A
- Status
D
Denise1957
Guest
J
jmj1984
Guest
*Glorious pope of the Eucharist, St. Pius X, you sought “to restore all things in Christ.” Obtain for me a true love of Jesus so that I may live only for Him. Help me to acquire a lively fervor and a sincere will to strive for sanctity of life and that I may avail myself of the riches of the Holy Eucharist, which is sacrifice and sacrament. By your love for Mary, mother and queen, inflame my heart with tender devotion to her.
Blessed model of the priesthood, obtain for us holy, dedicated priests, and increase vocations to the priesthood and religious life.
Dispel confusion, hatred, and anxiety. Incline our hearts to peace so that all nations will place themselves under the reign of Christ. Amen.
St. Pius X, pray for me*
C
Celticnovice
Guest
Ave Maria
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
God help them all tomorrow!
I was just writing about that today, and I also saw Fr. Z’s opinion, which I very much agree with.
“People of good will can differ on theological points and still remain in unity. People of good will can attain unity even when they disagree on matters which are by no means clear. The history of the Church’s great Councils underscores this fact.
How many times have I written that the so-called “Feeneyites” were able to be in union with the Church but without having to abjure their position about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The theological problems the SSPX has with the Second Vatican Council or the Holy See or anything else, don’t necessarily need to be the absolute obstruction to unity.
Questions of the role of the Church in the modern world or religious liberty are really hard. There is room for debate and disagreement. It is possible for people of good will to disagree about whether or not the fruits of Vatican II were all wonderful. There is a precedent for closer union even when we consider the theological concerns some SSPXers might be harboring.”
I wrote just afterwards that:
"You know, to be perfectly honest I would be more than ok with the SSPX situation being resolved exactly as is. Offer a confession of faith for them that reaffirms their submission to the Magisterium and the Pope for the sake of formality and to shush the modernists, and then let the debate proceed as it will. The Feeney case is a good one. That was a debate allowed to happen from a more fraternal position, less adversarial. I think that most people agree that the debate has been resolved, too.
I say: square things away, make it all formal, and give them a position from which they can present their best case as equals within the Church. "
I wrote about it very briefly on my own blog as well.
"For the time being, all we know is that tomorrow, Bishop Fellay, and I believe Frs. Pfluger and Nely will meet Cardinal Levada, head of Ecclesia Dei and the CDF. Cardinal Levada has, as far as I know, the authority to resolve the issues once and for all tomorrow (I imagine with Pope Benedict’s approval), and Bishop Fellay too has the ability to resolve everything.
I am going to pray for all involved parties, that this entire episode can be put behind us tomorrow, so that the SSPX can be the robust force for legitimate Catholic renewal that I believe they are meant to be. In my opinion, as the situations stands now the SSPX is capable of limited good (I believe they had an important influence in the greater availability of the Traditional Mass). I do also believe though that they are seriously handicapped because of their situation of tension and conflict with Rome. I believe their intentions are good, and I believe they (or rather most of them) desire a resolution (maybe more than some Vatican officials and the more modernist Catholic faithful).
God help all involved.
"
I was just writing about that today, and I also saw Fr. Z’s opinion, which I very much agree with.
“People of good will can differ on theological points and still remain in unity. People of good will can attain unity even when they disagree on matters which are by no means clear. The history of the Church’s great Councils underscores this fact.
How many times have I written that the so-called “Feeneyites” were able to be in union with the Church but without having to abjure their position about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The theological problems the SSPX has with the Second Vatican Council or the Holy See or anything else, don’t necessarily need to be the absolute obstruction to unity.
Questions of the role of the Church in the modern world or religious liberty are really hard. There is room for debate and disagreement. It is possible for people of good will to disagree about whether or not the fruits of Vatican II were all wonderful. There is a precedent for closer union even when we consider the theological concerns some SSPXers might be harboring.”
