M
Mike30
Guest
I actually agree with this statement and will say that I believe that is exactly what happened to Archbishop Lefebrve and by extension to the SSPX.
- Status
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
Oh Dee, this is so depressing. I will continue to pray, but the situation looks bleak. It is very hard to justify this defiance in a group that should know better compared to those who have not been properly catechized (the “liberal” Catholics and the like).
J
JReducation
Guest
First of all, I strongly suggest that in the name of humility, charity and decency we drop bringing up the “clown masses” at every turn. I’m 63 years old, have lived on four continents, five countries and I don’t remember how many dioceses and I have never seen a clown mass. They can’t be that popular or that common. I would have run into one by now. Trust me, I’ve run into every other nutjob in the Church.
I’m about to die and I’d like to die thinking that Catholics have more integrity than spend the gift of time whining. Pope Francis recently gave an excellent sermon on this subject and we should all, including me, take it to heart.
The problem with the article above is that it did not come from Bishop Fellay or the general council of the Society. It came from one SSPX priest. I’m not sure what his position is in the Society, nor do I care.
Any priest, brother, sister or Catholic layman who takes it upon himself to speak of popes condoning and participating in sacrilege is not worthy of my respect or my attention. When we make our vows, we make a vow of obedience. Obedience is much more than doing what we’re told. Obedience is doing what God wants. God does not want us to go around damaging the reputation of other people. God does not want us to go around judging other people. God does not want us to go around making statements about the state of a diocese without giving the context. And God does command us to submit to Peter.
If Christ has wanted his Church led by a genius without a stain of sin, he would have chosen St. John Baptist. Instead he chose Peter, the cowardly lion who denied him three times. Then humbly admitted that he loved him, three times. The lesson here, every cowardly lion deserves a chance.
Let me tell you the context from my first hand experience. Buenos Aires is the New York City of South America. It’s similar in climate, ethnic composition, more and lack of moral attitudes. It is also very much like European and American metropolitan areas where sex, drugs, relativism and political intrigue are the daily bread. If the Lord himself were the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, London, New York, Miami or Sydney, the people would still do their thing just as they did in Palestine 2,000 years ago.
It’s very easy to blame a bishop and to make him a scapegoat. It’s much more difficult to say the whole truth. Contemporary western culture is on a downward spiral. This is not the fault of any one bishop, any one council, anyone religion. It is what it is, a sociological phenomenon that has so many pieces to it that it will take us a very long time to understand it. The best that any bishop can do it to put out fires one at a time as he develops some long term plans in the hope that they work. Then he prays.
Any priest who makes such accusations against a bishop who has done him no harm and against popes who have done no harm, but fails to mention the context in which problems take place is not worthy of being called Father. I’d rather be an orphan than have such a man as a father.
C
choliks
Guest
Just recently, Pope Francis spoke strongly against this sin. What’s that word again? Calumny.
S
severus68
Guest
Very well said Brother.First of all, I strongly suggest that in the name of humility, charity and decency we drop bringing up the “clown masses” at every turn. I’m 63 years old, have lived on four continents, five countries and I don’t remember how many dioceses and I have never seen a clown mass. They can’t be that popular or that common. I would have run into one by now. Trust me, I’ve run into every other nutjob in the Church.
I’m about to die and I’d like to die thinking that Catholics have more integrity than spend the gift of time whining. Pope Francis recently gave an excellent sermon on this subject and we should all, including me, take it to heart.
The problem with the article above is that it did not come from Bishop Fellay or the general council of the Society. It came from one SSPX priest. I’m not sure what his position is in the Society, nor do I care.
Any priest, brother, sister or Catholic layman who takes it upon himself to speak of popes condoning and participating in sacrilege is not worthy of my respect or my attention. When we make our vows, we make a vow of obedience. Obedience is much more than doing what we’re told. Obedience is doing what God wants. God does not want us to go around damaging the reputation of other people. God does not want us to go around judging other people. God does not want us to go around making statements about the state of a diocese without giving the context. And God does command us to submit to Peter.
