SSPX decision???

[TradionalWay]

Does anyone have a update to what has been made of the meeting of 14 Sept??

 

[YoungTradCath]

Nothing. Pure speculation.

 

[TradionalWay]

Nothing. Pure speculation.

It doesnt seem like good news no me!! :bighanky:

 

[Big_Feet]

I find it unfortunate and sad that these men lead a band of people to defy the primacy of the duly elected successor of St. Peter in Rome, and to deny the teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II. May they and all come into conformity with the one true Church of God here on earth, and may God have mercy on all of our souls upon our judgment.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I speculate that there are unreported exchanges happening between the parties.

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a significant Holy Day for the Society. Perhaps we’ll hear something then?

 

[giuseppeTO]

I find it unfortunate and sad that these men lead a band of people to defy the primacy of the duly elected successor of St. Peter in Rome, and to deny the teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II. May they and all come into conformity with the one true Church of God here on earth, and may God have mercy on all of our souls upon our judgment.

There is much about the situation that is sad and unfortunate.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I find it unfortunate and sad that these men lead a band of people to defy the primacy of the duly elected successor of St. Peter in Rome,

They do not deny the primacy of the Pope. They don’t deny it, it all. In theory. In reality, it is more complicated.I’m not even sure what the Holy Father would say of them.

and to deny the teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II.

Can you show me exactly what in Vii that was new and declared infallible (and thus guided by the Holy Spirit)? Vii several times was said not to be a council that would declare anything new but only to repeat previous teaching in a new way. If Vii documents were forgotten tomorow we would lose nothing in terms of doctrine, dogma or truth. The SSPX do not deny the teachings of Vii where the teachings of Vii are lead by the Holy Spirit as those teachings have been affirmed before. The SSPX just believe certain statements and documents (which are not infallible and were not declared infallible) are problematic.

That is how I understand it to be, but there is debate around this and I myself am not 100% certain of where I stand. I wish the SSPX were in full communion. SSPX need to be granted faculties and they need to work within the structures of the Church - otherwise, it is hard to be sympathetic to them. If only all of them had done with those who started the FSSP did. Things would be much better. If they do not come into the Church in the next year, maybe 2 years, I would (if I were a full supporter of them) give up on them.

 

[Labarum]

I have not heard anything about the progress between Rome and the SSPX. However, with certain high ranking members of the SSPX speaking negatively about the Church even today it is not going to be an easy ride back to full communion with Rome.

The problem is that this group was formed in opposition to Vatican II. It is so ingrained into their identity and teachings that it makes it almost impossible to overcome it (even if some of their concerns are unfounded).

That being said Bishop Fellay has been quiet on these public lashes against the Church. This could be looked at as either negative or positive. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he is trying his best to bring both the SSPX and the Church together. That being said it seems that if the SSPX does reunite with Rome that the SSPX will split. I would think Bishop Fellay is trying to minimize that impact - just my speculation on that.

 

[Boulder257]

I find it unfortunate and sad that these men lead a band of people to defy the primacy of the duly elected successor of St. Peter in Rome, and to deny the teachings of the Holy Spirit through the Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II. May they and all come into conformity with the one true Church of God here on earth, and may God have mercy on all of our souls upon our judgment.

I remember someone telling me once that “some people are confused because they want to be.” Sometimes it doesn’t matter how much is said, some folks will only focus on what is NOT said, or what is read between the lines. They can’t see the forest for the trees as some would say…

 

[Boulder257]

I have not heard anything about the progress between Rome and the SSPX. However, with certain high ranking members of the SSPX speaking negatively about the Church even today it is not going to be an easy ride back to full communion with Rome.

The problem is that this group was formed in opposition to Vatican II. It is so ingrained into their identity and teachings that it makes it almost impossible to overcome it (even if some of their concerns are unfounded).

That being said Bishop Fellay has been quiet on these public lashes against the Church. This could be looked at as either negative or positive. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he is trying his best to bring both the SSPX and the Church together. That being said it seems that if the SSPX does reunite with Rome that the SSPX will split. I would think Bishop Fellay is trying to minimize that impact - just my speculation on that.

I think you are correct and I agree about the benefit of the doubt. I do think that if the SSPX somehow comes back into communion with the Church that some of the members will indeed create their own faction. It’s just history repeating itself. But one thing is constant, and that is Mother Church and the Papacy.

 

[Big_Feet]

Can you show me exactly what in Vii that was new and declared infallible (and thus guided by the Holy Spirit)?

Dignitatis Humanae - “Of the Dignity of the Human Person” - Declaration on Religious Freedom.

