Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 49

Author Topic: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei  (Read 58023 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MaterDominici

  • Mod
  • Supporter
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #110 on: January 20, 2019, 11:45:01 PM »
Quote from: nottambula on January 20, 2019, 09:28:05 PM
The Psalm 129 blogger, and also Louie Verrecchio, are wearing rose-colored glasses!


https://psalm129.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/contra-fellay/
.....................

If the first several months of Fr. Pagliarani’s reign were perhaps underwhelming, his strong emphasis on the need for the Pope to return to Tradition and his apparent making of doctrine pre-eminent above a practical arrangement is a possible sign liberalism may be on its way out in the highest levels of the SSPX. It is now up to the Superior General to make sure liberalism is driven out of the SSPX completely. And that is a much taller order. Only time will tell.
I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!
Logged

Offline nottambula

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #111 on: January 21, 2019, 03:25:58 AM »
Quote from: MaterDominici on January 20, 2019, 11:45:01 PM
I'm alright with a little optimism. It would be terrible for many, many souls if the SSPX continued to sink. This post is cautiously optimistic that the SSPX might be rekindling old positions more in line with Archbishop Lefebvre and I don't see anything wrong with that!

Maybe the Psalm 129 blogger wrote a day too soon. News that the SSPX has now acquired a Conciliar bishop (reported only one day after the dissolution of Ecclesia Dei--that in itself an ominous sign, since it was yet one more 'gift' to the SSPX from His Humbleness), doesn't exactly inspire confidence that things are headed back in the right direction. Do we really think +Fellay is out of the picture now? No way. Rorate Caeli's report is correct in that the SSPX is "fast reaching full regularization by installments", and so it saddens me to see those who are holding on to false hope, even still.
Logged

Offline Maria Auxiliadora

  • Supporter
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #112 on: January 21, 2019, 05:45:22 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on January 20, 2019, 08:08:31 PM
Yes all 3 of those legal docuмents are related, but they are legal trickery.  Yes, I agree that these laws are trying to trick people into accepting the new mass, but no one has to accept the V2 heresies, either morally or legally.  Much likes states which impose illegal gun registration on their citizens, even though the Constitution allows free ownership (without registration), so these laws seek to put limits on the True Mass, which has a papal permission "in perpetuity".

Let's look at it another way.  The indult was started in the 80s right?  The new mass was started in 1969.  So we're talking about a period of 15 or so years where the new mass was "illegal", right?  Then the indult came along and mass was now "available", with restrictions, right?

If this is so, why did Pope Benedict say in his "motu" of 2007 that the 1962 missal "was always allowed"?  If it was always allowed, then why did we need the indult laws?

The truth of the matter is that the indult laws are overruled by Quo Primum's perpetual permission of the latin mass, which is why the latin mass was "always allowed".  


Precisely. They are "real trickery" but it is a fact that those who accept this "trickery" have in fact accepted the "V2 heresies and the Novus Ordo" in principle in order to use the 1962 missal. Even Summorum Pontificuм makes this quite clear. The article is interesting because it shows the relationship between the three indults consistently referencing the first indult Quattour Abhinc Annos of 1984 directly or indirectly.

But is it the Missal of Pius V they are talking about in these three indults? Or is it "real trickery"? Why is the 1962 mentioned in all? Why are all the indult communities mandated to use that missal? And their priests ordained specifically to say this missal? Why is it that the Institute of the Good Sheppard which had been regularized previous to Summorum Pontificuм was coerced (by Ecclesia Dei) around 5-6 years ago into being regulated by Summorum Pontificuм instead of the old agreement to just use the traditional Mass? And lastly, why is it that Rome convinced AB Lefebvre to sign an agreement to always do the 1962 missal?

Quattour Abhinc Annos makes it a condition that "these celebrations must be according to the 1962 Missal."

You are correct about permission "in perpetuity" as far as the traditional Roman Rite. But again, is the 1962 the "traditional Roman Rite"? If it was, it could not possibly be the subject of an indult. Don't be fooled by the "trickery" of BXVI in S.P. His goal and the goal of all the post V2 popes is to bring those who need this legal "trickery" back to the Novus Ordo.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #113 on: January 21, 2019, 06:29:14 AM »
Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora on January 21, 2019, 05:45:22 AM
And lastly, why is it that Rome convinced AB Lefebvre to sign an agreement to always do the 1962 missal?

Excellent question, Maria.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: A Step for the Regularization of the SSPX? - Dissolution of Ecclesia Dei
« Reply #114 on: January 21, 2019, 09:52:37 AM »
Quote
But again, is the 1962 the "traditional Roman Rite"?
You keep bringing up this question without a shred of evidence to prove it isn’t, other than your own opinion.  Is there one Vatican official, ever, to suggest that the 62 missal isn’t legal?

Secondly, as far as mass is concerned, the only change of any substance is the addition of St Jospeh - all other changes aren’t essential.  And even the addition of St Joseph was added AFTER the actual 62 law, so it’s debatable if it’s even part of Quo Primum’s legal child, or an additional change which doesn’t have the same obligation to follow.  (Many priests don’t include his name for this reason so the 62 missal is basically the same as the previous one).

So we're left with the changes to the calendar and Holy Week as to how to decide if the 62 missal is “received and approved” (which, mind you, if you believe John XXIII was pope, then you have NO RIGHT to even question the above).  ...But the mass is the same as the previous missal, (if you don’t include St Joseph) right?  So how is the 62 missal not ok?  

This is like the 5th time I’ve asked.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 49
« previous next »