Posted on 07/15/2004 6:17:56 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
"...where everyone goes and does his own thing as he sees fit (rather what the SSPX advocates)."
That is far from true of the SSPX Hermann. The Modern Church though.... Visit http://www.traditio.com/nos.htm for the pictures.
Yes, I rather like Bishop Bruskewitz' "smoking crater" approach. While it does treat traditionalist disobedience the same as anti-Catholic lunacy, he at least deals with all the real troublemakers, too. I would say that I don't see SSPX as the same level of problem as CTA, though.
I really like what Bishop DiLorenzo is doing in Arlington, Virginia. Kicking a** and taking names.
LOL! As I thought, you can't back up your assertion. Have a nice day, narses.
That came from a discussion with Fr. Fullerton, the SSPX District Superior for the US. I heard that also from Bp. Williamson in a homily where he reminded the faithful that the SSPX is NOT the whole Church, that Feeneyism and Sedevacantism are horrible errors and that those 300+ priests and the 450 SSPX priests are but a fraction of the validly ordained representatives of Christ in His Church. Bp. Williamson also, publicly in his homily, made it clear that the NO Mass (when said correctly by a validly ordained priest) was a true Mass, a valid Mass and that to say otherwise is wrong.
A dishonest misrepresentation Deacon, like so many of your posts here today. Try again. The facts are widely reported. Google and you can find them easily. I have refuted your false claim that the Church is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the Courts in the application of it's corporate rules and law. You keep changing your question and then misrepresenting my answers.
Now about your claims that I am engaged in a flame war here. Any retraction or explanation? You claim I am breaking the rules. Please be specific in your claims or withdraw them.
That can easily be altered through the American courts which are happy to legislate.
The American courts through various lawsuits have already taken jurisdiction over aspects of internal law in the Episcopalian Church such as in the matters involving Christ Church, Acokeek, Fr. Edwards, and 'Bp' Jane Dixon.
Enter The Dragon.
Session 23, DECREE ON REFORMATION
CHAPTER XVI.
Those who are ordained shall be assigned to a particular church.
Whereas no one ought to be ordained, who, in the judgment of his own bishop, is not useful or necessary for his churches, the holy Synod, adhering to the traces of the sixth canon of the council of Chalcedon, ordains, that no one shall for the future be ordained without being attached to that church, or pious place, for the need, or utility of which he is promoted; there to discharge his duties, and not wander about without any certain abode. And if he shall quit that place without consulting the bishop, he shall be interdicted from the exercise of his sacred (orders). Furthermore, no cleric, who is a stranger, shall, without letters commendatory from his own Ordinary, be admitted by any bishop to celebrate the divine mysteries, and to administer the sacraments.
So what, exactly, has Bishop Fiorenza done that is so anti-traditional by suspending the disobedient Fr. Zigrang when that is precisely what the Traditionalist Gold Standard, the Council of Trent, ordains must be done to Priests who leave their parish?
The same Decree also reminds us of another long-standing SSPX problem - the nullity of its confessions and absolutions.
CHAPTER XV.
No one shall hear confessions, unless he be approved of by the Ordinary.
Although priests receive in their ordination the power of absolving from sins; nevertheless, the holy Synod ordains, that no one, even though he be a Regular, is able to hear the confessions of Seculars, not even of priests, and that he is not to be reputed fit thereunto, unless he either holds a parochial benefice, or is, by the bishops, after an examination if they shall think it necessary, or in some other manner, judged capable; and has obtained their approval, which shall be granted gratuitously; any privileges, and custom whatsoever, though immemorial, to the contrary notwithstanding.
And of course the invalidity of the "marriages" its Priests attempt to witness:
Session 24, DECREE ON THE REFORMATION OF MARRIAGE
CHAPTER I.
