The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307934231' post='2252997']
That's [i]precisely[/i] what I just said. There can be doctrinal disagreements before formal definitions.
Doctrinal disagreements between the SSPX and the wider Church are acceptable, since they do not reject anything formally defined.
[/quote]

Nope. We are obliged to accept the ordinary Magisterium which includes Vatican II and the post conciliar Magisterium of the popes as Benedict has said.
Vatican II makes that clear. The pope would not use the word doctrine if he thought the position of the SSPX was acceptable. Read the pope's letter. We have a living Magisterium not one "frozen in 1962" . Another quote of Benedict XVI on this very subject.

S.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307934663' post='2253003']
Nope. We are obliged to accept the ordinary Magisterium which includes Vatican II and the post conciliar Magisterium of the popes as Benedict has said.
Vatican II makes that clear. The pope would not use the word doctrine if he thought the position of the SSPX was acceptable. Read the pope's letter. We have a living Magisterium not one "frozen in 1962" . Another quote of Benedict XVI on this very subject.

S.
[/quote]
As we all know, Vatican II was not a superdogma. Not everything that came out of that council is dogmatic or infallible. The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it. We are certainly permitted to do the same, from a perspective of faith.
Remember that Vatican II was a pastoral council. It was not intended to be ground-shaking theologically. That it is is an unfortunate consequence of the false "spirit of Vatican II". If we want to, for instance, challenge some of the "downright Pelagian terminology" in some parts of Gaudium et Spes... well then we're in good company.

Edit: spelling.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307935040' post='2253008']
As we all know, Vatican II was not a superdogma. Not everything that came out of that council is dogmatic or infallible. The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it. We are certainly permitted to do the same, from a perspective of faith.
Remember that Vatican II was a pastoral council. It was not intended to be ground-shaking theologically. That it is is an unfortunate consequence of the false "spirit of Vatican II". If we want to, for instance, challenge some of the "downright Pelagian terminology" in some parts of Gaudium et Spes... well then we're in good company.

Edit: spelling.
[/quote]

You are still dodging and ignoring the plain meaning of the Holy Father's words. You say "The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it" That is plainly wrong. Please cite a primary source for what you attribute to the pope. The term "downright Pelagian terminology" is taken from a Remnant article which cites only a secondary source for the quotation, and it is also clear they are quoting (if in fact accurately) Cardinal Ratzinger and not Benedict XVI. When you say "we're in good company" do you mean yourself and the SSPX? ?

S.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307936274' post='2253022']
You are still dodging and ignoring the plain meaning of the Holy Father's words. You say "The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it" That is plainly wrong. Please cite a primary source for what you attribute to the pope. The term "downright Pelagian terminology" is taken from a Remnant article which cites only a secondary source for the quotation, and it is also clear they are quoting (if in fact accurately) Cardinal Ratzinger and not Benedict XVI. When you say "we're in good company" do you mean yourself and the SSPX? ?

S.
[/quote]
Source:
Allen, John L. (2005). Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger. London: Continuum. p. 81. ISBN 0826417868.

Afaik John Allen is generally considered to be more or less fair minded. Yes, the comment occurred before he was elected to the papacy. I mentioned earlier that this was likely the case, and I confirmed it just now by looking more closely.
Unfortunately I don't have that book, however if you want to disprove me, you have the source.

Now you may retract your comment that my previous post was "plainly wrong". As I have shown, it is no such thing.
When I say in good company, it is pretty obvious that I am referring to the Pope. That was the entire point of that sentence.

[Nihil Obstat]

Addendum: That quote seems pretty widespread, in my very brief internet search. If it's in fact a false quote I'd be delighted if someone can enlighten me.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307936657' post='2253024']
Source:
Allen, John L. (2005). Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger. London: Continuum. p. 81. ISBN 0826417868.

Afaik John Allen is generally considered to be more or less fair minded. Yes, the comment occurred before he was elected to the papacy. I mentioned earlier that this was likely the case, and I confirmed it just now by looking more closely.
Unfortunately I don't have that book, however if you want to disprove me, you have the source.

Now you may retract your comment that my previous post was "plainly wrong". As I have shown, it is no such thing.
When I say in good company, it is pretty obvious that I am referring to the Pope. That was the entire point of that sentence.
[/quote]

That is only a secondary source, not a primary one. No, I will not retract it as you attributed criticism of Vatican II to Benedict XVI. That remains untrue, he has said nothing of the kind but has in fact cited Guadium et spes hundreds of times as pope but has made no criticism of it.


S.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307937895' post='2253035']
That is only a secondary source, not a primary one. No, I will not retract it as you attributed criticism of Vatican II to Benedict XVI. That remains untrue, he has said nothing of the kind but has in fact cited Guadium et spes hundreds of times as pope but has made no criticism of it.


