Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More on Flavigny (Possible SSPX Reconciliation with Rome)
WITL ^ | January 31, 2006 | Rocco Palmo

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:

Before anything is sealed, however, several questions do remain.

The first is whether, if the plan as sketched out goes forward at all, the four SSPX bishops return in unison. Two of them are said to be publicly noncommittal: Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, and Richard Williamson, who last night was reported to be "obstinate." Alfonso de Galarreta is said to be more aligned with Fellay's pro-reconciliation stance.

The timetable for all this has been expedited by the exigencies of the SSPX leadership. Fellay's term as Superior General expires later this year, and as he is perceived as the most-amenable of the four to a reconciliation, an accord hammered out with him as a principal would likely provide the best possible outcome, both for Rome and Econe.

While promotions and sacramental titles would not be part of any deal, as Popes do not bargain their office, Schmidberger -- the last of Lefebvre's closest aides still in the Society's upper echelon of leadership -- is seen as the Society's likely future head, particularly given the moderation with which he has handled the issue of its potential return; he was in the room with Fellay on 29 August as the SSPX leadership met with a Pope for the first time since the 1988 excommunications.

Lastly, one would be led to wonder what Rome seeks in return for the concessions it seems prepared to grant the Society. In a word, as one source puts it, all Rome wants is "the four bishops back," and in communion. (Of course, in order to do so, they must profess to accept the validity of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as part of the Magisterium, etc.)

Even if a splinter, or more than just a few, of the SSPX's priests and faithful remain outside the church, the Society's sources of sacramental life vis a vis the ordination of priests and the consecration of churches are cut at the knees if the bishops return to Rome in one piece. But many variables remain in the air and are changing by the hour.

More as it comes....


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: benedictxvi; bishops; pope; reconciliation; schism; sspx; vatican; williamson

1 posted on 01/31/2006 10:01:30 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...
SSPX and Rome: Reconciliation At Hand?
2 posted on 01/31/2006 10:02:21 AM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

To any who want to come back, welcome back. That said, I'd be seriously surprised to see all four bishops return, given the rather strong comments of the one in the past. Even if he did return though, there are other "bishops" out there, and the traditionalist movements will continue. Too much pride and power for that not to be the case. The Church will welcome back any who want back, and we will be better off for it.

patent


3 posted on 01/31/2006 10:14:22 AM PST by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Let us hope and pray for reconciliation.


4 posted on 01/31/2006 10:25:15 AM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Praying for reconcilliation. Praying that bishops like Williamson and Tissier have a change of heart.


5 posted on 01/31/2006 10:28:50 AM PST by Antoninus (The only reason you're alive today is because your parents were pro-life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Just a couple of quick thoughts on my lunch break here:

1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to?

2) The supposed reluctance of Bishop Tissier is rather surprising, if true, given that he was (according to his own biography of Archbishop Lefebvre) in favor of the original 1988 deal with Rome.

3) Fr. Schmidberger is one of the very level-headed people at the SSPX and a man of great abilities and considerable charm, as I can personally attest. I think the answer to Rocco's question what does Rome gain, is simply that it gains the full (and more closely directed) application of the considerable missionary energies of people like Fr Schmidberger, Bishop Fellay and others. At its best the SSPX is an essentially missionary society that was modelled, I feel sure, by Archbishop Lefebvre after the Holy Ghost Fathers [now called "Spiritans"] for whom he was a dynanmic (and in many respects forward-looking) missionary priest in Africa in the 1930's and '40's, and whom he headed in the early 1960's. They were one of the truly great missionary congregations coming from France in the 19th century, re-founded by Ven. Francis Mary Liebermann, one of Israel's greatest gifts to Rome and to humanity.

We can only hope and pray for the reunion.


6 posted on 01/31/2006 11:22:10 AM PST by Theophane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theophane
Tridentine renegade Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

I didn't know that Archbishop Lefebvre was at the Council of Trent. ;-)

7 posted on 01/31/2006 11:32:42 AM PST by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I really know nothing about it, but I do have a friend who was at the seminary in the 80s and he said that he is sure that Williamson will reunite if the group does. He's a pretty good judge of character and he thinks Williamson's reputation is a little off from how he really is. I have no idea, but this person thinks all four bishops will act in unison, and I think he knows what he is talking about.


