M
Megan7
Guest
Hi TL,
Could you please send me a private message with a link to his old sermons?
Are they on you tube?
I would like to see one of his sermons.
Thanks,
God Bless,
Megan
- Status
Could you please send me a private message with a link to his old sermons?
Are they on you tube?
I would like to see one of his sermons.
Thanks,
God Bless,
Megan
W
wasserfall
Guest
I
ImmaculataFides
Guest
I’m sorry Br, but I’m going to be dreadfully honest here. That is just silly. “Full Communion” is just Vatican II language, that’s why most SSPX clergy and faithful just dismiss accusations of not being in “full communion”. It’s got no legal weight. There is no such thing as ‘partial communion’. You are either in communion with the Church or you are not. It’s like pregnancy. You are either pregnant or you are not. You can’t be “partially pregnant”. The Orthodox are in schism and have been ever since they rejected the authority of they Keys in 1054AD. They aren’t Catholic. The SSPX are Catholic.
I was responding to another posters post concerning “monsters under the bed”.
Forgive me, I was using out of place terminology. I was responding to an insinuation that Christ wasn’t with Archbishop Lefebvre, which is certainly debatable.
I quoted an Angelus Q&A with Fr. Scott SSPX on page 11 on this thread, if you want to check it out. It should explain it to you.
I was not downplaying the significance of it, but putting emphasis where it was needed. I was highlighting that this deal has nothing to do with being in or out of communion with the Church, which obviously is of huge significance. In comparison to being in the Ark which is necessary for salvation, making a deal to become “regular” isn’t anywhere near as important.
That would be the Apostolic See’s opinion, I am guessing. The SSPX are not schismatic. The SSPX will not enter schism for refusing this preamble for reasons of conserving the traditional faith. It only means they are disobedient.
I used “just” to distinguish it from being schismatic. The SSPX do provide moral reasons for not obeying in certain things. It’s not that they simply ‘disagree’ with some of the Pope or hierarchy’s world view and conciliar novelties. They view them as dangerous to the faith, and therefore claim to have a moral obligation to resist them. Such is with the Novus Ordo Mass, the teachings of Vatican II on religious liberty, etc.
No that’s not what my view was. I don’t want to see the Society split so that it’s influence is lessened.
God Bless and keep you Br.
Keep the faith.
I.F.
I
ImmaculataFides
Guest
Even though that sounds very harsh and uncharitable, it has truth to it. Most traditionalists always trust pre-Vatican II over post-Vatican II.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is a definitely a change. This is why I keep pointing to a few sentences that no one wants to hear.
The letter with the preamble said that if the SSPX did not agree to it, the rejection would lead to separation of grave significance or some fancy way of saying schism . . . and it put the blame on Bishop Fellay.
Then bishop Fellay tells the bishops that he would have preferred to wait a little, but "Rome will not tolerate this any longer."
In an interview, he tells the press that "the pope wants this to happen now."
At the end of the day, all superiors general are bound to obey the pope except if he commands that you explicitly violate the commandments. Bishop Fellay goes there too. He said,** “How can we refuse to obey, when the pope has not asked us to violate the commandments.”**
My impression is that he has two choices, obey or everyone will be jettisoned from the Catholic Church. Except those who do like the first FSSP priests and walk away from the SSPX. If you’re declared to be in schism, coming back will be a lot more difficult, because it will involve many more people than 500 priests. Right now, the SSPX supporters continue to be members of their respective dioceses. One can call himself SSPX all day long. But one’s ordinary continues to be the diocesan bishop. If one follows a group that is in schism, one becomes a schismatic as well and the local diocese cannot serve you until there is a reconciliation and a profession of faith.
I don’t believe that the option of remaining as they are is on the table. That’s not the language that they’re using. If it’s on the table, they’re no telling.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I
ImmaculataFides
Guest
W
wasserfall
Guest
This seems to be very hard for some people to understand – that the OF itself is not responsible for clown masses or barbecue masses, or even for communion in the hand.
