Author Topic: How many priests and religious has the SSPX lost yet ? (Read 15415 times)

Matto · « **Reply #30 on:** March 16, 2014, 06:20:54 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

... and for the record, I am NOT for an accord.

Good. I think an accord would be horrible and a form of mass spiritual ѕυιcιdє.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #31 on:** March 16, 2014, 06:27:34 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence ... ?

Courtesy of a French priest:

Courtesy of an Australian:
[url=https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.wordpress.com/]Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє?

Have you read them?
Will you?

VinnyF · « **Reply #32 on:** March 16, 2014, 07:37:52 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF
Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence ... ?

Courtesy of a French priest:

Courtesy of an Australian:
[url=https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.wordpress.com/]Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє?

Have you read them?
Will you?

I have not. I will! however, if all this is about the reconcilliation that I am not in favor of and that I personally think will not happen for another decade at least, what is the point? Is there more substance than the aborted Reconciliation?

B from A · « **Reply #33 on:** March 16, 2014, 07:55:10 PM »

Quote from: VinnyF

... and for the record, I am NOT for an accord.

For the record, if the SSPX were to make an accord with Modernist Rome (modernist Rome as she is right now - you know, the Francis "we might consider civil unions" Rome), would you continue to support Bishop Fellay & the SSPX?

You may treat this as a strictly hypothetical question, given your earlier mention that you don't anticipate it happening. Just use your imagination to pretend that the impossible happened & they did make a deal, would you still support the SSPX? Would it change anything for you, in your practice, or your attitude toward the SSPX, etc? And if your answer is in the form of, "it would depend on the conditions of the deal", then please specify in what way.

VinnyF · « **Reply #34 on:** March 16, 2014, 08:20:21 PM »

Quote from: B from A

Quote from: VinnyF
... and for the record, I am NOT for an accord.

For the record, if the SSPX were to make an accord with Modernist Rome (modernist Rome as she is right now - you know, the Francis "we might consider civil unions" Rome), would you continue to support Bishop Fellay & the SSPX?

You may treat this as a strictly hypothetical question, given your earlier mention that you don't anticipate it happening. Just use your imagination to pretend that the impossible happened & they did make a deal, would you still support the SSPX? Would it change anything for you, in your practice, or your attitude toward the SSPX, etc? And if your answer is in the form of, "it would depend on the conditions of the deal", then please specify in what way.

Honestly, if a deal were made with the current Pope and his current agenda, it would change my attitude toward the deal negotiators. The conditions of the deal would be an issue but I find it impossible to imagine a deal that would provide an "iron-clad" protection to continue the apostolate.

hugeman · « **Reply #35 on:** March 16, 2014, 08:40:13 PM »

Too many are missing the main event:
There's not likely to be any accord-- at least any public accord. Bergoglio and Mueller have probably seen how incompetent Fellay and Co handled the last set of docuмents. Fellay, in his AFD, has already sold his soul, and the SSPX, down the river. Remember-- he promised to dedicate all his efforts to bring about this union--regardless of what happens. He has never, ever, publicly stood up and retracted, to the pope and to the world, the AFD.

It is far more likely that his handlers will just have a "soft" merger. The Novus Ordo pres-by-ters will attend the new seminary in Virginia for "Latin Mass " orientation and crash courses; SSPX seminarians will be invited to Novus Ordo training camps; N.O teachers will "visit" SSPX seminaries, N.O. Bishops will continue to confirm SSPX children (like in France); marriages will be "performed" with BOTH Novus Ordo Pres-by-ters and SSPX priests both officiating (as in Europe now); and such cooperation will continue until all the parties think its ripe for a seamless agreement.

They have already accepted the Vatican Council; ninety five per cent of it is okay; they have already stopped preaching against the Novus Ordo; they have already accepted the New Mass in principle. More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants: Make the two organizations virtually identical, just carve out for the SSPX the "high road" type of services (e.g. the High Anglican Church), and eventually take the place of the infamous "Legions of Christ" of the Marcial Maciel debacle-- who also held themselves out to "save the church for the pope!" Behind all their pomp and circuмstance-- there was no substance, just filth. When all the old timers are hammered into submission in the SSPX, there will also be nothing behind the "pomp and circuмstances."

holysoulsacademy · « **Reply #36 on:** March 16, 2014, 08:50:06 PM »

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House).

Someone else mentioned this to us too. A NO Msgr. has moved in to Ridgefield - is this to assist at Masses, Confessions?
I was going to post an inquiry about this to get a second validation.
Now it's confirmed.

B from A · « **Reply #37 on:** March 16, 2014, 09:00:26 PM »

Quote from: hugeman

Too many are missing the main event:
There's not likely to be any accord-- at least any public accord. Fellay, in his AFD, has already sold his soul, and the SSPX, down the river. Remember-- he promised to dedicate all his efforts to bring about this union--regardless of what happens. He has never, ever, publicly stood up and retracted, to the pope and to the world, the AFD. They have already accepted the Vatican Council;

I agree. After asking my question about "what if there is a deal", I was typing up another response along these lines - i.e. that "accord or no accord" is not the primary issue, but the liberalizing, the neutralizing, of which there are countless examples. But I was not satisfied with what I typed, and as I do not have a "concise list of evidence" readily available at my fingertips, I decided not to bother with it.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #38 on:** March 17, 2014, 06:02:24 AM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Honestly, if a deal were made with the current Pope and his current agenda, it would change my attitude toward the deal negotiators. The conditions of the deal would be an issue but I find it impossible to imagine a deal that would provide an "iron-clad" protection to continue the apostolate.

Given A and B, why do you find the attempted negotiations which have already occurred to be acceptable?

Leaving aside the question of what individuals should do about it, why has your opinion of the negotiators not already changed?

MaterDominici · « **Reply #39 on:** March 17, 2014, 06:09:48 AM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: MaterDominici
Quote from: VinnyF
Can you point me to a fairly concise list of evidence ... ?

Courtesy of a French priest:

Courtesy of an Australian:
[url=https://isthisoperationѕυιcιdє.wordpress.com/]Is This Operation ѕυιcιdє?

Have you read them?
Will you?

I have not. I will! however, if all this is about the reconcilliation that I am not in favor of and that I personally think will not happen for another decade at least, what is the point? Is there more substance than the aborted Reconciliation?

The purpose of these docuмents is to prove that the present leadership of the Society desires a deal with Rome -- converted or not -- and that they have and continue to do, say, and change things in an effort to make the Society more appealing to the Roman side of the negotiating table.

If you were a priest or layman in favor of a deal, there would be no reason to do or say anything at all. But, if you're not in favor of this newly-publicized direction, the question of what, if anything, a priest or layman should do about it should be addressed.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #40 on:** March 17, 2014, 06:24:31 AM »

Quote

I personally think will not happen for another decade at least

It's already been nearly 2 years since these things became public. I do believe that if the "letter of the 3 bishops" had not been made public, that the Society would quite likely already be approved by Rome. I also can't imagine at this point that Fr Pflueger's estimation that the Society will have Rome's approval by August 2014 could be possible.

But, my question for you is if you believe the timeline for a deal to be about a decade from now, at what point will you become concerned and believe that it's proper for a priest or layman to say or do something about it? At 5 years? 3 years? 1 year?

If you think no deal is possible now, but it might be in a decade, surely you agree that something would have to change during that time. What do you imagine these changes would be? Do you have no problem with them?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions. I do have a very hard time understanding someone who does not desire a deal with Rome, but believes that all Society members and parishioners should not be concerned and/or say nothing about the ongoing actions of Society leadership.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #41 on:** March 17, 2014, 06:30:06 AM »

There is an easy solution to all of this. The SSPX could make a list of the scandals and heresies of Bergoglio and denounce him as a valid pontiff and call for the unification of all Catholics against the modernist sect that occupies our buildings.

VinnyF · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2014, 08:42:00 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: VinnyF
Honestly, if a deal were made with the current Pope and his current agenda, it would change my attitude toward the deal negotiators. The conditions of the deal would be an issue but I find it impossible to imagine a deal that would provide an "iron-clad" protection to continue the apostolate.

Given A and B, why do you find the attempted negotiations which have already occurred to be acceptable?

Leaving aside the question of what individuals should do about it, why has your opinion of the negotiators not already changed?

Because I see absolutely no difference between +Fellay's desire to regularize the Society and the Archbishop's attempt, which I also was not crazy about. The Achbishop's Protocol was much scarier than the 2012 docuмent in that it placed the Society under an unnamed group of "Traditional Bishops" and also accepted Lumen Gentium, the validity of the Novus Ordo, and the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

After spending months hammering out the Protocol with +Ratzinger, +ABL, as we all know, signed it and then reneged the next day because he did not, in his words, trust that he would be given a Bishop. If Rome would have accepted the June consecrations, we would be celebrating 25 years of regularity.

In 2012, Bishop Fellay started with the Protocol but modified it in a way that was unacceptable to Rome (substitution of the Oath Against Modernism in place of the CCC to arbitrate disputes). Hence the agreement failed and +Fellay in hindsight, thinks that to be fortunate given what has happened since.

+Fellay appears to me to share, at some level, the same desire to have canonical regularity for the Society as +ABL did. I do not hold that against either of them although I believe the path is dangerous given the current Pope and episcopate.

VinnyF · « **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2014, 08:49:27 AM »

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants:

So I guess it doesn't "bother" you that Fr. Voigt is one of those Novus Ordo pres-by-ters, formed in the Novus Ordo?

Come to think of it, I imagine you also feel the same way about the pres-by-ter, Fr Ringrose, who also came from the Diocese of Baltimore and a Novus Ordo formation?

Hopefully, you're boycotting their Masses as their formation make them undesirable.

B from A · « **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2014, 09:25:18 AM »

Quote from: VinnyF

Quote from: hugeman

More pres-by-ters and "monsigneurs," all unordained, will continue too move into SSPX locations (like in Ridgefield Retreat House). This is all most likely in keeping with the recommendations of their marketing consultants:

So I guess it doesn't "bother" you that Fr. Voigt is one of those Novus Ordo pres-by-ters, formed in the Novus Ordo?

Come to think of it, I imagine you also feel the same way about the pres-by-ter, Fr Ringrose, who also came from the Diocese of Baltimore and a Novus Ordo formation?

Hopefully, you're boycotting their Masses as their formation make them undesirable.

I thought he was referring to the fact of not being conditionally ordained. Both Frs. Voigt & Ringrose are conditionally ordained in the Traditional rite. Of course hugeman can speak for himself, but I only saw him mention "unordained", not their "formation".