The Turning Tide: The Sspx

[Saint Therese]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1775467' date='Feb 7 2009, 10:42 PM']That the holocaust is becoming a dogma for the Roman Church is disturbing.[/quote]
I had never considered that point. VEry interesting.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1775583' date='Feb 7 2009, 10:31 PM']It's really unfair to use an abuse to define the whole...[/quote]
I was just trying to make sure that too rosey a picture was not painted. Certainly there are good things happening, but all is not well, especially when the new administrator of the Oakland diocese is a priest who has unapologetically performed "gay marriages."

Edited February 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1775545' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:10 AM']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.[/quote]

Al, here I must disagree with the first part of the second paragraph. I don't think what he did was right because he did act. It shows an extreme lack of trust in the Church and the understanding of the Church as Body of Christ (implication: Christ is the head and acts through his vicar, the Pope) to go against the Holy Father in such a way. I'm not sure that Lefebvre can be defended in his actions, but (now for the second half), the Holy Father can show mercy to him, which would be an act of true benevolence on his part that was not warranted by Lefebvre's original actions.

[Apotheoun]

I think that Lefebvre wanted four bishops to ensure that episcopal consecrations according to the old rite (which requires at least three normally) could be performed within the fraternity.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

the abuses are what they are referring to, and those abuses are very common place (clay, glass, and other things which are not precious metals)

the SSPX has always been a fraternity, its full latin name is FSSPX which translates to Fraternal Priestly Society of St. Pius X; easiest to keep the acronym close in English with Society of St. Pius X.

Whether or not the ordinations were justifiable seems not to be Rome's concern; it seems Rome may be willing to accept the argument that Lefebvre considered them necessary by state of emergency and can thus be forgiven by an act of mercy, ie as the excommunications were lifted against the four bishops. It would also seem Rome sees no need for the bishops to admit wrongdoing in the affair, ie bury the hatchet, let them still consider that they were right if they wish to, Fellay has indicated that in his meeting with the pope the Pope himself considered the state of the church in some European countries and pondered about how it might seem so easily to be a state of emergency.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1775590' date='Feb 8 2009, 01:35 AM']Al, here I must disagree with the first part of the second paragraph. I don't think what he did was right because he did act. It shows an extreme lack of trust in the Church and the understanding of the Church as Body of Christ (implication: Christ is the head and acts through his vicar, the Pope) to go against the Holy Father in such a way. I'm not sure that Lefebvre can be defended in his actions, but (now for the second half), the Holy Father can show mercy to him, which would be an act of true benevolence on his part that was not warranted by Lefebvre's original actions.[/quote]
I did not say he was right, only that he always tried to do what was right.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1775592' date='Feb 7 2009, 10:37 PM']Whether or not the ordinations were justifiable seems not to be Rome's concern; it seems Rome may be willing to accept the argument that Lefebvre considered them necessary by state of emergency and can thus be forgiven by an act of mercy, ie as the excommunications were lifted against the four bishops. It would also seem Rome sees no need for the bishops to admit wrongdoing in the affair, ie bury the hatchet, let them still consider that they were right if they wish to, Fellay has indicated that in his meeting with the pope the Pope himself considered the state of the church in some European countries and pondered about how it might seem so easily to be a state of emergency.[/quote]
I agree.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1775586' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:34 AM']I was just trying to make sure that too rosey a picture was not painted. Certainly there are good things happening, but all is not well, especially when the new administrator of the Oakland diocese is a priest who has unapologetically performed "gay marriages."[/quote]

Oh, I agree with you here...I just think their stance is too harsh. I would imagine that you, as an Eastern Catholic, would be appalled by the accusation that Holy Communion in both Sacred Species is Protestant, since that is one big criticism of the west. (Granted, as someone who is intimately involved that there are many Protestant abuses, but for a group that likes to distinguish between different kinds of acts, they do a very poor job of distinguishing here).

This can be removed if need be:
[quote]E. CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, ARE WE OBLIGED IN CONSCIENCE TO ATTEND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAE?

If the Novus Ordo Missae is not truly Catholic, then it cannot oblige for one’s Sunday obligation. Many Catholics who do assist at it are unaware of its all pervasive degree of serious innovation and are exempt from guilt. However, any Catholic who is aware of its harm, does not have the right to participate. He could only then assist at it by a mere physical presence without positively taking part in it, and then and for major family reasons (weddings, funerals, etc).[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

Some things are relative, because in my Church the use of unleavened bread would be an abuse.

The Roman Church had a tradition (at least 800 years long, and perhaps longer) of giving only the host to the laity, and I see nothing wrong with that. Nevertheless, I do not mind the fact that the modern Roman rite gives communion under both kinds, but it often appears to be done that way simply so that lay people can help with the distribution of communion.

That said, I am far more concerned by the fact that a diocese of the Roman Church is being run (at least temporarily) by a priest who performed "gay marriages" and who I also personally witnessed concelebrating "mass" with women. This concerns me more than whether communion is given in both kinds or not.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Apotheoun

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1775591' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:36 AM']I think that Lefebvre wanted four bishops to ensure that episcopal consecrations according to the old rite (which requires at least three normally) could be performed within the fraternity.[/quote]

But then you run into the same problem again...If you need to consecrate a new bishop, wouldn't you need to have Rome's permission again? If you get it, won't they make sure you have the bishops you need for the consecration?

If you think you don't the Pope's permission the next time around, then you're clearly violating the rule of canon law and truly beginning a schism, even if you don't think so. I say this because if you purposefully act out of line with the Vatican and the Holy Father continually, then in essence you have separated yourself from the Church centred around Rome.

