OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 28, 2014, 01:19:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Vatican talks with splinter group difficult-cardinal  (Read 4644 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« on: May 11, 2010, 03:04:35 PM »

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-48261220100505?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

It looks like there will be no joy in "Mudville" anytime soon.

 By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor

PARIS (Reuters) - Vatican talks with a controversial splinter group have been difficult and the ultra-traditionalist Catholics will have to make concessions if an accord is to be reached, a senior Vatican cardinal said on Wednesday.

The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), whose four bishops were readmitted to the Church last year after a ban of 21 years, cannot conduct the doctrinal discussions on their terms, but only on those of the Vatican, Cardinal Walter Kasper said.

The closed-door talks are a key issue for the Catholic Church because, although the SSPX is small, its return to the fold has been so stormy. One readmitted bishop, Richard Williamson, is a Holocaust denier convicted and fined for hate speech in Germany.

Pope Benedict's eagerness to rehabilitate the SSPX, despite its rejection of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) reforms, troubles Catholic critics who see them as anti-Semites who want to turn back the clock on 40 years of dialogue among religions.

"Dialogue with them is not easy," Kasper, who heads the Vatican department for relations with other Christian churches and with Jews, told a news conference during a visit to Paris.

"The main problem with them is not the Mass in Latin," he said, referring to the SSPX's insistence on the pre-Council liturgy, "but the concept of tradition. Do we want a living tradition or a petrified one?"

"I'm for a dialogue, but on our conditions, not on the traditionalists' conditions," he added. The SSPX had to accept the Council reforms, the "sine qua non" of any accord.

Without an accord, the group will have no official status and its clergy will not be recognised as Catholic priests or allowed to exercise their ministry.

Benedict, who has promoted a return to Catholic tradition and identity during his five-year papacy, said in January that the talks among three theologians from each side were held up over "doctrinal problems" he did not specify.

The SSPX, numbering several hundred thousand members, insists it represents the true faith and the Vatican and the vast majority of the Church went off the rails at the Council.

POPE'S SLEEPLESS NIGHTS

Even while its theologians meet Vatican experts every other week to seek a common understanding of the Council, its leaders have been criticising key doctrines of that historic event.

SSPX head Bishop Bernard Fellay said in March the Vatican theologians "wish the Church well but also want to save the Second Vatican Council -- that's like squaring a circle."

Williamson, ignoring a gag order Fellay imposed on him after his interview denying the Holocaust, dismissed the Vatican talks in January as a futile bid to harmonise irreconcilable views.

"Either the SSPX becomes a traitor, or Rome converts, or it's a dialogue of the deaf," he said.

In recent months, the SSPX head in Germany has criticised Benedict for visiting the Rome synagogue and the French district head said dialogue with other faiths was ruining the Church.

A former colleague, German theologian Wolfgang Beinert, told Der Spiegel magazine last month that the pope had told him the SSPX issue "robs him of his sleep." He did not think Benedict would compromise at any cost with the ultra-traditionalists.

Kasper, the second-highest German at the Vatican after Benedict, said the SSPX has staunchly opposed the dialogue with other Christian churches for which he is responsible.

"They've attacked me as a heretic," he said with a smile.

Asked why the ultra-traditionalists opposed ecumenical dialogue so strongly, he said: "Some people feel threatened in their Catholic identity when we speak with Protestants.

"We need to have a Catholic identity," he said. "But we need an open and mature identity, not a closed one. That's not a mature identity."

(Editing by Tim Pearce)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 03:06:04 PM by Robb » Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2010, 04:22:41 PM »

Very rich coming from the irrelevant and isolated Kasper.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2010, 04:31:45 PM »

They do not accept Vatican II?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2010, 07:12:13 PM »

They do not accept Vatican II?
They don't think that its a doctrinal council.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2010, 07:36:45 PM »

They do not accept Vatican II?
They don't think that its a doctrinal council.

Oh. And they don't think they are required to accept the non-doctrinal aspects of it?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2010, 08:58:08 PM »

They do not accept Vatican II?
They don't think that its a doctrinal council.

Oh. And they don't think they are required to accept the non-doctrinal aspects of it?
correct. They see it as a poory executed pastoral council.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2010, 09:52:43 PM »

They do not accept Vatican II?
They don't think that its a doctrinal council.

Oh. And they don't think they are required to accept the non-doctrinal aspects of it?
correct. They see it as a poory executed pastoral council.

Ah, ok.