This declaration of the Church from this 21st Ecumenical Council is what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his disciples had his major issues with, not merely the Latin, Tridentine mass.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

They do not deny the primacy of the Pope. They don’t deny it, it all. In theory. In reality, it is more complicated.I’m not even sure what the Holy Father would say of them.

I think the Holy Father has been very clear on what he would say of them, they have no legitimate ministry within the Church.

Can you show me exactly what in Vii that was new and declared infallible (and thus guided by the Holy Spirit)?

Can you show where it is stated that the Holy Spirit only guides on infallible statements from Ecumenical Councils?

 

[NewsTheMan]

Dignitatis Humanae - “Of the Dignity of the Human Person” - Declaration on Religious Freedom.

This whole document is an exercise of infallibility?

I think the Holy Father has been very clear on what he would say of them, they have no legitimate ministry within the Church.

I meant in terms of their feelings towards him - what he would say about that. Not their canonical status. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Can you show where it is stated that the Holy Spirit only guides on infallible statements from Ecumenical Councils?

No, I can’t. Of course not. But if we went clarity, and if we want to move forward with Vii - and with the SSPX and their complaints - we need to know which parts of Vii (if any) are infallible and thus guided by the Holy Spirit. If it comes from the Holy Spirit - it is infallible. If the charge is that the SSPX are denying the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit (which is exactly what has been implied) then we need to make sure that we aren’t just positing anything and everything as coming from the Holy Spirit. It’s a very heavy charge to make against the SSPX. The only way to resolve it is to point out exactly what and what is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and then say “and on this point, the SSPX dissent, and thus, they deny a truth that the Holy Spirit has revealed”. In asking this question surely you are not saying that something that the Holy Spirit guides is not infallible. That would be to say the Holy Spirit can make mistakes or deceive.

It is not inconceivable that an ecumenical council can write a document that is contrary to the faith at least in some parts. Just because it comes from a council doesn’t make it suddenly Holy Spirit inspired. Men can ignore the Holy Spirit. But if they do that, God makes sure they don’t do permanent damage.

Look, again, I am uncertain about these things and can’t say one way or another. However, it is a wildly unfair accusation to make against the SSPX that they “deny the teachings of the Holy Spirit” in questioning the documents of Vii. Do you not agree that this is a very heavy charge to make? In effect it makes the SSPX heretics. Clearly they are not. They are Catholic. To me, the charge is grounded on nothing. I am willing to be corrected, though. One thing the SSPX want is a message from Rome saying exactly what from Vii was infallibly declared and as far as I know even Rome is divided.

 

[Big_Feet]

Dignitatis Humanae - “Of the Dignity of the Human Person” - Declaration on Religious Freedom.

This declaration of the Church from this 21st Ecumenical Council is what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his disciples had his major issues with, not merely the Latin, Tridentine mass.

This is the primary document that SSPX refuses to acknowledge from Vatican II, and disagrees with the theology behind it. My understanding is that SSPX has refused to sign any statement of union with the Roman Catholic Church until such document is disavowed by Rome.

 

[giuseppeTO]

This is the primary document that SSPX refuses to acknowledge from Vatican II, and disagrees with the theology behind it. My understanding is that SSPX has refused to sign any statement of union with the Roman Catholic Church until such document is disavowed by Rome.

Interesting. I have never seen the Superior General publicize a list of absolutes. Can you help us out with Bishop Fellay’s official communication?

 

[catharina]

This is the primary document that SSPX refuses to acknowledge from Vatican II, and disagrees with the theology behind it. My understanding is that SSPX has refused to sign any statement of union with the Roman Catholic Church until such document is disavowed by Rome.

I venture to say that will never happen.
If your hunch is factual, then buh-bye sspx.

 

[Big_Feet]

Interesting. I have never seen the Superior General publicize a list of absolutes. Can you help us out with Bishop Fellay’s official communication?

I dont have any direct quotes from Bishop Fellay, but here is a portion of the COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X that I read at:
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/09/14/vatican-gives-sspx-doctrinal-statement-to-sign/

“While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II’s ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’.”

Also see the report of the response by the SSPX:
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/11/02/sspx-leaders-rejected-vatican-statement-says-superior/

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

This whole document is an exercise of infallibility?

I meant in terms of their feelings towards him - what he would say about that. Not their canonical status. I thought that was pretty obvious.