Those who shall attempt to contract marriage otherwise than in the presence of the parish priest, or of some other priest by permission of the said parish priest, or of the Ordinary, and in the presence of two or three witnesses; the holy Synod renders such wholly incapable of thus contracting and declares such contracts invalid and null, as by the present decree It invalidates and annuls them. Moreover It enjoins, that the parish priest, or any other priest, who shall have been present at any such contract with a less number of witnesses (than as aforesaid); as also the witnesses who have been present thereat without the parish priest, or some other priest; and also the contracting parties themselves; shall be severely punished, at the discretion of the Ordinary. Furthermore, the same holy Synod exhorts the bridegroom and bride not to live together in the same house until they have received the sacerdotal benediction, which is to be given in the church; and It ordains that the benediction shall be given by their own parish priest, and that permission to give the aforesaid benediction cannot be granted by any other than the parish priest himself, or the Ordinary; any custom, even though immemorial, which ought rather to be called a corruption, or any privilege to the contrary, notwithstanding. And if any parish priest, or any other priest, whether Regular or Secular, shall presume to unite in marriage the betrothed of another parish, or to bless them when married, without the permission of their parish priest, he shall-even though he may plead that he is allowed to do this by a privilege, or an immemorial custom,-remain ipso jure suspended, until absolved by the Ordinary of that parish priest who ought to have been present at the marriage, or from whom the benediction ought to have been received.
But gosh, what's the violation of numerous niceties of Trent when the entire SSPX is premised upon the violation of Chalcedon and Nicea with its wandering Priests and meddling Bishops? Its not like ecumenical councils really matter to the SSPX since "they're right" and "the Pope is wrong." Tossing out Vatican II makes it so easy to start tossing other Ecumenical Councils overboard as well, doesn't it?
Well, we have your testimony and the SSPX website. They are in opposition re the NO Mass' validity.
Maybe you should send a nice note to Wmson and tell him to change the website crap.
Explain to me the "Rite of Econe" and its connection to the Roman Missal of 1925, 1962, 1964, 1967, or 1970? Explain to me the rejection of the Roman Missal of 1970 and the freelance use of whatever Missal the Priest sees fit to use.
Ay, those are "earth-shattering" decrees that you cite in regards to the situation with the SSPX. It's a shame that more ordinaries don't let traditional priests establish parishes like Mater Ecclesia.
You are conflating the official policy of the SSPX with abuses by wingnuts in the Catholic Church.
I hope that what he said is truly as good as it sounds, not that I am doubting anyone's veracity but it sounds like this was a conversation as opposed to a published document.
I am glad to hear that B. Williamson understands there are many others who are Catholic who are not SSPX; those are the Catholics who will eventually iron all this recent unpleasantness out. I know that one of those faithful priests likely invisible to him is the pastor at my NO church.
What will happen with Fr. Z? Will he get a stipend and health insurance from SSPX?
As far as I can tell, they don't have such a plan. It's more likely that the people he serves will help him out.
Then report them.
VII. Liturgy in the Society of St. Pius XA question: "Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?"
The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular — without reading them first in Latin.)
It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
The best I can say is that based on the double principle of (a) what the Archbishop liked, and (b) what one did in France. These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the "Rite of Ecône," a law unto itself.
To this day it would be impossible to study a rubrical textbook and then function, say, in a Pontifical Mass at Ecône. There is no uniformity, because there is no principle of uniformity — certainly not the "Liturgy of John XXIII." Perhaps one day someone will codify this Rite of Ecône for posterity.
As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today.
The traditional Mass is a work of discipline and of art — every little gesture is carefully prescribed and provided for. It is a pity that today so many priests trained at Ecône are content with saying Mass "more or less" properly. But with no training and the bad example of older priests who had been subjected to twenty years of constant confusing changes, could anything else be expected?
http://www.traditionalmass.org/John%20Is%20Its%20Name.htm
If more Traditionalists and more Traditionalist Priests esepcially, behaved as Fr. Robert Paisley did and does, there would be more Mater Ecclesia like parishes. For example, see Fr. Ken Meyers and St. Boniface parish in Pittsburgh. Disobedience and resistance to authority breeds contempt and distrust from authority. Obedience and assistance to authority brings trust and generosity from authority. This would include the need to be humble and admit that schism is always wrong, as did many of the parishoners at "Most Holy Family Monastery" when they finally regularized themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.