- Status
D
Dee_S
Guest
That they were. It kind of looks like they pick and choose what suits.
This extracts conveys how their misuse of canon 144 is not acceptable to Ecclesia Dei Commission or the Church:
"To absolve sins validly, a priest must be given the faculty to do so,[22] a faculty that, normally, only the local bishop can give.[23] Similarly, in normal circumstances a marriage can be contracted validly only in the presence of the local bishop or the parish priest or of a priest or deacon delegated by one of these.[24]
"To overcome this difficulty, the Society says[25] that absolution and marriage under its auspices are valid, on the grounds of its interpretation of canon 144 §1 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “In common error, whether of fact or of law, and in positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum”, and canon 844 §2, which declares that, “whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.”
"The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has stated that, in accordance with canon 144 someone who confesses to an SSPX priest while genuinely not knowing that the priest does not have the required faculty will be validly absolved, but that, with this exception, the sacraments of Penance and Matrimony in which SSPX priests are involved are invalid."[26][27]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
J
JReducation
Guest
I found this article, which is not exactly an update, but it does spell out where the Church is on the question of the SSPX. I find that the Archbishop if very candid, firm, but not hostile at all.
One of Archbishop Müller’s trickier tasks is overseeing the reconciliation process with the Society of St Pius X. When I probed to get an idea of the current situation between Rome
and the SSPX, Archbishop Müller answered pithily: “There remain misunderstandings about Vatican II, and these must be agreed upon. The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.
** Catholics Aught to Avoid Extremes
“Disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ.
“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”
Archbishop Müller stressed that he is in no way “against” traditionalist Catholics and does not have a personal dislike of the SSPX. “But we need to address the practical issues that cannot be ignored. Many in the SSPX have learned theological errors, and they must learn the true sense of the tradition of the Catholic Church. It’s not about conserving a certain time stage in history, it’s a living tradition.”**
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
One of Archbishop Müller’s trickier tasks is overseeing the reconciliation process with the Society of St Pius X. When I probed to get an idea of the current situation between Rome
and the SSPX, Archbishop Müller answered pithily: “There remain misunderstandings about Vatican II, and these must be agreed upon. The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.
** Catholics Aught to Avoid Extremes
“Disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ.
“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”
Archbishop Müller stressed that he is in no way “against” traditionalist Catholics and does not have a personal dislike of the SSPX. “But we need to address the practical issues that cannot be ignored. Many in the SSPX have learned theological errors, and they must learn the true sense of the tradition of the Catholic Church. It’s not about conserving a certain time stage in history, it’s a living tradition.”**
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Nice, Rich!
It’s this kind of humility and charity that will keep this thread going, maybe all the way to 1000…I know it’s a long shot, but our behavior will have a lot to do with it. I’m trying to behave myself, not be so quick to react and overreact. It is hard sometimes!
God bless you, brother, and everyone else here. Merry Christmas to all!:grouphug::christmastree1:
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Nice, Rich!
God bless you, brother, and everyone else here. Merry Christmas to all!:grouphug::christmastree1:
F
Faithdancer
Guest
“the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.” This is now a truism.
Archbishop Muller has expressed the positive nature of his agenda vis-a-vis SSPX in the past, I believe, which is to forge reconciliation. I pray that he keeps at it, with good will and charity and patience. Pope Benedict XVI, imho, has the infinite patience that can only come with great maturity and wisdom. He wants to add SSPX reconciliation to his list of accomplishments, not for any personal luster but for the good of SSPX and the universal Church. I pray, pray, pray that Archbishop Muller stays positive. If he has to be the more proactive one in dialogue with SSPX leadership, so what? That’s how things get done in the real world- someone takes the initiative and someone keeps the ball rolling, however slowly.
Perhaps for their part, SSPX leaders might step back and reflect a long moment on what our Pope has accomplished in just seven years- in the last two years in California alone he has elevated Archbishops Gomez and Cordileone and Bishop Vann. He elevated Cardinal Burke and has given him a position of great authority within the Vatican. These are just four of our many staunchly conservative Catholic leaders with impeccably traditional Catholic moral values. Pope Benedict XVI has done a great deal to reverse any excesses and abuses made “in the spirit of” Vatican II, and has sewn the seeds of a new traditionalism within the “living tradition” of the Church which will bear fruit for generations to come.
