It’s straight from the DICI site, Brother.I hope that this statement came after a written response to the Holy See. It would be very disrespectful to tell others before you tell the pope, Archbishop Mueller and Archbisop DiNoia. I can’t believe that Bishop Fellay is tactless. Or the writer got it wrong. :crossing my fingers:
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
If they are a valid third order… yes. But it’s dubious that they are a valid third order.
The reason it did not appear here faster is that if you read the whole thing it paints a picture of the Church as disorganized, and sending mixed signals.
It would be very disappointing if he revealed this to the public, before he said it to the pope. Afterall, in his own words he said that he received a memo from the pope saying that it was he (the pope) who inserted the last minute changes into the preamble, even though Cardinal Levada and Bishop Fellay had reached another agreement. There is no reason to believe that he does not have direct access to the pope.
There is one thing that I know for certain. This pope does not take well to anyone making such comments about Vatican II or about the liceity of the Ordinary Form of the mass. If there are other talks going on behind the scenes, this is a very imprudent statement to make in public.
That is exactly what I’m saying. The tone of the Nov. 11th address seems very out of character for Bishop Fellay, compared with other things he has said about reconciliation. That’s why I’m conjecturing that it is more of an attempt to prevent further defection to the Williamson camp as well as- perhaps- some personal frustration coming through.
The Council of Trent ruled that only religious whose vows are solemn have this privilege granted to them and protected by grace. Even clergy or any religious whose vows are simple do not have this privilege and are not protected by grace. Therefore, they must come under some legal authority in the Church.
I believe that the prelature offer is still on the table. The SSPX has to accept or decline. But it’s not being offered without parameters.
The question being, does the SSPX need to be separate from the ICRSS and the FSSP, or should they all be formed into one joint prelature, or perhaps 3 ordinariates of a single overseeing prelature?
It is contrary to Canon Law to combine institutes. ICRSS and FSSP are institutes of pontifical right. Again, their autonomy is protected by the Council of Trent. The Holy Father would have to abrogate the rule in their case. This is a very dangerous move. You don’t abrogate rules that affect institutes that are faithful to the Church in order to give them a lower place in the Church. To make them part of the prelature or make them part of an ordinariate is a demotion. It would be like saying that Franciscans and Dominicans are no longer religious orders. They are now religious congregations. WHOAH!!!
You cross your fingers in vain Br JR. It is not for nothing that this 40 year separation is still going strong.This is the kind of behavior that gets bishops, religious superiors and other people in positions of authority upset. If the good bishop really did say these things to the public, this is not the usual way of proceeding.
Bishops, religious superiors and other people in authority, involved in a dialogue with the Holy See, as is the SSPX, where the Holy See itself has said that it’s patiently waiting for an official response from the SSPX, usually respond to the Holy See first and then tell the general public. Even the LCSW did this. They simply told the general public that they were going to Rome to meet with the Holy See, they were going to discern, discuss and respond. They went to Rome and did as they said they would. The Holy See was the first to hear what was on their mind, not the laity or even the sisters under the leadership.
I hope that this statement came after a written response to the Holy See. It would be very disrespectful to tell others before you tell the pope, Archbishop Mueller and Archbisop DiNoia. I can’t believe that Bishop Fellay is tactless. Or the writer got it wrong. :crossing my fingers:
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
continue to be a thorn in the side of yet another Pope during his papacy, while they warp the minds of yet another generation.
I think that the term “cult” is a little extreme. The SSPX is not a cult. It’s part of a movement to tradition. The movement has validity. I know this from my own life. My own religious family is undergoing a renewal or a recovery of our life as it was in the 13th century. Obviously, we’re not cooking over open flames or sleeping in huts. That was not the essence of our lives. Those were the resources that they had. The essence is one of obedience, detachment, prayer, brotherhood, equality, and penance. There is nothing wrong with recovering. The difference is that we’re doing it from the inside with the blessing of the Holy See and the bishops of the dioceses in which we live and work. Not every bishop likes it. There are consequences for them too. We’re not ordaining as many, because we want to go back to the days when priests were the exception, not the rule in the Franciscan family. We’re giving up parishes in middle class areas. Sometimes, the bishop can’t staff them and has to close them. We’re not accepting new parishes in many areas. We’re creating fraternities of friars who live and work in neighborhood streets rather than Catholic schools, hospitals, parishes, sanctuaries and other institutions. Less and less friars are doing those things as was the case in the 13th century.
