A
agnes_therese
Guest
You may debate it if you wish. Obviously Pope Emeritus Benedict considered them Catholic. I have no doubt he knows more about the situation than I do, so I’ll follow his lead.
- Status
G
godisgood77
Guest
I’ve never seen a reference to the SPPX org being in communion with Pope. Can you link me?
P
PJM
Guest
OK
But the point seems tom be: “declared”
“SCHISMATIC. According to Church law, a schismatic is a person who, after receiving baptism and while keeping the name of Christian, pertinaciously refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with those who are subject to him. The two factors, submission to the Pope and association with persons subject to him, are to be taken disjunctively. Either resisting papal authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship induces schism, even without further affiliation with another religious body. Like heresy, schism is formal and culpable only when the obligations are fully realized.”
And Like you I do not wish this to happen!
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
You questioned whether they were Catholic.
Technically, you broke two rules by doing so.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=486782
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
Thank you for this explanation. This is very well put. You are getting right to the heart of the matter.
It seems that there are three main points I distilled from the SSPX letter (and the Traditionalist position): 1) The Pope cannot change Truth; 2) Truth (or Sacred Tradition) is present in both written and unwritten form and 3) since it is not always explicitly defined what exactly is part of Sacred Tradition, it would be best to err on the side of caution, even when dealing with small-t traditions since they may actually impact the transmission of Sacred Tradition. I believe these 3 points are a summation of the Traditionalist position.
Against point 1, you say:
The SSPX (and Traditionalist Catholics) would say this is incorrect. This is an example of the Modernist heresy: that Truth changes with the times. What a previous pope has condemned remains condemned now and forever. What the Church has held as good and holy, remains good and holy now and forever. A current Pope is not free to “un-condemn” something. Or to condemn what was previously universally accepted as good and holy. It is a logical impossibility. This is because the Pope doesn’t create Truth. He merely identifies it. It was True BEFORE the Pope announced it and it is True AFTER a new Pope takes office. The Pope is limited in his power to identify new undiscovered Truth, he cannot change previously declared Truth. Also, the Pope must hand-down the Truth that he has received, unchanged. This is how Sacred Tradition is transmitted.
So, to correct your sentence, I would re-write it as “One pope cannot bind the entire Church of the future in small-t traditions.”
But, even here diligent Popes have always been cautious. For they understand that many apparently small-t traditions may actually be transmissions of Sacred Tradition that haven’t been explicitly identified yet. So, prudence would then dictate erring on the side of caution with suddenly throwing out many small-t traditions because they are seemingly mere customs.
Just as you are asking me to believe that “One pope cannot bind the entire Church of the future.” And, I must say “No” to this. Likewise, the SSPX letter merely states several items that they believe have been unequivocally condemned that they are being asked to believe. This is why they say, “No.” Because the Truth cannot change. What was condemned is still condemned.
Of course, someone will object that the current Pope is the sole interpreter of what is Traditional. And this is correct. But, in this he is only guaranteed of infallibility under the precise conditions codified at Vatican I. And this only applies to new elements of Tradition. He is not free to “un-condemn” things that were previously condemned.
So what exactly must the SSPX believe to be granted canonical standing? In fact, there is no definite list of propositions that they are asked to believe. So far, they have only been told that they must accept Vatican II. But, they do accept Vatican II in light of Tradition. So, their question is what specific doctrines of Vatican II are they required to accept that have not been already defined? To my knowledge, they have not received an answer to this question.
Some might say, they should just obey the Pope whatever he says. Of course, they would love to but not when they believe the Pope is asking them to believe things which previous Popes have condemned. At this time, I’m thinking what is needed is a formal pronouncement. The Pope, or a future council, needs to issue a statement saying “If there is anyone that does not believe X as stated in Vatican II; let him be anathema.” Then they will no where they stand. Until then, they are in limbo.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Who said they are in communion with the Pope?
