The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307984385' post='2253197']
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)
[/quote]
As I said many times, I don't approve of the Econe consecrations, and I think it was the wrong choice. I think it was disobedient and not something to recommend to anybody. However, the situation is not so simple as "Pope John Paul said X and Marcel Lefebvre did Y." I said this before, he wasn't an idiot. He was anything but that. In the end he made the wrong choice, I think, but you're being difficult to insist that it is impossible to still call him a traditionalist because of a single very complicated situation.

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307985129' post='2253205']
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.)
[/quote]
As I've already said, I don't believe they reject Vatican II entirely. I do think they criticize it more harshly than Rome is comfortable with, but criticism is not in and of itself disallowed.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307986131' post='2253211']
As I said many times, I don't approve of the Econe consecrations, and I think it was the wrong choice. I think it was disobedient and not something to recommend to anybody. However, the situation is not so simple as "Pope John Paul said X and Marcel Lefebvre did Y." I said this before, he wasn't an idiot. He was anything but that. In the end he made the wrong choice, I think, but you're being difficult to insist that it is impossible to still call him a traditionalist because of a single very complicated situation.


As I've already said, I don't believe they reject Vatican II entirely. I do think they criticize it more harshly than Rome is comfortable with, but criticism is not in and of itself disallowed.
[/quote]

Nothing complicated. You're just rationalizing. It's very simple. They are not in full communion. Until they are you cannot call them Traditionalists. Its black and white. Here's another example

A person can come and live in the US. They can abide by our laws. They can live here legally without being a citizen. They can be good citizens and pay taxes and build up our communities. They can in some cases fight for the US. But they CANNOT be considered patriots until they take an oath to do so.

UNTIL the day (and I hope for that day) that Rome is assured of their allegiance to all the teachings of the Church INCLUDING Vatican II, they can celebrate mass, they can be Catholic but they cannot be considered Traditionalists. Because that is an affront to all Traditionalists who are obedient to the Church.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307986131' post='2253211']
As I've already said, I don't believe they reject Vatican II entirely. I do think they criticize it more harshly than Rome is comfortable with, but criticism is not in and of itself disallowed.
[/quote]

Perhaps criticism is not disallowed, but that doesn't mean it's not sinful.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307944981' post='2253066']
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. '
[/quote]

+1



Criticizing false interpretations of doctrine (whether from Vatican II or elsewhere) is not only appropriate, but called for. We as Catholics are supposed to defend the faith. As we all know, there's plenty of 'spin' and misinformation out there when it comes to our faith. The Truth will be made known with or without our help, but we can save people some pain and heartache by sharing the good news of the gospel with them earlier rather than later. It is of course important to keep in mind that the Apostolic See will 'give the authentic interpretation of the Council,' so deference must be made to clarifications that are made over time. For instance, false interpretations of 'No salvation outside the Church' have been called out on multiple occasions, and theologians who continue to repeat these false interpretations do so in error.


Archbishop Lefebvre took part in Vatican II (along with the future Pope John Paul II), so his disagreements with the Council predated it, so to speak. He was [i]not[/i] happy that some of the documents he supported were not adopted and that some with more liberal language were. While the Council was still going on, his dissent was appropriate to his role in the Magisterium, but afterward...his ability to dissent 'faithfully' would be limited to criticizing implementation or interpretation - not the content of the documents themselves, or the validity of the Council, or the legitimacy of the pope. Such criticism, if left unchecked, could lead to someone stepping outside the Church.

The disobedience over the ordinations was the severing point, but the way he [i]got[/i] to that point has a lot more to do with what is happening with the SSPX today. It wasn't over the Traditional Latin Mass (or rather, not solely or primarily over that) that he ran into trouble. The disagreements over the relationship between Church and State, the relationships between Catholics and Jews, etc, is more relevant to the issues of 'doctrine' that Rome would like to discuss with the current leadership of the SSPX.

I'm not going to judge the SSPX based on their website. I don't know who approves the materials on it or how accurate it is meant to be (meaning...for all I know, it's just propaganda BS, and does not represent the views of leadership.) I'll allow Rome to judge whether or not their views of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium are compatible with calling oneself a faithful Catholic.



If and when Rome welcomes the SSPX back home, so will I.

Until that time, I will keep a respectful and (mostly silent) distance. I see nothing wrong with praying for unity, and consider it the most Christ-like suggestion for dealing with sad divisions in the Church.


[quote]Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.
[i]Ephesians 4: 29-32[/i][/quote]

[dominicansoul]

i agree with everybody on this thread

[BG45]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1307996690' post='2253283']
If and when Rome welcomes the SSPX back home, so will I.

Until that time, I will keep a respectful and (mostly silent) distance. I see nothing wrong with praying for unity, and consider it the most Christ-like suggestion for dealing with sad divisions in the Church.
[/quote]

+1

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1307989987' post='2253252']
Perhaps criticism is not disallowed, but that doesn't mean it's not sinful.
[/quote]
Are you saying that all criticism of Vatican II, no matter how minor or specific, is inherently sinful? If I say "I think the wording here in Gaudium et Spes is rather ambiguous and leaves room for interpretations of rupture", is that sinful?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308018645' post='2253425']
Are you saying that all criticism of Vatican II, no matter how minor or specific, is inherently sinful? If I say "I think the wording here in Gaudium et Spes is rather ambiguous and leaves room for interpretations of rupture", is that sinful?
[/quote]

