SSPX Update - Redux

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jwinch2 said:
We are agreed on this completely. I do not believe we have actually seen the council implemented properly at this time, nor do I think we have seen the Mass of Paul VI implemented properly, at least not in the majority of the cases. Thanks to Pope Benedict, seems have started to move that direction. However, I do believe it will take a couple more pontificates with Popes who have a similar emphasis before it is realized.

In Pope Benedict we had a great theolgian and scripture schoar/teacher. Maybe what we could use next is a scholar and teacher of patristics. Just a thought. 🙂
Click to expand...
All of the great councils were followed by a 50 to 100 year period of turmoil.

There are not two Churches; pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. There is one Church. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far to one side, then it will swing back, and eventually it will settle in the center.

It was the same after every great council. What the Church is experiencing is nothing new.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
All of the great councils were followed by a 50 to 100 year period of turmoil.
Click to expand...
I hear this comment a lot, but I am unsure if it’s actually true. Surely the clear and concise nature of the decrees of, say, Nicaea and Trent meant that their after-periods were a lot less tumultuous than their before-periods. Arianism and Protestantism were condemned and there was no confusion about what the Catholic Church’s position was.

Compare this to the liberals and modernists who earnestly thought that the Church was on their side after Vatican II. Seems like there’s hardly any comparison here.
 
QuestingKnight said:
Thus the SSPX have a following.

To say this small band of priests is tearing the Church apart is ridiculous. .
Click to expand...
Of course it is, they are not at all significant enough as an entity to affect the stability of the Church. What’s tearing the Church apart is disobedience, arrogance and trampling on true Tradition, which is exemplified in the actions of the SSPX and of many others individuals and organizations that all manage to acquire a “following” of sorts.

My small town has three Catholic churches, a filled with sacred symbols and offering the faithful respectful and licit Masses. One of those churches offers the EF on a regular basis.

The issue is disobedience. Until it is resolved, there is really no other issue on the table.
 
GloriaMaria said:
sspx.org/superior_generals_news/pope_benedicts_last_major_act_bishop_fellay_interview_2-15-2013.htm

The most recent interview with Bishop Fellay. Translated in full, from the original French.
Click to expand...
VERY interesting article. Sounds like Fellay is more open to some ideas than he originally led on. I think he is in a very precarious position trying to hold together his flock while trying to discuss with the Vatican. Prayers are definitely needed by all of us here. Pray, pray, and the pray!
 
GloriaMaria said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep, this is certainly different from what we were previously hearing from Fellay. I have a new sense of encouragement here. I also think the SSPX leadership may be, and rightfully should, be concerned that the Church is going to start talking directly to Priests. The SSPX definitely doesn’t want that mess.
 
EphelDuath said:
I hear this comment a lot, but I am unsure if it’s actually true. Surely the clear and concise nature of the decrees of, say, Nicaea and Trent meant that their after-periods were a lot less tumultuous than their before-periods…
Click to expand...
Maybe. Could just be there was no internet then, no groups using mass media to put international spin on their objections in multiple languages, as the SSPX and others have done.

Hey! I’m post 1000! Time for a new thread…

SSPX Redux Deux
 
Julia_Mae said:
Maybe. Could just be there was no internet then, no groups using mass media to put international spin on their objections in multiple languages, as the SSPX and others have done.
Click to expand...
There was still no internet in 1965, and I’d be surprised if your average layman knows who the SSPX are even to this day.
 
Boulder257 said:
Yep, this is certainly different from what we were previously hearing from Fellay. I have a new sense of encouragement here. I also think the SSPX leadership may be, and rightfully should, be concerned that the Church is going to start talking directly to Priests. The SSPX definitely doesn’t want that mess.
Click to expand...
Although I wouldn’t be suprised to start seeing individual priests reconcilling (or pulling even further away) if the talks continue without resolution for much longer - say even through the end of the year. Especially if the new pope does not have the charism for this outreach like Benedict has. He may see that there are many other issues to address within the church and decide that the talks with the SSPX will be handled by Archbishops Muller and DiNoia without as much of the Pope’s own time as Pope Benedict has devoted to this.

I pray for Nishop Fellay, but I do not think the SSPX can continue on as it has been for much longer.
 
Alfonsus said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Lormar said:
GM, pretty good, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. The language is still proud, but to hear the possibility that the Society could accept some “compromise” re: Vat II and the OF means there is some re-think happening. Of course there is a whole element of the Society which will spew hatred about this interview, but they are the element which will go on their own anyway.
 
