Pope, Curia to discuss reconciliation with SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gilbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SSPX is a right wing protestant organization and is pharisiac in every sense of the word.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
SSPX is a right wing protestant organization and is pharisiac in every sense of the word.
Click to expand...
You can add Jansenistic tendacies also. I will try to find the article on that when I get home tonight.

PF
 
Well we should ALL pray for reconcilation. However for people to call the LATIN RITE MASS protestant is just to funny to even comprehend! “QUO PRIMUM” decreed by ST. Pius V was done so for a reason, so there would be a MASS (licit) to be set in stone for all times for CATHOLICS to attend that puts its emphasis on the ADORATION and WORSHIP of our DIVINE GOD! (The true sacrifice of the mass)! Todays New Mass can be labeled Protestant by its FRUITS, and hard to swallow statistics! Liberalism & Moderenism (sins) have taken over. As Pope PaulVI
said " The smoke of satan has entered the vatican"!
 
G.C.:
Todays New Mass can be labeled Protestant by its FRUITS, and hard to swallow statistics! "!
Click to expand...
Can a Mass which was promulgated by a Catholic Pope be Protestant? Wouldn’t that be agaisnt the infallibility of the Pope for him to promulgate a heresy?
 
Michael C:
I hope this happens. Sadly, misunderstandings and **stubborness ** seem too often the reason no progress is ever made.
Click to expand...
I think ‘stubborness’ is a good word to use and a good way to put it, because that is most obvious.

But, deeper than stubborness is the question of whether it is based simply on pride and vanity, or whether there is anything more substantial.

I think that there is considerably more involved, as it becomes clearer to common people that there was a significant difference of opinion at the council. And, I am convinced now, that many of the hasty changes were the same innovatioins that Martin Luther wanted back in the 16th century, when he ignited the rebellion from the church.

And, the first fruit of his rebellion, was just more rebellion. Read the somewhat long essay on Martin Luther at www.newadvent.com (or .org), i.e. the Catholic Encyclopedia. At the end of his life, Luther was estranged from the Church, the Pope, and at least a couple other of the reformers, Zwingli and Calvin.

The consequence of all the hasty innovation, as far as I can tell, is a loss of reverence in the Mass, large scale falling away from the Church, and skepticism about the Bible. Throw in there, the birth control encyclical of Paul VI which nobody understands, and there was simply too much change at too fast a pace. So, what good has it done?

I am in no way personally against the outcome of V-II (that Vatican II), but what happened after that is far less than stellar. People may be disappointed that it takes 10 years or longer to get an approved translation of biblical texts, but that’s the reality. Those things should have been studied and debated openly far more than they were. Why did we want everything ‘fast’ instead of ‘good’?
 
I posted this from a duplicate thread.

According to many Vatican sources and international news reports, including the Italian newspaper L’Indipendente (indipendenteinrete.it/ad…pendente_02.pdf) , our Holy Father is moving to end the split between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X. This is the group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, outspoken opponent of Vatican II liturgical changes, who was grudgingly excommunicated by Pope John Paul II after illegally elevating four priests to the rank of Bishop in 1988 as his health was failing. Pope Benedict and his delegate, Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos have been in constant, friendly contact with high ranking members of the SSPX, acronym for the Lefebvristas. The Holy See has been looking forward to bringing SSPX back to full Communion with Rome as its first major Papal accomplishment. Three years ago, Castrillon-Hoyos was instrumental in bringing a similar group from Brazil back into the fold under its own Apostolic Administration. Particularly encouraging was the Pope’s December 22 address to the Roman Curia, in which His Holiness indicated that parts of Vatican II may have been “inadequate or mistaken”, that “proper hermeneutics” (i.e. interpretations) of Vatican II must be applied in order to understand its true implications, and that Vatican II documents carried no jurisdictional weight of their own, but rather that any Church Council must have “a mandator, and then confirmation by the mandator.” (vatican.va/holy_father/b…n-curia_en.html)
What does all this mean? Could this be the beginning of a reconsideration of VII in full historical context? Could John Paul II’s indult allowing masses with the 1962 missal be expanded to allow Tridentine masses at parish discretion, instead requiring bishop approval as now? These have been the principal requirements of SSPX in their previous negotiations. Finally, if and when SSPX are brought back into Communion, will they use their administrative independence to criticize some of the Church’s more ill-advised modernist experimentations from within? I trust my post VII generation is learning its Latin!! 👍
 
40.png
Elmariachi:
I posted this from a duplicate thread.

According to many Vatican sources and international news reports, including the Italian newspaper L’Indipendente (indipendenteinrete.it/ad…pendente_02.pdf) , our Holy Father is moving to end the split between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X.
Click to expand...
Problem with this is that all the “Vatican” sources are unnamed sources. I can cite unnamed sources.

I also believe that the Intalian newspaper is socialist leaning.

I will wait until we get an offical, named, source from the Vatican stating this.
 
From an interview between Gianni Cardinale and Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of Ecclesia Dei Commission (the Vatican’s chief negotiator with SSPX, and an imminently “named source”)

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id104.html

"What can you tell us of the audience (between Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay of SSPX)?

CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: It was a meeting under the sign of charity, in the theological sense, of love of God and of His Church. It was a conversation among brothers who desire, with the help of God, to knit back the fabric of full unity. The Pope let those present speak: Monsignor Fellay, Father Schmidberger and myself. And then the Holy Father spoke, making a strong appeal for unity and expressing the wish that future rapprochement come by unhasty stages, but not too slow."

