C
curlycool89
Guest
Presumably, if they were good Catholics then they would put obedience before their own opinions on such matters.
SSPX: Traditionalist head says Vatican doctrinal statement needs changes
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
I don’t think so. So breaks have been doctrinal. Others have been over personality or power. Probably most have had a measure of multiple reasons for breaking fellowship. In the case of the SSPX, I am uncertain of the reasons, but I believe firmly no reason suffices.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
A thread like that would lead to bans and infractions, I can tell you now.
W
Warrenton
Guest
No. Neither Martin Luther or Calvin asked for a restoration of the mass as it was in 1480.
W
Warrenton
Guest
The distinction is that they are asserting documents of the Roman Church in their own defense.
To say the least, its novel. No other group makes the same appeal that the SSPX does. This does not mean they are correct, just that they are different.
Whenever an authority commands something be believed, and then commands that something different be believed, this creates unique problems. The obligations that are owed a person following old orders are different from the obligations owed a person who is not following any orders.
Fortunately for the Church, it does not change beliefs very frequently. Certainly, it changes them much less frequently than most of human society. The SSPX holds beliefs that all “good Catholics” (as you put it) held in 1960.
That is why Rome has placed the SSPX in a category that it alone occupies.
J
jwinch2
Guest
vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/blog-san-pietro-e-dintorni-en/detail/articolo/congregation-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-mueller-13053/
Isn’t Cardinal Levada the person handling the discussions on the side of the Vatican? I wonder how his being replaced by someone taking over in that position.
Isn’t Cardinal Levada the person handling the discussions on the side of the Vatican? I wonder how his being replaced by someone taking over in that position.
L
LilHomemaker
Guest
:yup: Exactly.
J
JReducation
Guest
Cardinal Levada turned 75 last June. That makes him eligible for retirement. The dialogue with the SSPX will be picked up by the new Prefect. The team is not being replaced. The team is still made up of a Dominican, Jesuit and Opus Dei (Holy Cross) theologian. There will be continuity.
What will be interesting to see, if Cardinal Levada’s resignation is accepted, will be whether the new Prefect is as patient as Cardinal Levada or will he push the SSPX to make a final decision by a certain date. If he does that, the SSPX will probably decide to remain in their current state. Then it’s up to the Prefect to recommend what should be done next. The Holy Father will sign off on the concluding document. No one can do that for him. Will he go with the conclusions of the Prefect or not is another question. Generally, popes do not like to overrule the prefects, if it can be avoided. That last time that a prefect was overruled was by Pope Paul VI when he issued Humanae Vitae. His Prefect for CDF recommended against it.
We will just have to wait until after Easter.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
jwinch2
Guest
Interesting info. Thanks!Cardinal Levada turned 75 last June. That makes him eligible for retirement. The dialogue with the SSPX will be picked up by the new Prefect. The team is not being replaced. The team is still made up of a Dominican, Jesuit and Opus Dei (Holy Cross) theologian. There will be continuity.
What will be interesting to see, if Cardinal Levada’s resignation is accepted, will be whether the new Prefect is as patient as Cardinal Levada or will he push the SSPX to make a final decision by a certain date. If he does that, the SSPX will probably decide to remain in their current state. Then it’s up to the Prefect to recommend what should be done next. The Holy Father will sign off on the concluding document. No one can do that for him. Will he go with the conclusions of the Prefect or not is another question. Generally, popes do not like to overrule the prefects, if it can be avoided. That last time that a prefect was overruled was by Pope Paul VI when he issued Humanae Vitae. His Prefect for CDF recommended against it.
We will just have to wait until after Easter.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
James924
Guest
I’m sorry, but the SSPX has not denied any dogmas of the catholic faith. Your comparison is absolutely baseless.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think it may prove to be apt. The Old Catholics did not deny anything prior to Vatican I either. I will have to disagree that the comparison “absolutely baseless.” The similarities that exist provide at minimum a base for comparison. If the similarities bother the SSPX, then they need to cut to the chase and comply with Vatican requests in regard to Vatican II.
J
James924
Guest
What’s your point referencing Old Catholics prior to Vatican I? I don’t get it (please don’t answer, its a rhetorical question).
AFTER the council they (Old Catholics) DID deny dogma. Right now we are POST-Vatican II, and the SSPX has not and is not denying any dogma. What’s not being understood here? Old Catholics - Denying Dogma. SSPX - Not Denying Dogma. Old Catholics - Schismatic, Heretics, no longer Catholic. SSPX - not Schismatic, not heretics, still Catholic. Again, what’s not being understood here? You might not understand what the big deal is, but irresponsible parallels for rhetorical effect such as these are, in my opinion, borderline calumny and do not help the situation or the Holy Father’s efforts at all.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know why but I find the last part of this article a little troubling. (And it has nothing to do with SSPX other than it seems to have a much higher priority.)
J
jwinch2
Guest
I agree. I have made the point on other threads that we are in a crisis point in the Western world in terms of our faith and that I hoped that the Holy Father would get involved more directly in terms of dealing with things like priests, bishops, deacons, religious who were leading the faithful into scandal, etc.
I will link the thread here so as not to derail the conversation: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=645787
One of the responses I got when making my claims was that the Holy Father had bigger fish to fry around the world.
If you feel like chiming in, please take a look. In fact, posting that article with your highlights might spark some interesting discussion.
Peace of Christ,
P
pnewton
Guest
If you think my post reached the level calmuny, then it should be reported, as that is not allowed here. I understand well. I just do not agree with you. I believe there is at least enough of a parallel for the poster that brought it up to have done so. In my opinion, again, it is different than yours, it is you that are engaging in rhetoric by the accusation of calmuny because of an analogy that you claim is “absolutely baseless.” The word “absolute” would imply there is no parallel, when both groups did in fact form as a reaction to an ecumenical counsel. Both did follow in some form of separation from the Holy Father. In the case of the Old Catholics it was formal schism. In the case of the SSPX it was schismatic acts, excommunications and no canonical function for their priests.
As to the issue of denying dogma, yes the Old Catholics denied the dogma of Infallibility of the Pope, as defined at Vatican I. As of yet, I do not think the SSPX is willing to accept the Dogmatic Constitutions of Vatican II.
You are right to point out that there are also significant differences, as there are in all analogy and each situation needs to be resolved on its own terms. Had you not came out and so absolutely denied any similarity I would not have pointed out that the facts do bear out some commonality. I do not think arguing the facts and their impact is rhetoric. I do believe speaking in absolutes frequently is.
P
pnewton
Guest
I was reading elsewhere that there will be a change after Easter in the Congregation for the Propigation of the Faith. If so, that will directly affect this situation. I also noted that the Holy Father was looking for someone who spoke English specifically because of the need you described. I guess we will have to wait a few months and see what happens.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Among other languages, I would think. The Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith involves all Catholics, not only the FSSPX or Americans.
T
Tridentinum
Guest
Vatican II did not define any dogma, or proclaim any doctrine. It was a pastoral council. The Old Catholics denied dogmas defined by the First Vatican Council, therefore became heretics.
T
TMC
Guest
Although the disagreements are over different issues, the SSPX today is in precisely the situation that the Old Catholics were in the years after Vatican I. The situations are so similar that I am surprised that anyone would say they are not. The main difference is that the Pope and the Church are working very hard to bring the SSPX back, and I’m not sure that happened with the Old Catholics. The Old Catholics today are not in the same situation as the SSPX today because the Old Catholics have continued to drift away for the last 140 years. The SSPX is certainly in danger of experiencing a similar draft (albeit likely in different ways and directions) if they do not agree to be reconciled and come back into full communion. There is still hope that will happen, but the SSPX needs to agree to move toward the Church because, as important as bringing them back is, the Church is certainly not going to compromise Church teaching to do so.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have heard this, that the two dogmatic constitutions (the Church’s name, not mine) only reiterated and reformulated previous dogma and defined nothing new. If this is the case, and I believe it is, then does the SSPX not reject the reformulation, even though it is still dogmatic? At the end of the day, you still have the Catholic Church, meeting in universal council, issuing two dogmatic constitutions. How does a Catholic not accept it? I do not get the SSPX and never will. Likewise, I do not see a big distinction between denying a dogmatic constitution and denying dogma, unless one discount councilliar infallibility. The Old Catholics did that at Vatican I.
- Status