Sspx new alternatives in communion with rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter down_under
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catharina said:
As it stands, the excommunicated are restored to Rome by becoming repentant and petitioning the Pope - in that vein. That has been the history of such action. It’s you who keep trying to drag sspx into it. If the time comes when Rome must address actions of sspx, Rome will. That’s Rome’s choice, not mine. (I’m reluctant to say it’s the choice of the Holy Father since the terms Holy Father and Pope seem to throw you into a rage. So yes, of course that does make me wonder what religion you practice.)

As for yelling, who yelled?

Again I’m sorry if I seem to upset you. I wonder why that is. You insulted me for days and I never bit so what’s the deal? In any event, peace to you.
Click to expand...
So you are back to placing restrictions on the Papacy. This–after you said–you did not say it.

Yes it is up to the Pope–and the Pope only–yet you continue to try and dictate how it will be done.

As for the yelling --you did it with this “REPENTENCE”.

catharina—you a getting more and more–well out-there. Now you are accusing me of going into a rage at the mention of Holy Father/Pope. Honestly—your responses are reflecting–that you will say and do anything/everything to try and denigrate a person.
 
Walking_Home said:
So you are back to placing restrictions on the Papacy. This–after you said–you did not say it.

Yes it is up to the Pope–and the Pope only–yet you continue to try and dictate how it will be done.

As for the yelling --you did it with this “REPENTENCE”.

catharina—you a getting more and more–well out-there. Now you are accusing me of going into a rage at the mention of Holy Father/Pope. Honestly—your responses are reflecting–that you will say and do anything/everything to try and denigrate a person.
Click to expand...
I am stating what has been done historically. If the Holy Father chooses a new course of action (truly unlikely) then he will do so - and I will OBEY his decree. You spent several days on another thread, mocking me, insulting me, denigrating me and so forth. Now you feel I’m doing that to you? Do you like it?

If some expect the Vatican to say “Lefebvre? Oh forget it. Your “bishops?” Great guys. Excommunications? Forget aboiut it,” I’m saying that, based in history and tradition, don’t expect it. The Holy Father, this one in particular, is quite devoted to the History of the Church. Structures, long in place to deal with those who repent their excommunications, are in place still.

Sorry if you hate it, but that’s the truth.
 
catharina said:
I am stating what has been done historically. If the Holy Father chooses a new course of action (truly unlikely) then he will do so - and I will OBEY his decree. You spent several days on another thread, mocking me, insulting me, denigrating me and so forth. Now you feel I’m doing that to you? Do you like it?

If some expect the Vatican to say “Lefebvre? Oh forget it. Your “bishops?” Great guys. Excommunications? Forget aboiut it,” I’m saying that, based in history and tradition, don’t expect it. The Holy Father, this one in particular, is quite devoted to the History of the Church. Structures, long in place to deal with those who repent their excommunications, are in place still.

Sorry if you hate it, but that’s the truth.
Click to expand...
There you go–at it again. I just say the Pope will do—what he will do. As far as who does the mocking, insulting, denigration --all anyone has to do is review your posts in this forum – to know the truth.

You should be sorry—because you revel in twisting things around and such–then coming across as some innocent victim.
 
Walking_Home said:
There you go–at it again. I just say the Pope will do—what he will do. As far as who does the mocking, insulting, denigration --all anyone has to do is review your posts in this forum – to know the truth.

You should be sorry—because you revel in twisting things around and such–then coming across as some innocent victim.
Click to expand...
Two points:

First, I would like to believe that those who aspire to follow the excomunicated bishops are not grasping at the false hope that such a following will likely be approved by the Church.

Second, might I say, in regard to you, only this? Your reputaion precedes you.
 
catharina said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
There you go–at it again. I just say the Pope will do—what he will do. As far as who does the mocking, insulting, denigration --all anyone has to do is review your posts in this forum – to know the truth.

You should be sorry—because you revel in twisting things around and such–then coming across as some innocent victim.

Two points:

First, I would like to believe that those who aspire to follow the excomunicated bishops are not grasping at the false hope that such a following will likely be approved by the Church.

Second, might I say, in regard to you, only this? Your reputaion precedes you.
Click to expand...
Pt. 1. The Pope only will decide what he will or will not approve --without imput from you and/or me.

Pt. 2 As to my reputation–I have worked hard for it—without resorting to making up stuff or indulging in twisting things around.

With that I will leave you to your own devices.
 
Walking_Home said:
Pt. 1. The Pope only will decide what he will or will not approve –without imput from you and/or me.

Pt. 2 As to my reputation–I have worked hard for it—without resorting to making up stuff or indulging in twisting things around.

With that I will leave you to your own devices.
Click to expand...
Point # one re bolded above: glad you finally figured that out.

Point # two re bolded above: Days of being targeted by you in a number of other threads have presented me with expertise in twisting things around. Par excellenece - and anyone can check it out by reviewing the last week of posts listed in your own profile.

