SSPX Update - Redux

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QuestingKnight said:
I am very aware that many people like the Church as it is now. Perhaps older Catholics still think that an accommodation can be made with the World…
Click to expand...
No one is thinking that. That is simply untrue, unjustice and does nothing but feed the stereotype that those who want the old Mass view themselves in a better spiritual light that the rest of the Church, Holy Father included.
 
jwinch2 said:
So what exactly has been “re-formulated” as you put it with regard to dogma or doctrine and how has it changed what we are supposed to believe as Catholics? Either I am free to believe Church doctrine as it has been taught throughout the history of the Church or I am not. I really fail to see how there is gray area here. Unless you are suggesting that the Church has officially changed the interpretation and meaning of certain dogmas or doctrines, which I don’t think you are.
Click to expand...
See, this is the area that I think I do not properly understand the SSPX. You, they, all of us are more than free to prefer the older deifinitions and statements, say, for example, extra ecclesia. This freedom has never been denied. I think the rub comes when such things are interpreted in such a way that is direct contradiction with the last ecumenical council, or any other ecumenical council for that matter.

Remember that Fr. Feeney’s issue pre-dated Vatican II. As much as the Council is painted as a new thing, it was in continuity with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.
 
QuestingKnight said:
The SSPX, with their rigour, are living rebuke to this mentality. It’s probably why they annoy people so much, out of proportion to their numbers.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. It’s because they are everything that tears the Church apart, living examples of contempt for Papal authority, a Tradition far older than altar rails and Mass said in Latin. Something equally exemplified by those promoting women in the priesthood and other such modernisms. There is little to differentiate between them but externals. Their hearts are in the same place: so far from being faithful to the Church one despairs of saving them at all. Which everyone wants to do.

The problem is: they all think they are right and not in need of help.
 
QuestingKnight said:
Want clergy who are respected as priests and not social workers? Nope. Vatican 2.
Click to expand...
Be carful here, because you might not understand the whole issue. The swing to “social workers” is clearly too far, but the clericalism that dominated before Vatican II (and after Vatican I) was truly toxic.

That is also one of the underlying reasons behind clergy that we are really just starting to see rectified now. Most Catholics alive now didn’t live to see that. So we need to get a good understanding of the respect priests deserve because of their ordination without putting them on pedestals. Priests and bishops are always suppose to follow the model of servant leadership, which has been greatly demonstrated by Popes Bl. John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI.
 
MODERATOR NOTE

Please stay on topic. Vatican II is not the topic of this thread. Also, remember that the Holy Father has already spoken on Vatican II. Any comments about Vatican II must show the utmost respect for the position of the Holy Father, as is appropriate for any Catholic forum.
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t see where this “offer of reconciliation and full communion to individual SSPX priests” is anything new because can’t any SSPX priest simply join the Fraternity of St. Peter at any time?
Click to expand...
They would need to be accepted by a superior of the FSSP.

They can likewise be regularized into the local diocese, by being accepted by the Bishop-Ordinary.
 
:confused:We must all be wondering, especially now, as to how Bishop Fellay and the SSPX are going to get along with the head of the CDF - while they still accuse him of heretical writings (particularly in regard to the Virgin Birth) on their websites?

I post an extract & a link to this very informative article for those who wish know more and make up their minds how fair this accusation is:

“It is high time, therefore, to step back and examine these charges impartially.”

"The SSPX managed to come up with only three objections to Müller’s public statements: a published discussion of the Eucharist that seems to attenuate the doctrine of the Real Presence, 1 remarks during a 2011 speech in honor of a Lutheran “bishop” that appear to grant the theological status of “Church” to the Lutheran-Evangelical Ecclesial Community,
2 and one sentence in his 900-page textbook on dogmatic theology concerning the Virgin birth. http://www.hprweb.com/2012/12/archbishop-gerhard-ludwig-muller-and-the-virgin-birth/#fn-4448-3