What do you think of that?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2010, 10:09:33 AM »

"The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level , as merely a pastoral council." Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

"Certainly the results (of Vatican II) seem cruelly opposed to the expectations of everyone, beginning with those of Pope John XXIII and then of Pope Paul VI: expected was a new Catholic unity and instead we have been exposed to dissension which, to use the words of Pope Paul VI, seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. Expected was a new enthusiasm, and many wound up discouraged and bored. Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church." Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2010, 12:32:25 PM »

They do not accept Vatican II?
They don't think that its a doctrinal council.

Oh. And they don't think they are required to accept the non-doctrinal aspects of it?
correct. They see it as a poory executed pastoral council.

Ah, ok.

What do you think of that?
Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox. However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2010, 12:43:16 PM »

A former friend of mine belonged to the SSPX. Based on her statements and beliefs, I don't see any reconciliation between the two groups as possible. The article is right, it's not just about tradition with these folks; they see the Seat of Peter as being Vacant, and the current Pope as, well, I'll just say they don't have a charitable view of him. Smiley
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2010, 12:53:11 PM »

A former friend of mine belonged to the SSPX. Based on her statements and beliefs, I don't see any reconciliation between the two groups as possible. The article is right, it's not just about tradition with these folks; they see the Seat of Peter as being Vacant, and the current Pope as, well, I'll just say they don't have a charitable view of him. Smiley

Hmmm. I know that the SSPX are not sedevacantists. Read the following article:

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm

As you can see The SSPX is not sedavanatist.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2010, 03:13:33 PM »

In fact, almost 30 years ago Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, expelled the priests in his Society who refused to use the 1962 Missal (the last approved). Refusal to use the 1962 Missal is one of the signs of a sedevacantist, because it was promulgated by Pope Blessed John XXIII, seen by sedevacantists as an antipope.

And that is why Lefebvre ordered all of his priests to use the 1962 Missal.

Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2010, 03:30:56 PM »

A May 2010 letter to SSPX friends and benefactors by the Superior General, His Excellency Msgr. Bernard Fellay, in which he defends Pope Benedict XVI:

The Church’s situation increasingly resembles a sea that is agited in all directions. We see waves and more waves, which seem to be about to capsize the bark of Peter and drag it into the endless abyss. Since the Second Vatican Council, it seems that a wave has been trying to carry off everything into the deep, leaving only a heap of ruins, a spiritual desert, that the popes themselves have called an apostasy.  We do not want to describe this harsh reality again;  we have already so often done, and all of you can see that it is so.  Still, to us it seems useful to comment somewhat on the events of the past months;  I want to speak about the surprisingly violent and particularly well-orchestrated blows that have been dealt to the Church and the Supreme Pontiff. Why such violent attacks?

To return to our metaphor, it seems that for some time now, more or less since the beginning of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, a new wave has appeared which is much more modest than the first, yet persistent enough that it is noticeable nevertheless.  Contrary to all expectations, this wave seems to be going in the opposite direction compared to the first.  The indications are sufficiently varied and numerous, that we can state that this new movement of reform or renewal is quite real.  We can see this especially with the younger generations, who are plainly frustrated by the spiritual ineffectiveness of the Vatican II reforms.  Considering the very harsh and bitter reproaches leveled by the progressives against Benedict XVI, it is certain that they see in the very person of the present pope one of the most vigorous causes of this incipient renewal.  In fact, even if we find the pope’s initiatives rather timid, they run deep  and are contrary to the agenda of the revolutionary, left-leaning world, both inside and outside of the Church, and this is true at several levels.

The resulting irritation of the progressives and of the world is sensed initially in questions concerning morality.  Specifically, the Left and the liberals have been irritated despite the pope’s well-pondered words about the use of condoms in dealing with AIDS in Africa.  As for the life of the Church, the restoration of the Mass of All Ages to its rightful place in 2007, and then two years later the rescinding of the degrading punishment aimed at disqualifying us, provoked the rage of liberals and progressives of all stripes.  Moreover, the felicitous plan of a Year for Priests, restoring the priest to a place of honor, recalling his important and indispensable role in the salvation of souls, and proposing the holy Curé of Ars as a model, is not only an invitation to the Christian people to pray for their priests, but also a call to make use of the Sacrament of Penance, which had completely sunk into oblivion in broad sectors of the Church, and also to foster Eucharistic devotion, calling to mind in particular the importance of adoring Our Lord in the Sacred Host, a clear sign of the reality of the real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The appointment of bishops who are distinctly more conservative, some of whom were already celebrating the Tridentine Mass before, is another positive development.  We could cite also, as an undeniable example of the reality of this little wave of opposition, the Letter to the Catholics of Ireland inviting them to repentance, confession, and spiritual exercises and asking also for the adoration of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Even though people in our circles rightly think that these efforts are still insufficient to stop the decay and the crisis of the Church—especially in view of certain acts along the regrettable line of his predecessor, such as the visits to the synagogue and the Protestant church — in Modernist circles however, the hour has come to report to their battle stations!  The big wave is attacking the very little one with unexpected violence.  It is not surprising that the meeting of these two ill-matched waves should cause a lot of backwash and turbulence and give rise to an extremely confused situation in which it is quite difficult to tell and predict which of the two will win the day.  This, however, is something new that deserves to be commented.  It is not a question of giving in to thoughtless enthusiasm or believing that the crisis is over.  On the contrary, the aging forces that see their gains, which they thought were definitive, being called into question, will no doubt put up a large-scale battle to try to save this dream of modernity which is starting to fall apart.  It is very important to remain in this regard, as realistic as possible about what is happening.  Although we rejoice over all the good that is being done in the Church and the world, we nevertheless have no illusions about the seriousness of the present situation.

