F
Faithdancer
Guest
The SSPX press release on the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI can be found here: sspx.org/superior_generals_news/on_pope_benedict_xvi_resignation_2-11-2013.htm
- Status
M
Mike30
Guest
If the SSPX does not respond in a positive manner before the effective date of the Holy Fathers resignation, I would believe that their situation could be quite precarious indeed as a great many of those that might likely be considered as candidates are not, I would think of a mindset to want to regularize the SSPX to the degree that the Holy Father has been, and in fact might even be opposed to such a move. The SSPX is not held in high regard by many Bishops and Cardinals, especially Europeans…
B
Boulder257
Guest
I love (sarcasm) how the they first point out the fact that they had disagreements with the Pope…it’s as if they can’t help themselves…seriously, they act just like my 4 year old.
D
Dee_S
Guest
:thankyou:. .your words supply mine that fail me. .:bighanky:
D
Dee_S
Guest
There’s a lot of truth in what you say here. We can only pray that the Holy Father’s retirement restores his health and strength and that perhaps he will play a part in effecting a reconciliation during his lifetime.
D
Dee_S
Guest
Am I just being overly sensitive
in thinking this extract from the above news release, should read " may elect a pope who, …, will continue the work for the restoration of all things in Christ."?“It (the SSPX) reiterates its desire to make its contribution, according to its abilities, to resolving the grave crisis that is shaking the Church. It prays that, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the cardinals of the next conclave may elect the pope who, according to the will of God, will work for the restoration of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).”
To me it appears to be a critical ending to what started as a beautifully worded and noble recognition:sad_bye:
O
otjm
Guest
I have never really been able to ascertain whether of not the SSPX truly understands what will result if they remain intransigent and Rome runs out of patience. Given the statements which seem to emanate from them, they seem to see the Church, as represented by the pope, the bishops, and the various dicasteries in Rome as somewhere between seriously mistaken about some things to existing in outright heresy.
Were the next pope to be elected graced with as much patience and wisdom as B 16, I still do not see this matter continuing for very long before the line appears in the sand with a short “take the step or leave” response given.
And given what appears to be the depth of the intransigence at least among a goodly number of the SSPX priests (not all, it would appear) and the responses of the four bishops, all I can foresee is some breaking away from the SSPX either in a small group or individually, and the rest continuing on in their persistence that (apparently according to their view) the Holy Spirit was not guiding the popes (John 23 & Paul 6) and the bishops in their deliberations.
I am not at all convinced that Benedict 16 or those entrusted to the work towards reconciliation have ever thought the whole group would reconcile. And it appears that the SSPX expect that someone, some day, in Rome is going to say “yes, that document does not comport with our 2000 years of theological understanding, and must be redone”. I am most definitely not aware of the positions and attitudes of those bishops and cardinals who possibly could be elected, but I would think it a fairly safe bet there isn’t a one out there who would take such a position.
Just my thoughts.
Were the next pope to be elected graced with as much patience and wisdom as B 16, I still do not see this matter continuing for very long before the line appears in the sand with a short “take the step or leave” response given.
And given what appears to be the depth of the intransigence at least among a goodly number of the SSPX priests (not all, it would appear) and the responses of the four bishops, all I can foresee is some breaking away from the SSPX either in a small group or individually, and the rest continuing on in their persistence that (apparently according to their view) the Holy Spirit was not guiding the popes (John 23 & Paul 6) and the bishops in their deliberations.
I am not at all convinced that Benedict 16 or those entrusted to the work towards reconciliation have ever thought the whole group would reconcile. And it appears that the SSPX expect that someone, some day, in Rome is going to say “yes, that document does not comport with our 2000 years of theological understanding, and must be redone”. I am most definitely not aware of the positions and attitudes of those bishops and cardinals who possibly could be elected, but I would think it a fairly safe bet there isn’t a one out there who would take such a position.
Just my thoughts.
D
Dee_S
Guest
mine are similar
Q
QuestingKnight
Guest
Edited that, to give a flavour of how wrong this speculation is. Anyone who wants to come back to the Church is welcome and there’s no time limit. The SSPX sticking to their contentions is not intransigence.
They have asked: “We have these problems with Vatican 2 in the light of Tradition, how can they be reconciled?”