EphelDuath said:
I hear this comment a lot, but I am unsure if it’s actually true. Surely the clear and concise nature of the decrees of, say, Nicaea and Trent meant that their after-periods were a lot less tumultuous than their before-periods. Arianism and Protestantism were condemned and there was no confusion about what the Catholic Church’s position was…
Click to expand...
I think the confusion here is that the dogmatic statements that were defined were clear, what took time was implementing some of the pastoral, liturgical, and canonical pronouncements. For example Catholic Dioceses closer to Rome established Seminaries following the guidelines of Trent and the post conciliar directorials quicker than those farther afield. The Imposition of the Missale Romanum over local uses under 200 years old took almost a century in some areas. In France Several of the Local uses were not brought into line with the Roman Missal until after the French Revolution even though they did not conform with the exemptions of Quo Primum. These were those who remained Catholic, and united to the Holy See, but were just slow about coming into conformity with the edicts in a timely manner.

Quite a different issue from those who remained in heresy and separated from the Church after the Councils. Among them the Monofysite or Arian Churches, and the Old Catholics who rejected Vatican I and joined the Jansenists who had already separated from the Church. and remain outside of union dogmatically and canonically to this day.

The problems which while not unique to the history of the Church we see today are those on both the far right and far left who simply want to listen to their own opinions as dogma, and will not submit to the Holy See as the final arbitror of the issues which they set up to separate themselves from the Pope, be it a formal or informal rupture.
 
GloriaMaria said:
Yes, I do. The language is still proud, but to hear the possibility that the Society could accept some “compromise” re: Vat II and the OF means there is some re-think happening.** Of course there is a whole element of the Society which will spew hatred about this interview, but they are the element which will go on their own anyway.**
Click to expand...
I know. I was going to write a comment to that effect.
 
TimothyH said:
All of the great councils were followed by a 50 to 100 year period of turmoil.

It was the same after every great council. What the Church is experiencing is nothing new.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
I do not believe this. I do not believe anything like what happened after Vatican II has ever happened after any other Council. Not saying it’s the Council’s “fault” or that it was directly caused by the Council–Papa himself just said yesterday that it was utterly hijacked by the media and secular forces–but I am saying this, to this degree and in this kind, had never happened after any of the previous Councils in such a way that people thought “the Council” had given them free license to advocate for completely non-Catholic things in the realms of faith and morals. I mean, if that did happen after other Councils, then when was it?

Whether it was a PR problem or not, I don’t know. Perhaps in the future we know now to be on top of things and be aggressive with Catholic news and getting messages out. I think the Holy See has admitted as much with their very successful recent creations of news.va and other resources.
 
The problems which while not unique to the history of the Church we see today are those on both the far right and far left who simply want to listen to their own opinions as dogma, and will not submit to the Holy See as the final arbitror of the issues which they set up to separate themselves from the Pope, be it a formal or informal rupture
Click to expand...
In one sentence, that sums it up.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I do not believe this. I do not believe anything like what happened after Vatican II has ever happened after any other Council. Not saying it’s the Council’s “fault” or that it was directly caused by the Council–Papa himself just said yesterday that it was utterly hijacked by the media and secular forces–but I am saying this, to this degree and in this kind, had never happened after any of the previous Councils in such a way that people thought “the Council” had given them free license to advocate for completely non-Catholic things in the realms of faith and morals. I mean, if that did happen after other Councils, then when was it?

Whether it was a PR problem or not, I don’t know. Perhaps in the future we know now to be on top of things and be aggressive with Catholic news and getting messages out. I think the Holy See has admitted as much with their very successful recent creations of news.va and other resources.
Click to expand...
Two words; Global Village.

I work in IT, and I worked in television. When Papa B said his Council of the Media message, it struck me because I know exactly what he’s saying, I lived it every day since 1996.

No other Council had these forces working against it. You place any other Council in this kind of environment the same thing would happen.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I do not believe this. I do not believe anything like what happened after Vatican II has ever happened after any other Council. Not saying it’s the Council’s “fault” or that it was directly caused by the Council–Papa himself just said yesterday that it was utterly hijacked by the media and secular forces–but I am saying this, to this degree and in this kind, had never happened after any of the previous Councils in such a way that people thought “the Council” had given them free license to advocate for completely non-Catholic things in the realms of faith and morals. I mean, if that did happen after other Councils, then when was it?

Whether it was a PR problem or not, I don’t know. Perhaps in the future we know now to be on top of things and be aggressive with Catholic news and getting messages out. I think the Holy See has admitted as much with their very successful recent creations of news.va and other resources.
Click to expand...
Thanks YTC.
 
Melchior said:
Two words; Global Village.

I work in IT, and I worked in television. When Papa B said his Council of the Media message, it struck me because I know exactly what he’s saying, I lived it every day since 1996.

No other Council had these forces working against it. You place any other Council in this kind of environment the same thing would happen.
Click to expand...
Yes, in one sense I get why it happened. But another, bitter part of me says, shouldn’t they have known that was going to happen? I mean, they were living in the same world as everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top