Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign

[JReducation]

Ditto. Though, it would be amusing to me if it was just a copy of the Catechism. XP

What is it that SSPX is supposed to agree to?

From the little bit that was shared, my take is that one of the things that they must agree to do is to limit their criticisms to dialogue rather than rants from the pulpit and in the press. It said that there is always room to discuss how the documents of the Council can be implemented and to discuss what they mean. My take is that the Vatican is not about to retract any of the documents, but is willing to have open discussion on how to implement them and how to explain them so that there is clarity and continuity.

This may not be acceptable to some in the SSPX, especially the laity. The laity in the SSPX is more anti-Vatican than its clergy. I believe that these people are not going to be happy to limit the discussions concerning the content of the Vatican II documents to bishops’ meetings, synods, theology and Canon Law classrooms, seminars and other controlled environments where people normally sit and discuss such matters.

There seems to be an element out there that thrives on the polemics and if that were taken out of the front page, off the internet, and taken into scholarly environments, this would only include laymen who are theologians. The most that the laity would see would be the conclusions of such talks, not the actual bashing and criticisms as we now see.

One of the things that many of us have noticed is that the SSPX bishops only make aggressive statement when they are speaking to the laity. It’s almost as if they are speaking to their constituency saying what these folks want to hear. When you get into a closed room with priests, religious and scholars from the SSPX and the mainstream, the conversation is tame. No one criticizes. The subject is defined and the rules for discussion are set in stone. You have so many minutes to make your point. You cannot attack or question the integrity of the other person. Then you have to listen to the rebuttals. You then have so much time to answer the rebuttal. Then the table flips over. Then lunch is called and everyone leaves happy. You usually break out into groups where you draw up conclusions of the dialogue. At the end of the day, you have a cocktail and dinner.

I have sat through these types of sessions with people from the right and from the left. It’s always very calm and very structured. That one statement that there is room for dialogue is very telling. My guess is that it is suggesting that we can dialogue in order to understand what the Council said. Clarify was is blurred. Find the proper applications for what was intended; but we’re not going to engage in debates and the Vatican is not going to allow the SSPX what it does not allow any other priest or any other religious order or other society.

If the Dominicans got up in masse, went to the press, stood at their pulpits, and bashed the Church, there would be hell to pay. They can do this in very controlled environments setup for this purpose, not in the press and not from the pulpit. This applies to Franciscans, Salesians, Jesuits and everyone else. Whenever you have these loose cannons who do these things, they end up being ostracized by their own people. Therfore, no more corporate and public bashing.

My other guess is that they will have to limit their discussion to whatever the pope says is up for discussion. For example, it is clear to every Catholic that relations with Jews and Muslims are not up for discussion with Pope Benedict. This is one of his personal ministries and he’s not going to negotiate on this or entertain doing it any other way than the way that Pope John Paul and he set out to do. You don’t play with the pope’s projects. That’s not going to go over well with many lay Catholics in the SSPX. I think that other than Bishop Willliamson, the other bishops may roll their eyes, but will also roll with the punches, but not Bishop Williamson and his group.

 

[JReducation]

If the rumors about a prelature are true, that has long-term consequences. Current laws on prelatures say that the prelature is governed by a vicar. The pope is its head. Even the Opus Dei, which has a bishop, that bishop has no power. He is the pope’s vicar. The pope has all the controls. In practice, this is going to depend on each pope. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict are not into micromanaging. However, the law does allow for micromanaging of a prelature. A diocese is much more autonomous than a prelature. A diocese has a synod, a vicar general, one or more chancellors, its own tribunal, a defined territory and a defined congregation. In other words, it’s a Church. A prelature is more like a diocese without boundaries and without the infrastructure that gives it an identifiable personality.

We have Opus Dei all over the world, but no one knows that they are among us. They go about their business. They don’t bother the local diocese and it does not bother them. They cannot get involved in the affairs of the local diocese and the local diocese does not get involved in their affairs. However, they are not considered a canonical Church.