3 The disputed excerpts may raise eyebrows but are inconclusive; the same snippets circulated for months on the internet in German, French, Italian and English, without any context that might have explained their meaning in an orthodox sense or served as a “smoking gun.”
.
“This article presents a literal English translation of the entire section from Müller’s Dogmatik on “Mary’s Virginity in Giving Birth”, followed by a commentary. Brackets contain either German words from the original text, or glosses and explanations by the translator.”
http://www.hprweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/nativity-murillo-collage.jpg**“Though I know that a Virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet, the manner of this generation I have learned to venerate in silence, and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech…. Of that which happens in accord with nature, we may enquire; what passes above it, we honor in silence; not as something to be avoided, passed over, but as that which we venerate in silence, as something sublime, beyond all telling. **6” St John Chrysostom

“In treating the Virgin birth, Gerhard Ludwig Müller does not rush in where angels fear to tread, but follows these recommendations to the letter. He carefully identifies what the Catholic Church actually does teach (the Virgin birth of Jesus), and cautions the reader that the exact physiological details thereof are not an article of faith.”
hprweb.com/2012/12/archbishop-gerhard-ludwig-muller-and-the-virgin-birth/
 
From Rorate this morning:

Interview granted by the Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bp. Bernard Fellay, to Nouvelles de France (Feb. 15 edition). No time for a translation now, but he says that for a brief moment following the papal resignation he expected a sign in their favor, but now thinks this is unlikely to happen: “It will probably be necessary to wait for the next pope.”
 
Traditionalists look on at a Church that is closing Churches and seminaries left, right and centre. They look on at litugical silliness and the removal of the idea of the sacred from our places of worship. They see doctrine watered down and not mentioned at all. They see a weird and doomed attempt to accommodate the World.

They attend the older form and read articles about how the saints lived and how clergy and religious conducted themselves in times gone by. They want that ideal. They don’t want this weird Catholicism-lite that has insinuated itself into the mainstream Church.

Thus the SSPX have a following.

To say this small band of priests is tearing the Church apart is ridiculous. No one except ecclesiatical nerds knows much about them. 99.9999% of Catholics have never met an SSPX priest or entered their chapels. If they know about them at all, they know about the ambush of Bp Williamson by the media.

But I think they agitate ‘those in the know’ because they are a reminder of what Catholicism was like and because they are a contrast to the leftism that now infects the Church.

Like:

A Catholic priest being photographed with a friendly female vicar? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Helping yourself from the chalice because you’re gluten-intolerant? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Funerals as instant canonisations? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Kids round the altar table at the consecration? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Lady lectors in street clothes? Uh-oh, SSPX.

And so on.

If traditionalism seeps into the mainstream Church it invalidates the previous 40 years experimentation. It says to people: you were wrong. And nobody likes that, especially in matters ideological.
 
QuestingKnight said:
Traditionalists look on at a Church that is closing Churches and seminaries left, right and centre. They look on at litugical silliness and the removal of the idea of the sacred from our places of worship. They see doctrine watered down and not mentioned at all. They see a weird and doomed attempt to accommodate the World.

They attend the older form and read articles about how the saints lived and how clergy and religious conducted themselves in times gone by. They want that ideal. They don’t want this weird Catholicism-lite that has insinuated itself into the mainstream Church.

Thus the SSPX have a following.

To say this small band of priests is tearing the Church apart is ridiculous. No one except ecclesiatical nerds knows much about them. 99.9999% of Catholics have never met an SSPX priest or entered their chapels. If they know about them at all, they know about the ambush of Bp Williamson by the media.

But I think they agitate ‘those in the know’ because they are a reminder of what Catholicism was like and because they are a contrast to the leftism that now infects the Church.

Like:

A Catholic priest being photographed with a friendly female vicar? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Helping yourself from the chalice because you’re gluten-intolerant? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Funerals as instant canonisations? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Kids round the altar table at the consecration? Uh-oh, SSPX.
Lady lectors in street clothes? Uh-oh, SSPX.

And so on.

