A
- Status
L
laszlo
Guest
Just before Archbishop Lefebvre ordained 4 bishops without the consent of the Apostolic See, the Apostolic See through Cardinal Ratzinger offered some personal independence, with the only restriction that the preparation may take over a year. Archbishop Lefevbre first signed the agreement, than revoked claiming that one year is too long and made the illegal ordinations.
The last year’s speculation of Bishop Wiliamson was that that on the same way as for the Anglicans groups of priests may leave the SSPX and accepted into the Roman Catholic Church if the accept the Magisterium. Bishop Fellay on that time flatly rejected the speculation as unfounded.
It is almost clear that the viable resolution is, that if the SSPX will be accepted either as a whole of as partial group, they will be no subject of any local ordinary. This seems to be the best either for the SSPX members of for the diocesan bishops and priests. The Church want peace, not controversy, and if the SSPX or part of it want to be united fully with the Church they have to want peace too, not to win.
A
At_Trent
Guest
I think Bishop Wiliamson’s days of speaking for the SSPX in an official manner are over.
I just pray the SSPX clergy have their suspensions lifted and are united with the Church in whatever means the pope deems appropriate.
I see no reason to focus on what happened over 20 yeas ago. The SSPX’s interaction with the Church today is all that should matter. The excommunications have been lifted, and it’s unfair to the laity of the SSPX chapels to continue fueling the stigma. It’s simply uncharitable imo.
I just pray the SSPX clergy have their suspensions lifted and are united with the Church in whatever means the pope deems appropriate.
I see no reason to focus on what happened over 20 yeas ago. The SSPX’s interaction with the Church today is all that should matter. The excommunications have been lifted, and it’s unfair to the laity of the SSPX chapels to continue fueling the stigma. It’s simply uncharitable imo.
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
Speculation with no merit at this point in time - as far as I could deduce anyhow.
M
malphono
Guest
It would probably be the easiest and best course, but at this point I’d say it was probably a little of both, meaning rumor and speculation. Let’s see if anything appears in “Whispers” …
C
catsrus
Guest
Hoping and praying…
C
corsair
Guest
You are right At Trent. I certainly pray for such an Ordinariat. Why not? The Anglican got theirs. Its about time the SSPX was brought in.
P
Planty_Pall
Guest
I think so too At Trent. I speak as one with a boy at one of the SSPX seminaries. For those of us who know the history, we know that Abp. Lefebvre never sought to have his priests unjustly suspended. He never sought excommunication. For refusing to say the Novus Ordo Mass, the priests were suspended. For thinking the Vatican was diabolically disoriented, with the first Assisi meeting as the context, he was declared excommunicated for consecrating the bishops. But he never sought these sanctions, and if Rome had offered what the article says is coming, I think he would have taken it.
If Rome says that the SSPX can preach and teach the unadulterated Catholic faith without intereference, then take what Rome offers! If Rome reneges, do what happened before. Get suspended again. Get declared excommunicated again.On the other hand, if from the beginning there are strings attached which require more than admitting that Vatican II was a valid council, and the Novus Ordo Sacraments are formally valid, then by all means stand your ground. It is one thing to admit formal validity, it is another to declare prudence. According to my understanding the former is admissible. The latter is impossible.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Your revisionism notwithstanding, the Archbishop was excommunicated for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate and against express warning from the Holy See.
My own opinion, but I would think that if a bishop were to honestly and sincerely think that the “Vatican was diabolically disoriented,” then it seems to follow that he should be excommunicated, since the Vatican is the legitimate authority of Christ’s Church.
L
laszlo
Guest
The pope is bound by the law. Latae sententiae (ipso facto, automatic) suspension can be lifted only if the delinquents ask for the lifting. Unfortunately the hard line of the SSPX still expects to control the Church.
A motu proprio accepting groups form the SSPX, and receiving independence similar to the Anglicans is possible.
P
Planty_Pall
Guest
The Old Testament gives us all kinds of hints about how we can’t be complacent in assuming that “legitimate authority” cannot be really messed up. Our Lord made sure that the healed lepers went to the priests to show his adherence to their “legitimate authority”, but He was hated and despised by the same “legitimate authority”. He taught us that the high priest who personally represented God’s “legitimate authority” plotted his death while sitting in Moses’ seat. The same “legitimate authority” called for His crucifixion. Diabolical disorientation of “legitimate authority”, in the context of the words of Sr. Lucia, seems compatible with my understanding of Redemption History.
Obligation to respect and seek the approval of “legitimate authority” is not an obligation to defend every illegitimate act of “legitimate authority”. “Legitimate authority” had no right to require Jesus to deny His rank and majesty, nor does “legitimate authority” have any right to require Catholics to believe that Assisi meetings are inspired by the Holy Ghost. This is a question of prudence, not infallible doctrine. Catholic Tradition teaches that “legitimate authority” can err in matters of prudence.