J
JReducation
Guest
In a statement that he made to bishops, religious superiors and lay leaders, he said that no one at the CDF or Ecclesia Dei would be speaking to the SSPX. He said this was directly from the Holy Father. “There will be no more dialogue with the SSPX.” To which Archbishop Mueller and Archbishop DiNoia added that they understand that this takes time and they are willing to wait. The question is, how long is the Holy Father willing to wait?
Bishop Fellay, at one point said that he had communicated to Rome the feelings of the general chapter. MY TAKE (I’m not an insider) is that the feelings of the general chapter carry no legal authority with the Vatican, since the SSPX is in an irregular canonical status.
Under normal circumstances, a general chapter carries more authority than a superior general. Superiors general are bound to obey the general chapter. But this is not a normal situation. Who knows what the glitch could be.
I agree with the Archbishop. Extremes must be avoided. Extremes are political, not faith positions. Right now, what we see is that Catholics who have gone to the extreme right and left are falling apart. They walk around angry at the Church, without trust, at times very belligerent, and they can at times be very ugly in their manner of delivery.
You can’t violate respect, charity, justice and human dignity in the process of defending your faith. This is an oxymoron. Some of our holiest spiritual masters warned us about the temptation to be belligerent, oppositional and arrogant: Benedict, Augustine, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Bernard, Thomas a Kempis, Catherine of Sienna, Therese, Teresa of Avila, Francis de Sales, Mother Teresa (that’s a lot of Teresa’s in heaven), Pius X, Paul VI and John Paul II. That’s the short list of people who have warned us that you cannot go on the warpath in defense of the faith. An attack is not the same as a defense.
As I tell my brothers, “Let your defense reflect the nobility, dignity, and sanctity of that which you are defending.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
I’m wondering if (for my benefit and the benefit of all the other forum users who have found this thread incredibly interesting) a summary could be made at this point?
Ultimately I and many others need to know the fundamental info in regards to SSPX. If possible could somebody please just go through the main points? For example: Is it fine to go to an SSPX-led Mass? If not - why not? I’m just looking for the basic info which it is important for me to have!
Ultimately I and many others need to know the fundamental info in regards to SSPX. If possible could somebody please just go through the main points? For example: Is it fine to go to an SSPX-led Mass? If not - why not? I’m just looking for the basic info which it is important for me to have!
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Clem, the answer to the question you pose has been answered numerous times on this thread. Of course that is a lot of posts to wade through. Regarding your one specific question- the SSPX is not currently in schism. While attending an SSPX Mass is not encouraged by the Magisterium, one does not incur excommunication or sin by attending an SSPX Mass provided one does so out of love for the Tridentine (EF) Mass and not from a spirit of rebellion against the Church or its tradition- *a tradition which includes Vatican II *(if not all of the novelties which have resulted from misinterpretation or distortion of Vatican II). The Sacrament of the Eucharist is valid at SSPX chapels. At this point the ball is in SSPX’s court, vis-a-vis returning to full communion with Rome.I’m wondering if (for my benefit and the benefit of all the other forum users who have found this thread incredibly interesting) a summary could be made at this point?
Ultimately I and many others need to know the fundamental info in regards to SSPX. If possible could somebody please just go through the main points? For example: Is it fine to go to an SSPX-led Mass? If not - why not? I’m just looking for the basic info which it is important for me to have!
While things get a little heated on this thread occasionally and Mr. Casey has issued warnings about decorum- and avoiding SSPX promotion on the one hand or SSPX bashing on the other- for the most part those who have posted here, including several CAF members who regularly attend SSPX masses, have exhibited charity and a prayerful desire for full SSPX reconciliation with the Holy See. That’s my take, anyway!
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Here is an update of sorts, as SSPX has updated its statistics: fsspx.org/en/la-fraternite-en-chiffres/?pid=25
J
JReducation
Guest
I want to echo what Faith has said.
