G
giuseppeTO
Guest
That is what I guessed. There is only one authorized source that speaks of what the Society will or will not ‘accept’ and that is the Superior General and he has made that quite clear.
- Status
G
giuseppeTO
Guest
Let’s see, this is only the 6,341st time this has been discussed. But, once again, here is what it boils down to.
Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of the V2 documents. Most of them are sufficiently vague enough to have allowed ‘progressive’ Catholics to justify such concepts as universal salvation while discouraging the need for non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians alike to convert. This is just one example of the Catholic Church’s timidity over the last 40 years to proclaim for all to hear that she is the One True Church, established by Christ and that ALL other religions are false, albeit with some ‘measure’ of the Truth, and all Salvation is ONLY through Her. The problem has been that the Vatican has been profoundly silent over the same period and has refused to correct theologians, Bishops, Cardinals, and priests who incorrectly use V2 documents to teach what the Council never intended. It is not a case of what the Council taught … it is a case of what has been taught since the Council by manipulating Conciliar documents to justify error.
The Society is looking for the Vatican to correct what has been ill-taught. The Pope has made significant strides during his Pontificate to address some of it.
C
corsair
Guest
I think this thread is getting derailed. Or at least off track. There has been no definate response from SSPX. I continue to pray for a successful reconciliation.
B
Big_Feet
Guest
see the article:
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/11/02/sspx-leaders-rejected-vatican-statement-says-superior/
It looks like the SSPX will not conceed to the points of doctrine being insisted upon by Rome.
M
Mike30
Guest
Since the only person qualified to speak on this issue has so far not spoken to the issue at all, anything that is said by someone else is just a rumor or personal speculation at this point.
Just an aside, why is this matter of such interest? You apparently are not a member of the Society and I would imagine that you do not speak authoritatively for the Roman Church. As the Holy Father has stated the situation between the Society and the greater Church is an internal matter and not at all simple it would seem that any speculation of this sort at this point is premature and basically unfounded…
Why not just wait until all of the facts are out in the open?
T
TrueLight
Guest
This is an amazingly flippant comment for something so serious.
I know that discussion of the SSPX is very exciting to some, but it would really be wonderful if we could all pray for reconciliation.
J
JM3
Guest
Flippant or reality check?This is an amazingly flippant comment for something so serious.
I know that discussion of the SSPX is very exciting to some, but it would really be wonderful if we could all pray for reconciliation.
No matter how you feel about the SSPX, the fact is that there are many who will not submit to Rome under any circumstance. Whether they are the majority or not remains to be seen.
Yes, we should all pray that they return from their error.
Other than that, I keep my thoughts to myself.
T
TrueLight
Guest
“Buh-bye” is flippant.Flippant or reality check?
No matter how you feel about the SSPX, the fact is that there are many who will not submit to Rome under any circumstance. Whether they are the majority or not remains to be seen.
Yes, we should all pray that they return from their error.
Other than that, I keep my thoughts to myself.
And I’ll keep my thoughts to myself about them returning from their “error”.
J
JReducation
Guest
Father Mitch Pacwa had a wonderful lecture on EWTN on this document and the Syllabus of Errors. I don’t know if anyone here saw it. He explained very clearly, point by point the difference between the two and how the two are not in conflict, but they can co-exist. I found it fascinating and logical.
As to the whole question of infallibility and Vatican II, I’ll go with what Pope Benedict said once. To put it in plain English. We’re obsessed with infallibility. The Holy Spirit also speaks through the Ordinary Magisterium, this include an ordinary council. We are starting to treat infallibility in a manner that borders on superstition or politics. I’m not sure which. But whichever it is, it’s not healthy.
We’re starting to demand that everything has to be declared Ex Cathedra or by the Apostolic Authority of the Pope. This has never been the case or tradition in the Catholic Church.
The Church has never invoked infallibility every time she speaks. Most papal statements do not invoke their apostolic authority. Not everything that came out of Trent was infallible, because much of it had to do with discipline, but everyone accepted those disciplines. Popes have a right to speak and command simply because they’re popes. The Catholic Church has a long history of passing things down through oral tradition, customs, and even the example of the saints. Much is never written down, but it’s subscribed to by Catholics. It does not operate like the US Government that leaves a paper trail. In Light of the World, Pope Benedict warns about this idea that the Church has to leave a paper trail before we can assent.
As far as the Primacy and the bishops of the SSPX, they have never been accused of denying the Primacy. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict charged them with “breaking with the Primacy”. This is something that happens when you do something that is reserved to the primacy alone, such as authorizing the ordination of bishops.