Those are all the result of poorly formed priests who feel empowered to do their own thing. (in regard to communion in the hand, it is now permitted, but for many years it was a common abuse with the same fundamental lack of respect for the law and for the liturgy driving it).
Now there are indeed many arguments that can be made about the form itself – see the Ottaviani intervention — but that is an entirely different subject than the occurrence of gross abuses such as hindu-dance masses.
From the point of view of the SSPX, that is a debatable assertion, Brother JR. Indeed, the acknowledgement that it in fact debatable, is a necessary piece of the regularization puzzle.
T
TrueLight
Guest
There is a definitely a change. This is why I keep pointing to a few sentences that no one wants to hear.
The letter with the preamble said that if the SSPX did not agree to it, the rejection would lead to separation of grave significance or some fancy way of saying schism . . . and it put the blame on Bishop Fellay.
Then bishop Fellay tells the bishops that he would have preferred to wait a little, but "Rome will not tolerate this any longer."
In an interview, he tells the press that "the pope wants this to happen now."
At the end of the day, all superiors general are bound to obey the pope except if he commands that you explicitly violate the commandments. Bishop Fellay goes there too. He said,** “How can we refuse to obey, when the pope has not asked us to violate the commandments.”**
My impression is that he has two choices, obey or everyone will be jettisoned from the Catholic Church. Except those who do like the first FSSP priests and walk away from the SSPX. If you’re declared to be in schism, coming back will be a lot more difficult, because it will involve many more people than 500 priests. Right now, the SSPX supporters continue to be members of their respective dioceses. One can call himself SSPX all day long. But one’s ordinary continues to be the diocesan bishop. If one follows a group that is in schism, one becomes a schismatic as well and the local diocese cannot serve you until there is a reconciliation and a profession of faith.
I don’t believe that the option of remaining as they are is on the table. That’s not the language that they’re using. If it’s on the table, they’re no telling.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
W
wasserfall
Guest
Archbishop Lefebvre would expect the current leadership of the SSPX to act according to their best judgment. That is the responsibility he laid upon them when he established the structure of the society. So in that sense, they are incapable of turning on him.
If you mean to suggest that he would never consider the current regularization proposal, then I suggest that Bishop Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger have a much better idea of what the Archbishop would think of the current proposal than anybody else in the world.
J
JReducation
Guest
Except that John Paul II can overrule Cardinal Ottaviani, not the other way around. The Cardinal suppressed it, because the case of Sister Faustina was still being studied. The Holy Father brought it back, once her case was proven and she was canonized. There no longer was a doubt about her sanctity, sanity or honesty.
Nothing in the chaplet, the image or the writings contradicts dogma. In fact, the request to have Divine Mercy celebrated on the Sunday after Easter actually fit the liturgical calendar, because the readings for that day are about divine mercy. The Church did not have to do anything, just hang up a picture and give an imprimatur and nihil obstat to the chaplet.
What Cardinal Ottaviani did was the same as with the apparitions at Lourdes and Fatima. The Church did not institutionalize them immediately. There was the question about the comprehension of the kids involved.
As to the Pre-Vatican II authority, the Church did not end at Vatican II. Ottaviani was no a pope and John Paul was. There is no doctrinal conflict, nor did Bl. John Paul say that one has to pray the chaplet. He said that the faithful can pray it. The only thing he commanded was that the option for Mercy Sunday be put into the Roman ordo. Mercy Sunday is only binding on Poland and any religious order that carries the name Mercy. In every other situation, the Conferences of Bishops can include it or not. If the include it, the faithful have to choice but to attend a mass in honor of God’s mercy, unless they choose to sleep in that day, which would be very silly. It’s not like going to the dentist.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
W
wasserfall
Guest
I remember one sermon of a few years back where he said (paraphrased):
No we do not want to be disobedient! No Catholic wants to be disobedient!
But we cannot agree to that which is contrary to the faith. So we seek the will of God. In all things we seek the will of God. What is the will of God.
