|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 21, 2010 11:27:31 GMT
Fr. Zuhlsdorf reports on the latest looney nonsense from Bishop Williamson Here are the schismatic's thoughts on the prospects for the SSPX-Vatican dialogue: EXTRACT Panet [interviewer - french 'anti-Zionist' politician] : And what do you know of the latest between the negotiations between the Fraternity [Society of St Pius X] and the Vatican? Williamson: I think it will finish by becoming a dialogue of the deaf, because of two things. One: The two positions in themselves are irreconcilable. For example 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 it’s irreconcilable. Therefore of three things, one: either they say 2+2=4 , enounce reality and say 2+2=5 –that is to say the Fraternity would abandon the truth that God forbids us to do or that those who say that 2+2=5 convert and return to the truth or the two come half-way, that means everyone decides that 2+2=4 ½ . It’s wrong. Therefore, either the Fraternity betrays itself or Rome converts, or it is a dialogue of the deaf. END OF EXTRACT wdtprs.com/blog/2010/01/sspx-bp-williamsons-interview-pierre-danet-extreme-right-french-politician/#comments
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jan 25, 2010 16:05:37 GMT
Here we go again!
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 26, 2010 13:22:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 27, 2010 11:23:28 GMT
I am in two minds about Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger. On one hand they come out with stuff like this, which is good and should be welcomed. On the other, Father Schmidberger was very vocal about the theological responsibility of the Jews for the crucifixion.
To use an analogy from secular politics, they may be in a position similar to Gerry Adams prior to the cease-fire. Adams was trying the bring Provisional Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA towards a peace process, but to do that meant bringing the most radical people in the republican movement with him. Therefore he took a lot of controversial steps, like carrying the coffin of a PIRA volunteer and like the 'They haven't gone away, you know' remark which gained him opprobium at the time.
But I don't think the SSPX have learned anything - they see their business as teaching rather than learning in any case. I don't believe they will reconcile. Even if they did, it would take time before they were any use. They need to unlearn the material ecclesiology they have been living in since 1988, the ecclesiology of 'eternal Rome' vs 'modernist Rome'. This ecclesiology is not Catholic, it's Protestant.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 31, 2010 21:43:03 GMT
I am in two minds about Bishop Fellay and Father Schmidberger. On one hand they come out with stuff like this, which is good and should be welcomed. On the other, Father Schmidberger was very vocal about the theological responsibility of the Jews for the crucifixion. It is hard to assess these and other utterances from SSPX figures. Bishop Williamson is very clearly at the outer extreme, even though his letters on the Internet are often on their own terms quite impressive. On the other hand, I have been told by a priest who knew them well and had worked with them that Bishop Fellay's election as Superior General was a setback for those who hoped for reconciliation with Rome, whereas the other most likely candidate, Fr Schmidberger, was more in the line of Archbishop Lefebvre and would have tried to achieve it. Is it true to say that the longer the separation continues, the harder it will be to overcome?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 31, 2010 23:14:13 GMT
I would say th elonger the separation continues the harder it will be to overcome. You are getting a generation coming up who were born into the schism and who have defined themselves by opposition to Rome, whereas archbishop Lefebvre had passed most of his life in communion with Rome and knew its importance. The same development is visible in CHRISTIAN ORDER magazine (albeint not going the whole length of schism) - the old pre-conciliar Catholic actionists who write for it under Paul crane have mostly died off and been replaced by people who take antagonism to "Rome" as a given.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 3, 2010 16:14:28 GMT
It is clear the longer the split lasts the harder it will be to heal, but I think the question is rather has it gone on too long? The conclusion of the talks will give a definitive answer.
With regard to Bishop Fellay's election as superior general - I think the problem was his episcopacy rather than his personality. Mgr LeFebvre reportedly did not want a bishop to fill that role, firstly because of his status as an excommunicatus at the time (whatever they thought about the excommunication) and secondly because of the appearance of an ersatz church headed by a bishop. I think that some radicals in the SSPX supported Fellay's election to scupper the prospects of reconciliation and I am glad the bishop himself rose above it. Still the future of the SSPX is opaque. They either wither outside the Church - and I don't know how they would integrate in the Church.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Feb 4, 2010 12:27:14 GMT
It was not Archbishop LeFebvre who started the Schism, it was the Second Vatican Council which began the heretical changes to the Mass and the abandonment of the Tridentine Mass. That means the Roman Catholic Church is outside the True Church.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 4, 2010 12:33:54 GMT
It was not Archbishop LeFebvre who started the Schism, it was the Second Vatican Council which began the heretical changes to the Mass and the abandonment of the Tridentine Mass. That means the Roman Catholic Church is outside the True Church. Eccless, are you SSPX or sedevac ? Sounds to me sedevac. That's new ! After the Atheists, we have to deal with sedevac. Interesting though. Personnaly i prefer to discuss with sedevac. ;D
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2010 13:11:44 GMT