Plantagenet
T
Timothysis
Guest
I’ve never understood why we are expected to believe that the sspx are in the right and the Holy See is in the wrong. Regardless of the wild and often crazed allegations that you make against the “legitimate authority,” the pope and the bishops are the legitimate authority who deserve and even require our trust and obedience. Just because a small group inspires sympathy from those on the fringe doesn’t mean that Satan himself is pulling the strings of the Church whenever things don’t go the way we want.
L
laszlo
Guest
By 70 AD the time prove that the former legitimate authority was gone, so purely with rational point of view the Galilean, and His followers who fled to Pella from Jerusalem but otherwise were disseminated all over the world, won. This 40 years is Biblical.
Do you really expect but by 2029 the SSPX and their followers will the ‘the Church’ and the legal authority will be extincted?
Do you really expect but by 2029 the SSPX and their followers will the ‘the Church’ and the legal authority will be extincted?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Whatever it takes to make the Summorum Pontificum work.
P
Planty_Pall
Guest
No, no, no . No expectations. Maybe the Holy See is right about Assisi and the SSPX is wrong. I’d be delighted to be wrong about this matter. I just can’t be so persuaded.
If you like Assisi…If you think its great…By all means praise Assisi and cite all the fruits and benefits from it.
I just don’t want to defend what I consider indefensible. I don’t have to tell non-Catholics that I think every prudential action of the Holy See is protected by Divine Providence. I don’t think that is solid apologetics. I don’t think it reflects Catholic Tradition. And I think it sets up converts to the Catholic faith for eventual disillusion.
But if you think every single action of the Holy See is always guided by God then I don’t want to quarrel with you. You can do a lot worse than believe what you seem to believe.
God bless,
Planty Pall
P
Planty_Pall
Guest
Ummm. No. I think I agree with you against whatever you are talking about. I don’t think the “The SSPX and their followers” will do whatever it is you were trying to describe by 2029.
T
Timothysis
Guest
Yet, you continuously defend a group that acts in disobedience against the Holy See. You defend suspended priests who act in disobedience by offering illicit and illegal Masses, who hear confessions without the proper faculties, who have “no active ministry in the Church” but continue to function as if they do. What do you consider “indefensible?” Those things that you agree with, or the things that you do not?
You admit that the Holy See is NOT always guided by God, yet give the full weight of your support to a group that is not even in full communion with the Church. I don’t see how I could do any “worse” believing what I do when you have such a radical opinion. For myself, I will always side with Christ’s Church, warts and all, over any group that claims to possess the fullness that Christ promised.
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
P
PA650
Guest
The continued existence of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has brought the Church the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, has allowed other priestly societies that celebrate the traditional rites of the Church to flourish, and the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum that has liberalized the Traditional Latin Mass. Although the position of the Society encompasses more than what is now considered the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, I hope and pray for canonical regularity.
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
My opinion:
Vatican II was a validly convoked Ecumenical Council. It was not a robber Council.
However, it did not declare any new dogmas. It doesn’t appear to have any and Pope Paul VI and Pope Benedict XVI (as Card. Ratzinger) have stated so explicitly.
Additionally, no teachings of Vatican II which contradict previous teachings are binding unless good cause is shown. New teachings do not automatically overrule prior teachings simply because they have occurred more recently. Truth does not change. In order to say the old teachings were wrong and the new teachings are right, there must be convincing arguments, not just statements that these things are so.
The vast majority of SSPX priests ~ everyone from Bp. Fellay to Bp. Williamson ~ and faithful accept the NO Mass and other NO Sacraments as valid. Some priests ordained in the New Rite have been allowed to be conditionally re-ordained if they have doubts about the validity of their ordinations but this has been quite rare and is up to the individual priest.
The real issue is not the Traditional Mass. With Summorum Pontificum, the Traditional Mass and Sacraments are much more available than under JPII (although still far from being everywhere) and we also have groups like the FSSP, ICKSP, etc. who are dedicated to the celebration of the Traditional Roman Rite. The real issue lies in the doctrinal questions of Vatican II, that is why the Holy Father reorganized Ecclesia Dei and put it under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and that has been what the talks between the SSPX and Rome have been on.
However, these series of talks have ended with no clear resolution. Bp. Fellay in his most recent interview said they were not expecting any sort of conclusion, they were just talking. In short, Rome says the SSPX must accept the new teachings on ecumenism.
The cartoon above shows the SSPX view of the talks – it’s about converting modernist Rome back to the traditional Faith, not about merely pragmatic issues. I know talking about these things is thin ice of CAF so I won’t link but listen to the talk from Fr. Pfluger from February, he talks about this. You can find it on YouTube.
- Status