Now I’ll conclude again with this repeated conclusion:

Two points:

First, I would like to believe that those who aspire to follow the excomunicated bishops are not grasping at the false hope that such a following will likely be approved by the Church.

Second, might I say again, in regard to you? Your reputation has preceded you.
 
catharina said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Pt. 1. The Pope only will decide what he will or will not approve --without imput from you and/or me.

Pt. 2 As to my reputation–I have worked hard for it—without resorting to making up stuff or indulging in twisting things around.

With that I will leave you to your own devices.

Point # one re bolded above: glad you finally figured that out.

Point # two re bolded above: Days of being targeted by you in a number of other threads have presented me with expertise in twisting things around. Par excellenece - and anyone can check it out by reviewing the last week of posts listed in your own profile.

Now I’ll conclude again with this repeated conclusion:

Two points:

First, I would like to believe that those who aspire to follow the excomunicated bishops are not grasping at the false hope that such a following will likely be approved by the Church.

Second, might I say again, in regard to you? Your reputation has preceded you.
Click to expand...
My --how you like to indulge. The evidence of your work–is found thru out various threads. Do yourself the favor—quit digging yourself deeper into a hole. Unfortunately as can be seen–you seem to want to continue digging.

Asta la vista catharina. It has gotten quite un-productive to continue this with you.
 
Walking_Home said:
My --how you like to indulge. The evidence of your work–is found thru out various threads. Do yourself the favor—quit digging yourself deeper into a hole. Unfortunately as can be seen–you seem to want to continue digging.

Asta la vista catharina. It has gotten quite un-productive to continue this with you.
Click to expand...
**I am so glad that you finally agree with me.

PS - that would be “Hasta la vista” but whatever.
**
 
down_under said:
How has the moto propreo changed the debate. I would like to imagine in that wonderful imaginary world I live in that there no longer is a sspx and that we are all back in communion with rome. However, since many sspx never admitted they are isa schismatic sect this is probably unlikely. I understand the argument only the bishops and priests are in schism. and the latiey were strongly advised to not attend there services. so my question is. Now that you have, it could be argued, most if not all of what you wanted. Why stay away from the church of christ? Why continue to go to schismatic bishops when you can now get the ancient rite at your own church? How well is the pope’s letter being recieved? Or for many of the sspx is it simply to little to late. You have left and thrown your hate in the schismatics and so that is where you will stay.

I ask these questions because I do not know the answers. Nor am I all angry or emotional about it. I would sincerely like to know.
Click to expand...
I think all will depend on the responses of individuals who follow and support sspx. If any of them continue to be supportive of the excommunicated “bishops” then they are choosing to put themselves at great risk for full rupture from the Church. Leaving the Church before the MP was not a valid excuse for leaving the Church and the “bishops” expressed that defiance to the Church hence … it’s that simple, I think.
 
catharina said:
As it stands, the excommunicated are restored to Rome by becoming repentant and petitioning the Pope - in that vein.
Click to expand...
Sorry to butt in here, but hadn’t the SSPX bishops been petitioning the Pope (1) to make public the finding of nine Cardinals in 1986 about the status of the Tridentine Mass; (2) to admit that ALL (not just the SSPX) priests have a right to say the Tridentine Mass on their own volition? And guess what? The Pope finally obliged. Imagine that, they actually put the pastoral needs of all the priests and all the faithful ahead of themselves. And yet you keep reminding them to become repentant. For what? They were forced into a corner and plead necessity. Who tried so hard to suppress the findings of those nine Cardinals? The SSPX? Hardly. Make those that suppressed the findings now pay!! Yet no mention about that, the real culprits go free to continue their disobedience to the Pope and his MP. The truth has finally been revealed.
 
BobP123 said:
Sorry to butt in here, but hadn’t the SSPX bishops been petitioning the Pope (1) to make public the finding of nine Cardinals in 1986 about the status of the Tridentine Mass; (2) to admit that ALL (not just the SSPX) priests have a right to say the Tridentine Mass on their own volition? And guess what? The Pope finally obliged. Imagine that, they actually put the pastoral needs of all the priests and all the faithful ahead of themselves. And yet you keep reminding them to become repentant. For what? They were forced into a corner and plead necessity. Who tried so hard to suppress the findings of those nine Cardinals? The SSPX? Hardly. Make those that suppressed the findings now pay!! Yet no mention about that, the real culprits go free to continue their disobedience to the Pope and his MP. The truth has finally been revealed.
Click to expand...
If you’re asking that of me, I have no idea. If you have the answer to your own question, why ask here? If such a thing did occur, I’d like to ask: when, where and involving whom?

Do you understand that when one decides to break away from the Church and rejects obedience to the Holy Father, then one has chosen a separated life.
 
catharina said:
Two points:

First, I would like to believe that those who aspire to follow the excomunicated bishops are not grasping at the false hope that such a following will likely be approved by the Church.

Second, might I say, in regard to you, only this? Your reputaion precedes you.
Click to expand...
You must mean “reputation.” And yes, Walking Home has a very good one.

Hi Walking Home!!! 👋 How ya been?
 