If Christ has wanted his Church led by a genius without a stain of sin, he would have chosen St. John Baptist. Instead he chose Peter, the cowardly lion who denied him three times. Then humbly admitted that he loved him, three times. The lesson here, every cowardly lion deserves a chance.
Let me tell you the context from my first hand experience. Buenos Aires is the New York City of South America. It’s similar in climate, ethnic composition, more and lack of moral attitudes. It is also very much like European and American metropolitan areas where sex, drugs, relativism and political intrigue are the daily bread. If the Lord himself were the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, London, New York, Miami or Sydney, the people would still do their thing just as they did in Palestine 2,000 years ago.
It’s very easy to blame a bishop and to make him a scapegoat. It’s much more difficult to say the whole truth. Contemporary western culture is on a downward spiral. This is not the fault of any one bishop, any one council, anyone religion. It is what it is, a sociological phenomenon that has so many pieces to it that it will take us a very long time to understand it. The best that any bishop can do it to put out fires one at a time as he develops some long term plans in the hope that they work. Then he prays.
Any priest who makes such accusations against a bishop who has done him no harm and against popes who have done no harm, but fails to mention the context in which problems take place is not worthy of being called Father. I’d rather be an orphan than have such a man as a father.
We will miss you so much Brother - your knowledge and your charity. Praying for you and please pray for me.
J
JReducation
Guest
Don’t bury me yet.
S
severus68
Guest
Lol, not intending to.Don’t bury me yet.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Don’t bury me yet.
Oh Br JR, I don’t know whether to laugh or :bighanky:you are unique!Dare I say, you will never “die”, but will live on in our hearts as you do now.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Just to say that the article as it appears on the SSPX website (and it is a lengthy one) is not signed off by anyoneFirst of all, I strongly suggest that in the name of humility, charity and decency we drop bringing up the “clown masses” at every turn. I’m 63 years old, have lived on four continents, five countries and I don’t remember how many dioceses and I have never seen a clown mass. They can’t be that popular or that common. I would have run into one by now. Trust me, I’ve run into every other nutjob in the Church.
I’m about to die and I’d like to die thinking that Catholics have more integrity than spend the gift of time whining. Pope Francis recently gave an excellent sermon on this subject and we should all, including me, take it to heart.
The problem with the article above is that it did not come from Bishop Fellay or the general council of the Society. It came from one SSPX priest. I’m not sure what his position is in the Society, nor do I care.
Any priest, brother, sister or Catholic layman who takes it upon himself to speak of popes condoning and participating in sacrilege is not worthy of my respect or my attention. When we make our vows, we make a vow of obedience. Obedience is much more than doing what we’re told. Obedience is doing what God wants. God does not want us to go around damaging the reputation of other people. God does not want us to go around judging other people. God does not want us to go around making statements about the state of a diocese without giving the context. And God does command us to submit to Peter.
If Christ has wanted his Church led by a genius without a stain of sin, he would have chosen St. John Baptist. Instead he chose Peter, the cowardly lion who denied him three times. Then humbly admitted that he loved him, three times. The lesson here, every cowardly lion deserves a chance.
Let me tell you the context from my first hand experience. Buenos Aires is the New York City of South America. It’s similar in climate, ethnic composition, more and lack of moral attitudes. It is also very much like European and American metropolitan areas where sex, drugs, relativism and political intrigue are the daily bread. If the Lord himself were the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, London, New York, Miami or Sydney, the people would still do their thing just as they did in Palestine 2,000 years ago.
It’s very easy to blame a bishop and to make him a scapegoat. It’s much more difficult to say the whole truth. Contemporary western culture is on a downward spiral. This is not the fault of any one bishop, any one council, anyone religion. It is what it is, a sociological phenomenon that has so many pieces to it that it will take us a very long time to understand it. The best that any bishop can do it to put out fires one at a time as he develops some long term plans in the hope that they work. Then he prays.
