SSPX...come home

[Brendan_64]

It may well be that some who were slow in accept the Church on this are more obedient than many who embraced it.

But slow to accept something is a different matter from rejection of something. One cannot both reject something, while at the same time be obedient to it.

 

[pnewton]

But slow to accept something is a different matter from rejection of something. One cannot both reject something, while at the same time be obedient to it.

Absolutely. As one does not reject what the Church teaches, or asks of us, then I do not know of any time limit we have to work through, even if it takes a lifetime.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Everybody now knows that the Ecclesia Dei Commission sent a letter to Bishop Fellay [Superior General of the Society] on January 8, and that an answer is expected from him by February 22, the day of the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter. The erection of the Prelature of Saint Pius X could be dated from this day, February 22. This would represent the true conclusion of the pontificate of Benedict XVI: the rehabilitation of Abp. Lefebvre. Can you imagine what thunderous roar [this would be] and even, indirectly, what weight this would have in the orienation of the events of March?

I’m confused about who Fr. Claude Barthe is - he was an SSPX priest and is now reconcilled? Is that correct?

Since none of the SSPX bishops are cardinals, they wouldn’t be involved in the Conclave even if they were all to reconcil by the 22nd (which seems highly unlikely). I do think though that if they sign a statement of reconcilliation before Pope Benedict steps down that it will be news!!

 

[Brendan_64]

Absolutely. As one does not reject what the Church teaches, or asks of us, then I do not know of any time limit we have to work through, even if it takes a lifetime.

And during the time it takes for someone to work through things, is disobedience to instructions from the Vatican acceptable?

If a a teenager is told by his mother that he has to be in by 10pm at night, is it OK for him to stay out until midnight until such time as he personally comes to terms with and agrees with what his mother has instructed him?

 

[pnewton]

And during the time it takes for someone to work through things, is disobedience to instructions from the Vatican acceptable?

If a a teenager is told by his mother that he has to be in by 10pm at night, is it OK for him to stay out until midnight until such time as he personally comes to terms with and agrees with what his mother has instructed him?

No. That is why I said assuming one does not reject the instruction.

 

[Brendan_64]

No. That is why I said assuming one does not reject the instruction.

Fair enough.

 

[Moore11]

The purpose of this thread is to appeal to those who are in the SSPX or similar organizations to “come back to your Father’s house”.

Catholics who are presently ‘in’ or who ‘have been in’ and would like to contribute towards helping those who are still there to consider their position by:

Inviting discussion - sharing information and experiences that are constructive and charitable.

We are all members of the same family and it from this perspective that I would like to start from. :grouphug:

Dee, You and I have deep disagreements on the SSPX. But I will say this. I would proudly join you in praying that the SSPX come back into full communion. Period. No matter how it happens, if the SSPX soften their hearts or if the pope waves a magic wand. I dont care. I just want them in.

You have my support.

 

[Dee_S]

Dee, You and I have deep disagreements on the SSPX. But I will say this. I would proudly join you in praying that the SSPX come back into full communion. Period. No matter how it happens, if the SSPX soften their hearts or if the pope waves a magic wand. I dont care. I just want them in.

You have my support.

:curtsey:that’s very good of you Moore11 and we are one on wanting “them in” and in praying for this intention, along with the Holy Father in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Unitatem written on July 2, 2009 in which he states his reasons for lifting the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops:

***“I address to all a pressing invitation to pray the Lord tirelessly, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, “ut unum sint”.” ***
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html

Didn’t think our disagreements were quite that deep - just that I happen to agree with pnewton on the quality/type of obedience we Catholics owe to the Church and the Holy Father.

Not saying here that you don’t, nor that those in the SSPX either (recall I was once one of them). Their loyalty to Rome is possibly stronger and more faithful than that of others; the problem being that it’s not to the present Rome, but to an “Eternal Rome” - which is not ideal and leads to their continued conflict with visible Authority.Hope that sheds some light on where I’m always coming from. . .

Their brand of inner strength and conviction is much needed inside the Church…so we continue to pray for their return:hug3:

 

[Dee_S]

I’m confused about who Fr. Claude Barthe is - he was an SSPX priest and is now reconcilled? Is that correct?

Since none of the SSPX bishops are cardinals, they wouldn’t be involved in the Conclave even if they were all to reconcil by the 22nd (which seems highly unlikely). I do think though that if they sign a statement of reconcilliation before Pope Benedict steps down that it will be news!!

