Author Topic: Wrong or right? Conditions for the SSPXs future (Read 10606 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #15 on:** October 03, 2012, 11:44:10 AM »

Quote from: stgobnait

i dont know... but i have been told, that the priests in ireland want nothing to do with rome... that has to be some comfort.... to someone........

The vast bulk of priests and faithful are anti. Two priests are pro-agreement for certain.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #16 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:08:47 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

I asked a friend of mine who attends both the Trad Mass and Novus Ordo and he feels a reform will happen within the new with people moving back to the old overtime.He believes Benedict XVI is brilliant because he liberated the true Mass.

:stare:

Well now, we must correct him on this error. The novus ordites all give JP II credit for liberating the TLM when he issued his limited indult in 1984 - what a great man he was - let's call him John Paul the Great!

Then, ask him...

If Benedict XVI "liberated" the true mass than who was it that "imprisoned" the true mass?

I think these novus ordites who have a foot in both camps are in a intellectual transitory state - they are moving either toward Truth and tradition or thinking of ways to continue to embrace falsehood.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #17 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:19:48 PM »

Quote

There is no rejection of the course of action of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, but rather a repetition of his own condition which he held fast to when Rome in practice rejected it.

The Archbishop admitted he made a mistake. This is their only excuse for this nonsense, to say the Archbishop almost followed through with a deal.

He didn't follow through with it. He almost immediately broke off the agreement.

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

Even if you grant us a bishop; even if you give us a certain autonomy with regard to the bishops; even if you grant us completely the Liturgy of 1962, if you grant that we can continue the seminary of the Society as we are doing now; we cannot collaborate! It is impossible, impossible. For we work in diametrically opposed directions. You work for the de-Christianization of society, of the human person, and of the Church; and we work for their Christianization. We cannot understand each other...

They can't answer this. They can't accept this. They are going against this. And they know it.

stgobnait · « **Reply #18 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:41:29 PM »

two priests are pro agreement.... that would mean half n half, evens..... who'd bet on that..... :stare:

Nickolas · « **Reply #19 on:** October 03, 2012, 05:40:32 PM »

Several issues jumped out at me as I tried to read the article last night before bed. (I didn't make it all the way through as I was too upset by its nature). Firstly, it is written as if Mr. McCall was present at the General Chapter. If he was not there, Mr. McCall makes assumptions he is not qualified to make. He cannot know the arguments, intentions, and thinking of anyone in attendance beyond what has already been written.

Secondly, Mr. McCall appears to be speaking for the Society. This is odd. Additionally, who is he to disagree with Bishop Williamson in such an authoritarian tone? Yes, by all means Mr. McCall has the right of free speech, but his right seems more so as he is featured on the SSPX website.

Thirdly, the end of the article includes two paragraphs that begin with the words "Finally...." Mr. McCall is an attorney and teaches law I believe so his use of the language is more skillful than many. Such an ending to a long article just would not happen under the hand of a skilled writer. The two ending paragraphs indicate to me that someone added additional language at the end of the article and this troubles me. Was this article written by committee?