27-Jun-08 - Bishop Fellay Rejects Vatican Conditions for Reconciling Split [via EWTN]

[Dauphin]

Nobody seems to want to address the absolutely amazing thing to this whole scenario, namely, why does the Holy Father want some kind of paper unity without unity of belief?

What kind of unity does the Holy Father have on his mind if He and the SSPX don’t believe the same things?

Doctrinal discussions before any paper unity.

You’re really grasping at straws. The Pope wants preconditions of charity and respect before the excommunications are withdrawn and any discussions begin. This is a first step towards unity - not an actual unity of any kind.

No “paper unity” has been requested, but I can understand why you’d want to invent such a thing. It must be difficult to defend such a weak position.

 

[GerardP]

You’re really grasping at straws. The Pope wants preconditions of charity and respect before the excommunications are withdrawn and any discussions begin. This is a first step towards unity - not an actual unity of any kind.

No “paper unity” has been requested, but I can understand why you’d want to invent such a thing. It must be difficult to defend such a weak position.

It’s not a weak position at all.

If the excommunications are withdrawn, then they are “in communion.” Paper unity is exactly what the Holy Father wants first. If the Holy Father actually believes the SSPX are in error with regard to the Council, and if the Council is so important that it’s worth defending, he cannot in good conscience accept into communion those who deny the Council. He will only have to “excommunicate” them “again” so to speak.

If the Council doesn’t make or break someone’s communion theologically, then that puts the whole Council at risk of being overturned due to no actual good coming from it. He stated this possibility himself in “Principals of Catholic Theology.”

Depending on the definitions of “charity” and “respect” as regards the five points, if the Holy Father only wants that agreement in order to gain an advantage (namely that of rank) over the SSPX, he will be guilty of fraud and the agreement will be invalid according to Catholic moral theology.

 

[Dauphin]

The anti-SSPX haters have drawn the long knives and shown their colors to a lot of innocent faithful Catholics.

It’s the SSPX who’ve had their true colours revealed; they’re schismatics to the core. Even the most basic preconditions of civility and respect towards the Roman Pontiff repulse them.

They’re a traditionalist version of Call to Action or Voice of the Faithful. Like them, they’re not really Catholic at all, despite their angry claims to the contrary. Their obstinate failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff makes this clear.

 

[ElizabethPH]

Aren’t they already in schism?

They are. In another thread on SSPX (theres several of them now)… someone quoted Pope John II as declaring them a schism.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s not a weak position at all.

If the excommunications are withdrawn, then they are “in communion.” Paper unity is exactly what the Holy Father wants first. If the Holy Father actually believes the SSPX are in error with regard to the Council, and if the Council is so important that it’s worth defending, he cannot in good conscience accept into communion those who deny the Council. He will only have to “excommunicate” them “again” so to speak.

If the Council doesn’t make or break someone’s communion theologically, then that puts the whole Council at risk of being overturned due to no actual good coming from it. He stated this possibility himself in “Principals of Catholic Theology.”

You’re starting to sound like a modernist - insisting 2 + 2 = 5.

The reality is that the Pope has requested no unity whatsoever. Denying this doesn’t change the reality. He has only proposed basic preconditions in order that discussions can move forward.

I’m surprised the see that you disagree with the SSPX in this matter. They’ve said clearly and repeatedly that they require a withdrawl of the excommunications before doctrinal talks take place.

The reality is that a Catholic is perfectly permitted to hold the Catholic faith precisely as it was defined and presented before the Second Vatican Council.

Depending on the definitions of “charity” and “respect” as regards the five points, if the Holy Father only wants that agreement in order to gain an advantage (namely that of rank) over the SSPX, he will be guilty of fraud and the agreement will be invalid according to Catholic moral theology.

Yes, what gaul that Pope has. What superiority of rank does the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church have over a handful of excommunicated Bishops?

 

[GerardP]

It’s the SSPX who’ve had their true colours revealed; they’re schismatics to the core. Even the most basic preconditions of civility and respect towards the Roman Pontiff repulse them.

They’re a traditionalist version of Call to Action or Voice of the Faithful. Like them, they’re not really Catholic at all, despite their angry claims to the contrary. Their obstinate failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff makes this clear.

If they were schismatics they wouldn’t even bother with the Holy Father by asking him to clear up the doctrinal issues.

The Orthodox are schismatics. They deny the authority of the Pope. The SSPX are not. It’s as simple as that.

