SSPX Info, updates and interviews

[Megan7]

Can you please post the correct link. I cannot open up the one you posted in the OP

Thank you,

PAX

 

[ProVobis]

Nothing we didn’t already know, I don’t think. Although one notable piece:

I think this is the first time that, through official channels, it has been released that the other three Bishops are not on the same page regarding re-unification.

Nothing the Pope didn’t know going all the way back to the lifting of the excommunications.

You are right in your first sentence. There is nothing we didn’t already know. In fact, trying to get any four people in the world on the same page on anything is difficult so at least we know the four bishops are human.

 

[M-Dent]

Again, individual members of the SSPX may have taken positions in opposition to Church teaching, but can you give examples of official SSPX teaching that conflicts with the Vatican?

It’s well understood one critical issue of conflict is the interpretation of Dignitatis humanae.

Is SSPX in opposition to Church teaching? This may depend on Bishop Fellay?

It is interesting how Bishop Fellay addressed this conflict. Stating, “Religious Liberty is used in so many ways. Looking closer, I get the impression not many know what the Council said about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty that is a very very limited one.” He noted this issue (parts of Dignitatis humanae) specifically addressed in talks with Rome then stated (confidently), “To mean that there is a right to error is false."

IMO, this must have been the most fascinating part of the discussions.

Rome could have easily agreed that traditional Catholic doctrine does support what the Bishops states. In fact, the Council did state,

…it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

The Council didn’t teach there is a God-given right for error. In fact, it was implicitly stated men are “bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth”

I believe it a fair summation to state Dignitatis humanae more deeply explains the very nature of the person and expanding on how finding Truth is most fruitfully accomplished, “men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.”

As Catholics we should agree, the Holy Spirit is teaching us something here about our societies and ourselves. Something has been out of balance.

I would assume they must have touched on issues of prudential decisions regarding tolerating false religious beliefs/practices and what worse evils could be produced with iron handed suppression (which would certainly be involved in challenging any religious belief - even an erroneous one) and the common good. And the bottom line, it would not be possible to present an authentic traditional Catholic doctrine that implicitly gave an absolute requirement of the State to suppress false religions.
.
I hope Bishop Fellay can contribute to sharing the truth we are all bound by a moral obligation to seek religious truth. It can easily be shrouded in many societies that worship self. Even while explaining some misunderstandings in traditional Catholic doctrine - he does have an obligation to accept and promote what Dignitatis humanae is teaching.

 

[TimothyH]

There is always something new under the sun.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Excuse me Brother…

***What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun! *(Ecclesiastes 1:9)

It’s not every day that I get this opportunity.

-Tim-

 

[Walking_Home]

Can you please post the correct link. I cannot open up the one you posted in the OP

Thank you,

PAX

---

visnews-en.blogspot.com/2012/05/communique-on-society-of-st-pius-x.html

 

[Brooklyn]

It’s well understood one critical issue of conflict is the interpretation of Dignitatis humanae.

Is SSPX in opposition to Church teaching? This may depend on Bishop Fellay?

It is interesting how Bishop Fellay addressed this conflict. Stating, “Religious Liberty is used in so many ways. Looking closer, I get the impression not many know what the Council said about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty that is a very very limited one.” He noted this issue (parts of Dignitatis humanae) specifically addressed in talks with Rome then stated (confidently), “To mean that there is a right to error is false."

IMO, this must have been the most fascinating part of the discussions.

Rome could have easily agreed that traditional Catholic doctrine does support what the Bishops states. In fact, the Council did state,

The Council didn’t teach there is a God-given right for error. In fact, it was implicitly stated men are “bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth”

I believe it a fair summation to state Dignitatis humanae more deeply explains the very nature of the person and expanding on how finding Truth is most fruitfully accomplished, “men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.”

As Catholics we should agree, the Holy Spirit is teaching us something here about our societies and ourselves. Something has been out of balance.

