|
Post by monkeyman on Jun 30, 2008 21:09:29 GMT
Courtesy of "Sacristy Rat" at Rorate Caeli
"YEP, SLOW DOWN HERE, "PUT A LITTLE CEMENT ON YOR SHOES", NO NEED TO RESTORE YOUR REPLATIONSHIP WITH ROME AFTER YOU WORKED FOR YEARS TO CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE ONE CAN BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC WITHOUT UNION WITH ROME."
28 June, 2008 13:20
Pretty much sums up the SSPX attutude to the Church of Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 1, 2008 10:02:26 GMT
I don't like to say that's a good summary, but that is a good summary.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 2, 2008 14:51:00 GMT
Look what the Transalpine Redemptorists, who if anything were more out on a limb than the SSPX, have to say: papastronsay.blogspot.com/index.htmlTUESDAY, JULY 01, 2008 Canonical Good Standing 1 July, 2008 Feast of the Precious Blood My dear friends, I am happy to inform you that last June 18th, before Cardinal Castrillon and the members of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in Rome, I humbly petitioned the Holy See on my own behalf and on behalf of the monastery council for our priestly suspensions to be lifted. On June 26th I received word that the Holy See had granted our petition. All canonical censures have been lifted. Our community now truly rejoices in undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See because our priests are now in canonical good standing. We are very grateful to our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI for issuing, last July, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum which called us to come into undisputed and peaceful Communion with him. Now we have that undisputed communion! It is a pearl of great price; a treasure hidden in the field; a sweetness that cannot be imagined by those who have not tasted it or who have not known it, now for many years. Its value cannot be fully expressed in earthly language and therefore we hope that all traditional priests who have not yet done so, will answer Pope Benedict's call to enjoy the grace of peaceful and undisputed communion with him. Believe us, the price to pay is nothing; even all the angry voices that have shouted against us and calumniated us are as nothing when weighed in the scales against undisputed communion with the Vicar of Christ; others have died for it; what are raucous voices? We publicly thank all those souls who have prayed for us over the last months; some of you have truly stormed heaven for us. You have kept us afloat. We are deeply grateful. Especially we thank that priest who was unknown to us, until June 16th when he wrote in fraternal support. Where did he come from? Why us? But he told us of the number of Masses, Offices, prayers and sacrifices he had personally said for us; he had also enlisted the prayers of contemplatives and Third Order societies and had a great number of people fervently praying for us with an abundance of prayers. We were amazed! Thank you Father! Thank you also to that brave person who, so kindly wrote to us to say that if he said any more prayers for us he would be floating! What wonderful people! Thank you! Looking to the future, the next stage will be to have our community canonically erected. So please, dear friends, keep praying for us, there will be many crosses to bear; but they will be yokes sweetened by the grace of these last days. We assure you all of our very best wishes. Your devoted servant, Fr. Michael Mary, C.SS.R. Vicar General
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 2, 2008 23:27:59 GMT
The response of the Redemptorists is fair and is a good news. I have another good news :
WEDNESDAY, JULY 02, 2008
Castrillón satisfied with SSPX answer SSPX will give heed to the five points From the blog of Andrea Tornielli (Vatican correspondent for Il Giornale):
I have learned from secure sources that, contrary to what has appeared in certain articles, the response of the Fraternity [of Saint Pius X - FSSPX/SSPX] to the letter of Cardinal Castrillón has not in fact been negative. The Cardinal is satisfied with it, has responded to Fellay, and has promptly delivered the letter of the Fraternity to Benedict XVI. After the deadline of the end of June, the Lefebvrists [sic] ask for time but - it seems - they will aim to respect the five points. Labels: Decision 2008
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 3, 2008 9:23:32 GMT
Willy,
There is nothing new in what you have told us. Things have been the same way since Benedict XVI was elected Pope.
When either the SSPX reconcile or the Pope issues a mass excommunication and formal declaration of schism - then there will be news. But ongoing dialogue is not newsworthy.