The five points are the equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your wife” questions from a shady lawyer.

Without clarification, it could be that the Holy Father wants to have a privilege as a person that is above that of St. Peter himself who was “resisted to his face” by St. Paul.

“Charity” is not the same as “being nice.” It would be a pointless exercise for the Pope to have one idea of what “charity and respect” are and the SSPX to have another.

 

[GerardP]

You’re starting to sound like a modernist - insisting 2 + 2 = 5.

Hmm… I was reading one of the Holy Father’s books tonight. But no, I’m not modernist and not sounding modernist.

The reality is that the Pope has requested no unity whatsoever. Denying this doesn’t change the reality. He has only proposed basic preconditions in order that discussions can move forward.

Actually it wasn’t a proposal, it was an ultimatum See #5 of the points. #3 is one of the strangest things I’ve ever read.

I’m surprised the see that you disagree with the SSPX in this matter. They’ve said clearly and repeatedly that they require a withdrawl of the excommunications before doctrinal talks take place.

I do agree with the SSPX because I believe they were never excommunicated and are already in the Church. But for the Pope to be consistent, he has to either recognize that also or engage in doctrinal discussions first.

And if he recognizes that the excommunications are null, he has no right to demand any conditions from the SSPX. He owes the nullification of the excommunication decrees as a matter of Justice before God.

That’s why this ultimatum doesn’t help the Pope in any way.

The reality is that a Catholic is perfectly permitted to hold the Catholic faith precisely as it was defined and presented before the Second Vatican Council.

Then why is acceptance of the Council so important?

Yes, what gaul that Pope has. What superiority of rank does the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church have over a handful of excommunicated Bishops?

Does rank entitle a Pope to deceive or commit fraud?

Answer this please.

 

[Dauphin]

Then why is acceptance of the Council so important?

I don’t think it’s important at all. The Council was just another insane novelty of the sixties and a collosal waste of time.

It’s best left forgotten - like the Fifth Lateran Council.

In those areas where it contradicts previous Catholic teaching, it should of course be rejected. It can only be properly accepted in the sense that we accept that it happened, and that it was a true Ecumenical Council.

Does rank entitle a Pope to deceive or commit fraud?

Answer this please.

Of course not. Where do you see fraud in these five conditions?

 

[scylla]

This brings up a good question…

Is the faith the same as it was before the Council? If I agree 100 percent with the faith before the Council, then what does it mean to accept the Council?
To accept it happened?

Hmm, I am not sure if everyone on this forum would agree with the faith as understood before the Council, they would say the faith changed with the Council.

Scylla

 

[Dauphin]

This brings up a good question…

Is the faith the same as it was before the Council? If I agree 100 percent with the faith before the Council, then what does it mean to accept the Council?
To accept it happened?

Hmm, I am not sure if everyone on this forum would agree with the faith as understood before the Council, they would say the faith changed with the Council.

Scylla

The Council did not change any doctrine, but it did change certain long-held positions of the Church.

Most significantly, it explicitly embraced an error which had been condemned by Pope Pius IX and others. That is, the error that false religions should be free to practice and worship publicly, and that there should be no religion of the state.

 

[JReducation]

The Council did not change any doctrine, but it did change certain long-held positions of the Church.

Most significantly, it explicitly embraced an error which had been condemned by Pope Pius IX and others. That is, the error that false religions should be free to practice and worship publicly, and that there should be no religion of the state.

Could it be that Pius IX was mistaken or that his statement was incorrectly interpreted to include societies where people are persecuted for practicing the religious beliefs?

JR

 

[Dauphin]

Could it be that Pius IX was mistaken or that his statement was incorrectly interpreted to include societies where people are persecuted for practicing the religious beliefs?

JR

If you read his encyclical Quanta Cura, I don’t think there can be any confusion or doubt; he opposed religious liberty. His opposition happens to coincide with the consistent position of the magisterium previous to the Council.

 

[ac_claire]

Bishops are currently excommunicated and priests are currently suspended. Their Masses are valid, but their confessions and marriages and annulments aren’t, or, at least that’s the consensus here, I think.

Thanks PV. I’ve heard this before about their sacraments- “illicit but valid”- but I’d never heard that this didn’t extend to confession or marriage.

As far as a concensus on this, or the issue of whether or not the SSPX are in schism: we are Catholics, right? Therefore, shouldn’t there be an official word on this somewhere? Or an official definition that either applies or doesn’t apply to the situation? I’d rather have the truth than a general concensus, you know?

