Good news for traditionalists!

[Sean_O_L]

Mr S wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean O L
TNT wrote:

But - there WILL be a quid pro quo, TNT!

***Lil’ol SSPX’rs ***(like your wife! and you!) will have to acknowledge, for example:
1. That the “Novus Ordo” IS the normative Mass of the Roman Rite;
2. That it IS a true and proper Sacrifice and a propitiary Sacrifice;
3. That it is NOT intrinsically evil;
4. That all the current Sacramental Rites ARE valid and confer the Graces designated by Christ;
etc., etc.,

No “ifs” or “buts” for reconciliation - but, lots of humility and charity on both sides.

… and that would include you too, I should hope…

There is hope for every-one this side of the grave, is there not?

But, in case you doubt my contention in the post to which you refer - let me refer YOU to the truth of the need on both sides:

Cf. jloughnan.tripod.com/ad2000_1.htm - but if that does not convince you of the need on the part of the SSPX adherents - then I suggest that you pop over to angelqueen.org/forum/archives/general-3/ and view the contents of the many threads which contain the vilest of accusations against the normative Mass of the Roman Rite and all the other Sacraments of the Church AND against the ministers of the Church who ARE in communion with Rome.

If you have any further problems with MY treatment of the SSPX, then perhaps you might be specific?

 

[otm]

kleary:

They would have their own seperate Diocese. At least that is what I hear. They would have their own Bishops that would govern them independant of the local ordinary where they are located.

So no one can touch them and try to destroy things like insert altar girls or communion in the hand and other Novus Ordo things.

Ken

I am not a Canon lawyer, but that is not how I understand things work currently.

For example, the Maronite rite has its own bishops, and dioceses (or equivalent), and even its own (as in, Eastern rite) Canon law. However, it still, as I understand it, has to get permission from the Roman rite Archbishop here to set up a church and say Mass. There is some minimum of jurisdiction that the Roman rite exercises.

As they would be saying Mass according to the Tridentine rite, the bishop would not be able to do those things anyway, even if they were under his authority, as those issues are rite specific.

 

[otm]

Andreas Hofer:

In purest theory, the only bishop under whose “authority” the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter operates is the pope. However, they still need permission from the local ordinary to minister in a diocese and get a building and all that jazz, AFAIK.

That is my understanding too. I don’t know of any Fraternity of St. Peter priests in our Archdiocese, but I am familiar with the abuna (sp.?) in the local Maronite rite, and he indicated that they are here at the pleasure of the Archbishop. and as far as I know, any order priests who are here (Jesuits, Holy Cross, for example) are under the authority of their order, but also have to have permission of the Archbishop to say Mass, etc.

 

[MrS]

Sean O L:

If you have any further problems with MY treatment of the SSPX, then perhaps you might be specific?

I was referring to your rather weak and baseless “attack” on TNT and his wife.

Posters here are familiar enough with TNT to know he would perfere both the dissolve of the SSPX (as would I), and the wider availability of the Traditional Mass.

The former for its rejection of the Church Authority
The latter for its unquestioned level of reverence.

How you treat the SSPX is your concern. I have no room for them in my life.

 

[kleary]

Kielbasi:

That’s true, but how would that stop the local ordinary from discontinuing the local indult mass, if he figures that lat(name removed by moderator)hiles could now attend the reconciled SSPX chapel?

And how would that stop the reconciled, but autonomous, SSPX from discontinuing operations in an area, if there is already an indult mass there?

I see your point, however if the indult mass is fruitful I see no reason as to why the local ordinary would stop it. Also I am most certain that the SSPX would not pull out if there is an indult Mass due to their way of thinking- the more Latin Masses the better.

Ken

 

[Kielbasi]

kleary:

I see your point, however if the indult mass is fruitful I see no reason as to why the local ordinary would stop it. Also I am most certain that the SSPX would not pull out if there is an indult Mass due to their way of thinking- the more Latin Masses the better.

Ken

One reason that a local ordinary might stop the indult would be if he were short of priests in another critical area and needed the man elsewhere. A bishop can of course do that now, I think that some have already in some dioceses, but the availability of another Latin mass in the area for the local lat(name removed by moderator)hiles could make the option easier for him.

As far as the SSPX pulling out, that could happen if they lose many of their faithful in a particular locale after reconciliation to either the indult mass or to local mainstream parishes. At least some of their flock don’t *prefer *the Latin mass at all, they just believe it is the only copasetic mass said. If they suddenly agree that the novus ordo mass is no longer defective, there would be no reason for them not to attend their local parish.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Mr S wrote:

I was referring to your rather weak and baseless “attack” on TNT and his wife.

Well, what was “rather weak and baseless”? What would it take to make it positively weak and baseless? If it was only rather … - then, there must be (by your logic) some basis! I would contend that there was NO attack against TNT and his wife; but there was reason for his wife (at least - as a committed adherent to the SSPX schism) to need to moderate her typically SSPX attitudes towards the matters to which I referred!

Posters here are familiar enough with TNT to know he would perfere both the dissolve of the SSPX (as would I), and the wider availability of the Traditional Mass.

I think that you do not know TNT (and/or his wife) to support your claim that “he would perfere …the dissolve of the SSPX…” For I believe that both he (and I) would prefer that

1. The SSPX be fully reconciled with Rome AND (rather than be dissolved!) operate as a fully functioning Society in full communion and unity with the catholic Church.
2. And you would also prefer the “disolve”? I can only wonder why?

The former for its rejection of the Church Authority

There is far more than “rejection of Church Authority” with the SSPX, Mr. S.! How is it that you do not understand this?

The latter for its unquestioned level of reverence.

Again, that is only one aspect of the positive side of any reconciliation!

How you treat the SSPX is your concern. I have no room for them in my life.

In times past, heretics and schismatics were treated far more harshly that in these times. They were considered to be beyond the pale of Salvation itself for being “Outside the Church.” St John is recorded as fleeing the baths at hearing of the approach of Cerinthius.

My concern IS for the welfare of the souls of those who are entrapped in the propaganda of the SSPX, and I have many friends amongst them. I DO have time for them in my life, and hope, pray and work for their reversion to Holy Mother Church - TNT’s wif included.

By the way, the following post to TNT was recorded in the Quo Primum thread

O.K. Thanks for the clarification. No probs with that. I hope that your wife mellows with time: it took me 23 years!.

Post # Re: Quo Primum Tempore, binding on Pope Pius V’s successors?

 

[Marian_Carroll]

The thread is now closed. thanks to all who participated in a meaningful way.