Author Topic: Orange Light? (Read 15869 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2013, 04:53:46 PM »

Arguably, the 5 provisions of the 1988 protocol (which is all an Indult group like the FSSP accepts and only where it differed from the SSPX) per se require rather less than the 8 provisions of the 2012 preamble (which is apparently soon enough to become official SSPX policy).

Matthew · « **Reply #21 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:06:59 PM »

FWIW, Seraphim, none of this is news to me. This has all been churning around my brain for weeks (months), in particular the parallel between the current SSPX and other Indult groups.

My question is the one MaterDominici asked: what about those who don't have a place to go? After all, not all of us get a Resistance Mass once a month like those lucky folks in Minnesota *nudge, nudge*

Some of us are in more "ignored" far-flung hinterlands of Tradition.

It seems to be a revelation to you (an Aha! moment), but you have to admit: nothing has really happened in the past few weeks to justify a new thread. It's just something you personally put together recently.

Jus' sayin' (as the current lingo goes...)

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:13:59 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: s2srea
Quote
2) One of the reasons was that, even if everything said and done were Catholic and orthodox, they were still omitting to teach the faithful about the poisons contained in the doctrines of Vatican II;

Surely this was 'one of the reasons', but it was not the singular reason- there were other dangers to attending an Eclessia Dei mass, or other indults. And these other dangers, I think, not present in a current sspx mass of April 2013; at least not present at all chapels.

A cliff hanger! : )

What are you thinking of that would apply to ALL Eclessia Dei masses and not SSPX masses?

What confuses me with Sean's ongoing yellow-orange-red conversation is he's not making a distinction between those with resistance Mass locations and those without. It would make a difference, would it not? I'm sure Fr. Hewko, when giving s2s advice, knew what his Mass options were, correct?

Won't apply to all ED, but most: orders. Not many diocesan priests left that weren't ordained in the new rite or by a new bishop.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:19:32 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

FWIW, Seraphim, none of this is news to me. This has all been churning around my brain for weeks (months), in particular the parallel between the current SSPX and other Indult groups.

My question is the one MaterDominici asked: what about those who don't have a place to go? After all, not all of us get a Resistance Mass once a month like those lucky folks in Minnesota *nudge, nudge*

Some of us are in more "ignored" far-flung hinterlands of Tradition.

It seems to be a revelation to you (an Aha! moment), but you have to admit: nothing has really happened in the past few weeks to justify a new thread. It's just something you personally put together recently.

Jus' sayin' (as the current lingo goes...)

Matthew-

Respectfully disagree:

1) The doctrinal declaration of Bishop Fellay was only leaked a couple weeks ago;

2) Bishop Williamson then came out and said SSPX priests had a duty to denounce it from the pulpit, since the faith of their parishioners was imperiled;

3) Since then, there has been a couple weeks opportunity for priests to comply or resist this order;

4) Now that 2 weeks have gone by, and no SSPX priest has seen fit to warn his parishioners about the peril implicit in accepting the idea that V2 comes from tradition(!), the thought arises only now about the analogy between the SSPX and indult groups:

5) If we can't go there because they do not inoculate us against the poison, why can we go to an SSPX parish that likewise refuses to inoculate us against the recently released poison?

6) Perhaps this omission on the part of indult (and now SSPX) priests was never sufficient to preclude all attendance at an indult parish, but just simply another good reason to stay away;

7) But it is new in light of the recent release of the doctrinal declaration, and Bishop Williamson's two week-old assertion that all priests have the duty to denounce it to their faithful;

8) Now that two weeks have gone by, we ought to assess whether the silence of our priests in this doctrinal omission warrants further action on our part or not.

9) Other older parallels between the SSPX and indult groups are off subject so far as this thread is concerned.

Pax

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2013, 05:39:12 PM »

All that said, I guess I am kind of asking the same question as you, in a different way:

Does the refusal of SSPX pastors to warn the faithful about the poison contained in Bishop Fellay's acceptance of the hermeneutic of continuity (i.e, his acceptance of V2) mean we can no longer attend such chapels, since by analogy it amounts to the same omission as indult priests to warn against the poison of V2?

In good faith, I do not know what the answer is.

In time all things become clear.