SSPX / RCC talks

[SouthpawLink]

No one among the SSPX has the charism for keeping the deposit of the faith. That is only bestowed upon the successors of St. Peter. Insinuating that the Holy Catholic Church has lost the Faith with the quote above is uncharitable slander and anticatholic rhetoric. It is pitiable to try to promote one’s cause by tearing others down, especially when it is the Holy Catholic Church that is attacked.

So when Vatican documents1 explicitly say the Eastern Orthodox no longer need to convert in order to be saved, I’m supposed to believe that EENS hasn’t been contradicted? Or when the 1983 Code allows heretics and schismatics to receive the Holy Eucharist without having first abjured their errors, contrary to both the 1917 Code and the Holy Office (Denz. 2181a), I’m supposed to believe that’s a good law? A few years ago, His Holiness spoke of a "healthy laicism;"2 does this not contradict the Church’s teaching on the relations between Church and State3? Or when certain prelates ask St. John the Baptist to protect Islam4… what conclusion should I be drawing?

1. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html (n. 15)
2. personal.psu.edu/glm7/m240.htm
3. vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19221223_ubi-arcano-dei-consilio_en.html (see nn. 60-61)
4. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000321_wadi-al-kharrar_en.html

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I’ve deleted 30 uncharitable posts on both sides of this discussion and issued five suspensions.

It’s Holy Week folks. Can we be charitable and respectful to each other, if not for our own spiritual benefit, out of respect for the sacred season?

 

[pnewton]

So when Vatican documents1 explicitly say the Eastern Orthodox no longer need to convert in order to be saved, I’m supposed to believe that EENS hasn’t been contradicted?

No. It hasn’t.

Or when the 1983 Code allows heretics and schismatics to receive the Holy Eucharist without having first abjured their errors, contrary to both the 1917 Code and the Holy Office (Denz. 2181a), I’m supposed to believe that’s a good law?

Whether is is “good” or not is not a matter of the Faith, but dicscipline.

A few years ago, His Holiness spoke of a "healthy laicism;"2 does this not contradict the Church’s teaching on the relations between Church and State3?

No, it does not.

Most of your questions are answered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think the deeper question is whether we are trusting the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, or do we think we know better what is the best path for the Church and what Tradition really is. If the SSPX is not willing to accept the authority and act in obedience to the Holy See, they will not be reconciled. However, there is still hope that they can accept that they need not agree with the Holy See on everything, nor insist on usurping the the authority of the Keys. In such a case, we should learn to live with some disageement. I know one thing, insults and posturing will accomplish nothing.

 

[SouthpawLink]

pnewton,
I still disagree, but I’ll leave it at that. It might be better if I don’t air out my disagreements on the forum. I will say, though, that the “novel points of doctrine” (Pope John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, 5b) aren’t infallible, so all is not lost.

I apologize for my attitude, and I certainly didn’t mean to take it out on you. I’m frustrated by a lot of what I see, and things appear to be getting only worse.

I pray that God will soon restore His Holy Church.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I think it’s rather unfair to lump all SSPX members with a particular SSPX bishop, who BTW happens to be a former Anglican, not even a cradle Catholic. He certainly does not express the thoughts of the other SSPX bishops and in fact has been publically disowned by them.

If that is the case, then the other SSPX Bishops should publicly state that Williamson does not speak for the society. Bishop Williamson is a public relations disaster. His outlandish statements seriously discredit the Society.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The position of the SSPX no longer holds water. Benedict XVI very generously removed the excommunications, and granted unrestricted use of the EF Mass for the entire Church. The Holy Father has held out numerous olive branches to the SSPX and they have been rejected.

The Holy Father has done much to help bring the SSPX into regular communion, but the SSPX keep placing demands on the Holy See. Does anyone remember the Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia? More importantly, the SSPX wants the Holy See to renounce a valid, ecumenical Council of the Church.

The SSPX think they are more Catholic than the Pope. They see themselves as the last remnant who have kept the true faith while Rome has fallen into heresy. They mustn’t believe in Papal Infallibility. They are Catholic traditionalists who have forgotten the most traditional of Catholic virtues: obedience.

 

[pnewton]

If that is the case, then the other SSPX Bishops should publicly state that Williamson does not speak for the society. Bishop Williamson is a public relations disaster. His outlandish statements seriously discredit the Society.

They have on occasion. From Bishop Fellay:

Bishop Williamson’s statements do not in any way reflect the position of our Society. This is why I have forbidden him, until further notice, to make any public statements on political or historical issues. We ask forgiveness of the Sovereign Pontiff and of all people of good will for the dramatic consequences of such an act.

sspx.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:bishop-fellays-statement-on-bishop-williamson&catid=121:superior-generals-letter&Itemid=87

 

[Beloved2010]

I do know that SSPX has a genuine concern that the Catholic Church has fallen into heresy. They claim that Vatican II teachings contradicts Catholic teachings. As understood by Rome, the council did not contradict any former docrine or dogma, but SSPX seem to have a different opinion on this. Here is a link on their position on VII:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vaticanII.htm

They have valid concerns, much of which come from the fact that Vatican II was not an infallible council. At the beginning it was declared a pastoral council. Pope Paul VI said that it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility”. With that said, there is the possibility for error. Of course that does not mean that we should throw out Vatican II, but it means that there should be a great concern for Catholics that the Bishops could have erred on certain things in it.