What should we expect to see in the coming years?  Peace in the Church, or war?  The victory of good and its long-awaited return, or a new tempest?  Will the little wave manage to grow enough to prevail someday?  The assurance that the promise of Our Lady of Fatima will be fulfilled—“in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph”—does not necessarily or directly resolve our question, because it is still quite possible that we will have to first pass through an even greater tribulation before the long-awaited triumph occurs….

A terrific challenge is also intended by our rosary crusade.  We would not want to diminish in the least, the joy over the announcement of the extraordinary result of our Rosary Crusade.   We boldly asked you one year ago for twelve million rosaries so as to crown our dear Heavenly Mother, the Mother of God, as if with an equal number of stars, and to surround with a magnificent crown of praise that Mother, who to the enemies of God appears “terrible as an army set in battle array” (Canticle of Canticles 6:3).  You responded so generously that we can now bring to Rome a spiritual bouquet of more than nineteen million rosaries, not counting all those not directly affiliated with our priories and chapels who joined in our campaign. 

Surely it is no accident that when Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he decided to change the Introit of the feast on August 15, to the passage from the Apocalypse that salutes the great sign that appeared in heaven.  This excerpt from the Apocalypse ushers in the description of one of the most terrible wars that are set forth in that sacred Book:  the great dragon, who with his tail will sweep away a third of the stars, comes to wage battle with the great Woman (see Apocalypse 12).  Is this whole passage intended for our time?  We can easily believe it, while avoiding a literal or overly specific application of those mysterious and prophetic descriptions.  We have absolutely no doubt that all our prayers are important, and even of very great importance at this moment in history at which we find ourselves.  However we think that we should warn you also and encourage you in these circumstances of the history of the Church.

Your great generosity shows, without the slightest doubt, your very real devotion and your love for our Holy Mother, the Roman Catholic Church, for the Successor of Saint Peter, and for the hierarchy, even though we have much to suffer from it.  God is stronger than evil – good will be victorious, but perhaps not with all the pomp that you would like.

Now we must convince the authorities to accomplish the famous consecration of Russia that they say has already been made;  we must recall the present relevance of what Our Lady of Fatima said, even though in the year 2000 there was manifestly an attempt to turn a new leaf and not to return to the subject again.  It seems inevitable that the difficulties and obstacles will multiply so as to prevent the realization of what we are asking.  That doesn’t matter;  we count much more on God than on men, just as we expect from acts as simple as the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary surprising results for the Church and the world, results surpassing anything that we can imagine.  It is foolishness in the sight of men, but it is really a reflection of what Saint Paul already preached to his age:  what men regard as wise is foolishness in God’s sight, whereas God’s wisdom is considered absurd foolishness by the wise of this world (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:20).

As we bring to the attention of the Holy Father your remarkable efforts, along with the reason for these prayers, thus hoping to contribute, in our way, to the good of the Church, we ask you to please continue those same efforts. According to the example that Our Lord Himself invites us to follow in his very moving exhortation to prayer:  “Ask, and you shall receive,” let us ask, indeed insisting on much (cf. Matthew 7:7-11).  Although we do not doubt that our prayers will be answered, our persistence and perseverance must be proportioned to the magnitude of what we are asking.

Let us remember also that the essential element of the Fatima message is not just the consecration of Russia, but above all devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  May all these prayers and sacrifices lead us to increase and deepen our special devotion to the Heart of the Mother of God.  For, through it God wants to be moved.

As the month of May begins, the month of Mary, may we all find ourselves even more reliant on her maternal protection;  this is our fondest wish.  Thanking you for your truly great generosity, we ask Our Lady to deign to bless you with the Child Jesus.

