|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 4, 2008 12:22:40 GMT
To discuss the motu proprio and the LMSI is a little off the point in a thread that deals with the SSPX. But let's analyse a bit of what Hibernicus has said.
Let us put up a Mass in every diocese. The SSPX has chapels in 3 (Dublin, Elphin and Cork & Ross) - but only Dublin has a daily Mass, every Sunday Masses in a further two - Down & Connor and Dromore; and monthly Masses in another two: Cashel & Emly and Kerry. This is with six priests and a lay brother.
Now the Indult situation overall which is what the LMSI broadly concerns itself: Dioceses with every day Masses - Dublin (St Kevin's) and Tuam; Weekly - Dublin (meaning Newtownmountkennedy in Wicklow) and Raphoe (Bruckless); twice monthly - Cork and Ross; Monthly - Limerick (Institute of Christ the King, at least one Sunday a month), Kerry, Cashel & Emly (Glengoole), Kildare & Leighlin (FSSP), Raphoe (Golan), Down & Connor, Dublin. Occasional (More than once a year): Dromore, Armagh, Meath, Galway-Kilmacduagh-Kilfenora. Annual: Tuam (Knock, Ballintubber Abbey, Aughagower), Achonry (Cathedral), Elphin (Holy Well), Raphoe (Cathedral), Dublin (Glendalough), Ferns (Pugin Chapel in Edermine House), Kildare & Leighlin (Kildare Town), Armagh (Drogheda), Cashel & Emly (Holy Cross Abbey), Waterford & Lismore (Mount Melleray), Killaloe (Roscrea Abbey). Not fixed: Ardagh & Clonmacnois, Cloyne, Ossory. Not covered: Killala, Clonfert, Clogher, Kilmore. Private Masses - Ferns, Meath, Killala and Cloyne.
The LMSI president consistently said permission ceased to be an issue before Summorum Pontificum, manpower, resources and available priests continue to be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 20, 2008 1:25:36 GMT
How unusual is the SSPX leadership structure by comparison with religious orders/associations generally? My understanding is that it is very authoritarian and top-down, much more so than most religious orders; that the superiors (a small group) are all appointed by te head who in turn is elected by the superiors, and that this was instituted precisely to make sure that the direction of the SSPX could never be altered by a grassroots revolt such as Archbishop Lefebvre experienced when he headed the Holy Ghost Fathers. On the other hand, I hear there was a genuine contest between Bishops Williamson and Fellay last time, which would imply it is not as monolithic as all that. Can anyone shed further light on this?
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 16, 2009 0:03:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 16, 2009 18:53:14 GMT
The link doesn't work, Michael G. Can you tell us who you're talking about?
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 17, 2009 0:42:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jan 19, 2009 15:15:50 GMT
Michael,
I scared my kids last night by switching on the you-tube video of Dickie Williamson, but I had watched the entire 'sermon' on an earlier occasion. And it is unbelievable, but not so unbelievable as some of the admiring comments posted at the end of it. One must seriously question the wisdom of Archbishop LeFebvre in choosing such a man to inherit the mantle of the apostles.
Alaisdir Ua Seaghdha.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 19, 2009 19:02:34 GMT
One must seriously question the wisdom of Archbishop LeFebvre in choosing such a man to inherit the mantle of the apostles. Indeed. However I am told by a priest who associated formerly with SSPX but has long since disengaged from them (because of their increasingly sectarian and schismatic outlook) that apart from the anti-Semitism common among Englishmen of his class and background Williamson wasn't always quite as eccentric as he is now. He also tells me, by the way, that Archbishop Lefebvre made known his wish that the SSPX Superior should always be a priest, not one of the bishops.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2009 12:00:25 GMT
The rationale for the idea that the SSPX superior ought always to be a priest rather than a bishop was that Lefebvre wanted to limit the scope of the schism - his argument was that because of the liturgical emergency it was necessary to exercise the power of orders without due authorisation, but that the SSPX was not laying claim to episcopal jurisdiction, and therefore the SSPX superior (who would, according to the SSPX, have valid jurisdiction based on the claim that the withdrawal of canonical permission for the SSPX was invalid) should be a priest to make it clear that he was not claiming authority by virtue of being a bishop. This was always rather a phoney distinction - every time the SSPX come into a diocese, consecrate a church, say Mass and administer the Sacraments without faculties they are usurping jurisdiction. The logic of the SSPX mindset, at least as it exists now, is that they should become full-fledged sedevacantists and that the head of the society should declare himself Pope. I think Archbishop Lefebvre anticipated this (he regularly expelled priests or seminarians who declared themselves sedevacantists) and was trying to guard against it by warning that the head of the SSPX should not be a bishop.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jan 23, 2009 11:03:03 GMT
I agree with Hibernicus. The SSPX behave to all intents and purposes like their own show - call them quasi-sedes. But they argue hotly against it when cornered and you get the spiel about Absp Lefebvre being the new Athanasius (and I see on politics.ie this morning, one of his Belfast supporters is an even worse speller than I am). This is nonsense.
I think Fellay knows the story, but I am not sure about the other three bishops, let alone a lot of clergy. Some idiot in the West of Ireland was talking on politics.ie about the academic rigour of their bishops. Are ye havin' me on? Tissier de Mallerais thinks the world is going to end any day soon. Williamson, as we know, is educating the world on the merits of the late Austro-German Führer, Herr Adolf Schicklgrüber Hitler (is he going to request the advancement of the latter's cause for canonisation as a pre-condition?) De Garraletta (spelling?) isn't saying very much, but then Latin America was supposed to be his watch. After a couple of years, they had to head down there and consecrate another bishop (more excommunication).