The response has not been: “Here is the solution”.
The response has been: “Vatican 2 is perfectly in line with Tradition. There are no errors.”
That’s my understanding, at least.
People who prate about “obedience” don’t understand what’s going on. Like, are you supposed to ignore the elephant in the room? The Roman Catholic Church as been making some very unusual moves in previous decades. This revolution is reflected in the mass you now see and preaching you now hear in most churches. BIG changes. HUGE revisions. AND traditional/Traditional? See the problem?
And so their separation continues.
D
Dee_S
Guest
It does seem set to continue, agreed. But I cannot agree with your other conclusions which give them much more credence than they should be given. After all, it is only the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, who get to decided what is and what is not “tradition” - (see previous posts on this thread for more details)
There are thousands of references by the Pope etc. regarding the hermeneutic of reform in continuity of Vatican II and, the rupture and discontinuity by traditionalists still not wanting to be in full communion. Note the dates on these two news articles, I mean, how many times and how many talks does it take
In his Address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005, which sparked considerable interest, Benedict XVI emphasizes “the hermeneutic of reform in continuity” as opposed to a **“hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.” **
Joseph Ratzinger thus takes up a position in line with his statements in 1966. This interpretation * is the only one possible according to the principles of Catholic theology, in other words, considering the indissoluble whole made up of Sacred Scripture, the complete and integral Tradition, and the Magisterium, the highest expression of which is the Council presided over by the Successor of St. Peter as Head of the visible Church.
*Besides this sole orthodox interpretation there is unfortunately a heretical interpretation, that is, the hermeneutic of rupture, both on the progressive side and on the traditionalist side. Both sides have in common their rejection of the Council; the progressives in wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a temporary phase to abandon in order to get to another church, and the traditionalists in not wanting to arrive at the Council, as if it were the winter of the Catholic Church."
VATICAN CITY (CNS)Nov-29-2012 – Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as breaking with the truth both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the council and its aims, said the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
What Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology,” Archbishop Gerhard Muller said in remarks published Nov. 29.
“Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist” side, the archbishop said.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1205009.htm
M
Mike30
Guest
Actually there is no valid comparison between the Orthodox Churches and the SSPX. It is like comparing apples and oranges.
P
pnewton
Guest
Actually I thinking the “sticking to” part is the very definition of intransigence.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intransigent
Have they not refused to compromise? Is their position by number and practice on the extreme of the Catholic norm? I hate to argue over words, but if you want to talk about an elephant, I think this deserves the greater consideration.
Q
QuestingKnight
Guest
Their position is intransigent if you regard ‘looking the other way’ as something normal in a religion. Like how the Anglican church is wringing its hands over gay bishops and women priests. I’d guess, after the first few spasms of moral qualms, your brain reconciles opposites, so you can have peace and you accept the bizarre as normal.
What’s funny is that people on this forum are posting testy messages about these ‘disobdedient’ SSPX, as if it were simply a matter of some quibble over liturgical colours.
When people start wondering about the validity of ordinations and why commmunion in the hand is suddenly, now, OK, someone had better come up with something more convincing than: “It’s right because X says so”, (until the next Motu Proprio).
People’s souls are at stake. They don’t need or want to be worried about Fr. X’s novel mass and whether he’s giving proper absolutions: these things should be done by the book and be the same, always and everywhere.
The Roman Catholic fixation with tweaking its religion would be fascinating if one weren’t a member.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Oops beg pardon, simple soul - I was focussed in so much on trying to give a very concise account of the salient points that I forgot about your specific question …
On the general historical background, I recommend Annals of the Centuries on catholictopics website.
sites.google.com/site/catholictopics/history/annals-of-the-centuries
The first thing to notice is that Vatican I “canonised” the ancient dictum of S. Vincent of Lérins …
That had always been a rule of thumb, but Vatican I ratified it as infallible Catholic teaching.
As far back as the 4th Century, St. Vincent of Lerins explained what constitutes the proper development of Catholic doctrine:
St. Vincent of Lerin’s teaching on Tradition was dogmatically and infallibly enshrined in Vatican I. This demonstrates that the exact same teaching on Tradition was maintained in the Church for more than 1400 years. Vatican I teaches in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:
Vatican I’s Dei Filius goes on to say that any authentic development in the understanding of doctrine
This is the same basic wording of St. Vincent of Lerins, unchanged for over 1400 years. And this, as noted, was the wording Pope St. Pius X employed in his Oath Against Modernism,
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
wherein the man taking the Oath swears before God to
It is not inconceivable that legitimate rulers may propound false teaching (This is not to jump to the conclusion that this has happened, but to affirm that it is not inconceivable):
Galatians 1:8 [RSV]
In the Roman Liturgy, we pray that the pastors, up to and including the pope, will carry out their duties and that
and many other official prayers. Now it is blasphemous to pray for what cannot be otherwise. The Church therefore accepts as a possibility that these things might happen.
That a Pope may directly order something contrary to morals is an historical fact.
The pope is given no guarantee that he will never make a mistake at all. Therefore even the Pope can err, except when specifically guided by the charism of infallibility. It is possible for him to attempt to promulgate regulations and enactments that are invalid, and we are not only permitted, but required, to oppose him in these cases. Therefore yes, he can change the law of the Church tomorrow, provided he does not transgress the criteria of all law; it must be reasonable or possible, directed to the good of the church, and validly promulgated. Otherwise any shopping-list would be an infallible document. “Normally” these distinctions would have no relevance whatever; but there is always the possibility of the extreme case.
(cont’d)
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
(cont’d)
Fraternal correction
In many passages of his works, St. Thomas upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish Prelates. For example:
cont’d
Fraternal correction
In many passages of his works, St. Thomas upholds the principle that the faithful can question and admonish Prelates. For example:
Referring to the same episode, in which St. Paul resisted St. Peter “to his face,” St. Thomas teaches:
The Angelic Doctor (as he was always called) also shows how this passage of the Scriptures contains teachings not only for Hierarchs but for the faithful as well:
In his Comments on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, St. Thomas teaches how respectfully correcting a Prelate who sins is a work of mercy all the greater as the Hierarch’s position is higher:
cont’d
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think it consistent of you to object to a properly used word like “intransigent” then resort to such load rhetoric. Specifically,
Wringing its hands
spasms of moral qualms
bizarre
quibble
fixation
I think it does little but insult the intelligence of other to use such shallow techniques. Your comparison to Anglicans accepting homosexual and female ministers is insulting and irrelevant. I know the SSPX can not tolerate (and rightly so) being compared to Protestants. I think a little application of the Golden Rule should be in order, in the interest of charity.
Yes, souls are at stake. Souls are always at stake. However, using examples of an occasional illicit liturgical practice to justify liturgy that is always and chronically illicit makes little sense, especially when some “Sacraments” are invalid. That objectively puts souls at risk.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
I know it’s wildly improbable, probably impossible, but I pray that SSPX reconciles before Feb. 28th 8 pm, and the signing is kept quiet until after the Conclave elects the next pope (Marc Ouellet, btw
. Then, after things settle down, the repatriation of SSPX into the Church as the second Personal Prelature ever is announced and Josef Cardinal Ratzinger gets even more richly deserved love and respect for bringing it about. I pray, pray, pray that this comes about, even though I know it’s fantastical.
I should add that he will always be Pope Benedict XVI to me, Il Papa and the reigning pope when I came home to mother Church. Viva Papa Benedict!
. Then, after things settle down, the repatriation of SSPX into the Church as the second Personal Prelature ever is announced and Josef Cardinal Ratzinger gets even more richly deserved love and respect for bringing it about. I pray, pray, pray that this comes about, even though I know it’s fantastical.I should add that he will always be Pope Benedict XVI to me, Il Papa and the reigning pope when I came home to mother Church. Viva Papa Benedict!
T
TimothyH
Guest
***Following its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X reaffirms its attachment to eternal Rome, Mother and Instructress [Mater et Magistra] of Truth, and to the See of Peter. It reiterates its desire to make its contribution, according to its abilities, to resolving the grave crisis that is shaking the Church.
Read More…***
I think the grave crisis is rather shaking the SSPX and not the larger Church.
-Tim-
J
JReducation
Guest
I think that there are two points that have to be seriously considered here.