I would assume they must have touched on issues of prudential decisions regarding tolerating false religious beliefs/practices and what worse evils could be produced with iron handed suppression (which would certainly be involved in challenging any religious belief - even an erroneous one) and the common good. And the bottom line, it would not be possible to present an authentic traditional Catholic doctrine that implicitly gave an absolute requirement of the State to suppress false religions.
.
I hope Bishop Fellay can contribute to sharing the truth we are all bound by a moral obligation to seek religious truth. It can easily be shrouded in many societies that worship self. Even while explaining some misunderstandings in traditional Catholic doctrine - he does have an obligation to accept and promote what Dignitatis humanae is teaching.

You’ve got me here because I have not read this document. I’ve read some of the documents from V2, but not this one. I have to admit that I personally have had some problems with the documents not so much in what they say, but in the fact that they are so generalized as to leave them open to different interpretations. That could be a problem with this one.

I don’t know exactly where and how the SSPX differs with this teaching, it seems that you are not sure, either.

I had a very interesting conversation with someone yesterday, a very devout revert Catholic. I asked him what he thought about the possible reconciliation with the SSPX. He said of course, he thinks it would be wonderful, he is always happy to see the church uniting. And he brought up the point that we can actually be in disagreement with the church in our own mind and yet still be a good, obedient Catholic. The pope can say something and our immediate reaction is to disagree. But what is important is what we do, what our actions are. I think a good example was Humanae Vitae. When that came out, many Catholics disagreed with it, and the majority, unhappily, still do. But if, even though they may not agree with it, they still abide by it, they have not sinned and are still united with the church. The problem comes when they just choose to ignore it and say it doesn’t apply to them.

That may very well be the case with the SSPX. They may very well have disagreements with Rome. I think we all do to one extent or another. But can they let go of their pride enough to still submit to the Vicar of Christ? I would say that a greater sign of faith is obeying when you disagree than when you agree. This video and other things I have read seems to say that the SSPX is ready to do that.

 

[Melchior_1]

Nothing the Pope didn’t know going all the way back to the lifting of the excommunications.

You are right in your first sentence. There is nothing we didn’t already know**. In fact, trying to get any four people in the world on the same page on anything is difficult so at least we know the four bishops are human. **

 

[TrueLight]

Can you please post the correct link. I cannot open up the one you posted in the OP

Thank you,

PAX

I’m not sure what YTC was linking to, but here is the CNS news story regarding the item:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1201998.htm

Father Lombardi, however, said officials at the doctrinal congregation informed the pope of the results of the day’s meeting but did not believe the reconciliation process was nearing its end.

“Obviously, the decision is in the pope’s hands” and he can act when and how he wants, “but despite how it may have seemed – that we were talking about a brief amount of time --** it is a process that continues,”** Father Lombardi said.
**
“It would be premature to guess when the process will end,**” he added.

 

[Transformer]

some observations, which will be considered in further discussions between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X, were formulated.

Many observers of the process had expected the May 16 doctrinal congregation meeting to mark the penultimate step in the reconciliation talks. It appeared that congregation members would review Bishop Fellay’s response and forward their opinions about it to Pope Benedict XVI for his final action.

Father Lombardi, however, said officials at the doctrinal congregation informed the pope of the results of the day’s meeting but did not believe the reconciliation process was nearing its end.

“Obviously, the decision is in the pope’s hands” and he can act when and how he wants, “but despite how it may have seemed – that we were talking about a brief amount of time – it is a process that continues,” Father Lombardi said.

“It would be premature to guess when the process will end,” he added.

These quotes do not sound promising to me. Are they a bit of a bad sign, or does this just sound like standard comments warning people not to be impatient or assume reconciliation is right around the corner?

 

[M-Dent]

And he brought up the point that we can actually be in disagreement with the church in our own mind and yet still be a good, obedient Catholic. The pope can say something and our immediate reaction is to disagree. But what is important is what we do, what our actions are. I think a good example was Humanae Vitae. When that came out, many Catholics disagreed with it, and the majority, unhappily, still do. But if, even though they may not agree with it, they still abide by it, they have not sinned and are still united with the church. The problem comes when they just choose to ignore it and say it doesn’t apply to them.

That train of thought is quite confusing to me. Assent is not mere obedience. As the CCC notes, “By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.”

People have a responsibility to seek faith, accept it as God makes it available, and guard it once they have it. But Christian faith is not individualistic. One only has faith by sharing in the Church’s faith. Thus, fulfillment of the responsibility of faith requires giving the Church’s teaching the assent it deserves.