+ Bernard Fellay

May 1, 2010, Feast of Joseph the Worker

http://www.dici.org/en/?p=4652
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2010, 03:47:20 PM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 03:47:32 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2010, 03:49:08 PM »

A former friend of mine belonged to the SSPX. Based on her statements and beliefs, I don't see any reconciliation between the two groups as possible. The article is right, it's not just about tradition with these folks; they see the Seat of Peter as being Vacant, and the current Pope as, well, I'll just say they don't have a charitable view of him. Smiley

Hmmm. I know that the SSPX are not sedevacantists. Read the following article:

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm

As you can see The SSPX is not sedavanatist.

Yeah. They couldn't have been "brought back into the fold" if they were. I imagine that HandmaidenofGod's friend must be some other form of Traditionalist.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2010, 07:15:49 PM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2010, 07:19:59 PM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.

I thought they had returned to full communion with Rome and are now operating only as a distinct tradition rather than a distinct body?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2010, 12:03:36 AM »

While the SSPX leadership itself might not be Sedevacantist, I can certainly attest to the fact that many of their rank and file adherents seem to be more then sympathetic towards this theological position.

Also, while Vatican Council II did not define any new dogma's, it was still a lawfully called ecumenical council of the Roman Church and all RCC's as supposed to give, at least positive assent to its teachings.  The idea that one can think of themselves as good Catholics yet either deny or be disgruntled with practically everything that has come forth from the Vatican for the past half century is a rather bizarre innovation to me.  To profess to believe in the See of Peter and give reverence to it, yet at the same time to hold a suspicion bordering on hatred (Common among many Catholic traditionalist I've fraternized with over the years) Is not only downright odd, but also disturbing in a psychological manner as well.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2010, 11:45:32 AM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.

I thought they had returned to full communion with Rome and are now operating only as a distinct tradition rather than a distinct body?
While the excomunication has been lifted, their status remains irregular.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2010, 11:45:59 AM »

While the SSPX leadership itself might not be Sedevacantist, I can certainly attest to the fact that many of their rank and file adherents seem to be more then sympathetic towards this theological position.

Also, while Vatican Council II did not define any new dogma's, it was still a lawfully called ecumenical council of the Roman Church and all RCC's as supposed to give, at least positive assent to its teachings.  The idea that one can think of themselves as good Catholics yet either deny or be disgruntled with practically everything that has come forth from the Vatican for the past half century is a rather bizarre innovation to me.  To profess to believe in the See of Peter and give reverence to it, yet at the same time to hold a suspicion bordering on hatred (Common among many Catholic traditionalist I've fraternized with over the years) Is not only downright odd, but also disturbing in a psychological manner as well.
I agree.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2010, 01:53:39 PM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.

I thought they had returned to full communion with Rome and are now operating only as a distinct tradition rather than a distinct body?
While the excomunication has been lifted, their status remains irregular.

...

Does that mean that they are in communion with Rome or not?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2010, 02:01:37 PM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.

I thought they had returned to full communion with Rome and are now operating only as a distinct tradition rather than a distinct body?
While the excomunication has been lifted, their status remains irregular.

...

Does that mean that they are in communion with Rome or not?
They are not.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 02:01:51 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2010, 02:09:35 PM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.

I thought they had returned to full communion with Rome and are now operating only as a distinct tradition rather than a distinct body?
While the excomunication has been lifted, their status remains irregular.

...

Does that mean that they are in communion with Rome or not?
They are not.

Oh, I see.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2010, 02:58:42 PM »

The bishops and priests of the SSPX are suspended, meaning that their ministries do not operate under lawful authority.

In other words, they are in murky territory canonically.

Of course, they began as fully approved in the 1970s, but after some controversy (too long to rehearse here, but in my opinion, they got shafted), they later lost their official approval and fell into a murky status. Things came to a head in 1988 when the aged founder Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four new bishops in disobedience to Pope John Paul II, and the Pope stated in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Afflicta that they had all incurred excommunication by this act (lifted by Pope Benedict in 2009).

Relations grew quite cold after this, as you can imagine. Lefebvre died in 1991, and the four bishops (with Bernard Fellay as the superior) continued their work without recognition by Rome.

Now, the Ecclesia Dei commission (set up by the Pope to deal with such matters in 1988) has said repeatedly that the SSPX is not in schism and that the faithful may attend SSPX Masses if their intentions are simply a desire to partake in the traditional Latin rite of Mass.

There ARE questions about the validity of sacramental confession offered by SSPX priests, since a priest must have faculties from lawful authority to be able to speak for the (Catholic) Church in binding and loosing sins. Obviously, as the expression goes, "the Church supplies" if a person is unaware of this.

