SSPX Bishop to Elevate Monastery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pregustator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whatever. You are turning this into an issue because your claim that Latin has completely disappeared is wholly without merit.
Click to expand...
If by that you meant to say, “I have looked it up and I have discovered that I misspoke,” rest assured of our pardon. Only the pope is infallible.

:rolleyes:
 
Pregustator said:
If by that you meant to say, “I have looked it up and I have discovered that I misspoke,” rest assured of our pardon. Only the pope is infallible.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
By that I mean that I am accepting that you are correct without looking it up, but you are using this as an “issue” because you are blowing the Latin issue out of proportion
 
Getting back to the original topic, however, are there any SSPX supporters monitoring this conversation who are able to supply the Society’s rationale behind Bishop de Galarreta’s impending elevation of Our Lady of Guadelupe Monastery to the level of conventual priory?
Click to expand...
How, in fact, does the SSPX justify this action? Whence do they claim to derive the authority to send one of their bishops to do such a thing? And I’m asking for the real answer, not something pulled out of one’s derriere.
Click to expand...
At the risk of seeming grotesquely egotistical by quoting and responding to my own post, I have written to the superior of the Benedictine monastery in question asking him what the SSPX’s rationale is. Best to get it right from the horse’s mouth, I suppose. Should he respond, I’ll certainly share what I learn.
 
Pregustator said:
At the risk of seeming grotesquely egotistical by quoting and responding to my own post, I have written to the superior of the Benedictine monastery in question asking him what the SSPX’s rationale is. Best to get it right from the horse’s mouth, I suppose. Should he respond, I’ll certainly share what I learn.
Click to expand...
Yes, please do. I for one would be very interested in the response. I’d also be interested if there is no response. 🙂
 
Pregustator said:
At the risk of seeming grotesquely egotistical by quoting and responding to my own post, I have written to the superior of the Benedictine monastery in question asking him what the SSPX’s rationale is. Best to get it right from the horse’s mouth, I suppose. Should he respond, I’ll certainly share what I learn.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Are you acquainted wjth the superior or any of his folks?
 
Pregustator said:
At the risk of seeming grotesquely egotistical by quoting and responding to my own post, I have written to the superior of the Benedictine monastery in question asking him what the SSPX’s rationale is. Best to get it right from the horse’s mouth, I suppose. Should he respond, I’ll certainly share what I learn.
Click to expand...
It probably wouldn’t get me to more SSPX Masses (they are packed without me) but I’d like to hear the response as well.
 
roadsend said:
Thank you.
Are you acquainted wjth the superior or any of his folks?
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that Cyprian may have visited the seminary once while I was there, but that was 20 years ago, and I don’t even recall whether or not I would have met him. I don’t believe this monastery was in existence yet, either. I don’t know any of the other Benedictines, at all.

I actually faxed my letter to the monastery at the fax number provided on the newsletter in hopes of getting a quicker response. I did apologize for being so informal. I’m sure they’ll understand. If I hear back from anyone there, I’ll post the reply on this thread.
 
Pregustator said:
I seem to recall that Cyprian may have visited the seminary once while I was there, but that was 20 years ago, and I don’t even recall whether or not I would have met him. I don’t believe this monastery was in existence yet, either. I don’t know any of the other Benedictines, at all.

I actually faxed my letter to the monastery at the fax number provided on the newsletter in hopes of getting a quicker response. I did apologize for being so informal. I’m sure they’ll understand. If I hear back from anyone there, I’ll post the reply on this thread.
Click to expand...
I would strongly suggest that you get his permission to publish his response on the Internet. Superiors don’t normally write personal letters for the prupose of publishing on the World Wide Web. They write in response to individuals and their questions. Superiors appreciate it when they are told in advance that their response to a question is going to be published where the entire world can read it.

It is not that a superior has anything to hide, but he has a moral duty to protect the good name of his community. If his response contains error, it is one thing if the error is known by one person and quite another if it is known by the whole world. It is one thing if the iindividual who mispeaks is quoted and quite another when a community is misrepresented by the mistake of one superior.

Because superiors know that they are not perfect, they avoid making public statements that can outlive them and that may reflect negatively on their communities whom they are morally bound to protect and serve. This is especially true in making statements about their communities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I would strongly suggest that you get his permission to publish his response on the Internet. Superiors don’t normally write personal letters for the prupose of publishing on the World Wide Web. They write in response to individuals and their questions. Superiors appreciate it when they are told in advance that their response to a question is going to be published where the entire world can read it.
Click to expand...
It is not that a superior has anything to hide, but he has a moral duty to protect the good name of his community. If his response contains error, it is one thing if the error is known by one person and quite another if it is known by the whole world. It is one thing if the iindividual who mispeaks is quoted and quite another when a community is misrepresented by the mistake of one superior.
Click to expand...
Because superiors know that they are not perfect, they avoid making public statements that can outlive them and that may reflect negatively on their communities whom they are morally bound to protect and serve. This is especially true in making statements about their communities.
Click to expand...
Fraternally,
Click to expand...
Br. JR, OSF
Click to expand...
If we were talking about a genuine Dominican superior, I would defer to your words with no argument. But let’s back up one moment: this Father Cyprian is not such a superior, is he? Is he not merely a usurper who seems to derive his authority (such as it is) from other usurpers, and schismatics? Is this man really an authentic Dominican superior? Or is he merely a flunky of the Society of Saint Pius X? If the latter (and that is my own interpretation), I don’t know how much respect any of us is bound to show something like that.