My feeling is that many of the laypeople in SSPX want to have influence in the local dioceses where they live. A prelature would rule that out. The local diocese is what it is and the prelature may not comment on it or intervene in any way. You can join Opus Dei and you can bring Opus Dei to the mainstream Church only to the degree that the local bishop allows. Otherwise, Opus Dei is to do its thing without anyone bothering them or them bothering anyone else. I can see the SSPX clergy loving this and the SSPX laity hating it. It means no more confrontations. You have your assigned space. You stay there. If you choose to go into the mainstream, you do so on its terms, not your prelature’s terms.

We’ll have to wait and see. I pray that they will agree to whatever the Vatican has put on that paper so we can move on. The rest of us are going to have to accept whatever concessions the Vatican makes to the SSPX too. It’s not one-sided.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Orleans_Attny]

If the rumors about a prelature are true, that has long-term consequences. Current laws on prelatures say that the prelature is governed by a vicar. The pope is its head. Even the Opus Dei, which has a bishop, that bishop has no power. He is the pope’s vicar. The pope has all the controls. In practice, this is going to depend on each pope. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict are not into micromanaging. However, the law does allow for micromanaging of a prelature. A diocese is much more autonomous than a prelature. A diocese has a synod, a vicar general, one or more chancellors, its own tribunal, a defined territory and a defined congregation. In other words, it’s a Church. A prelature is more like a diocese without boundaries and without the infrastructure that gives it an identifiable personality.

We have Opus Dei all over the world, but no one knows that they are among us. They go about their business. They don’t bother the local diocese and it does not bother them. They cannot get involved in the affairs of the local diocese and the local diocese does not get involved in their affairs. However, they are not considered a canonical Church.

My feeling is that many of the laypeople in SSPX want to have influence in the local dioceses where they live. A prelature would rule that out. The local diocese is what it is and the prelature may not comment on it or intervene in any way. You can join Opus Dei and you can bring Opus Dei to the mainstream Church only to the degree that the local bishop allows. Otherwise, Opus Dei is to do its thing without anyone bothering them or them bothering anyone else. I can see the SSPX clergy loving this and the SSPX laity hating it. It means no more confrontations. You have your assigned space. You stay there. If you choose to go into the mainstream, you do so on its terms, not your prelature’s terms.

We’ll have to wait and see. I pray that they will agree to whatever the Vatican has put on that paper so we can move on. The rest of us are going to have to accept whatever concessions the Vatican makes to the SSPX too. It’s not one-sided.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts. Your explanations in this thread have been very helpful.

Pax,
OA

 

[PiousTemplar]

I have never heard them called anything but in schism. I would hope that all would agree with me that healing is always good.

Left wing modernists call them heretics.

 

[Irish_Pride]

We shall,what will happen

 

[holmj2674]

I guess I just don’t get why the Church is bending over backwards to accommodate a bunch of people who openly appose a legitimate council of the church. I am not a “liberal” catholic, more of a moderate… but 1000 years ago that’s exactly what made you heretical and schismatic.Five hundred years ago they would have been called “protestant.” Perhaps its being a protestant convert and I miss the subtle nuances of dynamics within the Church, but it seems to me the tension dynamic between the more liberal and the more conservative members of the “one, true church” is what makes us the “universal” church, a Church always in that wonderful process of renewal that has made it relevant for 2000 years despite of our (humanities) endless attempt shot ourselves in the foot of personal and collective holiness.

 

[santodomingo]

I never knew much about the SSPX, so I was just reading their US website. This is from the Media Brochure, “reformation” refers to Vat2.:

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

This is from the news story linked in the op:

After Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, doctrinal conversations began in October 2009 between experts of the SSPX and from of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Their aim was to examine major doctrinal difficulties in a bid to repair the group’s 21-year break with the Vatican.

The Vatican has not released any of the specific areas where Bishop Fellay’s group has said the Catholic Church and the popes since the Second Vatican Council had broken with true Catholic tradition.