I have been to an SSPX Mass a number of times---a group of my cousins and their families are members of one of their chapels in upstate New York. When I go with them, I do receive Communion, but I do not go to confession with one of the priests. I also cannot in good conscience associate any deeper with the SSPX except for going to an occasional Mass---until they are regularized.

At the Mass at that parish, they commemorate Pope Benedict in the Canon, they have a large portrait of him hanging in the narthex, and their bulletins and other literature acknowledge current Church law (like the current reduced fasting requirement before Holy Communion, though they encourage---rightly!---that the fast be longer).

I cannot begrudge my cousins, because they have many children to raise in the Faith, and the state of Catholicism in my upstate NY diocese is dreadful. Send a PM if you want details about this state, but they aren't pretty and I don't wish to broadcast them.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 03:04:46 PM by lubeltri » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2010, 03:32:04 PM »

I understand my brother Lubltri's position and, indeed, there are hierarches in the Church who have expressed similar sentiments. However, there are others who disagree and see the SSPX as being in schism. The act of ordaining bishops withpout the permission of the Church is an objectively schismatic act and that is how I, along with others, see the Society. That being said, I am willing to accept that there is a diversity of opinion on this matter and do not begrudge those within the Catholic communion who disagree with me on this matter.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2010, 04:35:17 PM »

If they were truly in formal schism, there would be no issue of their being under suspension.

The Orthodox are in schism, but there is no talk of their bishops and priests being suspended. They deny the authority of the Roman Pontiff and thus are schismatic. The SSPX do not deny the authority of the Holy Father, but their bishops disobeyed one of his commands for which the penalty was excommunication (now lifted).

Another clue is the case of the "Hawaii Six," a group of people who were "excommunicated" by the Bishop of Honolulu by working to build an SSPX chapel in the diocese and publicly supporting the SSPX on the radio and other venues. They appealed to the Holy See, and the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger prefect, responded:




The Holy See has repeatedly said that attending Mass at an SSPX chapel fulfills one's Sunday obligation. So while there may be material schismatics in the SSPX (of which I have no doubt), no formal schism exists.

So prudence is required when attending their chapels. I daresay that as much prudence is also required when going to a "mainstream" Catholic parish. My bishop is not "in schism" on paper, but he is selling many heretical books out of his cathedral, among which deny the basis of the papacy and a constellation of other Catholic teachings on faith and morals.

And a number of his priests preach heresy from the pulpit and "preside" over scandalous "liturgies." Oh, but on paper they are "in full communion."

So Caveat cultor ("Let the worshipper beware")

Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2010, 04:39:46 PM »

Caveat cultor ("Let the worshipper beware")

Amen.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
KingClovis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 31


« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2010, 09:52:23 AM »

A former friend of mine belonged to the SSPX. Based on her statements and beliefs, I don't see any reconciliation between the two groups as possible. The article is right, it's not just about tradition with these folks; they see the Seat of Peter as being Vacant, and the current Pope as, well, I'll just say they don't have a charitable view of him. Smiley


No that would be the CMRI.

The SSPX does recognise Pope Benedict as Pope and indeed pray for him as such. However they do have a well slightly nutty element that is obessesed with vast judeo-masonic conspiracies and the Harry Potter books who have connections to neo-fascism.

I do believe however that the founder of the SSPX will one day be made a Saint though.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2010, 10:44:24 AM »

Now, the Ecclesia Dei commission (set up by the Pope to deal with such matters in 1988) has said repeatedly that the SSPX is not in schism and that the faithful may attend SSPX Masses if their intentions are simply a desire to partake in the traditional Latin rite of Mass.

There ARE questions about the validity of sacramental confession offered by SSPX priests, since a priest must have faculties from lawful authority to be able to speak for the (Catholic) Church in binding and loosing sins. Obviously, as the expression goes, "the Church supplies" if a person is unaware of this.

(Boldface in the original; underlined emphasis mine)

I don't understand, and it may be because of my poor grasp of the Roman Catholic terms "valid" and "licit."  Are you saying that the SSPX Eucharist is valid (properly performed) and licit (performed under canonical authority) but that confession is neither?

So prudence is required when attending their chapels. I daresay that as much prudence is also required when going to a "mainstream" Catholic parish. My bishop is not "in schism" on paper, but he is selling many heretical books out of his cathedral, among which deny the basis of the papacy and a constellation of other Catholic teachings on faith and morals.

And so your bishop's sacramental functions remain valid and licit despite his explicit promotion of heresy and immorality?
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2010, 11:51:05 AM »

Now, the Ecclesia Dei commission (set up by the Pope to deal with such matters in 1988) has said repeatedly that the SSPX is not in schism and that the faithful may attend SSPX Masses if their intentions are simply a desire to partake in the traditional Latin rite of Mass.

There ARE questions about the validity of sacramental confession offered by SSPX priests, since a priest must have faculties from lawful authority to be able to speak for the (Catholic) Church in binding and loosing sins. Obviously, as the expression goes, "the Church supplies" if a person is unaware of this.

(Boldface in the original; underlined emphasis mine)

I don't understand, and it may be because of my poor grasp of the Roman Catholic terms "valid" and "licit."  Are you saying that the SSPX Eucharist is valid (properly performed) and licit (performed under canonical authority) but that confession is neither?
The Eucharist of SSPX priests are valid, but illicit (similar to that of a suspended priest).  The priest is still a priest, transubstantiation does occur, and the faithful may receive it (without any sort of moral penalty).  Yet, due to the vague nature of the PCED, there is still some debate as to whether going to a SSPX mass would fulfil one's weekly obligation.

The sacrament of penance is different, since it requires a canonical ministry for it to be valid.  Though the bishops are no longer excommunicated and the society is/was not in schism, SSPX priests have no canonical status within the RCC.  As Lub said though, there are canons in place that state the absolution is valid if the individual is ignorant about canonical nature of the SSPX.  I think marriage would be the other sacraments whose validity would be in question as well.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2010, 01:58:42 PM »

Now, the Ecclesia Dei commission (set up by the Pope to deal with such matters in 1988) has said repeatedly that the SSPX is not in schism and that the faithful may attend SSPX Masses if their intentions are simply a desire to partake in the traditional Latin rite of Mass.

There ARE questions about the validity of sacramental confession offered by SSPX priests, since a priest must have faculties from lawful authority to be able to speak for the (Catholic) Church in binding and loosing sins. Obviously, as the expression goes, "the Church supplies" if a person is unaware of this.

(Boldface in the original; underlined emphasis mine)

I don't understand, and it may be because of my poor grasp of the Roman Catholic terms "valid" and "licit."  Are you saying that the SSPX Eucharist is valid (properly performed) and licit (performed under canonical authority) but that confession is neither?
The Eucharist of SSPX priests are valid, but illicit (similar to that of a suspended priest).  The priest is still a priest, transubstantiation does occur, and the faithful may receive it (without any sort of moral penalty).  Yet, due to the vague nature of the PCED, there is still some debate as to whether going to a SSPX mass would fulfil one's weekly obligation.

The sacrament of penance is different, since it requires a canonical ministry for it to be valid.  Though the bishops are no longer excommunicated and the society is/was not in schism, SSPX priests have no canonical status within the RCC.  As Lub said though, there are canons in place that state the absolution is valid if the individual is ignorant about canonical nature of the SSPX.  I think marriage would be the other sacraments whose validity would be in question as well.

Thanks.  I guess I just don't understand why what would seem to me to be a "lesser" sacrament, such as penance, would have more stipulations placed on its validity and legality than a "greater" sacrament, such as the Eucharist.  The former requires a canonical ministry, but the latter does not?  That seems backward to me.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2010, 02:48:51 PM »

^ I wonder which heresies his bishop is guilty of.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 04, 2010, 02:51:20 PM »

Now, the Ecclesia Dei commission (set up by the Pope to deal with such matters in 1988) has said repeatedly that the SSPX is not in schism and that the faithful may attend SSPX Masses if their intentions are simply a desire to partake in the traditional Latin rite of Mass.

There ARE questions about the validity of sacramental confession offered by SSPX priests, since a priest must have faculties from lawful authority to be able to speak for the (Catholic) Church in binding and loosing sins. Obviously, as the expression goes, "the Church supplies" if a person is unaware of this.

(Boldface in the original; underlined emphasis mine)

I don't understand, and it may be because of my poor grasp of the Roman Catholic terms "valid" and "licit."  Are you saying that the SSPX Eucharist is valid (properly performed) and licit (performed under canonical authority) but that confession is neither?
The Eucharist of SSPX priests are valid, but illicit (similar to that of a suspended priest).  The priest is still a priest, transubstantiation does occur, and the faithful may receive it (without any sort of moral penalty).  Yet, due to the vague nature of the PCED, there is still some debate as to whether going to a SSPX mass would fulfil one's weekly obligation.

The sacrament of penance is different, since it requires a canonical ministry for it to be valid.  Though the bishops are no longer excommunicated and the society is/was not in schism, SSPX priests have no canonical status within the RCC.  As Lub said though, there are canons in place that state the absolution is valid if the individual is ignorant about canonical nature of the SSPX.  I think marriage would be the other sacraments whose validity would be in question as well.