So it is not difficult to understand him – seeking the will of God.
He hasn’t agreed to anything yet. But he is willing to hear the Pope and see what is on the table. Then, he’ll make his decision.
I
ImmaculataFides
Guest
Some things will just offend, no matter what. The terminology is not meant to offend.
Again, it was not meant to offend. I do not know of any other religious orders that teach the traditional doctrine, offer the traditional Mass, celebrate the traditional sacraments and preach against novelty and modernism. The Society does those things, and that is why they are in the spotlight.
We are in the present, that’s why we are talking about it.
I never said you did. It was supposed to be an encouragement to a brother Christian.
God Bless and keep you Br.
I.F.
W
wasserfall
Guest
One time I told an anti-Divine-Mercy-commenter that, regardless of the earlier suppression, the devotion is now approved and the originator of the devotion is now a canonized saint, so he’d better get over it.
He didn’t seem to appreciate my admonition.
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t think that’s the way the Preamble works. If I understood how it was explained was that they had these 20+ months of discussion. There would be a final summary written up. If both sides agreed that this is what they said, that summary would be presented to the Holy Father.
The Holy Father dictates the Preamble to Cardinal Levada who puts it together and sends it to the SSPX to sign. It’s not sent to them with the option of more discussion. This was proven true when the SSPX sent it back. Instead of another meeting, the Cardinal asked the Bishop to explain more clearly what it was that he was saying in his response. The Bishop did so. Now it has been sent back to the SSPX. Bishop Fellay has signed it and may have added a note or two, you can always do that.
Now, the last word is the Holy Father’s no the SSPX. This is where the schism part enters the picture. Once Bishop Fellay signed that Preamble, was like signing a contract. If the Holy Father comes back and says, “We agree and here is what I want the SSPX to do” Bishop Fellay cannot back down. If he does, the Pope can formally charge him with schism. You are refusing to submit to Peter.
Otherwise, this could go on indefinitely. That’s why Bishop Fellay said, “Rome will no longer tolerate this.” I don’t think that he’s speaking for Rome. I think that he was told this point blank. He doesn’t even get to speak to the pope about this. “Won’t tolerate this” is pretty conclusive. It means, “This conversation is over.”
It has to be this way. At some point, the Holy See has to say, “Stop.” Otherwise, you can continue this irregular status until the second coming.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
W
wasserfall
Guest
I don’t doubt you are correct in the fundamental analysis. However, I don’t think the preamble represented a contract. I believe it was instead a statement of faith in a sense, where the Pope said: if you can’t agree to these principles then there is no hope of your regularization.I don’t think that’s the way the Preamble works. If I understood how it was explained was that they had these 20+ months of discussion. There would be a final summary written up. If both sides agreed that this is what they said, that summary would be presented to the Holy Father.
The Holy Father dictates the Preamble to Cardinal Levada who puts it together and sends it to the SSPX to sign. It’s not sent to them with the option of more discussion. This was proven true when the SSPX sent it back. Instead of another meeting, the Cardinal asked the Bishop to explain more clearly what it was that he was saying in his response. The Bishop did so. Now it has been sent back to the SSPX. Bishop Fellay has signed it and may have added a note or two, you can always do that.
Now, the last word is the Holy Father’s no the SSPX. This is where the schism part enters the picture. Once Bishop Fellay signed that Preamble, was like signing a contract. If the Holy Father comes back and says, “We agree and here is what I want the SSPX to do” Bishop Fellay cannot back down. If he does, the Pope can formally charge him with schism. You are refusing to submit to Peter.
Otherwise, this could go on indefinitely. That’s why Bishop Fellay said, “Rome will no longer tolerate this.” I don’t think that he’s speaking for Rome. I think that he was told this point blank. He doesn’t even get to speak to the pope about this. “Won’t tolerate this” is pretty conclusive. It means, “This conversation is over.”
