Author Topic: Sede clergy that are "friends of the sspx" (Read 3870 times)

insidebaseball · « **on:** December 09, 2011, 05:34:51 PM »

I was wondering if there are any independant "sede" clergy that are considered "friends" of the society. After reading about the tragic death of the novus ordo priest in Florida who was considered a "friend of the society" I thought it odd that the sspx wouldn't publicly call any non hostle sede clergy a friend of the society. I think this should be promoted in order to show unity of Faith since the sspx is the biggest game in town.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #1 on:** December 09, 2011, 11:22:03 PM »

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm
SSPX FAQs

QUESTION 15
What should we think of the Sedevacantists

This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that it states that Catholics ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from sedevacantists.

Then it adds the "most especially.." clause.

The first part of the sentence still stands as their position though.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #2 on:** December 09, 2011, 11:33:50 PM »

Yes, they don't like dogmatic sedevacantism, which looks a lot like schism. You know, faithful who go to sedevacantist chapels and end up refusing to go to SSPX chapels after a while, having been propagandized into refusing the social charity we are currently talking about on the other thread.

But the association of the SSPX with non-dogmatic sede clergy is long-standing. Many of the Nine were sedevacantists before they decided to get themselves expelled by putting an ultimatum on the Archbishop which they knew he wouldn't grant. Fr. Raffali in southern France has been openly sede for decades and Tissier and others still visit him regularly, stay with him, and offer Mass in his chapel etc. Fr. Meramo has been sede for who knows how long and only got expelled when he decided he'd had enough of the "talks" with the Vatican, and wrote things which were clearly designed to get him expelled. The same is true of any number of others.

Fr. Morgan was openly sede for decades too. But he didn't preach it, and he obviously hasn't decided to get himself expelled, so he hasn't been. Instead, he's District Superior of the UK.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2011, 12:03:30 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Yes, they don't like dogmatic sedevacantism, which looks a lot like schism. You know, faithful who go to sedevacantist chapels and end up refusing to go to SSPX chapels after a while, having been propagandized into refusing the social charity we are currently talking about on the other thread.

But the association of the SSPX with non-dogmatic sede clergy is long-standing. Many of the Nine were sedevacantists before they decided to get themselves expelled by putting an ultimatum on the Archbishop which they knew he wouldn't grant. Fr. Raffali in southern France has been openly sede for decades and Tissier and others still visit him regularly, stay with him, and offer Mass in his chapel etc. Fr. Meramo has been sede for who knows how long and only got expelled when he decided he'd had enough of the "talks" with the Vatican, and wrote things which were clearly designed to get him expelled. The same is true of any number of others.

Fr. Morgan was openly sede for decades too. But he didn't preach it, and he obviously hasn't decided to get himself expelled, so he hasn't been. Instead, he's District Superior of the UK.

But the statement does not say that Catholics ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from only dogmatic sedevacantists.

It says: This being so, we ought not to associate with, or, receive the sacraments from them, most especially if they set up sedevacantism as a certitude which all have to accept.
[my emphasis]

BTW, the term "dogmatic sedevacantism" which has been coined is not universally defined. It means different things to different people.

I also wonder what the various different definitions would be for "dogmatic sedeplenism"; how would you define it?

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2011, 01:38:18 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

BTW, the term "dogmatic sedevacantism" which has been coined is not universally defined. It means different things to different people.

I also wonder what the various different definitions would be for "dogmatic sedeplenism"; how would you define it?

Here's what the SSPX writer meant, from immediately above the bit you quoted:

Quote

sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;

I think we all know what that looks like. Do you honestly not recognize it as a real factor, and a problem?

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2011, 02:35:19 AM »

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat

Quote from: Roman Catholic
BTW, the term "dogmatic sedevacantism" which has been coined is not universally defined. It means different things to different people.

I also wonder what the various different definitions would be for "dogmatic sedeplenism"; how would you define it?

Here's what the SSPX writer meant, from immediately above the bit you quoted:

Quote
sedevacantism is a theological opinion, and not a certitude. To treat it as a certitude leads to condemning with temerity traditional Catholics who disagree;

I think we all know what that looks like. Do you honestly not recognize it as a real factor, and a problem?

John, you did not answer my question about dogmatic sedeplenism, but that's ok. As I said I am moving on rather than engaging in more fruitless back and forth. And by that do I not mean I disagree with everything you posted here about it. A blessed remainder of Advent to you mate.

insidebaseball · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2011, 07:19:57 AM »

This position doesn't seem balanced. I believe the sspx clergy should openly engage with sede clergy on the grounds of unity of faith. V2 is obviously the source of heresies and the novus order and their sacraments should be avoided. Now if the sede clergy are beligerent than they deserve their isolation.

