P
ProVobis
Guest
It would help if everyone cooperates per the Vatican decision. The Church doesn’t need another 1988. Thanks for the explanations, JR.
Formal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month
- Status
B
BenjaminLumen
Guest
Well, Pope Benedict is meeting with persons over a little problem (big Problem , they are deep issues) but we still don’t know what the scope will be limited to, but we got all of Vatican II in crisis, but its not… I mean Vatican II is tight, inspite of the way the Catechism makes it sound. THe Catechism has Vatican II very loose, it was the 70’s/80’s the GoGo’s Shades, cuffed 3/4sleave pink and neon blue jackets, hairspray, Pope John Paul II was being cool, he had put together a cool book. But its not the CANNON or the CONSTITUTIONS OF THE CHURCH MERELY BASED UPON. The language gets pretty loose in places. You can break it in the catechism where you may not be able to break the same subject matter in the Constitition…
I dont’ know if Vatican II is broke somewheres…
it is great fun, but I don’t how formal, this is not an Ecumenical council. So don’t get dissapointed. There are not going to be lines after lines of miles of Black Limosines from all over the world pulling up in front of St. Peters to hold a 6 month conference…
Benjamin
I dont’ know if Vatican II is broke somewheres…
it is great fun, but I don’t how formal, this is not an Ecumenical council. So don’t get dissapointed. There are not going to be lines after lines of miles of Black Limosines from all over the world pulling up in front of St. Peters to hold a 6 month conference…
Benjamin
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, it is aimed at the returning SSPX. As you put it,Did you even read the article?
My favorite part?
Thanks be to God! Otherwise many would be second guessing everything both sides did.
C
Cider
Guest
Code:
[catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17490](http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17490)The themes will be examined over the next few months, probably in bi-monthly discussions.
J
JReducation
Guest
Fortunately for all of us, we will not be privy to any of these discussions. We will be given the conclusions when they are ready and told to take it or leave it. For those who have been complaining for years about the Church not getting tough, here it is folks.
The SSPX will make their case in court. The Congregation for the Faith will decide the outcome. The Holy Father will sign and seal the recommendations of the Congregation. The SSPX will accept or reject the final decision and there will be no further discussion. If there is an excommunication again, it will be final. Let’s hope and pray that this is not the case. If there is a reconciliation with lot of compromises, that will be final too. Let’s hope for a reconciliation.
Whatever the outcome, Catholics will have to live with it, whether we like it or not. The whole idea of this process is to put this to rest once and for all. After all the discussions, there will be no need for further talks. The Vatican and the SSPX will have had their say. What else can you do after that, but accept the outcome and go home.
My personal take on this is that the Holy Father wants this settled once and for all. He does not want to see this continue into the next century. Basically, once these discussions are over, there is nothing else to argue, because you can’t argue when one side bows out of the argument. If we look back at history, this is not the first time that the Church has had these kinds of meetings. The pattern is always the same. When the Church makes up its mind, they do not revisit the argument. Just look at the Protestant Reformation. The Church had all the discussions and made alll the statements that it wanted to make about the issues. Today, all she’s willing to do is to concede room for reconciliation and unity, not to reopen the same subjects for discussion. A good example is the return of the Anglicans. They have been invited to return, but on Rome’s terms. They have not been invited to discuss alternatives, doctrine, liturgy, theology, etc.
We, as non-participants and non-voters in this process, need to pray for the humility and charity to accept whatever is demanded of us. We can’t continue with the posturing and the debating among ourselves. It solves nothing and adds nothing to our spiritual growth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The SSPX will make their case in court. The Congregation for the Faith will decide the outcome. The Holy Father will sign and seal the recommendations of the Congregation. The SSPX will accept or reject the final decision and there will be no further discussion. If there is an excommunication again, it will be final. Let’s hope and pray that this is not the case. If there is a reconciliation with lot of compromises, that will be final too. Let’s hope for a reconciliation.
Whatever the outcome, Catholics will have to live with it, whether we like it or not. The whole idea of this process is to put this to rest once and for all. After all the discussions, there will be no need for further talks. The Vatican and the SSPX will have had their say. What else can you do after that, but accept the outcome and go home.
My personal take on this is that the Holy Father wants this settled once and for all. He does not want to see this continue into the next century. Basically, once these discussions are over, there is nothing else to argue, because you can’t argue when one side bows out of the argument. If we look back at history, this is not the first time that the Church has had these kinds of meetings. The pattern is always the same. When the Church makes up its mind, they do not revisit the argument. Just look at the Protestant Reformation. The Church had all the discussions and made alll the statements that it wanted to make about the issues. Today, all she’s willing to do is to concede room for reconciliation and unity, not to reopen the same subjects for discussion. A good example is the return of the Anglicans. They have been invited to return, but on Rome’s terms. They have not been invited to discuss alternatives, doctrine, liturgy, theology, etc.
We, as non-participants and non-voters in this process, need to pray for the humility and charity to accept whatever is demanded of us. We can’t continue with the posturing and the debating among ourselves. It solves nothing and adds nothing to our spiritual growth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Yes, JR. GKChesterton wrote once that there is a whole cluster of statements that begin with the phrase “the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that…” I don’t still have the book, but one can think of a few anyway…Fortunately for all of us, we will not be privy to any of these discussions. We will be given the conclusions when they are ready and told to take it or leave it. For those who have been complaining for years about the Church not getting tough, here it is folks.
The SSPX will make their case in court. The Congregation for the Faith will decide the outcome. The Holy Father will sign and seal the recommendations of the Congregation. The SSPX will accept or reject the final decision and there will be no further discussion. If there is an excommunication again, it will be final. Let’s hope and pray that this is not the case. If there is a reconciliation with lot of compromises, that will be final too. Let’s hope for a reconciliation.
Whatever the outcome, Catholics will have to live with it, whether we like it or not. The whole idea of this process is to put this to rest once and for all. After all the discussions, there will be no need for further talks. The Vatican and the SSPX will have had their say. What else can you do after that, but accept the outcome and go home.
My personal take on this is that the Holy Father wants this settled once and for all. He does not want to see this continue into the next century. Basically, once these discussions are over, there is nothing else to argue, because you can’t argue when one side bows out of the argument. If we look back at history, this is not the first time that the Church has had these kinds of meetings. The pattern is always the same. When the Church makes up its mind, they do not revisit the argument. Just look at the Protestant Reformation. The Church had all the discussions and made alll the statements that it wanted to make about the issues. Today, all she’s willing to do is to concede room for reconciliation and unity, not to reopen the same subjects for discussion. A good example is the return of the Anglicans. They have been invited to return, but on Rome’s terms. They have not been invited to discuss alternatives, doctrine, liturgy, theology, etc.
We, as non-participants and non-voters in this process, need to pray for the humility and charity to accept whatever is demanded of us. We can’t continue with the posturing and the debating among ourselves. It solves nothing and adds nothing to our spiritual growth.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
“the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that has a wholly celibate priesthood. No ‘priestly families’.”
“the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that has a total ban on divorce.”
and, significantly for this discussion,
“the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that has an actual working mechanism for resolving disputes.”
It has been no fun living in a legal limbo all these years, seeing one’s legitimate concerns ignored and instead seeing a straw man SSPX routinely burned.
This Pope does intend to see the situation resolved. And so, I believe, does Bp Fellay. Naturally there will be those who will refuse to follow, no matter what is finally arranged. If the Vatican is (at long last) induced to make authoritative, binding statements on the issues, which were so fudged in the past decades, the SSPX will have done a huge service to the Church. If the Vatican does actually mandate teachings that directly contradict previous teaching, it will be interesting to say the least. What will come out of all this is a much clearer picture of what the Church teaches on the contentious issues, and a much clearer illustration of the scope of authority and legitimate obedience.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
.
You were, otjm. And your posting transgressed Forum rules for courtesy. I was pointing out that there are two sides to the story of the shoes.
they are requesting clarification, once and for all, of matters that have been bedevilled by 'the Tyrrany of the Grey Area.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
A summary of this Press Release has already been posted here; I think the supporting comments also deserve an airing on this thread.
ncregister.com/daily/vatican-sspx_statement/#When:13:33:08Z
Vatican-SSPX Statement
POSTED BY EDWARD PENTIN
Monday, October 26, 2009 9:33 AM
The Vatican has now released a statement concerning the meeting this morning between Church officials and the SSPX. It reads:
“On Monday, Oct. 26, 2009, in the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ the study commission made up of experts from ‘Ecclesia Dei’ and from the Society of St. Pius X held its first meeting, with the aim of examining the doctrinal differences still outstanding between the society and the Apostolic See.
“In a cordial, respectful and constructive climate, the main doctrinal questions were identified. These will be studied in the course of discussions to be held over coming months, probably twice a month. In particular, the questions due to be examined concern the concept of Tradition, the Missal of Paul VI, the interpretation of Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal Tradition, the themes of the unity of the Church and the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious freedom. The meeting also served to specify the method and organization of the work.”
ncregister.com/daily/vatican-sspx_statement/#When:13:33:08Z
Vatican-SSPX Statement
POSTED BY EDWARD PENTIN
Monday, October 26, 2009 9:33 AM
The Vatican has now released a statement concerning the meeting this morning between Church officials and the SSPX. It reads:
“On Monday, Oct. 26, 2009, in the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, headquarters of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei,’ the study commission made up of experts from ‘Ecclesia Dei’ and from the Society of St. Pius X held its first meeting, with the aim of examining the doctrinal differences still outstanding between the society and the Apostolic See.
