SSPX will not sign current preamble, according to parishoner

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobbyva2001
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bobbyva2001

Guest
dolorosa said…
“Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (who is at my church today for Confirmations) last night told us the SSPX is NOT going to sign the paper given to them by the Vatican…”
October 15, 2011 12:27 PM

Bishop Williamson relayed the same message recently.

No surprise.
 
bobbyva2001 said:
dolorosa said…
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (who is at my church today for Confirmations) last night told us the SSPX is NOT going to sign the paper given to them by the Vatican. This is good news. We know that within the SSPX there are those who want to make some kind of deal with** the Vatican who is still modern and who still follows the demonic changes of VII. **All I know is that Bishop Williamson is NOT a Nazi and he should be able to write his newsletter because in these days of apostasy he is a voice of truth like Fr. Coughlin, Fr. Fahey, Poncins, etc. If you can’t handle the truth then you won’t like Bishop Williamson. God warns us in Apocalypse 2:9 who the enemy is and it’s not Bishop Williamson! If you haven’t read Poncin’s books, I encourage you to do so now.
October 15, 2011 12:27 PM
Click to expand...
What a totally stupid remark!
 
I edited that part, I thought. Sorry for that, just quoting the post. No co-sign intended.
 
bobbyva2001 said:
dolorosa said…
“Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (who is at my church today for Confirmations) last night told us the SSPX is NOT going to sign the paper given to them by the Vatican…”
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you are aware of the fact that the doctrinal preamble is not anything fixed in stone. The SSPX is entirely free to amend it as they wish and then sign and return the amended version to the Holy See. At that point the Holy See would have to determine whether the amendments are acceptable. If so, then the doctrinal preamble is signed. If not, the Holy See can make amendments and return the document to the SSPX, etc.

Besides that, neither Bishop Tissier de Mallerais nor Bishop Williamson are in a position to make decisions for the society. All they can do is relate what they have heard others say.
 
amlcssr said:
I don’t know if you are aware of the fact that the doctrinal preamble is not anything fixed in stone. The SSPX is entirely free to amend it as they wish and then sign and return the amended version to the Holy See. At that point the Holy See would have to determine whether the amendments are acceptable. If so, then the doctrinal preamble is signed. If not, the Holy See can make amendments and return the document to the SSPX, etc.

Besides that, neither Bishop Tissier de Mallerais nor Bishop Williamson are in a position to make decisions for the society. All they can do is relate what they have heard others say.
Click to expand...
I thought they had to accept the doctrinal preamble as is or reject it. I do not recall ever reading what you are talking about. Can you direct me to where they is talked about?
 
amlcssr said:
I don’t know if you are aware of the fact that the doctrinal preamble is not anything fixed in stone. The SSPX is entirely free to amend it as they wish and then sign and return the amended version to the Holy See. At that point the Holy See would have to determine whether the amendments are acceptable. If so, then the doctrinal preamble is signed. If not, the Holy See can make amendments and return the document to the SSPX, etc.

Besides that, neither Bishop Tissier de Mallerais nor Bishop Williamson are in a position to make decisions for the society. All they can do is relate what they have heard others say.
Click to expand...
Well aware. There has been a number of things that have eluded to them not accepting. There is a wealth of information in French, German and Spanish, that gives extra insight on the issue. All the info available points to a rejection. In the title I specified, “will not sign current preamble”. I worded with the possibility for revision in mind.

The comment I quoted, I believe to be credible. It is common practice for the bishops of SSPX, to address current affairs involving the society. She posted the comment in the midst of 60 others, and it was not the topic of the discussion.
 
ByzCath said:
I thought they had to accept the doctrinal preamble as is or reject it. I do not recall ever reading what you are talking about. Can you direct me to where they is talked about?
Click to expand...
It is widely reported that a requirement of the preamble is the acceptance of the catechism.
 
bobbyva2001 said:
dolorosa said…
“Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (who is at my church today for Confirmations) last night told us the SSPX is NOT going to sign the paper given to them by the Vatican…”
October 15, 2011 12:27 PM

Bishop Williamson relayed the same message recently.