It has to be this way. At some point, the Holy See has to say, “Stop.” Otherwise, you can continue this irregular status until the second coming.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Once signed, then there remains a negotiation about the structure of the society and what rules the society must obey. Now, I don’t mean to imply a negotiation among equals, but nonetheless a negotiation. I doubt very much the Pope has given or will give Bishop Fellay a document and say: take it or leave it.
Instead, a proposed structure will be presented and Bishop Fellay will have the opportunity to request changes.
Ultimately, however, you are correct. There will be a line drawn and the SSPX will either be on one side or the other of that line.
But I assume that Bishop Fellay, although he wants to be on the same side of the line as the Pope, will nonetheless remain on the other side if he feels that the offer is not acceptable.
T
TrueLight
Guest
I’m thinking he may also assess the situation and realize the Society may not get such another chance and this Pope is the best chance it has. Sometimes one has to make sacrifices.
W
wasserfall
Guest
I’m sure that is on his mind. But, as a crazy example, if the Pope said: You have to sign your assent to the collected works of Karl Rahner, then the SSPX would walk away.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s a reasonable hypothesis. I can live with that.
This is where we have to wait and see. Current Canon Law says that it is the pope who writes the statutes for the prelature. It’s not a joint project. This was how it was done for Opus Dei. They were called in and given the book with their statutes…
It was after they read it that they were allowed to come back and ask questions, ask if this could be changed or that could be added. The questions were answered and some changes were made. I don’t know if all to their satisfaction. But it was to the satisfaction of the Holy Father.
I’m not so sure about this, not if the pope says, “You and everyone who follows you are in schism and you are morally culpable.” If that doesn’t get one to sign, then one deserves to be struck by lightening. Who wants to be morally culpable for misleading a million people?
I believe that you’re right. Because this pope will declare them to be in schism and a future pope will not want to deal with them, because “they’re hopeless” and it’s better to let a few generations pass and try again, as is the case with the East. This is how they got many of the Eastern Churches back. They stopped trying and waited several generations. Once there was enough distance between the present and the past, no one really cared to fight an old battle, on either side. Only a few radicals and hardliners are still fighting a 1,000 year old battle. Everyone else is of the idea that the Orthodox and Catholics reunite or at least smoke a peace pipe and get on with life in their respective corners.
Well Jeesh, even we were not asked to do that and we studied Rahner. I can’t imagine anyone else being asked to do something so silly. Rahner was very intelligent and had interesting ideas, but he was not always right.
Fraternally,
Br. JR,FFV
C
Cristiano
Guest
That is what Jesus said when the shepherd looked for the lost sheep. We must do our best to bring everybody in the bosom of the Church. We are not allowed to discard anybody. It is like suffering, we do not understand how it works in God’s plan, we just know that it is part of His plan. We must fight to bring heathens, heretics, people in schism etc. into the Church, we have been given that mission and we do not have a say into it.
J
JReducation
Guest
I strongly agree with you that the mission of the Church is to bring people to Christ and Christ to people. However, I also understand the significance of time. St. Clare said this to St. Francis when he came back disappointed, because he had not converted the sultan. She told him that the time was not right, but it was time to convert the Catholics. He should focus on that. Well, interestingly enough, he did. Between Dominic and him, they reformed the Church of the Middle Ages.
We have to consider the possibility that some or all of the SSPX may go into schism and it’s not the time to bring them in, because they’re not ready. God is always ready. Man moves a little more slowly. The Church may have to jettison them and allow a few generations to pass, then begin a courtship again, just as she did with the Eastern Churches. Look at how many went into schism and look at how many have come back over the centuries. It happened because the simply stopped all dialogue for several generations. Later, new accords were drawn and very slowly, the Eastern Churches have trickled back.
This is a real possibility for some people associated with the SSPX. The sad part is that while we let those few generations of cooling down time pass, we can have nothing to do with each other as was formerly the case with the Orthodox. It’s like sending to boxers to their respective corners for a while. Sometimes you just need distance from the problem and new blood on both sides. That will take two or three generations.
Those are just my thoughts.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
- Status