Pope Francis and the SSPX: On the Verge of a deal?
#21
(04-28-2016, 01:54 AM)Poche Wrote: What is the morality of expose's and wikileaks?

It's questionable, at best.

Sometimes "leaking" information that has ultimately the public's good at heart or to right a wrong could be justified. I'm thinking of the whole survellience/Snowdon thing - you might argue that it served a public good and therefor could be justified, even if somewhat immoral. At the end of the day, he stole data and exposed it.

A media expose, such as the Planned Parenthood thing, revealed criminal activity and also served the public interest. It triggered change. Again, while the methods are of questionable morality, the end result was a benefit, so I'd be inclined to give it a pass and let God sort it out. As far as I know, there was no theft there. Not quite the same.

I used to work at a job that required a high level of confidentiality. There are things I will take to my grave, not because I'm great at keeping secrets but because of the threat of prosecution. Nothing I came to know in the course of my job would serve any interest should I disclose it, therefore I cannoy justify breaking the rules.

This whole SSPX thing, however, really can't be justified. Nothing was gained, I don't think any public interest was served. I think the SSPX was right to remind us about confidentiality. Stealing is stealing.
Reply
#22
The blog post reported that Bishop Fellay indicated that: the Pope confirmed that the SSPX is Catholic in his eyes; the Pope said he would never condemn the SSPX; and that the Pope wants to extend the faculties of the priest of the SSPX, beginning with Confession.

Le Salon Beige also said that “in the course of his meetings in Rome, Bishop Fellay was encouraged to found a seminary in Italy.”


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/w...spx-84069/

This causes me to think that Pope Francis is a friend of Tradition.
:) :) :)
Reply
#23
The pope also thinks the Neo-Catechumenal Way is Catholic, would never condemn it, and ensures they have faculties.

That makes me think the pope isn't a friend of tradition so much as a liberal who sees the Church as a big tent under which anyone's immanentized religious preferences can be expressed legitimately with no regard to objective truth.
Reply
#24
(05-01-2016, 08:14 AM)ermy_law Wrote: The pope also thinks the Neo-Catechumenal Way is Catholic, would never condemn it, and ensures they have faculties.

That makes me think the pope isn't a friend of tradition so much as a liberal who sees the Church as a big tent under which anyone's immanentized religious preferences can be expressed legitimately with no regard to objective truth.

Exactly.  As far as I can see stuff like this makes me take the side of the sedevacantists who wonder why in the name of all that's good and holy do the SSPX want so desperately to attach themselves to the modern Roman Catholic Church. Father Cekada was never more right when he said that in modern Rome "Tradition" is just a side chapel option in the ecumenical circus tent.

The SSPX, in my eyes at least, started selling out their principles years ago when they kicked out the Nine and chose 1962 over the older and better versions of the Latin Patrimony.  The compromises of decades ago are finally bearing fruit with this final sell out on their part. I can't help but see it any other way. 

At any rate this will big the cause of schism within the Society I would think. 

To take this deal is to enter into a Church where popes kiss korans, call protestants brother bishops and say and do and promote all the nonsensical things we've all seen,heard or read about for the last half century. 

I do not envy Bishop Fellay or his Society. 




Reply
#25
FB, I don't think the SSPX are trying desperately to attach themselves to Rome. But when Rome makes an unconditional offer, the SSPX can't reject it since doing so would be an overt act of schism.

This is a brilliant strategy on the part of Rome because it leaves the SSPX only one choice if they want to continue to say they're in the Church. I'm surprised Rome didn't think of this method earlier.
Reply
#26
(05-01-2016, 10:13 AM)ermy_law Wrote: FB, I don't think the SSPX are trying desperately to attach themselves to Rome. But when Rome makes an unconditional offer, the SSPX can't reject it since doing so would be an overt act of schism.

This is a brilliant strategy on the part of Rome because it leaves the SSPX only one choice if they want to continue to say they're in the Church. I'm surprised Rome didn't think of this method earlier.