As for the priests - dress codes, evils of television - come on, lads, this isn't the true Catholic Church, this is a freak show.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 28, 2009 0:34:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 6, 2009 4:37:58 GMT
One must seriously question the wisdom of Archbishop LeFebvre in choosing such a man to inherit the mantle of the apostles. Indeed. However I am told by a priest who associated formerly with SSPX but has long since disengaged from them (because of their increasingly sectarian and schismatic outlook) that apart from the anti-Semitism common among Englishmen of his class and background Williamson wasn't always quite as eccentric as he is now. He also tells me, by the way, that Archbishop Lefebvre made known his wish that the SSPX Superior should always be a priest, not one of the bishops. Its quite certain poor Mons Lefebvre started to go a bit dotty in his later years....we all have proof of that. However, whats amazing is this...all his initial students who sought him out have now left the SSPX. There isnt one left...Fr Aulagnier being one of the last. The way they look now makes Lefebvre look very Catholic ineed.Oh the irony of it all.God plays nasty tricks sometimes on the p(pixies)roud
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 19, 2009 15:11:43 GMT
I think the SSPX is in ever decreasing circles and only sorting out the mess through the talks can help.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 19, 2009 17:19:54 GMT
Re: Askel's last post on this thread - I don't know anything about Galaretta but, to be fair, the consecration of Bishop Rifan was not because of his incapacity but because of the special situation in Campos where there had been a significant schism within the diocese after Bishop Castro Mayer (who refused to implement the NO) was forced into retirement. Rifan was not a SSPX bishop - Campos had its own structure which was reconciled to Rome separately a few years ago, amidst much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Pixies. (If the Rorate Caeli posters are correct, the Brazilian bishops have done all they could to limit the ability of Rifan's Society of St. Jean Vianney to function outside Campos, which has not been an encouraging precedent for the SSPX.)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 24, 2009 14:46:20 GMT
Here's an interesting discussion from the "Against the Grain" (aka Ratzinger Fan Club) blogspot about the centrality of the dispute over Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty to the SSPX. Essentially, the SSPX believe that the only acceptable church and state arrangement is a "throne and altar" one in which the state expressly recognises Catholicism as the true religionand all others as false. The issue which the post addresses is whether the "American model" (not necessarily as it exists at present, but as it would be interpreted in principle by someone like the late Fr. Neuhaus) is acceptable as a Catholic, or even THE Catholic model of Church-state relations, or whether (as the SSPX argues) it is inherently anti-Catholic. The depth of the feelings aroused on this may be seen in the quote from Bishop Fellay towards the beginning of the address. Note, for example, that he describes the American Revolution as "a revolution against God" and denounces the founding principles of America as "Masonic" - in other words, he seems to suggest that there cannot be a compromise with them any more than with the devil, and even to imply that a Protestant confessional state would have been preferable from the catholic point of view. (Quite a few American Pixies - encouraged by Bishop Williamson, who of course was stationed there for a while - have publicly adopted the view that every true Catholic should have sided with George III in 1776; one of their spokesmen, John Rao, has claimed that the Founding Fathers' insistence on religious neutrality of the state actually represented an insidious anti-Catholicism more deadly than outright persecution). This issue should be of interest to Irish Catholics because our own experience of high Catholic observance combined with democratic politics resembles the American one (and in some ways, through the legacy of Daniel o'Connell - directly influenced it). I fear this is likely to be a sticking point - because the SSPX regard their view not only as an allowable theological opinion but as THE true Catholic doctrine I don't see much room for compromise. There is in fact a certain amount to be said on both sides. The Pixies can point to a long history of altar and throne Catholic states, and can note that any state at all necessarily has certain founding principles which if not expressly Catholic may very easily become anti-Catholic. (At present, for example, there is a very widespread move in the USA - being picked up by the personnel of certain groups and state agencies here, if you read the IRISH TIMES closely - to treat gay marriage as a human right and as a consequence to treat the view that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman as equivalent to advocacy of black inferiority and racial segregation - i.e. to virtually outlaw the orthodox Christian position on the subject). Criticism of the Pixies can point out that the history of Catholic monarchies and altar and throne alliances has very often been unhappy, often involving attempts by the state to dominate the Church (right back to Constantine, or even to Saul and the kings of the Old Testament) and involving terrible persecutions and desecrations, and that the Church managed quite well without Catholic rulers in its first centuries and should do so again if this is best for her mission. Any thoughts on how this impinges on the present position with the Pixies? www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2009/02/pope-benedict-sspx-and-dispute-over.html
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 26, 2009 15:28:39 GMT
Quite a few American Pixies - encouraged by Bishop Williamson, who of course was stationed there for a while - have publicly adopted the view that every true Catholic should have sided with George III in 1776; one of their spokesmen, John Rao, has claimed that the Founding Fathers' insistence on religious neutrality of the state actually represented an insidious anti-Catholicism more deadly than outright persecution). Yes - I thought this amusing. It would be more logical and legitimatist to state that the Founding Fathers were correct to oppose the Protestant usurper Georg von Hanover who had no right to the throne given to him by a rebellious parliament and that they should, instead of setting up a republic, enthroned the just and legitimate king, Charles III of England, Scotland, France and Ireland. Don't be shocked at the inclusion of France, Guillaume, the British monarchs styled themselves as monarchs of France until Napoleon insisted they give it up at the Peace of Amiens. A long time after the Hundred Years' War, but in a way it stands as a monument to the folly of legitimatism. By the way, check out the Jacobite websites out there: they are fascinating. God save King Francis!
|
|