A Question for SSPX members on discussion with Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter iluvburpees
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

iluvburpees

Guest
M question is: do you think we should even be having these discussions with Rome? From what I’ve read, the Vatican has said stuff along the lines of “Unless the SSPX fully accepts the VII teachings of religious liberty (and I think something on the Jews), they will not be given canonical status.” If this is their attitude, why should we bother trying to discuss anything with them? Obviously, we must work as much as we can to bring Rome back to Tradition, but we must be realistic. If the modernist liberals in the Church today insist that 2+2=5, then how can we talk with them? On the contrary, we could run the risk of leaving the solid ground of the Faith in our efforts to link back with Rome.

Although I do not have any definitive opinion, I’m kind of leaning with Bishop Williamson’s opinion. With the way Rome is now, I don’t see anything coming out of these discussions. The liberals are not going to compromise their position, and, hopefully, neither will Bishop Fellay. But if that’s the case, why discuss? I think it would be better to continue the prayers and Rosary Crusades than talk.

However, I have to say that the discussions are somewhat exciting. Something is finally happening. We could, in fact, see something very major happening within just a year or two that will perhaps help us know where the Church is heading.
 
I voted yes. Abp Lefebvre was ever willing to meet with the commissions to find a solution to the Society’s suspension. Perhaps if weren’t for the stipulation that he celebrate the Novus Ordo, he would have accepted the Protocol.

There has been posturing on both side of the discussions as to what the Society MUST accept or what the Vatican must repudiate, but none of these come from those actually engaged in the exercise.

My hope is that the Pope, if he were in favor of promulgating a traditional interpretation of some/many/all V2 documents must also exercise some diplomacy. Perhaps he will use these discussions as a springboard to publish doctrinal interpretations that are in line with his more conservative writings as Cardinal Ratzinger.

So they should certainly be happening. Apparently a canonical structure has been proposed to the Society that it would be amenable to. Only good can come from these discussions.
 
I also voted yes. My understanding is that they are working out the language which will be acceptable to both sides. There are such things as misunderstandings among human beings; why else talk at all? 😉
 
Yes, I am heartened by the disscussions, and they are a source of hope both for the Church and for the Society.

Is anyone planning on attending the 40th anniversary conference in October?

Airfare is a bit pricey as well as the hotel room. I’m wondering if anyone has looked into hotels with cheaper rates that are adjacent to the Hilton?
 
maurin said:
Yes, I am heartened by the disscussions, and they are a source of hope both for the Church and for the Society.

Is anyone planning on attending the 40th anniversary conference in October?

Airfare is a bit pricey as well as the hotel room. I’m wondering if anyone has looked into hotels with cheaper rates that are adjacent to the Hilton?
Click to expand...
We’re chartering a bus from Syracuse. If you break down the cost of the rooms, meals, conferences, and shuttles, the Hilton package is not such a bad deal. The speaker lineup is excellent!
 
If I book it right now the airline ticket from ft lauderdale is just under 400 dollars. It"s abit pricey for me, but I’m leaving it in the hands of Our Lady.

Would look forward to meeting you. I offer prayers for your son the Seminarian.
 
The council was called by the pope and attended by the majority of the worlds bishops. There is nothing to discuss. The documents must be followed and cannot be dismissed. The Old Roman Catholic church left after VI and the church did not get rid of infallibility because of it nor will VII go away either because SSPX is not in favor of some of the council teachings. Councils are infallible like it or not!
 
cspb56 said:
The documents must be followed and cannot be dismissed.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you send a copy of the CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM to all your Catholic friends.
 
There is nothing stopping the OF from being celebrated as SC suggests. The variations for whatever reasons were approved by Rome.
 
cspb56 said:
The council was called by the pope and attended by the majority of the worlds bishops. There is nothing to discuss. The documents must be followed and cannot be dismissed. The Old Roman Catholic church left after VI and the church did not get rid of infallibility because of it nor will VII go away either because SSPX is not in favor of some of the council teachings. Councils are infallible like it or not!
Click to expand...
you’re right on one point…there is nothing to discuss. The council contains heresies that go directly against the teaching of prior councils and declarations of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which is infallible. Until Vatican II is rejected and placed where it rightfully belongs ( the furnace), there is nothing to discuss.

Of course I could go on and on trying to explain how Vatican II was not a dogmatic council but intended as a “pastoral council” which did not invoke infallibility. Or I could explain to you how Vatican II documents such as “Nostra Aetate” or “Dignitatis Humanae” directly contradict the Church’s infallible teaching on the subjects. But I don’t see debate yielding any fruit
 
cspb56 said:
The council was called by the pope and attended by the majority of the worlds bishops. There is nothing to discuss. The documents must be followed and cannot be dismissed. The Old Roman Catholic church left after VI and the church did not get rid of infallibility because of it nor will VII go away either because SSPX is not in favor of some of the council teachings. Councils are infallible like it or not!
Click to expand...
Hi! Start a different thread wherein you can discuss the pronouncements of the +ouncil which were infallible teachings. If you are open to the truth, you will find yourself surprised. That is not to say that some teachings were not infallible, I merely mean that you may not be fully cognisant of how the term relates to the documents themselves, and the chasm that exists between the Fathers intentions when assenting to the documents and how the documents were actually implemented.

SSPX bashing aside, do you believe the Holy Father to be wrong to engage the Society in doctrinal talks? It sounds as if you may.
 
cspb56 said:
There is nothing stopping the OF from being celebrated as SC suggests. The variations for whatever reasons were approved by Rome.
Click to expand...
Ah, here is where you caught yourself in a contradiction. You’ve in effect just said that Rome can approve for whatever reasons apparent violations to Vatican II documents. What if Rome approves whatever negotiated agreement that the SSPX have made with the Vatican, even if they are inconsistencies with those other Vatican II documents? Wouldn’t that possibility in itself be reason enough for them to continue discussing the Vatican II documents, assuming that they disagree with the Vatican II documents?
 
Ignatius_Maria said:
you’re right on one point…there is nothing to discuss. The council contains heresies that go directly against the teaching of prior councils and declarations of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which is infallible. Until Vatican II is rejected and placed where it rightfully belongs ( the furnace), there is nothing to discuss.

Of course I could go on and on trying to explain how Vatican II was not a dogmatic council but intended as a “pastoral council” which did not invoke infallibility. Or I could explain to you how Vatican II documents such as “Nostra Aetate” or “Dignitatis Humanae” directly contradict the Church’s infallible teaching on the subjects. But I don’t see debate yielding any fruit
Click to expand...
I would like to hear the arguments on “Nostra Aetate” and “Dignitatis Humanae”. It is of interest to me. Also, any links, book suggestions, etc. would be helpful.

FSC
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
I would like to hear the arguments on “Nostra Aetate” and “Dignitatis Humanae”. It is of interest to me. Also, any links, book suggestions, etc. would be helpful.

FSC
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what is at issue with NA, but I wrote a defense of DH on another forum, which I also put in a blog. The main point of contention is with the solemn condemnation in Bl. Pius IX’s “Quanta Cura”—being a definitive act of the Magisterium it would take precedence over the level of authority given to DH by the Council. I believe there is no contradiction in principle (the doctrine taught and applied in DH does not violate the condemnation in QC). Anyway, here is my argument (it is a bit long):

Part 1:
christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e12614/

Part 2:
christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e12615/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top