What the SSPX may do now

[bobbyva2001]

I hope it is not true, but it seems to me that SSPX is waiting for Assisi III in order to justify their response. Their meeting, and press release following the Albano meeting, did not suggest a spirit of unity. Also, comments recently made by Bishop Fellay have also been less than encouraging. One thing in particular he mentioned, was the fact that they look like the ‘bad guys’, if they do not say yes. There is probably a divide among their faithful, and Assisi will provide an alibi for a rejection of the preamble.

The society seems to be selective in their interpretation of doctrine. I have been disappointed when listening to various talks by Bishop Fellay. He lies to his followers by giving them a doom and gloom description of the current situation in the church. “Humanly speaking the Church is dead!”, he said in a recent address. He quotes some verses in scripture as specifically pertaining to the society. It seems, when listening to his talks, that he delights in these conflicts, as he carries on for hours about things that are of no spiritual value whatsoever. He spends more time protesting against Rome, and telling sensational stories, than he does giving spiritual direction. It is no wonder that there have been so many offshoots that have stemmed from the society during their short existence. They engender the same spirit of personal interpretation, and lack of respect for Christ given authority, as protestants. It also reminds me of Martin Luther, who had rallied for reform, and when he received a pope who began the reform he had hoped for, he persisted in his errors.

They claim to desire a return to tradition, but advise their faithful not to attend masses by the Fraternity of Saint Peter. Bishop Fellay knows better than the Holy Father I suppose.

 

[At_Trent]

I hope it is not true, but it seems to me that SSPX is waiting for Assisi III in order to justify their response. Their meeting, and press release following the Albano meeting, did not suggest a spirit of unity. Also, comments recently made by Bishop Fellay have also been less than encouraging. One thing in particular he mentioned, was the fact that they look like the ‘bad guys’, if they do not say yes. There is probably a divide among their faithful, and Assisi will provide an alibi for a rejection of the preamble.

The society seems to be selective in their interpretation of doctrine. I have been disappointed when listening to various talks by Bishop Fellay. He lies to his followers by giving them a doom and gloom description of the current situation in the church. “Humanly speaking the Church is dead!”, he said in a recent address. He quotes some verses in scripture as specifically pertaining to the society. It seems, when listening to his talks, that he delights in these conflicts, as he carries on for hours about things that are of no spiritual value whatsoever. He spends more time protesting against Rome, and telling sensational stories, than he does giving spiritual direction. It is no wonder that there have been so many offshoots that have stemmed from the society during their short existence. They engender the same spirit of personal interpretation, and lack of respect for Christ given authority, as protestants. It also reminds me of Martin Luther, who had rallied for reform, and when he received a pope who began the reform he had hoped for, he persisted in his errors.

They claim to desire a return to tradition, but advise their faithful not to attend masses by the Fraternity of Saint Peter. Bishop Fellay knows better than the Holy Father I suppose.

I suppose you must know better than the Bishop of Rome ?

Think you better write H.H. and warn him about the SSPX ? Surely your assessment of them must contain something Pope BXVI missed when the decision was made to try to get them to reconcile.

 

[At_Trent]

I hope it is not true, but it seems to me that SSPX is waiting for Assisi III in order to justify their response.

You do know that the Holy See chose the date to present the preamble, and they themselves set the time allotted for a response ?

 

[bobbyva2001]

What? I don’t think you understand what I said.

 

[bobbyva2001]

I suppose you must know better than the Bishop of Rome ?

Think you better write H.H. and warn him about the SSPX ? Surely your assessment of them must contain something Pope BXVI missed when the decision was made to try to get them to reconcile.

Reconciling would show a change, an improvement of the problem that I am describing. If there was no problem, there wouldn’t be a split and a need for reconciliation in the first place. Let’s hope and pray they will reconcile.

 

[corsair]

I think I got a little “lost” in that explanation.

 

[bobbyva2001]

I think I got a little “lost” in that explanation.