Eccles is an atheist who is muddying the waters. Eccles, this is your first warning. As a self-declared atheist you are only allowed to post in the Open Forum. If you post outside it again your post will be deleted; do it a second time and you'll be banned.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 4, 2010 14:01:46 GMT
In relation to Alasdair's last point - My understanding is that the reason Mgr Lefebvre did not want the Superior of SSPX to be a bishop was that he claimed that he had consecrated his bishops only to exercise the power of orders and not jurisdiction and hence they were not schismatic. (This seems a pretty odd distinction, given that the right to confer orders and grant faculties is an aspect of jurisdiction.) The SSPX superior does unquestionably exercise a form of jurisdiction, so by this reasoning having a bishop as superior calls the distinction into question. Here is an odd comment from a recent post on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog about the SSPX (link to full post and comments below). Non-celebration of Christmas seems a most extraordinary stance for any liturgically-based denomination, let alone one claiming to be Catholic. I suspect a degree of unacknowledged Protestant influence (it refers to some SSPX in North America, still experiencing the spiritual fruits of Bishop Williamson's labours). Msgr.Lefebvre was no Calvinist and exuded Charity to those who supported him from within the Diocesan Church. Unfortunately, there exists an element within SSPX which is Calvinist to the extreme [non-celebration of Christmas being the latest manifestation]where their pastors are prone to let-loose a pack of zealots on those who fail to conform to their pastors’ addled ideas of pre-Vatican II Catholicism – of which they have entirely no experience. Preaching from the pulpit against a discerned miscreant – very ‘Wee Free’ Calvinism. Lack of Charity and ‘understanding’ by elements of SSPX towards ‘Diocesan Catholics’ must be a sin, the latter have been misled by false pastors and must be brought back to sanity – but not by haranguing them as “heretics”. That element of SSPX clergy who are driven by angst to vilify their brothers in FSSP and Redemptorists in Orkney must guilty of mortal sin. My own experience of SSPX clergy has witnessed good relations with Diocesan clergy, Traditionalist Order bretheren and Anglo-Catholic clergy. Not to mention reprobates in the wider population. TRue Catholicism in action! Comment by Sixupman — 4 February 2010 @ 3:36 am wdtprs.com/blog/2010/02/still-hacking-away-at-the-sspx-book/
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 4, 2010 15:38:16 GMT
It was not Archbishop LeFebvre who started the Schism, it was the Second Vatican Council which began the heretical changes to the Mass and the abandonment of the Tridentine Mass. That means the Roman Catholic Church is outside the True Church. Eccless, are you SSPX or sedevac ? Sounds to me sedevac. That's new ! After the Atheists, we have to deal with sedevac. Interesting though. Personnaly i prefer to discuss with sedevac. ;D Get a grip, Guillaume, this is a wind up. Though Eccles does state the sedevacantist case very well. If I ever bump into an alternative pope, I'll recommennd Eccles for the red hat.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 4, 2010 15:51:36 GMT
Here is an odd comment from a recent post on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog about the SSPX (link to full post and comments below). Non-celebration of Christmas seems a most extraordinary stance for any liturgically-based denomination, let alone one claiming to be Catholic. I suspect a degree of unacknowledged Protestant influence (it refers to some SSPX in North America, still experiencing the spiritual fruits of Bishop Williamson's labours). Msgr.Lefebvre was no Calvinist and exuded Charity to those who supported him from within the Diocesan Church.
Unfortunately, there exists an element within SSPX which is Calvinist to the extreme [non-celebration of Christmas being the latest manifestation]where their pastors are prone to let-loose a pack of zealots on those who fail to conform to their pastors’ addled ideas of pre-Vatican II Catholicism – of which they have entirely no experience. Preaching from the pulpit against a discerned miscreant – very ‘Wee Free’ Calvinism.
Lack of Charity and ‘understanding’ by elements of SSPX towards ‘Diocesan Catholics’ must be a sin, the latter have been misled by false pastors and must be brought back to sanity – but not by haranguing them as “heretics”. That element of SSPX clergy who are driven by angst to vilify their brothers in FSSP and Redemptorists in Orkney must guilty of mortal sin.
Comment by Sixupman — 4 February 2010 @ 3:36 am wdtprs.com/blog/2010/02/still-hacking-away-at-the-sspx-book/This is scary, but there is an element in the trad movement (including the indult movement) that have this bizarre view of the world, that are Jansenist or Calvinist. A friend of mine calls them neo-Manichaean. This is an extreme version of it. Yes, I am horrified. I agree with Hibernicus that there is a hint of Protestantism in this and I certainly think Richard Williamson's influence is pertinent.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 4, 2010 15:53:01 GMT
BTW, both the place name and family name 'Eccles' is derived from the Latin 'ecclesia'. Perhaps Eccles is a church in his own right.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 5, 2010 12:07:00 GMT
The Church of Me, perhaps. A lot of atheists seem to worship at that church.
Lest we be too hasty, here's a quote from James Hogg's MEMOIRS AND CONFESSIONS OF A JUSTIFIED SINNER. The narrator is an extreme Calvinist whose pride is leading him into the clutches of the devil, who appears to him in human form and leads him to commit all sorts of crimes in the belief that he can do no wrong as he is saved. At this point the narrator thinks he is talking to the Czar of Russia: "Are many of your subjects Christians, o mighty prince?" "All my European subjects are Christians, and they are the most faithful subjects I have."
|
|