Criticize Fellay and be DENIED communion??
#71
In over 5 years of going to SSPX Masses ,in several different US states, I have never seen anyone or myself been denied the Blessed Sacrament from a priest of the Society.

In fact in over 40 years of going to Mass I have only seen one person denied Communion, and that was at a NO Mass, because he was a Protestant and he had no idea of the truth and presented himself for Him.
Reply
#72
Some of the followers of Fr. Feeney have been denied Communion by certain SSPX priests in the U.S., but as far as I know the Society doesn't have an official position on that.
Reply
#73
No one can be denied the Blessed Sacrament unless they are a known public mortal sinner who has not publically repented of the sin, or a non Catholic.
Reply
#74
(10-22-2012, 10:27 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 02:41 AM)Poche Wrote: This type of bickering demonstrates very clearly the need for an authority like the Pope and the Vatican to intervene when this type of pettiness manifests itself. 

Right, because they've done such a great job maintaining the unity of Faith these last 40 years.

I think they have done a great job under the circumstances and there isn't anything in your sarcasm to make me think otherwise.  That's basically the problem with content- free sarcasm.  It impresses the people who already agree with you but does nothing to persuade others.

I mention this because a significant proportion of posts here consists of this sort of sarcastic quip and you people doing this should know it is counter-productive. 
Reply
#75
(10-22-2012, 12:43 PM)JayneK Wrote: I think they have done a great job under the circumstances and there isn't anything in your sarcasm to make me think otherwise.  That's basically the problem with content- free sarcasm.  It impresses the people who already agree with you but does nothing to persuade others.

I mention this because a significant proportion of posts here consists of this sort of sarcastic quip and you people doing this should know it is counter-productive. 

Quite the valid point, and one I've begun to try to observe.  Still, it's difficult to deal with the level of frustration some of us feel over what's been done to the Faith without that kind of dark (and unfortunately sometimes counterproductive) humor.

If you want content, I would point you to the thread about Stephen Brady's RCF (posted by our friend PJ/CP) a couple of subfora down.  Here is a man who fought inside the system for years, on a very serious issue, who testifies that he was able to get very little done specifically because of our modern hierarchy.  That is truly terrible, and doesn't seem terribly consistent with a clergy who have done a great job of preserving the Holy Faith.  He further testifies that, under the last pope at least, the problem went to the very top.  Given the fact that he is now essentially giving up, it seems reasonable to surmise (though I concede that one might possibly reasonably refrain from doing so) that he thinks things at the top haven't gotten any better in this regard.

That's all I have right now.  God save the Holy Catholic Church, and especially il papa.
Reply
#76
(10-22-2012, 12:17 PM)Old Salt Wrote: No one can be denied the Blessed Sacrament unless they are a known public mortal sinner who has not publically repented of the sin, or a non Catholic.

Can't they also be refused if they're an obvious and obstinate heretic?
Reply
#77
(10-22-2012, 05:33 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 12:17 PM)Old Salt Wrote: No one can be denied the Blessed Sacrament unless they are a known public mortal sinner who has not publically repented of the sin, or a non Catholic.

Can't they also be refused if they're an obvious and obstinate heretic?

Heresy is a sin, and a public one at that, so that falls under the same rubric.  At least formal heresy; Auntie Barb might have some wacky personal ideas about Christology based on a hazy memory of Catechism, but as long as she doesn't know better, it is not a sin.
Reply
#78
(10-22-2012, 10:20 AM)Walty Wrote: I do think we should reserve commentary until at least the full story is out.

Yea, but what would the clergy bashers have to whine about if we did that ?
:Hmm:
Reply
#79
(10-22-2012, 06:23 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 10:20 AM)Walty Wrote: I do think we should reserve commentary until at least the full story is out.

Yea, but what would the clergy bashers have to whine about if we did that ?
:Hmm:

I recognize that there are legitimate fears, but I think it is most wise to at least wait until we know what's going on for sure before speaking publicly (private discussion is another matter).  Some were saying that +Fellay would sell out no matter what the deal and no matter how the rest of the Society felt, but clearly that turned out to be false.
Reply
#80
(10-22-2012, 07:11 PM)Walty Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 06:23 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 10:20 AM)Walty Wrote: I do think we should reserve commentary until at least the full story is out.

Yea, but what would the clergy bashers have to whine about if we did that ?
:Hmm:

I recognize that there are legitimate fears, but I think it is most wise to at least wait until we know what's going on for sure before speaking publicly (private discussion is another matter).  Some were saying that +Fellay would sell out no matter what the deal and no matter how the rest of the Society felt, but clearly that turned out to be false.

Right

I don't have a link to the statement, but + Fellay said he'd include his fellow bishops in any decision, and this was before the preamble was presented to the society by Rome iirc.

And here we are as you say, with no deal, and no indication one is brewing. But the forums are full of folks making accusations, demands, and much worse. Non-stop.  It's really sad that a handful of forumites are on the internet giving the appearance of a problem being much larger than it really is.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)