I’ll clarify, since my wording was a bit unorganized. Bishop Fellay recently said that if they reject the preamble they look like the bad guys. I think that the society may be waiting until Assisi III occurs, so that they can have a public example, that will support the reasons they may give for rejecting the preamble. Then they can say,“see this modernism. we cannot coexist with this”. That also would be useful to them in justifying the continuation of their cause, in separation from Rome. So they look less like “the bad guys”, and more like the heroic defenders of the faith, especially to their own followers, of whom they do not want to lose. Many of their followers are probably excited about the prospects of being regularized. If they were to give an abrupt rejection, it may be unsettling for many of their followers, and they may become disillusioned with the societies “mission”. By waiting until after Assisi, an event that is disliked by most of the far right, and is sure to draw ire from them, they gain a vindication for their cause and reduce the risk of losing followers.

This is speculation of course. I hope this is not the case.

 

[At_Trent]

Where is this "press release " suggesting disunity ? Also, where is documentation of Bishop Fellay’s comments you speak of ?

 

[mick321]

I’ll clarify, since my wording was a bit unorganized. Bishop Fellay recently said that if they reject the preamble they look like the bad guys. I think that the society may be waiting until Assisi III occurs, so that they can have a public example, that will support the reasons they may give for rejecting the preamble. Then they can say,“see this modernism. we cannot coexist with this”. That also would be useful to them in justifying the continuation of their cause, in separation from Rome. So they look less like “the bad guys”, and more like the heroic defenders of the faith, especially to their own followers, of whom they do not want to lose. Many of their followers are probably excited about the prospects of being regularized. If they were to give an abrupt rejection, it may be unsettling for many of their followers, and they may become disillusioned with the societies “mission”. By waiting until after Assisi, an event that is disliked by most of the far right, and is sure to draw ire from them, they gain a vindication for their cause and reduce the risk of losing followers.

This is speculation of course. I hope this is not the case.

Sounds like the Holy Father has an huge opportunity to beat these “heroic defenders of the faith” at their own game. He has offered the olive branch and so far Bishop Fellay appears to have balked.

This is be a blessing in disguise!

All the Holy Father has to do is combine his power of persuasion with a bit of Papal authority to persuade the organizers of Assisi III to put on an event with sufficient dignity as to merit his attendance.

Or is that too much to ask?

 

[bobbyva2001]

Where is this "press release " suggesting disunity ? Also, where is documentation of Bishop Fellay’s comments you speak of ?

youtube.com/watch?v=Ouhek50BRuM (In this talk he speaks about the church being dead, humanly speaking. (listen to all parts))

la-croix.com/Religion/S-informer/Actualite/Les-lefebvristes-hesitent-a-accepter-l-offre-de-Rome-EP-2011-10-09-721094

(this article is in french, and you will need to use google chrome to translate. This summarizes the comments of a talk he gave on Oct. 1st. In this talk he refers to being the “bad guys”, and his doubts of reunification. )

The press release is widely available, and on the sspx website. (oct. 7th)

 

[TrueLight]

youtube.com/watch?v=Ouhek50BRuM (In this talk he speaks about the church being dead, humanly speaking. (listen to all parts))

la-croix.com/Religion/S-informer/Actualite/Les-lefebvristes-hesitent-a-accepter-l-offre-de-Rome-EP-2011-10-09-721094

(this article is in french, and you will need to use google chrome to translate. This summarizes the comments of a talk he gave on Oct. 1st. In this talk he refers to being the “bad guys”, and his doubts of reunification. )

The press release is widely available, and on the sspx website. (oct. 7th)

The Youtube was uploaded in May 2011 and the talk itsef was in June 2009?

 

[At_Trent]

Those videos are old and the press release on the SSPX site and on DICI indicate no such thing.

You are welcome to your opinions and concerns, but they don’t have much to do with the issue at hand. Anyhow, carry on.

