|
Post by michaelwilson on May 11, 2024 17:48:12 GMT -5
Rev. Basilio Meramo: A dear friend of mine and my family; we met him in Spain in the 1990's when he was the superior of the SSPX district there; we agreed on the sede position, and became good friends. We followed him as he went from post to post until he was expelled from the SSPX for publicly opposing the talks between "Modernist Apostate Rome" and the SSPX. He conducted his own apostolate in Colombia, and died in Mexico earlier this year. May he rest in Peace.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Awsome contributor
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 458
|
Post by John Lewis on May 11, 2024 21:47:29 GMT -5
Hi Michael, There were some things we wanted to ask you about at some point, but you haven't been around. Perhaps Pacelli can remember them?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 12, 2024 5:55:14 GMT -5
Rev. Basilio Meramo: A dear friend of mine and my family; we met him in Spain in the 1990's when he was the superior of the SSPX district there; we agreed on the sede position, and became good friends. We followed him as he went from post to post until he was expelled from the SSPX for publicly opposing the talks between "Modernist Apostate Rome" and the SSPX. He conducted his own apostolate in Colombia, and died in Mexico earlier this year. May he rest in Peace.
May he rest in peace. I will pray for him at mass today..
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 12, 2024 5:57:42 GMT -5
Hi Michael, There were some things we wanted to ask you about at some point, but you haven't been around. Perhaps Pacelli can remember them? The issue that we were asking Michael Wilson a while back was about was the Sel de la Terre article in which there was a question of whether Fr. Pierre Marie may have admitted he was mistaken. That issue is resolved in the thread in which it was discussed, and it was you that helped get a resolution to that matter.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Awsome contributor
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 458
|
Post by John Lewis on May 12, 2024 16:28:13 GMT -5
Hi Michael, There were some things we wanted to ask you about at some point, but you haven't been around. Perhaps Pacelli can remember them? The issue that we were asking Michael Wilson a while back was about was the Sel de la Terre article in which there was a question of whether Fr. Pierre Marie may have admitted he was mistaken. That issue is resolved in the thread in which it was discussed, and it was you that helped get a resolution to that matter. Oh great, well no wonder I couldn’t remember it.
|
|
|
Post by michaelwilson on May 14, 2024 18:14:30 GMT -5
Well I have to qualify my former response; the trad Dominicans have changed their position; but they claim that they haven't! In the last issue of Le Sel de La terre No.127 Winter of 2023-24; in the section on "Letters from our readers" they print the exact question. Their response is to state that they haven't at all. However anybody who wants to can look up their original article supporting the validity of the New Rite of Orders, in which they conclude that the new rite is intrinsically valid, however it may be accidentally invalid due to the defects in the matter or form altered by the Celebrant. Their new position is that the old study stands (so the S.D.LT.) but in practice they are in favor of the re-ordination of all the priest that come over from the N.O.M. Which is the position of the SSPX-Resistance. They even published this excerpt from Fr. Alvaro Calderon SSPX study on the New Rites: The new rite that Paul VI intended to promulgate by his apostolic constitution “Pontificalis Romani” is certainly illegitimate for a number of reasons: first, because no pope has the authority to abrogate the Roman liturgical tradition, much less to invent a rite that breaks with the whole Catholic tradition; It is illegitimate, because the contagion of modernist doctrines renders it harmful to the faith, and a determination contrary to the common good of the Church cannot have the force of law The defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent us from being certain of its validity [since it is only probably valid], seems to us to justify and render necessary the conditional re-ordination of priests by new bishops, and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. It is not possible to suffer such uncertainties at the very root of the sacraments.
|
|
|
Post by Didymus on May 15, 2024 9:37:15 GMT -5
Well I have to qualify my former response; the trad Dominicans have changed their position; but they claim that they haven't! In the last issue of Le Sel de La terre No.127 Winter of 2023-24; in the section on "Letters from our readers" they print the exact question. Their response is to state that they haven't at all. However anybody who wants to can look up their original article supporting the validity of the New Rite of Orders, in which they conclude that the new rite is intrinsically valid, however it may be accidentally invalid due to the defects in the matter or form altered by the Celebrant. Their new position is that the old study stands (so the S.D.LT.) but in practice they are in favor of the re-ordination of all the priest that come over from the N.O.M. Which is the position of the SSPX-Resistance. They even published this excerpt from Fr. Alvaro Calderon SSPX study on the New Rites: The new rite that Paul VI intended to promulgate by his apostolic constitution “Pontificalis Romani” is certainly illegitimate for a number of reasons: first, because no pope has the authority to abrogate the Roman liturgical tradition, much less to invent a rite that breaks with the whole Catholic tradition; It is illegitimate, because the contagion of modernist doctrines renders it harmful to the faith, and a determination contrary to the common good of the Church cannot have the force of law The defects from which this rite suffers, which prevent us from being certain of its validity [since it is only probably valid], seems to us to justify and render necessary the conditional re-ordination of priests by new bishops, and, if necessary, the conditional reconsecration of these bishops. It is not possible to suffer such uncertainties at the very root of the sacraments. P. Meramo rejected the line Thuc was very harsh in his writings and sermons. Do you know if he changed his position at some point?
|
|
|
Post by michaelwilson on May 15, 2024 18:10:27 GMT -5
I doubt it; he rarely changed his mind on any subject in which he made his mind up.
|
|