SSPX Recognizes Papal Authority, Hints Discussions Will Continue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Discussions???

Isn’t this thing supposed to be nearly resolved for good or for ill?

It’s getting really old. . . . .
 
This entire “discussion” process has taken so many turns and changes. My prayers will continue.
 
From the OP article.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, said the Vatican does not consider the statement to be “a formal response” by the SSPX to the last document it asked Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general, to sign.
Click to expand...
Because “we do not consider it – and it is not – a formal response,” Father Lombardi said, the Vatican would not comment on the statement’s content.
Click to expand...
Jim
 
Not_Sure said:
This is not a change. The SSPX have always recognized the authority of the Pope.
Click to expand...
Actually, when they first started, they rejected the popes after Pius XII, believing that the later were invalidly elected.

Pope John Paul II got them to at least concede that idea.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Actually, when they first started, they rejected the popes after Pius XII, believing that the later were invalidly elected.

Pope John Paul II got them to at least concede that idea.

Jim
Click to expand...
I don’t know if that’s true.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Actually, when they first started, they rejected the popes after Pius XII, believing that the later were invalidly elected.

Pope John Paul II got them to at least concede that idea.

Jim
Click to expand...
No, the SSPX was never a sedevacantist organization.
Archbishop Lefebvre served under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

The break between the SSPX and the Pope was after the excommunications under Pope John Paul II.
 
Not_Sure said:
No, the SSPX was never a sedevacantist organization.
Archbishop Lefebvre served under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

The break between the SSPX and the Pope was after the excommunications under Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
Then the members of SSPX that argued with me about Pope John Paul II not being a validly elected Pope were lying.

OK I’ll accept that. :rolleyes:

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Laity in another forum, back in the early 90’s.

Jim
Click to expand...
Blech, the only persons entitled to speak for the SSPX are SSPX priests and bishops. The SSPX has never subscribed to the sedevacantist or sedeprivationist heresies.
 
Ending with a prayer, the statement asked Mary “to chase the enemies out from inside the church,” saying some inside the church “are trying to destroy it more radically than its enemies from outside.”
Click to expand...
AMEN to this! The Church, especially during this time of heterodoxy, needs the SSPX to be fully united with her, it is the heartfelt desire of Benedict that this be so, and we will continue our prayers that an agreement be reached.
 
This bot posts news item 2 days after they’ve already been discussed ad nauseum on CAF. 🙂
 
YoungTradCath said:
Blech, the only persons entitled to speak for the SSPX are SSPX priests and bishops. The SSPX has never subscribed to the sedevacantist or sedeprivationist heresies.
Click to expand...
Well, they presented the bishops of SSPX positions on the issue, so I don’t know.

Jim
 
Some people who attend SSPX chapels might be sedevacantists, just like some people who attend NO masses are pro-abortion. (exceptions do not prove the rule).

Officially, the SSPX (including +Williamson) are a sedeplenist organization in communion with the Pope.
 
Not_Sure said:
The break between the SSPX and the Pope was after the excommunications under Pope John Paul II.
Click to expand...
Actually the “break” had been earlier, more like in 1975 when the local bishop of Econe suspended the Archbishop and all the priests he ordained. The fraternity and seminary had been licitly founded under Paul VI.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Then the members of SSPX that argued with me about Pope John Paul II not being a validly elected Pope were lying.

OK I’ll accept that. :rolleyes:

Jim
Click to expand...
No you are confusing the opinions of a couple people with the official stance of the group. They have a superior general for a reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top