SSPX superior denies knowledge of a new Motu Propio

  • Thread starter Thread starter Like
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This rumor circulated once before here. The source is anonymous. Now in the Remnant, it is someone said that someone said that someone said that a Vatican official said, being removed by any order of three from the source. Unless Bishop Fellay knows the source, and the article neither gives the source or states that Fellay said he heard this first hand, this is likely a repeat of the earlier story.

In any case, one person does not the Church make. We know what the Holy Father has said on the subject, namely, there can be no question of going back.
 
Well, as far as I’m concerned, I should have titled it “Bishop Fellay Denies
Any Knowledge of New Motu Proprio”

or

““Bishop Williamson’s statement is an unauthorized statement and is his own personal statement and not that of the Society.””

as the main topic is these and not title I posted.

Sorry!
 
Like said:
Well, as far as I’m concerned, I should have titled it “Bishop Fellay Denies Any Knowledge of New Motu Proprio”

or

““Bishop Williamson’s statement is an unauthorized statement and is his own personal statement and not that of the Society.””

as the main topic is these and not title I posted.

Sorry!
Click to expand...
You could always put it in the title line as I just did. 😉
 
Base on your posts and discussion, I have changed the title of the thread. In the future, please make sure that the name of the thread is the same as the topic that you want to discuss.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
Thomas_Casey said:
Base on your posts and discussion, I have changed the title of the thread. In the future, please make sure that the name of the thread is the same as the topic that you want to discuss.

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator
Click to expand...
OoooK
pnewton said:
Like,

In interest of complete information, here is a thread on a similar story. It is why I suspect that these stories both may have a common source.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=6997723
Click to expand...
Please check your link as it comes up with the form to reply.
Thanks
 
pnewton said:
Oopsie.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=485450&highlight=official

Here is the one I was refering to. Sorry for the goof. While I am posting again, I thought of a logic error. It is possible that Bp. Fellay is the primary source of this anonymous official and the other article was referring to something he passed on. Who knows?
Click to expand...
Thanks Newton, I’m embarrassed to say this but I read that article in the “Inside the Vatican” magazine as I subscribe to it.

Knowing the editor, I’m pretty sure he didn’t get it from Bp.Fellay.
 
rben20 said:
This is really not possible. If you go to the SSPX website they clearly acknowledge the Moto Propio. I would call phony and disregard.
Click to expand...
rben, are you speaking of Moto Propio of B16 on 7-7-07? If so, you didn’t read the link I posted.
 
Like said:
rben, are you speaking of Moto Propio of B16 on 7-7-07? If so, you didn’t read the link I posted.
Click to expand...
Yes, my bad. What is the new Moto Propio or is this just a rumor? I am interested in the matter as I would like to have the TLM much more available and what better way than to include the SSPX in full communion with Rome?
 
rben20 said:
Yes, my bad. What is the new Moto Propio or is this just a rumor? I am interested in the matter as I would like to have the TLM much more available and what better way than to include the SSPX in full communion with Rome?
Click to expand...
Yes it is just a rumor or gossip as was stated by Bp. Falley. Please reread the article posted above & see this link also.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

IMHO, I would not be surprised to see Bp. Richard Williamson excluded from the SSPX reunion with Rome should it come about (and I do believe the SSPX will be regularised with Rome). It seems he is an embarrassment to the SSPX.🤷
 
Like said:
IMHO, I would not be surprised to see Bp. Richard Williamson excluded from the SSPX reunion with Rome should it come about (and I do believe the SSPX will be regularised with Rome). It seems he is an embarrassment to the SSPX.🤷
Click to expand...
Hi Like, it’s very simple. Bishop Williamson is brilliant in his sermons specifically focused on the Faith itself. But …

Yes, when Bishop Williamson turns his thoughts to the Holy See and VII, he does throw prudence out the door. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He is passionate. I’ve heard numerous SSPX laity express concerns over his style of ranting. (actually read their thoughts on forums)

Why does the SSPX tolerate it ? Money and unity. That simple. If the SSPX were to say “enough” and break ties with him, it would cause division within the Society. Benefactors galore would put their wallets back in their pockets. Many would not, but enough would.
 