I wrote just afterwards that:
"You know, to be perfectly honest I would be more than ok with the SSPX situation being resolved exactly as is. Offer a confession of faith for them that reaffirms their submission to the Magisterium and the Pope for the sake of formality and to shush the modernists, and then let the debate proceed as it will. The Feeney case is a good one. That was a debate allowed to happen from a more fraternal position, less adversarial. I think that most people agree that the debate has been resolved, too.
I say: square things away, make it all formal, and give them a position from which they can present their best case as equals within the Church. "
I wrote about it very briefly on my own blog as well.
"For the time being, all we know is that tomorrow, Bishop Fellay, and I believe Frs. Pfluger and Nely will meet Cardinal Levada, head of Ecclesia Dei and the CDF. Cardinal Levada has, as far as I know, the authority to resolve the issues once and for all tomorrow (I imagine with Pope Benedict’s approval), and Bishop Fellay too has the ability to resolve everything.
I am going to pray for all involved parties, that this entire episode can be put behind us tomorrow, so that the SSPX can be the robust force for legitimate Catholic renewal that I believe they are meant to be. In my opinion, as the situations stands now the SSPX is capable of limited good (I believe they had an important influence in the greater availability of the Traditional Mass). I do also believe though that they are seriously handicapped because of their situation of tension and conflict with Rome. I believe their intentions are good, and I believe they (or rather most of them) desire a resolution (maybe more than some Vatican officials and the more modernist Catholic faithful).
God help all involved.
"
P
paul11b
Guest
I really hope they come to some sort of conclusion. Wi will pray for the meeting.
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
According to what I read on Fr. Z’s blog, it looks like they will have two weeks after tomorrow to respond to the document with which they will be presented. Although it may turn out that they come tomorrow entirely prepared to conclude the business at that moment. Who knows, maybe Fellay has a set of conditions in mind which he would sign then and there.
I do know that I trust this business to Fellay more than the other SSPX bishops.
I do know that I trust this business to Fellay more than the other SSPX bishops.
R
ringil
Guest
If they can humble themselves. If they think they have something to “teach the Cardinal” then they’re not getting anywhere.
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
I don’t think, if you look at any of Bishop Fellay’s public statements, that this is a concern. With Bishop Williamson, maybe. With Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, maybe. With Fellay, I don’t think so.
A
At_Trent
Guest
I would guess it will be this coming Sunday before H.E. Bishop Fellay makes a public statement, and it will come from the pulpit.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I don’t mean to put-down Fr. Z here, but I think that he downplays the seriousness of the issues between Rome and the SSPX. It’s a very serious issue, for instance, that the position of the SSPX is that the OF Mass is intrinsically sacriligious. I don’t see how the situation with the SSPX be resolved exactly “as is” with something as huge as this regarding the stance of the SSPX on the OF Mass.God help them all tomorrow!
I was just writing about that today, and I also saw Fr. Z’s opinion, which I very much agree with.
“People of good will can differ on theological points and still remain in unity. People of good will can attain unity even when they disagree on matters which are by no means clear. The history of the Church’s great Councils underscores this fact.
How many times have I written that the so-called “Feeneyites” were able to be in union with the Church but without having to abjure their position about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The theological problems the SSPX has with the Second Vatican Council or the Holy See or anything else, don’t necessarily need to be the absolute obstruction to unity.
Questions of the role of the Church in the modern world or religious liberty are really hard. There is room for debate and disagreement. It is possible for people of good will to disagree about whether or not the fruits of Vatican II were all wonderful. There is a precedent for closer union even when we consider the theological concerns some SSPXers might be harboring.”
I wrote just afterwards that:
"You know, to be perfectly honest I would be more than ok with the SSPX situation being resolved exactly as is. Offer a confession of faith for them that reaffirms their submission to the Magisterium and the Pope for the sake of formality and to shush the modernists, and then let the debate proceed as it will. The Feeney case is a good one. That was a debate allowed to happen from a more fraternal position, less adversarial. I think that most people agree that the debate has been resolved, too.
