SSPX Bishop to Elevate Monastery?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pregustator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pregustator said:
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.
Click to expand...
I suspect he will not answer seeing as though he may have been informed of this thread 😉
 
I suspect he will not answer seeing as though he may have been informed of this thread.
Click to expand...
Well, if he has little minions surfing the net and reporting back to him, I wouldn’t know…but it wouldn’t surprise me. For as much as the SSPX and their satellites condemn the internet and exhort the “faithful” not to use computers, they do, hypocritically, surf the net just the same…and may, possibly, monitor forums such as this one.

Should there be a little SSPX spy or two reading this thread (and violating the SSPX’s admonitions to stay away from the internet in the process), could you, by chance, offer the explanation we’re looking for?

Greetings, incidentally. Please give my regards to the good old boys.

:tiphat:
 
Pregustator said:
Well, if he has little minions surfing the net and reporting back to him, I wouldn’t know…but it wouldn’t surprise me. For as much as the SSPX and their satellites condemn the internet and exhort the “faithful” not to use computers, they do, hypocritically, surf the net just the same…and may, possibly, monitor forums such as this one.

Should there be a little SSPX spy or two reading this thread (and violating the SSPX’s admonitions to stay away from the internet in the process), could you, by chance, offer the explanation we’re looking for?

Greetings, incidentally. Please give my regards to the good old boys.

:tiphat:
Click to expand...
lol, I’m not alerting him. I’m curious too. I’m not a member of a SSPX chapel either. I have issues with some of their viewpoints.

I’m just pointing out that when one reveals an agenda publicly, one can expect it will be brought to the attention of the party being deemed wacko and quack.

The point of the thread is to find fault, is it not ? Hypocrisy comes in many flavors.
 
lol, I’m not alerting him. I’m curious too. I’m not a member of a SSPX chapel either. I have issues with some of their viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Sorry, if you thought I was addressing you. I was addressing not you, but (jestingly) any SSPX “spies” that might be reading this and reporting back to their masters. I didn’t imagine that you were one.
 
Pregustator said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, Pope Paul VI said that Roman Church instituted acolytes could be called subdeacons, and do all the subdeacon’s duties.
 
Pregustator said:
… For as much as the SSPX and their satellites condemn the internet and exhort the “faithful” not to use computers, …
Click to expand...
If they are so anti-internet, why do you suppose that they have so many websites?
Even the local chapels have websites which carry their Sunday bulletin, announcements etc.
 
Actually, Pope Paul VI said that Roman Church instituted acolytes could be called subdeacons, and do all the subdeacon’s duties.
Click to expand...
???
If they are so anti-internet, why do you suppose that they have so many websites?
Click to expand...
And if they’re so loyal to the pope, why do they continually disobey him?

Hypocrisy. That is what I suppose.
 
At_Trent said:
So, you don’t share the Pope’s view of the SSPX ?
Click to expand...
Actually I do. The SSPX has no authority to celebrate ANY sacraments, and confessions and marriages celebrated by any SSPX priest are invalid.
 
So, you don’t share the Pope’s view of the SSPX ?
Click to expand...
Let’s also not forget that the Pope, himself, confessed that the SSPX bishops were not properly vetted, so to speak, before the excommunications were lifted. As a result, the Pope got bit in the you-know-what when, following the lifting of the excommunications, Williamson got his rear in a sling in a big way over his televised comments denying the Holocaust.

This turned out to be a huge embarrassment for the Pope, as we all know, and it resulted in a terrible media storm over why the Pope didn’t know this awful stuff about the SSPX, and why would he make overtures to people who believe such things. The Pope, as I say, publicly admitted to making a mistake, at least in Williamson’s case, and the Vatican ordered Williamson to apologize. His apology was deemed insufficient and, to this day, the Vatican awaits a genuine expression of sorrow from Williamson.

Let us, please, not behave as though the Pope just loves these guys. Far from it.
 
StTommyMore said:
Actually I do. The SSPX has no authority to celebrate ANY sacraments, and confessions and marriages celebrated by any SSPX priest are invalid.
Click to expand...
StTommyMore said:
A radical sect? Guilty of hypocrisy? You CAN"T be serious!!! 😃
Click to expand...
So, do you think H.H. shares your view that the SSPX is as described in the second statement ? But, lifted the excommunications for the heck of it anyway ?
… The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 - this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life…
Click to expand...
… But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Click to expand...
"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint…
aodonline.org/AODOnline/News+++Publications+2203/Vatican+News+15751/090312Excommunication.htm
Click to expand...
See how our Holy Father asks us to be charitable toward the SSPX ?

Why then, do you persist in hatred ?
 
Pregustator said:
Let’s also not forget that the Pope, himself, confessed that the SSPX bishops were not properly vetted, so to speak, before the excommunications were lifted. As a result, the Pope got bit in the you-know-what when, following the lifting of the excommunications, Williamson got his rear in a sling in a big way over his televised comments denying the Holocaust.

This turned out to be a huge embarrassment for the Pope, as we all know, and it resulted in a terrible media storm over why the Pope didn’t know this awful stuff about the SSPX, and why would he make overtures to people who believe such things. The Pope, as I say, publicly admitted to making a mistake, at least in Williamson’s case, and the Vatican ordered Williamson to apologize. His apology was deemed insufficient and, to this day, the Vatican awaits a genuine expression of sorrow from Williamson.

Let us, please, not behave as though the Pope just loves these guys. Far from it.
Click to expand...
As the letter I quoted him from shows, even after learning of the Williamson issue, he still feels they have good in them.

He does not hate them as you do.
 
Again, it is blatantly obvious this thread was started to bash the SSPX and promote vile hatred toward them.
 
Again, it is blatantly obvious this thread was started to bash the SSPX and promote vile hatred toward them.
Click to expand...
My dear sir, I believe that the only thing that is blatantly obvious is that you are a cheerleader for the Society of St. Pius X, here to spin all legitimate criticism of the SSPX as “vile hatred”.

Typical.
 
H.H. sees discussions and comments like we see in this thread as hatred. You can’t deny it, it’s in his own words, and the hatred for the SSPX is so violent and deeply rooted that even as he pointed out, some of his own Bishops rose up against him.

If you are ok with that, carry on, but you either accept his viewpoint or you don’t.
 
Though I am not the OP, he made a comment in another thread that I think should be quoted here:
40.png
Pregustator:
allow me to explain that the one, single post I have actually begun about the SSPX was a post questioning the rationale behind a SSPX bishop canonically elevating a Benedictine monastery to the level of conventual priory.
Click to expand...
I, for one, hope that this thread has not been irrevocably derailed and can return to its initial purpose. The topic is quite interesting to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top