 

[bobbyva2001]

The Youtube was uploaded in May 2011 and the talk itsef was in June 2009?

OOk, you would have to read my original post to understand why I posted that. The talk has nothing to do with the preamble.

 

[bobbyva2001]

Those videos are old and the press release on the SSPX site and on DICI indicate no such thing.

You are welcome to your opinions and concerns, but they don’t have much to do with the issue at hand. Anyhow, carry on.

Are you reading what I have wrote, or are you deliberately trying to agitate. You asked me where I received my info. The videos contain the quote, “the church is dead humanly speaking”, and he quotes scripture as directly relating to the society. That had nothing to do with the preamble, and I never said it did. I was providing the source that I drew the quote from.

Second, the La Croix article, which you obviously did not read, had everything to do with the issue at hand. That was the second source, which spoke of the Society being the “bad guys” if they reject the preamble, and gives a summary of what Bishop Fellay said at a conference Oct. 1st.

Please inform yourself, and read the material, before you give replies.

 

[At_Trent]

Are you reading what I have wrote, or are you deliberately trying to agitate. You asked me where I received my info. The videos contain the quote, “the church is dead humanly speaking”, and he quotes scripture as directly relating to the society. That had nothing to do with the preamble, and I never said it did. I was providing the source that I drew the quote from.

Second, the La Croix article, which you obviously did not read, had everything to do with the issue at hand. That was the second source, which spoke of the Society being the “bad guys” if they reject the preamble, and gives a summary of what Bishop Fellay said at a conference Oct. 1st.

Please inform yourself, and read the material, before you give replies.

My point is, the Holy See has read and heard it all. They know what they are getting with the SSPX.

To question this reconciliation is to question not only the SSPX, but Rome as well. The only people who will want to hear the negative talk and doubts are the ones who don’t like the SSPX and never will. I doubt Rome cares what they think, nor does the SSPX.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I cannot wait for the SSPX to fully reconcile so that these kinds of threads can be a part of CAF history

 

[bobbyva2001]

My point is, the Holy See has read and heard it all. They know what they are getting with the SSPX.

I never questioned the decision for reconciliation, not once. I said that I hoped my speculation was not the case. I do however, dislike some of the things Bishop Fellay does in his talks. I feel he is dishonest to his following, and purposely creates and exaggerated picture of the situation in the church. In his defense, I will say that some of his perception may come from the fact that the society has a large presence in France, where the situation is indeed very bad.

Trust me, I would love for the society to reconcile, and become regularized. Even though I disagree with them on many points, I think their presence in the church would be a good thing. Many of the issues they raise need to be addressed, and their critiques will be helpful in bringing about the discussions.

Let’s pray it happens.

 

[SouthpawLink]

I hope it is not true, but it seems to me that SSPX is waiting for Assisi III in order to justify their response. Their meeting, and press release following the Albano meeting, did not suggest a spirit of unity. Also, comments recently made by Bishop Fellay have also been less than encouraging. One thing in particular he mentioned, was the fact that they look like the ‘bad guys’, if they do not say yes. There is probably a divide among their faithful, and Assisi will provide an alibi for a rejection of the preamble.

The society seems to be selective in their interpretation of doctrine. I have been disappointed when listening to various talks by Bishop Fellay. He lies to his followers by giving them a doom and gloom description of the current situation in the church. “Humanly speaking the Church is dead!”, he said in a recent address. He quotes some verses in scripture as specifically pertaining to the society. It seems, when listening to his talks, that he delights in these conflicts, as he carries on for hours about things that are of no spiritual value whatsoever. He spends more time protesting against Rome, and telling sensational stories, than he does giving spiritual direction. It is no wonder that there have been so many offshoots that have stemmed from the society during their short existence. They engender the same spirit of personal interpretation, and lack of respect for Christ given authority, as protestants. It also reminds me of Martin Luther, who had rallied for reform, and when he received a pope who began the reform he had hoped for, he persisted in his errors.

