W
whatistrue
Guest
Then why is the Vatican still “negotiating” with the SSPX hierarchy?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
BenjaminJ
Guest
Even Blessed Fulton Sheen said vatican 2 was a very flawed and bad document.
C
commenter
Guest
The Vatican holds discussions with countless religious and non religious groups.Then why is the Vatican still “negotiating” with the SSPX hierarchy?
A better question is why SSPX is there. It gives them credibility to be (always) in discussions with Rome. Especially under Bishop Fellay there were numerous press releases: we are on the verge of a significant breakthrough, maybe by next October things will be clear, be patient just a little longer.
I think he was concerned about laity tempted to drift back to Rome. Being “in negotiations” was kind of reassurance to some of them, so they stay put.
Fr. Davide develops his own policy.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Holding discussions with and negotiating for fully regular status are not the same thing. I believe that you are correct that the only reason SSPX is still talking is for the optics of it for their attendees. I do not personally believe that they have any intention of ever giving up what they perceive as their autonomy (for lack of a better term), and if they can have it without going into full formal schism so much the better.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Why would it be different than any other Council?
You cannot really consider the issues more radical than previous council’s.
At the first you had Jews deciding whether all, or a fraction of their own tradition would apply prospectively.
During the first 5-6 the very description of WHO JESUS WAS was decided. Men were jailed( Pope’s were jailed) body parts dismembered. And doctrine was arrived at in a circuitous manner at best. The Bible itself wasn’t settled for a time.
We abide by the edicts of council’s but you cannot say they were just clarifying. They form our faith tradition. And what emerges has been radically different than how they began. Nobody asks, can I just ignore anything after Nicea
You cannot really consider the issues more radical than previous council’s.
At the first you had Jews deciding whether all, or a fraction of their own tradition would apply prospectively.
During the first 5-6 the very description of WHO JESUS WAS was decided. Men were jailed( Pope’s were jailed) body parts dismembered. And doctrine was arrived at in a circuitous manner at best. The Bible itself wasn’t settled for a time.
We abide by the edicts of council’s but you cannot say they were just clarifying. They form our faith tradition. And what emerges has been radically different than how they began. Nobody asks, can I just ignore anything after Nicea
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
I don’t think “full formal schism” will ever be declared.Holding discussions with and negotiating for fully regular status are not the same thing. I believe that you are correct that the only reason SSPX is still talking is for the optics of it for their attendees. I do not personally believe that they have any intention of ever giving up what they perceive as their autonomy (for lack of a better term), and if they can have it without going into full formal schism so much the better.
Rather, each year there are fewer SSPX clergy remaining with any kind of work experience or contacts in any diocese or religious order. Each year a higher percentage of priests and attached laity grew up only in SSPX, with little background on any parish.
It’s a gradual change, at the local level, more significant than announcements from Rome and Econe. In 2030 it won’t be two angry brothers who love/hate/know each other, it will be two cousins who are amicable strangers, with totally separate lives.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Which document did he say that about?
Vatican II put out many documents.
Maybe you should read them. They are all available on the Vatican’s website.
Vatican II put out many documents.
Maybe you should read them. They are all available on the Vatican’s website.
G
gama232
Guest
Source please. Vatican II did nothing wrong.
G
gama232
Guest
Not a valid comparison. No Vatican II document called for the removal of altar/communion rails or statues or anything else from Catholic Churches, but it happened. In recent years, those Churches are or have put back what was taken from them. The reason given is “because of what happened in the '60s.”
B
BenjaminJ
Guest
He talked about it in his Going in Retreat sermons at the seminary in Texas
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Fulton Sheen said Vatican 2 was a document? Really? You surprise me.Even Blessed Fulton Sheen said vatican 2 was a very flawed and bad document.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Well, what did he say, then?
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Have you read the documents that came from Vatican II?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Actually to my knowledge he praised it. There are numerous threads about it even on anti-V2 forums.
