SSPX will not sign current preamble, according to parishoner

[Florida123]

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.

Which are the 3 main forums of the SSPX?

 

[bobbyva2001]

bobby, what is no surprise is that this thread is going about as well as the previous one you started.

Way too late in the game. People know better.

I didn’t know anything was being measured. I posted an interesting comment I came across, for no other reason than it was interesting. If I wanted it to “go well” I would start a blog. Just because a source is unofficial, it does not mean that it is invalid (SPJ code of ethics). Anybody can go and read these things for themselves, and make their own judgements. You speak as if I have an agenda.

You keep commenting on my posts as if your exposing me. What am I trying to hide? It’s interesting stuff, and whether it came from Tornielli or not, is not the standard to judge validity. This is a forum, not a newspaper Trent.

 

[Timothysis]

Still, revealing the contents in any way, shape, or form, including reaction, seems to be an act of disobedience in itself. .

More so than celebrating illicit Masses for the past 20 years and consecrating bishops without a papal mandate?!?!?

 

[jmj1984]

More so than celebrating illicit Masses for the past 20 years and consecrating bishops without a papal mandate?!?!?

I for one am hoping the SSPX sign the preamble… ** just so I dont have to read threads like this again**

 

[Mike30]

I for one am hoping the SSPX sign the preamble… ** just so I dont have to read threads like this again**

There will still be these type of threads no matter what happens. Those who hate and despise the society will more than likely be frothing at the mouth if there is reconciliation of any sort at all and will constantly be searching for ways to throw a monkey wrench into the works. As a general rule they hate Traditional Catholicism and see the Society for what it really is. The group that kept the Traditional Mass alive long enough for the Holy Father to more or less loosen the ties that held it down for so long. Without the SSPX, I doubt that would have ever happened.

I have seen this type of prejudice and hatred posted and written about more times and in more threads than I care to remember.

And as far as it goes, if the Church had the same seething hatred for the Society that many on this forum do, there would never have been any negotiations at all in the first place.

And no, I do not attend an SSPX Chapel nor do I think all of their actions and reasons are valid and correct but are in some cases are hurtful and destructive.

 

[TrueLight]

There will still be these type of threads no matter what happens. Those who hate and despise the society will more than likely be frothing at the mouth if there is reconciliation of any sort at all and will constantly be searching for ways to throw a monkey wrench into the works. As a general rule they hate Traditional Catholicism and see the Society for what it really is. The group that kept the Traditional Mass alive long enough for the Holy Father to more or less loosen the ties that held it down for so long. Without the SSPX, I doubt that would have ever happened.

I have seen this type of prejudice and hatred posted and written about more times and in more threads than I care to remember.

And as far as it goes, if the Church had the same seething hatred for the Society that many on this forum do, there would never have been any negotiations at all in the first place.

And no, I do not attend an SSPX Chapel nor do I think all of their actions and reasons are valid and correct but are in some cases are hurtful and destructive.

 

[ConstantineTG]

More so than celebrating illicit Masses for the past 20 years and consecrating bishops without a papal mandate?!?!?

 

[NeelyAnn]

There will still be these type of threads no matter what happens. Those who hate and despise the society will more than likely be frothing at the mouth if there is reconciliation of any sort at all and will constantly be searching for ways to throw a monkey wrench into the works. As a general rule they hate Traditional Catholicism and see the Society for what it really is. The group that kept the Traditional Mass alive long enough for the Holy Father to more or less loosen the ties that held it down for so long. Without the SSPX, I doubt that would have ever happened.

I have seen this type of prejudice and hatred posted and written about more times and in more threads than I care to remember.

And as far as it goes, if the Church had the same seething hatred for the Society that many on this forum do, there would never have been any negotiations at all in the first place.

And no, I do not attend an SSPX Chapel nor do I think all of their actions and reasons are valid and correct but are in some cases are hurtful and destructive.

 

[roadsend]

More so than celebrating illicit Masses for the past 20 years and consecrating bishops without a papal mandate?!?!?

I rarely have the opportunity to attend any sort of Latin Mass and almost every diocesan vernacular Mass I attend is “illicit” in some manner or other. At least you can count on the SSPX Masses to be reverent, which is more than I can say for many of the “approved” Masses I have attended.
Perhaps if more diocesan bishops were obedient to the Holy Father and the teachings of the Church regarding the liturgy, the SSPX irregular situation would never have happened in the first place.

 

[ProVobis]

More so than celebrating illicit Masses for the past 20 years

Actually the priests have been suspended for about 35 years, but it can be argued that much of that reason was for saying a legal Mass.

Had there been universal acceptance that the Latin Mass was never abrogated at the time, there might not have been a reason to form the SSPX in the first place.

