Posted on 05/31/2004 8:36:56 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Respect? Isn't that something the Amchurch reserves for the Lavender Mafia and outright heretics alone?
Traditionalists? Now that's where the Amchurch hammer MUST be brought down with all alacrity and severity.
(Exasperated gag)
Most FSSP Priests do NOT participate in the Bishop's Chrism Mass. And even those that do, what exactly is the "evil" in it unless of course you would NOT attend an Eastern-rite divine liturgy? I'd be interested in why concelebrating once per year, at the bishop's request, would be evil?
Two. They are NOT FORCED to concelebrate. The protocol and the instruction from FSSP on this make that quite clear.
Three. I have heard many good homilies by FSSP priests condemning today's modernist culture, wherever it may be. I have never heard one from them advocating false ecumenism. When was the last time you heard the SSPX or independent priest explain the true nature of obedience, without the gymnastic contortions to explain why they are intentionally disobedient to their local ordinary and the Pope, albeit while of course "praying for him" during each Mass. Faith without works is dead.
There have been several articles in Latin Mass magazine where FSSP priests have vocalized the traditional teaching in matters that appear incongruent with VII. The difference though, just like the agreement Archbishop Lefebvre originally signed is to do this theology respectfully and in private WITHOUT public polemics that scandalize the faithful. Ever taken a moral theology class? You think that public polemics between priests and bishops somehow builds God's kingdom? You have know idea what kind of theology they are contribuiting behind the scenes. I guarantee one thing: it will do more good than all of the public polemics of the SSPX combined.
You throw out a plethora of information without substantiation. You thought you were singing to the choir, evidently.
This is a great document by Cardinal Hoyos and is very optimistic toward traditional Catholics.
For others who may be interested in this discussion, here's the correspondence:
http://www.tcrnews2.com/ecclesia2.html
here's Reverend Father Bisig's letter to the faithful:
http://www.unavoce.org/Bisigletter.htm
here's what Michael Davies had to say:
http://www.unavoce.org/violation.htm
The FSSP would be a far more credible fighting force for traditional Catholics if Reverend Father Bisig was back at the helm - and those priests keen on celebrating (or concelebrating) the novus ordo - found themselves another order - like the Society of Saint John.
As for whether or not the SSPX and/or the Campos priests are/were in schism, it appears that from both interviews (although the previous report was written by Una Voce's International President and was never meant for public consumption, so perhaps was not held to the same level of journalistic standards that a published report like today's is)that Cardinal Hoyos, and thus the Vatican's position, is that both SSPX and Campos were in irregular canonical positions (Campos is now reconciled), but not NECESSARILY schismatic. The bishops, however, are excommunicated. But a formal schism may or may not exist depending upon the predisposition of each bishop and priest in SSPX. The same would apply for the laity.
The FSSP priests cannot be FORCED to concelebrate the Chrism Mass. They may be asked to by their bishop. The individual bishop for each diocese where the FSSP resides may or may not require this. I know of concrete situations where the FSSP priests are NOT required by their Archbishop to concelebrate.
The links you list are wonderful, but they are old information and are not taking into account the actual practices as they have taken place since this controversy. The way to respond to arguments is not to list links and not dialogue. Most traddies have read this stuff long ago. As I previously stated, this recent interview by Cardinal Hoyos is good news for traditional Catholics, whether they want to admit it or not.
Who were "the sixteen"? Is there a list of names somewhere?
One Cardinal, Hoyos, is on the traditionalists' side. Ratzinger is generally sympathetic. It will be good news when any of that support makes an ounce of difference in practice. Right now it means nothing.
I agree.
When was the last time you heard the SSPX or independent priest explain the true nature of obedience, without the gymnastic contortions to explain why they are intentionally disobedient to their local ordinary and the Pope, albeit while of course "praying for him" during each Mass.
You've probably never heard a sermon by an SSPX priest, so you're doing the same thing that you're accusing the other poster of doing -- throwing out accusations without facts.
I guarantee one thing: it will do more good than all of the public polemics of the SSPX combined.
This is impossible to know. No one can guarantee the future, and in the spiritual realm, it's usually impossible to evaluate even the past. Since you are advocating in your post a more charitable attitude towards the FSSP, which I am in complete sympathy with, why don't you take the first step by showing a more charitable attitude towards other traditionalists? With regard to your reference to public disagreements that are not edifying, it would be much more edifying if traditional Catholics spent more time defending the traditional Catholic faith, and less time attacking each other.
This is a great document by Cardinal Hoyos and is very optimistic toward traditional Catholics.
Yes, so why don't we take him up on his suggestion, and begin to show more respect to all our fellow Catholic traditionalists?
The Cardinal (at least as paraphrased by the article) makes the following points, among others.