It certainly would! Here is some news from their ‘opposition’ - recently expelled Bishop Williamson in his comments of January 19, 2013. (“Newchurch” is his expression for the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI):

“However, just as at Vatican II the Church’s official leadership was obliged to pretend that it was not breaking with the Tridentine Church (such is, for instance, Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”), so the SSPX’s official leadership is now obliged to pretend that it is not breaking with Archbishop Lefebvre. Thus, like most politicians of the last 500 years, these SSPX leaders are talking to the right while walking to the left, …”

“What happened in the SSPX last spring, as Fr Chazal says, is that the mask came off, because the SSPX leadership must have calculated that the time had come for it to make its open move back into the mainstream Church. Alas for these leaders, there emerged between March and June enough resistance to block at the SSPX General Chapter in July any immediate attempt to join the Newchurch. And so from that Chapter onwards, the mask has gone back on. But liberals do not convert, short of a miracle of grace, because leftwardness is their real religion. That is why the SSPX leaders are surely waiting for the modern world, flesh and devil to continue their work of pulling SSPX clergy and laity to the left so that within a few years at most there will no longer be any significant resistance, as there was last summer, to the SSPX rejoining the Newchurch.”(my bold)

“…superiors mould subjects and not the other way round. That is why, unless the present SSPX leaders are displaced by a miracle, the SSPX is doomed to be dissolved within the Newchurch. One can hardly say the punishment would not have been deserved.”

What say you Moore11 hope beats eternal…

 

[Moore11]

It certainly would! Here is some news from their ‘opposition’ - recently expelled Bishop Williamson in his comments of January 19, 2013. (“Newchurch” is his expression for the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict XVI):

“However, just as at Vatican II the Church’s official leadership was obliged to pretend that it was not breaking with the Tridentine Church (such is, for instance, Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”), so the SSPX’s official leadership is now obliged to pretend that it is not breaking with Archbishop Lefebvre. Thus, like most politicians of the last 500 years, these SSPX leaders are talking to the right while walking to the left, …”

“What happened in the SSPX last spring, as Fr Chazal says, is that the mask came off, because the SSPX leadership must have calculated that the time had come for it to make its open move back into the mainstream Church. Alas for these leaders, there emerged between March and June enough resistance to block at the SSPX General Chapter in July any immediate attempt to join the Newchurch. And so from that Chapter onwards, the mask has gone back on. But liberals do not convert, short of a miracle of grace, because leftwardness is their real religion. That is why the SSPX leaders are surely waiting for the modern world, flesh and devil to continue their work of pulling SSPX clergy and laity to the left so that within a few years at most there will no longer be any significant resistance, as there was last summer, to the SSPX rejoining the Newchurch.”(my bold)

“…superiors mould subjects and not the other way round. That is why, unless the present SSPX leaders are displaced by a miracle, the SSPX is doomed to be dissolved within the Newchurch. One can hardly say the punishment would not have been deserved.”

What say you Moore11 hope beats eternal…

I hope Williamson is right. I hope the SSPX is engulfed by the Catholic Church. I find it somewhat humorous that Williamson speaks to the politics of the General Chapter as he was forbidden to attend.

 

[Dee_S]

I hope Williamson is right. I hope the SSPX is engulfed by the Catholic Church. I find it somewhat humorous that Williamson speaks to the politics of the General Chapter as he was forbidden to attend.

Me too. But almost one third of those superiors did not vote against him attending their General Chapter - and, there was also a majority vote against accepting any deal with Rome. Must say, I’m not too sure what to make of that

It does appear that he’s pushing an agenda -to develop the ‘resistance’ to the reconciliation - being rather more outspoken than usual.

 

[Lormar]

Me too. But almost one third of those superiors did not vote against him attending their General Chapter - and, there was also a majority vote against accepting any deal with Rome. Must say, I’m not too sure what to make of that

It does appear that he’s pushing an agenda -to develop the ‘resistance’ to the reconciliation - being rather more outspoken than usual.

Dee, that is not true at all. He is not the force behind the resistance. In fact, I will go so far as to say that if he could he would have nothing to do with them.

 

[Moore11]

Me too. But almost one third of those superiors did not vote against him attending their General Chapter - and, there was also a majority vote against accepting any deal with Rome. Must say, I’m not too sure what to make of that

It does appear that he’s pushing an agenda -to develop the ‘resistance’ to the reconciliation - being rather more outspoken than usual.