“In a cordial, respectful and constructive climate, the main doctrinal questions were identified. These will be studied in the course of discussions to be held over coming months, probably twice a month. In particular, the questions due to be examined concern the concept of Tradition, the Missal of Paul VI, the interpretation of Vatican Council II in continuity with Catholic doctrinal Tradition, the themes of the unity of the Church and the Catholic principles of ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and non-Christian religions, and religious freedom. The meeting also served to specify the method and organization of the work.”
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
The comment has been made, on this forum and elsewhere, that Pope Benedict & Pope John Paul repeatedly stated that Vatican II is to be interpreted in the light of Tradition. Unfortunately, conflicting statements have been made by them as well, including an attempt to re-define ‘tradition’ in a way that robs it of all meaning. Pope Benedict speaks of a ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ yet many statements in the documents themselves are seen to be at odds with previous unanimous teachings of the Magisterium. I have great hopes, therefore, for a good outcome for the Church if these grey areas are swept away once and for all.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not sure if this is an example or if Chesterton wrote it. I don’t have the book. But this should be more specific. The Roman Chuch has a celibate priesthood. The Catholic Church has both, married and celibate.
It’s not a ban on divorce. It’s belief in the indisolubility of marriage. People can get a divorce for legal lreasons, such as staying safe. But the marriage bond is not affected by the legal proceding.
I’m not so sure that our mechanisms always work. But we do have them in place.
I’ve often thought about this and have wondered about the pain that one must feel to be in this situation. I too pray for this solution.
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that everyone wants to see this chapter closed.
This is a sad reality. Let’s hope and pray that there are none or few. We really can’t force people to follow the conclusions of this work. I share this fear and it saddens me.
Whatever comes out, it will be the Church’s position on the questions. It will be clear for everyone. That’s a good thing, because there will be no doubt in people’s mind “did the Church mean X or Y.” In reality, what I always feel is that a simple answer, no matter how disagreable it may be to swallow is better than an ambivalent answer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I had seen this in our International Franciscan Newsletter. Sometimes these things get sent to us faster than they make the morning news. We are were very happy to hear that the envrionment was cordial and cooperative. That’s a good beginning.
Now, I just wish that the laity will follow their good example and keep the dialogue cordial and cooperative. As we dialogue amongst ourselves, priest, laity, religious etc, we have to think of how we’re going to support each other. The time for posturing is over. We know that the group gathered in Rome is not going to come knocking at our doors to help us follow along. We have to do that work on our own. By that work, I mean the work of supporting each other and the work of healing each other.
As I told the novices, “this work is not about us or how we feel or what we believe. It is about Christ. We must help all parties to focus on loving God and remembering that they have a covenant of love with God, so that no matter what the outcome is, people will feel that hey can move along with the Church, because God is with them.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Amen, Bro. JR!I had seen this in our International Franciscan Newsletter. Sometimes these things get sent to us faster than they make the morning news. We are were very happy to hear that the envrionment was cordial and cooperative. That’s a good beginning.
Now, I just wish that the laity will follow their good example and keep the dialogue cordial and cooperative. As we dialogue amongst ourselves, priest, laity, religious etc, we have to think of how we’re going to support each other. The time for posturing is over. We know that the group gathered in Rome is not going to come knocking at our doors to help us follow along. We have to do that work on our own. By that work, I mean the work of supporting each other and the work of healing each other.
As I told the novices, “this work is not about us or how we feel or what we believe. It is about Christ. We must help all parties to focus on loving God and remembering that they have a covenant of love with God, so that no matter what the outcome is, people will feel that hey can move along with the Church, because God is with them.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Good point! Yes, it did come from GKC. But I (& he) had forgotten the Byzantines etc! Not to mention married converts, as eg. those ‘coming over’ from Anglicanism in the 80s. Nonetheless I would re-affirm that priestly celibacy is the ‘norm’ and what I have googled about the Byzantine tradition suggests it was a compromise, intended to be temporary, that got out of hand.
Well, not to quibble, but what you describe is a “legal separation”, not a divorce, as the latter permits re-marriage. The Church does not quibble about State divorces, but no Catholic accepts it. A shining example was Catherine of Aragon, “divorced” by Henry VIII, who to the end of her days wrote affectionate letters to Henry as her lawful husband. There are terrible personal problems when one partner divorces & re-marries, & the other (if a practising Catholic) is then faced with a lifetime alone – when they might not be suited to that life. It is part of what Horace wrote as “Lachrymae rerum” - “the tearfulness of things”. Some problems really cannot be resolved in this life …
But they do, Brother, because the bottom line is excommunication of the recalcitrant. And the Pope has the Holy Spirit behind him. The current furore in the Anglican “Communion”, if certain “bishops” were quoted correctly, is that there is no mechanism within Anglicanism to deal with the ordination-of-homosexuals issue. And I have heard that the Jews have a joke, “Get twelve Jews and you will find thirteen opinions”. As for the Buddhists, I googled them a while ago for my teaching notes and there is not a single tenet that I can see, tenaciously held by one sect, that is not dismissed by another. And Hinduism is not a religion at all but merely the generic name for the mass of superstitions that vary from one village to the next.
Chesterton mentioned the interesting point that the Franciscans who remained in communion with Peter are still with us, whereas the schismatic Orders – the Flagellati et al – went the way of all heresy and withered on the vine. But JR could tell us all about it if he wishes; I know only that one passing reference in GKC.
Thanks for that, Bro. To my mind, & for my family, it was the “least worst” option, as the Americans put it. And for many families it was not without its abundant good fruits. Maybe prayers are now coming to fruition for a resolution. The SSPX always said that only the Pope could resolve it: it is not their fault if the Faith is being repudiated from within the Mainstream Church with impunity.
We could then get on with converting the world!
To this greybeard it would be Paradise regained to hear the Church speak again with a clear and firm voice, unafraid before her foes.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
NB, FYI, here is a link to the oath Against Modernism introduced by Pope Pius X, required to be taken by every priest … and discontinued under Pope Paul VI …
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m not going to speak to every point in your post, but I am going to speak to two points, because many readers may get a little confused here, since most are Aemericans.
In most states in the USA there is no longer a legal separation. The state requires that you get a civil divorce if you want your civil rights as an individual protected. For example, if a spouse is an abuser and the other spouse has to leave the home to stay safe, in most states of the USA the spouse’s individual rights are not protected. Therefore, the abuser can sell their family home, use their common assets and bankrupt the couple, sue the person who left for abandonment, sue for custody of the children and even kidnapt his/her children without impunity. Therefore, there must be a civil divorce, which the Church supports, for the sake of protecting the innocent. The divorce does not dissolve the marital bond, but it grants protection to the victim and the children, under the law. This is very important. We don’t want spouses to be abused, children to be in danger and families to be subject to violence and poverty through injustic.
The moral choice here is a choice for a good, the protection of the innocent. It is not a choice to dissolve the marriage. The state can believe that it has dissolved the marrige. The Church is concerned with the preservation of the bond and the justice to the innocent.
There are times, when some problems cannot be resolved quickly or ever. The person who is bonded to another by marriage is called to live a celibate life. The only other option that the person has is to present his/her case to the local eclesial tribunal for examination. But this process is not a guarrantee. This process examines the marriage in the hope of preserving the bond. It is up to the presesnter of the case to prove that there never was a bond. The defender of the bond presents every evidence that he/she can find to support the argument that there is a bond. The presenter is on trial, not the marriage. The presenter must prove his case.
Again, here we have to explain for everyone to understand that there are two systems and you and I are talking about both of them, but cross purposes.
- The procedural system: this is the collective legal and organizational systems in the Church. They are defined and governed by Canon Law. These systems can be changed by the Holy Father at any time. These systems don’t always work, because law is fallible and human beings are not always obedient to law. For this reason, canon law is reviewed and rivised periodically.
- The theological system: this is the method of doing theology Up until Pope Benedict XVI popes used St. Thomas Aquinas’ method of doing theology. It was known by different names: Thomism, Scholasticism and Apologetics. Pope Benedict does not use St. Thomas’ method. This often makes him difficult to understand. Pope Benedict uses Augustine and Bonaventure. This is the speculative method. Unlike Thomism that begins with a question and proceeds to answer it according to the tradition of faith, Augustine and Bonventure begin with a statement and then try to show how it belongs in the deposit of faith. Both of these sysems work very well for the Church.
After his conversion, Chesterton joined the Secular Franciscan Order. He began a long study of Franciscan history. He has become one of the foiur athoritative Franciscan historians: Celano, Bonaventure, Esser and Chesterton. These are the only authoritative Franciscan historians. There are many writers of Franciscan history. But these are the only ones who have the authority to speak for the order.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status