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

« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Possible neo-SSPX strategy for Consecrations  (Read 145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Possible neo-SSPX strategy for Consecrations
« on: Yesterday at 01:24:08 PM »
From the Mailbag --
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote
I think the selection of priests to be consecrated by the SSSPX will include the "holy" ones and not the liberal or controversial ones. The liberal ones will still be the ones running the show, and the "holy" ones will be the face of the SSSPX...all the while, they will continue to teach that is ok to disregard and oppose the Sovereign Pontiff and remain Catholic.

The bogus ordo will probably not 'excommunicate' because that, in itself, proclaims objective Truth, but preach to the conservative Novus Ordo not to go to the SSSPX who is schismatic. The conservative SSSPXers will be in awe because the SSSPX took a "stand," overlooking the fact that the reason for consecrating was self-preservation. The liberals will be happy that there's no 'excommunication.'

The 'faithful' will see the 'holy' bishops and not suspect anything. Very few will leave. The money will keep rolling in. Everyone will still go down as a heretic for denying the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Kyrie Eleison!

Logged

Offline Centroamerica

Re: Possible neo-SSPX strategy for Consecrations
« Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 02:08:49 PM »
"Everyone will go down as a heretic for denying the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff".

And a lot of people said that in '88 but it didn't come to be. But a sweeping generalization like that is not rooted in reality and not in Thomism. Especially after being tied to a long line of assumptions meant to appear as inside analysis.

I would ask the writer of the comment if he believes there is currently a Roman Pontiff to subject himself to.

None of that thinking is in line with Bishop Williamson's line of thought on consecrations without a papal mandate, surely being the "not being subject" that the person refers to.

It is essentially a min-version of the Bishop Faure Consecration SSPX response...because what fun would it be if there wasn't a {illogical} tit for tat.

Reads like a Sean Johnson quip.

It also corners them, once again, into a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" position. If the SSPX consecrates, for example, a Fr. Le Roux (who replaced Bishop Williamson at the seminary or another who the Resistance has a gripe with maybe legitimately however) then the Resistance says "see! Bishops probably hand picked by Rome"or whatever they could think to be a reasonable accusation or assumption.

If the bishops are respectful and known as hardliners in the SSPX, then "see! It is a trap because this comment on Cath Info"...essentially.

I don't accept these sort of pre-loaded scenarios. It's absolutely not Thomism.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »