|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 27, 2017 7:45:19 GMT
O.k. The next time a mixed bag of miscellaneous Protestant ministers show up at Knock unannounced and are accommodated,I'll be totally with the SSPX.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Sept 27, 2017 9:20:28 GMT
O.k. The next time a mixed bag of miscellaneous Protestant ministers show up at Knock unannounced and are accommodated,I'll be totally with the SSPX. Ha. Fair point. I guess it's a measure of the culture wars in the Church right now. Conservatives are primed to believe the worst of "the institutional Church", as our ACP friends used to style it. I must admit, I assumed the worst of this story when I read it. But why wouldn't the SSPX ask permission? Were they trying to stir up controversy?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 27, 2017 15:04:32 GMT
The SSPX, in American, don't do asking permission. That's compromising with the conciliar Church.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2017 22:00:21 GMT
This week's CATHOLIC HERALD says the SSPX asked for permission last year and were turned down. That suggests they didn't ask permission because they knew they wouldn't get it and just went ahead anyway. Very postconciliar behaviour, I suggest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2020 20:00:21 GMT
There was a great talk given at the annual SSPX Knock conference this year covering the history of the SSPX in Ireland. Mr. Kennedy mentions an interesting anecdote of a young Gerard Deighan, now parish priest of the Dublin Latin Mass Chaplaincy, sneaking out of seminary and visiting the SSPX chapel in Dún Laoghaire to meet with Archbishop Lefebvre. youtu.be/Mfp5L0NLfvI
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 8, 2022 18:59:03 GMT
This piece on the anti-cult site Dialogue Ireland strikes me as symptomatic of problems ahead: (1) It does pick up some problems with the SSPX, and still more with the SSPX-Resistance (extreme deference to priests, for example). At the same time, it is unfair to make the SSPX responsible for everything the SSPX-Resistance does; the latter is a breakaway group after all. (2) The author's equation of high-demand religions with cults, and suggestion that the government should criminalise "coercive control" by religious groups is extremely dubious and has serious implications for religious freedom. Any seriously-held religion makes demands on its followers' lifestyles; were the early Methodists a cult, for example? Unless careful distinctions are made - and they are not made in the article - this could take us right back to the pinch of incense at the emperor's statue. I'm not saying that the author is not sincere or that there are not real problems - I'm saying that the alternative offered comes dangerously close to religious persecution, and certainly implies the government knows what people's religious beliefs should be better than the people do themselves. dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2021/11/26/society-of-st-pius-x/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 11, 2022 16:42:00 GMT
|
|