en.news

Declaration of War: Francis' Two-Stage Fight Against Summorum Pontificum

Francis is planning a two-stage crackdown on Benedict XVI's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, reports Summorum-Pontificum.de (4 June, full text here).

The first blow is expected in a few weeks - under cover of the summer recess - and concerns diocesan priests. They are to be liturgically incapacitated. Anyone who wants to celebrate the Roman Mass will be at the mercy of the extremist bishops and will have to ask for permission from them again.

The second blow will come in the autumn and will affect the old-rite communities. They are to be forced to align their training and pastoral work with the "guidelines of Vatican Council II."

A letter to the respective superiors will demand full cooperation with the diocesan bishops. In autumn, there will be a meeting of the religious superiors in Rome, where further orders will be issued. At that meeting, visitations of the communities could be ordered to check their "fidelity to the Council".

Summorum-Pontificum.de writes that by treating diocesan and religious clergy differently, Francis is introducing division in order to weaken resistance.

The pretext of "fidelity to the Council" is a red herring. The Catholics, critical of the Council are today much closer to Vatican II than the followers of the Francis group which propagates divorce, Protestant communion, homosexualism, religious indifference, and the climate and mask religion.

Picture: © Joseph Shaw, CC BY-NC-SA, #newsBqgkbfszoi

474K
Ultraviolet

Okay, so @Ave Crux is at it again... using their same gimmick, "I STOPPED READING" Since you don't care enough about the discussion to read a reply to the points you raised, then you shouldn't raise them in the first place. That's your problem you want to have your say, but you're incapable of answering anyone's critical reply to it.
You also lie through your choice of adjectives. Fact: the SSPX has been granted only limited faculties by Benedict XVI and those extended by Francis. So says the CDF.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=11533
Thus my statement is correct: ""Being granted limited faculties is not the same as having FULL faculties."
"Would this so-called "expert" like to cite the Canon Law that explains the imaginary status of "full faculties"...? There's no such thing...."
Go tell that to Fr. Bradley after the Vatican reinstated his full faculties, dummy. :P
owensborotimes.com/…ican-reinstates-priestly-faculties-for-fr-bradley/
Since others might be curious and by now you've "stopped reading", Canon Law is rife with references to the priestly faculties...
Here's a handy PDF listing the priestly faculties with the relevant Canonical citations.
d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/…er 1 - LIST OF PRIESTLY FACULTIES - with cover.pdf
You lose again, Little Miss "I Stopped Reading". :P
...and what's this about me being a so-called "expert"? So-called by whom? Quote verbatim which GTV user called me an expert. I certainly haven't called myself one. Though I do appreciate your tacit acknowledgement. :D
Worth noting for those who ARE reading, Ave Crux pulled this same stunt demanding "Canon law" on the "make-believe" standard of "full communion with the Church" and I crammed it down their throat. This makes two for two.
"cite the Canon Law that says how someone is "not in Full Communion with the Catholic Church..." There is none....it's a made up status..."
...aready covered this in my last reply correcting your stupidities. Try reading my replies for a change. It'll keep your from compounding your staggering stupidity...
... or in your case SSPXtupidity. :D

  • Report
Ultraviolet

"Oh!....but we must have that imaginary status of "full Communion"....!"
... an "imaginary status" used by three popes and a Vatican decree. -as noted in my earlier reply which you "stopped reading". Ostriches and sand have nothing on you, baby.

  • Report
Ave Crux

Okay, so @Ultraviolet is at it again....
NEWS FLASH: I got as far as their baseless, non-factual assertion "Being granted limited faculties is not the same as having FULL faculties. SSPX-groupies love implying otherwise, though."
AND THEN I STOPPED READING THEIR VERBAL TORRENT ...
Would this so-called "expert" like to cite the Canon Law that explains the imaginary status of "full faculties"...? There's no such thing....
Or would they like to cite the Canon Law that says how someone is "not in Full Communion with the Catholic Church..." There is none....it's a made up status...
Goodbye @Ultraviolet I suggest you read the following article by a real expert....
Written at the time the SSPX first received faculties, it has been proven absolutely correct by the now indefinite granting of faculties to the SSPX by the Pope.
remnantnewspaper.com/…-on-the-sspx-time-to-end-the-chinese-water-torture
One day Archbishop Lefebvre will be vindicated AND Canonized....the ONLY Prelate -- along with Castro de Mayer -- who held the Faith and passed it on faithfully just as he had received it....a prophetic witness in the face of betrayal, who foresaw in the first ground tremors of Vatican II the full-blown apostasy and widespread sacrileges that have followed in ever worsening consequences and destruction....
Oh!....but we must have that imaginary status of "full Communion"....!
Talk about straining the gnat and swallowing the camel.....
I repeat....thanks be to God, for the continued fidelity and presence of the SSPX as the situation within the Church becomes ever more dire with time.... At least they will not abandon souls under political or modernist pressure.
Deo Gratias....!

