Y
- Status
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Does anyone have an SSPX secret decoder ring so that we can decipher this and understand exactly what they are saying?
This is worse that trying to figure out the real positions on sensitive issues of American presidential candidates.
What ever happened to “we accept” or “we reject”?
Exasperation aside, if this was meant to be cryptic yet indicative, I read this as saying that they still view Vatican II as problematic.
Thus any “conditions” that they may have approved (as yet undisclosed) for full communion would most likely be unacceptable to Rome.
S
sw85
Guest
Well, this phrase is interesting:
Whether Rome can look past the other gratuitous digs in there, I dunno.
In other words, negotiations will continue. Which is why we don’t know and the statement doesn’t say what those “necessary conditions” are.
Whether Rome can look past the other gratuitous digs in there, I dunno.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Please see the Holy See’s public response so far here, released a few minutes ago:
visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/07/communique-concerning-priestly-society.html
C
clem456
Guest
.
This might be another topic, but:
What exactly does this mean? What is Christendom?
What is the current state of Christendom, that it needs to be restored? Is this expressed in a cultural/political context? Or a religious triumphal context? Possibly a liturgical context?
How will we know Christendom is restored?
S
sw85
Guest
The impression I get is a restoration of Christianity to general social preeminence, both in its representation in the population and the fervor with which it’s held. There’s no denying that Christianity in general is in a sorely reduced state from, say, 100 years ago.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I refer you to what sw85 said.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Very interesting. Thanks for the links YoungTradCath. I would like to highlight this line, which we should all always keep in mind.
As Br JR said last night,
Let us pray that all Catholic priests do what is necessary and helpful for the salvation of their souls, so that we have good and holy priests to assist us with the salvation of our own.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s an assumption on the part of the SSPX.
From the Holy See we have two very telling statements.
Archbishop DiNoia said that the SSPX position that you can accept some parts of
Vatican II and reject others is sophistry. No Dominican theologian will accept that.
Archbishop Mueller wants this brought to an end, now, not later. He is the top man in Ecclesia Dei. Archbishop DiNoia is the Vice President, not the President and he’s a friar. He must be subservient to Mueller who is a diocesan priest. A friar’s job is to do two things: 1) provide the theological scholarship and 2) he is the peacekeeper. He is not the man who calls the shots. That’s always the Prefect of the CDF or the pope, unless the friar is named prefect, which is not the case here.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
J
JM3
Guest
T
TimothyH
Guest
What I read was a polite way of saying “Save the Catholic Church from the ‘novelties’ of Vatican II and from itself” and that this is part of their essential mission.
-Tim-
J
JM3
Guest
Sounds like Feeneyism to me.
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Brother JR,You’re missing the point that people are trying to help you with.
First: You are never going to have every mass facing East, because it was never done that way to begin with. You probably grew up with secular clergy and that’s the way they did it. If you had grown up where I grew up, with friars, we had mass facing the people, because we did not use the Tridentine Form. The priest gathered around the altar with his brothers and the laity sat in the pews facing them. The brothers sat on both sides of the altar in choir stalls that face each other. They were looking at the priest from the side.
Second: There are plenty of places that have the mass facing the congregation with a great deal of reverence and no one feels that it’s thrown out there for them. That’s an over generalization of a personal feeling.
Third: The question on the table for this thread is the SSPX response to Rome. The comments that I made were in response to how some people feel that the SSPX is the solution to all of our problems and the only faithful Catholic institute in the Church. You have failed to address the question on the table. You keep wanting to talk about mass facing East.
Whether they face East or South, the question remains the same. Is the current attitude by many traditionalists, that only the SSPX has been faithful to tradition and to the Church legitimate and just?
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
Some of us live in very chaotic Dioceses. (I’m in South America). Lack of Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis, strange Liturgies, heretical Priests in the media (and many Parishes, bad Catechesis…
Is in this forum where I read about “Orthodox Oasis” Dioceses.
I’m not ignoring the work of some Religious Communities here, but the situation isn’t very good.
Maybe the people that feel in a similar way that the one you described face similar (if not worse) situations. Obviously if they think the SSPX are the only faithful Catholics is exagerated, but when they see that their Chapels are only of the few places when they can heard sound doctrine, that creates a powerful impression on them.
Blessings!
J
jam070406
Guest
So if a Priest asks the Parish to dress appropriately and not wear shorts and flip flops he is a tool of the devil?
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Seriously, I don’t see a problem with that. It would be great, because I’m tired of seeing immodesty in Parishes. But in this forum I get the impression that you are a horrible person if you want modesty.
Blessings!
J
JM3
Guest
S
Stylites
Guest
Not at all. But if a layperson thinks they should be doing the priest’s work for him then perhaps so.
- Status