Were that not in the middle of this mess, their position on Vatican II, the liturgy and the CCC would not be a concern to the Vatican. The Vatican would simply assign a few theologians to dialogue with them and then lay the case to rest. Because they have bishops, this creates a serious threat to Church unity.
The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer have issues with Vatican II and the liturgy too. They don’t have bishops. The Vatican is not too concerned about their concerns. They were told what they needed to do to be readmitted into the Church. They did what they were asked to do and are now inside. They lost many men as a result. The Vatican was sorry to see them go, but it was not going to lose the entire congregation to keep a few men happy.
With the SSPX, the situation is different, because if one of those bishops walks and ordains other bishops, you have another Apostolic Church and a schism on your hands. The Vatican is not so concerned about what these folks think or don’t think about Vatican II as it is concerned about a schism.
Will there be a schism? Let’s pray that there is not. Let’s pray that at the end of this, the SSPX bishops will return to the Church, even if they have to leave behind most of the SSPX. When push comes to shove, it’s the bishops that are the major concern. You can always educate the priests and the people little by little. It may take a long time, but you have time. They can’t ordain new bishops.
You don’t want these bishops getting old and suddenly panicking, feeling that they have to ordain successors. That will take us back to where this whole thing began. God protect us from such a fate.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JM3
Guest
M
Morgan_Hiver
Guest
Think of it this way. VII came in and unleashed their spirit. Basically erased everything previous to the council. Made Catholics worship a way VERY similar to Protestant services. SSPX stood up to defend pre-VII Catholicism, got a lot of flack for it and were labelled rebels. I honestly feel that if it was not for them the Latin rite would have been lost and forgotten about. Chant was only being used by secular musicians outside of SSPX masses. Groups splintered off from them and were also inspired by them to form and offer only the EF…all being approved by Rome. The Vatican already stated that VII was strictly a pastoral council and nothing more. Look at the new translation being presented this week. Look at how the EF has been restored. I feel that this was all due to the spirit of SSPX. BXVI obviously wants the SSPX to be fully restored…we all should to. People on this board spend more time ridiculing others for not being charitable to Protestants but these same people are most uncharitable towards the SSPX, whom ARE Catholic and still under Rome. We ALL need to pray that progress be made towards full restoration of the SSPX.
H
HOLYHEARTS
Guest
Just to clarify a point, the Second Vatican Council promulated only two Dogmatic Documents:
Only two out the 16 Documents of Vatican II are considered Dogmatic & have statements that
us to belief. Of those staements that
and/or held as dogmatic before the Council.
- The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
- The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.
Decree on or Pastoral Constitution on or Declaration on…Only two out the 16 Documents of Vatican II are considered Dogmatic & have statements that
bindus to belief. Of those staements that
bind us, none were new, all were previously definedand/or held as dogmatic before the Council.
J
JReducation
Guest
The SSPX has certainly made a very positive contribution and I would not take that away from it. But it has also created a real split among Catholics and at times hostility between Catholics.
As to losing the Latin Rite, the Ordinary Form is part of the Latin Rite, or do you not believe what Pope Benedict said about it in Summorum Pontificum?
We can’t have it both ways. We can’t use SP to proclaim that "Yeh!!! The Tridentine Form was never abrogated and in the same breadth turn around and deny what Summorum Pontificum said about the Pauline mass:
- It is the ordinary form for the Latin Church
- It is holy and part of tradition.
- It is equal to the Tridentine form in all things, because it remains the mass.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is correct. And I believe both of them referred to previous councils which we presume the FSSPX has accepted.
M
Mike30
Guest
Yes Brother, but in fairness you must admit that more than likely without the SSPX the EF would have been lost and essentially forgotten except by historians and those that mourned its passing. I remember those dark days very well and I know just how much flat out and out hatred, for lack of a better word, existed among certain Priests and Bishops toward the EF.The SSPX has certainly made a very positive contribution and I would not take that away from it. But it has also created a real split among Catholics and at times hostility between Catholics.
As to losing the Latin Rite, the Ordinary Form is part of the Latin Rite, or do you not believe what Pope Benedict said about it in Summorum Pontificum?
We can’t have it both ways. We can’t use SP to proclaim that "Yeh!!! The Tridentine Form was never abrogated and in the same breadth turn around and deny what Summorum Pontificum said about the Pauline mass:
As to the chant, it was not lost. It had returned to its origins, which was the Benedictine Tradition. That’s where it began and by the end of the 20th century, you had to find a Benedictine house to hear it. But it certainly was not lost. Just because it’s not in the parish, does not mean that it’s not in the Church. We have to be careful and gentle here. This way, we are fair to everyone.