BobP123 said:
Sorry to butt in here, but hadn’t the SSPX bishops been petitioning the Pope (1) to make public the finding of nine Cardinals in 1986 about the status of the Tridentine Mass; (2) to admit that ALL (not just the SSPX) priests have a right to say the Tridentine Mass on their own volition? And guess what? The Pope finally obliged. Imagine that, they actually put the pastoral needs of all the priests and all the faithful ahead of themselves. And yet you keep reminding them to become repentant. For what? They were forced into a corner and plead necessity. Who tried so hard to suppress the findings of those nine Cardinals? The SSPX? Hardly. Make those that suppressed the findings now pay!! Yet no mention about that, the real culprits go free to continue their disobedience to the Pope and his MP. The truth has finally been revealed.
Click to expand...
They were saying the TLM was abrogated till the day the pope said it wasn’t, and they’ll be saying the SSPX bishops are excommunicated till the day the pope says they aren’t.
 
jj2011 said:
They were saying the TLM was abrogated till the day the pope said it wasn’t, and they’ll be saying the SSPX bishops are excommunicated till the day the pope says they aren’t.
Click to expand...
Yes. that’s true. Unless and until the Pope says that the four ar no longer living under excommunicated, they are excommunicated.

The four know that the next move is theirs to make.
 
Like said:
Does anyone find it strange that Fellay is the head and mouth for the SSPX (making all of the demands) & that he is one of the 4 promoted by Archbishop Lefebvre?
If I am wrong about him being 1 of the 4, please correct me.

👍
Click to expand...
Not wrong at all. So, under canon law, the SSPX, as a Catholic Organization, is currently committing an act of severe disobedience as a group by ignoring the canon law which prohibits a Catholic Organization from electing a person who was excommunicated.

Rev. Fellay, cited as a priest in his excommunication, not as a bishop, was excommunicated, and thus was inelligible to be elected as superior general.

EVERY priest who voted for him disobeyed canon law openly.

Since all priests of the SSPX were suspended by JP II, any who are saying the mass are sinning AND disobeying.

So, while not in formal schism, according to Msgr. (drat- forgot his name), They certainly are not in good standing…

So groups like the Institute of Christ the King, FSSP, and those local groups performing the masses under the MP’s allowances (or under indults) are a good thing.

But just look at the pro-SSPX voices here… they ignore the canon law which prohibits Rev. Fellay from being lawfully elected, and the suspensions of the priests of the SSPX.

Their participation in the SSPX masses aid priests in sinning…

BTW: It is Canon 149:
Can. 149 §1. To be promoted to an ecclesiastical office, a person must be in the communion of the Church as well as suitable, that is, endowed with those qualities which are required for that office by universal or particular law or by the law of the foundation.
 
paramedicgirl said:
You must mean “reputation.” And yes, Walking Home has a very good one.

Hi Walking Home!!! 👋 How ya been?
Click to expand...
Hey paramedicgirl. 👋

How have you been–ok I hope. As you can see —the bashing goes on–and on—and on–and on—etc.
 
Aramis said:
Not wrong at all. So, under canon law, the SSPX, as a Catholic Organization, is currently committing an act of severe disobedience as a group by ignoring the canon law which prohibits a Catholic Organization from electing a person who was excommunicated.

Rev. Fellay, cited as a priest in his excommunication, not as a bishop, was excommunicated, and thus was inelligible to be elected as superior general.

EVERY priest who voted for him disobeyed canon law openly.

Since all priests of the SSPX were suspended by JP II, any who are saying the mass are sinning AND disobeying.

So, while not in formal schism, according to Msgr. (drat- forgot his name), They certainly are not in good standing…

So groups like the Institute of Christ the King, FSSP, and those local groups performing the masses under the MP’s allowances (or under indults) are a good thing.

But just look at the pro-SSPX voices here… they ignore the canon law which prohibits Rev. Fellay from being lawfully elected, and the suspensions of the priests of the SSPX.

Their participation in the SSPX masses aid priests in sinning…
Click to expand...
Thank you that interesting brief. It’s far more than any sspx adherent will admit here. Actually, all they say here is “we’re the best and Rome and the Pope stink” but in more socially acceptable words. I know only that if/when sspx adherents follow the lead of excommunicated bishops, they are in grave danger of facing excommunication for their rebellion against the Faith.
 
catharina said:
Thank you that interesting brief. It’s far more than any sspx adherent will admit here. Actually, all they say here is “we’re the best and Rome and the Pope stink” but in more socially acceptable words. I know only that if/when sspx adherents follow the lead of excommunicated bishops, they are in grave danger of facing excommunication for their rebellion against the Faith.
Click to expand...
All this chatter is irrelevant:
VAT II Says Dogmatically:
Read![sign]

For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using the SSPX as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
[/sign]
So it makes no difference if they are schismatic, Lutheran, excommunicated, or establishing their own church. VAT II says they (their church) is also a means of salvation. And, the Spirit of Christ is using them for that purpose.
Period.
So follow the VAT II teaching instead of ignoring it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top