It is important, that when explaining and teaching the truth, one be as reverent, speak as beautifully, and be as loving as the truth that one is teaching. To teach the truth with arrogance, condescension, negativity, sarcasm or prejudice is contrary to the message. There is an old book published in the 70s. The Medium Is The Message. It was a great book. It explained exactly what is happening in the discussion on the SSPX. There are so many negative and ugly means of communicating the message, by both sides of the aisle, that that facts get lost in the emotional dumpster.
It is very important that we give credit where credit is due. The SSPX is not in schism. It is not a heretical organization, though it has some members who walk a very fine line. However, these are individuals. You’ll find such individuals inside the Church as well. So my reaction to this is, “OK, tell me something new about humanity.”
The SSPX celebrates a beautiful mass in the Extraordinary Form. Something that many people do not know, the SSPX brothers, though they are few, do a great deal of social ministry. I always find this annoying, because SSPXers have this bug about social outreach and they are more clerical than the pope. They only notice what the priests of the SSPX do. They see them celebrate the sacraments, they assume that this is the only priority. Even some of their priest speak this way, which is inaccurate. Just ask some of the great saints. It’s like saying that the priority is to eat in order to live, forget about the pleasure involved and the social interaction that goes on during a meal. We’ll just sweep those under the rug. The truth is that it all goes together. If you separate eating from pleasure and socialization, you reduce a human act to an act of human.
Many lay supporters do this with the SSPX as well. They have an attitude of “Forget the SSPX brothers and forget that they have an extensive network of mission schools, ministries to the homeless, the street person, are very good administrators or that they serve the victims of AIDS. After all, they’re just the brothers. They do nothing for us.”
Even the SSPXers are not much different from the mainstream Catholic, very utilitarian. Both USE the clergy and religious, rather than appreciate and venerate both states in life.
There is something else that must happen here. When speaking about anyone, be it the SSPX, Father Hans Kung, Bl. John Paul II, Mother Teresa, or the Jesuits, it is very important to be very honest and not play with words.
I for one, knew Mother Teresa and can say that she was not a business woman. She did not know, nor did she care, how much money was in the bank. She died not knowing how much financial support she had received from around the world. In the secular world, this would be a negative. However, among the spiritual masters, this is a huge positive. It is an outward sign of an inner blind trust in Divine Providence, which is what it means to live a life of heroic virtue. When I speak about her, I speak of both sides: how she would appear to the secular world of business and how the spiritual masters view her.
In speaking of the SSPX, we must do the same. They have commited crimes. In Canon Law there is no such thing as misdimeanors or first and second degree crimes. Roman Law does not have that kind of language. If you violate the law, you have committed a crime. However, unlike English Law, in Roman Law, the fact that you have commited a crime does not make you a criminal. Roman Law separates crime and criminal. They are judged separately. You must first be convicted of a crime. Then you must be tried again to determine if you’re a criminal. The SSPX was never tried for criminal activity. Therefore, they have committed crimes. The law convicts them of that. But no tribunal has ever determined that they committed crimes, because they are criminals. Therefore, we must not speak of them as if they were the dregs of society or the dregs of the Church.
They are in serious doctrinal trouble, but they are not people out to do harm. There may be some among them who are, but I don’t believe this is the truth of them as a society. We must keep that balance in speaking about them or any other individual or group that is walking on the fence.
We love using terms like heretic, excommunicated, aspostacy, and synonimous terms. It’s as if we have a need to label and name people. It’s a very human thing. Catholics are not the only ones who do it. However, Catholics should take the lead in avoiding such labeling of individuals. If it’s so hard to avoid putting a label on a person or a group, offer it up as a penance.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
It is important, that when explaining and teaching the truth, one be as reverent, speak as beautifully, and be as loving as the truth that one is teaching. To teach the truth with arrogance, condescension, negativity, sarcasm or prejudice is contrary to the message. There is an old book published in the 70s. The Medium Is The Message. It was a great book. It explained exactly what is happening in the discussion on the SSPX. There are so many negative and ugly means of communicating the message, by both sides of the aisle, that that facts get lost in the emotional dumpster.
