W
wasserfall
Guest
I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted here yet:
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0515-mjm-rostand-interview.htm
remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-0515-mjm-rostand-interview.htm
- Status
M
Moore11
Guest
Wow, that was probably the worst interview I have ever read. Kudos to the Father for not biting on all the rhetorical bait in the questions.
Amazing restraint.
Perhaps a new quality of the SSPX? Restraint?
Amazing restraint.
Perhaps a new quality of the SSPX? Restraint?
J
JReducation
Guest
In Light of the World, Pope Benedict spoke about this. The acceptance that he’s looking for has two components. One is that the individuals back down from badmouthing the Council. He accepts that there are questions and that there are areas that need to be clarified for better understanding. He does not tolerate expressions such as “the Council was useless” or “the Council taught heresy” or “the council broke with tradition.” That kind of rhetoric has to stop. This does not mean that the questions have to stop
The other part of this was that one has to accept the authority of the Council. In other words, Catholics cannot choose to ignore the Council, because it did not declare dogma, but just repeated dogmas and propose some pastoral actions based on them. To him this is very important, because we’ve gone to the point where we don’t accept as authoritative anything that is not infallible. As he says, the Church’s authority goes beyond that which is infallible. He goes back to that point of, if the Church does not ask you to break the Commandments, then you accept what the Church asks you to do. If you have a choice to do it or not do it, then choose, but not criticized those who take the other choice.
I think this is the problem with the letter from the bishops to Bishop Fellay when they say that Pope Benedict is a “subjectivist”. Their position is that if they are right, then the Church has to change A, B, or C. The Holy Father’s position is that they can be right, but it does not mean that A, B, or C are wrong. They’re simply different. That’s what they’re talking about when they say accept the Council. This has already been laid out for every religious, priest and bishop around the world in a number of documents addressed to this group. Recently it was laid out for Catholic colleges and universities to help them navigate through Catholic teachings, with some flexibility, but without derailing into total error or chaos.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
ProVobis
Guest
“We cannot be Catholic and not accept the Vatican Council and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, after the Second Vatican Council.”
It’s not so much what he said but how he said it. If his reaction was to what Bishop Fellay had signed and attached, then things aren’t good IMO. Looks like a long wait.
J
JReducation
Guest
We just have to practice the virtue of patience and pray.
Another thought came to my mind. He may not have been reacting to Bishop Fellay’s reply to the Preamble, but to the other three bishops. That seems to be the glitch right now. They did not say that their comments on the preamble were negative or positive. They simply said that they had comments and that the Holy Father would have to decide what to do next.
Maybe his attitude had nothing to do with the Preamble.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
It started OK, but it went off. I think it may have gone off, because the person doing the interview inserted too much of his personal preference in the matter. He gave himself away in the wording of his questions.
I thought that it was rather interesting the the interviewer sounded more hardline than the priest. The rule of thumb when you interview, whether for a paper or a potential employee is not to give away your hand. Say enough to get the other person to talk, but not too much.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I thought that it was rather interesting the the interviewer sounded more hardline than the priest. The rule of thumb when you interview, whether for a paper or a potential employee is not to give away your hand. Say enough to get the other person to talk, but not too much.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
Cider
Guest
great interview!
J
JReducation
Guest
Did you really like it? I thought that the interviewer said too much. Some things that the interviewer was saying, even the superior did not go along with. I felt that the reporter was leading the priest.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
A lot of times people compare the SSPX to protestants. I don’t think they are like protestants at all but like the eastern orthodox. In both cases they claim to be true to tradition but at odds with the pope or that they hold tradition or their version of it above the authority of the Holy Father. I have a friend who was involved with the SSPX, ended up joining an orthdox church. I doubt SSPX people leave the church to become protestant.
J
JReducation
Guest
I think people in the West make that comparison because Roman Catholics know very little about the Eastern Church, Catholic or Orthodox; but most Roman Catholics have grown up around Protestants, especially American Roman Catholics.
Fraternally,
Br JR, FFV
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
With the first twenty Councils, to accept them one has to actively agree with the teachings–the doctrinal canons–of them.In Light of the World, Pope Benedict spoke about this. The acceptance that he’s looking for has two components. One is that the individuals back down from badmouthing the Council. He accepts that there are questions and that there are areas that need to be clarified for better understanding. He does not tolerate expressions such as “the Council was useless” or “the Council taught heresy” or “the council broke with tradition.” That kind of rhetoric has to stop. This does not mean that the questions have to stop
The other part of this was that one has to accept the authority of the Council. In other words, Catholics cannot choose to ignore the Council, because it did not declare dogma, but just repeated dogmas and propose some pastoral actions based on them. To him this is very important, because we’ve gone to the point where we don’t accept as authoritative anything that is not infallible. As he says, the Church’s authority goes beyond that which is infallible. He goes back to that point of, if the Church does not ask you to break the Commandments, then you accept what the Church asks you to do. If you have a choice to do it or not do it, then choose, but not criticized those who take the other choice.