Seriously Joe if you could ask Cam the best way to answer my last post, I'd appreciate it.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308020431' post='2253438']
Seriously Joe if you could ask Cam the best way to answer my last post, I'd appreciate it.
[/quote]
Please stop being rude to me.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308021526' post='2253446']
Please stop being rude to me.
[/quote]

Please feel free to acknowledge my last point.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308021612' post='2253447']
Please feel free to acknowledge my last point.
[/quote]
I'd really rather not. I'm tired of talking to you and nothing new has been said for about [ETA: at least] three pages now.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308022052' post='2253454']
I'd really rather not. I'm tired of talking to you and nothing new has been said for about [ETA: at least] three pages now.
[/quote]

Fabulous! I'll take that as you are finally realizing your error Let me then sum up

First Camster had you say [quote]Again Jim, they are not exommunicated, they are not in schism. All of the priests and three of the four bishops are suspended (one is not, and is canonically in good standing with Rome). I don't know the strictest theological definition of "being in communion", but seeing as how they are not schismatic or heretical or excommunicated, it would be false to say that they are not Catholic. Since we must believe that they are Catholic, I think it is silly and immature to refuse to call them traditionalist, which is not any sort of formal theological term.[/quote]

then of course thanks to Camster he gave you this

[quote]"Now that the excommunications of the bishops have been revoked, all the Society’s adherents, both clergy and laity, must be presumed to be in “communion with the Universal Church.” The Code of Canon law does not recognize any such thing as “a group of Catholics in an irregular state.” The Society’s adherents are either Catholics, pure and simple, or they are not. Indubitably, they are Catholics. The suggestion that the physical chapels in which the Society celebrates Mass are not “in communion with the Universal Church” is pettifoggery. Ecclesial communion involves persons, not real estate. The exact canonical status of the chapels as places of Catholic worship is merely a matter for technical canonical resolution."
Essentially, the 1983 CIC doesn't have a provision for irregular states. So, either Catholics are or are not in communion. The idea of irregular states only applies to the 1917 CIC, which doesn't hold any weight any longer, because of the promulgation of the 1983 CIC.
"[...]the only bishop of the Society ever declared “suspended” was Archbishop Lefebvre, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops dated July 22, 1976 imposing said penalty on account of the Archbishop’s ordination of seminarians in that year. The penalty became moot with the Archbishop’s death in 1991, and no such penalty was ever imposed on any of the surviving bishops, who were subjected only to the penalty of excommunication in 1988."
[/quote]

Which of course I responded to him with this

[quote]His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration.

This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division.

[b] It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church[/b] on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity. [/quote]

Which clearly supports my position that they are not in full union with the Church yet. As being such, they cannot be considered Traditionalists of the Catholic Church when

[list][*]Their bishops very non traditionally have no diocese (no other bishop in the Church has the distinction[*]The ministry of their bishops is still suspended[*]and of course they are not in full communion with the Church[/list]
Since you refuse to respond, I'll take it that you acquiesce to the truth.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308022536' post='2253462']
Fabulous! I'll take that as you are finally realizing your error Let me then sum up

First Camster had you say

then of course thanks to Camster he gave you this



Which of course I responded to him with this



Which clearly supports my position that they are not in full union with the Church yet. As being such, they cannot be considered Traditionalists of the Catholic Church when

[list][*]Their bishops very non traditionally have no diocese (no other bishop in the Church has the distinction[*]The ministry of their bishops is still suspended[*]and of course they are not in full communion with the Church[/list]
Since you refuse to respond, I'll take it that you acquiesce to the truth.
[/quote]
Please stop being rude. Cam has indeed been offering me some of his knowledge in this debate, however I have most certainly been using my own critical thinking throughout every step. Part of that is because I don't agree with all of his conclusions.
Furthermore, we disagree and I consider aspects of your position to be wrong for all the reasons I've already pointed out. This debate is not going anywhere though, so I'm done.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307951128' post='2253077']
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?


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?
[/quote]

We still don't know what he actually said until we see the original article. What a cardinal says (no consideration of rank) is immaterial to what a Pope says.
In your last questions you are asking me about things I never said. Read and respond only to what I said, and don't put words in my mouth. You started out here in an earlier post citing Lefebvre's declaration of "adherence to eternal Rome" but neglected to include the parts in which he assaulted the "Rome of neo-Protestant and neo-modernist tendency." Were you not aware of those? To post a mere fragment of that declaration is highly misleading.
If you want to know the opinion of a high ranking cardinal on Vatican II I suggest you review Cardinal Ratzinger's letters to Abp. Lefebvre. Most are available on any SSPX site.

S.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308029115' post='2253497']
We still don't know what he actually said until we see the original article. What a cardinal says (no consideration of rank) is immaterial to what a Pope says.
In your last questions you are asking me about things I never said. Read and respond only to what I said, and don't put words in my mouth. You started out here in an earlier post citing Lefebvre's declaration of "adherence to eternal Rome" but neglected to include the parts in which he assaulted the "Rome of neo-Protestant and neo-modernist tendency." Were you not aware of those? To post a mere fragment of that declaration is highly misleading.
If you want to know the opinion of a high ranking cardinal on Vatican II I suggest you review Cardinal Ratzinger's letters to Abp. Lefebvre. Most are available on any SSPX site.

S.
[/quote]
As you would no doubt affirm, some types of criticism of the Second Vatican Council (for instance the example I invented) are appropriate for any Catholic. In my opinion, some of Archbishop Lefebvre's criticisms were too harsh, and I think that the popes have shared that opinion. However, it is not criticism in and of itself that is the issue. It is simply the extent. That is all I'm saying.