SSPX: Bishop Fellay says SSPX canno accept all of Vatican II reforms.

[pnewton]

you mean like the one you’ve just made? keeping your head in the sand, ignoring the facts, call it what you will, a rose is a rose is a rose… I don’t need to. obviously you do.

Obviously you have no problem calling it what you will and forcing your labels on others. What I said was not baseless. I feel silly having to explain such a simple concept on a site where I assume most are adults, but I do know what I have read and what given credence to. The fact that I come do different conclusions than you does not mean I have my head in the sand or skipped what you read. My statement was not baseless because I know what I read. Is this really something I have to say?

One of the biggest barriers to the SSPX coming back in will not be points of disagreement, but rather their intolerance of anyone who does not agree with them; not that they do not recognize the pope, as much as they see themselves as better than everyone else at understanding theology. That is the attraction of any small sect: elitism.

I am sure you have considered that the SSPX might be wrong. Do not presume that I have never considered that they might be right in most things. I have come to believe that this is not true. One criteria we are told to use is to test the spirits. So I have asked myself, does the people I know associated with the SSPX display the fruits of the spirit as expounded on by Paul in counjunction with their association, or not. I am not talking about just the lovey dovey sappy stuff, although I am skeptical of anyone who discounts charity and gentleness, but as a whole. If the SSPX is admitted fully into the Catholic Church, it still would not be the type of spirituality I am interested in. I am sorry, but it is members themselves that have shown this to me.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The differences between the SSPX and certain other Catholics certainly do not revolve around whether the Church should use force to covert others! All parties agree that should never be done.

Well, that was just an example. They’ll come up with a statement on how SSPX interprets Vatican II that is acceptable to both parties. It doesn’t have to be the mainstream interpretation of Vatican II.

 

[SJP]

The title of this thread is very misleading.

He also told the French weekly Famille Chretienne he did not reject the 1962-1965 Council completely but only “a dangerous spirit that runs through the whole Council” that caused what he saw as a break with centuries of Roman Catholic tradition.

Fellay rejects the Spirit of Vatican II/Vatican II = Super Dogma claims that so many progressivists have clinged to for decades.

Thank God he rejects those things! If only more of our Bishops did the same.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Bishop Fellay compliments of Fr. Z at WDTPRS:

The Swiss daily Le Temps published today the first interview granted to journalist Patricia Briel by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), after the remission of excommunications made public last Saturday.

The full text:

• Do you condemn the negationist declarations of Bishop Williamson?

• [Fellay:] It does not belong to me to condemn them. I do not have the competence for his. But I deplore that a Bishop may have given the impression of involving the Fraternity with a view that is not ours.

…

• In your letter to the faithful of January 24 [PDF], you display your desire to examine, with Rome, the deeper causes of the “unprecedented crisis which afflicts the Church today”. What are these causes?

• [Fellay:] In the essence, this crisis is caused by a new approach to the world, a new view of man, that is, an anthropocentrism which consists of an exaltation of man and a forgetfulness of God. The arrival of modern philosophies, with their less precise language, has led to confusion in theology.

…

• Ecumenism and religious liberty are at the center of the criticisms you make of Vatican II

• [Fellay:] The quest for unity of all in the Mystical Body of the Church is our dearest desire. Nonetheless, the method that is used is not appropriate. Today, there is such a focus on the points which unite us to other Christian confessions that those which separate us are forgotten. We believe that those who have left the Catholic Church, that is, the Orthodox and the Protestants, should come back to it. We conceive ecumenism as a return to the unity of Truth.
  Regarding religious liberty, it is necessary to distinguish two situations: the religious liberty of the person, and the relations between Church and State. Religious liberty implies liberty of conscience. We agree with the fact that there is not a right to force anyone to accept a religion. As for our reflection on the relations between Church and State, it is based on the principle of tolerance. It seems clear to us that there where there are multiple religions, the State should be watchful of their good coexistence and peace. Nevertheless, there is but one religion that is true, and the others are not. But we tolerate this situation for the good of all.

…

Sounds good to me!

 

[DavidPalm]

Hi, call me ignorant, I realize I am, but is the issue of ecumenism the only stumbling block between the SSPX and its acceptance by the Vatican, or are there OTHER big ones?

The big ones that come to mind are:

• Ecumenism
• Inter-religious dialogue (not the same thing as ecumenism)
• Collegiality
• Religious liberty
• Separation of Church and State
• The “reform” of the liturgy
• The very nebulous but pivotal “opening to the world”

Have I missed any? There is probably another list of smaller issues, but these are the big hitters I think.