I think this is the problem with the letter from the bishops to Bishop Fellay when they say that Pope Benedict is a “subjectivist”. Their position is that if they are right, then the Church has to change A, B, or C. The Holy Father’s position is that they can be right, but it does not mean that A, B, or C are wrong. They’re simply different. That’s what they’re talking about when they say accept the Council. This has already been laid out for every religious, priest and bishop around the world in a number of documents addressed to this group. Recently it was laid out for Catholic colleges and universities to help them navigate through Catholic teachings, with some flexibility, but without derailing into total error or chaos.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
With Vatican II, to accept it is essentially not to positively do something, but to not do something against it. This is because it was a pastoral council and there were no active commands toward the [lay] faithful to believe or do something.
With 1-20, to accept them one must (if one knows of their doctrinal teachings obviously) perform a positive action; a positive decision must be made. With 21, to accept it, one just must not be opposed to its pastoral directions.
Is this right?
I can’t wrap my head around this. This is the traditionalist’s trouble. I need plain and simple “show me how exactly.” What one must do to accept Vatican II is quite different than what one must do to accept the other Councils. This is because, as I see it and from what I read in your post, one must positively do something or make a positive decision to accept Councils 1-20, but to accept Vatican II one just mustn’t do anything against it.
1-20 Positive action or thought
vs.
21 passive not doing something against
J
JReducation
Guest
I’ll tell you what I say to my brothers, this my help. Whether it’s Vatican II, the general chapter or the constitutions, the rule is the same.With the first twenty Councils, to accept them one has to actively agree with the teachings–the doctrinal canons–of them.
With Vatican II, to accept it is essentially not to positively do something, but to not do something against it. This is because it was a pastoral council and there were no active commands toward the [lay] faithful to believe or do something.
With 1-20, to accept them one must (if one knows of their doctrinal teachings obviously) perform a positive action; a positive decision must be made. With 21, to accept it, one just must not be opposed to its pastoral directions.
Is this right?
I can’t wrap my head around this. This is the traditionalist’s trouble. I need plain and simple “show me how exactly.” Not because I’m a dummy
Rule # 1
“If you do not understand, ask; but don’t dismiss the entire thing as being hogwash, because you don’t understand part or any of it.”
Rule # 2
“If it says this is allowed, it means that it’s allowed. It does not mean that you must do it. It means that you may not pour poison into the water. It is not your job to tell the Church what can and cannot be allowed… If you have questions about why it’s allowed, go back to Rule # 1”
Rule # 3
“If it says that you must do this instead of that, unless it asks you to violate the Commandments, you must do it. You don’t have to like it and you don’t have to fully understand it. Sometimes, the understanding comes with the doing.”
Rule # 4
“If it says do this, don’t do that or you may do this, it’s not promising your money back, if it does not work. If it does not work, then say so and explain why. Don’t get angry and demand a refund. There are many things in life that are proposed in good faith and don’t work.”
Rule # 5
“Never try to be smarter than someone whom you know is much smarter than you. Let me know when you have as much insight into theology, ecclesiology and Church law as the pope and the curia. Otherwise, be humble enough to admit that you don’t know as much as you think. Just because you can read does not mean that you know everything there is to know about what you read. Ecclesiology and Church law are the two most complicated disciplines in sacred studies. They both allow many shades of grey and there is no comprehensive book that spells out all the shades of grey. You deal with them as they arise. Just accept that’s going to be the case. No one is going to have concrete answers all the time. Vatican II is very heavy on ecclesiology.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
P
ProVobis
Guest
I was thinking of the same thing. However, if the whole thing will be decided based on the weakest link, be it what Bishop W has said or what the website states, then the virtue of patience will indeed need to be tested. No one can deny that if the Vatican had wanted to put a stop to this whole reconciliation process, they certainly had and have enough reason to do it. The bishop’s comment may indicate that there is already one vote against reconciliation at this time.
J
JReducation
Guest
My take from what Fr. Lombardi said is this.
They were going to try to bring them in as a unit. The letters were leaked, which was good for the Vatican to know how the other bishops felt. Then there has been the issue with Bishop Williamson.
My guess is that the Sacred Congregation figured that the best way to do this is to separate the bishops from the bigger body. This way, Bishop Fellay can come in with the bigger body and the other bishops must negotiate their regularization as individuals. That gives the Holy See a chance to hear them out one at a time and to engage in dialogue with each one, without making everyone else wait.
I’m only guess, but it makes sense to me.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
clem456
Guest
A good read:
Sources of Renewal: The Implementaion of the Second Vatican Council by Karol Wojtyla.
A very good exposition of the letter and spirit of Vatican 2.
Sources of Renewal: The Implementaion of the Second Vatican Council by Karol Wojtyla.
A very good exposition of the letter and spirit of Vatican 2.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sounds like a positive outlook and senerio. 
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Very good advice that could be applied to just about any situation!
Thanks Brother Jay!
Thanks Brother Jay!
I’ll tell you what I say to my brothers, this my help. Whether it’s Vatican II, the general chapter or the constitutions, the rule is the same.
Rule # 1
“If you do not understand, ask; but don’t dismiss the entire thing as being hogwash, because you don’t understand part or any of it.”