Any priest who makes such accusations against a bishop who has done him no harm and against popes who have done no harm, but fails to mention the context in which problems take place is not worthy of being called Father. I’d rather be an orphan than have such a man as a father.
Just wondering,wouldn’t anything appearing on their official website have been endorsed by Bishop Fellay?
sspx.org/miscellaneous/will_pope_francis_be_able_to_rebuild_the_church_5-8-2013.htm
D
Dee_S
Guest
:thumbsup:that’s the word for it, and if any of the facts be ‘true’ (even according to their perception)it is the sin of detraction.
J
JReducation
Guest
I saw this article on another SSPX source quite a while ago and it was attributed to one of their priests.Just to say that the article as it appears on the SSPX website (and it is a lengthy one) is not signed off by anyone
Just wondering,wouldn’t anything appearing on their official website have been endorsed by Bishop Fellay?
sspx.org/miscellaneous/will_pope_francis_be_able_to_rebuild_the_church_5-8-2013.htm
That being said, something that appears on the official website need not be endorsed or even known to the superior. Most large communities have websites and superiors have nothing to do with them. The superior simply gives permission to create a website and once in awhile writes something that gets posted on the site. He does not necessarily monitor the site. There is usually another person who is assigned the task of maintaining the site. We have a site that I never see. I may visit it twice a year. I have no idea what is on it right now. A brother is assigned to it. He’s the webmaster. We’re a much smaller community than the SSPX. Don’t take it as a given that something that appears on the official site of a community is even known to the superior. Most of the time the superior has no idea what’s on the site. He should have more important things to do. If he has time to monitor a site, he’s a lucky man.
This has nothing to do with the SSPX, but just to give readers an idea of how websites function among clergy and religious. The Vatican has a website. www.vatican.va. To this day, no one knows who is responsible for that site. We know that the Vatican owns the domain. Even people in the curia have no idea who monitors that site… Everyone knows that it is operated out of the Office for Communication. But if you ask anyone who works in the curia for the name of the responsible person, you get back
Sometimes I think that the laity does not realize that we (religious and clergy) do not live in their world. We live in the world of reality, whereas most people live in the temporal world. In the world of reality, the transcendent is the priority of the day, not the mundane.
The weakness to this is that we are a small segment of the general population. Therefore, things happen or don’t happen that the general population does not understand or does not agree with and we are usually none the wiser until someone actually mentions it. It’s just a fact of how the Catholic Church is divided into different cells within the same body. The largest cell is the temporal cell, because not everyone is called to live in the transcendent.
In this regard I do agree with the SSPX philosophy. It is our mission to bring the layman into our realm, not for us to go into the layman’s realm. That makes no sense. Why have clergy and religious? You take them out of the world and then make them worldly so they can fit in. That makes as much sense as 3 + 3 = 7.
Many priests and religious do just that. They leave the world only to find multiple ways to rejoin it. Why leave in the first place?
The article in question is full of detraction and detraction has no place in the transcendent. I’m surprised that the webmaster allows it to remain on the site.
L
Lormar
Guest
First of all, I strongly suggest that in the name of humility, charity and decency we drop bringing up the “clown masses” at every turn. I’m 63 years old, have lived on four continents, five countries and I don’t remember how many dioceses and I have never seen a clown mass. They can’t be that popular or that common. I would have run into one by now. Trust me, I’ve run into every other nutjob in the Church.
I’m about to die and I’d like to die thinking that Catholics have more integrity than spend the gift of time whining. Pope Francis recently gave an excellent sermon on this subject and we should all, including me, take it to heart.
The problem with the article above is that it did not come from Bishop Fellay or the general council of the Society. It came from one SSPX priest. I’m not sure what his position is in the Society, nor do I care.
Any priest, brother, sister or Catholic layman who takes it upon himself to speak of popes condoning and participating in sacrilege is not worthy of my respect or my attention. When we make our vows, we make a vow of obedience. Obedience is much more than doing what we’re told. Obedience is doing what God wants. God does not want us to go around damaging the reputation of other people. God does not want us to go around judging other people. God does not want us to go around making statements about the state of a diocese without giving the context. And God does command us to submit to Peter.