8 posted on 01/31/2006 11:34:43 AM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Theophane
1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to? Probably because they could care less what Rocco thinks, and that he has no impact on the salvation of their souls. People like Rocco have plenty of disdain (maybe more so) for fully regularized, canonical members of the Church.
9 posted on 01/31/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Theophane
Rocco's question what does Rome gain

It was a stupid question in the first place. The Pope and the Vaticans mission is to save souls, so if it is able to do that, nothing else is required. Remember the story of the prodigal son, and that bringing anyone closer to the Heavenly Father is a reward greater than any amount of wealth. Rocco seems to ignore that the point of bringing any group into full Communion is not so that they are under the Pope's discipline, but the salvation of souls.

10 posted on 01/31/2006 11:43:35 AM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Theophane

>>>>1) When we see epithets like "splinter-sect" and "renegade" we can very well wonder why the SSPX and its followers would want to return to full communion with such uncharitable, not to say hostile and judgmental people as Rocco and his ilk. Why, for that matter, would traditional Anglicans or others want to?

I've met a number of SSPX folks for whom you could say the same, they were uncharitable, hostile, and plainly overly judgmental, yet I still want full communion with the society. In part because I've also met more than a number of people whom I considered very holy, and good friends. One cannot judge the fruits of a reunion by those who resist the reunion.

patent


11 posted on 01/31/2006 11:46:44 AM PST by patent (A baby is God's opinion that life should go on. Carl Sandburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I have no idea, but this person thinks all four bishops will act in unison, and I think he knows what he is talking about.

FWIW, New Catholic over at Rorate Caeli agrees with your friend.

"I would add the most important information that reports of a division among the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and co-consecrated by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in 1988 are wrong -- there is no such division."

12 posted on 01/31/2006 11:55:32 AM PST by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; antonius; Maximilian

I often think all the knocks against Bishop Williamson come from people who would object to and be scandalized by the following statement:

"To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent. Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience."

(Roman Catechism, "Duties of a Wife")

The sort of objections you sometimes hear about Williamson - that he panned some pop-culture movie or said women should wear dresses normally, seems right up there with objecting to the Church saying of wives: "she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent", which I imagine many modern Catholics would.


13 posted on 01/31/2006 12:29:02 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Prayers for reconciliation, that all might be in unity.
14 posted on 01/31/2006 12:33:56 PM PST by Talking_Mouse (Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just... Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

My friend says he definitely has eccentricities in that department and would get too caught up in things like that. But that he wasn't as extreme on the council/Rome issue as he was protrayed.


15 posted on 01/31/2006 12:52:54 PM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
"she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent",

I think the statement means that women should not take jobs outside the home unless it is necessary and the husband approves. I'm sure it doesn't mean we can't run to the mall without DH's permission! I know that sounds terribly retro...but you'd be surprised how many women, in many faiths, follow that advice.

16 posted on 01/31/2006 1:50:32 PM PST by blu (People, for God's sake, think for yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer; All

I have been praying for this for over six months non-stop and following these developments all day. For a more recent update, check Whispers in the Loggia again. Rocco has updated again about one hour ago. Also, check out Dom Bettinelli at http://bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/index.php He has at least 3 postings today. Amy Wellborn's blog has a good long thread going and there is a link on one of Dom's threads to another blogger who had this story yesterday.

In short, Bishop Williamson seems adamantly opposed. To those of us who love the Tridentine Mass, this is a key moment since all would be regularized under this agreement if I understand correctly including the ability to attend Mass at any SSPX chapel. In other words folks, the Vatican seems to be offering a Universal Indult.

Frank


17 posted on 01/31/2006 4:15:04 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank Sheed
In other words folks, the Vatican seems to be offering a Universal Indult.

I'm confused. Didn't the Vatican already give a universal indult that was ignored by many bishops? How does this change the landscape? Would the pope demand accountability or would the 'universal indult' now be celebrated in SSPX Chapels?

18 posted on 01/31/2006 4:32:38 PM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
I often think all the knocks against Bishop Williamson come from people who would object to and be scandalized by the following statement:

"To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent. Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience."

(Roman Catechism, "Duties of a Wife")

Full bonus points for hitting the nail squarely on the head! According to many, Bishop Williamson is that "kook" who actually believes what is taught in the Roman Catechism. Can you get any kookier than that?

What is most amusing is the agreement between the neo-Catholics and the sedevacantists regarding Bishop Williamson's "split" from the rest of the SSPX bishops. Both groups fantasize about an imaginary split, and for very similar reasons.

Time will tell (and it probably won't be too much time). I am notoriously unable to predict the future even when it involves only myself and only what I'll be doing an hour from now, so I make no predictions about what Bishop Fellay or Bishop Williamson will be doing in the future.

19 posted on 01/31/2006 4:48:27 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Hermann the Cherusker
My friend says he definitely has eccentricities in that department and would get too caught up in things like that.

