SSPX and Rome : Latest Hint At What Will Transcend Sept 14th

  • Thread starter Thread starter At_Trent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vsedriver said:
submitting to authority is incredibly hard to do. I predict a small portion of the SSPX will return to obedience to the Pope but the rest will find some point to remain separate from Rome. It’s hard to give up independence once you’ve tasted it.
Click to expand...
I think, too, that it may be a small number that will return, at least initially. I hope that’s not the case. But in looking at the views of Catholics who participate on internet forums that are SSPX-friendly (though not affiliated with the SSPX), I have to wonder how most of them could ever go along with reconciliation. Hopefully, members of the SSPX will be more amenable to reconciliation than the folks on those forums, who are kinda scary.

Also, on a level of the typical local SSPX chapel, many who attend these chapels are second, or even third generation SSPX-chapel attenders, who have no experience of what it’s like to be involved in a diocesan structure. To them, a bishop does not work on a local level, but usually lives in another country altogether. The SSPX chapels have, for the most part, operated completely independently. If an offer of a prelature or something similar is offered to the SSPX and accepted, at least there will be some contact with the diocese, hopefully.

Also, a recent SSPX communication has given a very critical view of the upcoming Assisi lll event. I haven’t seen it, but it seems that that there are two minds existing in the SSPX - those of a hyper-critical nature against Rome and the Holy Father, and those who take a less critical and a softer stand toward Rome and the Holy Father. Not sure which side of the spectrum that the SG of the SSPX falls into, though.
 
vsedriver said:
submitting to authority is incredibly hard to do. I predict a small portion of the SSPX will return to obedience to the Pope but the rest will find some point to remain separate from Rome. It’s hard to give up independence once you’ve tasted it.
Click to expand...
I am more optimistic. If there is an agreement between Cardenal Levada and Mgr. Fellay, undoubtedly some in the SSPX will not like it. However, Mgr. is very highly respected in the Fraternity, and if he goes with it, I´m sure a large majority of SSPX priests and laity will also.

Sadly, for those who refuse (all this is in the hypothetical case that an agreement is reached), there will be an almost 0% chance of every normalizing their relations with Rome.

This situation has gone on for too long. It has not been, in my opinion, the fault of the SSPX. But it may be down to the leadership of the SSPX to sort it out. As Fr. Z writes, it´s not necessary for everyone to agree theologically on every issue within the Church. We must agree on the basics, and of course what is infallibly defined. All else is up to debate. If the SSPX is guaranteed this freedom of expression within the Church; ie. freedom to criticise ecumenism, the beatification of John Paul II, etc., I see no reason why we should not accept an agreement.
 
I don’t think as many priests will cut and run as some think. Those totally against reconciliation have already left and are running sede chapels or independent chapels
 
They are somewhat radical in their theology, though more noticeable (to be honest) in their socio-moral teachings, which of course are not doctrinal issues. They have issues mostly with post-Conciliar theology, especially the Pauline Missal and the Traditional understanding of ecclesiology.
As I’ve been saying, I’d much prefer these ‘sticking points’ to be debated and cleared up as equals within the Church, rather than in an adversarial manner as has been the norm since '88.
 
NihilObstatINRI said:
Yes that is true, but ultimately the priests are supposed to be obedient to the bishops, so in theory the priests will go where the four bishops go. I don’t think in practice that it will work out ‘perfectly’, but the priests themselves are more of a non-issue. It’s the bishops who represent the Society as a whole.
Click to expand...
Being obedient is only part of the challenge. Some of the SSPX priests are in very irregular situations and those will take some untangling to work out. For example, several years ago a diocisan priest was removed from active ministry but later joined the SSPX where he was re-ordained. Very messy. But this seems to be more hope than we have seen in a long time.
 
At_Trent said:
I don’t think as many priests will cut and run as some think. Those totally against reconciliation have already left and are running sede chapels or independent chapels
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, some priests were ejected from the Society because of sedevacantist tendencies.
 
At_Trent said:
In a nutshell

Archbishop Lefebvre consecrates 4 Bishops in 1988 against H.H. JPII’s wishes

All 5 are excommunicated but no formal schism declared

H.H. BXVI wants them back and the SSPX asks for 3 things
  • free the Traditional Latin Mass of indult
  • lift the excommunications
  • open talks on Doctrinal issues
All three have been granted, and now an offer for reconciliation has been offered
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention that the Bishops are not currently excommunicated.
 
