SSPX communique to Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark1970
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeBowen7 said:
I agree with most of what you say here. I also think it is OK for someone to present a reasoned argument, in a professional manner, as to why he believes a certain teaching to be out of line with previous preVatican II teachings.
Where I disagree with SSPX is where they go and disrupt ceremonies in Catholic Churches, tearing down posters, and interrupting scheduled services. This was done, for example by Father Michael McMahon, SSPX, and his followers in Feb. 2004, at St. Adelbert basilica in Grand Rapids MI as they disrupted an interreligious Buddhist ceremony in progress at the Church. The SSPX priest insulted the Buddhists and something was said about their prayers being demonic prayers. Police had to be called.
Click to expand...
Well I cannot speak for individual laity or priests of the SSPX, but I don’t believe that the SSPX would advocate violence or riotous behaviour in any way - police being needed etc. However, not knowing the particular details of the case you mention I think it is acceptable to voice an opinion on certain issues. For example, taking Christ out of the tablenacle so as not to offend protestanst (which happend a few years ago at my parish - I was told it was for this very reason) or setting a buddha on a Catholic altar and have budhists chant in front of it - could legitimately be protested - in the correct manner of course. On these types of issues we will always differ.
 
Iotaunum said:
I don’t understand. Do you mean the Latin intrim version said “pro omnis”? I did not know that. I know the official Latin version of the New Missal said “pro multis” but almost all of the vernacular translations read: “for all” or the equivalent. Now either a lot of translators and conferences did not know much Latin, or there was an agenda to change the signification for whatever reason. “For all” is not a translation of “pro multis” in any way. My point was that this is the only type of error - i.e. one of translation which the SSPX would have poitned out in the vernacular versions of the New Missal.
Click to expand...
The French translation has never said “For all” (“pour tous”). It has always been “Pour la multitude” (for the multitude, a direct translation of the Latin).

I can’t speak for other languages. Anybody care to post the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Dutch versions?
 
OraLabora said:
The French translation has never said “For all” (“pour tous”). It has always been “Pour la multitude” (for the multitude, a direct translation of the Latin).

I can’t speak for other languages. Anybody care to post the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Dutch versions?
Click to expand...
You are correct about the french version. However, I recall looking at the other verncaular translations a few years back and it seems the vast majority use the equivalent of “for all” - or in any case not an accurate translation of “pro multis”. Perhaps others can quote the precise vernacular translations.
 
Justin_Swanton said:
I appreciate that this is the correct procedure in a normal situation, having described it myself in a previous post, but…

…doesn’t this tell you something?

There are a growing number of individuals, some prelates (I know a couple), who realise that things as they are will not do, but the structures in place are not ready to teach the faithful in a clear and unambiguous way the Catholic Faith, nor can anyone seem to make them do so. I pass judgement on no-one in saying this. I know one individual who teaches catechism to the confirmation class at another parish and who was quite clear that the first few books of the Bible were pure fiction, Adam and Eve and all the rest. She is obviously in good faith; it is the structures that formed her that are in need of a good loud whistle.
Click to expand...
As we have seen from several sources, this situation is changing. For example, the statement the Bishop of Arlington is asking his catechists to sign.

I think most of the “silly season” is passing by naturally - just as it is in the world in general. We have huge issues facing the Church and all people around the world. We need to be focused on working together within the Church and not on in-fighting about a pure, “perfect” Church which has never existed in history and will not exist until the Second Coming.

I do realize that I live in one of the more orthodox areas of the US; however, appointments of new Bishops acoss the world, add the news we hear about the orthodxy of new priests, and the continued presence of men like Br JR give me great hope for all the Church.
 
OraLabora said:
The French translation has never said “For all” (“pour tous”). It has always been “Pour la multitude” (for the multitude, a direct translation of the Latin).

I can’t speak for other languages. Anybody care to post the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German and Dutch versions?
Click to expand...
Italian: per voi e per tutti

Spanish: por vosotros y por todos los hombres

Portuguese: por vós e por todos

German: für euch und für alle

Dutch: voor u en alle mensen

angilella.it/missa/

Looks like a major project just to fix all the alls.
Iotaunum said:
Do you mean the Latin intrim version said “pro omnis”? I did not know that.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, the Latin never had “pro omnis” or “pro omnibus.” It sounds to me that much misinformation was spread about the promulgated Mass.

It would be like someone in China criticizing Shakespeare because he didn’t like the Chinese translations.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I can assure you that this type of behavior is that of the individual and is not an official action of the SSPX or anything they would support.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, in another thread, we have several people piling on the entire Jesuit order, and in other threads people pillaging diocesan priests over the actions of a few people.

Strikes me that there’s a double standard as it pertains to reactionary behavior.
 
ProVobis said:
Didn’t Pope John Paul II order the same? Or did he just start with the source of the mistranslation, the English?
Click to expand...
I think so, but in some cases, we’re on yet another round of translation …
 
Iotaunum said:
Well I cannot speak for individual laity or priests of the SSPX, but I don’t believe that the SSPX would advocate violence or riotous behaviour in any way - police being needed etc. However, not knowing the particular details of the case you mention I think it is acceptable to voice an opinion on certain issues. For example, taking Christ out of the tablenacle so as not to offend protestanst (which happend a few years ago at my parish - I was told it was for this very reason) or setting a buddha on a Catholic altar and have budhists chant in front of it - could legitimately be protested - in the correct manner of course. On these types of issues we will always differ.
Click to expand...
There were reports of this incident posted on the internet:
dailycatholic.org/issue/04Feb/feb12qds.htm
I agree with a reasonable and peaceful discussion as to why this or that may be an error or not in tune with preVatican II teachings. I have nothing against that as long as it is peaceful and does not involve disrupting and interfering with the services or ceremonies of others in the Church. I don’t like the way that some people in the SSPX think that they can go around and disrupt other peoples prayers and call them demonic.
Also see:
phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=6067&t=1
 
This incident happened years ago and was an isolated incident. The same can be said about some of the unfortunate Masses that also happened years ago and involved a very small group of people. We should let these old isolated cases rest.

