Bishop Fellay's (SSPX) response to reunification

[Old_Salt]

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger at Pope John Paul II’s funeral.
Many have begun calling this man “Great” because he was.

So was Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII but we do not call them “Great”.

 

[Old_Salt]

Pope Saint Pius the Fifth doesn’t even get that epithet.

Right.
He got “Saint” which is a lot greater than “Great”.

 

[Big_Feet]

So was Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII but we do not call them “Great”.

I will refer you to a previous answer I wrote:

This is WAY off topic, but…

Only 2 other popes have this “title” - Leo I (Died 461) and Gregory I (Died 604).

“The Great” It is not a title that the Church bestows, but one of general aclimation of the people.

As for Pius V, more power to you! If you want, begin calling him Pius the Great. It will either catch on or not.

 

[maurin]

Strange, then, that when I read the same statements I am able to grasp, unambiguously, what it is that the Church wishes to express, which is “that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church”. Your position reveals more about your personal prejudices and beliefs than it does about any ambiguity of the Church.

It is a curious thing that a man who excommunicated himself, four bishops and supplied a host of suspended priests who act in disobedience every time they celebrate Mass with no ministry in the Church can be held as some sort of hero to any faithful Catholic who desires communion with Holy See.

. Polemics have a place in dialogue, timothysis, bu only when it is based squarely on fact. But whether one feels the excommunications were just or unjust is moot. They were lifted a couple of years ago.

Bishop Fellay relayed a story about a year ago that really highlights the ambiguity of the situation of the Society. I believe it is common knowledge that only the Pope or his representative is able to offer absolution for certain sins, abortion being one of them. When someone confesses this sin, or being an accomplice to it, it must be passed on to the Holy See for resolution. In every case forwarded by the Society to Rome, Rome answered that the Society’s Priest could absolve the penitent. this story was relayed publicly, was printed in the Society’s Journal, as well as other Traditional publications, and was never contradicted by anyone in Rome.

Now you may accuse me of anything you’d like, but the reality is that I am no different than you are: in love with my Faith, hoping for Salvation, and doing the best I can while following my conscience and my reason. I am no more prejudiced or biased than you. We are on opposite sides of issues which arouse passion. Let’s do so amicably, or let’s wish each other a fond and sincere adieu.

EDITED TO ADD: tim, I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote about the Society Priests. You did not say they were excommunicated. My apologies to those who read this before the edit. Excuse my confusion.

 

[casual_visitor]

We have 800 years of the mendicants practicing ecumenism to draw upon. This isn’t counting the Benedictines, who if I’m not mistaken have a similar methodology.

Does that mean that we’ve been practicing ecumenism wrong for eight centuries, and the great Dominicans & Franciscans throughout those eight hundred years were wrong, and hte foundation(s) of the orders were based on a falsehood?

So you are saying there was no difference between what was in the church prior and before? You know that is obviously not true right?

You are comparing ecumenism of before with ecumenism of after which even the Vatican claims is different.

 

[casual_visitor]

You think being Catholic guarantees you all the Grace you need? It does not. If it did we would have to work out our salvation in fear and trembling.

The grace is available 100% to all Catholics. It is our choice to answer the call. It is the answering part that we work out with fear and trembling. We don’t work out ‘Grace’ with fear and trembling. That is a gift given.

 

[casual_visitor]

There was a former nun who was the Sacristan at our Parish for decades, I guess. She was a teacher. She told kids for years they’d go to hell if they ate meat on Friday. When it changed, she felt completely betrayed. She felt like she lied to those kids and the Church lied to her.

But what had happened was: she didn’t understand what that was, she didn’t understand eating meat on Friday wasn’t some mortal sin.

It seems like you feel sort of like she did. Thing is, you thought something was something it just wasn’t. A lot of people probably thought what you did, including some priests. But it never was. Go back to Jesus in Scripture when the Apostles say, “Those people are baptizing in Your name but aren’t part of us…” What did Jesus say? There are enough rooms in heaven for us all. Rejoice! God wants all to be saved and they can be.