There have been a great many posts here, and numerous articles elsewhere, explaining the current canonical status of the SSPX. I would suggest you educate yourself further.
C
curlycool89
Guest
I think you misunderstood what Br. JR said, because he has said/explained it many times.
Actually, it’s that no Pope can bind a future Pope regarding anything that has not been divinely revealed. To subscribe to anything else is to say that the Pope is not the Supreme Judicial authority and Liturgist of the Church, which is false because the Pope is.
The Pope has it within his power to change anything that is not divinely revealed. That includes the Mass, the calendar, the Breviary, and even what priests should wear for vestments. This also includes all discretional or prudential issues, which by their very nature do not have a clear black/white or right/wrong answer.
They must accept Vatican II as it has been interpreted by the Church, and to unqualifiedly and irrevocably renounce the ability to come up with any interpretation which is contrary to that of Holy Mother Church.
For example, the Church has interpreted the Council’s teaching on religious freedom in a certain way, which the SSPX denounced. The SSPX must accept that the Church is the correct and sole/unique interpreter of this and that if the SSPX comes up with a different answer, then they are wrong.
Well, that seems to be their intent.
Let’s be honest, the SSPX seems to like being in limbo. On the one hand they can talk about how Catholic they are, and on the other hand they get to promote their own interpretations that are sometimes contrary to that of Rome (the real Rome, not some Protestant-ish “eternal Rome” that never existed).
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t think it’s quite that simple.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=564105&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Not to be argumentative, but I am pondering the logic of this.
How can someone explain his agreement with the SSPX that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is invalid and NOT be judging the Catholic Church?
The opinions of the SSPX/Bishop Fellay and those of the Catholic Church as represented by the recent Popes seem irreconcilable.
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
Here’s the problem: Sacred Tradition is part of Divine Revelation. Sacred Tradition is often unwritten but is present in the small-t traditions, customs, artwork, liturgy, music, disciplines of the Church. Often these small-t traditions are the ONLY way the big-T Sacred Tradition is communicated to the faithful. When too many small-t traditions are changed, too quickly. There is a danger of not transmitting the Sacred Tradition. This is why the Church was always slow to change even small-t traditions.
Here the Catechism is saying that the small-t traditions are how the “great Tradition” is expressed. The Church’s Magisterium can change them but only “In the light of Tradition”. This means it can only change even the small-t traditions “in the the light of Sacred Tradition.” Small-t traditions are very important since the express the “great Tradition.” They must be changed carefully and slowly.
This is what many Traditionalists complain about all the rapid, drastic changes to the liturgy, vestments, Divine Office, Rites of Ordination, etc. There is a danger that the small-t traditions no longer express the Sacred Tradition.
J
JReducation
Guest
We must not lose sight that a pope can only bind in matters of faith and morals. All other decrees are governance or pastoral. In the case of Pope Pius X, he made some statements about different issues of the day. What the current pope does is to read through those statements and decide which is binding and which is a pastoral statement or a governance statement. Those that are binding, because they are from divine revelation are not touched. They cannot be touched. Those that laws or pastoral can be adapted by the current pope according to the needs of the Church today.
The issue is a difference of opinion between the current popes and the SSPX as to what Pius X said that binds the Church in perpetuity and what the Pontiff interprets as non-binding. At the end of the day, it is the Pontiff who has the final word on what Pius X said that is binding and what is not. Pope Benedict made this very clear when he told the SSPX that it must accept that only the Pontiff can decide whether something is part of Sacred Tradition or is not. Only the Pontiff can sort through the past and say what is and is not binding. None of the current popes has changed doctrine. They have explained doctrines. They have made changes to what they consider to be pastoral statements.
The SSPX is being asked to accept that there is no doctrinal error in the documents of Vatican II, the CCC and the Ordinary Form of the Mass. The directions are very clear. This was in a letter made public by Bishop Fellay himself. To this day, the SSPX has yet to give the Vatican a formal response. Bishop Fellay has made many public statements, but has not put anything in writing for the Vatican.