I say: square things away, make it all formal, and give them a position from which they can present their best case as equals within the Church. "
I wrote about it very briefly on my own blog as well.
"For the time being, all we know is that tomorrow, Bishop Fellay, and I believe Frs. Pfluger and Nely will meet Cardinal Levada, head of Ecclesia Dei and the CDF. Cardinal Levada has, as far as I know, the authority to resolve the issues once and for all tomorrow (I imagine with Pope Benedict’s approval), and Bishop Fellay too has the ability to resolve everything.
I am going to pray for all involved parties, that this entire episode can be put behind us tomorrow, so that the SSPX can be the robust force for legitimate Catholic renewal that I believe they are meant to be. In my opinion, as the situations stands now the SSPX is capable of limited good (I believe they had an important influence in the greater availability of the Traditional Mass). I do also believe though that they are seriously handicapped because of their situation of tension and conflict with Rome. I believe their intentions are good, and I believe they (or rather most of them) desire a resolution (maybe more than some Vatican officials and the more modernist Catholic faithful).
God help all involved.
I have seen how the SSPX (and some of their supporters) have been pushing, for the last six months or so, for the idea of “de facto” recognition, and that this is somehow equated with or equal to unoffical recognition. Not that Fr. Z is doing this in his comments, really, but I don’t see how Rome can just let the SSPX have full recognition, and be given canonical status, until the serious issues are resolved.
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
“the position of the SSPX is that the OF Mass is intrinsically sacriligious”
Do you have a source for this?
Think of it this way: The SSJV was completely normalized, and they were in a more radical (more schismatic) position than the SSPX is in. The Feeneyites were very radical theologically. However, these positions can be accommodated within the Church- much harder from without.
C
Califman831
Guest
God show mercy on those who have weathered the storm.
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
I don’t really understand what you mean here. De facto recognition is by definition unofficial. This entire process with the doctrinal talks with Rome has been seeking de jure recognition. In a couple limited ways there is de facto recognition, in some circles, although in many other circles, de facto will lag far, far behind de jure.
D
Denise1957
Guest
That’s just it. It’s the SSPX and their supporters who believe that the SSPX has de facto recognition. Rome has never stated that they have de facto recognition, or anything close to it.
D
Denise1957
Guest
We are not allowed on this forum to post links to SSPX websites, but the source is, or was, the FAQ section of the SSPX U.S. district website. I see that the information has been changed since I last looked at it a few months ago. Maybe that’s a good thing. It had previously stated that the Novus Ordo is always sacriligious, even if celebrated reverently, and that it’s always at least venially sinful to attend, if those attending are aware of its defects.
There is still extreme criticism of the OF under the question in the FAQ section titled, “Why should Catholics have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo Missae?”
C. Judgement on the Novus Ordo Missae (#2) states:
“The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants which are evident to the Novus Ordo Missae render it a danger to our faith, and, as such, evil, given that it lacks the good which the sacred rite of Mass out to have.”
Not sure that this is really much better than saying that the OF is sacriligious, though.
I’m not interested in getting into a big debate over these issues. But I don’t agree with Fr. Z’s assessment. Still, I’ll be praying that Bp. Fellay will seek God’s Will in the matter, and not the will of the extremist elements attached to the SSPX. That’s all I’m going to say on the matter.
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
Nobody would ever state they have de facto recognition. That’s contradictory. De facto by definition means that nobody in any official capacity would state it. Of course you’d never hear that from the Vatican. What you look at is what happens in practice, and in some senses it is there. For instance, at one point (was it last year? two years ago?) The SSPX was temporarily given canonical jurisdiction to allow them to go through with their ordinations legitimately. I think that was the ordinations before the last ones. They agreed to the one condition that they wouldn’t occur in Germany (remember Bishop Williamson raised that controversy at the time), and in exchange they were allowed to perform those ordinations with full, temporary recognition.
So in some circles yes, you could in fact say that a certain de facto recognition exists. I can provide other examples if you don’t accept this one.