S.
[/quote]
You said that my comment was clearly false. It is not. In fact it is more likely that you are incorrect. However, it most certainly is not "clearly false".
Seeing as how I cannot go interview the Pope, we're gonna have to stick with secondary sources. Unless you've got a direct line to his office that you're holding out on...
ETA: The fact that he has not recently criticized Gaudium et Spes does not imply that he never criticized it in the past. Logic fail.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307938892' post='2253045']
You said that my comment was clearly false. It is not. In fact it is more likely that you are incorrect. However, it most certainly is not "clearly false".
Seeing as how I cannot go interview the Pope, we're gonna have to stick with secondary sources. Unless you've got a direct line to his office that you're holding out on...
ETA: The fact that he has not recently criticized Gaudium et Spes does not imply that he never criticized it in the past. Logic fail.
[/quote]
You seem to ignore the delineation, though, that he made the statements while he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not while he was Pope Benedict XVI.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307938892' post='2253045']
You said that my comment was clearly false. It is not. In fact it is more likely that you are incorrect. However, it most certainly is not "clearly false".
Seeing as how I cannot go interview the Pope, we're gonna have to stick with secondary sources. Unless you've got a direct line to his office that you're holding out on...
ETA: The fact that he has not recently criticized Gaudium et Spes does not imply that he never criticized it in the past. Logic fail.
[/quote]
Thanks USAirwaysIHS, though I don't see how I could have been more clear.
It is clearly false as you attribute criticism of Vatican II to BENEDICT XVI, the pope. Please cite any passages you are aware of in which Benedict XVI criticizes Vatican II. A primary source need only be the original article if such exists. I have yet to see it. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger's speech to the bishops of Chile will make clear Ratzinger's attitude towards the binding character of Vatican II. "Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre's attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today. I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable". In the same speech he says: "It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church." Remarks to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988
In any event, regardless of what you think all of us are bound by [size="2"]Can. 752. " While [u]the assent of faith is not required[/u], [u]a religious submission of intellect and will[/u] is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though [u]they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act[/u]. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine."[/size]

S.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

Pope Benedict has often spoken harshly against the false spirit of Vatican II. That spirit which has caused much damage and much confusion in the Church. Because of this damage criticism of Vatican II has been granted and allowed to clear up what Vatican II actually teaches and what it does not. The Holy See [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]clearly did so on September 8, 2006[/url]. When the Holy See stated that 'the members of the Institute of the Good Shepherd [color="#696969"][[i]note this society was formed from priests who once were SSPX priests, so they will have the same/similar criticisms of Vatican II or it's correct interpenetration.[/i][/color][color="#696969"]][/color] may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html"]Pope Benedict's address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia[/url], [[i][color="#696969"]a speech/document were Benedict rashly criticizes the false spirit of Vatican II[/color][/i][color="#696969"]][/color] while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council. '

Edited June 13, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307939293' post='2253049']
You seem to ignore the delineation, though, that he made the statements while he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, not while he was Pope Benedict XVI.
[/quote]
I wasn't aware that he became a different person when he was elected pope.
He criticized Gaudium et Spes as one of the highest ranking cardinals in the Church. I think that's clear enough, don't you?

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307943625' post='2253065']
Thanks USAirwaysIHS, though I don't see how I could have been more clear.
It is clearly false as you attribute criticism of Vatican II to BENEDICT XVI, the pope. Please cite any passages you are aware of in which Benedict XVI criticizes Vatican II. A primary source need only be the original article if such exists. I have yet to see it. Perhaps Cardinal Ratzinger's speech to the bishops of Chile will make clear Ratzinger's attitude towards the binding character of Vatican II. "Aside from the liturgical questions, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre's attack on the decree which deals with religious liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today. I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable". In the same speech he says: "It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church." Remarks to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988
In any event, regardless of what you think all of us are bound by [size="2"]Can. 752. " While [u]the assent of faith is not required[/u], [u]a religious submission of intellect and will[/u] is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though [u]they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act[/u]. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine."[/size]

S.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that every iota of every document issued by Vatican II is entirely beyond criticism, even to the tiniest degree? Are you implying further that when Pope Benedict criticized Gaudium et Spes while he was a cardinal, that he was wrong to do so?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307931723' post='2252977']
Nobody is perfect. The trouble with the SSPX is that Archbishop Lefebvre's issue was was very public, and involved a great many people. In that particular area they are not great role models in my opinion, and I would not recommend that anybody does the same, however as we established, they are most certainly Catholic, and though I consider them lacking in one aspect of Traditionalism, I think that the sum of all the other aspects makes unavoidable the conclusion that they are traditionalists.
They preach orthodox doctrines. They do not preach disobedience.

[/quote]

They don't preach disobedience Joe, they practice it. Anyone who practices disobedience will never adhere to Tradition.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307980873' post='2253168']
They don't preach disobedience Joe, they practice it. Anyone who practices disobedience will never adhere to Tradition.
[/quote]
We consider them to be disobedient in one particular area. As you've seen though, they don't look at the position in the same way. As I established a few pages back, they saw it as an emergency situation which required unusual action. At the end of the day, Rome did not share their perspective, which is why the whole situation has lasted this long...
However, it is not necessary that we consider their act of disobedience to be out of pride or a desire to cause discord.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307983156' post='2253189']
We consider them to be disobedient in one particular area. As you've seen though, they don't look at the position in the same way. As I established a few pages back, they saw it as an emergency situation which required unusual action. At the end of the day, Rome did not share their perspective, which is why the whole situation has lasted this long...
However, it is not necessary that we consider their act of disobedience to be out of pride or a desire to cause discord.
[/quote]

Does it matter what they saw it as? No. Does it matter if it was out of pride? Nope. Does it matter that Rome did not share their perspective? Oh yes indeedy! Rome was not wrong. The Church is still not wrong. It is the SSPX that needs to assent their will, not Rome.


Only those who are in full communion with Holy Mother Church can be considered to be Traditionalists. That's it. It's not opinion Joe. It's simply a fact that you have to accept.


(this will be the time that you remind us that they are not in schism, aren't heretics, floss daily, etc)

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307983156' post='2253189']
However, it is not necessary that we consider their act of disobedience to be out of pride or a desire to cause discord.
[/quote]
I do, however, consider it to be out of pride.
If Pope Benedict came up to me and said, "You need to state that you accept the Second Vatican Council," and I said "Uh, nah,", that would lead to a few options. Either I'm not Catholic, I'm heterodox (at best), or I'm prideful. Are there other options? I can't think of any.
I don't understand why the SSPX won't just submit to the authority of the Pope and say, "Yep, we accept Vatican II." (Unless they either really do reject VatII, which I [i]hope [/i]is not the case, or they are blind with pride.)