That’s a great interview. I like Fellay. I think he’s a good man and he will be a powerful force in the Church.
In general I feel the same way about Archbishop Lefebvre, and I think it’s very sad that he died without seeing his situation resolved.
 
Well, H.E. sure seems relaxed going by the text of the interview. If an obviously unacceptable proposal was made, I feel he may have at least hinted towards that.

More prayers …
 
At_Trent said:
Well, H.E. sure seems relaxed going by the text of the interview. If an obviously unacceptable proposal was made, I feel he may have at least hinted towards that.

More prayers …
Click to expand...
I agree. He sounds very accommodating. Bishop Williamson will be very annoyed, I’m sure. 😉
 
vsedriver said:
submitting to authority is incredibly hard to do. I predict a small portion of the SSPX will return to obedience to the Pope but the rest will find some point to remain separate from Rome. It’s hard to give up independence once you’ve tasted it.
Click to expand...
The position of the SSPX, as I understand it, is that they are always ready to submit to lawful authority, if that authority is used legitimately.

We all know, for example, that we are not obliged by obedience to (otherwise) lawful authority to commit sin, if lawful authority commands us to do so – that is an illegitimate use of authority and we have no obligation to obey. Of course, it is entirely possible, at least conceptually, that a person in position of lawful authority over us commands us to do some thing which he does not consider sin, but which we do consider sin. In such a case, we might refuse obedience to satisfy our conscience and obligation to God, even while our authority considers us to be rebellious and disobedient.

This is approximately the situation of the SSPX, from the point of view of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre refused to celebrate the New Mass, because he believed that the New Mass was injurious to the faith and that to celebrate the New Mass would violate his highest obligation to save souls from eternal damnation and to do nothing that would endanger souls.

Obviously, Pope Paul disagreed with Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter and Archbishop Lefebvre was considered to be rebellious and disobedient. But Archbishop Lefebvre did not make his stand because he wished to be rebellious and disobedient. He did it because he believed it was his obligation before God.

The current leadership of the SSPX is no different. They are always looking to their obligation before God to work only for the salvation of souls and never to allow their endangerment. When this leads them to conflict with lawful authority, then it is easy to say that the SSPX leadership is wrong, but without an analysis of the particular conflict that conclusion is certainly simplistic and may well be erroneous.
 
Will_S said:
The position of the SSPX, as I understand it, is that they are always ready to submit to lawful authority, if that authority is used legitimately.

We all know, for example, that we are not obliged by obedience to (otherwise) lawful authority to commit sin, if lawful authority commands us to do so – that is an illegitimate use of authority and we have no obligation to obey. Of course, it is entirely possible, at least conceptually, that a person in position of lawful authority over us commands us to do some thing which he does not consider sin, but which we do consider sin. In such a case, we might refuse obedience to satisfy our conscience and obligation to God, even while our authority considers us to be rebellious and disobedient.

This is approximately the situation of the SSPX, from the point of view of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre refused to celebrate the New Mass, because he believed that the New Mass was injurious to the faith and that to celebrate the New Mass would violate his highest obligation to save souls from eternal damnation and to do nothing that would endanger souls.

Obviously, Pope Paul disagreed with Archbishop Lefebvre on the matter and Archbishop Lefebvre was considered to be rebellious and disobedient. But Archbishop Lefebvre did not make his stand because he wished to be rebellious and disobedient. He did it because he believed it was his obligation before God.

The current leadership of the SSPX is no different. They are always looking to their obligation before God to work only for the salvation of souls and never to allow their endangerment. When this leads them to conflict with lawful authority, then it is easy to say that the SSPX leadership is wrong, but without an analysis of the particular conflict that conclusion is certainly simplistic and may well be erroneous.
Click to expand...
Props. That’s how I view it as well.
 
justme said:
A source would be nice.

Otherwise how can we “accept your original claim”?
Click to expand...
I told you I’d look it up if you wanted. I was making no positive claim at that time; if you look at the context, I had mentioned that I had heard once that priests were expelled from the Society. It had little, if any basis as a premise for an argument.
Please in the future practice more intellectual rigour instead of jumping on cheap zingers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top