Latest News from Bishop Fellay on Doctrinal Preamble SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter SaintGobban
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mlz said:
I’m new to much of Catholism and need someone to explain what SSXP and FSSXP are?! Also, what is the problem??? Could someone give me a general explanation please?

Thank you,
mlz
Click to expand...
SSPX is the Society of St. Pius X. It was founded in the wake of the liturgical reforms of the Vatican 2, in the late 1960s. Its founder was Archbishop Marcel Levebvre.

The purpose of the SSPX was to preserve the pre-Vatican 2 liturgical practices, namely, the Tridentine Mass. That’s the mass that is recited in Latin, facing the altar, with a somewhat different structure than the mass you probably attend on Sunday. If you have ever been to an old Episcopalian holy communion service, it is similar to that, except in Latin.

By the 1980s, the SSPX founder was getting older, and he was concerned that when he died, no new bishop would continue to ordain priests who would say the Tridentine mass. Therefore, he consecrated several bishops without the pope’s approval. This led to his excommunication. Meanwhile, there was a lot of controversy about whether the SSPX was even allowed to say the Tridentine mass, and the whole affair was difficult. You could think of it as “baby schism.”

The SSPX and Rome have been in discussions over the years regarding formal re-unification. It’s hard, though. In a nutshell, SSPX does not agree with certain statements contained in Vatican 2, and Rome does not agree that the liturgical reforms were bad. Both sides are afraid that if they reach an agreement, someone will try to undo it. For instance, Rome is probably worried that the SSPX would preach that people ought not attend the new forms of the mass. SSPX is worried that after a few years, they will be ordered to stop using the old forms of the mass and other sacraments. So there is a lot of disagreement to bridge, and good faith to generate. But, they’re working on it.

I know it’s not exactly short, but I hope this helps. Cheers!
 
Melchior said:
At this point it’s probably in everyone’s best interest to lie low a bit and just pray about the situation, rather than discuss it.
Click to expand...
I honestly think this is one of those seminal moments in history where there is an opportunity to gain a much deeper understanding of the Catholic Faith. The events surrounding the SSPX are an object lesson. It’s like watching events at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Try to understand what is going on. We really are on the edge of a major schism here. If you pay attention, you will learn alot.
 
Of course they aren’t just wilfully disobeying the Pope, they are sinning against God. No one is justifying willfully disobeying the Pope on any matter whatsoever. The Pope, acting in the place of God on earth, is to be obeyed in all matters of faith and morals. Disobedience to God and God’s Vicar is the very definition of sin. Many of the people who believe such things and perform such acts are not acting so much out of conviction, but rationalizing their bad and sinful behavior.

In any case, they are not trying to “institutionalize” their sinfullness. They are not going to Rome and saying “we will not serve until you give us our way.” It is their own privately held opinion. In other words, they aren’t trying to form a “Society” that condones all of the things you mentioned.

So your argument fails on two levels.
First, no one is sympathizing with sinners.
Second, individuals who hold wrong and sinful beliefs contrary to the Church’s teaching can not be compared to a group of people who have formed a “Society” in order to go against the Pope and the Magisterium and force their own collective opinion on the Highest Authority in Christendom.

And, please note that the SSPX’s viewpoints are merely OPINIONS. They have no authority whatsoever to have any sort of OPINION which contradicts the teaching of the Church and continue to call themselves Catholic.
 
SaintGobban said:
. Disobedience to God and God’s Vicar is the very definition of sin. Many of the people who believe such things and perform such acts are not acting so much out of conviction, but rationalizing their bad and sinful behavior.
Click to expand...
This may indeed be a helpful thought process to keep yourself on the narrow path, but it has limitations when one applies it to resolving, or even understanding, the nature of an eccliastical dispute.

Here’s why.

If we say that “disobedience to the pope” defines sin, and then we say that anyone who disobeys the pope only does so to rationalize sin, we will be asked “What sin?” The answer implicit in our construct is the “sin of disobedience.”

This goes round and round, and never gets to the question of why they are doing what they are doing. Unless someone thinks that everyone who is not in union with Rome just woke up one day and said “I feel like disobeying the pope,” this is not satisfactory, because common experience tells us that people act from motives. In the case of ecclesiastical disputes, the motives are often quite complex.
 
Okay…since I’m (primarily) covering here until Thomas gets back on his feet I’ll try to handle this as I think he would. (If you guys aren’t praying for him…you should be he 's been pretty sick.)

I will not close this thread at this time because it’s a fairly reasonable discussion. I have deleted a half dozen posts that were nothing more than personal back and forth that didn’t help the thread along and were off topic.

The SSPX never gets a pass here in TC or anywhere else on CAF. They are a valid topic in here so long as it stays within the Forum Rules and guidelines found at this link as well as the stickies that Thomas has here in TC.

This has not been a bashfest thus far, and if it becomes one, the miscreants will hear from me.

Feel free to report any posts that violate anything that is found in the rules and guidelines of the TC forum or the link above. Rest assured that it will be dealt with, just as Thomas deals with you guys.

You mess up on any of that, you’ll hear from me or one of the other mods. Any questions? PM me…

I wish you all God’s peace,
 
Warrenton said:
This may indeed be a helpful thought process to keep yourself on the narrow path, but it has limitations when one applies it to resolving, or even understanding, the nature of an eccliastical dispute.

Here’s why.

If we say that “disobedience to the pope” defines sin, and then we say that anyone who disobeys the pope only does so to rationalize sin, we will be asked “What sin?” The answer implicit in our construct is the “sin of disobedience.”

This goes round and round, and never gets to the question of why they are doing what they are doing. Unless someone thinks that everyone who is not in union with Rome just woke up one day and said “I feel like disobeying the pope,” this is not satisfactory, because common experience tells us that people act from motives. In the case of ecclesiastical disputes, the motives are often quite complex.
Click to expand...
Actually, I should have reprinted these remarks in their entirety. They were taken out of their original context which I will reprint below. That will make everything more clear.
SaintGobban said:
In answer to your first comment the Pope can not err when pronouncing on Faith and Morals, not “in areas of doctrine.”

Second, the Pope must be assented to and obeyed, even when he is NOT speaking infallibly, that is Doctrine. He alone is able to reform what he has pronounced (fallibly), no one else may judge the Pope. So, if SSPX has a problem with something, they may formally request that the Pope pronounce on that thing, but they MAY NOT ABBROGATE to themselves the power of the Papacy. There is no such thing as privitized judgement. Only the Pope gets to decide what is the teaching of the Church.

“It is not to be thought that matters proposed in [Papal] Encyclical Letters do not in themselves command assent because (in Encyclicals) the pontiffs do not exercise their supreme power of their magisterium. For these things are taught by the magisterium, to which also the words apply, ‘He who hears you, hears Me’.”
Pope Pius XII
“God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.”
Pope Pius XII
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained.** That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students.”
**- Pope Pius XII, Humani generis, 1950

Obedience to the Magisterium and the Pope is what the SSPX Doctrinal Preamble is all about. Please note that the Preamble contains the very word DOCTRINAL in its title. It is about the DOCTRINE of obedience to the Holy See. Apparently Rome doesn’t agree that SSPX is within their rights to decide what is and what is not to be believed.

Now in regard to this:

*Now, I’d like to ask you a similar question to the one you have asked. In my time on this forum it has become obvious that a lot of Catholics, probably the majority, wilfully disobey the Pope, in areas such as contraception, abortion, attending mass, confession, belief in the true presence, belief in the existence if hell, morals, etc etc etc How can you, and those who sympathize with this vast number of Catholics, justify this act of willful disobedience, that at it’s very core is the antithesis of being Catholic *

Of course they aren’t just wilfully disobeying the Pope, they are sinning against God. No one is justifying willfully disobeying the Pope on any matter whatsoever. The Pope, acting in the place of God on earth, is to be obeyed in all matters of faith and morals. Disobedience to God and God’s Vicar is the very definition of sin. Many of the people who believe such things and perform such acts are not acting so much out of conviction, but rationalizing their bad and sinful behavior.

In any case, they are not trying to “institutionalize” their sinfullness. They are not going to Rome and saying “we will not serve until you give us our way.” It is their own privately held opinion. In other words, they aren’t trying to form a “Society” that condones all of the things you mentioned.

So your argument fails on two levels.
First, no one is sympathizing with sinners.
Second, individuals who hold wrong and sinful beliefs contrary to the Church’s teaching can not be compared to a group of people who have formed a “Society” in order to go against the Pope and the Magisterium and force their own collective** opinion **on the Highest Authority in Christendom.

And, please note that the SSPX’s viewpoints are merely OPINIONS. They have no authority whatsoever to have any sort of OPINION which contradicts the teaching of the Church and continue to call themselves Catholic.
Click to expand...
 