If traditionalism seeps into the mainstream Church it invalidates the previous 40 years experimentation. It says to people: you were wrong. And nobody likes that, especially in matters ideological.
Click to expand...
Some of what you say is correct. However:
Pope Benedict has made changes in the OF to offset the abuses you mention. That doesn’t mean they will not happen, but it makes it harder for those who are ‘experimenting’ with the Liturgy.
Second, the Pope’s unprecedented step of opening talks with “this small band of priests” to me, shows that he has hope the Society can enrich the Church. That speaks well for Benedict, and is actually a compliment to the SSPX.
But despite things moving in a positive direction the SSPX appears to be rejecting the offer the Vatican is making.
I said once in an old post the SSPX has truth on their side.
But even people with truth on their side can make decisions that ultimately destroy the very thing they hope to accomplish.
The SSPX has an enormous opportunity here, they really should take it.
 
JustaServant said:
But despite things moving in a positive direction the SSPX appears to be rejecting the offer the Vatican is making.
I said once in an old post the SSPX has truth on their side.
But even people with truth on their side can make decisions that ultimately destroy the very thing they hope to accomplish.
The SSPX has an enormous opportunity here, they really should take it.
Click to expand...
I would guess that, if SSPX accept what is now being offered, it would contradict what they stood for.

They must accept the Second Vatican Council. As is. No buts. Not even asking what ‘acceptance’ means, in practice.

Well, their opposition to the ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ is what got them going in the first place. So they can’t, in conscience say, “Y’know, let’s just forget all the problems we have with the Council”

I know they have been offered a lot of concessions but I think that is one they can’t make in return.
 
QuestingKnight said:
I would guess that, if SSPX accept what is now being offered, it would contradict what they stood for.

They must accept the Second Vatican Council. As is. No buts. Not even asking what ‘acceptance’ means, in practice.

Well, their opposition to the ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ is what got them going in the first place. So they can’t, in conscience say, “Y’know, let’s just forget all the problems we have with the Council”

I know they have been offered a lot of concessions but I think that is one they can’t make in return.
Click to expand...
Then logically speaking, you can’t say you are Catholic either. It is the same as the Old Catholic. They thought Rome went mad during Vatican I, a council of heresy. A diabolical rupture. So they left the flock. At least they were consistent.
 
QuestingKnight said:
Traditionalists look on at a Church that is closing Churches and seminaries left, right and centre. They look on at litugical silliness and the removal of the idea of the sacred from our places of worship. They see doctrine watered down and not mentioned at all. They see a weird and doomed attempt to accommodate the World.
Click to expand...
So it is a matter of perception? The SSPX is responding to the pessimistic view of the Church they hold?
To say this small band of priests is tearing the Church apart is ridiculous.

If traditionalism seeps into the mainstream Church it invalidates the previous 40 years experimentation.
Click to expand...
I think the size of the SSPX supports the first proposition. They are not going to tear the Church apart. I do not think it supports the proposition that they are going to influence the Church. They simply are nor relevant to the course of the Catholic Church. The need for reconcilliation is primarily for their benefit. Sure their priest could serve the Church and in that sense they are “needed”, as is every priest. But in the end, the Church will go on with our without their ministry.
 
Interviewer:Some say that you wish Rome to recognize that the ordinary rite is illicit; can you tell us more on this point?
Bishop Fellay:
We know very well that it is very difficult to ask the authorities to condemn the new mass. In reality, if what needs to be corrected were corrected, it would already be a big step.

Actually, this is a subtle but very important difference in wording by the Bishop, which could possibly lead a person to hope that there could be a reconciliation. This is very different from what I read on the SSPX website.

He goes on to mention “pro multis” being translated as “For All” by many Bishops still, however, I thought that had been addressed in a directive from the Vatican already. It is certainly translated “For Many” in my location.
 
More from the interview (and pertaining to the conversation a few of your were having above re: Vatican II).

Would you like to say anything about Vatican Council II?

As far as Vatican II is concerned, just like for the Mass, we believe that it is necessary to clarify and correct a certain number of points that are either erroneous or lead to error. That being said, we do not expect Rome to condemn Vatican II any time soon. She can recall the Truth and discretely correct the errors, while preserving her authority. Nonetheless, we think that the Society contributes to the Lord’s edifice by denouncing certain disputed points.

This is another HUGE change in attitude. Formerly, the impression given by the Society was “Down with the Council” “Renounce the Council”. This is subtle, but huge. It’s not perfect, but there is room here within to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top