Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?  (Read 3108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 606
  • Reputation: +605/-51
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?
« Reply #60 on: May 10, 2019, 07:01:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • More from “Mikael” of the French Resistance forum (DEEPL.com machine translation):

    http://resistance.vraiforum.com/t919-Engagements-perpetuels-dans-la-FSSPX.htm

    Bishop Lefebvre had a very great experience of the life of the Church, and his response to the modernist crisis was of a wisdom that no one now disputes; except the current FSSPX, which likes to undo what the Founder had prudently and gradually built in order to be able to "hold" in the storm until Rome finally converted to Tradition and rejected the liberal errors consecrated by the fateful Second Vatican Council.

    Indeed, Bishop Lefebvre did NOT want the members of his Fraternity to get involved too quickly in his priestly work.  He perceived the risk of recruitment, whereas the young people who addressed him could just as easily have fulfilled their vocation in other clerical formation structures if the crisis had not affected almost all seminaries and religious congregations.

    He was aware that many of these candidates were heading towards the Society of Saint Pius X at the time because they did not see any other possible way for them to respond to God's call.

    This is what Bishop Lefebvre said to the seminarians on May 30, 1971 (NB: the oral style is respected):

    Quote:

    I would also like to tell you, for the future, about the guidelines that are nevertheless useful to know.  See, the Fraternity was made in particular circumstances, in tragic circumstances of the Church today, and therefore that is why these commitments are temporary for a certain time and which can allow those who have entered the Fraternity because of the current circumstances, because of the current circumstances,  who might not have joined the Fraternity - besides, the Fraternity probably would not have existed at last if there hadn't been these circumstances - but who would rather have joined the Dominicans, the Jesuits, I don't know, the missionaries, a missionary Congregation if everything had been normal as in the past, so you wouldn't have found yourself together.  I think that this vocation that you may possibly have in your heart: I would rather be a vocation of preacher, I would rather have a vocation of contemplative, I would rather have a vocation of missionary, I would simply have a pastoral vocation in the diocese, in my diocese I would have been happy to be parish priest, to be vicar in my diocese, simply of ministry, what of traditional ministry.  Well, I think that throughout these years, once there will be enough of you, I have no problem with you obviously coming together spiritually and morally under the aegis of your directors of conscience, under the aegis of those who know you, seeking advice at last, but very gently, very gently, I would say a little bit like Father Libermann did at Issy-les-Moulineaux;


    But the new Superiors (as well as the members of the 2018 FSSPX Chapter) preferred to take a path contrary to Bishop Lefebvre's wisdom: that of forcing young people to commit themselves forever to the FSSPX, without which they could not receive ordination.

    It is of course claimed to be in line only with the laws of the Church (yes, but "conciliar"!)....

    In reality, the aim is to place these young people under the authority of this conciliar Church, which we now refuse to denounce and fight publicly (as proof, the "deadly" acceptance of jurisdiction over the sacraments).  At the same time, there is an odious shop spirit of locking young traditionalists in the trap "outside the neo-FSSPX, no salvation for candidates for the priesthood".

    We must therefore thank Heaven for having opened another path by allowing the creation of the seminary of Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, which for its part intends to respect the instructions inherited from Bishop Lefebvre, leaving young Levites to commit themselves without constraint, to bring their vocation to maturity at the pace of a wise spiritual progression.


    Offline AlligatorDicax

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 797
    • Reputation: +319/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Youth/Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?
    « Reply #61 on: May 10, 2019, 08:48:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • For readers whom I unintentionally confused by this portion of my Reply #58:


    For CathInfo readers who might have missed it: As "Pope Francis", Bergoglio officially & openly ratted out the "Underground Church" in Red China [....]  Maybe clergy from the Roman Curia weren't keen on risking their own lives, e.g., against atheist Chinese secret police, to conduct official visitations to demand obedience or conformance to modernist norms as newly justified by the latest reïnterpretation of "The Spirit of Vatican II"?

    This shameful deal with Red China by "Pope Francis" Bergoglio, which is regrettably not a product of my imagination, had no connection with SSPX, so some of what I already posted in this thread, plus any further discussion that's specific to that story, most properly belongs in the CathInfo "Crisis in the Church" (sub)forum [†] [×].


    <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Young_Pioneers_of_China%2C_School_Opening.jpg/618px-Young_Pioneers_of_China%2C_School_Opening.jpg>
    Young Pioneers of China at a school opening.

    I should've included an explicit photo-credit with that legend [*], e.g.: "Original photo by ‘Yoshi Canopus’ (Sep. 01, 2009) for Wikimedia Commons."

    The Vatican sell-out to the Red-Chinese government is significant to my reply only as recent news that motivated my choice of the photo of red-neckerchiefed uniformed Red-Chinese Pioneers (instead of former-Soviet-Union Pioneers) to illustrate naïve but "ardent & unquestioning obedience".  It's my imagination that provides the connection between the Pioneers and the previously illustrated "Papa Comunista" (altho' that might be more real than I know).

    There seems to be little wiggle-room allowed for the new-fangled SSPX perpetual engagements.  The only practical issue is what color(s) of neckerchief the neoSSPX seminarians ought to wear to signify their ardent & unquestioning obedience to Menzingen: Whether red in expectation of a future accord with "Papa Comunista",  or some other color to be debated behind closed doors?

    -------
    Note †: The best match is perhaps a topic that was originated by ‘Incredulous’ in Jan. 2018: <https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/francis-allows-communist-chinese-to-replace-newchurch-bishops/>, which provides 1 external link (i.e., to a Web address outside CathInfo) to the story.  For Internet searches to find external content, it might be helpful to know that the Red-Chinese government-approved "church" is named "Catholic Patriotic Association".

    Note ×: I'm omitting external links to existing articles on-line, because at present, that story is really off-topic for the "SSPX Resistance News" (sub)forum <https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/>, where I've posted this reply of clarification.  I see that it's possible that 1 ‘Hero Member’ has mended his ways in that regard.  So cf. note †.

    Note *: Writing or speaking strictly about page-layout, when considering the descriptive text for an illustration, only what appears above it is the caption; what appears below it is the legend.


    Offline homeschoolmom

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 117
    • Reputation: +75/-12
    • Gender: Female
    Re: SSPX Morphing: Perpetual Engagements as Seminarians?
    « Reply #62 on: May 12, 2019, 07:42:46 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do they truly have no power to bind anyone to anything and never have?

    Fr Cekada says they never got the final ok for the union and therefore don't have the power of the Church behind them when they receive these engagement. If that is correct, could that have changed now? Perhaps this new statute is yet another backroom agreement with Rome? Rome has "authorized" the confessions, the marriages, the ordinations, and also the perpetual engagements…?

    I am still genuinely curious about this, if anyone knows the answer. On what basis does the SSPX accept perpetual engagements? I can't tell if Fr Cekada is correct or if he is just driven by his distaste for the Society. The SSPX must have a reason to believe their perpetual engagements are binding.

     

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