The above was in response to this:

*Now, I’d like to ask you a similar question to the one you have asked. In my time on this forum it has become obvious that a lot of Catholics, probably the majority, wilfully disobey the Pope, in areas such as contraception, abortion, attending mass, confession, belief in the true presence, belief in the existence if hell, morals, etc etc etc How can you, and those who sympathize with this vast number of Catholics, justify this act of willful disobedience, that at it’s very core is the antithesis of being Catholic *
 
SaintGobban said:
I honestly think this is one of those seminal moments in history where there is an opportunity to gain a much deeper understanding of the Catholic Faith. The events surrounding the SSPX are an object lesson. It’s like watching events at the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Try to understand what is going on. We really are on the edge of a major schism here. If you pay attention, you will learn alot.
Click to expand...
lol…oh dear, please excuse my mirth, but that’ll do me. I’m done.
 
SaintGobban said:
I honestly think this is one of those seminal moments in history where there is an opportunity to gain a much deeper understanding of the Catholic Faith. The events surrounding the SSPX are an object lesson. It’s like watching events at the time of the Protestant Reformation.
Try to understand what is going on. We really are on the edge of a major schism here. If you pay attention, you will learn alot.
Click to expand...
:confused::confused::confused:
Dragonslayer said:
lol…oh dear, please excuse my mirth, but that’ll do me. I’m done.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My response here is summed up in this animated GIF.

http://www.kyru.net/gallery/d/177-2/seinfeld.gif
 
SaintGobban said:
Actually, I should have reprinted these remarks in their entirety. They were taken out of their original context which I will reprint below. That will make everything more clear.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. It is not my desire to wade into the morass of the justification, vel non, of the positions taken either by the SSPX or their opponents. As I posted, the more interesting question (to my thinking) is how Catholics come to different understandings about tradition.

And I was not critisising your statement (that is why I paraphrased it using the plural “we”). I noticed the comment, and wanted only to point out that when we stop looking at each other’s motives, and stop looking to undertand each other’s starting points, or (to use an overworked word) “values,” we risk getting into a circular argument that fails to inform either side.

This is true, of course, for whatever side of an issue one takes!
 
To my way of thinking the entire conflict is not at all difficult to understand.

Originally ABL was simply clinging to the Traditional Mass.

Then he opened a seminary which catered to Traditional seminarians, with permission.

Things started to go bad when he refused to assent to the New Mass. By this point, there was a whole knew justification for his “protests” based on disagreement with at least four more Vatican II, we’ll call them talking points. So the validity of VII was called into question by SSPX.

The essential argument is that VII broke with the past, and represented a complete departure from Traditional Doctrine.

Rome made an effort to correct the areas of controversy, and demonstrate that the arguments for rupture were misunderstandings of what the original texts meant.

SSPX thinks they know better.

Finally, in direct disobedience to the Holy Father, ABL consecrated 4 Bishops.

He was excommunicated, and so were the Bishops.

SSPX said they wouldn’t consider rapproachment without the Traditional Mass being fully sanctioned.

Rome complied.

SSPX petitioned Rome for lifting of excommunications.

Rome complied.

SSPX petitioned Rome for doctrinal discussions.

Rome complied.

Doctrinal discussions take place and Rome says if you sign this Preamble that you will
obey the Magisterium of the Church and the Pope, we’ll further discuss VII. But first you have to pledge your allegiance to Rome.

SSPX, day 34, says no deal.

SSPX in schism.

Not all that tough. Loads of precedents to this behavior. How many Protestant sects are
there exactly?
 
That explanation doesn’t really answer your probing question about “values” and how Catholics come to different ideas about Tradition.

In reality, Catholics do NOT come to different ideas about Tradition. They CAN NOT come to different ideas about anything because the Holy Roman Catholic Church is ONE.
Catholics may disagree with certain things within very proscribed limits. They are not allowed to determine their own answers to the things with which they disagree. They must take their disagreements to Rome for a diffinitive answer. They are not allowed a private judgement about Catholic teaching based on their own personal “values,” or based on their own personal judgement about what constitutes Tradition.

All Catholics must give assent to the Holy Father and to Rome, or they are no longer Catholics.

Then they’re Protestants. Or maybe they’re Orthodox. But, in either case, they aren’t Catholics anymore.
 
Warrenton said:
Thank you for the clarification. It is not my desire to wade into the morass of the justification, vel non, of the positions taken either by the SSPX or their opponents. As I posted, the more interesting question (to my thinking) is how Catholics come to different understandings about tradition.

And I was not critisising your statement (that is why I paraphrased it using the plural “we”). I noticed the comment, and wanted only to point out that when we stop looking at each other’s motives, and stop looking to undertand each other’s starting points, or (to use an overworked word) “values,” we risk getting into a circular argument that fails to inform either side.

This is true, of course, for whatever side of an issue one takes!
Click to expand...
This is your original post down here/ / / / / / / This original post was in response to a quote of mine which was taken out of context, as I explained. I’m truly baffled as to how your post above has anything whatsoever to do with my remarks or the remarks you made below.

In fact, you have really completely lost me…

*This may indeed be a helpful thought process to keep yourself on the narrow path, but it has limitations when one applies it to resolving, or even understanding, the nature of an eccliastical dispute.

Here’s why.

If we say that “disobedience to the pope” defines sin, and then we say that anyone who disobeys the pope only does so to rationalize sin, we will be asked “What sin?” The answer implicit in our construct is the “sin of disobedience.”

This goes round and round, and never gets to the question of why they are doing what they are doing. Unless someone thinks that everyone who is not in union with Rome just woke up one day and said “I feel like disobeying the pope,” this is not satisfactory, because common experience tells us that people act from motives. In the case of ecclesiastical disputes, the motives are often quite complex. *
 
If we say that “disobedience to the pope” defines sin, and then we say that anyone who disobeys the pope only does so to rationalize sin, we will be asked “What sin?” The answer implicit in our construct is the “sin of disobedience.”

This is the last thing I will say about any of this.

I did NOT SAY THIS. I never, at any time said that: “anyone who disobeys the pope only does so to rationalize sin.”

In fact, that would make me a crazy person.

First I said that disobedience to the Pope (as the Vicar of Christ) is the definition of sin.

I also said that, at times, individuals profess disagreement with one or another teaching of the Church in order to rationalize their bad behavior, on principle.
In other words, ‘I don’t agree with the Churchs’ teaching on such and such,’ because they want to appease their conscience for doing what the Church forbids.

I’m actually not sure what you were talking about above, but I hope this clarifies my comments, which will be further clarified if you look at the entire post and don’t take anything out of context.
 
Warrenton said:
This may indeed be a helpful thought process to keep yourself on the narrow path, but it has limitations when one applies it to resolving, or even understanding, the nature of an eccliastical dispute.

Here’s why.

If we say that “disobedience to the pope” defines sin, and then we say that anyone who disobeys the pope only does so to rationalize sin, we will be asked “What sin?” The answer implicit in our construct is the “sin of disobedience.”

This goes round and round, and never gets to the question of why they are doing what they are doing. Unless someone thinks that everyone who is not in union with Rome just woke up one day and said “I feel like disobeying the pope,” this is not satisfactory, because common experience tells us that people act from motives. In the case of ecclesiastical disputes, the motives are often quite complex.
Click to expand...
The issue here really is what Roman Catholics have come to accept out of Vatican I, which is the Pope’s universal authority in the Church. Isn’t questioning the Pope’s authority going against the very dogma defined in Vatican I? Of course there are matters where we can disobey the Pope. If the Pope says we eat now and we don’t feel like eating, its not a sin. When we eat is not his jurisdiction. But the SSPX disobeyed Canon Law, which is a pretty big deal. And they have disobeyed continuous orders from the Vatican not to ordain priests, which again falls into the right of the Pope because celebrations of Sacraments within the Church are within his jurisdiction.
 
Bp. Fellay said in this talk that the Preamble contained not a single word evaluating the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX. I sense that Bp. Fellay is frustrated about this. Perhaps he was hoping or assuming that a final evaluation would be given by Rome regarding the talks. I’m not sure why Rome would not give an evaluation, but I’m assuming that they have a good reason.
 
Denise1957 said:
Bp. Fellay said in this talk that the Preamble contained not a single word evaluating the doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX. I sense that Bp. Fellay is frustrated about this. Perhaps he was hoping or assuming that a final evaluation would be given by Rome regarding the talks. I’m not sure why Rome would not give an evaluation, but I’m assuming that they have a good reason.
Click to expand...
Probably a safe assumption. As many have pointed out in the thread, the Vatican has been unbelievably charitable in these talks. It appears to me, just a Catholic bystander, as though the SPPX continues to feign charity until they are forced to make a decision. Upon facing a decision they immediately play victim while crying tradition. Most of what they wanted has already been given to them despite the fact that it was never really taken away! I hope they decide to come back before it is too late for them.

Let’s ALL pray that God’s will be done and the souls of those who have strayed are led back into the fold. Let’s all pray that someday there is no need for threads like these because God’s faithful are together fighting against the likes of Satan and not allowing him to divide us among ourselves.
 
I believe that self-interest and the desire of isolation, largely led by the laity of the SSPX resists the potential for unity. With unity, the SSPX will lose their feeling of “specialness” of “being set apart”. This feeling of “us versus them” is an extremely cohesive and powerful psychological reality.

I suspect that major donors to the Society are making their voices heard to the SSPX Bishops as well which likely isn’t helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top