The first is that the Holy See has told the SSPX what it needs to do to be regularized. There are not if, and or buts about it. The SSPX is not better than any other religious order, secular institute or society that has disagreed with Rome on matters of principle or doctrine. They have all been told to stand down and let Rome deal with the issues. Throughout the Church’s history, these groups have stood down. The Jesuits accepted suppression of most of their provinces for something that they were not guilty of doing. For any institute to believe that it has a right to be treated differently from its peers is inappropriate. The Holy See has already said that fixing the problems of the Church is the job of the Pope and the prefects, not the SSPX or any other institute. This has been made very clear. To insist that whatever problems the SSPX finds with the documents must be fixed before the SSPX submits to the authority of the Holy See is highly irregular. This has never been done before.
The second problem here is that several of you are quoting Doctors of the Church. However, I will remind you that as holy and wise as the Doctors of the Church have been, they are not authorities. They are theologians and teachers. But anything that they have written must be adopted by the Church as policy. If it has not been adopted as a policy of the Church, then it cannot be used as an argument against the Holy See. The Holy See trumps every doctor, every saint, every council and every pope that came before. It is only bound by revealed moral law and dogma. The Doctors of the Church are not a source of revelation. One has to be very careful to read the Doctors within the context of Church tradition and Church governance. We must always ask, “Is this an accepted Church policy?” If it is not, then no one is bound to whatever the Doctor is saying, even though it can be very wise.
I believe that this had been one of the points of resistance that many traditionalists have faced with Pope Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. There has been a great effort to quote councils, popes, doctors and saints to them. These men are simply putting their foot down and saying, “This is the way it is. I’m the pope, not Aquinas, not Bellarmined, not Pius X, but me.” There is a danger to place our allegiance and fidelity in the wrong place. Unless there is sin involved, our allegiance and fidelity must always be with the current Magisterium. That too is part of tradition. The Church has always been very submissive to the pope of the time, except the anti-popes, who obviously were not popes. Even when some of these popes were rascals, unless commanded to sin, the faithful (everyone) submitted.
The first is that the Holy See has told the SSPX what it needs to do to be regularized. There are not if, and or buts about it. The SSPX is not better than any other religious order, secular institute or society that has disagreed with Rome on matters of principle or doctrine. They have all been told to stand down and let Rome deal with the issues. Throughout the Church’s history, these groups have stood down. The Jesuits accepted suppression of most of their provinces for something that they were not guilty of doing. For any institute to believe that it has a right to be treated differently from its peers is inappropriate. The Holy See has already said that fixing the problems of the Church is the job of the Pope and the prefects, not the SSPX or any other institute. This has been made very clear. To insist that whatever problems the SSPX finds with the documents must be fixed before the SSPX submits to the authority of the Holy See is highly irregular. This has never been done before.
The second problem here is that several of you are quoting Doctors of the Church. However, I will remind you that as holy and wise as the Doctors of the Church have been, they are not authorities. They are theologians and teachers. But anything that they have written must be adopted by the Church as policy. If it has not been adopted as a policy of the Church, then it cannot be used as an argument against the Holy See. The Holy See trumps every doctor, every saint, every council and every pope that came before. It is only bound by revealed moral law and dogma. The Doctors of the Church are not a source of revelation. One has to be very careful to read the Doctors within the context of Church tradition and Church governance. We must always ask, “Is this an accepted Church policy?” If it is not, then no one is bound to whatever the Doctor is saying, even though it can be very wise.
I believe that this had been one of the points of resistance that many traditionalists have faced with Pope Paul VI, Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. There has been a great effort to quote councils, popes, doctors and saints to them. These men are simply putting their foot down and saying, “This is the way it is. I’m the pope, not Aquinas, not Bellarmined, not Pius X, but me.” There is a danger to place our allegiance and fidelity in the wrong place. Unless there is sin involved, our allegiance and fidelity must always be with the current Magisterium. That too is part of tradition. The Church has always been very submissive to the pope of the time, except the anti-popes, who obviously were not popes. Even when some of these popes were rascals, unless commanded to sin, the faithful (everyone) submitted.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I have mentioned this to others in the past, the usual response is “we don’t take a vow of obedience, so it doesn’t apply to us”.
- Status