Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: No new bishops for SSPX  (Read 4341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Columba

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 552
  • Reputation: +728/-0
  • Gender: Male
No new bishops for SSPX
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2015, 07:36:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Pilar
    faithful who attend the Masses of the SSPX, except
    Third Order Members, are not subordinate to the superiors of the SSPX in any way.

    The ad hoc condition and state-of-necessity status of the SSPX leaves its faithful unbound under the official laws of subordination but Society governing structure is nevertheless easily recognized as hierarchical. Within any group of human beings, those not governing are considered to be among the governed. SSPX faithful are de facto subordinate and among the governed to the degree they participate in institutions governed by the SSPX.

    The de facto condition of their subordination exempts SSPX faithful from official punishment for disobedience that might otherwise apply under de jure subordination. However, SSPX faithful can still be justly punished by unofficial means such as social ostracization.

    My point is that even such unofficial punishment would be unjust if applied against concerned faithful urging the SSPX to realistically safeguard its own survival by adapting to the likelihood of Rome remaining unconverted for the foreseeable future.

    Offline Marlelar

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3475
    • Reputation: +1808/-222
    • Gender: Female
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #16 on: March 30, 2015, 07:40:53 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ok, I admit it.  I'm dense as a doorknob.  I don't see anything in that statement that says SSPX will not consecrate any new bishops.  It doesn't open the door to any, but neither does it close it.

    What am I missing?


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21835
    • Reputation: +19176/-112
    • Gender: Male
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #17 on: March 30, 2015, 09:27:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marlelar
    Ok, I admit it.  I'm dense as a doorknob.  I don't see anything in that statement that says SSPX will not consecrate any new bishops.  It doesn't open the door to any, but neither does it close it.

    What am I missing?


    Re-read my post on page 1, which starts off, "It's more of a logical consequence."

    Put simply, SSPX would be transparently hypocritical (so blatant that not even their biggest fanboys could justify it) if it condemned the Faure consecration but then at some point in the future consecrated a bishop without Rome's permission. Pot calling the kettle black? Hypocrisy? You get the idea.

    What could the SSPX possibly say to the Resistance?

    "Your valid bishop's publicly-witnessed consecration, without papal approval, of an auxiliary bishop-without-jurisdiction for the sake of maintaining Tradition is naughty and schismatic. See you in hell...from heaven! Being excommunicated is a bummer, isn't it?
    --- but ---
    Our valid bishop's publicly-witnessed consecration, without papal approval, of an auxiliary bishop-without-jurisdiction for the sake of maintaining Tradition is a beautiful thing. *sigh* Now get out your checkbook. Just remember, we're SSPX and we're awesome."

    Who would buy that? Only those whose minds were befuddled by years of cult propaganda. But certainly no one with a sane mind!

    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline Marlelar

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3475
    • Reputation: +1808/-222
    • Gender: Female
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #18 on: March 30, 2015, 10:50:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, I get the "reading between the lines" now.  From some of the other posts I thought a specific statement had been made and that I had missed it.

     :fryingpan:


    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1361/-80
    • Gender: Male
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #19 on: March 31, 2015, 11:34:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Since the Society has three hale and hearty Bishops, it is unlikely that there will be any need for further episcopal consecrations any time soon, probably not for another 15 years at least (Bishop Fellay, for example, is only 57, while Bishop Williamson is around 75 by comparison), and the situation in the Church may well have improved by that time. Besides, one essential requirement laid down as such by the General Chapter is the perpetual guarantee of at least one bishop. So, in the case of any new canonical structure offered by Rome and accepted by the Society, a Personal Prelacy or more preferably, an Apostolic Administration, the guarantee of bishops to head the society will be part of the constitutions of the new structure. Also, bishops who have ordinary power can do things auxiliary bishops cannot, for example, convene marriage tribunals to pass juridical declarations on annulments and other such things. That was one of the reasons for the desirable condition, “ecclesiastical tribunals in the first instance” beside "“exemption of the houses of the Society of Saint Pius X in relation to the diocesan bishops”. It is divine law that no bishop becomes an Ordinary save through appointment or confirmation by the Pope.  All in all, there remains no reason in principle why such an offer should be refused, in the unlikely event that Rome at some future time becomes ready and willing to make and honor them according to the six conditions. Contrary to Fr. Pfeiffer's claim, the SSPX has not stated it will not consecrate new bishops. Archbishop Lefebvre's position - in 1973, in 1988, and beyond - was that it is preferable to have canonical approval and do everything within that structure, and only if that is unjustly denied to us, we disregard the unlawful command and carry on anyway, and that's what the Society's approach still is.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.


    Offline Columba

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 552
    • Reputation: +728/-0
    • Gender: Male
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #20 on: March 31, 2015, 01:03:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nishant
    It is divine law that no bishop becomes an Ordinary save through appointment or confirmation by the Pope.  All in all, there remains no reason in principle why such an offer should be refused, in the unlikely event that Rome at some future time becomes ready and willing to make and honor them according to the six conditions. [...]

    If an SSPX bishop judges that Society leadership is sabotaging doctrine in what he suspects is a quid pro quo arrangement to cultivate the offer you describe, is he not conscience-bound to follow the example of ABL's Operation Survival? One might question the said bishop's subjective judgement, but if his judgement was informed and honestly made, is he not obligated to act?