He was also told by Archbishop Mueller to stop talking to the laity and to the press. He has failed to comply with that mandate. This raises a lot of questions about the desire to obey. This request is not unreasonable and certainly one that is made of all religious orders, all bishops, all societies of apostolic life, all religious congregations and every department of the Vatican. The question does arise, what makes the SSPX believe that it has a special place in the Church and the world that dispenses the Society from doing what everyone else is bound to do, which is to keep its dialog with the Vatican a secret between it and the Vatican. Even the LCSW leadership did not comment on what transpired between them and the Vatican other than to say that the meeting had been cordial. When someone tells you to stop talking to outsiders and limit your comments, questions and concerns to those in authority, you’re expected to obey. There is more here than just the documents of Vatican II, the mass and the CCC. There seems to be an attitude of being above the law and an attitude that says, “We are better interpreters of what previous popes said and meant than the current pope.”
We can’t go on with this kind of attitude or we’ll get nowhere. There has to be submission to authority when authority is not asking anyone to violate the Commandments.
L
Like
Guest
:thumbsup:This is good.
BTW I love your blob.
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
Bishop Fellay in his talk in New Hamburg, Jan 4, 2013 stated that he has given his formal written response to Rome 3 times already. The answer in each letter was “No.” He said that he thinks Rome is trying to take the pressure off the Society by continually saying that they have received no formal response. He said he could write them a fourth time with the same answer if they would like.
In all fairness, I believe some information was leaked without the SSPX permission.
Ultimately, the SSPX feel justified in their disobedience due to what they perceive as the destruction of the Church. It really comes down to personal conscience and to the fact that “obedience is owed unto edification; not to destruction.” They’re willing to take a beating for what they believe is the Truth.
It is really up to the current, or a future Pope, to decide where this goes. History might describe them as heroes that really helped the Church, or simply a stubborn group of faithful that started a new schismatic church, like the Eastern Orthodox.
Based on my personal experience with them, I’m 100% convinced that if they are given an ultimatum, they will go into formal schism. That’s the way things are looking right now anyway.
Well, hopefully, if they go into formal schism, the Church will be as welcoming to them as they are to the Eastern Orthodox. The SSPX has always said they’d be treated better if they were just outside. Maybe it’s time for them to admit that and just leave?
D
Dee_S
Guest
They are not in full communion with the Church, nor do they have any canonical status. This Motu Proprio was issued in July of 2009…4 years later their status is still the same!!
“4. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre.** With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.”**
ECCLESIAE UNITATEM
**OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF BENEDICT XVI
** *Given in Rome, at St Peter’s, on 2 July 2009, the fifth year of Our Pontificate. *
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html
D
Dee_S
Guest
I suppose the question is…how long will Holy Mother Church tolerate this disobedient child?OK
But the point seems tom be: “declared”
“SCHISMATIC. According to Church law, a schismatic is a person who, after receiving baptism and while keeping the name of Christian, pertinaciously refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with those who are subject to him. The two factors, submission to the Pope and association with persons subject to him, are to be taken disjunctively. Either resisting papal authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship induces schism, even without further affiliation with another religious body. Like heresy, schism is formal and culpable only when the obligations are fully realized.”
And Like you I do not wish this to happen!
"VATICAN, Jan. 22, 2013 (CNS) —** The traditionalist Society of St. Pius X will have a future only if it returns to full communion with the Vatican and stops publicly criticizing the teaching of the pope,** said the Vatican official responsible for relations with traditionalist Catholics.
**“Surely the time has come to abandon the harsh and counterproductive rhetoric that has emerged over the past years,” **U.S. Archbishop J. Augustine Di Noia, vice president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” wrote to members of the SSPX in an Advent letter.
