http://www.anewimmaculata.org/

It looks as if the SSPX is building a new cathedral of some sorts in their stronghold of St Marys, Kansas. It seems as if they are trying to make some sort of "statement" to the surrounding community?

My browsers is being finicky, but without going to the site I'm going to say I'm pretty sure it's not a cathedral; I think the Society only has "chapels."

Alexis

It may not be an episcopal seat, but it is far more than a mere "chapel". The site itself calls the project a "great church", and a look at the plans reveals an edifice larger than most diocesan cathedrals in this country.

And, sad to say, much nicer than most of them, too.

The Church looks breath taking:
[Linked Image]

Why does the SSPX always associate itself with all things French? The Church is obviously in the French, Gothic design and I'm sure that they'll import plenty of French practices.

They've been working on that since the mid-80s when I was still teaching there. It's certainly not a new idea.

If our brothers and sisters in the SSPX are trying to tell ME anything, it's that they have de facto developed into just another Christian denomination, separated from the Holy See.The only kind of dialogue I think we can have with them, under the circumstances, is ecumenical dialogue, such as the Holy See has with other non-Catholic ecclesial communities.

sielos ilgesys,

The Church authorities themselves seem rather schizophrenic when trying to determine whether the SSPX is inside or outside the Church. At times they consider it "an internal matter of the Church," and that the SSPX is in an "irregular situation," and other times one hears talk about the Society being separate from the Church entirely.

I think the general consensus, however, is trending in the direction of, "they're in the Church, though irregularly so."

Alexis

And Robert,

To answer your question re: SSPX and their affinities for French stuff, I'd suggest searching Fr. Zuhlsdorf's archives over at his (annoying) site. He often touches on how the traditional movement has a very particular political dimension in France.

Also, a huge percentage of the SSPX and the Society's faithful are from France, so naturally there'd be a heavy French influence. Archbishop Lefebvre was French.

Alexis

Amen.

The SSPX is being handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If it were only a liturgical issue, and not doctrinal/dogmatic in nature, a liturgical commission or congregation would be taking care of business. That is simply not the case. As the Holy Father himself stated in Ecclesiae unitatem, there are doctrinal issues separating Rome and the SSPX. Doctrinal, and not simply liturgical. It is clear that no bishop or priest of the SSPX yet enjoys valid faculties anywhere in the Catholic Church.
"Cannot legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church" is far more onerous in its extent to clergy other than the four bishops than Ecclesia Dei, which only dealt specifically with the four bishops in the ipso facto excommunication. The current document extends to all clergy in the SSPX, "its ministers".

So the SSPX is considered in schism officially from the Roman Church? Why then do they, and other traditionalist as well, claim that the Society has some kind of unwritten permission to carry out their ministry? Are these calims merely smoke and mirror?

I also notice that most traditional Catholics (at least in the USA) tend to be on the Anglophile side. There seems to be this identification with the post Refoirmation RC faithful of England, especially the martyrs. This seems to feed in the whole persecution complex, be it real or imagined, that many trads hold about themselves.

I'm not sure thaat the Vatican will ever be able to work out a reconciliation with the SSPX. Every time Rome shows some small sign of goodwill towards them, the Society twist it around to make it appear that te Vatican has given them some official validation. They seem to delight in this type of behavior (I guess when one beleives they are on a "mission from God", they will do anything they feel necessary to stay a float?

Diak rightly points out that Rome considers there to be doctrinal issues needing to be resolved vis-a-vis the SSPX. But the SSPX is very clear that they believe this to be the case, too. Every chance they get they talk about the "new religion," as practiced in Rome today.

So it's something that both sides readily acknowledge.

Alexis

I assume you think the Vatican is completely innocent in this matter as well. Although I don't agree with the SSPX tactics at times they make some valid points. Remember us in the East are still working things out with the Vatican (in some cases for over 500 years).

What, exactly, annoys you about Father Z's site?

Don't like his tone.

Alexis

I prefer Fr. Mark myself...a humble Benedictine


http://vultus.stblogs.org/

Alexis, I kind of agree with you.
I agree with him on most issues, but he is a bit ascerbic for my taste.

Jakub,

Thank you for that link!

Alexis

Why is there a thread on the SSPX on the Byzantine Forum? Cui bono?

An excellent question!

I have no idea what the answer is.

But I do have a thought.

Sometimes a thread runs its course and comes to a halt.

Then, in the fullness of time, weeks or sometimes years later, someone reads the old stuff and might be curious and asks a question.

Sometimes the question renews or refreshes the conversation.

Sometimes a whole new turn is taken.

Sometimes, things are best left to lie dormant.

When deemed inappropriate or lacking in civility, a thread will be closed by the Administrator or a Moderator.

Perhaps, and I don't know if this can be done, but maybe a thread that has been dormant for, say, 30 or 60 days might be automatically locked.