DICI: Opening of the Doctrinal Discussions Between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X

  • Thread starter Thread starter NeelyAnn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NeelyAnn

Guest
dici.org/en/?p=3924

**Opening of the Doctrinal Discussions Between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X **

11-13-2009

On Monday, October 26, from 9:30 am until 12:30pm, at the Palace of the Holy Office, the first doctrinal meeting between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X took place. Late in the morning, the Vatican Press Office gave a press release, and a little later a correction about the bimestrial rhythm of the next meetings and not bi-monthly as it was erroneously announced previously (see integral text in our Documents section). In the press release, we can note that the list of “the questions of a doctrinal character which must be dealt with and discussed” omits none of the theological problems which raise difficulties: “the notion of Tradition, the Paul VI missal, the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in continuity with the Catholic doctrinal Tradition, the themes of the unity of the Church and of the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious liberty.”

One point of agreement has already been reached, the observation of full discretion regarding these works which could not be done in the hustle so dear to the media. Actually, at the end of the meeting, the participants went to lunch without making any declaration to the some ten journalists waiting for them outside. The only exclusive “revelation” reported by Vatican observer for Il Giornale, Andrea Tornielli was that the theologians were henceforth to “work actively, using the Internet to exchange their viewpoints” until the next meeting scheduled after the Christmas season. Likewise, La Repubblica thought it was making a scoop by revealing that during this first meeting the criticism which has been raised by the Society of St. Pius about religious liberty and the relations of the Church with non-Christian religions for more than 40 years came under discussion.

When he met with journalists in the middle of the day Fr. Federico Lombardi, head of the Holy See Press Office, declared: “At last competent and authorized persons discussed doctrinal questions.” In his opinion, this first meeting and the next are guided by a “spirit of trust.” (DICI n° 204 – 13/11/09 – Sources: vatican.va/Il Giornale/La Repubblica/Imedia/private sources)

In the Press

For lack of direct information, journalists are reduced to conjecture, surmise, or even to imagine… Some are noticeable for their interesting creativity.

The ex-journalist of Le Monde, Henri Tincq, already sees the dusk setting in for traditionalists: “No one is unaware of the crumbling state of integrist Catholic circles today. (…) As years went by, integrist dissidence became a pitiful prey to the deviations customary to any sectarian small group.” (Slate.fr, October 25, 2009) He only forgets that he wrote the contrary last year: “The ‘Tradis’ are still there. Mainly French at the beginning — because of the nationality of Archbishop Lefebvre and the tensions about the modern liturgy in the Hexagon — the phenomenon became worldwide. (…) The seminaries of the Society of St. Pius X, the hard core of the schism, have spread to Germany, Australia, the United States (MN) and Latin America. The generations of priests (some 500) which were trained in them, and the faithful (600,000 according to Vatican sources) are being renewed. They are settled in more than 30 countries. The typically European model of an authoritarian Church, unyielding, anti-ecumenical and anti-modern, dominated by the figure of the holy priest in charge of all that is sacred, became an exported product.” (Le Monde, July 2, 2008)

Swiss agency Apic spoke of doctrinal discussions which might last for years or even for a century: “Confirming a widely spread impression within the Roman Curia, the Superior of the Society of St. Pius X Bishop Bernard Fellay recently said that, in his opinion, these discussions might be long and might even last ‘perhaps a century.’ (Apic, October 15, repeated in the October 23 issue under the header: “Years or even a century of discussions?”). This quotation, taken out of its context is to be found in the interview granted by Bishop Fellay in South Africa, on this past September 15: “We have to be realistic. The return, the restoration of the Church will take time. The crisis which is hitting the Church has touched every aspect of the Christian life. To get out of this situation will take more than one generation of constant effort in the right direction. Maybe a century.” It is not a matter here of the theological discussions, but of the solution of the crisis which is shaking the Church, and about which, shortly before his election, Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged that it was like a boat taking in water from every side.” — Concerning the length of the discussions themselves, in the same interview Bishop Fellay merely answered: “I have simply no idea about the length of the discussions. It certainly will depend also on the expectations of Rome. They may last quite a while. Because the topics are vast.” (See integral text of the interview in DICI n° 203)

Note: The entire text will not fit here. There is one remaining paragraph, which I will post next.
 
The remainder of the text:

Better informed, the journalist in charge of religious matters in Le Figaro, Jean-Marie Guénois, recalled the points that the Society wants to be brought up during the discussions and indicated the principles which would guide the Roman experts: “Concretely, what are they going to talk about? Three weeks ago, in South Africa, Bishop Fellay on a visit to the Society houses there summed up the issues causing ‘difficulty”: ‘Religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality’ and ‘the influence of modern philosophy, the liturgical novelties, the spirit of the world and its influence upon the modern thinking holding sway in the Church.’ A vast program which does not frighten the Roman negotiators. On their part, they rather rejoice that ‘at long last’ — there has been no such official dealings since 1988 — they will be able to know “the official” position of the Society of St. Pius X concerning all these questions which arose from the Second Vatican Council. They will no longer have it second hand through the many viewpoints given by so and so.

“From very reliable sources, it is added that three principles will guide the talks. The first deals with ‘the hermeneutic of continuity’ and not of ‘rupture’ with tradition desired by Benedict XVI for the interpretation of Vatican II. And here there is ‘a point of convergence’ regarding this will of the Church’s reconciliation with her own past. The second principle is more problematic: Rome considers the deposit of the faith ‘as a whole.’ It does not accept ‘a pick and chose’ attitude among the teachings of the last council. The third principle will certainly be decisive: it is a matter of ‘turning back to the letter of the Second Vatican Council and not to its vulgate.’ Plainly speaking, it means working on the original texts and not on their interpretations or simplifications… Consequently, it will be a kind of rereading of the council, during which the experts would clarify the ‘meaning of the terms’ or the ‘ambiguities’ so often denounced by the Lefebvrites.” (Le Figaro, October 20, 2009)
 
Also from the DICI website and related to this topic:

dici.org/en/?p=3924

**A Deaf Man’s Monologue **

On the eve of the opening of the theological talks between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X, in an interview granted by Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois to Radio Notre-Dame, we learn what the archbishop of Paris is expecting from the meeting. “We must hope,” he said, “that the Holy Ghost will make the protagonists sufficiently broadminded so that they accept not to stick to the line of conduct they followed up to now which consisted in saying: ‘We are willing to discuss in order for the Church to adopt our position,’ i.e. in order for us to be in control of the situation.”

Archbishop Vingt-Trois placed these words in the mouths of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X; we leave him entirely responsible for this. We can easily perceive the ‘ego’ blown out of any proportion which he attributes to those priests who, in his opinion, aspire only to “be in control of the situation,” where the ‘ego’ is reigning as a master!

Yet, would it not be more fitting to simply listen to what they say, rather than to seek to speak on their behalf? We know the dead end into which a dialogue between people who are not on the same wave length leads. And when in such a dialogue one man makes both the questions and the answers, we run the risk of hearing the monologue of a deaf man. In Rome, they are attempting to avoid this, but such is not yet the case in Paris.

Fr. Alain Lorans
 
Late in the morning, the Vatican Press Office gave a press release, and a little later a correction about the bimestrial rhythm of the next meetings and not bi-monthly as it was erroneously announced previously
Doesn’t bimestrial mean once every two months, the same as bimonthly? :confused:
 
As I was drinking my coffee this morning, I was thinking about the potential significance of these doctrinal discussions

I don’t know if most people realize it, but much more is at stake than merely regularizing the SSPX. Since the close of Vatican II, doctrinal chaos has been unleashed on the Church; and almost all of it has been justified based on what Vatican II alledgedly teaches. In addition, a reading of documents such as Dignitatis Humanae will result in about 100% of the people arriving at a conclusion that has been formally condemned by the Church. In other words, the problem is not only ambiguities, but what the documents appear to actually say.

These discussion, which are probably going to be very thorough, are going to address the ambiguities and apparent contradictions once and for all. The SSPX are not compromisers, so there’s no reason to expect another ambiguous document worded in such a way that both sides can interpret in line with what they think (like the horrible document “The Joint Declaration with the Lutherans” which was proclaimed as a great victory, and which, instead, was a complete compromise of a document that required Rome to issue a later “clarification” that reversed what the document explicitly stated - a “clarification” that most never heard about). It is likely that these discussion will settle once and for all the controversial issues of Vatican II.

For years the Liberals have been able to hid behind these ambiguities in order to justify their agenda. If the ambiguities are addressed and clarified once and for all, they will no longer be able to do this; or if they do, it will be seen clearly for what it is.

There was one other Council that issued documents similar to those of Vatican II. They were ambiguous and could be interpreted in more than one way. The difference between this council and Vatican II is that the Pope did not approve it. Instead, this is what the Pope said about it:

Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”

The last paragraph explains how to deal with such a document: You simply condemn the error that is camouflaged under the ambiguity. This is what will have to be done with Vatican II.

continue
 
continuation

For 45 years the Church has allowed the ambiguities to flourish. With these talks Rome is finally dealing with the pink elephant in the room - and we can thank the SSPX for it. If things turn out well with these talks, we will be able to thank the SSPX for saving both the Mass and the integrity of the faith. They saved the “Mass of all times” from those who tried their best to eliminate it; and they preserved the true faith from those who sought to destroy it by changing it. It is becoming more and more clear that the SSPX has been God’s instrument in this crisis. God will never abandon his Church. He will always raise up a saint, or in this case a Priestly Order, who will stand firm for the truth. One of the signs of such a man, or such a group, will certainly be that they are absolutely hated, since the devil will do his best to stir up such hatred. We see this with St. Athanasius, and today with the SSPX. So, it should be no surprise that every form of false religion is loved today, while the SSPX and the SSPX alone is hated by the Liberals and the Semi-liberals (the “conservatives”).

Let us pray for a good outcome of these talks, so that at last Rome will remove the Liberals greatest weapon by clarifying the ambiguities found throughout the Vatican II documents.
 
Ok, lets get something straight…The church has not been promoting or even allowing ambiguity for 45 years. John Paull II was tireless in his teaching and implementing what Vatican II really taught.

The talks are an opportunity for the SSPX to come back to the Church. The Vatican representatives know going into the talks, that they are the ones in full communion with the Chruch. The SSPX is not in full communion.

We all know what was taught at Vatican II was completely orthodox. The talks are an opportunity for the SSPX to understand how what was taught is orthodox.

So don’t say the SSPX is doing a service to the church was making the magisterium clarify badly stated teachings. These talks are completely a chance for the SSPX to come back home.

Also the SSPX did not rescue the mass. Understand the mass of Paul VI according to the mind of the church.

Thanks,

Yosupman
 
No, bimonthly can also mean twice a month.
Bis in die is twice a day for medication but twice a month is more commonly semi-monthly, isn’t it?

Compare with bi-weekly = every two weeks, or fortnightly. (Pay checks, for example)
 