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
Well I’m going to have to see some kind of source before I accept your original claim. I can back up everything I’m saying if need be, but I do expect the same courtesy.
As it stands their criticism may be somewhat problematic, but also potentially acceptable by the Vatican- we will see how it turns out.
Our of curiosity, have you read and formed any opinions on the Ottaviani Intervention?
N
NihilObstatINRI
Guest
With regards to their opinion of the Novus Ordo, do keep in mind their very first remarks:
“A criticism of the “New Rite” cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination, whether it is a fit rite for embodying and enacting this august Sacrifice.”
If I were to be asked to speak for them (which I would decline in other circumstances) I would probably compare this to our own denunciation of liturgical abuses. Condemning liturgical abuses is not the same as condemning the entire Mass, though it can be a very serious occasion of sin in some circumstances.
A disclaimer, which sometimes proves necessary in these debates: I do not attend SSPX Masses (though I could if I wanted to quite easily), I attend Mass by the FSSP, and I am not affiliated with the SSPX in any way, nor do I consider them entirely justified in their actions.
“A criticism of the “New Rite” cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination, whether it is a fit rite for embodying and enacting this august Sacrifice.”
If I were to be asked to speak for them (which I would decline in other circumstances) I would probably compare this to our own denunciation of liturgical abuses. Condemning liturgical abuses is not the same as condemning the entire Mass, though it can be a very serious occasion of sin in some circumstances.
A disclaimer, which sometimes proves necessary in these debates: I do not attend SSPX Masses (though I could if I wanted to quite easily), I attend Mass by the FSSP, and I am not affiliated with the SSPX in any way, nor do I consider them entirely justified in their actions.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
What is that beautiful flag you have at the bottom?God help them all tomorrow!
I was just writing about that today, and I also saw Fr. Z’s opinion, which I very much agree with.
“People of good will can differ on theological points and still remain in unity. People of good will can attain unity even when they disagree on matters which are by no means clear. The history of the Church’s great Councils underscores this fact.
How many times have I written that the so-called “Feeneyites” were able to be in union with the Church but without having to abjure their position about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The theological problems the SSPX has with the Second Vatican Council or the Holy See or anything else, don’t necessarily need to be the absolute obstruction to unity.
Questions of the role of the Church in the modern world or religious liberty are really hard. There is room for debate and disagreement. It is possible for people of good will to disagree about whether or not the fruits of Vatican II were all wonderful. There is a precedent for closer union even when we consider the theological concerns some SSPXers might be harboring.”
I wrote just afterwards that:
"You know, to be perfectly honest I would be more than ok with the SSPX situation being resolved exactly as is. Offer a confession of faith for them that reaffirms their submission to the Magisterium and the Pope for the sake of formality and to shush the modernists, and then let the debate proceed as it will. The Feeney case is a good one. That was a debate allowed to happen from a more fraternal position, less adversarial. I think that most people agree that the debate has been resolved, too.
I say: square things away, make it all formal, and give them a position from which they can present their best case as equals within the Church. "
I wrote about it very briefly on my own blog as well.
"For the time being, all we know is that tomorrow, Bishop Fellay, and I believe Frs. Pfluger and Nely will meet Cardinal Levada, head of Ecclesia Dei and the CDF. Cardinal Levada has, as far as I know, the authority to resolve the issues once and for all tomorrow (I imagine with Pope Benedict’s approval), and Bishop Fellay too has the ability to resolve everything.
I am going to pray for all involved parties, that this entire episode can be put behind us tomorrow, so that the SSPX can be the robust force for legitimate Catholic renewal that I believe they are meant to be. In my opinion, as the situations stands now the SSPX is capable of limited good (I believe they had an important influence in the greater availability of the Traditional Mass). I do also believe though that they are seriously handicapped because of their situation of tension and conflict with Rome. I believe their intentions are good, and I believe they (or rather most of them) desire a resolution (maybe more than some Vatican officials and the more modernist Catholic faithful).
God help all involved.
Alex
- Status