Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[Big_Feet]

Hmmm. FWIW, you do realize the fish was the symbol of the early Church, don’t you? I think there’s a basis for many of what’s considered traditional-not-Traditional practices.

yes, but the Church CAN (has the ability) to come out tomorrow and say that the faithful are not required to abstain on Fridays of Lent any more.
It (the Church) CANNOT come out tomorrow and say that the Imaculate Conception of Mary is not necesssarily true, and is not required of the faithful to believe anymore.

This is the difference between "t"radition and "T"radition.

 

[ProVobis]

If you do not mind me interjecting here, Pro Vobis, I do not doubt that Pope Paul VI HAD the legal right to change the Mass.

Of course. He’s the Pope. But that didn’t change the opinion of those like Omlor and others who wrote papers doubting the validity of some vernacular canons.

 

[ProVobis]

yes, but the Church CAN (has the ability) to come out tomorrow and say that the faithful are not required to abstain on Fridays of Lent any more.

Yes, they COULD, but on what basis WOULD they?

After the careful examination of Pope Paul’s allowance of eating meat on Fridays, it was found that he left the matter to our higher level of spirituality, not quite a recommendation to eat meat on Friday.

 

[Big_Feet]

Yes, they COULD, but on what basis WOULD they?

Nor am I saying that they would. I am saying that they COULD!!!
you asked for the difference between the “T” and the “t”
I am trying to give this to you.

 

[ProVobis]

yes, but the Church CAN (has the ability) to come out tomorrow and say that the faithful are not required to abstain on Fridays of Lent any more.

Yes, they COULD, but on what basis WOULD they?

After the careful examination of Pope Paul’s allowance of eating meat on Fridays, it was found that he left the matter to our higher level of spirituality, not quite a recommendation to eat meat on Friday.

 

[maurin]

Of course. He’s the Pope. But that didn’t change the opinion of those like Omlor and others who wrote papers doubting the validity of some vernacular canons.

Hence my distinction between legal and moral right.

I agree wih you.

 

[Big_Feet]

Yes, they COULD, but on what basis WOULD they?

Nor am I saying that they would. I am saying that they COULD!!!
you asked for the difference between the “T” and the “t”
I am trying to give this to you.

 

[curlycool89]

If you do not mind me interjecting here, Pro Vobis, I do not doubt that Pope Paul VI HAD the legal right to change the Mass. I firmly believe that qua Pope he absoluyely had the right to do so. I believe that along the lines that Brother JR stated in a post above when he was talking about the advice given by the great Saints of his Order.

I do believe, though, that Paul VI did not possess the moral right to change the Mass. Especially in the light of what has happened to the Faith, and the faith of the faithful, in these passed 40 years. That is my opinion. That is why I support the Society.

Can you further explain the difference between “legal” and “moral” right?

The reason I ask is that it seems like a shell game, sort of like how pro-abortion groups will try and use the word “person” or “personhood” instead of “life” or “human being”.

Is there really a “moral” issue with the OF? Both have a consecration, both have readings and prayers, and both require an validly ordained priest. Actually, it doesn’t seem that much has changed at all, just the window dressings (figuratively speaking).

The OF does not lead people away from Christ or His Church (don’t make the mistake of conflating one bad Mass with all Masses); on the contrary it leads one deeper into the mysteries of the faith. Therefore, it doesn’t seem like there are any moral problems whatsoever, just like there aren’t any moral problems with the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the DL of Saint Basil.

Furthermore, to try and separate what the Pope may “legally” and “morally” do does nothing more then encourage people to second guess the Holy Father. If the Pope were to do something morally wrong, then it would also be illegal/illicit.
If the Pope said that everyone had to go meatless on all Fridays of the year, then we’d all have to go meatless on Friday, and even though some might argue that it would be morally unfair to hardworking cattle farmers it would still be a moral action. If the Pope changed the law so that we no longer had to fast on Ash Wednesday, then it would no longer be morally required.

