Wow, I didn’t think Cardinal Castrillón and Cardinal Hoyos could agree on anything. If those two can see eye to eye here, then we have definitely entered new territory.LOLThe article linked is from 2007.
It also only lists one side of what Cardinal Hoyos, Cardinal Castillion and Msr. Perl have said. I suspect that is why the source materials are not linked in the article.
Cardinal Castrillon said to Cardinal Hoyos: “Look me in the eye” and Cardinal Hoyos said to Cardinal Castrillon: “Look in the mirror”Wow, I didn’t think Cardinal Castrillón and Cardinal Hoyos could agree on anything. If those two can see eye to eye here, then we have definitely entered new territory.
Thanks for the update “At Trent”!
We have to keep praying!
God Bless,
Pax,
Megan
Celticnovice;8408037:
While I disagree with some of his points, from his manner of speaking and his closing comments about obedience to his major superior, he sounds like a man with whom I could have a dialog.
I wish that the lay faithful would speak with the prudence, politeness, scholarliness, and calmness as he does. I’m not talking only about Traditionalist lay faithful, but all lay faithful. We’ve had enough bashing, whining, screaming, and finger pointing on almost every issue that comes up in the Church, be it the EF of the mass or the ordination of women.
Good grief! You’d think that people would get tired of all the bickering and start to talk calmly as this man does. He even puts humor into the situation, which is often lacking in our discussions.
Trust me, such decorum is often lacking. When I was superior and professor of theology, before I got sick, I was called upon to sit in on many discussions with people who wanted the Tridentine Form mass and with those who wanted the brothers to take a less aggressive position on the use of condoms and everything in between. We rarely had people like this priest. I usually found myself getting tomatoes thrown at me, because I would not agree to this or that. Finally, when I threatened, then the light would click on and people would then go into, “Wait a minute Brother, let’s talk about this?”
I always wondered, “Why do I have to threaten to get people to quiet down and have a civil conversation?”
I am listening to this priest and wondering, “Why didn’t I have committees of people like this man?” We don’t agree on everything, but he sounds like a person with whom you can talk and won’t throw rotten tomatoes at you. Oh well, I guess you can’t have that and heaven too.
I really enjoyed listening to him.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
the questionWhat made you think I was attacking you?
Yes, he seems quite level headed. I’ve been lurking on a few other forums and it’s sad how some folks are talking about the preamble… even though they have not even read it.While I disagree with some of his points, from his manner of speaking and his closing comments about obedience to his major superior, he sounds like a man with whom I could have a dialog.
I wish that the lay faithful would speak with the prudence, politeness, scholarliness, and calmness as he does. I’m not talking only about Traditionalist lay faithful, but all lay faithful. We’ve had enough bashing, whining, screaming, and finger pointing on almost every issue that comes up in the Church, be it the EF of the mass or the ordination of women.
Good grief! You’d think that people would get tired of all the bickering and start to talk calmly as this man does. He even puts humor into the situation, which is often lacking in our discussions.
Trust me, such decorum is often lacking. When I was superior and professor of theology, before I got sick, I was called upon to sit in on many discussions with people who wanted the Tridentine Form mass and with those who wanted the brothers to take a less aggressive position on the use of condoms and everything in between. We rarely had people like this priest. I usually found myself getting tomatoes thrown at me, because I would not agree to this or that. Finally, when I threatened, then the light would click on and people would then go into, “Wait a minute Brother, let’s talk about this?”
I always wondered, “Why do I have to threaten to get people to quiet down and have a civil conversation?”
I am listening to this priest and wondering, “Why didn’t I have committees of people like this man?” We don’t agree on everything, but he sounds like a person with whom you can talk and won’t throw rotten tomatoes at you. Oh well, I guess you can’t have that and heaven too.
I really enjoyed listening to him.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
What’s there to discuss about the preamble? No one knows what it says except Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada.Yes, he seems quite level headed. I’ve been lurking on a few other forums and it’s sad how some folks are talking about the preamble… even though they have not even read it.
I’m not sure Bishop Fellay can please anyone at this point.
