Posted on 04/15/2016 4:54:19 AM PDT by Legatus
“They will become Modernists.”
No.
“There is nothing to be gained by keeping them in canonical limbo.”
No one is “keeping them in canonical limbo”. They chose it.
Um no, accepted without demands- as is. That is the whole point. Vatican II refused to proclaim anything in an extraordinary manner (because it couldn’t). The only problem is that of jurisdiction which can be solved by making them a personal prelature of the Pope.
If they were teaching sedevacantism or some heresy there would be a problem. They aren’t, they are just refusing to teach errors which were expounded by many/most Bishops after Vatican II.
The interesting thing is that I think it is ok for them to come in because I agree with their views on the above issues (for example).
While not being a mind reader- I think if Pope Francis allows them in it will not be because he agrees with them (he doesn’t) but because he doesn’t care about “the rules” and would see it as being merciful or “meeting them where they are at”.
Fine, sometimes people, even popes, do the right thing for the wrong reason.
No. Lefebrve chose to disobey Pope John Paul II. The Congregation of Bishops declared that Lefebrve and the four bishops had incurred an automatic excommunication. Years pass, the excommunications were removed. Now they have jurisdiction for confessions (according to the Holy See), but nothing else.
If the Pope wants he can given them full jurisdiction, or not. That is his choice. I see nothing to be gained by continuing to demand they accept teachings which seem to be contradictory with past teachings of the Faith, and which were proclaimed in a “Pastoral Council”.
Do you think their disagreements with Gaudium et spes and Dignitatis humanae are worth withholding canonical jurisdiction? Not that it ultimately matters what you or I think.
“No....If the Pope wants he can given them full jurisdiction, or not. That is his choice.”
If the SSPX wants it can be given full jurisdiction, or not. That is its choice.
Proof:
http://www.fssp.org/
http://www.papastronsay.com/#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Apostolic_Administration_of_Saint_John_Mary_Vianney
All that is required is asking. . . and some humility. That’s why it won’t happen - at least not coming from the SSPX. I lived with far too many of them to think otherwise.
Don’t be silly, again.
None of those priestly orders you mentioned were required to sign off on a “doctrinal preamble” such as the one demanded of the SSPX.
“Don’t be silly, again.”
I’ve never been. Keep posting so we can see all what silly is.
“None of those priestly orders you mentioned were required to sign off on a “doctrinal preamble” such as the one demanded of the SSPX.”
That’s not how the SSPX saw it in regard to the Transalpine Redemptorists:
“This request for the lifting of suspensions necessarily included all the above; namely regret for receiving orders from the bishops of the Society, the firm purpose of separating from Tradition and being united to the post-conciliar church, and the promise of no longer breaking technical canonical requirements by receiving orders from traditional bishops. In agreeing to all the above, the priests and brothers from Papa Stronsay have not only betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre’s Operation Survival. Whether they like it or not, they have in addition made a public statement to the effect that no such extraordinary action was or is necessary, and consequently that it is grievously wrong.” http://www.holycrossseminary.com/2008_August.htm
Once again, as always, we see you have no idea what you’re talking about. Post more silliness.
Once again, another pathetic attempt to change topics.
Why was the “doctrinal preamble” demanded of the SSPX kept double-secret to this very day?
OK, I think we are starting to create more heat than light in this discussion. My last post on this and I will retire from the field. Kids have to be put to bed. Vladimir, you have obviously had some bad experiences with followers of the SSPX which have convinced you that their position comes from pride. I can only argue that this has not been my experience and that those I have met are saddened that they are seen as outside the church, but they can not agree to that which appears to contradict the Faith. Please keep in mind that there are other reasons beside pride that keep the SSPX from making agreements, and that the things which happened in the 1960s and later put many people in very difficult situations not of their own choosing. I hope that you have the chance to see the humility and willingness to serve others that I have seen in them. If they seem prideful at times consider that it might be their zeal to hold on to what has been lost that makes them argue so strongly.
As for me if they can be considered once again to be in a regular jurisdiction in the Church by both sides I will rejoice, regardless of whether they sign an agreement (which they find they can honestly submit to) or without any further requirements. They are Catholic as the Pope himself has clearly stated, and their full inclusion should benefit us all.
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I have yet to see any indult group within the Church actually make changes in the views of the hierarchy (except the fact that there are TLM’s than in the past). I fully expect the same thing to happen to the SSPX.
that should read *more* TLM’s
I completely understand your concern. I have greater confidence that the priests and bishops of the SSPX will not be deterred if they are brought back in. I could be wrong. One scenario is that they could be brought in, then kicked out again for refusing to water down the Faith.
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.