No surprise.
Click to expand...
They are both just speaking personally, then. Not for the Society.

I will wait until the Society gives a response.
 
NewsTheMan said:
They are both just speaking personally, then. Not for the Society.

I will wait until the Society gives a response.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If His Grace Fellay says something off the record, it has a bit more weight. But until then, I’ll wait until official announcements.
 
Not a word on DICI. Not a word on the 3 main SSPX forums. No citation in this post. Not a word from Andrea Tornielli who would be one of the first to know.

Nothing to see here.
 
ProVobis said:
So much for the supposedly private nature of the preamble.
Click to expand...
“Widely reported” is inaccurate. It should be “not reported once”. I’ve followed this closely. It is secret.
ProVobis said:
Or Bishop Fellay. That will be the official response.
Click to expand...
Since he is the Superior and would speak for the Society on this matter, what I said is exactly what you are saying. Wait for the Society to speak i.e. wait for Bp. Fellay to speak.
 
ByzCath said:
I thought they had to accept the doctrinal preamble as is or reject it. I do not recall ever reading what you are talking about. Can you direct me to where they is talked about?
Click to expand...
ByzCath,

They have been very open from the beginning that the Preamble is modifiable. From my following of the events, it was always clear to me that it would be modified since, as Bishop Fellay said from the beginning, it was too ambiguous and needed clarification. In fact, I even believe he specifically stated that the document was indended to be modified by the SSPX.

The website Rorate-Caeli.blogspot.com has been providing all of the updates. They are usually the first to get the latest information. You should be able to read all the reports there. BTW, Rorate-Caeli is FSSP, not SSPX.
 
NewsTheMan said:
“Widely reported” is inaccurate. It should be “not reported once”. I’ve followed this closely. It is secret.

Maybe not in English, but it has been reported in other languages. I do not state any certainty of this claim. Nevertheless, it has been reported, so “not reported once” is inaccurate. This link includes two sources who reported it. I will concede that “widely reported” was a poor choice of words. Reported would have sufficed. My apologies.

lavie.fr/chroniques/matinale-chretienne/matinale-chretienne-du-13-octobre-13-10-2011-21005_167.php

Either way, the things that have been coming from the Society have not been encouraging.
Click to expand...
 
bobbyva2001 said:
This link includes two sources who reported it. I will concede that “widely reported” was a poor choice of words.
Click to expand...
Still, revealing the contents in any way, shape, or form, including reaction, seems to be an act of disobedience in itself. Even if it were “encouraging,” I wouldn’t consider it beneficial for the long-term.
 
bobbyva2001 said:
dolorosa said…
“Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (who is at my church today for Confirmations) last night told us the SSPX is NOT going to sign the paper given to them by the Vatican…”
October 15, 2011 12:27 PM

Bishop Williamson relayed the same message recently.

No surprise.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this isnt exactly credible, firstly there has been no mention of it on any SSPX website nor have I heard anything about it from anyone I have spoken to and secondly neither of those bishops are the superior general of the society. The decision is not theirs it belongs to bishop fellay as well as the rest of those in positions of power within the society which may include Bishop Tisser but Bishop Williamson is hardly popular within the hirearchy.

In short it doesn’t credible for a whole host of reasons. This reminds of the passage in the bible where it says ‘Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him…If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not.’ Matthew Chapter 24;23 and 26

We shouldnt chase after every rumour but instead patiently wait to see what the Society says and in return what Rome says… officially.
 
ProVobis said:
So much for the supposedly private nature of the preamble.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the internet age, where nothing is really private anymore. The only thing is how official every information is. Most of these behind the scenes reporting are done by people on the ground overhearing conversations. It could be credible, or maybe just passing conversations. But it gets tweeted, facebook updated, forum posted, almost before the conversation even ends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top