SSPX may be involved with diocesan seminaries

[Melchior_1]

Definitely not.

If they are running an entire **Diocesan **Seminary, then they have to train priests in the Ordinary Form. You know, because it’s ORDINARY (ie; the norm).

That’s simply speculation.

The schism part is speculation, yes. However if you look at the great founders of most other Societies and Orders, they certainly didn’t create the same mess that circled the SSPX.

Further, as much as I don’t want a partial schism, do you want to make a gentlemen’s wager on His Grace Williamson not making it back to Rome?

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I’m sorry, these men will always be suspect. They might be very holy, and I’m sure many of you will defend them, but it is what it is.

I find it odd that you would say that someone might very holy yet at the same time very suspect.

I would think that a holy person wouldn’t be a suspicious person.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Name one Church doctrine flouted by the Jesuits.

I highly recommend that you read “The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church.” It is quite illuminating as to what the Jesuits did in the 1970s and 80s, and very specific as to the doctrines they flouted and the immense disobedience that they showed the Pope, despite the fact that their charism was to be the “Pope’s men.”

It is an informative yet very sad read. And yes, they ABSOLUTELY flaunted doctrine and obedience to the Papacy.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I know! Latin immersion in seminary! How NOVEL!

Latin in the seminary! Obviously a plot to overthrow the Catholic Church! When will this novelty ever end?!?

+PAX

 

[PaulinVA]

I find it odd that you would say that someone might very holy yet at the same time very suspect.

I would think that a holy person wouldn’t be a suspicious person.

• PAX

You can be the “holiest” person in the world, but if you got your start by flouting Church law, then there is always the possibility you will once again go against the Church because you think you are right.

 

[ProVobis]

Further, as much as I don’t want a partial schism, do you want to make a gentlemen’s wager on His Grace Williamson not making it back to Rome?

Hearing that the Holy Father say he wouldn’t have lifted the excommunications had he known about Bishop W, I believe he’s already been disqualified. But I’m not making judgments.

 

[ProVobis]

You can be the “holiest” person in the world, but if you got your start by flouting Church law, then there is always the possibility you will once again go against the Church because you think you are right.

So you’re saying the FSSP is more likely to go against the Church in the future than say, the Cantians?

 

[Melchior_1]

I highly recommend that you read “The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church.” It is quite illuminating as to what the Jesuits did in the 1970s and 80s, and very specific as to the doctrines they flouted and the immense disobedience that they showed the Pope, despite the fact that their charism was to be the “Pope’s men.”

It is an informative yet very sad read. And yes, they ABSOLUTELY flaunted doctrine and obedience to the Papacy.

• PAX

Just like the SSPX. And before anyone says “they broke no doctrine!”

1. They disobeyed Canon Law.
2. They still disobey Canon Law.
3. The comments on their website regarding the Ordinary Form are simply unacceptable. Saying the Pope is sinning by celebrating the Ordinary Form is simply unacceptable.
4. The Ordinary Form is the norm, as in it is the default Form. Any and all comments on their site (and other places) that call into question the inherent validity of said Form calls them into question themselves.
5. An argument could be made that they have rejected Sacred Scripture. The implications of their statements regarding the Ordinary Form implies that the Gates of Hell prevailed.

The thing is, by all accounts, I honestly believe they were fine with the statusquo. They were fine with illicit Masses, invalid Confessions, illicit ordinations, invalid Marriages. If communion with Rome is a house party, they were fine in the foyer (with schism being outside on the front yard). It wasn’t until His Holiness Benedict XVI stepped in and said “you need to get inside now enough is enough” that things started moving forward.

The other thing that bothers me is the concept of “look at all these other people and what they do!” Yes, there are troublemakers. Yes, they are people that cause issues. The leadership in Rome is not out to “get” the SSPX. Remember that this was all brought on themselves. They were given near cart blanche, a list of items which was more than any other order/society, and STILL chose to slap the Pope in the face.

People can call His Grace Marcel Lefebvre a hero, and consider him one. Personally, I prefer more traditional-minded Church heroes who affected change within the Church without the business of schismatic and illicit acts.

 

[ProVobis]

The thing is, by all accounts, I honestly believe they were fine with the statusquo. They were fine with illicit Masses, invalid Confessions, illicit ordinations, invalid Marriages. If communion with Rome is a house party, they were fine in the foyer (with schism being outside on the front yard). It wasn’t until His Holiness Benedict XVI stepped in and said “you need to get inside now enough is enough” that things started moving forward.

As Br JR has pointed out, a few if not many of the FSSPX priests and those who frequent their chapels and support them have never known what full communion with Rome is like. The order was created going all the way back to 1970, don’t forget. It’s one thing for someone to reject what he’s learned as a mainstream Catholic and another thing to have learned only what the FSSPX teach. So it’s not fair to brand them all into your “fine with illicit Masses, etc.” argument, because some have rejected nothing.

 

[Melchior_1]

As Br JR has pointed out, a few if not many of the FSSPX priests and those who frequent their chapels and support them have never known what full communion with Rome is like. The order was created going all the way back to 1970, don’t forget. It’s one thing for someone to reject what he’s learned as a mainstream Catholic and another thing to have learned only what the FSSPX teach. So it’s not fair to brand them all into your “fine with illicit Masses, etc.” argument, because some have rejected nothing.

Touche, good sir! I should qualify that with “senior leadership”, perhaps?

 

[PaulinVA]

So you’re saying the FSSP is more likely to go against the Church in the future than say, the Cantians?

I don’t know anything of the Cantians so I can’t answer your question. However, I have nothing against the FSSP. I was referring to the SSPX.

I think you might be referring to the SSPX priests who split and formed the FSSP after the excommunications. Well, when things became apparent where SSPX was heading, they did the right thing. I don’t think that they are tainted at all.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

If they are running an entire Diocesan Seminary, then they have to train priests in the Ordinary Form. You know, because it’s ORDINARY (ie; the norm).

If they had to offer, or train priests, in the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) they would not involve themselves.

The schism part is speculation, yes. However if you look at the great founders of most other Societies and Orders, they certainly didn’t create the same mess that circled the SSPX.

That’s really got nothing to do with schism.

Further, as much as I don’t want a partial schism, do you want to make a gentlemen’s wager on His Grace Williamson not making it back to Rome?

I’ll leave it up to the SSPX.