I am actually quite encouraged with him pushing his agenda. Because it means that he thinks there is a good chance the SSPX will reconcile. I am sorry that he feels the way he does and I am saddened that some will follow him. Brother JR thinks it is an absolute tradgedy and I can see why he thinks that. BUT if Williamson clears away the dissenters from the actual SSPX then I think it could be a good thing. I know we are supposed to leave the 99 for the sake of the 1. But I just cannot see the bad of getting rid of a few dissenters if it means the majority can be reconciled. Plus, the Chapel in my area would follow Fellay into the Church so I do have a personal bias.

 

[GloriaMaria]

I am actually quite encouraged with him pushing his agenda. Because it means that he thinks there is a good chance the SSPX will reconcile. I am sorry that he feels the way he does and I am saddened that some will follow him. Brother JR thinks it is an absolute tradgedy and I can see why he thinks that. BUT if Williamson clears away the dissenters from the actual SSPX then I think it could be a good thing. I know we are supposed to leave the 99 for the sake of the 1. But I just cannot see the bad of getting rid of a few dissenters if it means the majority can be reconciled. ** Plus, the Chapel in my area would follow Fellay into the Church so I do have a personal bias.**

I understand your desire! Unfortunately, my chapel won’t (go with Bishop Fellay). And it has very good people within; good souls, young souls, old souls…some good friends.

This is not a bus you want to throw anyone under! Pray, pray, pray…

 

[Dee_S]

Dee, that is not true at all. He is not the force behind the resistance. In fact, I will go so far as to say that if he could he would have nothing to do with them.

Hi Lormar, I mentioned that he was pushing an agenda - he is not the only force in this ‘resistance’ - but he is a high-profile bishop that is offering his services, as can be seen in this extract of November 3, 2012:

“In brief, I think that the situation of today’s Catholic Resistance calls for no hurried action, but for a thoughtful measuring of men and events until the will of God becomes more clear. I think – I may be wrong – that he wants** a loose network of independent pockets of Resistance**, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but** with no structure of false obedience such as served to sink the mainstream Church in the 1960’s, and is now sinking the Society of St Pius X**. If you agree, by all means make contributions to the St Marcel Initiative because they will certainly come in useful, maybe sooner than I think. For myself, as soon as my situation stabilizes in England, I am ready to put my bishop’s powers at the disposal of whoever can make wise use of them.”

 

[Dee_S]

I am actually quite encouraged with him pushing his agenda. Because it means that he thinks there is a good chance the SSPX will reconcile. I am sorry that he feels the way he does and I am saddened that some will follow him. Brother JR thinks it is an absolute tradgedy and I can see why he thinks that. BUT if Williamson clears away the dissenters from the actual SSPX then I think it could be a good thing. I know we are supposed to leave the 99 for the sake of the 1. But I just cannot see the bad of getting rid of a few dissenters if it means the majority can be reconciled. Plus, the Chapel in my area would follow Fellay into the Church so I do have a personal bias.

:thumbsup:Agreed.

In his comments of February 16, 2013 called **“Di Noia, Annoyer” **he rails against the “personal appeal” of Archbishop di Noia in his Advent letter to the SSPX and their priests - looks to me like it’s presented a very big threat to ‘the resistance’.
“It is clearly the latest move in Rome’s campaign to bring the SSPX to heel, and put an end to its 40-year resistance to the Conciliar Revolution.”

He quotes the ending of the Archbishop’s letter -
" Let the SSPX fulfil its charism of forming priests, but priests who will be docile to the official Magisterium, who will preach the Faith and not polemics, and who will treat theological problems not in front of untrained layfolk but with the competent authorities in Rome. The Pope is the supreme judge of such difficult questions. In conclusion, Benedict XVI does want reconciliation. Bitterness must be healed. In Our Lord’s words, “Let them be one.”"

• and then launches into his criticism (this makes me think he’s worried)
  “… how could the Archbishop have dared to address it to all SSPX priests without prior collusion with SSPX HQ ? It (the HQ) served him by forwarding the letter to all SSPX priests ! Here is one indication amongst many others that there are contacts between Rome and SSPX HQ that are kept from public view.”

“But the question then arises, what motive can SSPX HQ have had to give to the modernist Archbishop such privileged and dangerous access to all SSPX priests ?”