Alaisdir.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 3, 2008 9:51:20 GMT
This ultimatum is newsworthy. I start to know what your opinion is about the SPPX. Most of the time You mention the Society with total disrespect and despise. I don't think this is a real charitable attitude, above all for a Trad'. You are misleading and misjudging I think. This attitude will lead to nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 3, 2008 10:09:35 GMT
Willy,
The ultimatum would be newsworthy if it was an ultimatum. It wasn't. It was made into an ultimatum by people like Andrea Tornielli and the crew in Rorate Coeli and such commentators.
With regard to the SSPX, I began to view them with a lot of sympathy, starting in 1988. I defended them and defended their positions. I attended their Masses. I would hold the canonical sanctions against the SSPX are extraneous to any issue regarding the society - that from my point of view they are irrelevant. I know a lot of good people who have attended and continue to attend society Masses.
What I have found is that the Society have over the years developed a sectarian mentality. They have seen themselves and their supporters as better than ordinary Catholics, that they have been in a position to judge the Pope and bishops in communion with him, and other Catholics. They have questioned the Catholicism of ordinary Catholics, even in cases where these Catholics were doing things which no one saw a problem with before the Second Vatican Council - for example, watching television and women wearing trousers (even if it wasn't so common then as it is now). Some readers reading this will think I am trivialising the issue. Unfortunately I am not - the frequency with which these themes appear in SSPX sermons and publications seem to indicate that as far as the society is concerned, these are two of the worst of all capital sins. I also have questions about the quality of the training with candidates for the priesthood receive in SSPX seminaries. Beyond a sophistication in polemics regarding the society's position in the Church, it seems very shallow. I also have seen the effect that long term exclusive attendance at society chapels has had on members of the faithful and as a result I find allegations coming from the likes of E. Michael Jones on cultism which I used to dismiss as all too credible.
Willy, the SSPX has to re-unite itself with the Church of Christ or it will just develop into another sect and it is well on the way of doing that. The Holy See is being very lenient with it. And that so-called ultimatum was nothing more than an ambiguous request for clarification. If I am being uncharitable, it is not to the SSPX, it is to the Holy See. The SSPX need a real ultimatum to focus themselves. And we need to pray in such circumstances that they accept. But I have my doubts, even if I am not as forthright about them as Monkeyman.
Alaisdir.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 3, 2008 12:50:12 GMT
Willy, The ultimatum would be newsworthy if it was an ultimatum. It wasn't. It was made into an ultimatum by people like Andrea Tornielli and the crew in Rorate Coeli and such commentators. With regard to the SSPX, I began to view them with a lot of sympathy, starting in 1988. I defended them and defended their positions. I attended their Masses. I would hold the canonical sanctions against the SSPX are extraneous to any issue regarding the society - that from my point of view they are irrelevant. I know a lot of good people who have attended and continue to attend society Masses. What I have found is that the Society have over the years developed a sectarian mentality. They have seen themselves and their supporters as better than ordinary Catholics, that they have been in a position to judge the Pope and bishops in communion with him, and other Catholics. They have questioned the Catholicism of ordinary Catholics, even in cases where these Catholics were doing things which no one saw a problem with before the Second Vatican Council - for example, watching television and women wearing trousers (even if it wasn't so common then as it is now). Some readers reading this will think I am trivialising the issue. Unfortunately I am not - the frequency with which these themes appear in SSPX sermons and publications seem to indicate that as far as the society is concerned, these are two of the worst of all capital sins. I also have questions about the quality of the training with candidates for the priesthood receive in SSPX seminaries. Beyond a sophistication in polemics regarding the society's position in the Church, it seems very shallow. I also have seen the effect that long term exclusive attendance at society chapels has had on members of the faithful and as a result I find allegations coming from the likes of E. Michael Jones on cultism which I used to dismiss as all too credible. Willy, the SSPX has to re-unite itself with the Church of Christ or it will just develop into another sect and it is well on the way of doing that. The Holy See is being very lenient with it. And that so-called ultimatum was nothing more than an ambiguous request for clarification. If I am being uncharitable, it is not to the SSPX, it is to the Holy See. The SSPX need a real ultimatum to focus themselves. And we need to pray in such circumstances that they accept. But I have my doubts, even if I am not as forthright about them as Monkeyman. Alaisdir. I agree with you again.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jul 4, 2008 20:51:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 7, 2008 22:42:05 GMT
Its gas is'nt it Michael? The SSPX drew most of their adhereants from people who were disaffected with the liturgical reform...now that that issue has been addressed by His Holiness they move the goalposts and say its doctrinal now.Theres no hope. At least when it was about the Mass they made positive statements in the past even I dare say it Fr Richard Willaimson who in 1984 thought Pope John Paul II "Quatuuor abhinc annos" was great news-you wouldnt find him saying that now....and some people here dont think they are extreme! what a laugh!
