Tinkerlina Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 All in all, this seems like a "win win" for those of us who have been on both sides of the SSPX argument-they are closer to full communion and they are (from my own viewpoint) doing their part, it seems, to work toward reunification. Bishop Williamson didn't renounce or deny any of his personal opinions, he just made a general statement that he was willing to look into the matter. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1775524' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:52 AM']Not a personal attack, an observation.[/quote] Whatever it was, it was uncalled for here, and wrong. It did seem to be a personal attack accusing him of some how stalking her or following her around. Quite personal, and negitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1775536' date='Feb 8 2009, 01:02 AM']Whatever it was, it was uncalled for here, and wrong. It did seem to be a personal attack accusing him of some how stalking her or following her around. Quite personal, and negitive.[/quote] Anyway....back to the SSPX.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1775529' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:57 AM']yes, yes, let's stay on the topic please.[/quote] Yes indeed sorry. I belive you correct about the sspx I pray for unity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1775538' date='Feb 8 2009, 01:05 AM']I pray for unity.[/quote] That is the most important thing in all of this. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 I agree, but would like to see the entire issue just dissappear because I really desire these four bishops to exercise a great and unique role in the Church securing the rights of all Catholics to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite against the illicit interference of diocesan bishops. I would like to see them regularized as an Apostolic Administration which can operate distinct from diocesan bishops and thus provide direct recourse around the world for the faithful who feel they are being ignored or their rights suppressed by diocesan restrictions (against the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontifium) against the Traditional Latin Mass. Moreover, I think all that will be requirerd of them for regularization is signing a protocol completely identical with that signed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 (different than the agreement signed by the FSSP in subtle but distinct ways which the SSPX explains on its website): [quote]THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT OF THE VATICAN AND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988 I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded: 1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops. 2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it. 3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics. 4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. 5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.[/quote] This would be a recognition of the Magisterium of Vatican II while permitting their reservations and critiques of the documents... and of course, the Society of the Good Shepherd (I forget the name, it's something like that) in France was regularized while permitted to discuss/critique the council... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 The protocol should be sufficient, because in the long run Vatican II is just a bump on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 8, 2009 Author Share Posted February 8, 2009 I think it is noteable that the SSPX on their website indicate that they do not believe Lefebvre went back on that Protocol/agreement, which means they would likely be fully willing to sign onto it themselves. I continue to hope for a post-mortum lifting of the excommunication of his grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, who always just tried to do what was right to pass down the traditional faith and has been vindicated on many points (including the fact that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated)... considering that these four bishops' excommunications were lifted as a matter of mercy, I see no reason why Rome cannot show mercy to Lefebvre as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 As far as I can tell Lefebvre didn't go back on the protocol, but he was ill (I think he was suffering from cancer) and he did not trust that the Vatican would keep its end of the agreement, and so he ordained the four bishops without Vatican approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1775545' date='Feb 7 2009, 10:10 PM']I continue to hope for a post-mortum lifting of the excommunication of his grace, Archbishop Lefebvre, who always just tried to do what was right to pass down the traditional faith and has been vindicated on many points (including the fact that the Traditional Mass was never abrogated)... considering that these four bishops' excommunications were lifted as a matter of mercy, I see no reason why Rome cannot show mercy to Lefebvre as well.[/quote] I also think his excommunication should be lifted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Eh, the US SSPX website still calls Holy Communion under both kinds "Protestant"...and I'm not sure what common-place utensils we use, besides a key (to the tabernacle) at the Ordinary Form of the Mass that I attend. Cruets aren't ordinary, 100-year-old chalices aren't ordinary, ciboria aren't ordinary, and sacramentaries aren't ordinary books... Oh well. The US website is still full of the old stuff which isn't relevant any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) In the Oakland diocese there are parishes that use clay (ceramic) cups and flat baskets (a type of plate I suppose with a small wicker rim) to hold the hosts. Edited February 8, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1775548' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:14 AM']As far as I can tell Lefebvre didn't go back on the protocol, but he was ill (I think he was suffering from cancer) and he did not trust that the Vatican would keep its end of the agreement, and so he ordained the four bishops without Vatican approval.[/quote] I've read quite a bit on this issue, and I'm sure it's one dear to the Holy Father's heart since he is the one who signed the original document, but from what I can tell, I don't think he had enough just cause to ordain four bishops. Beyond the legalities, I don't think that four is a justifiable total of bishops. First, and most importantly, it is excessive. I could see one, two, and possible three (though that's a bit much), but really, four is over the top. The fraternity (what the society has been called recently) talks much about tradition, but one recent tradition is the ultimate and final authority of the Holy Father, which they are not willing to concede. I've written on here before how I think they reject the canons of Vatican I in rejecting the ultimate authority of the Pope...but that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1775577' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:29 AM']In the Oakland diocese there are parishes that use clay (ceramic) cups and flat baskets (a type of plate I suppose with a small wicker rim) to hold the hosts.[/quote] It's really unfair to use an abuse to define the whole... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 They should have as many bishops as they need. It really should be determined by the size of the fraternity and its growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now