The archbishop’s letter was sent several weeks before the SSPX superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, gave a speech in Canada Dec. 28 in which he described the Jews as enemies of the church and described as “evil” the Mass as reformed by the Second Vatican Council."
While Archbishop Di Noia said in the letter that the Vatican’s relations with the SSPX “remain open and hopeful,” he also said** the Vatican would not and could not continue forever to remain silent when SSPX leaders misrepresent what is taking place in the discussions **or publicly reject positions still supposedly being discussed with the Vatican.
“A review of the history of our relations since the 1970s leads to the sobering realization that the terms of our disagreement concerning Vatican Council II have remained, in effect, unchanged,” the archbishop wrote.
**Archbishop Di Noia urges SSPX to take new attitude in unity talks
**cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=11971
Apart from these formal statements, the Commission’s President, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, who has long favored better relations between the society and the Holy See, commented in press and television interviews about the situation of the members of the Society. In one such interview, he said that the 1988 consecrations gave rise to a situation of separation, even if not a formal schism.
While the members of the Society were not, in the full strict sense, in schism, they lacked full communion, and the consecrations indicated a schismatic attitude.
While, in consecrating the bishops, Lefebvre committed a schismatic act, the members and adherents of the Society could not be called schismatics, but they were in great danger of falling into schism; the Society’s bishops were suspended and excommunicated, but other members and adherents were not excommunicated.
Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-16
B
Brendan_64
Guest
That’s correct. The Church has never been ‘frozen in time’. There have been many Ecumenical Councils over our teo thousand years of existence. The Church has adapted itself over time in order to spread the Word of God more effectively, and evangelise better in the circumstances it finds itself in, and revisit the manner in which the Truths of the Church were expressed. This is nothing new, and there is nothing particularly special about the way the Church did things immediately prior to Vatican II. The SSPX seems to want to preserve in aspic the Catholic Church of the 1950’s, and this is not the way in which the Church has operated throughout its history.
Their new concept of ‘Eternal Rome’ is something invented in order to allow them to justify to themselves, their blatant disobedience of Vatican II and every Pope since then while trying to fool themselves into thinking that they are still loyal to Rome. There is nothing traditional whatsoever in the concept of loyalty to ‘Eternal Rome’.
D
Dee_S
Guest
These extracts from the article Eternal Rome vs the Magisterium:A contemporary Myth byDr Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture (a very interesting site for Catholic news and information) is well worth the read and debunks the myth completely."Bishop Fellay states: “It is not us [sic] who will break with Rome, the Eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.” But of course the SSPX has already broken with Rome through a refusal of obedience, including the consecration of bishops without the consent of the Holy Father. And the reason for this breach is the myth which Traditionalists have concocted of “eternal Rome”. Another name for this myth is “perennial doctrine” or “perennial teaching”.
I call this a myth because it is used by Traditionalists generally to create a false dichotomy between “eternal Rome” and the authority of the Magisterium today, or between “perennial doctrine” and what the Magisterium has taught since, say, 1960. The myth says that there can be a difference between these two things, and that the former is the rule of faith. But the truth is that there can be no difference between these two things, and that a proper understanding of the Catholic faith is achieved only by obedience to all of the relevant statements of the Magisterium of all times, including our own times.
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=541
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
But, according to Vatican II, Protestants, or more correctly: “separated brethren” are informal members of the Church and thus are capable of salvation and can go to Heaven. So, if, as you claim, the SSPX are Protestants, or “separated brethren” they can still go to Heaven. Isn’t that the most important thing?
According to this view, it doesn’t matter whether their Confessions are valid or not. There are many members of Protestant sects, or “separated brethren” who do not offer the Sacrament of Confession at all. And, yet, they are informally members of the Church and are capable of being saved and entering Heaven. Apparently, being a member of a Church that offers valid confessions is not an absolute requirement for getting into Heaven. Again, isn’t getting into Heaven the most important thing? Certainly it is more important than formal Church membership.
- Status