What do you think is best for the Society at this point?  I'm just curious.  You're right though, from the point of view of Rome it's kind of like a brilliant chess move where it's  "checkmate" for the SSPX. 

While sometimes I don't know where I stand ecclesiologically (I'm still more pre schism western, conciliarist and Orthodox in outlook than Roman,either traditionalist or modern.) but it's always seemed to me that the SSPX have a more precarious position vis a vis Rome than the sedevacantists.

You're right, how can Bishop Fellay refuse to bring the SSPX under the big tent and into the side chapel along with the FSSP, ICK etc. without actually being condemned as schismatic? And if he does bring the Society to this side chapel arrangement doesn't that sort of make the SSPX lose their thunder so to speak?

I always saw Summorum Pontificum as more of a way to steal the thunder out of traditional groups than anything else anyway.  Traditionalism used to be countercultural, these days it's just like the games and dress up of a renaissance faire off at the country fairgrounds or something--quaint,harmless and ultimately meaningless in the modern Church other than as some sort of personal worldview for individuals and small estranged communities clinging to sacramental life on the hinterlands of the official church. 

Reply
#27
I say, if the Pope were the friend of Tradition, then Paul VI is the greatest Pope in all of Christendom that he surpassed Pope Gregory I.
Reply
#28
A big advantage for the SSPX is that they would be able to work with the bishops and clergy who are friendly to them but not able to come out in the open because of the current situation. I think that is probably uppermost in Fellay's mind as well as the boost the Society it gets for being able to present themselves as being in full communion. That will also be attractive to laity who remain on the fence for now.

C.
Reply
#29
(05-01-2016, 04:09 PM)Cetil Wrote: A big advantage for the SSPX is that they would be able to work with the bishops and clergy who are friendly to them but not able to come out in the open because of the current situation. I think that is probably uppermost in Fellay's mind as well as the boost the Society it gets for being able to present themselves as being in full communion. That will also be attractive to laity who remain on the fence for now.

C.

I also thought of the same thing. It is a sort of double-ended sword, if one can put it that way.
Reply
#30
(05-01-2016, 10:29 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: What do you think is best for the Society at this point?

In my opinion, which is based on limited facts, I think the SSPX should stall as long as possible in hopes that Rome calls off this unconditional recognition. While I am somewhat concerned about the possibility of a further split within the SSPX, my primary concern has to do with autonomy. I am especially concerned about the autonomy of the SSPX schools and what will become of them if the Society is recognized. Will the schools be forced to use programs that the diocesan schools use, for example? And what will become of the religious affiliated with the SSPX?

I think that the SSPX does "lose some of its thunder" under this sort of arrangement, but frankly, I think that demonstrates that the time is right for some sort of recognition.  The main problem with remaining too long outside the normal structures is just what the SSPX leadership has been saying -- it becomes normal to act independently, and it should not be considered normal.  It is a difficult problem because the SSPX offers many advantages as a result of its status that you wouldn't necessarily think about. For example, you don't have all the silly second collections or the Bishops Appeals. That seems minor, but it also takes out of the Catholic life something that traditionalists have to think about. Anyway, my point is that there are a lot of practical questions that add up to a lot of complication, it seems to me. I'm sure that Bishop Fellay has all these things considered, but I'm curious how they'd work out.

I don't agree that the position with Rome is more precarious than the sedevacantists, though. There is precedent for holding Rome at a distance, and I agree that the SSPX (along with other traditional groups) are the few within the Church who actually respect the papacy at it is meant to be respected. There is precedent for recognizing and resisting. Frankly, the FSSP is basically doing the same thing. If you heard the sermon that I heard yesterday, for example, you'd probably wonder why the SSPX stays out and how the FSSP stays in. I think that both groups' strategies are needed.  But, unlike some sectarian hardliners, I don't think the FSSP has given anything up -- and I say that based on my experience with their priests. So, I have hope that the SSPX will be okay whatever happens.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)