Posted on 01/31/2006 10:01:27 AM PST by NYer
Tomorrow, as previously reported here, representatives of all the religious groups which form the aggregate Lefevbrist movement are meeting in Flavigny, France.
It is widely believed that the convocation is being held in an attempt to unite the groups and brief them on a proposed reconciliation between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, the flagship splinter-sect which broke communion with Rome in 1988 at the ordination of four bishops without papal approval by the Tridentine renegade Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
In exchange for the return to full communion of the Lefebvrist bishops -- which by no means could come immediately, but toward which goal tomorrow's summit is oriented -- and other, unspecified conditions, it's said the Holy See could be prepared to grant:
Hermann was posting from the Roman Catechism, and it does mean what it says.
I recently stumbled across something that I found very inspiring in this regard: the book "Wife, Mother and Mystic" about the life of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi. She lived in the early 19th century, and possessed absolutely phenomenal supernatural powers. She was consulted by the pope on an almost daily basis, and yet her first priority was always obedience and service to her husband who was a common laborer. She would chase cardinals out of their apartment when her husband came home so that she could massage his feet after a hard day's work.
I know that sounds terribly retro...but you'd be surprised how many women, in many faiths, follow that advice.
True. We should be inspired by the example of those who have not been given our gifts of grace and yet manage to maintain certain moral standards so much better than Catholics who have been "given much," so that much more is demanded of us.
No. The current status is that Rome has said the Mass is to be encouraged by the local Ordinary for those faithful who desire the Mass using the 1962 Missal but it is not granted a Universal Indult. Many Dioceses have no Tridentine Mass or one which is offered only occasionally.
The status here would be that all chapels and seminaries owned or run by the SSPX would be in full communion with Rome. The details of all this is what is to be discussed and would probably be akin to the Campos situation. Thus, Masses offered at these sites are then fully valid for any and all.
If you call the local Diocese now and ask if an SSPX Mass is valid, they will tell you it does not fulfill your Sunday obligation. I don't wish to get into that discussion but it would no longer be the case if this is guided by the Holy Spirit and resolved.
See what I mean?
The Mass is valid. You mean 'licit'. Any cleric who believes the pre VII Mass and sacraments are invalid is gravely mistaken.
My proudest moment - finding a marrying a beuatiful, intelligent Catholic woman of good background and education who wants to and does stay home and take care of our children, does not want anything to do with birth control, and always asks my permission to leave the house except for regular domestic or medical visits and chores while I am at work and always asks my permission to spend our money on major items.
Such a wife is more valuable and precious than all the riches of the world.
I suspect that is yours too.
Point taken. Licit is what I meant to say.
Updated, Whispers in the Loggia, 7:45 EST
Yet More SSPX
" I couldn't emphasize it enough, how important the December 22 speech of Benedict to the Curia was [to] the Lefebvrists becoming much more open to reconciliation. They saw this as an affirmation that they can accept the Council only in the light of Sacred Tradition.... This was major for them."
That from a source close to the SSPX, on the root of the recent warmth which has led to tomorrow's Lefebvrite summit meeting at Flavigny.
Also cited is a very recent interview, excerpted below, with Richard Williamson -- reported to be "obstinate" as regards a reconciliation -- as evidence of his clash with the positive view of Benedict's approach taken by Superior-General Bernard Fellay, and the widespread perception even at the Society's highest levels that he is not immediately disposed to a reunion....
CFN: So from the Curia address, which way does [Benedict XVI's vision for the church] seem to be [directed]?
BW: Altogether in line with the Second Vatican Council, relying in particular on the Council's teaching on religious liberty. But that teaching was a major novelty of the Council, and a grave error, so the Pope's Christmas address to the Curia suggests that the 40-year-old crisis of the Church is going to get yet worse rather than better.
CFN: In fairness to the Pope, could you sum up the rest of the address leading up to what he says about the Council and religious liberty.
BW: Briefly, he opens his remarks about Christmas and the teaching and example given by John Paul II. He comments positively on two of his predecessor's 2005 initiatives: World Youth Day in Cologne and the Synod of Bishops on the Holy Eucharist. Finally he comes to the last event of 2005 on which he wishes to reflect, the 40th anniversary of the closing in 1965 of the Second Vatican Council.
CFN: Does he immediately then begin talking about religious liberty?
BW: No, he says firstly that the 40 years following the Council have seen much conflict, because two interpretations of the Council clashed. A bad interpretation wanted to follow "the spirit of the Council", and not its letter, or texts. A good interpretation wanted the Church's truth to remain unchanged, only re-thought and re-expressed. The latter interpretation has borne and is bearing good fruit, says the Pope.