Thanks.  I guess I just don't understand why what would seem to me to be a "lesser" sacrament, such as penance, would have more stipulations placed on its validity and legality than a "greater" sacrament, such as the Eucharist.  The former requires a canonical ministry, but the latter does not?  That seems backward to me.

Note that even in Orthodoxy, there are priests (especially in rural Greece, from what I understand) who celebrate Divine Liturgy yet are not allowed to grant sacramental absolution.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #33 on: June 04, 2010, 03:11:17 PM »

Now, the Ecclesia Dei commission (set up by the Pope to deal with such matters in 1988) has said repeatedly that the SSPX is not in schism and that the faithful may attend SSPX Masses if their intentions are simply a desire to partake in the traditional Latin rite of Mass.

There ARE questions about the validity of sacramental confession offered by SSPX priests, since a priest must have faculties from lawful authority to be able to speak for the (Catholic) Church in binding and loosing sins. Obviously, as the expression goes, "the Church supplies" if a person is unaware of this.

(Boldface in the original; underlined emphasis mine)

I don't understand, and it may be because of my poor grasp of the Roman Catholic terms "valid" and "licit."  Are you saying that the SSPX Eucharist is valid (properly performed) and licit (performed under canonical authority) but that confession is neither?
The Eucharist of SSPX priests are valid, but illicit (similar to that of a suspended priest).  The priest is still a priest, transubstantiation does occur, and the faithful may receive it (without any sort of moral penalty).  Yet, due to the vague nature of the PCED, there is still some debate as to whether going to a SSPX mass would fulfil one's weekly obligation.

The sacrament of penance is different, since it requires a canonical ministry for it to be valid.  Though the bishops are no longer excommunicated and the society is/was not in schism, SSPX priests have no canonical status within the RCC.  As Lub said though, there are canons in place that state the absolution is valid if the individual is ignorant about canonical nature of the SSPX.  I think marriage would be the other sacraments whose validity would be in question as well.

Thanks.  I guess I just don't understand why what would seem to me to be a "lesser" sacrament, such as penance, would have more stipulations placed on its validity and legality than a "greater" sacrament, such as the Eucharist.  The former requires a canonical ministry, but the latter does not?  That seems backward to me.

Note that even in Orthodoxy, there are priests (especially in rural Greece, from what I understand) who celebrate Divine Liturgy yet are not allowed to grant sacramental absolution.

I've heard something about that, too.  But I am under the impression that such has to do with lack expertise in spiritual guidance, not legality.  Am I wrong about that?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2010, 03:25:08 PM »

The ultimate reason is that such a priest is, at least for his local bishop, lacking in such expertise, but, in the end, he still has the ability by nature of his ordination to grant absolution.  He is, however, barred from "legally" exercising that ministry by that bishop in a similar manner SSPX priests are barred from hearing the confessions of run-of-the-mill RCs.  One can even say that such an impediment is set up because the regular RCC sees the guidance that SSPX priests might give may be spiritually detrimental to regular RCs.

I hope that made sense.  I'm having some trouble writing coherently today thanks to lack of sleep last night.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 971



« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2010, 04:17:02 PM »

The ultimate reason is that such a priest is, at least for his local bishop, lacking in such expertise, but, in the end, he still has the ability by nature of his ordination to grant absolution.  He is, however, barred from "legally" exercising that ministry by that bishop in a similar manner SSPX priests are barred from hearing the confessions of run-of-the-mill RCs.  One can even say that such an impediment is set up because the regular RCC sees the guidance that SSPX priests might give may be spiritually detrimental to regular RCs.

I hope that made sense.  I'm having some trouble writing coherently today thanks to lack of sleep last night.

It made a lot of sense.  I think I understand both situations much better now.  Thanks!  Smiley
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #36 on: June 04, 2010, 05:58:28 PM »

The ultimate reason is that such a priest is, at least for his local bishop, lacking in such expertise, but, in the end, he still has the ability by nature of his ordination to grant absolution.  He is, however, barred from "legally" exercising that ministry by that bishop in a similar manner SSPX priests are barred from hearing the confessions of run-of-the-mill RCs.  One can even say that such an impediment is set up because the regular RCC sees the guidance that SSPX priests might give may be spiritually detrimental to regular RCs.

I hope that made sense.  I'm having some trouble writing coherently today thanks to lack of sleep last night.