Many of the problems in the Church today stem from the abuses and misinterpretations of the council. For example, it said to keep Gregorian Chant and Latin, both which have fallen out of practice.

God be with you.

 

[laszlo]

They have valid concerns, much of which come from the fact that Vatican II was not an infallible council.

No council is infallible in its entirety. Only decrees about eternal unchangeable things can be infallible, changeable things (like e.g. the ecumenism) are changeable, and the related statements are infallible only if they represent eternal unchangeable principles. The behavior toward our Eastern, Protestants, Jewish, MUsolim, Hindi, Buddhist and even atheist brothers and sisters is not infallible.

However we are not judges of ourselves, and Christ stands with the decision of His Church, which means the pope and the bishops. No layman or member of the lower clergy, not even a bishop without office (like Archbishop LeFevbre was in the seventies) represents the Church. Anyone who deniess the primacy of the pope and the superiority of the local bishop in the decision, - put himself outside of the Church. The Gospel and the practice of the Church in the past is clear: God wants the full life, not our partial truth, good, values, whatever with confusion of other principles.

As many SSPX priests sincerely believe in their truth, so did many of the heretics too. Unlike the SSPX, who in our age freely can preach their opinion, some of them were really suffering and even burned. (the most obvious example is Savanarola) . Still their actions are not justified. They were working against the unity of the Church.

The most troubling thing against the traditionalist is their disunity among themselves. If you read the Gospel of John, for the leadership of the Church the unity is the most important

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No council is infallible in its entirety.

While parts of a council may not be infallible (I am not so sure about this though) all ecumenical councils are free from error and are binding upon the faithful.

 

[laszlo]

While parts of a council may not be infallible (I am not so sure about this though) all ecumenical councils are free from error and are binding upon the faithful.

The binding is true: Christ stands with His Church. The ‘free from error’ at least in the sense that one decision interpreted literally can be claimed against later decisions of the Church, especially by laymen or the lower clergy, is not true

The set of conciliar decisions are not clearer than the Bible itself. We had to work hard to interpret the meaning of all decisions to get the full understanding. This is the reason why we need the living Magisterium as the only authentic interpreter.

We must accept with humility that our understanding is limited, and every sentence is true only in the sense as the current (honest) audience understands it, and not as any audience can interpret it.

In this context the XXI Ecumenical Council is the latest a closest to our common sense interpretation, and thus binding unless some later official interpretation clarified it.

 

[Iotaunum]

The position of the SSPX no longer holds water. Benedict XVI very generously removed the excommunications, and granted unrestricted use of the EF Mass for the entire Church. The Holy Father has held out numerous olive branches to the SSPX and they have been rejected.

You paint the SSPX as rebels here, who constantly demand things from the Pope who does nothing but try and accommodate their needs. This is not the case at all. The SSPX position may not hold water according to your knowledge of it, but it most certainly does to many Catholics who could not in conscience follow the reforms of the second Vatican Council and the New Mass. Many people criticize the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre for not going along with the reforms and celebrating the New Mass - but it was only because of the SSPX and Catholics of the same mindset that there even was a Motu Proprio to begin with. The indult would not be there. The FSSP would not exist etc.

The Holy Father has done much to help bring the SSPX into regular communion, but the SSPX keep placing demands on the Holy See. Does anyone remember the Rosary Crusade for the Consecration of Russia? More importantly, the SSPX wants the Holy See to renounce a valid, ecumenical Council of the Church.

Well you may be horrified to know that the SSPX has started another Crusade of 15 million Rosaries for the consecration and conversion of Russia. A whole lot of Catholics out there do not accept the last attempts, which did not fulfil the requirements of Our Lady. She asked for the Pope in union with ALL the Bishops of the world to consecrate Russia specifically to her Immaculate Heart. If this was done, she promised that Russia would be converted. Russia has gotten far far worse than it has every been. There has been no conversion. Also, the SSPX does not “demand” things from the Pope. They have a right to say the Latin Mass as every Latin Rite priest has and will always have. Also, no one in the SSPX asked the Pope to renounce any valid ecumenical Council.

The SSPX think they are more Catholic than the Pope. They see themselves as the last remnant who have kept the true faith while Rome has fallen into heresy. They mustn’t believe in Papal Infallibility. They are Catholic traditionalists who have forgotten the most traditional of Catholic virtues: obedience.

