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.
Will_S said:
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.
Click to expand...
then I wonder if he believed that the Pope was infallible in cases of faith or morals? Because if the Pope is infallible in faith how could he approve of a ‘sinful’ Mass?
 
vsedriver said:
then I wonder if he believed that the Pope was infallible in cases of faith or morals? Because if the Pope is infallible in faith how could he approve of a ‘sinful’ Mass?
Click to expand...
why not start a thread instead of derailing this one ?
 
vsedriver said:
then I wonder if he believed that the Pope was infallible in cases of faith or morals? Because if the Pope is infallible in faith how could he approve of a ‘sinful’ Mass?
Click to expand...
He would almost certainly answer “The Pope is infallible when it comes to faith and morals when he specifically invokes this infallibility.”
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Interesting…an “Opus Dei” solution:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/society-of-st.-pius-x-could-be-offered-personal-prelature-status/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews-vatican+%28CNA+Daily+News±+Vatican%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Click to expand...
I have to say that I have great concern. This personal prefecture structure is really against the tradition of the church. Our tradition, is a local church controlled by the local bishop, who originally was elected by the people and then later by the clergy. A shadow of this tradition is the election of the pope by the clergy of Rome, which are now called cardinals.

Having a loose cannon group like SSPX with its own bishop and indepenence from the local bishop is a receipe for disaster. Look at the problems cause by taking control of the Tridentine mass out of the hands of the local bishop. Look at the legitimate controversy caused by Opus Dei’s lack of transparency and I am, not talking the silly Dan Brown book. That is all we need is to have a group which claims they accept Vatican II but in practice work against the incredible reforms of the Council.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
I have to say that I have great concern. This personal prefecture structure is really against the tradition of the church. Our tradition, is a local church controlled by the local bishop, who originally was elected by the people and then later by the clergy. A shadow of this tradition is the election of the pope by the clergy of Rome, which are now called cardinals.

Having a loose cannon group like SSPX with its own bishop and indepenence from the local bishop is a receipe for disaster. Look at the problems cause by taking control of the Tridentine mass out of the hands of the local bishop. Look at the legitimate controversy caused by Opus Dei’s lack of transparency and I am, not talking the silly Dan Brown book. That is all we need is to have a group which claims they accept Vatican II but in practice work against the incredible reforms of the Council.
Click to expand...
Taking the Traditional Mass out of the hands of local bishops was exactly what needed to happen, because as a whole they proved themselves almost completely incapable of making it properly available. Imagine if the SSPX were to need permission to operate in any diocese. They’d be consigned to the trad Catholic ghetto even more than they are now.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
I have to say that I have great concern. This personal prefecture structure is really against the tradition of the church. Our tradition, is a local church controlled by the local bishop, who originally was elected by the people and then later by the clergy. A shadow of this tradition is the election of the pope by the clergy of Rome, which are now called cardinals.

Having a loose cannon group like SSPX with its own bishop and indepenence from the local bishop is a receipe for disaster. Look at the problems cause by taking control of the Tridentine mass out of the hands of the local bishop. Look at the legitimate controversy caused by Opus Dei’s lack of transparency and I am, not talking the silly Dan Brown book. That is all we need is to have a group which claims they accept Vatican II but in practice work against the incredible reforms of the Council.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Because there aren’t enough loose canons in ‘good standing’ with the Holy See as it is, cough American bishops 1960’s-90’s, cake masses, clown masses etc… galore and don’t think they don’t still happen cough

Perhaps you should get your own house in order before criticising the society?

Either way I’m sure Gods will be done regarding this, I do hope they accept the proposal though.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
I have to say that I have great concern. This personal prefecture structure is really against the tradition of the church. Our tradition, is a local church controlled by the local bishop, who originally was elected by the people and then later by the clergy. A shadow of this tradition is the election of the pope by the clergy of Rome, which are now called cardinals.

Having a loose cannon group like SSPX with its own bishop and indepenence from the local bishop is a receipe for disaster. Look at the problems cause by taking control of the Tridentine mass out of the hands of the local bishop. Look at the legitimate controversy caused by Opus Dei’s lack of transparency and I am, not talking the silly Dan Brown book. That is all we need is to have a group which claims they accept Vatican II but in practice work against the incredible reforms of the Council.
Click to expand...
I share these concerns as well. It could be a disaster, but in looking at those who reconciled with the Church in the past, or recently, such as the Anglicans, Transalpine Redemptorists, the followers of Fr. Feeney (can’t remember the name of the group that reconciled), and those of the FSSP who were formerly of the SSPX, they have, for the most part I think, shown humility and obedience, from what I can tell.

My hope is that those who choose to accept the offer, if it’s accepted, will show the appropriate humility and obedience. At least if an offer is accepted, we can be assured that the SSPX will at least there will under the lawful authority of the Church - even if it’s only the Pope that they are accountable to. That’s better than the situation as it stands now.

Ironically, I think that the idea of a personal prelature comes from Vatican ll (if I remember correcly). Not sure how that differs from an ordinariate, though.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
That is all we need is to have a group which claims they accept Vatican II but in practice work against the incredible reforms of the Council.
Click to expand...
The SSPX reject the so-called “incredible reforms of the council” outright. That has not stopped the Pope from having these doctrinal talks and making this offer. So maybe it would be better if you just accept that the “incredible reforms of the council” are not very fundamental to the Catholic Faith after all.
 
