Author Topic: Were is the Bishop for FSSP? (Read 3752 times)

alemany · « **on:** September 13, 2009, 08:23:52 PM »

:incense:With the big debate going on between the society of Pius X and it's struggles with Rome. In Rome started the fraternity of St. Peter to counter the situation. It sure seems like a legitimate question to ask about the Bishop. Where is the Bishop I don't see him?! And from what I understand the fraternity was promised the bishops several years ago by the last pope. Not to go to a debate about the legitimacy of the fraternity, because without a bishop they can be taken away at any time!

To me a bishop is more like an insurance program, the fact that the fraternity has to work under the diocesan Bishop. In my experience the bishops for the big part are against the Tridentine mass. As a person who is not into it for nostalgia, because I'm too young!

Vladimir · « **Reply #1 on:** September 13, 2009, 11:25:13 PM »

I do not think that they will get one in the future. Something along the same lines happened with Archbishop Lefebvre, if you recall, Rome said that She would give him permission to consecrate bishops or something along those lines, but She never did (which is the reason the FSSPX exists today).

A good question.

This is completely random, but your username "alemany" reminds me of "Allemande" the name of a common movement in the Baroque harpsichord suite, usually the most beautiful one; I think that it is a nice name. Thank you.

Caraffa · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2009, 11:48:26 PM »

I don't see them getting one either and to be honest, having the hip happenin' Modern Church pick their bishop would likely be bad for them. Fr Bisig, was from what I understand, was more traditional than the Ecclesia Dei approved Fr. Devillers.

Belloc · « **Reply #3 on:** September 14, 2009, 12:55:04 PM »

Known a few folks in FSSP, good people, but they have to work within and at direction of NO types....Bruskweicz being a rare exception....they have to play "jump" and "roll over" with NO......JP2 promised ABL one bishop, ABL wanted 4 and the rest is history...

Know a seminarian that is going to be FSSP priest, but is going to regular seminary in Philly.....wonder what indoctrination at that "conservative" seminary he gets....likely, V2 is fine, just needs tinkering with, JP2 is "the great", SSPX are nuts and America is the best place there ever was or will be.....

Caraffa · « **Reply #4 on:** September 14, 2009, 02:03:33 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

Know a seminarian that is going to be FSSP priest, but is going to regular seminary in Philly.....wonder what indoctrination at that "conservative" seminary he gets....likely, V2 is fine, just needs tinkering with, JP2 is "the great", SSPX are nuts and America is the best place there ever was or will be.....

There are a few FSSP priests who do this unfortunately. The FSSP really should not allow it, but they probably can't. I can see where this leads to, abortion reductionism, V2 praise, get out their and support Americanism and Republicanism, etc.

Out of curiosity, does the FSSP have more seminarians that the SSPX? I was told that they do. However, when one considers that the SSPX requires that those who may have a vocation to spend some years out in the world then it makes sense.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #5 on:** September 14, 2009, 02:15:15 PM »

I disagree with the time in the world policy. I have firsthand experience of it as having been a likely source of corruption.

Does anyone know the rationale for this?

I also know a superb FSSP priest. I have no way of knowing, but it seems a bit uncertian for them...but they believe in obedience and accountability, which lead to humility and patience.

Every once in awhile, the enormity of this crisis, the wondering about things no layperson should have to even care about just slams me. :boxer: :boxer:

Caraffa · « **Reply #6 on:** September 14, 2009, 02:36:28 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

I disagree with the time in the world policy. I have firsthand experience of it as having been a likely source of corruption.

I agree. There are decent young men from SSPX families who go FSSP likely because of this. It is one area that I disagree with the SSPX.

Quote

Does anyone know the rationale for this?

From what I understand, they do it so that if one does not have a vocation to the priesthood, they won't be shocked when they leave. The problem is that the logic is off and having them in the world (unless it is at, say a decent Catholic College), will lead to problems and kill potential vocations. There is something "Amish" about it and I mean that in a bad way.

Vladimir · « **Reply #7 on:** September 14, 2009, 02:48:36 PM »

I think that if someone discerning a vocation to the holy priesthood cannot overcome the everyday temptations of a layperson in the world, then he will not be able to bear the temptations of a priest.

alemany · « **Reply #8 on:** September 14, 2009, 11:57:07 PM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

I disagree with the time in the world policy. I have firsthand experience of it as having been a likely source of corruption.

Does anyone know the rationale for this?

I also know a superb FSSP priest. I have no way of knowing, but it seems a bit uncertian for them...but they believe in obedience and accountability, which lead to humility and patience.

In my understanding that that the worldly political climate, is not ready to see a bishop of the traditional caliber?