“By transmitting the Archbishop’s loving appeal, SSPX HQ gets the sweet message through to all SSPX priests without anybody being able to accuse HQ itself of going soft. On the contrary, the Roman letter makes them all see how nice the Romans are.”

“Both Rome and Menzingen need to calculate at what point to go ahead with a “reconciliation” such as will carry with it a large majority of the priests, and not alienate so many that organized resistance to the New World Order religion will continue.”

• ending with an appeal of his own…
  … if you do not want to be swallowed alive by New Order Rome… react… you want nothing,but nothing, to do with Conciliar Rome, until it clearly abandons the Council."

Things are looking up…

 

[Dee_S]

I understand your desire! Unfortunately, my chapel won’t (go with Bishop Fellay). And it has very good people within; good souls, young souls, old souls…some good friends.

This is not a bus you want to throw anyone under! Pray, pray, pray…

here is a link to a thread carrying the latest news report that the Vatican has sent the SSPX a letter January 8, 2013 asking them to return by 22 February 2013
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=756585

 

[Dee_S]

Some extracts from Archbishop Di Noia’s Advent letter:

"Archbishop Di Noia also said a serious change of attitude was needed to move from a situation of stalemate toward reconciliation.

"Humility must mark the followers of Christ, he said, and Christians must strive to recognize the goodness in others, even those with whom they disagree.** “A divisive tone or imprudent statements” must be avoided, patience must prevail and if others need correction, it must be done ** "with charity, in the proper time and place."

“If our interactions are marked by pride, anger, impatience and inordinate zeal, our intemperate striving for the good of the church will lead to nothing but bitterness,” the archbishop wrote."

The unity of the church is of such high value – theologically and not just practically – that Catholics are called to work to preserve or recover it **“even if it involves suffering and patient endurance.”
**catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300258.htm

 

[Dee_S]

This new ‘invitation to …come home’ of February 18, 2013 is the last appeal to be made in the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI - who as we know, has gone above and beyond the call of duty to bring this organization into full communion with Rome.

I’m praying along with Moore11 (we’re 'on the same page here) & fellow Catholics, that they return, rejoicing the hearts of many
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Müller

“The Holy See has asked the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to accept the agreement proposed by Rome by 22 February, the day the Church celebrates the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, so before Benedict XVI resignation comes into effect.”

“Following the “personal” and highly spiritual letter sent by U.S. archbishop Augustin Di Noia, to the Lefebvrians last December, a new letter dated 8 January has reached the SSPX’s Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay.”

“It would not be correct to call it an ultimatum as such, but the document signed by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller,** imposes a deadline on the Lefebvrians for the first time**. A particularly dramatic move in light of Benedict XVI’s shock resignation.”

“It does however seem unlikely that Lefebvrians will agree to sign the doctrinal preamble the Holy See sent to them last June. According to French Catholic daily La Croix, if the SSPX fails to send a reply by 22 February,** Rome has the right to appeal to each of the Fraternity’s priests directly, without first going through their Superior, Fellay, extending individual invitations to them to re-enter into communion with Rome.”**

“Conditions as favourable as the current ones and a Pope as willing to reach an agreement as Benedict XVI will certainly be hard to come by.** If the SSPX rejects the Holy See’s proposals, the new Pope will have to decide on what to do next.”**
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrianos-lefebvrians-22445/

It* is* possible that there are many SSPX priests that may very well welcome a *direct *invitation to re-enter communion with Rome - rather than have Bishop Fellay make, what comes down to, decisions with eternal consequences for them.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...o/lefebvriani-lefebvrianos-lefebvrians-22445/

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...o/lefebvriani-lefebvrianos-lefebvrians-22445/

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/e...o/lefebvriani-lefebvrianos-lefebvrians-22445/

 

[Dee_S]

It seems that the above news report from Vatican Insider was in error and was based on hearsay which was run in an article in a French newspaper.

Here is a link to the Vatican Information Service that quotes Fr Lombardi saying that there never was any deadline

“Regarding the issue of the Society of St. Pius X, he (Fr Lombardi) reaffirmed that the date of 22 February to decide the issue is pure hypothesis and that Benedict XVI has decided to entrust the matter to the next Pope, therefore, a definition of relations with that society should not be expected by the end of this pontificate.”
vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=e683d433-e4b6-a3b8-e0e7-512626882f9b&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1