Denise1957 said:
I share these concerns as well. It could be a disaster, but in looking at those who reconciled with the Church in the past, or recently, such as the Anglicans, Transalpine Redemptorists, the followers of Fr. Feeney (can’t remember the name of the group that reconciled), and those of the FSSP who were formerly of the SSPX, they have, for the most part I think, shown humility and obedience, from what I can tell.
Click to expand...
The FSSP had no need for reconciliation with the Church because they did not exist as a society before the Econe consecrations.
 
Will_S said:
The SSPX reject the so-called “incredible reforms of the council” outright. That has not stopped the Pope from having these doctrinal talks and making this offer. So maybe it would be better if you just accept that the “incredible reforms of the council” are not very fundamental to the Catholic Faith after all.
Click to expand...
Lol yeah, because such spectacular fruit has been borne since the close of the council. Look how reverently the average Mass is celebrated now. :eek:
 
For all the years of people here posting concerns over the SSPX not trusting the pope and questioning his authority, now some of those great defenders are… questioning the pope and not trusting the wisdom of the Holy See.

Can’t we trust these men on both sides, who have given their lives to the service of Holy Mother Church, and consider that they might just know a thing or two about how to deal with this issue ?
 
The SSPX will not accept any offer that prevents them from speaking out against “the errors of Vatican II” so, assuming that an offer is made and accepted, it will be very interesting to see what the reaction is to a regularized SSPX prelature/ordinariate that continues to publicly trash the “reforms of the council”.

I think some people’s heads might explode.
 
NihilObstatINRI said:
The FSSP had no need for reconciliation with the Church because they did not exist as a society before the Econe consecrations.
Click to expand...
True, the FSSP did not exist before the Econe consecrations which took place on June 30, 1988. But the SSPX had been suppressed even before that, so that those priests who left the SSPX after the consecrations, and who then went to the Pope to ask for help, had to be reconciled in some manner, I think.
 
At_Trent said:
For all the years of people here posting concerns over the SSPX not trusting the pope and questioning his authority, now some of those great defenders are… questioning the pope and not trusting the wisdom of the Holy See.

Can’t we trust these men on both sides, who have given their lives to the service of Holy Mother Church, and consider that they might just know a thing or two about how to deal with this issue ?
Click to expand...
Haha, very true. Who’s second guessing the Church now?
Denise1957 said:
True, the FSSP did not exist before the Econe consecrations which took place on June 30, 1988. But the SSPX had been suppressed even before that, so that those priests who left the SSPX after the consecrations, and who then went to the Pope to ask for help, had to be reconciled in some manner, I think.
Click to expand...
The FSSP order had no need of reconciliation. A handful of the priests might have, but I cannot find data on the ordination dates of the founding FSSP members. They left the SSPX, which was suppressed, but they as priests were not suspended at that time, unless they were of the group ordained in 76 and suspended with Archbishop Lefebvre.
Will_S said:
The SSPX will not accept any offer that prevents them from speaking out against “the errors of Vatican II” so, assuming that an offer is made and accepted, it will be very interesting to see what the reaction is to a regularized SSPX prelature/ordinariate that continues to publicly trash the “reforms of the council”.

I think some people’s heads might explode.
Click to expand...
As I always say, “A lot of Catholics today need their heads to explode because of their shock at legitimate criticism of the Second Vatican Council.”
It doesn’t roll off the tongue that well, but there ya’ go.

The SSJV was reconciled with Rome after having been in a much more radical position than the SSPX, and they are permitted the same as the SSPX; to criticize aspects of Vatican II within the bounds of Tradition.
 
At_Trent said:
For all the years of people here posting concerns over the SSPX not trusting the pope and questioning his authority, now some of those great defenders are… questioning the pope and not trusting the wisdom of the Holy See.

Can’t we trust these men on both sides, who have given their lives to the service of Holy Mother Church, and consider that they might just know a thing or two about how to deal with this issue ?
Click to expand...
Nicely done.
 
NihilObstatINRI said:
Haha, very true. Who’s second guessing the Church now?

The FSSP order had no need of reconciliation. A handful of the priests might have, but I cannot find data on the ordination dates of the founding FSSP members. They left the SSPX, which was suppressed, but they as priests were not suspended at that time, unless they were of the group ordained in 76 and suspended with Archbishop Lefebvre.

As I always say, “A lot of Catholics today need their heads to explode because of their shock at legitimate criticism of the Second Vatican Council.”
It doesn’t roll off the tongue that well, but there ya’ go.

The SSJV was reconciled with Rome after having been in a much more radical position than the SSPX, and they are permitted the same as the SSPX; to criticize aspects of Vatican II within the bounds of Tradition.
Click to expand...
I think we’re misunderstanding each other here. I had not ever said that the FSSP needed reconciliation. Also, they are not an order of priests; neither are the SSPX.
 
Will_S said:
The SSPX will not accept any offer that prevents them from speaking out against “the errors of Vatican II” so, assuming that an offer is made and accepted, it will be very interesting to see what the reaction is to a regularized SSPX prelature/ordinariate that continues to publicly trash the “reforms of the council”.

I think some people’s heads might explode.
Click to expand...
So then, are you predicting a full break with Rome? Will SSPX go the same way as Donatism or Novatianism?

It seems unlikely that the Church will welcome back a group that promises to actively protest Vatican II. At some point even a personal prelature must submit to the discipline of the Church. But you’re right; it will be very interesting.

Pax,
OA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top