---

One should give religious assent to certain teachings of popes and bishops which are not infallibly proposed. The submission of religious assent is not obedience, and it is reasonable. Not all papal and episcopal statements call for religious assent, but the limits on the responsibility to give religious assent are themselves limited in several ways. Deliberate refusal to give the assent due is a grave matter, and sinful dissent–encouraging others to share in wrongful nonassent–is even more grave.

(Living the Christian Life, Germain Grisez, Prof. of Moral Theology)

 

[Filii_Dei]

These quotes do not sound promising to me. Are they a bit of a bad sign, or does this just sound like standard comments warning people not to be impatient or assume reconciliation is right around the corner?

Maybe it’s just me, but they sound like what anyone would caution when discussing an ongoing case, be it in arbitration or in the courts. As a general principle, it is a good idea to avoid excessive speculation, lest we turn it into unfounded scandal.

 

[ImmaculataFides]

That’s a major accusation of a very reputable news service. You may want to step back from this, Immaculata. You’re beginning to see conspiracies where there have never been any. The CNS also did an excellent article from that interview, which flows much better. The video is obviously poorly edited, but it does not seem to have been for the purpose of propaganda… Otherwise, their article would be been prejudiced and it was quite objective.

Hi Br Jr.

Generally you need to be careful when making an accusation, yes, however I think this one may be justified. CNS isn’t traditionalist, so therefore they are not going to report in the point of view of traditionalists. It is only reasonable to assume therefore that they are probably going to cut out parts they don’t like or complicate things. Not out of ill will, it’s simply bias.

We have to shy away from seeing out Church as our enemy. That’s very dangerous to the soul of the individual and to the soul of the Church. On the other hand, I can’t say the same thing about this writer that you quoted. He goes out of his way to label and be aggressive toward the mainstream Catholic. If you read the article in CNS, they do not paint Bishop Fellay or the SSPX in negative terms as this writer does to the Church.

The commenter isn’t talking about the Church he is talking about neo-Catholics, a term started by Dr. Thomas E. Woods in the book “The Great Facade”. Michael Davies doesn’t call them “neo-Catholics” but “conservatives”.

It seems that the name calling and finger pointing is coming from one side. What these folks are not listening to is what the Bishop has said at least three times this week. “The Pope wants this NOW.” None of us are being given an option here. Those inside are not being asked if we want the SSPX back. The SSPX is not being asked if it wants to remain in its current state. The pope wants closure on this NOW. He wants the SSPX in or gone out of the Catholic Church, not in an irregular status. He prefers that they stay, because he really cares for them. But they can’t take advantage of his love either.

I disagree. What you call name calling I would call different terminology. The traditionalist would use words such as “Neo Cath”, “Conservative”, “Novus Ordo Catholics”, etc. Those aren’t designed to be offensive, some people are just offended by them. Many non-traditionalists go out of their way to name call the SSPX, declare them schismatic, in schism, disobedient, prideful, arrogant, etc. I don’t believe for a minute that it’s coming from a single side!

The writer is criticizing the video as almost being propaganda for the “neo Catolic” position, whether because of bad editing or otherwise. I don’t believe he is talking about the preamble at all.

These people seem to believe too much in their own power and are forgetting who calls the shots. If the SSPX does not sign this preamble, they have already been told that there will be a schism and it’s their fault. Bishop Fellay said, “Rome will no longer tolerate this.” Those are very strong words. I the past, he could care less what Rome tolerated or not. Somehow, Rome has made it perfectly clear to him that the SSPX has pushed the envelop more than Rome is willing to tolerate.

Again, good Br., I don’t think the writer is talking about the preamble. He was criticizing the video as endorsing the neo-Catholic position regarding the preamble.

Continued in next post…

 

[ImmaculataFides]

The first time it was excommunication of four bishops and suspension of all priests. The next step is either an interdict or a decree of schism. If the Holy See decrees a schism, there will be no place to turn, except to form their own Church. People better stop finding more ghosts and more conspiracies and start thinking how to make peace with the pope.

