N
Formal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month
- Status
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Continued…
The Faithful Catholics read the documents and automatically read the traditional interpretation into them, often without noticing the pitfalls. The less-than-faithful, or the uninstructed, are able to extract Modernist error from them - errors that have been anathematised in the strongest terms.
To repeat, this could never have happened with pre-Vatican II documents. Proof: Try it as an exercise and you will see for yourself (this is a general invitation, not a personal dig at anyone).
Don’t you feel uneasy about the way this is expressed? What does “benefit fully” mean? Can one be “fully saved” or “partially saved?”
Well, I agree up to a point. But it is the documents that have allowed this this to happen. As an exercise, let anyone try to extract Cdl Kasper’s position – or that of the infamous Balamand Declaration – out of anything that was written by the magisterium prior to 1950.
The Faithful Catholics read the documents and automatically read the traditional interpretation into them, often without noticing the pitfalls. The less-than-faithful, or the uninstructed, are able to extract Modernist error from them - errors that have been anathematised in the strongest terms.
To repeat, this could never have happened with pre-Vatican II documents. Proof: Try it as an exercise and you will see for yourself (this is a general invitation, not a personal dig at anyone).
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
That would be a fair point if the Magisterium had made a definitive doctrinal statement and the SSPX refused it. But it is the other way round. It is the SSPX who are asking the Vatican to make these statements. “You tell us to follow ‘the teachings of Vatican II’. But what are these teachings, so that we can follow them?”The pope and bishops should get off their collective duffs and rewrite the Vatican II documents to get rid of all the ambiguity.
They should do it right after God gets off his duff and rewrites the Bible to get rid of all the ambiguity
The thinking of the SSPX would have us argue that the Reformation took place because of how open to misinterpretation the Bible is. Pride and willful disobedience on the part of dissenters? A willingness to reinterpret the Bible without Sacred Tradition? No siree. The problem is that God was so ambiguous when he gave us the teachings on justification and faith/works
We need people as fervent as the SSPX to fight against the relativist dissenters occupying many positions of leadership. But if the SSPX refuse to submit, then they are nothing more than dissenters themselves. To paraphrase Father Corapi, whether you fall off the ship to the left as relativist dissenters do or to the right as traditionalist dissenters do, you’re still in the water swimming with the sharks.
I pray that the SSPX decide to stay with the ship instead of trying to declare themselves captain of their own ship.
Can one point to any one Catholic teaching that the SSPX have repudiated, or any extra doctrine that they have made up for themselves? Can one point to any binding declaration of Vatican II that they are repudiating?
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Bp Fellay’s goodwill is shown by his request for the Vatican to* tell the truth* about the TLM: that every priest in the world (in the Roman rite) is specifically authorised to use this rite. He knew quite well that once the TLM became more widespread, the SSPX would lose laypeople to ‘mainstream’ parishes. But he did this because his aim is not the promotion of the SSPX as an end in itself, but the return of the Magesterium as a whole to Tradition; that is, to ‘The Faith once given’. Yes, there are hotheads who go beyond what the SSPX is really about - "To keep the pilot light burning until the Church re-ignites the furnace’, as Mgr Lefebvre expressed it. These people will probably drop away when the inevitable reconciliation occurs. I don’t know anybody involved with the SSPX who expects 100% to come along: Bp Fellay has already expelled some priests for dissenting from his recent moves.
Likewise, and let us not keep this one-sided; when the Vatican eventually definitively condemns the kind of statement quoted by Cdl Kasper (which must happen, sooner or later) then many will desert from that side as well. Both Pope & Bp Fellay have the task of trying to minimise the leakage.
C
Califman831
Guest
The SSPX has always loved the Catholic Church and have stood against the modernists, the relativists, and the liberals that seek to destroy her. What they believe is what has been handed down through the generations from the time of our Lord Jesus Christ.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
In justice, private sin requires private punishment, and public sin requires public punishment. Nonetheless, for the greater good, in particular cases, it may be better to do things quietly.
J
JReducation
Guest
I have read most of the posts on this thread and I am finding the discussion rather interesting. But there is one note of concern that I must raise. If someone can clarify that for me, I would appreciate it.
When I see these threads on the SSPX and their dialogue with the Vatican, I get the impression that some supporters or admirers of the SSPX hold Bishop Fellay, the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and the Holy Father as equals. This comes across when people state that Bishop Fellay or the SSPX are going to fix the Church or the Vatican or the Council, through these discussions.
If I’m understanding the nature of these discussions correctly, this is not what this is about. The Vatican is not asking the SSPX for help. It is asking the SSPX for submission to the authority of the Pope and to the authority of the Council. The Vatican is willing to hear their concerns and answer their questions. This came through very clearly in the Vatican’s statement when it declared that these discussions were going to take place. What never came through was that there was any doubt in the mind of the Holy Father or those whom he selected for the commission that they are the authorities, not the SSPX or its bishops. In fact, what comes through very clearly is that the SSPX and its bishops are the beneficiaries of the Holy Father’s mercy. Mercy has been used by the Holy Father himself, when he lifted the excommunications. He did not say that he was lifting it because they did not deserve it. He said that he was lifting it because it was the merciful thing to do, since the disciplinary action was ineffective.
The point I’m asking is, shouldn’t we be speaking about the SSPX and its bishops in the proper hierarchical structure? They are the ones who are on the outside right now. They are the ones who have the questions. They are the ones who need faculties and a canonical place in the Church. Therefore, is it really correct for the Catholic lay person or other to think about this as a conversation between equals? I don’t see it that way. I see this as a conversation between authority and subject, between parent and child. The parent is willing to hear out the child, not let the child tell the parent what he can and cannot say.
We all know, that in every dialogue between parent and child, there is a learning curve. When issues are openly and honestly discussed, a great deal of healing takes place, even if there are not substantive changes in the daily routines of the family. We hope that this dialogue will have this healing effect. In justice, children do deserve to be heard. The SSPX is as much a child of the Church as any other group and it deserves to be heard. I for one support the idea that they are getting their hearing. But I do not see it as a meeting of equals.
The bishops of the SSPX may be as bright and as holy as Pope Benedict or maybe more so; but he remains the final authority and the commission was selected by him, without the SSPX (name removed by moderator)ut. It stands to reason, that the commission is made up of a group of men who reflect the Holy Father’s agenda, not the agenda of the SSPX. Fortunately, the Holy Father’s agenda is reconciliation and reunion between bickering siblings. The agenda is good and holy. But in the end, the SSPX and its bishops are not on the same rung in the pecking order, not even on the same rung as the members of the commission. This raises my concern. Are we making it clear to other readers that this not a meeting between equals and in the end, the Sacred Congregation will draw its conclusions and the Holy Father will back them up, because these are his men?
Let us pray for a productive and peaceful dialogue.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
When I see these threads on the SSPX and their dialogue with the Vatican, I get the impression that some supporters or admirers of the SSPX hold Bishop Fellay, the Sacred Congregation for the Faith and the Holy Father as equals. This comes across when people state that Bishop Fellay or the SSPX are going to fix the Church or the Vatican or the Council, through these discussions.
If I’m understanding the nature of these discussions correctly, this is not what this is about. The Vatican is not asking the SSPX for help. It is asking the SSPX for submission to the authority of the Pope and to the authority of the Council. The Vatican is willing to hear their concerns and answer their questions. This came through very clearly in the Vatican’s statement when it declared that these discussions were going to take place. What never came through was that there was any doubt in the mind of the Holy Father or those whom he selected for the commission that they are the authorities, not the SSPX or its bishops. In fact, what comes through very clearly is that the SSPX and its bishops are the beneficiaries of the Holy Father’s mercy. Mercy has been used by the Holy Father himself, when he lifted the excommunications. He did not say that he was lifting it because they did not deserve it. He said that he was lifting it because it was the merciful thing to do, since the disciplinary action was ineffective.
The point I’m asking is, shouldn’t we be speaking about the SSPX and its bishops in the proper hierarchical structure? They are the ones who are on the outside right now. They are the ones who have the questions. They are the ones who need faculties and a canonical place in the Church. Therefore, is it really correct for the Catholic lay person or other to think about this as a conversation between equals? I don’t see it that way. I see this as a conversation between authority and subject, between parent and child. The parent is willing to hear out the child, not let the child tell the parent what he can and cannot say.
We all know, that in every dialogue between parent and child, there is a learning curve. When issues are openly and honestly discussed, a great deal of healing takes place, even if there are not substantive changes in the daily routines of the family. We hope that this dialogue will have this healing effect. In justice, children do deserve to be heard. The SSPX is as much a child of the Church as any other group and it deserves to be heard. I for one support the idea that they are getting their hearing. But I do not see it as a meeting of equals.
The bishops of the SSPX may be as bright and as holy as Pope Benedict or maybe more so; but he remains the final authority and the commission was selected by him, without the SSPX (name removed by moderator)ut. It stands to reason, that the commission is made up of a group of men who reflect the Holy Father’s agenda, not the agenda of the SSPX. Fortunately, the Holy Father’s agenda is reconciliation and reunion between bickering siblings. The agenda is good and holy. But in the end, the SSPX and its bishops are not on the same rung in the pecking order, not even on the same rung as the members of the commission. This raises my concern. Are we making it clear to other readers that this not a meeting between equals and in the end, the Sacred Congregation will draw its conclusions and the Holy Father will back them up, because these are his men?
Let us pray for a productive and peaceful dialogue.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
brigid12
Guest
Do you think the SSPX would (or should) assent to having a new document set forth by the Vatican or a new universal catechism that clarified this information and with notes from prior councils and Popes?
P
ProVobis
Guest
“These” people tend to have large families so you can’t hope the last one just dies. It’s already the second generation since 1988 and third or fourth since Vatican II and the SSPX crowd isn’t that small anymore. And asking the younger ones to change to accommodate the new theological mindset overnight would be more cruel than what most had to endure post Vatican II as that change was at least gradual for us back then.
Parting the Red Sea would be easier than bringing 100% of the SSPX faithful back to full reconciliation. I know they respect and pray for the Pope a lot but I’m just being realistic here.
J
JReducation
Guest
Your question begs the question that I raised in my previous post. Does the Society have the authority to demand such a thing? The answer is obviously, no. I would doubt that they would even consider asking for a new CCC. I’m going out on a limb here. From the little that I know about Cardinal Levada, he would go off on them if they posed such a suggestion. I’m putting that in very black and white language. Levada is not one to be pushed. He pushes back and has a reputation for pushing hard and punitively. Then there are two high powered individuals on the committe, the Dominican theologian and the Opus Dei Vicar. What little I know about the Dominican is that he is a theological conservative, but also one of the theologians who worked on the current CCC. The Vicar of Opus Dei is known among the Opus Dei as a very holy man who is also a Ninja. He does not tolerate anyone disagreeing with the Holy Father. He seems to keep the Opus Dei on the straight and narrow pontifical path. In other words, “you do not question the Vatican.”
If there were such a wish on the part of Society, they would have to appeal over these three men directly to the Holy Father. I don’t know if these men would even allow them the opportunity to go near the Holy Father. On the other hand, let’s look at the flip possibility.
Let’s say that they did ask for a rewrite of the CCC. Let’s say that Cardinal Levada agrees to hear that request and does not lose his cool. Let’s say that the Opus Dei Vicar and the Dominican theologian are sympathetic. Would a rewrite for the purpose of including the notes that you mention be enough for them? I don’t know the answer. I don’t think anyone knows.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I think I have to agree with ProVobis here. There are going to be lay faithful among the Society’s followers who are not going to come home, even if the leadership does come home. There are going to be priests and religious who are not going to come home either. This is a sad reality.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
However, Mgr. Lefebvre’s condemnation of Dignitatis Humanae is a matter of record - and he was not a sedevacantist.
How is Mgr. Fellay going to explain what is said in a pamphlet like the one giving 62 reasons to avoid Masses celebrated using the Revised Missal ? It was Mgr. Lefebvre’s refusal to offer Mass using the Revised Missal even once that caused all this trouble to start with - see vol.1 of Michael Davies’ Apologia. If the Revised Missal is no longer a problem for the SSPX, then it has disavowed one of its founder’s main positions.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m going to guess here that Archbishop Lefebvre is not going to be on the table. First, he is deceased. Second, it would blur the dialogue, if it becomes a conversation about personalities.However, Mgr. Lefebvre’s condemnation of Dignitatis Humanae is a matter of record - and he was not a sedevacantist.
How is Mgr. Fellay going to explain what is said in a pamphlet like the one giving 62 reasons to avoid Masses celebrated using the Revised Missal ? It was Mgr. Lefebvre’s refusal to offer Mass using the Revised Missal even once that caused all this trouble to start with - see vol.1 of Michael Davies’ Apologia. If the Revised Missal is no longer a problem for the SSPX, then it has disavowed one of its founder’s main positions.
As to the pamphlet, my feeling is that it’s not important to the Vatican as long as the Society agrees that the Ordinary Form is a valid mass and is the usual and customary form for the Latin Rite Church and if they agree to accept that the TLM is the Extraordinary Form and will not replace the OF, but co-exist along with it.
My guess is that Rome is looking for a profession of fidelity and obedience from the SSPX rather than addressing every thing that has happened over the past several decades. Don’t take what I say on this issue with any confidence. I’m not an authority on the Society. I have studied very little about what makes them tick. I know their issues. But there is more to any group than the issues. There are drives, fears, aspirations, personalities, and pragmatics.
What I have to say about the Society and $1.50 will get you a ride on the bus.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
Gottle of Geer;5858179 said:
J
JReducation
Guest
I highly doubt the Cardinal Levada is looking for that kind of assent. As the “Head Inquisitor” his job is to make sure that the Society submits to the teaching and governing authority of the Pope, the Council and the bishops in union with the pope. I don’t think that he will care whether the Society likes or does not like communion in the hand, female servers and guitars. These are neither matters of doctrine nor matters of discipline either. They are concerns for the local bishops, not the Sacred Congregation for the Faith. My guess is that if anyone even brings it up the answer is simple. “If you don’t like it, don’t do it.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
mick321
Guest
Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay want this matter resolved.
Despite efforts to paint the Vatican delegation as a mob of volatile, high-powered, ninja-inquisitors, it is useful to keep in mind that THEY have the duty of obedience to the Holy Father. Their “job” is to do as they are told. If Pope Benedict orders them to “get the Society back”, no one should expect anything less.
I think the heavy lifting was done before the excommunications were lifted. Posturing continues - by agreement - to appease various constituencies. What remains to be discussed is the wording of the press releases.
Despite efforts to paint the Vatican delegation as a mob of volatile, high-powered, ninja-inquisitors, it is useful to keep in mind that THEY have the duty of obedience to the Holy Father. Their “job” is to do as they are told. If Pope Benedict orders them to “get the Society back”, no one should expect anything less.
I think the heavy lifting was done before the excommunications were lifted. Posturing continues - by agreement - to appease various constituencies. What remains to be discussed is the wording of the press releases.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Hello, JR. I wondered yesterday, when I posted the following comment, whether it would be queried:
It’s not possible to say everything all the time, & that statement is intended to make one single point: that there are certain entrenched positions that are not actually justifiable (in the mainstream, there are those who believe we should stop trying to convert people of other religions: among the SSPX, that any dealings with Rome whatsoever are ‘selling out’) but without implying that the Pope & Bp Fellay are equals.
It may be mentioned in passing that the post-Vatican II popes, in ther ecumenical endeavours, have frequently acted towards leaders of other Faiths perecisely as theogh they were equals. This is the kind of thing that has infuriated the trads all along.
Well, Bp Fellay, and Mgr Lefebvre before him, have repeatedly declared that only the Pope can resolve the current crisis in the Church (which, as I think otjm pointed out yesterday, is not a simple matter of Vatican II, as though everything were perfect before that.)
But the Mainstream Church is in a mess, and does need help. The Catholic education of the young is in a shambles, and the failure to pass on the rudiments of the Faith has been enforced from diocesan level. Meanwhile the vocations rate among trad families is far higher than that among Modernist families.
Well, without taking away from the goodwill and generosity of the Holy Father, they were ineffective for a very good reason. Partly through the internet, the SSPX and the trads have been able to make their case to a wider audience, and a growing number of trad families around the world are showing that the trad way does work, and does not deserve to be stifled. It was becoming ever more obvious that the selective throwing-of-the-book at the trads, while allowing certain other individuals and tendencies to rampage unchecked for decades, was undermining the credibility of the Vatican. Especially the double standards being applied to the ecumenical movement.
Well, my own opinion on this is that there are many others who have questions, but it is the SSPX who have had the courage to ask them openly – and to refuse to comply with the unjust and illegal demands that have been made.
This is not in any way to say that only the trads have integrity, Faith etc. But I am responding to your points.
I agree. And so, I believe, does Bp. Fellay. If he had ever wanted to lead a schism, he would have had plenty of followers. That was never the aim of the SSPX. It was to resist the illegitimate attempt to stifle the traditional life of the Church and impose a regime of Modernism in the name of the church that had been very explicitly condemned by the popes for 200 years.
Sometimes a child has had the unpleasant duty of reminding the parent that a certain statement or command is impossible to comply with. Paul ‘withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed’.
My personal opinion is that Bp Fellay is very much aware of the points you raise, JR. this is one reason I have hopes for the future of these talks.
B
BenjaminLumen
Guest
This is a very interesting topic, I don’t know what the scope is. Further down in the threadFormal theological discussions about Vatican II will begin later this month, it was announced today. Why is Benedict XVI allowing this new debate on the most vexed questions of the Second Vatican Council?
insidethevatican2.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=letter-33-and-so-it-begins.html&Itemid=169
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0904605.htm
someone mentioned something lost in the translation… I don’t know…
The biggest thing is the loss of the Tridentine Mass and the Catechism, The Catechism’s
language is so loose in places that it tends to lead people along a less rigorous intellectual
model, and hence I think that has translated into people looking at the Church in a more loose fashion, But I don’t know that the Spirit changed, but it may have, I have nothing to compare it to as I am a POST VATICAN II Catholic.
This isn’t a ecumenical council, will one result from it?? I don’t know. It is clear that The Holy Father is bothered by something that has its root in Second Vatican. He re-introduced the Tridentine Mass, He has a deep Love of the Church’s Past, and that could lead to us going back. Which if they call for another ecumenical Council , then its time to Break out the LATIN GRAMMER AND WRITING TEXTBOOKS, from way back when.
Which means that Marriage rules could be re-strengthened and a corresponding drop in granted anullments. It could mean alot of things…
A Third Ecumencial Council would be interesting… I don’t know what is going to happen.
But I don’t know that the problem is that deep. The Church in the 60’s reflected a loss in Classical Education with the drop of the Tridentine Mass… See Latin was tought in Every single school, at elementary level upwards for 40 or 50 years in the 20th Century.
The article states that the problems are … But if The Holy Father wishes a return to more Strident Days then I will support that whole heartily.
Ben stands before a Nun who administers a quick crack across his Knuckles. Society has suffered for the Loss of that Nun.
Who Knows,
Benjamin
J
Jacafamala
Guest
Don’t they wish.
I’ve listened to some interviews off the SSPX website with Bp. Fellay pertaining to the up coming talks with Rome. There’s no way Bp. Fellay’s going to compromise on the SSXP’s position. He’s there to dialogue. But he’s in no hurry to compromise. So, we’ll see. These are interesting times ahead.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m sure matters wouldn’t have come this far if there hadn’t been some positive movement in that direction already. The Pope knows what he’s doing and I trust Bishop Fellay has reflected on these and other issues. I don’t see those as problems.
But one of the real problems will be how to best disseminate the ongoing news and final resolution, if there is one. Judging by past history with the SSPX, the secular press will manage to put the Church in a very uncomfortable position again. Not to mention so many from all sides will no doubt come out knowing better than the Pope.
- Status