SSPX Bishop to Elevate Monastery?

[StTommyMore]

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 ?

See how our Holy Father asks us to be charitable toward the SSPX ?

Why then, do you persist in hatred ?

“Lifting of excommunications” is NOT restoration of faculties. Until faculties are restored EVERY SACRAMENT AT AN SSPX CHAPEL IS ILLICIT, AND SOME ARE INVALID.

 

[At_Trent]

Actually I do. The SSPX has no authority to celebrate ANY sacraments, and confessions and marriages celebrated by any SSPX priest are invalid.

“Lifting of excommunications” is NOT restoration of faculties. Until faculties are restored EVERY SACRAMENT AT AN SSPX CHAPEL IS ILLICIT, AND SOME ARE INVALID.

:clapping:

At least you saw the error of your first post and proceeded to scream loudly your retraction !

:tiphat:

And I accept the SSPX clergy are suspended, you don’t have to scream it

 

[StTommyMore]

:clapping:

At least you saw the error of your first post and proceeded to scream loudly your retraction !

:tiphat:

And I accept the SSPX clergy are suspended, you don’t have to scream it

There was no error in my first post. The SSPX have no faculties. Confessions are invalid. Marriages are invalid. All others are illicit. I personally believe no more concessions to the SSPX need be made. They must now submit to the authority of the Church.

 

[Pregustator]

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.

Malphono:

At the risk of bashing the SSPX with my slurs and vile hatred, I’ll follow up if I ever get a response from Father Cyprian. I suspect, however, that certain flame-throwing SSPX cheerleaders may have alerted him to this dialogue. That much seems to have been suggested, at any rate. But, if he does answer my letter, I’ll let you know what he says.

Like I say, though, I have to suspect it’s going to have something to do with stretching the SSPX’s already outlandish “supplied jurisdiction” doctrine to the extremes in an attempt to justify just about any action…such as a bishop with no jurisdiction or even faculties canonically elevating a Benedictine monastery to an abbey!

 

[At_Trent]

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:

Though I am not the OP, he made a comment in another thread that I think should be quoted here:

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.

Well, the OP took it there in response to my post, which was on topic.

At any rate, I’m curious too and will lurk from here on. Please join me in prayer that the SSPX find a way to reconcile.

 

[malphono]

Malphono:

At the risk of bashing the SSPX with my slurs and vile hatred, I’ll follow up if I ever get a response from Father Cyprian. I suspect, however, that certain flame-throwing SSPX cheerleaders may have alerted him to this dialogue. That much seems to have been suggested, at any rate.

I’ve been wondering about that possibility. On the other hand, even if they were informed about the thread (or, read it themselves), what harm could they possibly find in explaining their position on the matter?

But, if he does answer my letter, I’ll let you know what he says.

Please do. Thanks.

Like I say, though, I have to suspect it’s going to have something to do with stretching the SSPX’s already outlandish “supplied jurisdiction” doctrine to the extremes in an attempt to justify just about any action…such as a bishop with no jurisdiction or even faculties canonically elevating a Benedictine monastery to an abbey!

I have this feeling you’re correct about that. They do seem to overuse the “supplied jurisdiction” defense. Whether they truly believe it or repeat it ad nauseam for other reasons I don’t know.

 

[Pregustator]

I’ve been wondering about that possibility. On the other hand, even if they were informed about the thread (or, read it themselves), what harm could they possibly find in explaining their position on the matter?

There wouldn’t be any actual harm, but from my experience with the SSPX, a culture of paranoia has been nurtured to the point where–as we’ve experienced here–any criticism constitutes an “attack” from the “outside”. Again, at the risk of rustling the feathers of the Society’s supporters, many of them really do live in perpetual fear of the outside world, convinced that the “Judeo-Masonic” government is going to come after them at any moment.

I remember very vividly an episode at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary: a representative from the county in which the seminary was located wanted to schedule a simple inspection of the property and Bishop Williamson completely freaked. He was convinced that this was it: the “New World Order” was coming in with guns blazing–like at Waco–to round us all up and ship us to a concentration camp. Of course, that didn’t happen. But many of the SSPX do live in fear that that sort of a scenario is imminent.

That doesn’t so much speak to this particular question; I only offer it to demonstrate the prevalent paradigm within the SSPX. But that sort of paranoia could, potentially, cause a SSPX superior to avoid answering a question posed, if he knew his answer might be revealed in a public forum. His position is a difficult one to defend, after all, to non-SSPX followers, whereas most SSPX adherents tend to simply take the SSPX leadership at their word.

In a forum such as this one, that same level of docility does not obtain, of course, and so I can see a Father Cyprian not wanting his words exposed on an internet forum of this nature.

But who knows whats going on. We’ll see.