There is enough going on currently and more commonly to pray about, and take action on!
 
Mrs_Sally said:
This incident happened years ago and was an isolated incident. The same can be said about some of the unfortunate Masses that also happened years ago and involved a very small group of people. We should let these old isolated cases rest.

There is enough going on currently and more commonly to pray about, and take action on!
Click to expand...
The “Great Clown Mass of Seven Mile Creek, Minnesota” has been the never-dying excuse of personal apostacy in the 41 years that 30 other people purportedly witnessed it, and is still dredged up as the major reason of the supposed urgent ecclesial crisis, even though there’s no documentation that it even occurred.

Even so, it is nice to imagine people peacefully smiling at a Mass versus the confrontational storming of a peaceful ecumenical service where the civil authorities have to be called in to restore peace.
 
LightBound said:
Please elaborate. A few months ago, you shared how you finally broke free from the SSPX - has that changed again?
Click to expand...
Yes. I’ve changed again. I had been going to the sspx for about 7 years and when I attempted to go back to the NO I realized how bad it has gotten. Much worse than when I left…so I swallowed my pride and went back. I just can’t take it in the NO.
 
pnewton said:
Giving the most favorable interpretation, as the poster has not responded, I would guess that the statement was a response to the phrase, " I could be wrong", which referred to the SSPX priest who see their primary charism as criticizing the Church. No doubt there are some priest of the SSPX who prefer to mind their own adherents and steer clear of the politics of criticism. Perhaps the priest that this poster know is one such priest.

Of course one can not derive conclusions from the whole society just by the priests one knows, just like one can not generalized from unfortunate leaks like the one being discussed. There seems to be quite a range of opinions about the Catholic Church within the SSPX.
Click to expand...
You’re right, it was a response to the poster saying “I could be wrong”.
 
piouswoman said:
Yes. I’ve changed again. I had been going to the sspx for about 7 years and when I attempted to go back to the NO I realized how bad it has gotten. Much worse than when I left…so I swallowed my pride and went back. I just can’t take it in the NO.
Click to expand...
Sent you a PM. God bless.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I can assure you that this type of behavior is that of the individual and is not an official action of the SSPX or anything they would support.
Click to expand...
In France in the '70s and '80s there was a fair amount of this inasmuch as older French church buildings are the property of the State and not of the Church. The SSPX and other Traditional groups forcibly occupied several of the more poorly attended ones (notably St Nicholas de Chardonnet in Paris) and the State tolerated their occupation. This gave some Conciliar clergy the idea and they tried forcibly reoccupying churches taken over by Trads, which led to a very ugly incident at Versailles, where the local dispossessed parish priest got together a ‘parish council’ composed of Moslem thugs and, with members of the police, burst into a Tridentine Mass and violently evicted the mass-goers, injuring several, some seriously. Someone present took photos. It created a big stir.

Things have calmed down now. If the SSPX need new churches they build them.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
As we have seen from several sources, this situation is changing. For example, the statement the Bishop of Arlington is asking his catechists to sign.

I think most of the “silly season” is passing by naturally - just as it is in the world in general. We have huge issues facing the Church and all people around the world. We need to be focused on working together within the Church and not on in-fighting about a pure, “perfect” Church which has never existed in history and will not exist until the Second Coming.

I do realize that I live in one of the more orthodox areas of the US; however, appointments of new Bishops acoss the world, add the news we hear about the orthodxy of new priests, and the continued presence of men like Br JR give me great hope for all the Church.
Click to expand...
It is very difficult to say to what extent the Catholic Faith is clearly and properly taught in parishes around the world. Durban, where I live, was the Archdiocese of Denis Hurley, President of the ICEL which produced the problematic English translation of the NOM, and the archdiocese is something of a stronghold of the progressist movement. My experience of parishes and Catholics here is one of a profound ignorance of the Faith. I don’t know how bad it is elsewhere, but my *impression *is that Durban’s case far from unique.
 
JoeBowen7 said:
Well, can you also assure me that the SSPX priest was disciplined?
Click to expand...
As lay people, that is not our business. I would hope it is taken care of the same way that liberal priests are dealt with. discrete and private.
 
Stylites said:
The “Great Clown Mass of Seven Mile Creek, Minnesota” has been the never-dying excuse of personal apostacy in the 41 years that 30 other people purportedly witnessed it, and is still dredged up as the major reason of the supposed urgent ecclesial crisis, even though there’s no documentation that it even occurred.

Even so, it is nice to imagine people peacefully smiling at a Mass versus the confrontational storming of a peaceful ecumenical service where the civil authorities have to be called in to restore peace.
Click to expand...
Well, and then there is this.

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/07/reason-12894-for-summorum-pontificum/

This kind of stuff doesnt happen right? Well that is not in my parish or even in my country but our Masses are not far off sometimes.:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top