That’s what I’m saying. A lot of folks assume they know what is in it and are saying crazy things. “The German SSPX bishops will not recognize any agreement” “Bishop Fellay will sign no matter what”What’s there to discuss about the preamble? No one knows what it says except Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
This is pure speculation, but perhaps Bishop Fellay is authorised to reveal it’s contents to senior members of the SSPX, to facilitate a discussion of “This is the state of affairs, what do we do?”What’s there to discuss about the preamble? No one knows what it says except Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Levada.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Isn’t it wonderful to know that if the Holy Spirit ever needs a day off, there are so many who can cover for Him?
There is a chapter of the superiors of the Society and other leaders. I believe it’s scheduled for October 11. To the best of my knowledge, it will be a two-day affair.
I think this is the point I was trying to make originally, that Bishop Felllay would need to share the document with the others in the discussion in order to reach a decisionIsn’t it wonderful to know that if the Holy Spirit ever needs a day off, there are so many who can cover for Him?
There is a chapter of the superiors of the Society and other leaders. I believe it’s scheduled for October 11. To the best of my knowledge, it will be a two-day affair.
As I understand it, at this chapter, the Superior General will hear what they have to say. At the end of the day, as in any secular institute, it is the Superior General who makes the final call. The rest have to choose to follow him or break off.
The Society is in a unique canonical state. It is not an institute of consecrated life. Therefore, it does not have a rule by which it must govern itself. In secular societies of apostolic life, the ruling comes from the top down.
In institutes of consecrated life, be they religious orders or religious congregations, the ruling is the other way around. It’s from the bottom up. The governed, the rule and the founders dictate the parameters of the superior’s authority. Religious superiors cannot change direction for a community without the consent of the community. The community cannot consent to anything that is prohibited by the founder and the rule. Even if the founders die, they continue to govern from the grave, because the community must govern itself according to the structure established by him.
In a secular society of apostolic life, as is the SSPX, the founder has no such canonical or moral authority. That’s why it’s called secular. They don’t vow obedience to the founder. They promise obedience to the superior general in office at the time; but it’s a promise, not a vow.
At this point, Bishop Fellay is the canonical authority. The final decision falls on him. The plus or minus side, depending on how you feel about his decision, is that because the SSPX is secular, the members have no moral obligation to remain, as is the case with religious.
Bishop Fellay will put the facts on the table, listen to what the others have to say and then he has to decide their future. He can go with their suggestions or he can overrule them. They cannot bind him, since they do not have a religious rule that governs them. They are not a definitory. In a religious community, the chapter is definitory. It has the power to bind the religious superior according to the rule.
After Bishop Fellay decides, they have to decide to follow him or not to do so. His decision only affects those who are juridical members of the SSPX, not the laity. The laity has not voice in his decision, just as it has no say in the internal decisions of religious institutes. I’m not sure why so many lay people are speculating about this or trying to influence the Bishop’s decision.
What will he decide? Only God knows. We won’t know for a while. Any speculation is a waste of grey matter.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I was secretly hoping you would weigh in, along with our much beloved Franciscan Brother.Rev. Fr. Michael Mary writes beautifully. Communicates the points with clarity and kindness.
Though I am biased
I was secretly hoping you would weigh in, along with our much beloved Franciscan Brother.
I wish I had more to say now, but I think we can all agree that what Rev. Fr. Michael Mary said was more than I or anybody else could say. It will take years of penance and prayer before I could begin to show the kind of humility that the monks of the FSSR have and continue to show.I can hear the pain in his letter.
Why do they want to be autonomous? Is it a question of tradition? Is their case similar to the SSPX?
They wish to follow the (more-or-less) original constitutions of the Redemptorists, not the post Vatican II version. They wish to celebrate only the traditional Mass and sacraments. etc. I could say more but I might get an infraction .
Tell me in PM then.They wish to follow the (more-or-less) original constitutions of the Redemptorists, not the post Vatican II version. They wish to celebrate only the traditional Mass and sacraments. etc. I could say more but I might get an infraction .
The Redemptorists, like all regious communities, revised their constitutions. The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer feel called to live by the older constitutions fo the congregation. They are also more inclined to the EF. All of this is good. It’s just not what the Redemptorist Congregation does today.