It is very important that we give credit where credit is due. The SSPX is not in schism. It is not a heretical organization, though it has some members who walk a very fine line. However, these are individuals. You’ll find such individuals inside the Church as well. So my reaction to this is, “OK, tell me something new about humanity.”
The SSPX celebrates a beautiful mass in the Extraordinary Form. Something that many people do not know, the SSPX brothers, though they are few, do a great deal of social ministry. I always find this annoying, because SSPXers have this bug about social outreach and they are more clerical than the pope. They only notice what the priests of the SSPX do. They see them celebrate the sacraments, they assume that this is the only priority. Even some of their priest speak this way, which is inaccurate. Just ask some of the great saints. It’s like saying that the priority is to eat in order to live, forget about the pleasure involved and the social interaction that goes on during a meal. We’ll just sweep those under the rug. The truth is that it all goes together. If you separate eating from pleasure and socialization, you reduce a human act to an act of human.
Many lay supporters do this with the SSPX as well. They have an attitude of “Forget the SSPX brothers and forget that they have an extensive network of mission schools, ministries to the homeless, the street person, are very good administrators or that they serve the victims of AIDS. After all, they’re just the brothers. They do nothing for us.”
Even the SSPXers are not much different from the mainstream Catholic, very utilitarian. Both USE the clergy and religious, rather than appreciate and venerate both states in life.
There is something else that must happen here. When speaking about anyone, be it the SSPX, Father Hans Kung, Bl. John Paul II, Mother Teresa, or the Jesuits, it is very important to be very honest and not play with words.
I for one, knew Mother Teresa and can say that she was not a business woman. She did not know, nor did she care, how much money was in the bank. She died not knowing how much financial support she had received from around the world. In the secular world, this would be a negative. However, among the spiritual masters, this is a huge positive. It is an outward sign of an inner blind trust in Divine Providence, which is what it means to live a life of heroic virtue. When I speak about her, I speak of both sides: how she would appear to the secular world of business and how the spiritual masters view her.
In speaking of the SSPX, we must do the same. They have commited crimes. In Canon Law there is no such thing as misdimeanors or first and second degree crimes. Roman Law does not have that kind of language. If you violate the law, you have committed a crime. However, unlike English Law, in Roman Law, the fact that you have commited a crime does not make you a criminal. Roman Law separates crime and criminal. They are judged separately. You must first be convicted of a crime. Then you must be tried again to determine if you’re a criminal. The SSPX was never tried for criminal activity. Therefore, they have committed crimes. The law convicts them of that. But no tribunal has ever determined that they committed crimes, because they are criminals. Therefore, we must not speak of them as if they were the dregs of society or the dregs of the Church.
They are in serious doctrinal trouble, but they are not people out to do harm. There may be some among them who are, but I don’t believe this is the truth of them as a society. We must keep that balance in speaking about them or any other individual or group that is walking on the fence.
We love using terms like heretic, excommunicated, aspostacy, and synonimous terms. It’s as if we have a need to label and name people. It’s a very human thing. Catholics are not the only ones who do it. However, Catholics should take the lead in avoiding such labeling of individuals. If it’s so hard to avoid putting a label on a person or a group, offer it up as a penance.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Br. JR, based on the context of the rest of your paragraph I assume you meant to say, “not people out to do harm”? Just checking, I make typos all the time myself!
M
Moore11
Guest
Very good post Brother!
J
JReducation
Guest
Poopers! I asked the moderator to change that before I get crucified. After all, it’s Christmas, not Holy Week.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
JReducation: I’m a convert and came into the Catholic Church in 2011.
What I don’t understand is this: How can you consider yourself Catholic and protest against an Ecumenical Council?
If the SSPX is opposed or critical to how Vatican II was later carried out I can understand that–but I just don’t think it’s right to be against the Council itself.
I don’t understand everything the Catholic Church teaches with 100% clarity but if the Catholic Church teaches something–I BELIEVE IT!
How can you NOT believe it?
And how can you not truly consider what the Pope says and does?
He might be wrong about non doctrinal matters but when it comes to faith and morals don’t you have to believe him and if you aren’t sure at least give religious assent to what he teaches–is that the ordinary magisterium?