  • Report
Ultraviolet

The word "legitimate" doesn't need "fake quotes" when referring to the FSSP. @Ave Crux They are in full communion with The Church. The SSPX is not. *ehem* "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."- Pope Benedict XVI in 2009. Now that is the official word from at the time, the Pope himself. That ruling has not been abrogated by his successor Francis, either.

  • Report
philosopher

It's interesting that the Vatican promised that they would make the transcript of the doctrinal talks with the SSPX in 2009 transparently public. They have still to this day not released it. Why? Could it be that they were trumped in the debate-discussions by the SSPX in demonstrating that there are no actual doctrinal questions but only a problem of hermeneutics- the interpretation of the Council. This seems to be more indicative of church politics than anything doctrinal.

  • Report
Ultraviolet

Why? The Vatican is notoriously laggard on releasing such information. Very low priority. Since, as you acknowledge, they haven't released those transcripts, there is nothing supporting your fantasies of super-SSPX theologians layin' the smack down in debates. Let's hope their debate team wasn't stacked with the same nabobs who convinced Abp. Lefebvre he could lawfully appoint bishops without Papal approval. :D
"that there are no actual doctrinal questions but only a problem of hermeneutics."
Your theory is directly contradicted by then-Pope Benedict XVI's own statement. "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified,... That pope, (as opposed to his woeful successor) was an extremely well-read scholar, so he's undoubtedly well aware of the distintion between doctrine and hermeneutics. So no one less than the Pope (at that time) himself said there are doctrinal questions.

  • Report
Ave Crux

Thanks be to God for SSPX....they will not abandon us if FSSP is put under pressure to compromise in any way. This is precisely why Archbishop Lefebvre never trusted Rome when they continued to refuse to give SSPX Bishops to continue his work after his death. Rome knew he was going to die soon, and they kept putting off his request for the Bishops they had assured him they would provide for the Society.
Without Bishops, no jurisdiction and no ordinations. Had Archbishop Lefebvre not acted, they would have shut down SSPX after his death in the same way they dismantled Franciscans of the Immaculate and are now preparing to suppress Tradition by degrees.
We only have FSSP and ICKSP because Lefebvre's actions forced them to provide "legitimate" alternatives in an attempt to siphon off SSPX priests to a Bishop-less fraternity of Priests that would forever be at their mercy. Now their treachery is coming to pass.

  • Report
philosopher

@Ultraviolet "three popes beats an archbishop", 😂Even though we don't see eye to eye on the status of the SSPX, that one lifted my spirits.- laughter is the best medicine.
I dont think this debate will end soon, or certainly not if the next pope is a Francesco Jr. Until next time.
Thank you for your prayers, my friend!

  • Report
vcapuano

That would create even more catholic who question the legitimacy of this pontificate.

  • Report
Ultraviolet

Did Vatican Council II "create even more catholic who question the legitimacy of this pontificate" for the popes involved? Yes or no?

  • Report
Tesa

Arguments in their language:
“When I traveled through Europe, I was so glad to find Latin Masses where I could worship with my sisters & brothers- even though I didn’t speak their language”
“The Latin Mass helps transcend space & time by connecting me with brethren & saints from so many different cultures.”
“As an immigrant, the Latin Mass helped me integrate into the local Christian community without feeling marginalized.”

  • Report
Ave Crux

Precisely the point of the universal language of Latin for the Mass. Thank you.

  • Report
Log in
Create accountForgot password?