    Menzingen's scatter-shot criticism went beyond questioning the subjective judgement behind of Bp Williamson's renewed Operation Survival and thereby undermined any future justification for their own Operation Survival. However, Menzingen has proven it can bend and mold reality with a skill matching the most adroit of modernists so I agree there is nothing really preventing a reversal justifying their own unapproved consecration if it suited their purpose. Perhaps objective-minded resistors naively imagine that constraints of reality applying to them might also apply to Menzingen. This very fluidity of Menzingen is the hallmark of St. Pius X-defined modernism and clearly exposes an internal compromise to those with eyes to see.

    Williamson's greatest "sin" was not doubting the holohoax, but exposing the subjectivism behind otherwise seemingly orthodox trad movements. Even an apparently flawless theology falls short when built atop a false philosophical framework.

    The Menzingen criticism is un-serious from a theological standpoint but it does provide opportunity for playing the white hat against Williamson's black hat in that fictional narrative which labels itself "world news." Well played Menzingen, well played.

    Oops! Wait a minute! A growing number of people consider a negative media slant to be a badge of credibility and media favor as evidence of compromise. Maybe not so well played after all.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 21835
    • Reputation: +19176/-112
    • Gender: Male
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #21 on: March 31, 2015, 03:41:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Columba

    Menzingen's scatter-shot criticism went beyond questioning the subjective judgement behind of Bp Williamson's renewed Operation Survival and thereby undermined any future justification for their own Operation Survival. However, Menzingen has proven it can bend and mold reality with a skill matching the most adroit of modernists so I agree there is nothing really preventing a reversal justifying their own unapproved consecration if it suited their purpose. Perhaps objective-minded resistors naively imagine that constraints of reality applying to them might also apply to Menzingen. This very fluidity of Menzingen is the hallmark of St. Pius X-defined modernism and clearly exposes an internal compromise to those with eyes to see.

    Williamson's greatest "sin" was not doubting the holohoax, but exposing the subjectivism behind otherwise seemingly orthodox trad movements. Even an apparently flawless theology falls short when built atop a false philosophical framework.


    Very good point. It appears to be evidence that Modernism has found a crack and poured in to the SSPX itself.

    I have often pointed out the similarity between the words/actions of the Freemasonic world governments and those of the SSPX.

    When the SSPX starts acting/sounding like the Modernism-infused, Judeo-Freemason-controlled conciliar church, you know you have a problem.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!

    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3302
    • Reputation: +1220/-63
    • Gender: Female
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #22 on: March 31, 2015, 03:59:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If you understand and see that Rome was taken over/infiltrated after Pius XII, then what follows?  Do you not have Communists and they are clergy in wolves clothing, correct?  Pope Pius reminded the Church, ANYONE, Clergy who are in supporting Socialism (as they did in Europe 1947-) are excommunicated.  You do not need a tribunal to excommunicate and these clergy, according to Pope Pius XII stated their sacraments were no good and anyone going to them for sacraments were excommunicated as well.  

    Is Rome, Rome or Communists?  Trying to align oneself would not be aligned with Christ's Church.

    The only way would be Epikea for authority to make Bishops and clergy.
    Question:  Pius X groups was founded on? jurisdiction of Rome, that was already taken over by communist.  Is there such a thing as jurisdiction in Christ's eyes as oK with communist?  No way.

    Can a bishop be made in Pius the X group, when we know, it is Not Rome, but communist?   No bishop will be made.  

    Sure, we all would like to be united with the Church that Christ founded, but we can not align ourselves with those we know, are not united themselves to Christ Church.


    Offline Nishant

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2126
    • Reputation: +1361/-80
    • Gender: Male
    No new bishops for SSPX
    « Reply #23 on: March 31, 2015, 11:16:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    One might question the said bishop's subjective judgement, but if his judgement was informed and honestly made, is he not obligated to act?


    Sure, but by the same token, if not one bishop, but three, several district superiors, and essentially over 500 priests now formed the informed and sincere judgment that Archbishop Lefebvre would have accepted the proposal of a canonical structure under the General Chapter Norms, are they not likewise obligated in good conscience to act on that judgment? And if in the same measure, you say that you judge that and are subjectively convinced that there is a need for more bishops today - which I do not doubt - the SSPX is likewise subjectively convinced, and consistently so, that there is not an urgent and pressing need for more bishops at this moment in time. So, who is right? That will depend on who is ultimately right on relations with the Roman authorities according to Catholic principles and in fidelity to Archbishop Lefebvre. This is +ABL in 1990, “Someone was saying to me yesterday, ‘But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops’ jurisdiction?’ But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But i do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been till now the difficulty is precisely their giving us a traditionalist bishop.” and that is exactly the same principle the Society still operates on. With regard to Bishop Williamson, I actually think the Society leadership was imprudent on this one, they should have ignored it and said nothing.

    But, it couldn't be more clear that Fr. Pfeiffer's distaste for the Society leadership comes from emotional repugnance to the SSPX more than it does from intellectual conviction. He's said the SSPX is worse than the FSSP in the past, and some posters here seem to think the SSPX is worse than Rome, worse than the Freemasons, worse than anything. That isn't a balanced judgment by any means! Disagree with the Society if you must, but the SSPX remains a group of traditional Catholics. The SSPX has not said it will not consecrate new bishops, that is Fr. Pfeiffer's vivid imagination running wild. Should the real need arise in the future (consecrations can only be justified in a real state of necessity), there is no reason why the SSPX will not consecrate more bishops.
    "Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16