Does anyone know what the heresy is supposed to be? I converted into the post Vat2 Church, so whatever was taught before is unknown to me. I have all the documents from Vat2 here. Please, if anyone knows of actual changes in doctrine/dogma - what are they? I really don’t care about the form of the Mass unless there is some part that goes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If anyone has a specific reference to anything on these documents, I’d like to have that.

Thank you.

Julia,

If you´re interested in SSPX, I whole-heartedly recommend the short book by Archbishop Lefebvre, its founder, entitled “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”. To understand the background of the conflict that (God willing) is finally being resolved, the best book is perhaps “Apologia Pro- Marcel Lefebvre”, by Michael Davies. You can read them both on-line free of charge.

These two books will give you a clear understanding of the Society´s position, and their arguments. If you want to know the other side just ask the remaining 99% of catholics. But remember that Truth has nothing to do with numbers!

 

[santodomingo]

I guess I just don’t get why the Church is bending over backwards to accommodate a bunch of people who openly appose a legitimate council of the church.

It´s not quite as simple as that. The SSPX opposes only what they consider to be at variance with the Magisterium prior to VII. This is merely the application of the principle of non-contradiction. It´s just logic. If before VII religious liberty meant A and then it meant B, the SSPX want a clarification of what B means. Doctrine can evolve in the sense that our understanding of it deepens. However, what has been defined to mean something very clear CANNOT change into something else that contradicts the previous definition. Am I making sense?

I am not a “liberal” catholic, more of a moderate… but 1000 years ago that’s exactly what made you heretical and schismatic.Five hundred years ago they would have been called “protestant.” Perhaps its being a protestant convert and I miss the subtle nuances of dynamics within the Church, but it seems to me the tension dynamic between the more liberal and the more conservative members of the “one, true church” is what makes us the “universal” church, a Church always in that wonderful process of renewal that has made it relevant for 2000 years despite of our (humanities) endless attempt shot ourselves in the foot of personal and collective holiness.

I´m not sure that I understand what you´re trying to say. But I find the suggestion that doctrinal ambiguity is somehow a good thing to be troubling. The exact opposite is true. You won´t find a single saint or doctor of the Church who longed for doctrinal laxity, so that everybody, liberals and conservatives, could just get along.

A good example of saints and doctrinal rigidity is the arian crisis. Read up about the battle that was fought over A SINGLE LETTER. Instead of** homoiousios** meaning “of like substance”, St. Athanasius and his followers insisted on homoousios, meaning “consubstantial”. That meant ALL the difference at that moment in the Church´s history, and St. Athanasius and others were prepared to die rather than back down.

The SSPX has good reason to question VII, because the problems are there for all to see. You just have to be honest and WANT to see.

 

[Monica4316]

I guess I just don’t get why the Church is bending over backwards to accommodate a bunch of people who openly appose a legitimate council of the church. I am not a “liberal” catholic, more of a moderate… but 1000 years ago that’s exactly what made you heretical and schismatic.Five hundred years ago they would have been called “protestant.” Perhaps its being a protestant convert and I miss the subtle nuances of dynamics within the Church, but it seems to me the tension dynamic between the more liberal and the more conservative members of the “one, true church” is what makes us the “universal” church, a Church always in that wonderful process of renewal that has made it relevant for 2000 years despite of our (humanities) endless attempt shot ourselves in the foot of personal and collective holiness.

the SSPX don’t disagree with any doctrines of the Church and they are not sedevacantists… they disagree with some of the implications of the VII Council, and many argue that it’s a pastoral council anyway. Even in the letter to SSPX, the Vatican said that as long as the SSPX agree to all the doctrines and obedience, they can examine the various interpretations of VII.

To be fair we have seen a lot of bad changes after VII, not official changes by the Church, but just losing a lot of our traditions. It’s like some people used the Council to further their own agenda.

 

[Warrenton]

Five hundred years ago they would have been called “protestant.”