Well, here is where it gets confusing. People don’t realize it, but the SSPX had been trying to contact Pope Blessed John Paul II to discuss a preamble for decades, the Pope ignored them. It’s not like the SSPX is deliberately trying to ignore Rome. I can see many people here that paint a certain point of view. This point of view is that the SSPX is the annoying kid, standing in the corner, arms folded, face frowning, tongue sticking out, saying “appease us or we’re not coming”, and constantly trying to gain more out of a rip-off bargain. The SSPX and their faithful of course would not look at the situation like that. They would look at it as the SSPX, who adheres to the traditional teachings, telling the Vatican “we will accept being regularized as long as we don’t have to accept all the dangerous, ambiguous novel teachings after the Second Vatican Council”. If Rome says no, then in their view they will just wait until next generation.

They wanted a pope who was not afraid to use his power. They have one and now they don’t like it. They now have a pope who has put his foot down and said, “Enough. This has to be finished now.” Suddenly they don’t like this. Why? Because they didn’t really want a “traditional pope”. They wanted a pope who would slam dunk those whom they single out. And it’s turning out that many people are being slammed and dunked, including the SSPX, the LCWR, the bishops in Austria and Germany and the Catholics in the USA.

That’s a bit of a mis-representation. They wanted a Pope that would use his power to silence the huge amounts of heretics and modernists in the Church. There were many heretics and modernists in the Church for decades, and the heirachy did nothing about it, besides a small censure here and there. But, when the traditionalists try to hang on to the traditional faith, Rome comes down hard. Even heretics such as Hans Kung are still not excommunicated. He never was excommunicated. Why was he not excommunicated for preaching utter heresy for decades, leading millions of souls to possible perdition, yet the traditionalist Bishops were? That is one among countless examples. It’s the fact that now they have a Pope that will exercise that power, the only ones he seems to be fully aiming that power at is the traditionalists.

God Bless you good Br.

 

[curlycool89]

Maybe it’s just me, but they sound like what anyone would caution when discussing an ongoing case, be it in arbitration or in the courts. As a general principle, it is a good idea to avoid excessive speculation, lest we turn it into unfounded scandal.

I agree.

It’s actually a pretty standard response to say “we don’t know when it will end” when you don’t have a firm set date. All the response really tells us is that there’s no set date yet. We like to look into that and say “it’s not going to end for a long time”, but that’s not what the sentence is actually saying; it’s just saying that we don’t have an exact date yet.

And if you want to put an insight in there, what it really means is that the Pope hasn’t examined it yet at all or enough to make a decision. Nobody wants to bind the Pope to a pre-set timeline for getting things done.

 

[jwinch2]

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/15164/

Another article on the subject.

I am not sure why anyone is acting surprised that elements within SSPX are resisting the process of reunion with Rome. There has been wide acknowledgement here and elsewhere, that there would be factions within SSPX (clergy, religious, and laity alike) who would oppose such action and that there would likely be a split within the fraternity as a result. You are talking about people who, for decades, have defined their existence in a certain way, namely that they are the real Catholics and that Rome has lost her way, and now that is potentially being taken away from them. The coming months will be telling as to the stance taken by some of these detractors on both sides. Are they willing to swallow their pride and follow the lead of their superior and of Rome or, do they continue to think that they know better than everyone else? Time will tell.

I am also not sure why people are surprised that Bp. Fellay is speaking very carefully right now. D-Day has arrived in this process and he is not likely to say anything too direct at this point which could come back to bite him from either the dissidents within SSPX or those within the Vatican who might not be too keen on this process moving forward. He has to walk a tightrope, and even if things are successful, he will continue to have to do so for some time. This is not going to be an instantaneous process. Rather, it will be long and protracted with many details to be hashed out in the coming years. During that time, Fellay will likely be the master of speaking without really saying anything. There is too much at stake for him to do otherwise.

 

[TrueLight]

During that time, Fellay will likely be the master of speaking without really saying anything. There is too much at stake for him to do otherwise.

Totally agree. I already see this in the video that was posted.

 

[Brooklyn]

That train of thought is quite confusing to me. Assent is not mere obedience. As the CCC notes, “By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.”