I’m POST Vatican II–what do I know–but it seems that sometimes what Vatican II said in its documents wasn’t implemented the way the Council taught.
I’ve seen the 1965 missal on the internet and it looks like maybe that was the kind of mass that the council envisioned.
But Pope Paul VI came out with the ordinary form and it seems to me that ANY pope can come out with changes to the mass. Is that true?
I don’t know why the SSPX doesn’t take up something like a personal prelature–they could do things about the way they wanted to do them–is agreeing that Vatican II is an authentic Council and submitting to the Pope REALLY THAT HARD?
Pope Benedict XVI is going out of his way to mend the rift with the SSPX.
I wonder if St. Peter would have been that charitable.
Like I say–I’m a new convert–if I am wrong please correct me.
What I don’t understand is this: How can you consider yourself Catholic and protest against an Ecumenical Council?
If the SSPX is opposed or critical to how Vatican II was later carried out I can understand that–but I just don’t think it’s right to be against the Council itself.
I don’t understand everything the Catholic Church teaches with 100% clarity but if the Catholic Church teaches something–I BELIEVE IT!
How can you NOT believe it?
And how can you not truly consider what the Pope says and does?
He might be wrong about non doctrinal matters but when it comes to faith and morals don’t you have to believe him and if you aren’t sure at least give religious assent to what he teaches–is that the ordinary magisterium?
I’m POST Vatican II–what do I know–but it seems that sometimes what Vatican II said in its documents wasn’t implemented the way the Council taught.
I’ve seen the 1965 missal on the internet and it looks like maybe that was the kind of mass that the council envisioned.
But Pope Paul VI came out with the ordinary form and it seems to me that ANY pope can come out with changes to the mass. Is that true?
I don’t know why the SSPX doesn’t take up something like a personal prelature–they could do things about the way they wanted to do them–is agreeing that Vatican II is an authentic Council and submitting to the Pope REALLY THAT HARD?
Pope Benedict XVI is going out of his way to mend the rift with the SSPX.
I wonder if St. Peter would have been that charitable.
Like I say–I’m a new convert–if I am wrong please correct me.
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re in good company. The pope is asking himself the same question. The Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the faith is asking the same question. The Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission is asking the same question, not to mention several thousand other Catholic leaders.
The SSPX feels that the document on ecumenism violates what the Church has always taught about Catholicism being the true faith. The fact is that the document actually says it, but in a different manner. It does not repeat, “The Catholic Church is the true faith and no one can be saved outside the Church,” because this was already said in the past and was repeated in another document of Vatican II.
The Society also disagrees with the idea of collegiality. Their understanding is that the pope has abdicated his authority to the bishops. Again, this is not true. Every council has been a collegial event. There is no such thing as a council where the pope makes unilateral decisions. You don’t need a council for that. The idea of collegiality is that there is a college of bishops of which the Bishop of Rome (aka: the pope) is also a member, because he’s a bishop. However, this college of bishop governs the Church in union with him, not over him or without him. He is the head of the college and the focal point.
The Society has problems with the Church’s change of language concerning the Jews and Muslims. The Council of Florence and several other popes referred to the Jews and Muslims in less than flattering terms. The problem that the Society does not see is complex. These popes and this council were not speaking to Jews or Muslims. They were speaking to Catholics who were in danger of abandoning Catholicism for Judaism or Islam. They had to use the strongest possible language to keep these folks on the right track. Whereas Vatican II is trying to tell Catholics how we should related to Jews and Muslims and what she should think about them. It’s not trying to save us from conversion. That was said in the past. There is nothing new to add to that statement.
The long and the short of it is that the Society and its friends argue that there is error in the Council documents. The Pope says there is not and it’s not possible. There have been abuses due to a lack of understanding of the Council documents and some due to individual’s agendas. The individuals used the Council as their excuse to push their agendas. This happens all the time. What a concept, an individual with an agenda who sees an opportunity and takes it.
You’re certainly in good company again. Peter understood less about Jesus than we do today. He certainly understood less about the sacraments than we do today, but he believed and he strengthened his brothers in their faith.