 

[maurin]

Obviously you have no problem calling it what you will and forcing your labels on others. What I said was not baseless. I feel silly having to explain such a simple concept on a site where I assume most are adults, but I do know what I have read and what given credence to. The fact that I come do different conclusions than you does not mean I have my head in the sand or skipped what you read. My statement was not baseless because I know what I read. Is this really something I have to say?

One of the biggest barriers to the SSPX coming back in will not be points of disagreement, but rather their intolerance of anyone who does not agree with them; not that they do not recognize the pope, as much as they see themselves as better than everyone else at understanding theology. That is the attraction of any small sect: elitism.

I am sure you have considered that the SSPX might be wrong. Do not presume that I have never considered that they might be right in most things. I have come to believe that this is not true. One criteria we are told to use is to test the spirits. So I have asked myself, does the people I know associated with the SSPX display the fruits of the spirit as expounded on by Paul in counjunction with their association, or not. I am not talking about just the lovey dovey sappy stuff, although I am skeptical of anyone who discounts charity and gentleness, but as a whole. If the SSPX is admitted fully into the Catholic Church, it still would not be the type of spirituality I am interested in. I am sorry, but it is members themselves that have shown this to me.

you’re a legend in your mind, aren’t you?

I think a lot of what you have accused me–and the Society-- of is pretty much in your mind, pnewton.

What kind of lover allows the beloved to get on a train to Miami when the beloved is headed for Seattle? The lover can say, “farewell, safe trip” and know the beloved will eventually reach Seattle. But then, that’s not much of a lover, is it?

let us both be fruitful and maintain a cordial and polite distance.

 

[maurin]

Until an apology for the libel of calling me a liberal is forth comming I will not reply to you again.

promise?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Were the SSPX thinking that Benedict wouldn’t require it as a condition of full reconciliation? Their overtures didn’t remove their need to submit to the Holy Father in order to be reconciled.

The only way I’d come to that conclusion is if I thought that conversion to the one, true Church wasn’t the proper goal of ecumenism - and thought the Pope felt the same way!

The Pontiff will surely allow them to hold the true & proper belief that false ecumenism is just that. This is not an obstacle.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Wow, you must hate Paul’s idea of ‘being all things to all men’, acting as a Jew when among Jews, a Greek when among Greeks etc. You must also hate how he put it into practice by praising the men of Athens fulsomely for their devoutness and taking care to make use of their own belief in the ‘unknown God’, relating that belief to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not to mention having Timothy circumcised out of a mistaken notion of ‘being sensitive’ to the Judaising ‘heresy’ in the name of ‘respect’.

That response seemed to me unrelated to what was being replied to.

If Paul believed as you seem to be implying, he would have left Athens telling them “Accept Christ if you like - if not, no problem! Your religion is between you and your conscience!”

Paul quite properly had respect for the elements of truth in these other faiths. By no means was he anywhere near the modern notion of (false) ecumenism that has at its root the notion that there’s no such thing as Truth at all.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The whole subsists in controversy is a non-issue. It’s like the filioque issue with the Orthodox–no matter how many times we tell them it doesn’t mean two principles and two spirations, but rather is meant to enforce the traditional understanding, they still accuse us of it meaning two principles/spirations.

Vatican II said the Church of Christ “is” the Catholic Church in another document. The idea that subsists in can be applied to any other entity than the Catholic Church has also been explicitly ruled out in subsequent Magisterial texts–but over-zealous “traditionalist” polemicists continue to say it means the Church of Christ subsists in non-Catholic Churches and communities as well.

The phrase subsists in is meant to emphasize the perduring identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, even though there are ecclesial elements (valid sacraments, etc.) outside her structure. In other words, despite that fact, the Church of Christ has always been, is now, and will always be the Catholic Church entrusted to St. Peter and his successors. Whereas “is” relates a present reality, “subsists in” expresses permanent continuity.

This deserves to be repeated!

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

LOL We’ve been through these dozens of times and Ihave come to agree with Mark Twain on statistics. Besides, statitistics do not reveal anything about cause and effect.

Sorry, pnewton, but I have to join the chorus here: you are displaying remarkable blindness on this issue.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The title of this thread is very misleading.

That’s because it’s the title of an article produced by our utterly clueless mainstream media.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Sorry, pnewton, but I have to join the chorus here: you are displaying remarkable blindness on this issue.

I think the chorus is off key.

Statistics do not show cause and effect, that is a fact.

All statistics are is a collection of data. One must form an opinion on that data and opinions are not facts.

Also, again, the classic logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc is at play here.

In case you do not know what that is here is a link.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I think the chorus is off key.

Statistics do not show cause and effect, that is a fact.

All statistics are is a collection of data. One must form an opinion on that data and opinions are not facts.