 

[roadsend]

There wouldn’t be any actual harm, but from my experience with the SSPX, a culture of paranoia has been nurtured to the point where–as we’ve experienced here–any criticism constitutes an “attack” from the “outside”. …

Is it really paranoia, if they actually are out to get you?

 

[Aramis]

Is it really paranoia, if they actually are out to get you?

Paranoia is unreasonable or unjustified belief, or an unreasonable reaction to the belief, that they are out to get you.

So just because they are out to get one doesn’t mean one isn’t paranoid about it… if the reaction is unreasonable, one is still paranoid.

 

[otjm]

Paranoia is unreasonable or unjustified belief, or an unreasonable reaction to the belief, that they are out to get you.

So just because they are out to get one doesn’t mean one isn’t paranoid about it… if the reaction is unreasonable, one is still paranoid.

Actually, the original phrase was “Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.”

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I just deleted 14 posts because they are disrespectful to the SSPX. The rules of the thread apply to everyone on both sides of the aisle. You may not make inflammatory remarks about religious, clergy, diocese, religious order, secular institute, or priestly society, that includes the SSPX. You can cite a document, an article that you have read or state a known fact. Do not add to it and do not interpret it using language that is disrespectful to the Society or to other posters. Several infractions have also been issued. The next step is to close the thread and issue suspensions. Return to the topic.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Pregustator]

Well…I received a response to my letter to Father Cyprian. It’s…unique. He makes no attempt to explain his or the Society’s rationale for this action. The very brief letter is cryptic and mystifying. I’ll be happy to share both my own letter and Father Cyprian’s response with anyone who cares to read it, via PM.

 

[malphono]

Well…I received a response to my letter to Father Cyprian. It’s…unique. He makes no attempt to explain his or the Society’s rationale for this action. The very brief letter is cryptic and mystifying. I’ll be happy to share both my own letter and Father Cyprian’s response with anyone who cares to read it, via PM.

Yes, please, I’d just love to read both.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The SSPX, from my observations and experiences, have always seemed to say one thing but do another; to define themselves one way, but then to act in another.

I have so often heard the SSPX state that they claim for their bishops no jurisdiction and that they are in no wise a parallel church…but then their actions state otherwise. The four bishops have ordained a bishop (who has since reconciled with Rome). The SSPX have established their own Benedictines, their own Dominicans, and so forth. They continue to ordain priests each year, as has been stated.

They say their bishops are only there to maintain the traditional clergy until the “crisis” is over. They are acting in an ecclesiastical “state of emergency”, so they say. I understand their argument and their perspective, even though I no longer subscribe to it.

But where is the “emergency” argument in something like this, I wonder? How could there ever be an emergency need to elevate a “Benedictine” monastery to a conventual priory or abbey? Isn’t this just a blatant pretense to some sort of jurisdictional authority…an authority they continually deny pretending to?

The excommunications have been lifted by Rome. I assume that Rome would expect a good faith response in which the SSPX bishops begin to demonstrate obedience and to desist in activities like this one. Yes? Actions like this, however, seem to me to amount to a flipping of the bird at legitimate authority and a callous disregard for the Society’s fragile position with Rome.

Am I reading too much into all of this?

I must say that you have a gift for balanced assessment and analysis!

Alex

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well…I received a response to my letter to Father Cyprian. It’s…unique. He makes no attempt to explain his or the Society’s rationale for this action. The very brief letter is cryptic and mystifying. I’ll be happy to share both my own letter and Father Cyprian’s response with anyone who cares to read it, via PM.

Thanks for the letters.

After reading them it does appear to me, as I read the reply, that Father Cyprian is going with the “emergency” agrument.

 

[Pregustator]

Thanks for the letters.

After reading them it does appear to me, as I read the reply, that Father Cyprian is going with the “emergency” agrument.

Right, but with no attempt to offer any justification for it, would you agree?

 

[malphono]

Right, but with no attempt to offer any justification for it, would you agree?

See my PM for further comment, but no, no attempt at real justification jumps out at me.

 

[Pregustator]

Like you say, and as I suspected, it’s really just this “supplied jurisdiction” thing, again, taken, now, to extremes. To be clear, the response does not offer the phrase “supplied jurisdiction” but that seems to be the best interpretation of Fr. C’s response (a response that was not without humor, incidentally).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Right, but with no attempt to offer any justification for it, would you agree?

The part where Fr Cyprian uses the Scriptural reference I take as the justification that the SSPX has always stated, the implied jursdiction because of the “emergency” they see.

 

[malphono]

The part where Fr Cyprian uses the Scriptural reference I take as the justification that the SSPX has always stated, the implied jursdiction because of the “emergency” they see.

Yes, that seems to be just about it. None so blind as he who will not see.