At the risk of stating the obvious, 500 years ago saying the mass in the vernacular, toward the people, and singing vernacular songs at mass made one “Protestant.”

We could go on, but I am sure you get the drift.

This obvious fact is not lost on the Vatican, hence the talks.

 

[catharina]

Julia,

**If you´re interested in SSPX, I whole-heartedly recommend the short book by Archbishop Lefebvre, its founder, entitled “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”. **

Julia, I would whole-heartedly disagree with this advice (reading M. Lefebvre’s works) since he was still under the discipline of excommunication at the time of his death. That is his place in the history of the Church. Seeking to “learn” from his writings should be viewed as a rush against grave caution.

To understand the background of the conflict that (God willing) is finally being resolved, the best book is perhaps “Apologia Pro- Marcel Lefebvre”, by Michael Davies. You can read them both on-line free of charge.

These two books will give you a clear understanding of the Society´s position, and their arguments. If you want to know the other side just ask the remaining 99% of catholics. But remember that Truth has nothing to do with numbers!

**
Most of all, remember that the Truth is the Truth.
The truth regarding M. Lefebvre is that he chose
to defy the Church, unto death.**

 

[santodomingo]

Mgr. Lefebvre was a holy man of God who loved the Church a great deal more than most bishops, all too happy to turn a blind eye to abhorrent abuses and heresies in their dioceses.

This is the usual response to the SSPX; calumny and outright horror. I try to bear it with patience for the love of Christ, but it´s hard sometimes.

All I did was suggest some reading to a person who expressed interest.

I pray for a reconciliation. Maybe then some of the well-meaning but ignorant catholics who view Mgr. Lefebvre as a kind of bogey-man will come to know the truth about him.

 

[catharina]

All I did was suggest some reading to a person who expressed interest.

… and all I did was to present relevant facts.

I pray for a reconciliation. Maybe then some of the well-meaning but ignorant catholics who view Mgr. Lefebvre as a kind of bogey-man will come to know the truth about him.

My guess is that most Catholics hope and pray for a long-overdue reconciliation. Nonetheless, M. Lefebvre is not seen as a bogeyman. The fact is that he chose to disobey the Holy Father until he died. If the Church ever chooses to say differently about M. Lefebvre, then we will know that. Until then? No.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia, I would whole-heartedly disagree with this advice (reading M. Lefebvre’s works) since he was still under the discipline of excommunication at the time of his death. That is his place in the history of the Church. Seeking to “learn” from his writings should be viewed as a rush against grave caution.

I would like to know what heresy he, or anyone, believes Vat 2 introduced into the Church. If he has expressed that clearly somewhere then I’ll go read it.

Joan of Arc died a heretic, that was her place in the history of the Church.

Times change.

 

[catharina]

I would like to know what heresy he, or anyone, believes Vat 2 introduced into the Church. If he has expressed that clearly somewhere then I’ll go read it.

Joan of Arc died a heretic, that was her place in the history of the Church.

Times change.

Joan of Arc died a ‘heretic’ as named so by England.
Her status as “Heretic” was NEVER approved by Rome.
Her rebuke by England (enemies of her native France)
was not her place in Church History. It was her
place in English history.

If "times change" regarding M. Lefebvre, Rome will say so.

 

[Warrenton]

In response to Catharina:

That is severely reductionist and does nothing to advance unity. It is virtually the same as some of Bishop Williamson’s statements, except on the other side of the coin.

The hard line has been tried between Protestants and Catholics, Catholics and Orthodox, Russian and Greeks. The result remains the same: division, exclusion. And division is great, indeed, it is the governing principal behind most clubs, especially the exclusive ones “everyone” wants to join. Great with one caveat: if we end up needing the people we excluded. That’s the moral of the kingdoms of Judah and Isreal. We do well to heed the lesson.

If we wants unity with different people, sooner of later we have to listen to what they’re saying.