Hermann was posting a quote from the Roman Catechism. This "eccentricity" is actually Catholic teaching.

20 posted on 01/31/2006 4:50:13 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: blu; Hermann the Cherusker
I think the statement means that women should not take jobs outside the home unless it is necessary and the husband approves. I'm sure it doesn't mean we can't run to the mall without DH's permission!

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.

21 posted on 01/31/2006 4:56:37 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


22 posted on 01/31/2006 4:57:32 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

See what I mean?


23 posted on 01/31/2006 5:31:59 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Frank Sheed
Thus, Masses offered at these sites are then fully valid for any and all.

The Mass is valid. You mean 'licit'. Any cleric who believes the pre VII Mass and sacraments are invalid is gravely mistaken.

24 posted on 01/31/2006 5:35:09 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

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.


25 posted on 01/31/2006 5:36:30 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Point taken. Licit is what I meant to say.


26 posted on 01/31/2006 6:12:25 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: patent; All

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


27 posted on 01/31/2006 6:14:54 PM PST by Frank Sheed ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." ~GK Chesterton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

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.


28 posted on 01/31/2006 6:19:16 PM PST by welsh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Such a wife is more valuable and precious than all the riches of the world.

"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.

29 posted on 01/31/2006 6:43:40 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYer; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; goldenstategirl; ...

+


30 posted on 01/31/2006 6:55:06 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
an acknowledgment that the Pian, or Tridentine, rite was not abrogated in the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council;

praying-this-happens bumpus ad summum

31 posted on 01/31/2006 7:24:32 PM PST by Dajjal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

Thanks, this is very important to us.


32 posted on 01/31/2006 8:21:17 PM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu, ufam Tobie!..Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

I agree. I have cautious hope. Smoke/fire.


33 posted on 01/31/2006 8:22:49 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: narses

Thanks for the ping!


34 posted on 01/31/2006 9:22:48 PM PST by sneakers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

Williamson is a world-class antisemitic lunatic who thinks women shouldn't go to College.


35 posted on 02/01/2006 4:10:56 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Frank Sheed

CFN is Catholic Family News. Cool. Schismatics interviewing schismatics on the status of the schism


36 posted on 02/01/2006 4:13:19 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
I posted this on another sspx thread. (The SSPX posts are spreading like bird flu)

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.

37 posted on 02/01/2006 4:16:08 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

Be more positive friend.


38 posted on 02/01/2006 5:42:01 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
The sort of objections you sometimes hear about Williamson - that he panned some pop-culture movie or said women should wear dresses normally

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.

39 posted on 02/01/2006 10:03:35 AM PST by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Assuming that all of these rumors of reunification talk are true (I am not entirely convinced), Williamson will be THE stumbling block. Bornacatholic's posts have been getting more and more shrill lately, but he is right about Williamson. He is not conservative. He is a nut.
40 posted on 02/01/2006 10:21:11 AM PST by jecIIny (You faithful, let us pray for the Catechumens! Lord Have Mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Claud

She foresees a schism within the Society, with him on the other side.


I'm hoping this doesn't happen. As an ex-SSPXer myself, I know too well the different factions in play. These factions are mostly evident in their larger locales (St. Mary's, KS & Post Falls, ID) and barely existent in their smaller chapels to be honest, but they do exist and the infighting has, in my opinion, caused the spiritual destruction of many well intentioned souls. I've seen it.

No, I too am praying that the SSPX returns. It will be a huge boost for Tradition and offer many viable geographical options for attending Mass way over and above the current availability.

If Williamson leads his own schismatic group, I foresee him joining up with likes of the "Bishop' Kelly, the SSPV, and other branch SSPV breakaways. Personal differences may be put aside given the new situation. The SSPV, in other words, could very well get a huge boost and come out from oblivion and be the new frontman of "schismatic traditionalism".

The CMRI will continue to wallow in its overt sedevacantism.


41 posted on 02/01/2006 10:25:31 AM PST by jrny (Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto Decimo Sexto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jrny
From the perspective of a former Catholic, I would tend to think of sede vecantists as out right heretics and not schismatics. Some of their views are just beyond ridiculous (not to mention hateful). I really think they are about as Catholic as the women priest groups and pro abortion rights "Catholics." Just on the other end of the spectrum. They are all wackos.
42 posted on 02/01/2006 2:31:13 PM PST by jecIIny (You faithful, let us pray for the Catechumens! Lord Have Mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

I was being positive. The SSPX sons will mimic their SSPX Father, Lefebvre.


43 posted on 02/01/2006 3:22:41 PM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson