If The SSPX Were Declared In Full Communion Tomorrow

  • Thread starter Thread starter I_Believe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
Wait a minute. Let’s slow down here. Pope Benedict never said or implied that an attack on the SSPX was an attack on him, not if you’re referring to his letter to the bishops after the excommunications were lifted. What he said was that he was shocked that he was attacked when he lifted the excommunications. He also admitted that he did not know about Bishop Williamson’s comments to the press about the Shoah. He didn’t say that he would not have lifted the excommunication anyway. But he did say that he was attacked because of Williamson’s position and the lifting of the excommunication and that he had been hurt by such attacks. But the attacks came because some felt that the Holy Father had acted knowingly or that he should have known about Williamson.

The Holy Father also said that it is not right to target one group of people, in this case the Society. But he did not say that the Society is right. He protected their right to be treated with charity. However, he went on to say that they have no legal status in the Church. He has been their strongest critic by saying that they do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church. He has been their strongest hardliner when he says that they have to submit to obedience. He has been their strongest hardliner when he says that they have to take the step toward Rome, not the other way around. When he said that lifting the excommunication was done as an act of mercy toward the bishops of the society who expressed how much they were suffering as a result, he is not being flattering.

We have to be careful to take his words at face value. He wants to Society to be regularized. He is against targeting them and bullying them and so should we all be. But he also throws some major responsibilities for this mess in their direction by denying their claim that they were treated unjustly and by denying that they do have faculties to celebrate marriages and absolve from sin. He refuses to agree with the Society that they are legal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
JReducation said:
Wait a minute. Let’s slow down here. Pope Benedict never said or implied that an attack on the SSPX was an attack on him, not if you’re referring to his letter to the bishops after the excommunications were lifted. What he said was that he was shocked that he was attacked when he lifted the excommunications. He also admitted that he did not know about Bishop Williamson’s comments to the press about the Shoah. He didn’t say that he would not have lifted the excommunication anyway. But he did say that he was attacked because of Williamson’s position and the lifting of the excommunication and that he had been hurt by such attacks. But the attacks came because some felt that the Holy Father had acted knowingly or that he should have known about Williamson.

The Holy Father also said that it is not right to target one group of people, in this case the Society. But he did not say that the Society is right. He protected their right to be treated with charity. However, he went on to say that they have no legal status in the Church. He has been their strongest critic by saying that they do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church. He has been their strongest hardliner when he says that they have to submit to obedience. He has been their strongest hardliner when he says that they have to take the step toward Rome, not the other way around. When he said that lifting the excommunication was done as an act of mercy toward the bishops of the society who expressed how much they were suffering as a result, he is not being flattering.

We have to be careful to take his words at face value. He wants to Society to be regularized. He is against targeting them and bullying them and so should we all be. But he also throws some major responsibilities for this mess in their direction by denying their claim that they were treated unjustly and by denying that they do have faculties to celebrate marriages and absolve from sin. He refuses to agree with the Society that they are legal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I am taking them at face value, and that letter did not focus on Bishop Williamson.
Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
Click to expand...
And I never said it was an attack on him. I said “indirect”.

Again, carry on and try to argue about something I didn’t say instead of what I did say. Great thing is, it’s all here in black and white for all to see.

H.H. is asking for humility from both sides. It’s a shame he’s not getting it here on CA.

Again, rave on… I’m off to work
 
JReducation said:
The Liturgy is essential, but you can’t focus on it 24/7 to the exclusion of all else. As the bishops said when speaking about abortion, any evangelization that places the horror of abortion in seond place is lacking. The sacrifice of Calvary and the Gospel of Life must be together. So far, I see a lot of talk about the mass and little about the Gospel of Life.
Click to expand...
Anti-abortion is not a Catholic thing; in fact, it’s not even a Christian thing. Muslims are probably more pro-life and even more anti-birth-control. The Ten Commandments were meant for everybody, not just the bishops.

I see your point, though, but I’m afraid to most Catholics, the liturgy is their only contact with Calvary so it behooves the powers that be to provide them with the liturgy that provides that contact in the most meaningful way.
 
I_Believe said:
I

And I never said it was an attack on him. I said “indirect”.
Click to expand...
You said this:
When you attack the SSPX, you are indirectly hurting our Holy Father himself.
Click to expand...
To me that clearly implies that anyone “attacking” (as YOU call it) the SSPX is attacking the Pope.

Is that not correct? Can you clarify what you intended? Indirect or not, it seems clear to me what you said.

Can you offer any evidence or proof to your claim? I assume not, but if it’s something more than your opinion I would gratefully appreciate learning more. Where did the Pope say what you claim?

Thank you.
 
diggerdomer said:
You said this: "When you attack the SSPX, you are indirectly hurting our Holy Father himself. "

Can you clarify what you intended? Indirect or not, it seems clear to me what you said.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Ok, I’ll put it this way.

When you attack the SSPX, you are indirectly hurting our Holy Father himself.

That’s what I meant. 😉
Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles?** At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.**
vatican.va/holy_father/be…munica_en.html
Click to expand...
Can you honestly say after reading H.H.'s words, that the ugly stigma cast upon the Society all these years, has not now touched the Bishop of Rome himself ?

He’s telling his own Bishops, at least the ones that raised cain, to take a look around, and at themselves. Shouldn’t we all do the same, even though the letter was not directed at us ? For heavens sakes, the SSPX isn’t calling for BXVI to step down, but there sure are many Bishops who dared ask him to do so. Demand it as a matter of fact.

The SSPX clergy are suspended. That’s it. That’s all you have left. The accusations of schism are a lie. Popes don’t lift excommunications on those in schism. The screaming of the word "disobedience " means only one thing, if one does not scream it at the Bishops whose words were the reason for that letter. It means Hypocrite. Or at the very best, Denial.
 
40.png
I_Believe:
the SSPX isn’t calling for BXVI to step down, but there sure are many Bishops who dared ask him to do so. Demand it as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...
Name one, and back it up.

I believe you can’t.

John
 
 
I don’t hate the SSPX, and I don’t hate Bugnini. But I despise typical lazy trad haters that pose as Catholics, won’t take time to keep up, but always find 20 seconds for a drive by.

:clapping:
 
Gee, I_Believe, I guess quoting what is in essence the same article four times must give it emphasis. But, there is no bishop, much less “many” who demanded his resignation. This theologian is not a bishop.

If “keeping up” is citing articles which don’t back up what you say, I guess I don’t.
40.png
I_Believe:
You mad the Church changed your creed ?
Click to expand...
It’s your creed too. The EF and the OF are your Mass and mine, whichever we choose to attend.

John
 
I_Believe said:
Ok, I’ll put it this way.

When you attack the SSPX, you are indirectly hurting our Holy Father himself.

That’s what I meant. 😉
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I thought maybe you were referring to some fact or statement that would back up that opinion.
I_Believe said:
The SSPX clergy are suspended. That’s it. That’s all you have left. The accusations of schism are a lie. Popes don’t lift excommunications on those in schism.
Click to expand...
That’s not true, and not how the Pope explained it:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html
 
diggerdomer said:
Thanks for the clarification. I thought maybe you were referring to some fact or statement that would back up that opinion.

That’s not true, and not how the Pope explained it:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html
Click to expand...
I think this pretty much says it all. From Pope Benedict’s letter…
This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
Click to expand...
We can debate schism vs. schimatic acts, but the SSPX as an institution is clearly outside the Church. Apply whatever term you care to in order to describe that situation, their status is not one that promotes unity and faithfulness in our Church. Any organization that leads faithful Catholics astray is dangerous, IMO. Does that mean I’m a “trad hater?” I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. I’d love the supporters of the SSPX to return. I think they could have a positive influence. As it stands now, they are a source of conflict and discord in the Church.

I think this paragraph sums up the situation nicely.
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
Click to expand...
 
pnewton said:
This may be a legitimate misunderstanding over an incident that was oft misreported by the media where some German bishops attacked the Holy Father and a theologian said he should step down.

bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/02/03/pope-benedict-xvi/german-archbishop-calls-for-resignation-over-holocaust-denier-williamson-rehabilitation.html
Click to expand...
No misunderstanding. The German bishops and others have threatened schism at one time or another even before the excommunications were lifted. They will no doubt do everything possible to prevent full communion. Maybe it’s a territorial thing, I can’t say, but human nature is what it is.
 
ProVobis said:
No misunderstanding. The German bishops and others have threatened schism at one time or another even before the excommunications were lifted. They will no doubt do everything possible to prevent full communion. Maybe it’s a territorial thing, I can’t say, but human nature is what it is.
Click to expand...
Yes, misunderstanding. Schism is not what I was responding to. Let me try this again.

A bishop
suggesting resignation
Of Pope Benedict XVI

Now can you show me a link to a news article or some statement from a** bishop** that suggested Pope Benedict resign?
 
tcm22, exactly which pieces of doctrine are in question? Do you have any idea what the Pope is referring to or are you here just here doing your Pharisee thing?
 
ProVobis said:
tcm22, exactly which pieces of doctrine are in question? Do you have any idea what the Pope is referring to or are you here just here doing your Pharisee thing?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the doctrines to which Pope Benedict alludes to are explained in this document. I would imagine that he has explained them to the leadership of the SSPX. But I have no idea which doctrinal issues he is referring to in this letter. The fact is that it is the Holy Father that says there are doctrinal issues, no one else.

We’ll have to wait and see how it unfolds.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top