That the church might see this as a political movement, by endorsing this old-fashioned thinking is too out of step for the world? I don't think this pope cares, and I have a hunch we will see him and hear him pushing tradition like he did in Africa.

I think were good to see some good appointments of future bishops that are very traditional, and several Cardinals are going to be retiring, I see the pendulum swinging.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2009, 06:58:57 AM »

Hopefully!

And convents, schools and hospitals full of good sisters and nuns would be great, too!

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2009, 09:52:44 AM »

Do priests go back and forth between the SSPX and FSSP? If the FSSP ever got to the point where they "had it" with Rome, they could always join the SSPX, right? Or, does the SSPX even want them? Perhaps they could call themselves the FSPX? Seriously!

alemany · « **Reply #11 on:** September 16, 2009, 01:08:25 PM »

I recently spoke with a very popular priest from the fraternity of St. Peter and put the question to him about this bishop issued. He told me that him and several priests have been talking about this for the past few days. And when I think he had said to me makes good sense.

He explained it like this, there will be no new bishop! And for good reason, the pope has far bigger plans for the church.

If you look at it like the fraternity gets a bishop, it could be misconstrued as a new rite of the church. but then there would be a traditional rite.

So that would put the situation in a more confusing state than it is now, this pope wants to change the entire church back to tradition! And he's been a do it by putting traditional replacements. several cardinals are going to retire and he will replace them with traditional ones.And that goes for bishops as well.

If you look at what the Pope is done already, he has set a precedence of leaning towards tradition very strongly! I know before he was pope he celebrated the Tridentine, and I understand he doesn't privately every day.

So looking at what the pope is doing, it makes perfect sense for him to pass on this bishop issue. Since the problem in the church is so big, modernism and so on. If this pope stays alive for another 20 years, my hunch we will see the pendulum of tradition make a big swing.

Everything this pope is done to present he has that steadfast to tradition, the media holds the spoken contempt. The only report I've heard so far has been negative from the media, when he went out to Africa and spoke the truth. Now that made the news and they weren't happy about it! This pope has the Liberals shaking in their shoes, and it's about time!

Jehanne · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2009, 09:34:06 PM »

Quote from: alemany

If you look at what the Pope is done already, he has set a precedence of leaning towards tradition very strongly! I know before he was pope he celebrated the Tridentine, and I understand he doesn't privately every day.

Pope Benedict has stated that he no longer believes that infants who die without Baptism are excluded from Heaven, the Beatific Vision. This makes him a heretic, so I do not know how you could claim that he is returning the Church to Tradition, unless, of course, he is planning on doing the same with himself and his Pontificate.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2009, 10:08:13 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

Quote from: Elizabeth
I disagree with the time in the world policy. I have firsthand experience of it as having been a likely source of corruption.

I agree. There are decent young men from SSPX families who go FSSP likely because of this. It is one area that I disagree with the SSPX.

Quote
Does anyone know the rationale for this?

From what I understand, they do it so that if one does not have a vocation to the priesthood, they won't be shocked when they leave. The problem is that the logic is off and having them in the world (unless it is at, say a decent Catholic College), will lead to problems and kill potential vocations. There is something "Amish" about it and I mean that in a bad way.

What are you all referring to exactly when referring to this "world policy"? From what I know, they FORMERLY required potential seminarians to spend a year at a priory. That is no longer. Also, more recently, they do require seminarians to return home (or elsewhere) for at least some vacations (Easter, Christmas, summer) as somewhat of a reality check to see things like wether or not they will keep up with spiritual duties while away from the seminary.

Is this practice what you're referring to?

Caraffa · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2009, 10:49:42 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Caraffa
Quote from: Elizabeth
I disagree with the time in the world policy. I have firsthand experience of it as having been a likely source of corruption.

I agree. There are decent young men from SSPX families who go FSSP likely because of this. It is one area that I disagree with the SSPX.

Quote
Does anyone know the rationale for this?

From what I understand, they do it so that if one does not have a vocation to the priesthood, they won't be shocked when they leave. The problem is that the logic is off and having them in the world (unless it is at, say a decent Catholic College), will lead to problems and kill potential vocations. There is something "Amish" about it and I mean that in a bad way.

What are you all referring to exactly when referring to this "world policy"? From what I know, they FORMERLY required potential seminarians to spend a year at a priory. That is no longer. Also, more recently, they do require seminarians to return home (or elsewhere) for at least some vacations (Easter, Christmas, summer) as somewhat of a reality check to see things like wether or not they will keep up with spiritual duties while away from the seminary.

Is this practice what you're referring to?

No, not at all. All seminarians usually go home during those times.

A few posts on this forum refers to what I'm talking about: http://eiusdemgeneris.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1244432574/0