I hope and pray that the SSPX is not reconciled to Rome before they agree to drop their rigid, Jansensit style of morality and preaching.  I've personally had some unpleasant experiences with traditionalist RC priest and faithful which left me scarred emotionally.  It is very dangerous to just bring such a crowd of dissenters back into the mainstream of a Church without first having made sure they go "with the program".  Look at the difficulty the OC has had over the years in trying to reconcile various vagante bishops (Either from the eastern, or Old Catholic churches)? 
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2010, 01:55:57 PM »

^ I wonder which heresies his bishop is guilty of.

Who knows---hopefully it's a case where he just doesn't give a damn about letting some lunatic run his cathedral and sell Joan Chittister, Hans Kung and John Shelby Spong books out of it.

Heretic bishops tend to be sneaky and usually don't dare to flatly and publicly spout their heresies. If they don't draw too much attention to themselves from Rome, then they can slip through the cracks---there are well over 5 thousand bishops in the Catholic Church.

I have no idea about that bishop in my upstate NY diocese, but it doesn't look good. Blessedly my current archbishop in Boston is much better.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #38 on: June 07, 2010, 04:32:43 AM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.

I thought they had returned to full communion with Rome and are now operating only as a distinct tradition rather than a distinct body?
While the excomunication has been lifted, their status remains irregular.

...

Does that mean that they are in communion with Rome or not?
They are not.
How are you defining in communion with Rome? If they are not excommunicated from Rome, then wouldn't they be in communion with Rome? Their Society was recognised by the Vatican as legitimate about 35 years ago.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 07, 2010, 12:58:52 PM »

Well, it certainly defined no dogma but I also don't think that the council contradicted any past Catholic teaching. In this way, the council was orthodox.

Well it couldn't have contradicted and past dogmatic teaching if it did not define dogma.

However, I will say that the implimentation of the councils directives and calls for reform was very poor. Thus, you see the modern situation in which the Church finds itself..

And to that extent you are sympathetic to the SSPX?
No. There is never an excuse for schism.

I thought they had returned to full communion with Rome and are now operating only as a distinct tradition rather than a distinct body?
While the excomunication has been lifted, their status remains irregular.

...

Does that mean that they are in communion with Rome or not?
They are not.
How are you defining in communion with Rome? If they are not excommunicated from Rome, then wouldn't they be in communion with Rome? Their Society was recognised by the Vatican as legitimate about 35 years ago.

Are you thinking of the FSSP?  The priestly Fraternity of St. Peter
Logged

lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2010, 02:07:51 PM »

No, the SSPX was a canonically recognized society in the 1970s. Then some liberal bishops tried to suppress them for holding to Tradition, and Lefebvre's appeals to Rome went unanswered. Paul VI's Holy See, timid in the face of the bishops, threw the SSPX under the bus.

They got screwed, and Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict knows this, which is why he has been generous with them despite their disobedience and occasional paranoia.
Logged
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2010, 07:43:50 PM »

No, the SSPX was a canonically recognized society in the 1970s. Then some liberal bishops tried to suppress them for holding to Tradition, and Lefebvre's appeals to Rome went unanswered. Paul VI's Holy See, timid in the face of the bishops, threw the SSPX under the bus.

They got screwed, and Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict knows this, which is why he has been generous with them despite their disobedience and occasional paranoia.

This sounds somewhat propagandist to me.  The SSPX talks a lot about their "statues" with the Vatican, but they seem to like putting up smokescreen arguments to deflect from the actual position of their society as viewed by the Latin Church. 

There are always two sides to every story.  Here is a link to counterbalance the argument of the pro SSPXers'. 

http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id1.html

BTW lubeltri , I thought that you went to mass at the TLM over at Holy Cross cathedral in Boston?  Why would you and others who go to masses approved by the Vatican be so quick to defend the SSPX.  The Society considers people who go to "indult" masses to be dishonest at best, and heretical at worst.

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/attendance_at_the_indult_vanes.htm

 I don't see why some RC trads who are going to masses in communion with Rome would be so happy to come to the defense of a group which likes to belittle them so?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2010, 07:43:51 PM »

No, the SSPX was a canonically recognized society in the 1970s. Then some liberal bishops tried to suppress them for holding to Tradition, and Lefebvre's appeals to Rome went unanswered. Paul VI's Holy See, timid in the face of the bishops, threw the SSPX under the bus.

They got screwed, and Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict knows this, which is why he has been generous with them despite their disobedience and occasional paranoia.

Oh I see.  That reference wasn't clear to me.   I don't think they were thrown under the bus so much as they dove in front of it.  But we all have choices to make in life.  Schism is not one of my preferred avenues.

Mary
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.205 seconds with 71 queries.