That having been said, I think what I’ll do is merely share the explanation he offers, rather than “post” his verbatim response. That’s a general courtesy, anyway, that has nothing to do with the writer’s position or authority.
 
Pregustator said:
If we were talking about a genuine Dominican superior, I would defer to your words with no argument. But let’s back up one moment: this Father Cyprian is not such a superior, is he?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter. It’s really more of a legal issue. If I were to know my letter, regardless of who I am, were to make its round on the internet, I might find another venue to answer, such as changing my website or through a third party. I’m certainly not defending true schismatics (if they are schismatics) but I wouldn’t read too much into it if you don’t get a direct response immediately. But that’s my opinion.
 
Legalities aside, certainly the golden rule should be considered…
 
Pregustator said:
If we were talking about a genuine Dominican superior, I would defer to your words with no argument. But let’s back up one moment: this Father Cyprian is not such a superior, is he? Is he not merely a usurper who seems to derive his authority (such as it is) from other usurpers, and schismatics? Is this man really an authentic Dominican superior? Or is he merely a flunky of the Society of Saint Pius X? If the latter (and that is my own interpretation), I don’t know how much respect any of us is bound to show something like that.

That having been said, I think what I’ll do is merely share the explanation he offers, rather than “post” his verbatim response. That’s a general courtesy, anyway, that has nothing to do with the writer’s position or authority.
Click to expand...
Whether he is the superior of canonically erected community or of a private association,he is a superior. The one thing that the Church does is to treat them with the proper deference (sp?).

You mentioned the Dominicans. They went for years without canonical approval. But Br. Dominic was still the prior and was treated as such by the papal court. The same was true for St. Francis of Assisi. He did not become a canonical superior until 14-years after he had founded his order. But from 1209 to 1223, the papal court referred to him as Father Francis and to his brothers as Friars Minor. However, the papal bull was not issued until 1223, three-years before his death. Many bishops and lay people thought that he and his brothers were quacks. Is quack the right word here? :confused:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Unless I missed it in this long thread, there is a misunderstanding. Are we trying to determine what gives the SSPX the right to call this monastery Benedictine ?
 
JReducation said:
Many bishops and lay people thought that he and his brothers were quacks. Is quack the right word here? :confused:
Click to expand...
I don’t think so; a “quack” pretty much just means a fraudulent doctor. “Wackos”, maybe? 🙂
 
MarkThompson said:
I don’t think so; a “quack” pretty much just means a fraudulent doctor. “Wackos”, maybe? 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would work. LOL 😃

That’s why the Church takes these foundations very seriously. No one ever knows where they’ll go.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
malphono said:
Take, e.g, the Wyoming Carmelites: they do not use “O.Carm” and as far as I know, do not lay claim to it.
Click to expand...
since I understand you do not take PMs, what do you know of these? If you wish to not take the thread down that path, please pm me. I came across reference to them in Utah…
 
malphono said:
Seems that there are two houses with similar names. If you open both websites, you’ll notice that the addresses & phone numbers are different: the one in the OP (ourladyofguadalupemonastery.com/) is not an abbey, but is associated with the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Ok, you are correct. They are 5 hours apart. What made me assume they were the same, besides the name, is a thread I found on another site that had a post saying the OSB one was not SSPX, but friendly towards them.
 
Be he a superior or just a quack, you may all rest assured that if and when I receive a response from Father Cyprian (none to date, incidentally) I will not post his letter, verbatim. As I’ve said, I will merely share the explanation he gives, without directly quoting his letter.

I really have to imagine that it’s going to be a matter of this nonsensical “supplied jurisdiction” argument that the SSPX always toss out there, this time stretched to its limits. Basically the argument is that, you know, we, the SSPX, can ordain priests and deacons and subdeacons (even though the subdiaconate has long since been abolished) and hear confessions and witness marriages and grant annulments, and now canonically elevate religious houses, because we are what is left of the Church…the “Newchurch” has rendered herself incapable of being the true Catholic Church any longer. Therefore we are only doing what the Church would do if the Church were still Catholic, which it is not.

I expect Father Cyprian’s response will go something like that. We’ll see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top