They claim to desire a return to tradition, but advise their faithful not to attend masses by the Fraternity of Saint Peter. Bishop Fellay knows better than the Holy Father I suppose.

1. The Catechism is selective in its presentation of doctrine. Where oh where is the mention of the Social Kingship of Christ and the duty of every nation to profess and protect the true religion? Paragraph 2105 barely hints at it.
2. There is good reason for doom and gloom because of the massive drop in vocations after the Second Vatican Council, as well as the extremely poor catechesis of the 1970s-80s. Even today, polls show that many Catholics do not believe in a number of the major doctrines (such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, or the evil of abortion). What’s more, that which used to be a grave mortal sin against divine law – common liturgical worship between Catholics and non-Catholics – is now outright encouraged by the Holy See (which is quite different from the rare exceptions allowed by Pontiffs in the past to Catholics who could not otherwise receive the sacraments from Catholic priests).
3. I didn’t much enjoy then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal interpretation of the still-binding anti-Modernist magisterial documents (regarding religious liberty and Scripture) of the early 20th century as having been merely “provisional polic[ies]” and “in need of correction,” and which – according to him – were in fact to be later “superceded” (The Nature and Mission of Theology, p. 106).

 

[moon1234]

Until we know what the contents of the preamble are, we are all just guessing.

The SSPX needs to discuss the preable and come up with a response. Most people are assuming this must be a we accept or we reject answer. It may be nothing of the sort.

What “I” think will most likely happen is they will not be bound to accept any of the non-de fide “teachings” of VII. They will be given an official structure just like the feneyites were.

The problem here is that the SSPX is much much larger than any of the other groups were that were granted their own structure. Arguably they are larger even than the Anglicans who are coming over. They are larger than the Syrian or Coptic Churchs, which are in full communion with Rome.

The SSPX claim a latin tradition and so this makes it much harder to accept them in the official latin structure since they point out flaws in the modern latin Church.

Pope Benedict XVI wants this to happen. The SSPX know this. I believe something good will come from this.

 

[bobbyva2001]

1. The Catechism is selective in its presentation of doctrine. Where oh where is the mention of the Social Kingship of Christ and the duty of every nation to profess and protect the true religion? Paragraph 2105 barely hints at it.
2. There is good reason for doom and gloom because of the massive drop in vocations after the Second Vatican Council, as well as the extremely poor catechesis of the 1970s-80s. Even today, polls show that many Catholics do not believe in a number of the major doctrines (such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, or the evil of abortion). What’s more, that which used to be a grave mortal sin against divine law – common liturgical worship between Catholics and non-Catholics – is now outright encouraged by the Holy See (which is quite different from the rare exceptions allowed by Pontiffs in the past to Catholics who could not otherwise receive the sacraments from Catholic priests).
3. I didn’t much enjoy then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s personal interpretation of the still-binding anti-Modernist magisterial documents (regarding religious liberty and Scripture) of the early 20th century as having been merely “provisional polic[ies]” and “in need of correction,” and which – according to him – were in fact to be later “superceded” (The Nature and Mission of Theology, p. 106).

1. ""to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.“31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.”(catechism)

Hardly a hint. If you dislike the semantics here, the pope has spoken of this doctrine several times in other places.

1. While I agree with your assessment of vocations and the faithful, there is difference between pessimism and declaring the Church,“dead, humanly speaking”. That is sensationalism. Changes in culture outside of the Church, have largely contributed to the permissive morals of today. While part of the blame lies inside of the Church(improper catechism, etc.), we cannot ignore the exterior influences when speaking of these problems.

 The Vatican has never encouraged common liturgical worship.  They have been accepting of common ecumenical prayer services, but common liturgical worship, in explicitly Catholic services, is never encouraged.   Vatican II speaks on this subject.

1. I do not follow the pope based on the merits of his “personal interpretations”. I follow the Church that contains the Sacred Magisterium, of which I can be sure. The Papacy is a mark of that Church.