Also, again, the classic logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc is at play here.

In case you do not know what that is here is a link.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Well, duh. Actually, I’m a pretty smart guy (thanks be to God), with a degree in comp sci and a minor in physics.

What you note about statistics is entirely correct: correlation does not imply causality.

However, in this particular case, the causality implied IS THERE and is evident from several other sources of information!

 

[Matt33]

One of the biggest barriers to the SSPX coming back in will not be points of disagreement, but rather their intolerance of anyone who does not agree with them; not that they do not recognize the pope, as much as they see themselves as better than everyone else at understanding theology. That is the attraction of any small sect: elitism.

I.

Are we talking about the SSPX here or the Jesuit Acedemia Universities. I think that would apply to most liberal people I have known. In Catholisim and without, from NPR to College life, from Time magazine to social services. You sir smack of the very things in which you condem. MANY groups could be encompassed in what you charge here. Just because you don’t like some of the SSPX supporters does not mean they can’t be right. I am sure that to some the anger and hatred of SSPX will only be a bigger stumbling block as Full Communion is reached.

 

[Matt33]

I think the chorus is off key.

Statistics do not show cause and effect, that is a fact.

All statistics are is a collection of data. One must form an opinion on that data and opinions are not facts.

Also, again, the classic logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc is at play here.

In case you do not know what that is here is a link.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Exept there is one GIANT possibility here. As was used in an earlier example in this thread. Someone pointed out that all people who have died have previously ingested water but it does not hold that drinking water is the causes death. But in the case of the RADICAL Changes implemented in the spirit of VII that is like watching a drowning victim and saying that post hoc ergo propter hoc is at play here. Sometimes it is the water that is being ingested that does kill especially when the victim is being pulled out of the water.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Exept there is one GIANT possibility here. As was used in an earlier example in this thread. Someone pointed out that all people who have died have previously ingested water but it does not hold that drinking water is the causes death. But in the case of the RADICAL Changes implemented in the spirit of VII that is like watching a drowning victim and saying that post hoc ergo propter hoc is at play here. Sometimes it is the water that is being ingested that does kill especially when the victim is being pulled out of the water.

But you seem to be ignoring all the other radical changes our society has gone though during and following Vatican II.

Those may also play a role if not be the whole cause of what happened.

Also a person who drowns does not die from ingestion of water, they die from inhalation of water. Two totally different things.

 

[maurin]

But you seem to be ignoring all the other radical changes our society has gone though during and following Vatican II.

Those may also play a role if not be the whole cause of what happened.

.

but if only the liberal modernists and the spirit of Vatican II didn’t try so darned hard to keep pace with “all the other radical changes our society has gone through…”

 

[preV2tradcath]

but if only the liberal modernists and the spirit of Vatican II didn’t try so darned hard to keep pace with “all the other radical changes our society has gone through…”

Exactly, maurin, exactly.

 

[Matt33]

But you seem to be ignoring all the other radical changes our society has gone though during and following Vatican II.

Those may also play a role if not be the whole cause of what happened.

Also a person who drowns does not die from ingestion of water, they die from inhalation of water. Two totally different things.

Why is it so hard to try to look at things with common sense. Do you believe that VII has had no or only positive changes within the Church? Can’t honesty rule here? By no means was VII bad or even the overall implementation of it. But not noticing and treating the problems with it is one of it’s follys.
Since pettiness is the rule instead of the exeption in the trad forum and you seem intent on being snooty about an obvious analogy and it’s point. One can drown from ingestion of water if one aspirates into the lungs, actually it is quite common. But do you really not get the point or are you just being diffcult? I didn’t come here to bicker but to discuss. However as my wife can attest I am a darn good bickerer, so we can have some fun too.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why is it so hard to try to look at things with common sense. Do you believe that VII has had no or only positive changes within the Church? Can’t honesty rule here? By no means was VII bad or even the overall implementation of it. But not noticing and treating the problems with it is one of it’s follys.

No, never said that.

See if we ask questions rather than assuming someone who disagrees with us is a liberal and acting as children and throwing out names then we can have a discussion.

Common sense tells me that no one thing causes the issues we have.

I do not buy into the idea that Vatican II caused all of the problems. Society changed much during that time period.

I can say that Vatican II may have been part of the cause but not the cause.

Even saying that does not mean that Vatican II was wrong or bad. It is those who ran with the “spirit of Vatican II” idea rather than reading the actual documents and do what they actually say rather than listening to their “spirit”.

It would be interesting to see the statistics of these things follow all the other councils but as society and technology were different then we can not but I am sure that there issues after all the councils as they introduced what many thought of as change.