Ok, lets get something straight…The church has not been promoting or even allowing ambiguity for 45 years. John Paull II was tireless in his teaching and implementing what Vatican II really taught.
What was the unambiguous teaching of Vatican II with respect to religious liberty that John Paul II tirelessly promoted? And can you please explain what ecumenism is?
The talks are an opportunity for the SSPX to come back to the Church. The Vatican representatives know going into the talks, that they are the ones in full communion with the Chruch. The SSPX is not in full communion.
The SSPX is competely inside of the Church. The “excommunication” was lifted by the Pope without the SSPX having to renounce anything. They are now completely inside the Church. What is lacking is a canonical status; but a canonical status is not required to be completely inside the Church.
We all know what was taught at Vatican II was completely orthodox.
Really? Then please explain what Vatican II taught regarding religious liberty, and what ecumenism is.
The talks are an opportunity for the SSPX to understand how what was taught is orthodox
It would be best for you to begin preparing yourself now for what is to come. If you don’t begin to prepare yourself now, it may be too much of a shock fpr you. It will be the same shock that just about all non-Traditionalists received when Pope Benenedict stated that* “the old mass was never juridically abrogated, and, in principal, alway permitted”.* Why was that such a shock for the non-Traditionalists? Because that is exactly what the SSPX said all along, yet they were ridiculed for saying it.
Also the SSPX did not rescue the mass. Understand the mass of Paul VI according to the mind of the church.
Maybe you can explain what “the Mass of Paul VI according to the mind of the Church” means. The Mass that was saved by the SSPX is the one that grew organically from the time of Sts Peter and Paul in Rome; the one that remained virtually unchanged from the time of Pope Gregory the Great in the 600’s, before it was finally canonized by Pope St. Pius V in the 16th century. That’s the Mass that the SSPX saved.
 
Bis in die is twice a day for medication but twice a month is more commonly semi-monthly, isn’t it?

Compare with bi-weekly = every two weeks, or fortnightly. (Pay checks, for example)
In my experience bi-monthy is twice a month. I went to the Merriam-Webster dictonary website (www.m-w.com) and found that both twice a month and once every two months are acceptable definitions of bi-monthy.

Bi-weekly is also defined as both twice a week and once every two weeks. Again, in my experience it is twice a week.
 
In my experience bi-monthy is twice a month. I went to the Merriam-Webster dictonary website (www.m-w.com) and found that both twice a month and once every two months are acceptable definitions of bi-monthy.

Bi-weekly is also defined as both twice a week and once every two weeks. Again, in my experience it is twice a week.
I guess that I will have to call HR and let them know that from now on I want my bi-weekly paycheck paid twice a week instead of every other week. 😃

BTW I am not arguing with you on the definition, I just want to see if it will work.🙂
 
\No, bimonthly can also mean twice a month.\

**This is not accurate.

Biweekly means “every two weeks”.

Therefore “bimonthly” means “every two months.”

Semi-monthy means “twice a month.”**
 
\No, bimonthly can also mean twice a month.\

This is not accurate.

Biweekly means “every two weeks”.

Therefore “bimonthly” means "every two months."

Semi-monthy means "twice a month."
I am sorry, but you are incorrect.

Here is a cut-n-paste directly from the Merriam-Webster Dictonary website. Please before correcting look to the reference given (if one is given), I know that I supplied a link to the dictonary website.

Main Entry: 1bi·week·ly
Pronunciation: (ˌ)bī-ˈwē-klē
Function: adjective
Date: 1832

1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks : fortnightly usage see bi-

Main Entry: 1bi·month·ly
Pronunciation: (ˌ)bī-ˈmən(t)th-lē
Function: adjective
Date: 1845

1 : occurring every two months
2 : occurring twice a month : semimonthly usage see bi-
 
But usually with definitions the first one given is the most common usage.
Are you sure about that? Read your own definitions carefully.

Biweekly:

1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks : fortnightly usage see bi-

Bimonthly:

1 : occurring every two months
2 : occurring twice a month : semimonthly usage see bi-
 
Are you sure about that? Read your own definitions carefully.

Biweekly:

1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks : fortnightly usage see bi-

Bimonthly:

1 : occurring every two months
2 : occurring twice a month : semimonthly usage see bi-
Yes, usually in definitions the first one is the most common usage. That does not mean that the others are wrong just not as common.

As for me, in my experience the first one for biweekly and the second one for bimonthy are how I have seen them used but my experience does not mean that it is the most common usage.

By the way, these are not my definitions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top