CFN: Do you agree with him here?
BW: Alas, prior to John XXIII all popes agreed that to guard Catholic doctrine, it is dangerous to change even the words with which it is expressed, especially when those words have been hammered out over the ages. Freshen people's understanding of old words, yes. Change those words, no! But from John XXIII onwards, each of the conciliar popes have wanted to change the words, which is why Catholic doctrine has been severely harmed. How many youths of World Youth Day held in Cologne last year know their catechism?
CFN: How did Benedict XVI come to the question of religious liberty?
BW: He went on to say that the problem before the Council was to reconcile the Church with modern man: how is one today to relate faith to science? Church to State, Catholicism to other religions? He said that the Council's solution to all three essentially connected problems was its teaching on religious liberty, which was an example of true reform, because instead of changing Catholic principles, it merely applied the same principles afresh to modern circumstances.
CFN: Again, do you agree that Vatican II changed only application of Catholic principles, and not the principles themselves?
BW: No, it changed the very principles, which is why the Church is in such an upheaval. For instance Benedict XVI went on to say that as the medieval Church reconciled St. Augustine's Catholic thinking with pagan Aristotelian thinking of that time, so Vatican II reconciled with modern (liberal) reason. To reconcile Augustine's supernatural truth with Aristotle's natural truth is one thing, but to reconcile Catholic truth with modern error is quite another. Because what Benedict XVI calls "modern reason" is the subjective philosophy of modern man, which cuts him off from all objective truth. How can such falsehood be made Catholic? Poor Benedict XVI has far too much respect for "modern man"!
Doesn't sound like the docility of someone who's making plans to return into the fold.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 19:45
Let us all please storm Heaven for this reconciliation to occur if it is His Will. As you all know, prayer is the greatest weapon against all that the evil one can throw at the Church. With all my heart and soul, I do believe that the Mother of God will certainly play an important role in bringing about the unity so many of us have desired for so long.
"Who has found her has found a treasure."
Allegorically, I compare it in my mind to the elves pursuing the silmarils. They were willing to sacrifice everything, even their lives which would have been immortal as long as they didn't take any chances, in pursuit of this thing of beauty.
While it's true that "inner beauty" is what counts, I have found that "inner beauty" shines through the flesh, and makes any woman with a deep spiritual life beautiful and desirable.
I suspect that yours is too.
Thank you for the assumed compliment. And it is true. But I hope I don't sound complaining, proud or ungrateful if I say that it was only after many years of difficult struggle that required a total commitment to adhering to the truth despite every possible personal, familial and societal obstacle. Travelling from the seventies to "Chaste Christian Marriage" as defined by Pope Pius XI was a "hard and narrow road." Unlike my wife and I who had to learn everything the hard way, however, my daughters who are on the brink of marriageable age are visions of both natural and supernatural loveliness, totally dedicated to true Catholic principles in marriage, if God calls them to that vocation.
+
praying-this-happens bumpus ad summum
Thanks, this is very important to us.
I agree. I have cautious hope. Smoke/fire.
Thanks for the ping!
Williamson is a world-class antisemitic lunatic who thinks women shouldn't go to College.
CFN is Catholic Family News. Cool. Schismatics interviewing schismatics on the status of the schism
Now, when this supposed deal falls through, as it will, the SSPX will blame "liberal" Rome.
This is such an obvious agitprop campaign to stir-up the gullible schismatics and further anchor them to the schism once Rome "reneges" on the deal the SSPX tels us is imminent while, at the same time, enticing faithful Catholics to extend sympathy towards the schismatics and weaken their fealty to the Magisterium because Rome is so obstinate in their rejection of Tradition and the poor SSPX just wants the Mass your Mommy went to, don' cha know.
Be more positive friend.
Well, let me say that my eminently sensible wife, who does not wear pants out of the house anymore, who needs to defend her traditionalist credentials to no one, and who has regularly attended Society chapels, was at a Mass where Bishop Williamson showed up. She does NOT think highly of him, and has heard him...for instance...expound on the sinfulness of wearing lacy underwear, and she almost walked out once when he started denying the Holocaust. The SSPX priest in residence even made a special point of prepping the congregration a week before he came to be careful about what they wore and said, etc. He was saying all this to SSPXers, mind you, who are generally not known for their tolerance of immodest fashions.
My wife and I talked about it this morning, and she's fairly convinced that a) he won't come back, and b) we're better off without him unless he works on his "problem" areas. She foresees a schism within the Society, with him on the other side.
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.