Sigismund · « **Reply #7 on:** December 10, 2011, 09:32:29 AM »

I don't see how any priest associated with the SSPX, who believes that the Man In Rome is not the pope, could tolerate the Society negotiating with him as if he were.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #8 on:** December 11, 2011, 08:31:25 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Same here. Historically, only schismatic sects "negotiated" with Rome, never did Catholics.

See if you can spot the difference between Rome and "rome".

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #9 on:** December 12, 2011, 02:30:46 AM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Your point would be?

Your point is the one which isn't clear. Here's what I assume you to be saying.

Major: Catholics don't negotiate with Rome.
Minor: The SSPX negotiates with "rome".
Conclusion: The SSPX is not Catholic (or behaves in a non-Catholic manner, or whatever).

As you can see, your point isn't clear. However, if it means what I assume it does, then it is flawed by using "rome" as equivalent to Rome in the two premises. It is also flawed in the Minor itself, which I deny. The SSPX does not negotiate with the Modernists.

Here's an alternative.

Major: Catholics must submit to Rome.
Minor: The SSPX thinks that "rome" is Rome.
Conclusion: The SSPX should submit to "rome."

I deny the Minor. The SSPX doesn't think that "rome" is Rome, or it would submit to it. It doesn't submit to "rome" precisely because it sees that "rome" is not Rome.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #10 on:** December 12, 2011, 09:15:24 AM »

Quote from: insidebaseball

I was wondering if there are any independant "sede" clergy that are considered "friends" of the society. After reading about the tragic death of the novus ordo priest in Florida who was considered a "friend of the society" I thought it odd that the sspx wouldn't publicly call any non hostle sede clergy a friend of the society. I think this should be promoted in order to show unity of Faith since the sspx is the biggest game in town.

What is the story in Florida? Also, I am not quite sure what you hope will be promoted for the sake of unity. (but I have the vague sense that I agree with you)

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #11 on:** December 12, 2011, 04:20:57 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Traditionally, there is no distinction between Rome and rome.

Ah, you're aware of that. Good.

But there is now. Big news.

Quote from: Cupertino

The term Rome always means when you are dealing with a man you believe is a true pope and/or those men representing him by delegated authority from that geographical location.

Right. See if you can find that definition somewhere for your own peace of mind. The whole point is that "always" is not "now."

“Let no mortal have the presumption to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incuмbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he departs from the faith”. Decretals of Gratian.

Quote from: Cupertino

Don't accept that? Then read what the rector of the SSPX seminary wrote 10 years ago:

"before the SSPX will even sit down to negotiate with Rome"

Loose talk, ten years ago. See if you can find anything similar from any of the leaders within the last few years when some have accused them of "negotiating" with Rome.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #12 on:** December 13, 2011, 05:41:21 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

Quote from: GertrudetheGreat
Loose talk, ten years ago. See if you can find anything similar from any of the leaders within the last few years when some have accused them of "negotiating" with Rome.

Will you look at yourself, Gertrude? Here you are on a lay forum criticizing laymen for using improper terminology as if dangerous, and when Bp. Williamson, rector of the SSPX seminary, publishes something intended for the whole SSPX followers, it suddenly becomes merely "loose talk" and dismissed as if no problem! I see you here wanting laymen to retract faulty wording...

Look at yourself carefully, Gertrude.

Thanks for the admonition. I'm sorry that fraternal correction has to be seen as a contest of wills.

Bishop Williamson isn't the pope, not even in the SSPX. In fact, he is notoriously at odds with Bishop Fellay and has been sending public messages of disagreement with the direction of the SSPX via his newsletters for at least ten years. For all I know he was doing exactly that in the text you quote.

Please give us the rest of Bishop Williamson's text, or point us to a source where we can look it up.

GertrudetheGreat · « **Reply #13 on:** December 13, 2011, 05:57:57 PM »

Quote from: Cupertino

If there were such "odds", Bp. Fellay should have made his will publicly known, but he did not; he condoned it entirely.

Well that's a cop-out. So you don't even have the text, you just grabbed a fragment somebody used elsewhere, and pasted it in here? Oh my.

As for loose talk, in relation to sacred doctrine, it's evil.

I disagree about relative respect for priests and laymen. Our respect and consideration for priests must be immeasurably greater than our respect for our fellow laymen. God will demand more from those to whom He has given much. It isn't your job.

My Catholic instincts are directly the opposite of your instincts on both of these subjects. One of us is mistaken.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2011, 06:01:25 PM »

It was excessive respect for priests that allowed things to spin out of control in the 60s.

St. Pius X had laymen who would keep an eye on the priests.

That is needed now more than ever, not exaggerated respect for politician priests.