My example of Humanae Vitae didn’t help clarify it to you? The quote you provided partly explans what I was trying to say. I actually don’t understand what the rest is trying to say;

People have a responsibility to seek faith, accept it as God makes it available, and guard it once they have it. But Christian faith is not individualistic. One only has faith by sharing in the Church’s faith. Thus, fulfillment of the responsibility of faith requires giving the Church’s teaching the assent it deserves.

One should give** religious assent **to certain teachings of popes and bishops which are not infallibly proposed. The submission of religious assent is not obedience ****, and it is reasonable. Not all papal and episcopal statements call for religious assent, but the limits on the responsibility to give religious assent are themselves limited in several ways. Deliberate refusal to give the assent **due is a grave matter, and sinful dissent–encouraging others to share in wrongful nonassent–is even more grave.

(Living the Christian Life, Germain Grisez, Prof. of Moral Theology)

The term “religious assent” was what I was trying to say. The person I was talking to yesterday gave the example of capital punishment. He said that if the pope came out with a statement that capital punishment is inherently evil, he (the person I was talking to) would disagree with it. BUT he would completely accept it because it would be the teaching of the Church. That is what I am talking about in regard to obedience. On a personal level, I can say that I personally disagree with communion in the hand (this is NOT a call to discuss this subject in this thread). But the Church has given her approval to it, so I accept, I am giving my assent to it. I would be lying if I said I personally liked it. But I am putting my own feelings aside and giving assent to the teaching. I will defend the right of anyone to receive communion in the hand despite my own personal feelings about it.

In this video, Bishop Fellay said “the Pope is genuine.” I was very moved by that, because it tells me that the earnestness and sincerity of the Pope reaching out to the SSPX has led them to, in turn, reach out to the church and make the necessary compromises to reach reconciliation. Bishop Fellay gives full credit for the entire process to the Holy Father. That, I think, is a living definition of “assent.”

Being a Christian, and most specifically being a Catholic, is all about self denial. Faith is all about believing in something bigger than yourself, and I believe in the Catholic Church and will always put the Church and her teachings above my own feelings and beliefs.

Maybe you can explain to me what assent without obedience means. **

 

[jwinch2]

Totally agree. I already see this in the video that was posted.

I’m not sure you can read too much into that video. It seemed to me that the video was from a longer interview which was then edited down into short segments. I’m not sure that he would have been the one making the editing decisions since it was from a Vatican source.

We also don’t know what discussions are taking place internally and off the record. However, since he does not seem to be able to trust persons within SSPX to keep their mouths shut, it is likely to me that he is very guarded in his internal speech at the moment as well. The same thing likely goes for his internal discussions with Rome. Pope Benedict may be the only person he can afford to be candid with on the entire topic at this stage of the game.

 

[Brooklyn]

Nothing the Pope didn’t know going all the way back to the lifting of the excommunications.

You are right in your first sentence. There is nothing we didn’t already know. In fact, trying to get any four people in the world on the same page on anything is difficult so at least we know the four bishops are human.

Exactly! I’m sure the Pope knows all of these 4 bishops personally and knows exactly what he is dealing with. There are no surprises here. I am sure that whatever decision is being made, the Holy Father is dealing with it in deep prayer, looking to our Lord for guidance to make the decision that will do the most good and least harm.

 

[Brooklyn]

I’m not sure you can read too much into that video. It seemed to me that the video was from a longer interview which was then edited down into short segments. I’m not sure that he would have been the one making the editing decisions since it was from a Vatican source.

We also don’t know what discussions are taking place internally and off the record. However, since he does not seem to be able to trust persons within SSPX to keep their mouths shut, it is likely to me that he is very guarded in his internal speech at the moment as well. The same thing likely goes for his internal discussions with Rome. Pope Benedict may be the only person he can afford to be candid with on the entire topic at this stage of the game.

Absolutely. In the video mentioned, Bishop Fellay says the Pope is “genuine” and gives all credit for this reconciliation process to him. Bishop Fellay, I believe, has complete and total trust in the Holy Father. Pope Benedict XVI has worked very diligently for a long period of time to make this happen. He has never once backed off despite the setbacks over the years. There is no doubt in my mind that he wants this to happen and is doing everything possible to make it happen.