At_Trent said:
Hi Like, it’s very simple. Bishop Williamson is brilliant in his sermons specifically focused on the Faith itself. But …

Yes, when Bishop Williamson turns his thoughts to the Holy See and VII, he does throw prudence out the door. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He is passionate. I’ve heard numerous SSPX laity express concerns over his style of ranting. (actually read their thoughts on forums)

Why does the SSPX tolerate it ? Money and unity. That simple. If the SSPX were to say “enough” and break ties with him, it would cause division within the Society. Benefactors galore would put their wallets back in their pockets. Many would not, but enough would.
Click to expand...
You very well may be right, but what may happen is the Holy See might reject Bp. Williamson due to all this bad mouthing of Rome. Bp. Falley is very embarrassed because of Bp. Williamson,IMO. I believe Bp. Falley has enough problems with Rome without having Bp. Willaimson spouting off.

God knows if I had the SSPX Mass or any TLM any where near available to me, I would attend & support it.🤷
 
Like said:
You very well may be right, but what may happen is the Holy See might reject Bp. Williamson due to all this bad mouthing of Rome. Bp. Falley is very embarrassed because of Bp. Williamson,IMO. I believe Bp. Falley has enough problems with Rome without having Bp. Willaimson spouting off.

God knows if I had the SSPX Mass or any TLM any where near available to me, I would attend & support it.🤷
Click to expand...
Well first of all, it’s very sad that those in your state who thirst for the TLM don’t have it yet. I’ll join you in prayer a priest steps up there and prays the TLM. :gopray2:

Yes, H.E. Fellay has a tremendous burden. He’s a good Bishop and I pray if he succeeds in coming to an agreement with the Holy See, his flock and fellow clergy will support him.
 
pnewton said:
This rumor circulated once before here. The source is anonymous. Now in the Remnant, it is someone said that someone said that someone said that a Vatican official said, being removed by any order of three from the source. Unless Bishop Fellay knows the source, and the article neither gives the source or states that Fellay said he heard this first hand, this is likely a repeat of the earlier story.

In any case, one person does not the Church make. We know what the Holy Father has said on the subject, namely, there can be no question of going back.
Click to expand...
going back to where? what do you mean by that? show me where the holy father said such a thing?

St. Thomas says that the death penalty is always an act of love for the souls of the condemned, because if he repents, has paid for his crime on earth, and if does not repent, suffer less in hell because he lived less time in sin. St. Thomas teaches that in the Summa Theologica II-IIae, Q. 25 a. 6, ad 2
 
At_Trent said:
Hi Like, it’s very simple. Bishop Williamson is brilliant in his sermons specifically focused on the Faith itself. But …

…

…Why does the SSPX tolerate it ? Money and unity. That simple. If the SSPX were to say “enough” and break ties with him, it would cause division within the Society. Benefactors galore would put their wallets back in their pockets. Many would not, but enough would.
Click to expand...
Respectfully and amicably:

If you can substantiate these last couple of sentences, please provide such. If this is speculation on your part, please label it so.

If it is speculation, I respectfully submit that it is uncalled for, and is unjust. If you can provide substantiation, I would be interested to see it.
 
wisdomseeker said:
going back to where? what do you mean by that? show me where the holy father said such a thing?

St. Thomas says that the death penalty is always an act of love for the souls of the condemned, because if he repents, has paid for his crime on earth, and if does not repent, suffer less in hell because he lived less time in sin. St. Thomas teaches that in the Summa Theologica II-IIae, Q. 25 a. 6, ad 2
Click to expand...
St. Thomas said many things that the Church later contradicted. I would go with Pope John Paul’s statement in Evangelium Vitae regarding the death penalty.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top