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Provide a quote, then.
Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
Claims without evidence are dismissed without evidence.
G
gama232
Guest
Pope Benedict made it clear that the break with the SSPX was at a ‘deeper level.’ The Church, not Catholics in the pews, will deal with the SSPX issue.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Pray elucidate.
As far as I can tell, the only theological issue with V2 is whether you accept the authority of the Church or not. And please spare me the mention of “ambiguity” or “clarification” because I simply don’t buy that there is any real lack of understanding left after these many years. And if there is no canonical irregularity, precisely what canonical issues are being discussed?
As far as I can tell, the only theological issue with V2 is whether you accept the authority of the Church or not. And please spare me the mention of “ambiguity” or “clarification” because I simply don’t buy that there is any real lack of understanding left after these many years. And if there is no canonical irregularity, precisely what canonical issues are being discussed?
W
whatistrue
Guest
Sorry, I am not buying a bit of it. Muting now.
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
I don’t know if you have ever come across the term ‘Theological Notes’. This is what both you and Bishop Lefebvre seem to be speaking of. This is not in dispute. Both sides acknowledge this fact. The Council itself made this clear when it differentiated their Dogmatic Constitutions from their Decrees. All of them, however, were officially promulgated as documents of an Ecumenical Council and as such have the full authority of the Church’s extraordinary magisterium. These pastoral regulations have always been held as binding in the Church.
In past councils these regulations were included in individual canons alongside declarations of dogma. Yes, they could be overturned (and, in fact, have been overturned in the past), but only by a separate exercise of extraordinary magisterial authority, such as another ecumenical council or papal exercise of extraordinary magisterial authority as head of the universal college of bishops (not ex cathedra as that instance of extraordinary authority only pertains to matters of faith and morals, not procedural regulations).
When I speak of denying the authority of the Council, I don’t mean analyzing the theological notes, I am speaking of rejecting the binding authority of those aspects of the decrees which have no theological note. The SSPX website describes in length the concept of theological notes, but seems to classify everything with regard to theological note. It does not approach the fact that there is a good amount of the actual living out of our faith which has no context within the context of theological notes.
It is these aspects without theological note, those which lie outside of that 95% you cited, which the SSPX do not see as binding. If they were promulgated by the ordinary magisterium though general papal teaching or curial decree, then yes, they weren’t necessarily 100% binding and up to debate. They weren’t, however. They were promulgated using extraordinary authority. As such, everything is binding. To challenge that 5% is to challenge the very nature of extraordinary magisterial authority.
In past councils these regulations were included in individual canons alongside declarations of dogma. Yes, they could be overturned (and, in fact, have been overturned in the past), but only by a separate exercise of extraordinary magisterial authority, such as another ecumenical council or papal exercise of extraordinary magisterial authority as head of the universal college of bishops (not ex cathedra as that instance of extraordinary authority only pertains to matters of faith and morals, not procedural regulations).
When I speak of denying the authority of the Council, I don’t mean analyzing the theological notes, I am speaking of rejecting the binding authority of those aspects of the decrees which have no theological note. The SSPX website describes in length the concept of theological notes, but seems to classify everything with regard to theological note. It does not approach the fact that there is a good amount of the actual living out of our faith which has no context within the context of theological notes.
It is these aspects without theological note, those which lie outside of that 95% you cited, which the SSPX do not see as binding. If they were promulgated by the ordinary magisterium though general papal teaching or curial decree, then yes, they weren’t necessarily 100% binding and up to debate. They weren’t, however. They were promulgated using extraordinary authority. As such, everything is binding. To challenge that 5% is to challenge the very nature of extraordinary magisterial authority.
G
gama232
Guest
Has anyone bothered to look at recent statements from the Vatican, from the Pope, about the SSPX? Based on my reading, the SSPX leadership is waiting on God. So far as I know, no proper agreement has been reached. Talking about it here won’t help.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.