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 7, 2008 23:26:44 GMT
[/quote]The SSPX drew most of their adhereants from people who were disaffected with the liturgical reform...now that that issue has been addressed by His Holiness they move the goalposts and say its doctrinal now.[/quote]
Untrue. They have not moved the goalposts. They have always thought the same. They have always seen the issue as primarily doctrinal and secondarily, as an effect, liturgical. Sample quote from Lefebvre in 1988: This aberrant ecumenism has brought in its train all the reforms of the liturgy, of the Bible, of canon law, with the collegiality that destroys the personal authority of the Supreme Pontiff, of the episcopacy and of the parish priest....This spirit is not Catholic; it is the fruit of the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X....It will soon be twenty years now that we have been striving with patience and firmness to get the Roman authorities to understand this need for a return to sane doctrine and Tradition, for a renewal of the Church, for the salvation of souls and for the glory of God. In fact, you can go to any SSPX website to see precisely the same ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 8, 2008 15:41:07 GMT
Monkeyman is right. In the 1970s, Archbishop Lefebvre continually addressed the point to Paul VI - all we want is the Mass. Many SSPX priests and students took him at his word - that is why there is now a St Peter's Fraternity. But the SSPX then decided the issue was the faith.
Benedict XVI got it right in the accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum - that the traditional Mass was just a visible sign of external unity for the adherents. In secular terms the focus of a protest movement.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 8, 2008 21:59:28 GMT
The SSPX drew most of their adhereants from people who were disaffected with the liturgical reform...now that that issue has been addressed by His Holiness they move the goalposts and say its doctrinal now.[/quote] Untrue. They have not moved the goalposts. They have always thought the same. They have always seen the issue as primarily doctrinal and secondarily, as an effect, liturgical. Sample quote from Lefebvre in 1988: This aberrant ecumenism has brought in its train all the reforms of the liturgy, of the Bible, of canon law, with the collegiality that destroys the personal authority of the Supreme Pontiff, of the episcopacy and of the parish priest....This spirit is not Catholic; it is the fruit of the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X....It will soon be twenty years now that we have been striving with patience and firmness to get the Roman authorities to understand this need for a return to sane doctrine and Tradition, for a renewal of the Church, for the salvation of souls and for the glory of God.In fact, you can go to any SSPX website to see precisely the same ideas.[/quote] Hahaahahah please please please your making the argument for me!! Ah yes I remember well the days when the SSPX would protest outside "Indult Masses" with placards calling the Mass Satanic and the"Insult Mass" ahh God be with the days...they don't make Pixies like they used to judging from some of this.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 8, 2008 23:17:33 GMT
Has anyone actually read, or can quote, any BOOK by Lefebvre? In my hand I have "They have uncrowned Him" published in 1988 and it clearly shows that Lefebvre very much saw doctrinal problems all along. It was never a case of just, simply, the Mass. If you continue to maintain this without proof, I repeat, where is your evidence? I continually quote sources. Where is your source? Monkeyman, you said that the SSPX are changing the goalposts; I proved they are not by quoting from their 1988 material; you say that I am making your argument! Does anyone else on this board see a lack of logic?
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 10, 2008 11:39:31 GMT
I think Monkeyman is referring the gulf between the SSPX's official and actual positions.
|
|