- It is the ordinary form for the Latin Church
- It is holy and part of tradition.
- It is equal to the Tridentine form in all things, because it remains the mass.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The SSPX was the group that pretty much singlehandedly kept the EF alive, and I cannot believe that would have happened without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Say what you will about the Society but that one salient fact can never be taken away from them or denied.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Amen, brother. And that’s pronounced “Ay-men”.
M
Morgan_Hiver
Guest
You are definitely correct, Br JR. I don’t agree with everything that the SSPX has done but once they are fully reinstated it will basically be like “did they REALLY do anything wrong?”.
As for the OF, I mean, its called Latin Rite mainly because of the language, correct? The OF is in any language and can be virtually unrecognizable to a novus ordo Catholic visiting another NO parish; the NO is, in the words of Forrest Gump…like a box of chocolates. Sure, they’re all chocolate but I don’t like coconut! But anyway…is it realy the Latin rite then? It’s really just the Latin’s right to perform a valid mass. And in regards to chant…the average person associates the EF and chant with the middle ages. Most have no idea that this art was taken out of the parish not that long ago. It’s like if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it. The tree has fallen in a Benedictine house and no one even knew you could go there to hear it.
As for the OF, I mean, its called Latin Rite mainly because of the language, correct? The OF is in any language and can be virtually unrecognizable to a novus ordo Catholic visiting another NO parish; the NO is, in the words of Forrest Gump…like a box of chocolates. Sure, they’re all chocolate but I don’t like coconut! But anyway…is it realy the Latin rite then? It’s really just the Latin’s right to perform a valid mass. And in regards to chant…the average person associates the EF and chant with the middle ages. Most have no idea that this art was taken out of the parish not that long ago. It’s like if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it. The tree has fallen in a Benedictine house and no one even knew you could go there to hear it.
J
JReducation
Guest
Go back and read what I said. They have made a significant contribution and that cannot be taken away from them. They have also created one of the biggest splits inside the Church in recent memory.
We can’t take away the good that they have done or deny the damage either. They go hand in hand.
Remember, the SSPX has never been accused of doing anything wrong. This whole mess is over the ordination of the bishops. Their position on other things was not the cause of the problems. Those positions can be discussed in many different settings and people can eventually come to a shared understanding of the points. It takes time, but it’s not impossible.
It has nothing to do with the Latin language. It is called the Latin Rite because it’s the ordinary rite of the Latin Church. Ordinary, does not mean common as in chocolates. It means the norm for the Latin Church. Summorum Pontificum intends for it to remain the norm. Until the Church changes that position, we have to accept it as such.
I am going to disagree on this point. I have served in the Archdiocese of NY, Diocese of Baltimore, Archdiocese of San Juan, PR, Diocese of Arecibo, PR, Archdiocese of Guayaquil, Ecuador, Archdiocese of Sao Paolo, Brazil, Archdiocse of Miami, Archdiocese of Washington, and the Diocese of Arlington. I have never not known that I was at a Catholic mass.
The elements of a Catholic mass are unmistakable from any Protestant service. Anyone who confuses the two, is not very knowledgeable about Catholic liturgy, sacraments and the priesthood.
That has more to do with the fact that Gregorian chant began with Benedictines prior to the Middle Ages to be exact. Long before it was Gregorian Chant, it already existed. It dates back to the time of David. It’s very Jewish. Most Catholics don’t realize this. The monks developed it into a form of art, but they are not the source of Gregorian chant.
Also, many Catholics do not know that many religious never used Gregorian chants and in parishes run by them, you never heard Gregorian chant. You heard other forms of sacred music. But many people don’t have a good enough background in sacred music to tell the different forms apart form each other. They think that if it’s slow, solemn and in Latin it must be Gregorian Chant or if it’s chanted, it must be Gregorian chant. That is not the case.
We chant parts of the mass, but never in Gregorian chant. The Poor Clares chant part of their prayer, but never in Gregorian chant. St. Clare banned it in 1228.
I do believe that people think that Gregorian chant is medieval and that the EF is also medieval. Neither is true. The EF as we know it today is only about 500 years old and the chant goes back to Israel. As I said, the Benedictines turned it to an art form. Even Rabbis are in awe of how well the monks do it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Dogmatic statements are not the only things that ‘bind’ us to belief.
D
Dragonslayer
Guest
Well said Morgan. Thankyou.
- Status