Rule # 2
“If it says this is allowed, it means that it’s allowed. It does not mean that you must do it. It means that you may not pour poison into the water. It is not your job to tell the Church what can and cannot be allowed… If you have questions about why it’s allowed, go back to Rule # 1”
Rule # 3
“If it says that you must do this instead of that, unless it asks you to violate the Commandments, you must do it. You don’t have to like it and you don’t have to fully understand it. Sometimes, the understanding comes with the doing.”
Rule # 4
“If it says do this, don’t do that or you may do this, it’s not promising your money back, if it does not work. If it does not work, then say so and explain why. Don’t get angry and demand a refund. There are many things in life that are proposed in good faith and don’t work.”
Rule # 5
“Never try to be smarter than someone whom you know is much smarter than you. Let me know when you have as much insight into theology, ecclesiology and Church law as the pope and the curia. Otherwise, be humble enough to admit that you don’t know as much as you think. Just because you can read does not mean that you know everything there is to know about what you read. Ecclesiology and Church law are the two most complicated disciplines in sacred studies. They both allow many shades of grey and there is no comprehensive book that spells out all the shades of grey. You deal with them as they arise. Just accept that’s going to be the case. No one is going to have concrete answers all the time. Vatican II is very heavy on ecclesiology.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
sw85
Guest
There’s something I’m not fully understanding about the disputes between the SSPX and Rome.
It seems that the major roadblock to reconciliation recently has been doctrinal. The SSPX has in the past accused Rome of abandoning traditional teachings (many modernists have said as much, as well, though they of course are delighted by it). If, as Pope Benedict says, there is indeed a hermeneutic of continuity between the Church’s teachings pre-Vatican II and presently, why doesn’t the Pope simply forcefully clarify this – not merely say that such a hermeneutic exists but articulate it openly? Why all the agonizing in secret over whether Dignitatis Humanae, for instance, represents a substantial departure from earlier teachings – why not a forceful statement that it doesn’t, and anyone who says as much is misrepresenting it?
All this silly bother could’ve been avoided if Rome had simply said as much decades ago.
I suspected for a long time there was just a staggering misapprehension on Rome’s part about the fact that it does outwardly seem to be saying some different things than what the Rome of a hundred years ago was saying, and that most people don’t, in fact, have minds subtle and sophisticated enough to tease out the continuity. But I am increasingly suspecting it won’t because it knows doing so will provoke the Church’s sizable modernist contingent to schism, and it’s trying to wait them out. But then why not let the SSPX stew on the margins for a few more decades and reconcile them to Rome later, when the Call to Disobedience types are all dead or Protestant?
It seems that the major roadblock to reconciliation recently has been doctrinal. The SSPX has in the past accused Rome of abandoning traditional teachings (many modernists have said as much, as well, though they of course are delighted by it). If, as Pope Benedict says, there is indeed a hermeneutic of continuity between the Church’s teachings pre-Vatican II and presently, why doesn’t the Pope simply forcefully clarify this – not merely say that such a hermeneutic exists but articulate it openly? Why all the agonizing in secret over whether Dignitatis Humanae, for instance, represents a substantial departure from earlier teachings – why not a forceful statement that it doesn’t, and anyone who says as much is misrepresenting it?
All this silly bother could’ve been avoided if Rome had simply said as much decades ago.
I suspected for a long time there was just a staggering misapprehension on Rome’s part about the fact that it does outwardly seem to be saying some different things than what the Rome of a hundred years ago was saying, and that most people don’t, in fact, have minds subtle and sophisticated enough to tease out the continuity. But I am increasingly suspecting it won’t because it knows doing so will provoke the Church’s sizable modernist contingent to schism, and it’s trying to wait them out. But then why not let the SSPX stew on the margins for a few more decades and reconcile them to Rome later, when the Call to Disobedience types are all dead or Protestant?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I’m not sure I have an answer for you, but thank for a very articulate thread, one that goes much deeper than simply the SSPX and Rome. I’ve been wondering many of the same things for a while now. It seems Rome doesn’t like to lay it out sweet and simple anymore.
I’ve often wondered whether or not Rome actually cares about Catholics who steadfastly hold to tradition and Catholic doctrine anymore. It seems they think these Catholics will just hold on a bit longer. “Wait a bit longer,” it seems to be implied, “a surge of Vatican gallantry will come.”
When?
I’ve often wondered whether or not Rome actually cares about Catholics who steadfastly hold to tradition and Catholic doctrine anymore. It seems they think these Catholics will just hold on a bit longer. “Wait a bit longer,” it seems to be implied, “a surge of Vatican gallantry will come.”
When?
H
Hokomai
Guest
There is a serious problem with Vaticanese, and the preference of those who write in it for obfuscation, euphemism and circumlocution. In my disinterested reading, I think one of the problems here is that it is one thing in which the SSPX is entirely in communion with Rome, as they seem to be able to obfuscate, euphemise (new word!
) and circumlocute with the best that Rome can offer. An exception is Bp Williamson, and he possibly explains why this approach is considered wise.- Status