any local bishop.
This will only occur when the old liberals of VATII and their devoted decendents die off, the Indult TLM idea gets more & more suppressed or manipulated & we get a gradual fresh crop of hierarchy more open to their dilemma.
The time frame of this event is anyone’s guess, just not immanent.​

Whew!

 

[lak611]

I think the view of the church- is that although they have committed a schismatic act they are not in schism. They did fail to obey the Pope- that’s for sure.

How does one commit a schismatic act without being in schism?

 

[Titus]

How does one commit a schismatic act without being in schism?

2 July 1988- Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei from HH John Paul II, the consecration “constitute[d] a schismatic act” based on Canon 751 of the Latin Rite CCL. But they are not necessarily in schism I believe. It’s complex, for sure.

 

[TNT]

How does one commit a schismatic act without being in schism?

Try this.
I took your garden hose without your permission…even against your refusal, so’s I could put out a fire in a house full of kids.
I committed an act of a robber but exempt from being defined as a robber.
Even if the fire was not as life threatening as I thought, my motive & the APPARENT circumstance exempts me as a robber.

In other words, you can materially commit an act that is otherwise condemned, but the belief, conscience, or other mitigating circumstance exempt one from being defined as a doer of such acts.

 

[Titus]

But perhaps while hosing you drown one of the children in the house?

It seems to me that this is also appropriate to the SSPX- an act of disobedience which could have greater consequences and lead to greater disobediences.

 

[TNT]

But perhaps while hosing you drown one of the children in the house?

It seems to me that this is also appropriate to the SSPX- an act of disobedience which could have greater consequences and lead to greater disobediences.

You asked how a committed act could leave a person exempt from being defined as a doer of such acts.
I gave a legit answer in my opinion.
It has nothing to do with subsequent unintended conequences.
So feel free to stretch it beyond the question or the answer.
BTW:
It hasn’t led to greater anything after 20yrs anyway. At least today they are in dialogue as opposed to mutual isolation 10yrs ago.

 

[EddieArent]

I heard angelqueen is going sedevacanist.

What do you mean by this? Certainly not the owner of the site. I’ve had contacts with the site owner on many times and real life. Nothing can be far from the truth. The webmaster is a good Catholic, supportive of the Holy Father & the SSPX. Some members of the site, perhaps (the “bleep!” topic is discouraged). But there is a differance here.

 

[tassitus]

Try this.
I took your garden hose without your permission…even against your refusal, so’s I could put out a fire in a house full of kids.
I committed an act of a robber but exempt from being defined as a robber.
Even if the fire was not as life threatening as I thought, my motive & the APPARENT circumstance exempts me as a robber…

But, if you do not return the hose (to borrow your excellent example), what have you become?

Thank you for the longer post above - I think it clearly shows the argument for the legitimacy of the SSPX position. I do not buy the argument, but you have made it well. Much appreciated.

I think I will now look outside of this forum for more authoritative answers to my questions.

Peace all.