The Mystical Body of Christ is not all visible. Just like the soul is not visible. Jesus told us about the shepherd who leaves his flock to go get that one stray. They are still part of the flock, even wandering around in the dark.

So the Catholic Pope’s prior to Vatican II, all missed this simple line in the gospel that proved baptism is what makes everyone part of the Catholic Church for around 2000 years? They made policies, held inquisitions, defended the faith, released condemnation of certain groups and ideas for 2000 years because they missed this one line in the Gospel?

 

[casual_visitor]

Strange, then, that when I read the same statements I am able to grasp, unambiguously, what it is that the Church wishes to express, which is “that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church”. Your position reveals more about your personal prejudices and beliefs than it does about any ambiguity of the Church.

I think you should read this academic work which discusses the possible meanings of ‘subsists’. Pg. 13 onward.

stmcollege.academia.edu/NicholasJesson/Papers/157575/Where_is_the_Church_of_Christ_The_developing_teaching_of_Vatican_II

Why would someone use an ambiguous word when a simple language would have conveyed the matter perfectly? You already know the answer, it was for ecumenical benefit.

 

[Old_Salt]

By far the best Magisterial teaching of the Church on Ecumenism that I have ever seen, is the Encyclical “Mortalium Animos”, by Pius XI:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

 

[Timothysis]

I think you should read this academic work which discusses the possible meanings of ‘subsists’. Pg. 13 onward.

stmcollege.academia.edu/NicholasJesson/Papers/157575/Where_is_the_Church_of_Christ_The_developing_teaching_of_Vatican_II

Why would someone use an ambiguous word when a simple language would have conveyed the matter perfectly? You already know the answer, it was for ecumenical benefit.

Thanks but I already know what the meaning is of the term “subsists.”

Perhaps it is ambiguous to you but not to those in positions of authority nor to those who discern and appreciate what the Church teaches about the subject.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW, here is the Latin:

Haec est unica Christi Ecclesia, quam in Symbolo unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam profitemur,[12] quam Salvator noster, post resurrectionem suam Petro pascendam tradidit (cf. Io. 21, 17), eique ac ceteris Apostolis diffundendam et regendam commisit (cf. Mt. 28, 18 ss.), et in perpetuum ut columnam et firmamentum veritatis [12] erexit (cf. 1 Tim. 3, 15). Haec Ecclesia, in hoc mundo ut societas constituta et ordinata, subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata,[13] licet extra eius compaginem elementa plura sanctificationis et veritatis inveniantur, quae ut dona Ecclesiae Christi propria, ad unitatem catholicam impellunt.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2lumlat.htm

and one translation:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
ewtn.com/library/councils/v2church.htm

subsist
1540s, “to exist,” from L. subsistere “to stand still or firm,” (see subsistence). Meaning “to support oneself” (in a certain way) is from 1640s. Related: Subsisted; subsisting.

subsistence
early 15c., “existence, independence,” from L.L. subsistentia “substance, reality,” from L. subsistens, prp. of subsistere “stand still or firm,” from sub “under, up to” (see sub-) + sistere “to assume a standing position,” from stare “to stand” (see assist). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. hypostasis “subsistence,” lit. “anything placed under.” Meaning “provision of support for animal life” is from 1640s.

 

[Timothysis]

. Polemics have a place in dialogue, timothysis, bu only when it is based squarely on fact. But whether one feels the excommunications were just or unjust is moot. They were lifted a couple of years ago.

They were lifted against those bishops who are still alive but unfortunately the Archbishop died excommunicated.

Bishop Fellay relayed a story about a year ago that really highlights the ambiguity of the situation of the Society. I believe it is common knowledge that only the Pope or his representative is able to offer absolution for certain sins, abortion being one of them. When someone confesses this sin, or being an accomplice to it, it must be passed on to the Holy See for resolution. In every case forwarded by the Society to Rome, Rome answered that the Society’s Priest could absolve the penitent.

This speaks more of the concern of the Holy See for those confessing the sin than for the society as a whole. Pope Benedict has said that the society has no active ministry in the Church. I don’t see how this changes anything.