If Christ has wanted his Church led by a genius without a stain of sin, he would have chosen St. John Baptist. Instead he chose Peter, the cowardly lion who denied him three times. Then humbly admitted that he loved him, three times. The lesson here, every cowardly lion deserves a chance.
Let me tell you the context from my first hand experience. Buenos Aires is the New York City of South America. It’s similar in climate, ethnic composition, more and lack of moral attitudes. It is also very much like European and American metropolitan areas where sex, drugs, relativism and political intrigue are the daily bread. If the Lord himself were the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, London, New York, Miami or Sydney, the people would still do their thing just as they did in Palestine 2,000 years ago.
It’s very easy to blame a bishop and to make him a scapegoat. It’s much more difficult to say the whole truth. Contemporary western culture is on a downward spiral. This is not the fault of any one bishop, any one council, anyone religion. It is what it is, a sociological phenomenon that has so many pieces to it that it will take us a very long time to understand it. The best that any bishop can do it to put out fires one at a time as he develops some long term plans in the hope that they work. Then he prays.
Any priest who makes such accusations against a bishop who has done him no harm and against popes who have done no harm, but fails to mention the context in which problems take place is not worthy of being called Father. I’d rather be an orphan than have such a man as a father.
:bighanky:
R
ringil
Guest
So how realistic is a hope for reconciliation when the SSPX publicly releases a statement criticizing the Holy Father?
How clear do they have to be?
How clear do they have to be?
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
That is my thinking as well. There was a very brief time last spring & summer when they (Fellay) spoke very well of Pope Benedict and the Church in general, but ever since their general chapter it has been back to the normal “eternal Rome” routine. It almost seems worse now after that “hiatus”; hopefully that’s just my disappoinment.
I think the best course now is for us to pray for and encourage families and priests to return to the Church individually rather than wait for a corporate return.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Yes indeed.
Each individual that displays allegiance to the SSPX ought to ask himself to whom he owes his obedience. To a schismatic organisation that blatantly defies, disobeys, and openly displays contempt for the Supreme Pontiff, or to the Supreme Pontiff of Christ’s Church on Earth?
There is nothing to stop individual priests or families from behaving as Christ wants them and joining in full union with the Catholic Church, there never has been.
D
Dee_S
Guest
:thumbsup:exactly!
L
Lormar
Guest
They owe their obedience to the Archbishop. That is how they think. And to “Eternal Rome”.
In their mind, they are behaving exactly as Christ would have them behave. They are saving the Church.
The Archbishop was the St. Athanasius of last century.
That is the reality of their thinking.
Anyone here who has spent any significant amount of time with them will know exactly what I am saying because they will recognize the thought process.
L
Lamentabili
Guest
To be fair, the Society claims that the letter in the OP was not a criticism of Pope Francis:
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0430-c-jackson-ncr-sspx.htm
Also, as the article points out, the portion quoted in the OP was not written by Bishop Fellay to Pope Francis, but was a quotation from a 1983 letter of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay was using to make a larger point.
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2013-0430-c-jackson-ncr-sspx.htm
Also, as the article points out, the portion quoted in the OP was not written by Bishop Fellay to Pope Francis, but was a quotation from a 1983 letter of Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay was using to make a larger point.
D
Dee_S
Guest
That does not seem to be the case this week.
See previous posts here about the article on their official website of May8 Will Pope Francis be able to rebuild the Church?, it is not sparing in criticizm or veiled insult in it’s suggestions to the contrary.
O
otjm
Guest
The claim is made.
However, if the evidence of the letter is coupled with the evidence of the most recent posting, do you thing a jury of 12 people would vote for acquittal on the first letter, or indicate that it was simply a smoke screen, and that the second matter, on the website provided sufficient evidence to contradict the statement following the letter that it was not taking a veiled shot at the Pope?
- Status