I mean, I’m just saying.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia,

If you´re interested in SSPX, I whole-heartedly recommend the short book by Archbishop Lefebvre, its founder, entitled “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”. To understand the background of the conflict that (God willing) is finally being resolved, the best book is perhaps “Apologia Pro- Marcel Lefebvre”, by Michael Davies. You can read them both on-line free of charge.

Thanks. I just looked at the Davies book, it isn’t useful as it doesn’t outline the direct issues, purposely.

Perhaps catharina, you will look at this page and tell me what he says you disagree with: sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-9.htm

Here is my confusion. I was early on introduced to priest and religious who denied transubstantiation or that God works miracles. Or that Jesus did. I, a recently converted completely theologically ignorant non practicing Protestant, found this appalling. Mostly because I knew for a fact that God does, indeed, “reach into reality and change natural law” (do miracles) and that “this is my Body” means just that, whatever fancy name anyone gives it. IOW, I kept running into Catholics who I thought were supposed to be the ones who knew more than I, who didn’t even seem to believe in God.

Here’s what I don’t know: what happened at Vat 2 that is responsible for this heresy being spouted? See, I don’t find it when I read the documents. Lefebvre seems to have come from the St Pius XII generation and been very involved in setting the agenda for the Council. What actually happened there that is not in the realm of gossip?

I never heard of the Holy Office before:

There is no doubt that abolishing the Holy Office, which had always been seen by the Church as the tribunal of the Faith, has favored these abuses. Until then anyone–lay man, priest or a fortiori a bishop–could submit to the Holy Office any text, any article and ask whether the Church thought the writing was in conformity or not with Catholic doctrine. A month or six weeks later, the Holy Office would reply: “This is correct, this is false, that must be made clear; one part is true and one part false…”

But it sounds great and I wish we had one. Or, did they just change the way it worked and we do have that, and he is misrepresenting the situation?

Anyway, I’ll be going back to read the rest of his book.

 

[catharina]

In response to Catharina:

That is severely reductionist and does nothing to advance unity. It is virtually the same as some of Bishop Williamson’s statements, except on the other side of the coin.

The hard line has been tried between Protestants and Catholics, Catholics and Orthodox, Russian and Greeks. The result remains the same: division, exclusion. And division is great, indeed, it is the governing principal behind most clubs, especially the exclusive ones “everyone” wants to join. Great with one caveat: if we end up needing the people we excluded. That’s the moral of the kingdoms of Judah and Isreal. We do well to heed the lesson.

If we wants unity with different people, sooner of later we have to listen to what they’re saying.

I mean, I’m just saying.

Yes, you’re just saying that my post is completely reductionist.

I disagree. I don’t read or applaud M. Lefebvre because
the Church does not do so. The word of the Church instructs me.
If the Church ever decides that I should read and study the works
of M. Lefebvre, the Church will say so and I will do so.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you. I just read the whole thing, and I can’t figure out what the issue is. Well, except that says implicitly that the it was wrong to kill people who weren’t Catholic just because they weren’t Catholic or torture them into conversion, and I certainly agree with that. But really, I thought it was a statement against all religious repression,which at the time was, and still is, rampant, especially of the Church by the forces of communism.

Do you know of any writings by the SSPX I should read? I’ll look myself again, I’m just not finding much but vague complaints and that they hate the Novus Ordro.

I don’t know of specific SSPX writings. But Pope Pius IX’s syllabus of errors lists a few teachings on religious liberty which they feel are contradicted by Vatican II. Here’s a link to “syllabus of errors”, a list of condemned statements. #77 - #79 deal with religious liberty.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

[catharina]

Perhaps catharina, you will look at this page and tell me what he says you disagree with: sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-9.htm.

So sorry, I won’t be doing that.
I do not enter the sspx website.
I do not read any works of M. Lefebvre.

I’m sorry that you seem to have met so many confused Catholics.
I can’t explain that to you. If sspx or M. Lefebvre says that heresy
was a part of Vatican II teachings, I can and do say they are mistaken.