O
otjm
Guest
And in 2,000 years the Church has never rescinded a council, as far as I know.
- Status
L
Lormar
Guest
They’ll accept Vatican II as long as it is interpreted “in light of tradition.” Archbishop Lefebvre said the same.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Canonical status?
P
ProVobis
Guest
For the record, one was approved.
PROTOCOL OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOLY SEE
AND THE PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X
Signed in Rome on May 5, 1988
C
commenter
Guest
This is true, if you refer to the organization, as such. If the SSPX were to be fully reconciled with Rome, that would mean the Order would be recognized, but it would be subordinated to a Vatican department. Further, its operations around the world would be somewhat subordinated to local bishops. Would the leaders of the Order be willing to share some authority with the Vatican, and local bishops?
However, suppose the SSPX announced there is a permanent break, that there is no chance of joining Rome, and thus they are now setting up their own dioceses, parishes, and enrolling laity. This would push many laity over the line, and some would say I will never leave the Catholic Church. Some would leave the Society.
That is why the SSPX will always appear to be on the verge of joining Rome, but still too cautious to jump right in, not just yet. “Significant events are shaping up right now, but we must have assurances. Things may be clearer in 6 months…wait…”
O
otjm
Guest
Understood. Not all of them speak with the same “voice”; and both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 held that the documents of V2, including the ones they object to, not only could but must be interpreted in light of tradition and the 2,000 year history of the Church.
The disagreement seems to be that they hold that certain documents cannot be so interpreted; which leaves only the conclusion that the documents must be withdrawn. That they may not say specifically, but that is the only conclusion possible, given those two popes.
Then, again, if we look for example to Novus Ordo Watch, at the top of their banner they have “Exposing the Modernist Vatican II Church”, which does not appear to hold that the documents and changes to the Mass are legitimate.
IMHO, the only reason they are not declared schismatic de jure is because both popes wanted so badly to reconcile the split.
After 40 years, and the efforts both popes made to answer their questions and objections, and for all the dealings they have had with probably the most brilliant theologian alive (Ratzinger, who was the intermediary for John Paul II, and subsequently Benedict 16), the only thing I see as a faint possibility is individuals, or a small group of them reconciling. I can’t speak for the three bishops; certainly Fellay seems to try to stay the course of communication. And it is pure speculation as to what he really thinks; and whether he personally is willing to agree with Rome, and is caught up in concerns of responsibility for the other two bishops and their priests, or not. What little I can garner is that the other two bishops appear to be more reluctant to reconcile; and I have no clue about how many priests wish to.
They have been walking this path for what - 40 years? Two generations? That is an extremely long time to have a stated position of opposition to the documents, and it goes beyond just intellectual issues, and becomes a significant element of personal identity.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Yes, I know it very well. I remember it vividly. It was an incredibly magnanimous grant on the part of the Holy See to a bishop and priests in rebellion to try avoid a schism. I will refrain from further characterising their actions but what they did in this instance is but one small reason why I said I have not one positive thing to say about these people.
T
TK421
Guest
Which is why “reconciliation” in the absolute sense is a myth, whether you’re speaking of the SSPX or of any other group or of entire religions or entire nations. If Bishop Fellay, as the head of the SSPX, did reconcile himself with Rome, it would be just that… Bishop Fellay reconciling himself. Some priests would follow suit. Many would not. The nouns might change. “SSPX” might take on another name, but any reconciliation that takes place will happen one soul at a time. There are veins of the SSPX that essentially want parts of Vatican II to be undone. In other words: they want the Catholic Church to prove that protestants are right and Catholicism is false. In these instances in particular, there is zero hope of reconciliation here, short of them repenting, of course.
L
Lormar
Guest
Novus Ordo Watch is run by a sedevacantist and for sedevacantists.
As for the rest of your post, being proud myself, it is hard for a proud person to ever admit they have been wrong. Or are wrong. Often people harden in their errors.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
What exactly does “in light of tradition” mean? Either the statements on religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae represent a new approach or they don’t. Either one takes them for what they clearly say or one is saying “we don’t really mean what these words plainly say.” That document is to be incredibly cherished for what it articulates.
The same is true for the ecumenical movement. The Church had rejected participation in it and the Council Fathers made it an absolute priority for the Church.
Sacrosanctum Concilium spoke of the absolute need to reform the liturgy and that it was urgent to do so. The vote for that document and its mandates was 2147 to 4.
L
Lormar
Guest
I’m sure if you write to the SSPX they will answer your questions.
C
CuriousMike
Guest
I for one would like to see the SSPX reconciled as a whole to the Church. I hope the “ordained” Priests would follow their Bishop under obedience, and try to come back into the Church for themselves.
Regardless of what one thinks of V2 - our Church has a few too many “liberal voices,” both from within and the media pushing against us. Some theologically-strong Priests could do wonders for instructing us Catholics in our faith.
One of the posters above mentioned that priests in the 90s/2000s seem disinterested in tradition. I agree. Many of the priests I’ve experienced from this time frame are the “mercy, love (and some more) mercy” priests that can tell you about the Year of Mercy every week in the homily, but fail to say anything about what the Year of Mercy IS, how to receive the Indulgences, or even what the Indulgences are.
Thank God that so many Seminarians today have a much stronger traditional-mindset - I suppose “cultural vocations” aren’t a thing anymore, and the Catholics remaining may be more traditional than most. The figures I had from France suggested most of the Seminarians now are actually for the FSSP/ICKSP, rather than the Dioceses (who are known to be a little “against” the mindset of the more traditional-minded). Ireland, despite very low vocations, have a group of very conservative-minded Seminarians, and they couldn’t “get rid of them” for their beliefs due to the low numbers and priest shortage…
I have been to very a few Novus Ordo Masses done very quietly. I don’t know whether that is equal to “reverent,” but it sure beats “Catholic ‘Folk’ Music” that we often get today (even the Catholic School’s Choir did better than our usual bunch yesterday for the Feast of the Annunciation!).
It just seems to be too easy to alter the prayers of the Mass, whether altering the “Through Christ our Lord” prayer, the dismissal, even the words of the Preface (My Missal states which is to be used, then we go an use something from Ordinary time???
)… If you think of it this way, and actually look out for the things that aren’t supposed to happen perhaps the view of the SSPX on the Ordinary Form doesn’t seem quite as extreme…
eingedi.org/violation-2.html
ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm
canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9bq1.htm
Regardless of what one thinks of V2 - our Church has a few too many “liberal voices,” both from within and the media pushing against us. Some theologically-strong Priests could do wonders for instructing us Catholics in our faith.
One of the posters above mentioned that priests in the 90s/2000s seem disinterested in tradition. I agree. Many of the priests I’ve experienced from this time frame are the “mercy, love (and some more) mercy” priests that can tell you about the Year of Mercy every week in the homily, but fail to say anything about what the Year of Mercy IS, how to receive the Indulgences, or even what the Indulgences are.
Thank God that so many Seminarians today have a much stronger traditional-mindset - I suppose “cultural vocations” aren’t a thing anymore, and the Catholics remaining may be more traditional than most. The figures I had from France suggested most of the Seminarians now are actually for the FSSP/ICKSP, rather than the Dioceses (who are known to be a little “against” the mindset of the more traditional-minded). Ireland, despite very low vocations, have a group of very conservative-minded Seminarians, and they couldn’t “get rid of them” for their beliefs due to the low numbers and priest shortage…
I have been to very a few Novus Ordo Masses done very quietly. I don’t know whether that is equal to “reverent,” but it sure beats “Catholic ‘Folk’ Music” that we often get today (even the Catholic School’s Choir did better than our usual bunch yesterday for the Feast of the Annunciation!).
It just seems to be too easy to alter the prayers of the Mass, whether altering the “Through Christ our Lord” prayer, the dismissal, even the words of the Preface (My Missal states which is to be used, then we go an use something from Ordinary time???
)… If you think of it this way, and actually look out for the things that aren’t supposed to happen perhaps the view of the SSPX on the Ordinary Form doesn’t seem quite as extreme…eingedi.org/violation-2.html
ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm
canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9bq1.htm
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Oh goodness, no. I have had too many decades of dealing with those people. I can’t imagine their answers have changed of late – and I heard quite enough of what they thought.
C
Catholic4Christ
Guest
Abp. +Lefebvre also voted in favor of it, if I’m not mistaken. He and many Catholics (not just SSPX) would argue that the Mass of Paul VI did not effectively follow the mandates of Sacrosanctum Concilium, or at least that its implementation did not. I’m not educated enough on the matter to say for myself, but I haven’t heard a lot of traditionalists really hate on Sacrosanctum Concilium in and of itself.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That is my understanding too. The ones who despise Gregorian chant, etc would be the ones opposed to SC, not the FSSPX.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
It is exactly this. I don’t see the will for them to come back – I am speaking of the priests. That is all the SSPX is. The laity who attend their chapels have absolutely no standing relative to the Priestly Society, which anyway was dissolved by competent ecclesiastical authority four decades ago.
As it is, they are a thing apart. They answer only to themselves. There is no cooperation with the diocesan bishop wherever they live and run their chapels or schools…there is no oversight from the Congregation of Bishops, the Congregation of the Clergy, Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, the Congregation for Education and so forth. No collaboration with the Episcopal Conferences. No interaction with the presbyterates where they are.
It is not simply a matter of “we’re going to let you say Mass however you choose” – to be in communion or not in communion has very profound and radical implications for how a cleric’s daily life is actually lived, which goes well beyond the 30 minutes he uses to celebrate his daily Mass.
Frankly, I think most lay people who come into full communion with the Roman Church sign on the dotted line “I believe and profess all that Holy Catholic Church believes and teaches to be revealed by God” without really beginning to know the profundity of what that statement means in all its permutations…and they go on with their daily lives as lay people.
For a cleric, it is very different. The priests of the SSPX have to come to terms with what the ecumenical council taught…they either accept the orientation that the world’s bishops gave the Church on liturgy, on religious liberty, on ecumenism, and on the other topics…or they don’t. They either understand that their lives and persons as Catholic clerics involves full and complete submission to ecclesiastical authority, which goes beyond their immediate superiors in their own society, and they do so in all its manifestations for a cleric…or they don’t.
One’s whole life is profoundly governed by ecclesiastical authority, when one is an ordained priest.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
When you are a cleric, you don’t get a veto option.
Do you know who judges whether or not the result of the liturgical reform is conformed to what the Council Fathers mandated? It is the pope. And he did. And the rest of us get to implement it. And the dicasteries are there to help us to make sure that we do just that.
The response of a priest in communion with the Holy See is: I submit to what the council said and I submit to what the lawful ecclesiastical authority enacted and I submit to what I am directed to do by competent authority. Period. End of discussion.
C
Catholic4Christ
Guest
I neither identify with the SSPX nor reject the Pauline Mass, I’m just expressing the way they feel (which I sympathize with even if I don’t fully agree). Ain’t gotta convince me
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Please be assured that the comment was not directed at you…since I am a priest, I am directing it to the cleric who would hold such a position as articulated. Namely, neither he nor I nor any of us have any prerogative to question what lawful authority has mandated in these areas. They are settled and our only response is to carry them out.I neither identify with the SSPX nor reject the Pauline Mass, I’m just expressing the way they feel (which I sympathize with even if I don’t fully agree). Ain’t gotta convince me
I don’t care whether a brother priest thinks the result is what the Council Fathers intended or not. The pope has told me it is and I have answered: “Yes, Holiness.”
O
otjm
Guest
Pride, for some. For others, isolation, plus listening to people who seem to be striving for virtue and truth, and for those listening, lack of knowledge, which makes them susceptible to what “sounds” right. In 2,000 years, there have been many who thought they were on the right path, and the Church leaders clearly not.
And for others, much seems to be fear driven; there is too much change in the world and in the Church; and change induces gut wrenching fears. Someone proposing a safe harbor, something which one can hang on to, will find ready listeners, particularly if the listeners are not particularly theologically educated. There is safety, or at least the appearance of it, in hard and fast rules. Christianity understood, particularly through the lens of Catholicism, is a risky adventure. Christ did not give a whole lot of rules; he noted the two great Commandments and clearly rejected the rigidness of the Pharisees’ approach to law. That leaves many uneasy, at best. Black and white leaves no room for discretion, no need for conscience; just follow the rule.
- Status