1. The concerns of traditionalist Catholics are "legitimate".
2. The "liturgical sensibilities" of traditionalist Catholics, should therefore be respected.
He is not using the word "respect" in a nebulous, general manner as you try to imply. He is not saying "lets' be nice to those weirdos". Rather he is saying that respect is deserved- based on the legitimacy of the traditionalist liturgical preference, which is a valid one.
Once, just once, try extending your hand and grasping another that is held out to you in peace rather than recoiling in anger. The Cardinal is sympathetic. He is not a stooge, a liberal plant nor part of a plot to destroy SSPX. He desires reconciliation and because of that he directs these words to those who have little time for, nor understanding of SSPX.
He is pulling for the traditionalist cause. Don't spurn his efforts.
"Seems the defense of traditional Catholicism has been granted explicit approval". Pascendi, brilliant just brilliant, you really gave me a good chuckle after a hard day's work. Thanks.
If that were the case, Priests that chose to celebrate the Tridentine Mass, would still be under the influence of the local Bishop (which I would say there is no way around in any case) and those Bishops could still refuse to allow it, (after all the Churches still 'belong' to them) and if they allowed it, could/would force concelebration and all that implies.
It will all come about someday that we don'thave to scheme against the Church in order to have the Mass of the ages.
Despite what my little pea brain thinks what is best for the Church, I defer to the Holy Trinity, and I ask everybody here to join together in prayer for His Will to be done. I know you all do, so I join my prayers to yours.
"I have heard many good homilies by FSSP priests condemning today's modernist culture, wherever it may be. I have never heard one from them advocating false ecumenism."
I too have heard good sermons by FSSP priests - and never heard them advocating false ecumenism - even if they are a little slow to denounce some of the sacrileges taking place all around them. I fully realize there are excellent priests within the FSSP - such as Reverend Father Bisig, whom I both respect and admire. I was merely lamenting the prominence given to the more liberal elements among them - by so-called "conservative" cardinals at the Vatican.
As for hostility towards the SSPX, at the risk of providing another useless link, may I recommend the following editorial to you:
http://www.oriensjournal.com/13fire.html
Rest assured that I'll be joining you and other commentators at this website in fervent prayer for the triumph of the traditional Faith.
I really wonder what he means by that ("the time is ripe") and I really hope that SSPX is not waiting to be handed the keys of the kingdom. It's unreasonable, and their immortal souls may depend on it - especially if "the time is ripe."
I don't expect them to roll over and play dead either - our souls may depend on it.
This may be off topic, and I may be wrong, but I understand that the refusal of the SSPX to rejoin the Church has as much to do with modern doctrine and wording of Vat II documents as it does the right to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass accordng to the 1962 Missal.
Isn't it unreasonable to expect everything to return to pre Vat II conditions before even considering a return? Is the time ripe?
"I don't expect them to roll over and play dead either - our souls may depend on it."
I'm sure even their detractors realize that SSPX priests are no "shrinking violets". They're not about to betray the traditionalist faithful - or all the other priests hoping to be able to offer the traditional Latin Mass exclusively. Once Rome publicly (not just privately) acknowledges that every priest of the Roman rite may celebrate the traditional Latin Mass, I trust they'll swiftly move to work with the modernists - as they have promised. In the meantime, we would all do well to give thanks for the unflinching courage of the SSPX - and pray that the traditional Faith triumphs over the "spirit of Vatican 2".
BUMP
My impression of the situation is this: SSPX wants every priest to be allowed to offer the Traditional Mass at any time in any place. Rome refuses. That is the sticking point which is non-negotiable. As SSPX does not believe they are in the wrong, I trust they do not worry about the state of their souls in regards to Rome. Quite the contrary. They worry about regularizing with the Church in a state of heresy.
"Once, just once, try extending your hand and grasping another that is held out to you in peace rather than recoiling in anger. The Cardinal is sympathetic."
The problem is not that traditionalists need a hand extended--of any kind. Nobody needs that kind of "peace". That solves nothing--it is sentimental nonsense. The problem is that the Novus Ordo Church is in profound rejection of Catholicism. The fix for this is not more hugs and kisses. Traditionalists are not crying to be heard or understood or respected. They want full conversion by the hierarchy to the faith of the Catholic Church as it has always been understood--or the hierarchy can go fly a kite. The fix must be in their radical conversion--which isn't in the works any time soon as long as they hold onto their pan-religious ecumentical pipe dreams. I just don't see this happening. It is the other way around--the "recoil in anger" is theirs--an unprecedented rejection by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church's own Tradition in favor of something new and unprecedented and unCatholic. That is not anything that an extended hand can fix.
The doctrine on obedience taught by SSPX is exactly the same as that taught by Aquinas and Bellarmine, both doctors of the Church. The crazy idea that disobedience to a pope is somehow always evil is a novus ordo teaching--it never was a teaching of the Catholic Church. The real problem is that the conciliar Church has forgotten much of its own heritage of doctrines--and peddles an ersatz Catholicism, novelties made up to fit the times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.