 

[Iotaunum]

Speaking as one who attends an SSPX Mass and has been to Confirmations led by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais and attended his talks afterwards, I can say that he can be very direct about matters and could easily have been misinterpreted by some. He probably made it clear that the document would not be signed if it was ambiguous in any way or it made a compromise too far. This was stated openly from the beginning of every potential document.

I would be guessing (since I was not there) that he could also have said they will not sign, although this only means they would propose modifications to the document for Vatican approval. What they want to do, I believe, is reassure the faithful that no rash decisions will be made. After all, the faithful put money into the Chapels, travelled for miles for years and even lost friends over their commitment to support the Latin Mass said in those chapels. Some on the ground level may be concerned that a “sell out” will happen “behind their backs”.

I have a feeling the SSPX will propose modifications to the document if they sign at all. I doubt it will be signed as is. What the SSPX want to do, as I have heard a few of the clergy say, is avoid any ambiguity in the document and make sure it is clear. What they don’t like about some of the documents of Vatican II is how ambiguous they are in places, and they want to avoid any such issues with this document. I think this is a fair point, and I think the Vatican somehow expects such a proposal. I just hope everything works out for the best for the entire Church and the faithful.

 

[Timothysis]

I rarely have the opportunity to attend any sort of Latin Mass and almost every diocesan vernacular Mass I attend is “illicit” in some manner or other. At least you can count on the SSPX Masses to be reverent, which is more than I can say for many of the “approved” Masses I have attended.

So are you saying that it is better to side with a priestly society that has no active ministry in the Church and has suspended priests saying illicit Masses in disobedience against the Holy Father and Canon Law than to side with the legitimate authority of the Church in the form of local bishops and the pope in Rome? Is this what it means to support the SSPX?

 

[roadsend]

So are you saying that it is better to side with a priestly society that has no active ministry in the Church and has suspended priests saying illicit Masses in disobedience against the Holy Father and Canon Law than to side with the legitimate authority of the Church in the form of local bishops and the pope in Rome? Is this what it means to support the SSPX?

I side with the Pope and Rome, not with any disobedient bishop or priest.
If I have a choice between two illicit Masses, I will do my best to attend the more reverent.
I have a clear right according to Canon Law to attend any Catholic Mass or even an Orthodox Mass, if it is my spiritual advantage to do so.

 

[JReducation]

There is a confusion with words here that should be clarified.

If a priest lacks permission from his religious superior (if he’s a religious) or from the local bishop (if he’s secular), if the priest is suspended, for whatever reason, the mass is illicit.

If the priest does something illegal during the mass, whatever it may be, the mass is still licit. The action itself is illicit, not the entire mass.

It is incorrect to refer to a mass as illicit, because the priest does something against the rules. The specific action is illicit, not the entire mass.

That’s a big difference. You can have a priest who follows all the rules, bu is suspended, as is the case with the priests of the SSPX, then the entire mass is illicit or in our language, illegal.

Validity is not the same a licit. Don’t confuse the terms.

Catholics should not attend an illicit mass if there is a licit mass available to them. In the case of the EF, the Sacred Congregation on Divine Worship and the Ecclesia Dei Commission has amplified the permission to allow Catholics to atten the EF at an SSPX chapel to fulfill their Sunday obligation, but there is a cautionary note in place. Those Catholics who choose to attend, should not encourage or support the separation of the SSPX from the Vatican. We’re still bound to the Holy See.

For this reason, about 13 groups have separated from the SSPX in search of union with the Holy See and a lifting of the suspensions of their deacons and priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[severus68]

There is a confusion with words here that should be clarified.

If a priest lacks permission from his religious superior (if he’s a religious) or from the local bishop (if he’s secular), if the priest is suspended, for whatever reason, the mass is illicit.

If the priest does something illegal during the mass, whatever it may be, the mass is still licit. The action itself is illicit, not the entire mass.

It is incorrect to refer to a mass as illicit, because the priest does something against the rules. The specific action is illicit, not the entire mass.

That’s a big difference. You can have a priest who follows all the rules, bu is suspended, as is the case with the priests of the SSPX, then the entire mass is illicit or in our language, illegal.

Validity is not the same a licit. Don’t confuse the terms.

Catholics should not attend an illicit mass if there is a licit mass available to them. In the case of the EF, the Sacred Congregation on Divine Worship and the Ecclesia Dei Commission has amplified the permission to allow Catholics to atten the EF at an SSPX chapel to fulfill their Sunday obligation, but there is a cautionary note in place. Those Catholics who choose to attend, should not encourage or support the separation of the SSPX from the Vatican. We’re still bound to the Holy See.

For this reason, about 13 groups have separated from the SSPX in search of union with the Holy See and a lifting of the suspensions of their deacons and priests.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for making this very clear.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)