So, what exactly is schism and are the SSPX in schism? From the research I’ve done, it seems the answer is yes, but again-- I’m not satisfied with my own personal understanding; I’d rather have the official word if that’s possible.

 

[ac_claire]

When it becomes clear that** the Council literally did not change anything about the Catholic Church’s teaching,** then that will destroy relations with the Jews and the Protestants and probably win some points with the Muslims and the Orthodox.

This statement, “the Council literally did not change anything about the Catholic Church’s teaching,” is a fact. There was no actual change in doctrine with Vatican II. The problems that have sprung up since then come from weird interpretations of the documents “in the spirit of VII.” Do a significant number of people (Catholic and otherwise) actually believe that VII changed Church teaching?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Personally, I don’t want my local bishop or the vast majority of bishops out there having their name on the property. They would probably destroy the altar & rails just like the past bishops. BTW, $5 mill is probably very low.

Didn’t the Vatican offer the SSPX a prelature, and doesn’t this mean that the SSPX parishes would fall under their own bishop rather than the local ordinary?

 

[charlesbarkley]

Winona, Jun 26, 2008 (CNA).- Bishop Bernard Fellay, the leader of the Society of St. Pius X, has rejected the terms offered by the Vatican for rejoini…

Full article…

THEY ARE OF BAD WILL. IT IS OBVIOUS!!! IT IS TIME FOR AN UNDISPUTED EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR SALVATION.

Pope Boniface VIII said it the best in 1302 in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam. “It is necessary for every creature to submit to the Holy Roman Pontiff in order to be saved.”

 

[wanner47]

Sad, but not altogether unexpected.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s the SSPX who’ve had their true colours revealed; they’re schismatics to the core. Even the most basic preconditions of civility and respect towards the Roman Pontiff repulse them.

They’re a traditionalist version of Call to Action or Voice of the Faithful. Like them, they’re not really Catholic at all, despite their angry claims to the contrary. Their obstinate failure to submit to the Roman Pontiff makes this clear.

It’s only a “rumor” but here is the latest from Fr. Z

Before reading this, I am getting it second hand and also I have no way to get separate confirmation. So, we have to take this for what it is worth. It’s up to you.

Here is one sentence of the three sentence message I edited it to fix the English:
**
I´m back from Econe. I spoke with some people. Rome has accepted a response and wrote back positively. All is going well … this was said by Castrillon. **
Remember that Card. Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei gave Five Conditions to Bp. Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX.

These five points were conditions for continuing dialogue about closer unity between the SSPX and Rome.

The conditions did not concern explicit doctrinal issues about Vatican II or the Novus Ordo of Mass.

They focused on the public attitude of the SSPX toward the person of the Roman Pontiff and about unity.

Important factors to keep in mind:

Twenty years ago, 30 June 1988, the split took place with the illicit consecrations of bishops.
Pope Benedict has been a key figure, history, in the dialogue of the SSPX and Rome.
Pope Benedict is the Pope most favorable toward the goals of the SSPX the SSPX is like to see.
The longer the split continues, the harder it will be to heal it.
After all this time, there are now followers of the SSPX who have never know anything other than this serious state of division and conflict.
Card. Castrillon Hoyos is approaching 80 years of age, when he will more then like step down as President of Ecclesia Dei.
Bp. Fellay will be under tremendous pressure to placate the hardcore followers of the SSPX who give financial support in an increasingly expensive world.
Bp. Fellay is likely the least hardcore of the four excommunicated SSPX bishops.
Bp. Fellay has been a bit cagey about the response he sent to Rome, neither saying that he accepted the conditions nor saying outright that he refused them.

I pray that the rumor/report I received is true.

I provide this so that you can motive to PRAY! PRAY NOW! that before the end of the month, Rome and SSPX can take these mutal steps toward each other.

 

[ProVobis]

THEY ARE OF BAD WILL. IT IS OBVIOUS!!! IT IS TIME FOR AN UNDISPUTED EXCOMMUNICATION OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR SALVATION.

Pope Boniface VIII said it the best in 1302 in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam. “It is necessary for every creature to submit to the Holy Roman Pontiff in order to be saved.”

Does Hans Kung know about this?

 

[pnewton]

It’s only a “rumor” but here is the latest from Fr. Z

I did pray for them yesterday, as should we all. I guess it is natural that rumors should fly, but hope is an ever present virtue.