Obedience is a virtue that is sadly being lost in many places. The SSPX is one of many groups that unfortunately seem to have issues there. They’re quite lucky though: how many other groups is the CDF (and Cardinal Levada) personally trying to regularize or bring into full communion with the Church? It’s a pretty small list I’ll bet. The Pope must think it’s important; why else would they spend so much time on it, especially when the other side keeps swatting them away?

 

[ProVobis]

Furthermore, to try and separate what the Pope may “legally” and “morally” do does nothing more then encourage people to second guess the Holy Father. If the Pope were to do something morally wrong, then it would also be illegal/illicit.

Well, if it hadn’t been from some second guessing on the part of a few Cardinals, the Mass would now be a complete Meal and not a Sacrifice. This was documented in Gamber’s book.

"Apparently the designation of the Mass in the first edition of the Novus Ordo as “the Lord’s Supper of the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemorative meal.The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it, is a painful obvious indication of how confused things are in our Church today.

Footnotes:

Original text: Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi Dei in unum convenientis sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum, Article 7, Editio typica, p. 15

Abendmahl: literally translated as “Evening Meal,” or “Supper”; generally referred to as “The Lord’s Supper.”

The revised text is: In missa seu Cena dominca populus Dei in unum convocatur, sacerdote praeside personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini seu sacrificium eucharisticum celebrandum (“In the Mass, or Supper of the Lord, the people of God are called together into one body, with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ in order to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, or the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (Article 7, Missale Romanum, Editio typica, Vatican, 1970), p. 29

The Reform of the Liturgy, Monsignor Gamber, 1993, Una Voce Press

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please stick to the subject of the OP. The thread is deviating from the topic.

 

[curlycool89]

Well, if it hadn’t been from some second guessing on the part of a few Cardinals, the Mass would now be a complete Meal and not a Sacrifice. This was documented in Gamber’s book.

I can see why the definition is flawed (as in too vague and no specific enough), but it’s technically correct so long as you are reading it in the tradition of the Church. Sure, the edit looks better, but the original isn’t outright heretical. It could be construed as such by those with an agenda, which is why the edit is good (we Romans have always been very legalistic and specific in our language after all).

It does have the line “the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord”. In my opinion, that would imply a consecration because why else would you need the priest to take on the persona of Christ (it immediately calls to mind the phrase “in persona Christi”)?

If they wanted to reduce it to a mere meal, then you would go all the way and say that the priest only represents Christ (like an actor in a play) rather then say “taking on the persona of Christ”.

Anyways, I will continue to wait for maurin’s reply on “legal” vs. “moral” and how it relates to why the SSPX responded to the document from the CDF.

 

[maurin]

Sure curly, no problem. Earlier in the thread I used the following analogy that I’ll word a little differently:

Do you agree that as an American citizen, living in the USA, I have the legal right to keep all that which is mine? Even if all around me are starving?

Do I have the moral right to do so?

 

[BeReasonable]

This leads me to the second point about this sermon. His Excellency spends too much time criticizing the Holy See. At one point he actually says, “You’re Modernists”. Having had a father who was a career diplomat, I learned a few things. One of them was that you never get into name calling when you’re negotiating. Name calling can be the death knoll of a negotiation. My father always said that if you start name calling, you’re no longer trying to negotiate, you’re attacking. I’m not inside His Excellency’s head. I don’t know if this crossed his mind when he used this unfortunate wording.

I see you seem to be someone in the church. Is it not all too ironic good sir that your counsels propose Ecumenism with non-Catholics and non-Christians but cannot properly accommodate your own ‘Catholics’?

Your so called separated Protestant brethren, at times refers to the Pontiff as the Anti-Christ. The church as the whore of Babylon. If you are ready to get down with these people and show your friendly side, I think being called a ‘modernist’ is hardly anything to complain about. I see a man who stands up for what he truly believes and probably should be admired. Perhaps you should start some ecumenical work with SSPX

We must not follow double standards after all, won’t you agree?

 

[Timothysis]

Sure curly, no problem. Earlier in the thread I used the following analogy that I’ll word a little differently:

Do you agree that as an American citizen, living in the USA, I have the legal right to keep all that which is mine? Even if all around me are starving?