Even in the ordinary magisterium, popes cannot teach moral or doctrinal error. Not everything has to be declared infallible for it to be infallible. In fact, the pope has only invoked infallibility on the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception and the canonization of saints.
As I said above. Some did not understand it and others had their agendas.
Any pope can change the mass as long as he does not change the matter and intent of the consecration. The form is tricky. There is one anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) that does not use the words of consecration that Pope John Paul II said is valid.
They feel that they have a prophetic role in the world. The personal prelature would limit them to teach and work with those laymen and clergy who want to be part of the prelature. They cannot preach to the world and much less correct the pope and the bishops. They feel that they must have the freedom to do this.
J
JReducation
Guest
You are correct. I believe that Peter would have thrown a tantrum by now. He was famous for those. Apparently, he had a potty mouth. Even saints can have potty mouths. But that’s for another discussion.
You are also correct that Pope Benedict has bent over backward to open the way for the SSPX. He has made enemies inside the Church. He certainly made his fellow German Bishops very angry when he lifted the excommunication of Bishop Williamson and when he liberated the Tridentine form. They felt that he was just doing it to make the SSPX happy.
I’m not saying that I agree with them. I’m saying that this is how it looked to them. The liberation of the Tridentine form came first. Then came the remission of the excommunications. This was the straw that broke the German’s back. Bishop Williamson is famous for being a bigot and antisemitic. Even the pope has called him so. But he did not know this at the time that he lifted the excommunication. He found out about this a day or two later. The German bishops felt that the pope had been careless. They became angry with him. Some boycotted his visit to Germany. Some attended the events, but would not greet him or speak to him, which was rude. Again, material for another thread. It shows how much the pope has had to put up with for the sake of the SSPX.
Religious orders have stated their own positions. "If the SSPX can have A, B, and C, then we who have always been here should be allowed to have A, B. and C as well. It’s like the story of the Prodigal Son. A superior general whom I shall not mention said, “The Church disbanded the Jesuits once, for less than this.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
Thank you VERY much to those who replied to my post! I’ve done my best to keep up with this thread but, as you can probably imagine, with Christmas and vacation I have been finding it a little tough! 
D
Dee_S
Guest
“Vatican II today stands in a twilight. For a long time it has been regarded by the so-called progressive wing as completely surpassed and, consequently, as a thing of the past, no longer relevant to the present. By the opposite side, cause of the present decadence of the Catholic Church and even judged as an apostasy from Vatican I and from the Council of Trent. Consequently demands have been made for its retraction or for a revision that would be tantamount to a retraction.”
"Over against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points."
From this Cardinal Ratzinger drew two conclusions:
First: “It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism’, at least in its extreme forms.”
*
Second*: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”
"Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as a indivisible unity."
…his exhortation to all Catholics who wish to remain such, is certainly not to “turn back” but rather “to return to the authentic texts of the original Vatican II.”
**
“…to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council…”**
“We must remain faithful to the today of the Church not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and with arbitrariness that distorts them.”
all extracts here are from The Ratzinger Report
D
Dee_S
Guest
Their intentions we cannot assume or judge, but as St Alphonsus de Liguori & other great theologians teach, we **can **judge the outward actions of a person or in this case, an organization without being uncharitable or judgemental.
The SSPX ‘sacraments’ of marriage and confession are invalid due to their canonical status in the Church. This should be taken very seriously by all concerned Catholics - never mind that they say a beautiful Mass (the Tridentine Rite) which they do not have sole rights over either. Considering their priests are all suspended, I really do wonder what is being achieved on this thread sometimes
Yes, from the Pope downwards, all caring Catholics wish them back in full communion - but 40 obstinate years later - it is by their choice that they are not.“Although critical of the “left” Ratzinger also exhibits an unmistakable severity toward the “right” toward that integralist traditionalism quintessentialy symbolized by the old Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. In a reference to it he told me:
"I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only the popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?”
"…everything possible must be done to prevent this movement from giving rise to a schism peculiar to it that would come into being whenever Msgr. Lefebvre should decide to consecrate a bishop which, thank God, in the hope of a reconciliation he has not yet done."
- Status