No, I can’t. Of course not. But if we went clarity, and if we want to move forward with Vii - and with the SSPX and their complaints - we need to know which parts of Vii (if any) are infallible and thus guided by the Holy Spirit. If it comes from the Holy Spirit - it is infallible. If the charge is that the SSPX are denying the truth revealed by the Holy Spirit (which is exactly what has been implied) then we need to make sure that we aren’t just positing anything and everything as coming from the Holy Spirit. It’s a very heavy charge to make against the SSPX. The only way to resolve it is to point out exactly what and what is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and then say “and on this point, the SSPX dissent, and thus, they deny a truth that the Holy Spirit has revealed”. In asking this question surely you are not saying that something that the Holy Spirit guides is not infallible. That would be to say the Holy Spirit can make mistakes or deceive.

It is not inconceivable that an ecumenical council can write a document that is contrary to the faith at least in some parts. Just because it comes from a council doesn’t make it suddenly Holy Spirit inspired. Men can ignore the Holy Spirit. But if they do that, God makes sure they don’t do permanent damage.

Look, again, I am uncertain about these things and can’t say one way or another. However, it is a wildly unfair accusation to make against the SSPX that they “deny the teachings of the Holy Spirit” in questioning the documents of Vii. Do you not agree that this is a very heavy charge to make? In effect it makes the SSPX heretics. Clearly they are not. They are Catholic. To me, the charge is grounded on nothing. I am willing to be corrected, though. One thing the SSPX want is a message from Rome saying exactly what from Vii was infallibly declared and as far as I know even Rome is divided.

No, every statement of VII does not need to be gone over to determine if they are an infallible statment or not. the most that needs to be done is if the SSPX think that something from VII counters an infallible decree from a previous council or papal stamtent then it would need clearify. other than that we submit to the authority of the Church and trust in God to lead them to lead us.

The SSPX would have to prove that any part of VII is in violation of an previously held infallible teaching before they would have a leg to stand on.

 

[NewsTheMan]

No, every statement of VII does not need to be gone over to determine if they are an infallible statment or not.

I don’t know I mean isn’t this very thing the issue? Why are things so ambiguous? Previous Councils had a very different approach. “Believe this, or you are wrong/heretic”. Vii - a ‘pastoral council’ - didn’t seem to make any new infallible statements - it only affirmed previous doctrine. Thus, the question is, I guess, are these new affirmations infallible ways of affirming previous doctrine?

The whole point of this exercise (viz. determining what is infallible and what is not) is for the SSPX to know where they stand. I summarize it thus: They say that certain things that Vii documents say are harmful to the faith. Things that are harmful to the faith need not be obeyed and in fact we have a duty to disobey. The SSPX try and show why they believe what they believe. Rome disagrees with them, and says that Vii was not a rupture with tradition at all. And so a back and forth ensues. How to settle this? Simple. For Rome to make a definitive statement on the council, it’s documents, and specific statements. By doing so they will leave no more questions in the minds of the SSPX and of others.

The SSPX would have to prove that any part of VII is in violation of an previously held infallible teaching before they would have a leg to stand on.

If you look at a lot of SSPX literature, they do this frequently.

Once again, I am not saying I buy into everything I am saying in my posts. I am not educated enough and would rather let the Church deal with it. But, this being a discussion board, and me wanting to learn, I’d like to press a few things here and there for the sake of discussion and learning.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I don’t know I mean isn’t this very thing the issue? Why are things so ambiguous? Previous Councils had a very different approach. “Believe this, or you are wrong/heretic”. Vii - a ‘pastoral council’ - didn’t seem to make any new infallible statements - it only affirmed previous doctrine. Thus, the question is, I guess, are these new affirmations infallible ways of affirming previous doctrine?

The whole point of this exercise (viz. determining what is infallible and what is not) is for the SSPX to know where they stand. I summarize it thus: They say that certain things that Vii documents say are harmful to the faith. Things that are harmful to the faith need not be obeyed and in fact we have a duty to disobey. The SSPX try and show why they believe what they believe. Rome disagrees with them, and says that Vii was not a rupture with tradition at all. And so a back and forth ensues. How to settle this? Simple. For Rome to make a definitive statement on the council, it’s documents, and specific statements. By doing so they will leave no more questions in the minds of the SSPX and of others.

If you look at a lot of SSPX literature, they do this frequently.

Once again, I am not saying I buy into everything I am saying in my posts. I am not educated enough and would rather let the Church deal with it. But, this being a discussion board, and me wanting to learn, I’d like to press a few things here and there for the sake of discussion and learning.

So their whole argument is basiclly the same as that of the Orthodox? They are correct only in that they refuse to submit to the authority of the church there by makeing their fears a self fulfilling prophescy