Do I have the moral right to do so?

The answer to this is simple; do you have a bank/savings account? If you do, do you have a moral right to keep the money in your account even if all around you are in need?

Answer; certainly you have a moral right to retain what is yours through your own work. While it is a positive charitable act to give to those less fortunate than yourself you are not required to dispense everything you own to them. It is not against the teachings of the Church to save for a rainy day or to provide for yourself or your family now or in the future.

If the answer to your question about the moral right to do so were “no,” then every church, cathedral and even the Vatican itself would be violating the moral norm, for they all contain items that represent large sums of money that could be better used to tend to the poor.

 

[choliks]

I see you seem to be someone in the church. Is it not all too ironic good sir that your counsels propose Ecumenism with non-Catholics and non-Christians but cannot properly accommodate your own ‘Catholics’?

Your so called separated Protestant brethren, at times refers to the Pontiff as the Anti-Christ. The church as the whore of Babylon. If you are ready to get down with these people and show your friendly side, I think being called a ‘modernist’ is hardly anything to complain about. I see a man who stands up for what he truly believes and probably should be admired. Perhaps you should start some ecumenical work with SSPX

We must not follow double standards after all, won’t you agree?

I would like to invite you to search and read all, as in ALL, posts of Bro. JR regarding the SSPX. You will find that what you posted above would be unnecessary.

 

[BeReasonable]

I would like to invite you to search and read all, as in ALL, posts of Bro. JR regarding the SSPX. You will find that what you posted above would be unnecessary.

Good sir, what I said does not depend on what he says on other posts. It specifically applies to what he says on that particular post.

So unless he himself contradicts what he said here in a different post on this thread or some other thread, at which point there are bigger concerns, it is not important for me to read all his posts (which seem to be quiet many and somewhat lengthy).

 

[JReducation]

I see you seem to be someone in the church. Is it not all too ironic good sir that your counsels propose Ecumenism with non-Catholics and non-Christians but cannot properly accommodate your own ‘Catholics’?

Actually, that is incorrect. If you read my previous posts, I take a rather objective view of the SSPX. In addition, I can only accommodate, to use your word, Catholics or non-Catholics to the extent the the Holy See allows, Canon Law and the Constitutions of our community. There are certain things for which you can make accommodations and other things that you cannot do so.

Your so called separated Protestant brethren, at times refers to the Pontiff as the Anti-Christ. The church as the whore of Babylon. If you are ready to get down with these people and show your friendly side, I think being called a ‘modernist’ is hardly anything to complain about.

You subtle attempt at being disrespectful and offensive has not been lost on me. If you have a problem engaging in dialogue and cooperation with non-Catholics, don’t do so. Don’t stoop to labeling those who are comfortable with such dialogue and cooperation.

I see a man who stands up for what he truly believes and probably should be admired. Perhaps you should start some ecumenical work with SSPX

First, the SSPX is not a non-Catholic religion. The suggestion that I or anyone engage in ecumenical dialogue with the Society is ludicrous.

Second, the SSPX is dealing with the consequences of having violated Canon Law. That is an objective truth.

Third, I am involved in a dialogue with clerics from the SSPX, but that is not the subject of this thread.

Finally, it is beneath the dignity of a bishop to throw labels at people.

We must not follow double standards after all, won’t you agree?

There are no double standards when the subjects that you present are in two very different canonical situations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[curlycool89]

Sure curly, no problem. Earlier in the thread I used the following analogy that I’ll word a little differently:

Do you agree that as an American citizen, living in the USA, I have the legal right to keep all that which is mine? Even if all around me are starving?

Do I have the moral right to do so?

What I was asking was more what is the difference between “moral” and “legal” rights with respect to the Mass. Specific examples.

Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

 

[BeReasonable]

(Edited) But out of courtesy, I thought I must answer.