Since that interview last year, the Holy Father and SSPX have been in constant communication. Catholics should have nothing to fear from this rapport. Such reports were published on EWTN’s website, Il Giornale and other non-“socialist” outlets.
 
Reconciliation will be easy if the Pope decides to jettison the modernist heresies that have been running rampant in the Church since Vatican II. If he decides it is better to try to split the difference between traditionalists and modernists, it will be much harder.

In any case, those who wish to be really Catholic will still gravitate to the SSPX , the FSSP, and other traditional groupings.
 
40.png
loyola38:
Reconciliation will be easy if the Pope decides to jettison the modernist heresies that have been running rampant in the Church since Vatican II. If he decides it is better to try to split the difference between traditionalists and modernists, it will be much harder.

In any case, those who wish to be really Catholic will still gravitate to the SSPX , the FSSP, and other traditional groupings.
Click to expand...
FSSP is a totally different matter. They don’t need reconciliation, because they are in communion with Rome. I disagree with your statement that a “real” Catholic would gravitate toward the SSPX. To reject the Pope and Vatican II is to reject the Church. How can a real Catholic reject the Pope and an Ecumenical Council?
 
40.png
rlg94086:
FSSP is a totally different matter. They don’t need reconciliation, because they are in communion with Rome. I disagree with your statement that a “real” Catholic would gravitate toward the SSPX. To reject the Pope and Vatican II is to reject the Church. How can a real Catholic reject the Pope and an Ecumenical Council?
Click to expand...
A large part of our membership knows that the movement that calls itself Traditional Catholic (even short, thank heaven, of sede vacantism), is opposed to this reconciliation. Just go to traditio.com and read the daily “messages.” Their assumption is that the SSPX will be forced to compromise past their (the traditionalists’) comfort point, which is little else than a renunciation of Vatican II.

The fathers on the Traditio site (and I assume they are really–very old–fathers and not phonies) are excellent dialogicians, but they rely on many false assumptions, such as that in the past priests and even bishops were truly fluent in Latin as opposed to capable of rattling off largely memorized ritual phonetically, or that we would not have had these sex scandals if Vatican II had never occurred.

On the one hand, we have a church that apparently threw out the baby with the bathwater. On the other, we have a sect that could not abide a single change in Roman ritual as it had existed prior to the 1960s. In between we have a pope who embodies both schools of thought within his own persona. Where will it lead? I am not willing to make predictions.
 
Personally, I hope it will lead to some discipline in regards to the practices in some parishes (and Bishops) which are outside the rubrics of the Church. I also hope to see more priests from FSSP and more indults for latin Mass.

I’m a convert, and the only latin Mass I’ve been to was in latin, but not traditional (Our Lady of Peace in Santa Clara, CA). The closest FSSP parish is two hours away. There is at least one local “traditional” parish which is not recognized by our Archdiocese (a fellow hockey family goes there), but I haven’t gone because I don’t know whether they are truly in communion with Rome or not.

I believe in following the Church, so I will go where they lead me.

God bless,

Robert
40.png
jbuck919:
A large part of our membership knows that the movement that calls itself Traditional Catholic (even short, thank heaven, of sede vacantism), is opposed to this reconciliation. Just go to traditio.com and read the daily “messages.” Their assumption is that the SSPX will be forced to compromise past their (the traditionalists’) comfort point, which is little else than a renunciation of Vatican II.

The fathers on the Traditio site (and I assume they are really–very old–fathers and not phonies) are excellent dialogicians, but they rely on many false assumptions, such as that in the past priests and even bishops were truly fluent in Latin as opposed to capable of rattling off largely memorized ritual phonetically, or that we would not have had these sex scandals if Vatican II had never occurred.

On the one hand, we have a church that apparently threw out the baby with the bathwater. On the other, we have a sect that could not abide a single change in Roman ritual as it had existed prior to the 1960s. In between we have a pope who embodies both schools of thought within his own persona. Where will it lead? I am not willing to make predictions.
Click to expand...
 
Keep praying for reconciliation…

I think this may cause another split within SSPX… Those who are so anti Rome that they wanted their own church will never return to the fold. Bishop Williamson will probably dissent and lead that revolt, since he seems to be the only vocal SSPX (out of the 4 or 5) bishops who want to return to Rome. Especially now under B-16! His is ‘aware’ of wrongs that leaked in after VII, but he still embraces the good that did come from it!

Any man who can wear RED hi-gloss shoes under gold vestments has my vote! He walks to the beat of different drum! How I pray to hear that drum one day. How I pray to believe and follow Christ and not the world’s popular vote!
 
40.png
geezerbob:
Alfredo or Stanley or whatever name you prefer today, your comparisons are stretched. If you have a small group on one side of the fence saying 2 plus 2 equals 4, and, on the other side you have a very large group saying the same thing except for a few radicals who are saying the answer is 3 or 5, please explain to all of us how you justify trying to assign the error of a few to the larger group.
Click to expand...
Geezerbob, as far as I can tell Alfredo did not answer your question. That might be because his math analogy was copied from one of Bishop Williamson’s letters and the answer to your question was not included in that letter.

For those that do not know it, there is a blog administered by ex-SSPX attenders on the Web at lidless-eye.blogspot.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top