I'm just thinking out loud here about the implications of the original act...I've always found it confusing, and haven't ever been convinced by their reasons. Maybe one day I'll understand...

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1775592' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:37 AM']the abuses are what they are referring to, and those abuses are very common place (clay, glass, and other things which are not precious metals)[/quote]

Yeah, I know...I just think it's silly.

[quote]the SSPX has always been a fraternity, its full latin name is FSSPX which translates to Fraternal Priestly Society of St. Pius X; easiest to keep the acronym close in English with Society of St. Pius X.[/quote]

Yep, just making sure people knew what I was talking about. I haven't read all the recent threads, so I didn't know if this term was used...

[quote]Whether or not the ordinations were justifiable seems not to be Rome's concern; it seems Rome may be willing to accept the argument that Lefebvre considered them necessary by state of emergency and can thus be forgiven by an act of mercy, ie as the excommunications were lifted against the four bishops. It would also seem Rome sees no need for the bishops to admit wrongdoing in the affair, ie bury the hatchet, let them still consider that they were right if they wish to, Fellay has indicated that in his meeting with the pope the Pope himself considered the state of the church in some European countries and pondered about how it might seem so easily to be a state of emergency.[/quote]

Here I agree. I just hope one day the fraternity (and especially the more radical members) recognize the Pope's great magnanimity and charity.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1775605' date='Feb 7 2009, 10:50 PM']But then you run into the same problem again...If you need to consecrate a new bishop, wouldn't you need to have Rome's permission again? If you get it, won't they make sure you have the bishops you need for the consecration?[/quote]
Had the "schism" not occurred the SSPX would have awaited a papal mandate to ordain a new bishop, but the point in having at least three (or four) was to make sure that they would not have to have a bishop from outside of the fraternity participate out of necessity.

[Aloysius]

"At a certain point [during the audience], the Pontiff himself put the matter on the table: pondering on the state of the Church in countries such as France and Germany, Benedict XVI recognized as perfectly well-grounded the question of the subsistence of the state of necessity in such countries... [sic] The Pope said this, not we."
-Bishop Fellay [url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/01/f...pe-himself.html"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/01/f...pe-himself.html[/url]

now he's not recognizing a state of necessity, just that the question was well grounded.

it remains to be seen the full extent of what their position regarding the Novus Ordo will have to be when fully re-integrated. they will likely have to recognize its validity (the pro-multis question is about to be a moot issue anyway, and that's the only thing they listed as making it doubtful in their opinion on their site)... but their harsher criticisms might not be fully cracked down upon (it wasnt mentioned among the requirements for reintegration in the secretary of state's statement)... the Vatican itself has recognized a "liturgical crisis" and the SSPX's harsher viewpoint in the matter might be welcome as one end of the spectrum of what that crisis is.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1775603' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:49 AM']Some things are relative, because in my Church the use of unleavened bread would be an abuse.[/quote]

LoL, yes, this one is a great discussion to have with the Orthodox too!

[quote]The Roman Church had a tradition (at least 800 years long, and perhaps longer) of giving only the host to the laity, and I see nothing wrong with that. Nevertheless, I do not mind the fact that the modern Roman rite gives communion under both kinds, but it often appears to be done that way simply so that lay people can help with the distribution of communion.[/quote]

If you read the Council of Trent, it is the final decision for 400 years on the place of Communion in both Species. It said the Church could change this if ever she sees fit, and so I haven't figured that out yet.

I am strongly against Holy Communion being distributed by laity when not absolutely necessary, and I think the practice is generally an abuse. I've been to large Masses in which there is enough clergy to distribute under both Sacred Species, and it is during those times that I am happy that we have both...but those are rare Masses.

[quote]That said, I am far more concerned by the fact that a diocese of the Roman Church is being run (at least temporarily) by a priest who performed "gay marriages" and who I also personally witnessed concelebrating "mass" with women. This concerns me more than whether communion is given in both kinds or not.[/quote]

I am very disturbed by this, and much more so than by smaller critiques. However, I believe there is somewhat of a precedent by the ultra-conservative groups who also do their own thing.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1775608' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:51 AM']Had the "schism" not occurred the SSPX would have awaited a papal mandate to ordain a new bishop, but the point in having at least three (or four) was to make sure that they would not have to have a bishop from outside of the fraternity participate out of necessity.[/quote]

The only problem with this is that originally Lefebvre agreed to one...it's that he changed his mind that makes me wonder what he was thinking.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1775609' date='Feb 8 2009, 12:53 AM']"At a certain point [during the audience], the Pontiff himself put the matter on the table: pondering on the state of the Church in countries such as France and Germany, Benedict XVI recognized as perfectly well-grounded the question of the subsistence of the state of necessity in such countries... [sic] The Pope said this, not we."
-Bishop Fellay [url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/01/f...pe-himself.html"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/01/f...pe-himself.html[/url]

now he's not recognizing a state of necessity, just that the question was well grounded.

it remains to be seen the full extent of what their position regarding the Novus Ordo will have to be when fully re-integrated. they will likely have to recognize its validity (the pro-multis question is about to be a moot issue anyway, and that's the only thing they listed as making it doubtful in their opinion on their site)... but their harsher criticisms might not be fully cracked down upon (it wasnt mentioned among the requirements for reintegration in the secretary of state's statement)... the Vatican itself has recognized a "liturgical crisis" and the SSPX's harsher viewpoint in the matter might be welcome as one end of the spectrum of what that crisis is.[/quote]

This is along the lines of a suggestion a friend of mine once made...maybe we should make Williamson archbishop of LA!