Certainly such people do great harm to the Church and to themselves. Creating a ghetto is not the solution.
Yes. Is very frustrating to read things like that. Modernists, heterodox, progressives, etc are very dangerous. There are lots of people like that in the Church. Even in places of authority. For example, where I live (South America), this is a problem in some Dioceses. Even the “Vatican II conservative” position is seen as extreme.
And, not only the Jesuit Priest I wrote about earlier said questionable or bad things. Now a recently created Cardinal said that the decriminalization of abortion in three cases, was “fine” (“está bien”, in Spanish). Link here: secretummeummihi.blogspot.com/2012/11/las-despenalizaciones-y-el-card.html (in Spanish).That it is! :thumbsup:Infest is the right word. It is not the faithful who I am referring to. It is the highly individual priests of the SSPX who would be the menace. As we have noticed recently (in the case of Fr Rostand), they are inclined to be a law unto themselves and while toe-ing the party line, do often have notions and agenda’s of their own (not saying here that we don’t have the same) which within the microcosm that they exist, is certain to, in each case have a unique and disturbing impact. There are some very decent priests among them, but do remember, that they are all cut from the same cloth (excuse the pun, not intended).
Contrary to what you think, I certainly do like your posts, but I can’t agree here, sorry.
Although problematic, it is not as difficult for us to dismiss the bizarre behaviours of the heterodox “modernists” for the lunacy they are. Having said this, yes, on the young and uninformed they do wreak their own brand of havoc, but this is, by and large countered by the example of the majority and the visible Magisterium.I get what you mean here, but do see it differently. In that I don’t think they have ever had the right, morally or otherwise, to use the beauty of the Tridentine Rite to attract and hold the faithful so legitimately attached to it - to fund and build up what has turned out to be nothing more or less than a permanent and unhealthy resistance to the authority of the Church.
This is a misrepresentation. The cardinal is saying exactly what Bl. John Paul says in Evangelium Vitae. There is a difference between morality and crime. It is always immoral to abort a child. There are no exceptions.Yes. Is very frustrating to read things like that. Modernists, heterodox, progressives, etc are very dangerous. There are lots of people like that in the Church. Even in places of authority. For example, where I live (South America), this is a problem in some Dioceses. Even the “Vatican II conservative” position is seen as extreme.
Blessings.
That it is! :thumbsup:Infest is the right word. It is not the faithful who I am referring to. It is the highly individual priests of the SSPX who would be the menace. As we have noticed recently (in the case of Fr Rostand), they are inclined to be a law unto themselves and while toe-ing the party line, do often have notions and agenda’s of their own (not saying here that we don’t have the same) which within the microcosm that they exist, is certain to, in each case have a unique and disturbing impact. There are some very decent priests among them, but do remember, that they are all cut from the same cloth (excuse the pun, not intended).
Contrary to what you think, I certainly do like your posts, but I can’t agree here, sorry.
Whereas the SSPX starts off with already pious lay folk seeking sanctuary from the stresses of this madness. This ‘captive audience’ is susceptible to the ‘mind warp’ I am referring to. A most dangerous one - that pits these otherwise faithful Catholics against their own Pope and Magisterium - caused by their (SSPX heirarchy’s) almost dogmatic conviction that there is ‘no salvation within the Church’ - into a situation of divided loyalty, which is no way to go about saving one’s soul. It is this contradiction of theirs and their continual condemnation of what they term “the conciliar church” that inculcates a schizophrenic dichotomy in themselves & their followers of believing that they are the remnant that’s sacrifices (and the graces from their masses) which are saving the world.
I get what you mean here, but do see it differently. In that I don’t think they have ever had the right, morally or otherwise, to use the beauty of the Tridentine Rite to attract and hold the faithful so legitimately attached to it - to fund and build up what has turned out to be nothing more or less than a permanent and unhealthy resistance to the authority of the Church.