I do not intend to single you out here, but I find that your answer is typical of the average person who attends the New Mass and thinks Vatican II was the greatest thing which ever happened to the Church. The SSPX do not say they are the last remnant - they only hold what has always been taught. They object when novel teachings contradict the past teachings of the Church, or lead to liberalism. Also, Papal infallibility is defended strongly by the SSPX, as are all dogmas of the faith. If they did not believe in Infallibility they would not be Catholic. Regarding obedience, I have said enough about it in another thread, I will only repeat that true obedience does not consist in following error.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I decided to let all the polemics and suspensions run their course before chiming in here. The first assistant to Bishop Fellay, Fr. Pflueger stopped by and stayed for a couple of days at our chapel after Winona minor ordinations last month and he gave a conference during which he touched on the talks. He seemed to imply that they would conclude in the near future. He was optimistic that there were definitely “fruits” from the discussions but he stopped short of suggesting that the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay would emerge from the talks giving a victory sign. I expect that it will take some time to build on whatever the outcome of the discussions were before we see an official regularization. Instead of an immediate papal announcement of an official regularization, I would expect to see more of a gradual thawing akin to what we have seen over the last couple of years with the SSPX permitted to offer Mass in various cathedrals in Rome and abroad. Perhaps we’ll see attempts at a tacit relationship between the Society and some Bishops, perhaps conservative US Bishops. Eventually, the Holy Father will officially make a pronouncement on the validity of the Society sacraments, IMHO.

What has really never been discussed much is the disposition of the documents and exchanges between the Society of St. Pius X and the Papal Delegates during these meetings. My understanding is that, so far, a sizable amount of documentation including audio and video has been produced. I expect that, once released, it will be of great interest to many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It will be interesting to see what weight they will be given and, where they may either reinforce or contradict trends in our faith since the Council, how they will be received and reacted to.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The binding is true: Christ stands with His Church. The ‘free from error’ at least in the sense that one decision interpreted literally can be claimed against later decisions of the Church, especially by laymen or the lower clergy, is not true

Free from error has nothing to do with the layman.

Free from error is that how it is interpreted by the Magisterium officially.

A layman can be in error when his interpretation varies from the interpretation of the Church.

 

[Dempsey1919]

I do not intend to single you out here, but I find that your answer is typical of the average person who attends the New Mass and thinks Vatican II was the greatest thing which ever happened to the Church.

Firstly, I have attended the EF Mass ever since I returned to the faith 4 years ago. In fact, the EF Mass was one of the reasons I returned to the Church. I support the EF Mass strongly because I believe it will help end the crisis in the Church.

Furthermore, I do not think Vatican II was the greatest thing to happen in the Church. Vatican II is one Ecumenical Council among many and must be interpreted in light of tradition. Vatican II is a conservative council that was misinterpreted for many years.

The SSPX do not say they are the last remnant - they only hold what has always been taught. They object when novel teachings contradict the past teachings of the Church, or lead to liberalism.

Yes, but apparently they are the only ones who “hold on to what has always been taught.” According to the SSPX, the vast majority of Catholics have succumbed to heresy. This cannot be true. I refuse to believe that the most learned theologians in the Church have fallen into heresy. If the most learned theologians of the Church see no problem with Vatican II, then neither do I.

Furthermore, I would like to remind everyone that Archbishop Lefebvre signed every document of Vatican II.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The SSPX situation can be summed up in one word: disobedience.

The SSPX should humbly submit to Rome. By doing so, their canonical status would be fixed, and they could begin restoring the Church from within. I see no reason why they choose to remain in imperfect communion. Why don’t they follow the lead of the FSSP and ICRSS? There is a place for the SSPX within the Church. Why don’t they submit to the legitimate authority of the Pope?

 

[laszlo]

Free from error has nothing to do with the layman.

Free from error is that how it is interpreted by the Magisterium officially.

A layman can be in error when his interpretation varies from the interpretation of the Church.

Have a happy Easter

 

[pnewton]

They have valid concerns, much of which come from the fact that Vatican II was not an infallible council.

That is the story that some Traditionalists spin, despite the fact two of the documents are labeled dogmatic. This shows the danger of listening to the SSPX instead of the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

There is a place for the SSPX within the Church.

There is but not under that name, IMO. It seems more likely there will be a split among the SSPX ranks.

 

[Dempsey1919]

There is but not under that name, IMO. It seems more likely there will be a split among the SSPX ranks.

Hardliners within the SSPX will never submit to Rome. If Bishop Fellay entered into perfect Communion with Rome, these individuals would most certainly leave the Society.

If the SSPX enters into full communion with Rome, it will definitely be a smaller Society. In fact, it is more likely that SSPX priests will leave the Society and join other traditionalist fraternities such as the FSSP.

In the end, the SSPX will be reduced to a small number of core hardliners who will never be reconciled fully with Rome.