Now you may accuse me of anything you’d like, but the reality is that I am no different than you are:

I think the reality is different. I am not the one who holds a position that is accusatory of the Church and her leadership or who holds suspicion regarding the statements and declarations that have been issued in recent memory. I do not think that the Pauline Mass has eroded the faith of the laity (I think societal forces have had a far, far greater effect than anything other than perhaps HUMANAE VITAE). We are, though, in the end free to believe what we wish.

EDITED TO ADD: tim, I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote about the Society Priests. You did not say they were excommunicated. My apologies to those who read this before the edit. Excuse my confusion.

No problem.

 

[casual_visitor]

Thanks but I already know what the meaning is of the term “subsists.”

Perhaps it is ambiguous to you but not to those in positions of authority nor to those who discern and appreciate what the Church teaches about the subject.

I was just pointing out to you that in terms of language usage, it is not necessarily true that subsists gives the same meaning as before. The Paper I linked actually points out how the word subsists can mean that something can be in more than one church.

You still haven’t answered why subsists is a better phrasing than it was. I have presented the argument that ‘subsists’ makes it more ambiguous. That article discusses all of the ambiguity in it and in-fact states that the original proposed document had the regular wording from before. So why change it to something more ambiguous?

I think you are already assuming I am the ‘bad guy’ here.

 

[casual_visitor]

I think the reality is different. I am not the one who holds a position that is accusatory of the Church and her leadership or who holds suspicion regarding the statements and declarations that have been issued in recent memory. I do not think that the Pauline Mass has eroded the faith of the laity (I think societal forces have had a far, far greater effect than anything other than perhaps HUMANAE VITAE). We are, though, in the end free to believe what we wish.

Is it not the duty of the church to safeguard its faithful from societal trends and attacks against salvation?

The Pope’s right before VII thought the behavior approved AFTER VII was the exact type of behavior to refrain from. But after VII, those were discarded using the authority they had (so not illegally). Now we reap what we sow.

 

[Timothysis]

FWIW, here is the Latin:

and one translation:

subsist
1540s, “to exist,” from L. subsistere “to stand still or firm,” (see subsistence). Meaning “to support oneself” (in a certain way) is from 1640s. Related: Subsisted; subsisting.

subsistence
early 15c., “existence, independence,” from L.L. subsistentia “substance, reality,” from L. subsistens, prp. of subsistere “stand still or firm,” from sub “under, up to” (see sub-) + sistere “to assume a standing position,” from stare “to stand” (see assist). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. hypostasis “subsistence,” lit. “anything placed under.” Meaning “provision of support for animal life” is from 1640s.

The phrase is the latin “subsistit in", not the English word “subsist.” As has been noted, it is used as a philosophical term. As Brother JR has pointed out, terms in philosophy and theology, though the same word as in English, have entirely different meanings. Also as has been noted, "This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and* is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas;** that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4”*

 

[Big_Feet]

We are, though, in the end free to believe what we wish.

This right here is the beauty of and lovingness of our God. I am so grateful to have Him! Heck, without Him, we wouldn’t be here!
But, the fact that he gives us this beautiful freedom is just incredible!!!

I apologize for the “rant,” but I just wanted to bring some "light"ness to what has become a very dark and quipy conversation.

 

[Timothysis]

I was just pointing out to you that in terms of language usage, it is not necessarily true that subsists gives the same meaning as before. The Paper I linked actually points out how the word subsists can mean that something can be in more than one church.

You still haven’t answered why subsists is a better phrasing than it was. I have presented the argument that ‘subsists’ makes it more ambiguous. That article discusses all of the ambiguity in it and in-fact states that the original proposed document had the regular wording from before. So why change it to something more ambiguous?

I think you are already assuming I am the ‘bad guy’ here.

“Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. *The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. ***This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. **With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church”.5

 

[casual_visitor]

The phrase is the latin “subsistit in", not the English word “subsist.” As has been noted, it is used as a philosophical term. As Brother JR has pointed out, terms in philosophy and theology, though the same word as in English, have entirely different meanings. Also as has been noted, "This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and* is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas;*** that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4”

“Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. *The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. ***This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. **With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church”.5

But the word ‘subsist’ does not guarantee any exclusivity in any of the contexts in which subsists is used in St. Thomas Aquinas’s works. If you read Pg. 15, 16 in the Paper I linked, it discusses this possibility you bring up.

 

[maurin]

This speaks more of the concern of the Holy See for those confessing the sin than for the society as a whole. Pope Benedict has said that the society has no active ministry in the Church. I don’t see how this changes anything.

No problem.

The tone of your other responses was unnecessary, so I’ll skip the quid pro quo and focus on the above.

It changes a lot, actually Timothysis. This is not an isolated instance. This scenario has playe itself out on numerous occassions. I agree it speaks to the compassion of His Holiness towards penitants, but it also speaks volumes about the ambiguity of the Society’s status. Rome could just as easily direct the Society to direct the penitant to a diocesan clergy. But they do not.

I hope any further exchanges between us can be more pleasant in tone.

 

[curlycool89]

#1- Maurin did not claim the OF eroded the Faith in the Real Presence. Maurin said it has “seen the erosion”, which is not actually at all substantially the same as diminished as one implies an observatory role, and the other, per your description, is the causal factor in the belief being diminished.

With all due respect, your playing with semantics. Saying that “it has caused” or “has seen the erosion of” is substantially saying the exact same thing, especially when he (and you also) are clearly trying to link the 2 together.

I never argued the Pope did not have the legal authority to change the Mass. Please do not misrepresent me. It is unjust. However, Holy Archbishop Lefebvre certainly did have the authority to refuse the NO Mass, as evidenced by Pope Benedict stating the fact the Mass of a thousand five hundred years was never abrogated. I for one am certain it was the Holy Spirit guiding Holy Marcel Lefebvre to do so.

He absolutely did not have that authority. To say that Archbishop Lefebvre had that authority is to say that he is equal to or above the Pope, and that is heresy. Plain and Simple.

the post hoc propter hoc fallacy people cause me some amusement. New Coke was introduced. Coke sales fell. People must’ve just started liking Pepsi adds better. Or Mountain Dew ads. Or maybe the Root Beer ads. It couldn’t hBave been New Coke, could it? I think that’s a pretty good analogy for all the Catholics who left the Church for the various prot denoms or secularism.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the NO Mass.

New Coke bombed because New Coke was terrible. Coca-Cola is not has never claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit it it’s product decisions though. The Church IS. There’s a huge difference.

To stress 2 points: yes, the general council may have been necessary. No, the general council did not stem the tide of secularism and liberalism and modernism , but facilitated it, both outside and inside the Church, in my opinion.

So, to clarify, are you or are you not saying that the Church control(s/ed) the feminist movement, the sexual revolution, anti-war protests, and JFK’s dismissal or religion?

This is sounding weirder then John Chick’s Jesuit conspiracies. You’re attributing to the Church a lot more influence than it frankly had in the 60s/70s. And that had nothing to do with the Council (the Council was called because of it).

Prove to me that they are not. The contrast between the traditional Latin Masses of the SSPX and the NO is astounding. The two are not even remotely alike.

Compare the EF and the Divine Liturgy (DL) for us now. Or the OF and the DL. Or even let’s compare the Easter Triduum of the EF and the DL or something like that.

You’re going to find differences, some of them pretty stark. And yet we’re all Catholic.

Proving a negative is not logically impossible. Its difficult… but not impossible. I can prove that there is no dragon in my room by simply looking around my room.

Here would be your logic (using deductive logic):
If (consistent with Catholic tradition) then (Catholic) (If A then B)
not(consistent with Catholic tradition) (Not A)
Therefore, not(Catholic). (Not B)

Maybe you think that makes sense, but that’s actually a fallacy called denying the antecedent (this is basic Logic 101). So pnewton is correct, if that is what you’re arguing that it is indeed logically impossible.