Actually, that is incorrect. If you read my previous posts, I take a rather objective view of the SSPX. In addition, I can only accommodate, to use your word, Catholics or non-Catholics to the extent the the Holy See allows, Canon Law and the Constitutions of our community. There are certain things for which you can make accommodations and other things that you cannot do so.

So are you saying that it is possible to make accommodations to those who would call the Pope the Anti-Christ but one who would call the Pope a modernist is hard to accommodate for?

You subtle attempt at being disrespectful and offensive has not been lost on me. If you have a problem engaging in dialogue and cooperation with non-Catholics, don’t do so. Don’t stoop to labeling those who are comfortable with such dialogue and cooperation.

I am merely pointing out the logical inconsistency of your position. You would like to co-operate and have dialogue with non-Christians. But at the same time, you treat your own fellow Catholics who disagree with you differently.

Shouldn’t you have dialogue and co-operate with even those who disagree with your view on co-operation and dialogue? If you see something wrong with this statement, frankly, it is the logical inconsistency of your position rather than what is been proposed.

For it does seem logically inconsistent to want to reach out for non-Catholics who disagree with majority of what the church teaches and still be firm on being against those who oppose such a method of reaching out.

First, the SSPX is not a non-Catholic religion. The suggestion that I or anyone engage in ecumenical dialogue with the Society is ludicrous.

That is good to know. So then they are also very much part of the mystical body of Christ? At which point, it would seem that there is nothing wrong with SSPX?

Second, the SSPX is dealing with the consequences of having violated Canon Law. That is an objective truth.

Well, not every SSPX person has violated Canon law by your definition. Because Luther would have violated Canon law as well. But you do not consider every single protestant as a violator of Canon law, am I correct?

Third, I am involved in a dialogue with clerics from the SSPX, but that is not the subject of this thread.

That is good. As I said before, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in claiming that it was in some way shocking and against progress if a SSPX leader calls the Pope a modernist while being perfectly ok with seeking dialogue, co-operation and even participation in events by non-Catholics who might call the Pope Anti-Christ.

Finally, it is beneath the dignity of a bishop to throw labels at people.

It depends on if the label fits. If I call the Pope, the Pope, which is a label, it would be accurate. So if the charge of ‘modernist’ is applicable, then it might be accurate as well. Labels seem to be exchanged all the time in our daily forms of communication. You are a religious, I am not etc.

It would only be derogatory if the label applied was given without any reason. In this case, it seems like the label given was something the man truly believed to be fitting. What would you have the person do? Go against his conscience?

There are no double standards when the subjects that you present are in two very different canonical situations.

The Canonical distinctions are again as you yourself stated, “I’ll bet you $5 that I can find 5 letters, 3 constitutions, 4 dispensations, 6 exemptions and 9 text messages that explain this canon very differently from what you think it says.”.

So I am not sure how much your perceived canonical difference is valid.

 

[curlycool89]

Well, not every SSPX person has violated Canon law by your definition. Because Luther would have violated Canon law as well. But you do not consider every single protestant as a violator of Canon law, am I correct?

As Br. JR has pointed out, since the SSPX has no official ministry in the Church, every priestly ordination is illicit, and canon law gives them automatic suspension. So every person of the SSPX (which is a priestly society; the laypeople cannon by definition be a member) who has been ordained has violated Canon law.

Secondly, and this is important, only Catholic are subject to Canon Law. That means non-Catholics are not subject to Canon law. Everyone on the other hand is subject to moral or natural law.

It depends on if the label fits. If I call the Pope, the Pope, which is a label, it would be accurate. So if the charge of ‘modernist’ is applicable, then it might be accurate as well. Labels seem to be exchanged all the time in our daily forms of communication. You are a religious, I am not etc.

It would only be derogatory if the label applied was given without any reason. In this case, it seems like the label given was something the man truly believed to be fitting. What would you have the person do? Go against his conscience?

When you have a public position, you have to go beyond your own conscience. You need to be able to put obedience first, since the Pope is really his superior.

It’s also a pretty general rule that Bishops shouldn’t be publicly chastising the Pope. It’s dishonourable just for starters.