The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308030155' post='2253502']
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.
[/quote]

I think one may say as Paul VI said that the documents at times are ambiguous. But if one has such concerns then we bring them to Church authority and ask for help.
I don't think it is merely a matter of a harshness of criticism as it is a tendency of the SSPX to attribute problems to Vatican II which in no case can be ascribed to Vatican II. In this sense, I think the crazed "progressives" and the SSPX have something in common. It is not so much an imprecision of Vatican II's language as they are both trying to read things into Vatican II which are simply not there. Both camps also have the same dilemma now and that is that having rejected papal authority for 40 years now one has to wonder how they will ever come back to accept it? Once the leftwingers assaulted Humanae Vitae then they proceeded to assault everything ever after that came from Rome. The SSPX extends their attack to the validity of post Vatican II canonizations, the new code of canon law, and the list goes on. The gulf between Rome and certain warring groups in the Church is simply huge. I have yet to encounter any Catholic liberal who can argue intelligently about the documents of Vatican II. They simply don't read them. One encounters the same thing in the SSPX when they argue the "conciliar Church" is a "new religion": For example and from the website of the SSPX:

"[font="Arial"][size="2"]This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church." [/size][/font][url="http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm"]http://www.sspx.org/...ew_religion.htm[/url]

That sentence seems rather schizoid. They begin by saying the Catholic church is now a new religion. Well, to accept that one has to say then that the pope and the bishops are all in error, huge error, grievous error! Now if you actually accept that, how can you then argue "we must [font="Arial"][size="2"]respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church". I don't see how those two thoughts can exist in the same sentence. If I truly thought (and of course I don't) that the pope and bishops began a new religion at Vatican II then I would have to denounce them unequivocally. I really would not be able to hold any respect for them.

S.
[/size][/font]

Edited June 14, 2011 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308032674' post='2253506']
I think one may say as Paul VI said that the documents at times are ambiguous. But if one has such concerns then we bring them to Church authority and ask for help.
I don't think it is merely a matter of a harshness of criticism as it is a tendency of the SSPX to attribute problems to Vatican II which in no case can be ascribed to Vatican II. In this sense, I think the crazed "progressives" and the SSPX have something in common. It is not so much an imprecision of Vatican II's language as they are both trying to read things into Vatican II which are simply not there. Both camps also have the same dilemma now and that is that having rejected papal authority for 40 years now one has to wonder how they will ever come back to accept it? Once the leftwingers assaulted Humanae Vitae then they proceeded to assault everything ever after that came from Rome. The SSPX extends their attack to the validity of post Vatican II canonizations, the new code of canon law, and the list goes on. The gulf between Rome and certain warring groups in the Church is simply huge. I have yet to encounter any Catholic liberal who can argue intelligently about the documents of Vatican II. They simply don't read them. One encounters the same thing in the SSPX when they argue the "conciliar Church" is a "new religion": For example and from the website of the SSPX:

"[font="Arial"][size="2"]This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church." [/size][/font][url="http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm"]http://www.sspx.org/...ew_religion.htm[/url]

That sentence seems rather schizoid. They begin by saying the Catholic church is now a new religion. Well, to accept that one has to say then that the pope and the bishops are all in error, huge error, grievous error! Now if you actually accept that, how can you then argue "we must [font="Arial"][size="2"]respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church". I don't see how those two thoughts can exist in the same sentence. If I truly thought (and of course I don't) that the pope and bishops began a new religion at Vatican II then I would have to denounce them unequivocally. I really would not be able to hold any respect for them.

S.
[/size][/font]
[/quote]

"I think one may say as Paul VI said that the documents at times are ambiguous. But if one has such concerns then we bring them to Church authority and ask for help. "
There is certainly a responsibility on the part of the faithful to exercise critical thinking. Many of us are gifted with intelligent minds that allow us to form our own conclusions. Our Church authority is a wonderful thing because it helps us inform our intellects and reigns us in if we start going in the wrong direction, but I think it is a responsibility on our part to actively exercise that aspect of our natures and try to work out conclusions on our own when appropriate. I'd even go so far as to say that it's part of human nature to do so.
Otherwise we turn into similar people to the rabid Randians. They were paralytically afraid of saying anything unless they already knew Ayn Rand's line on the subject, because they were uncomfortable doing anything besides parroting [i]word for word[/i] what she herself said. There's a world of difference between parroting 'the party line' and accepting it through understanding.

"I don't think it is merely a matter of a harshness of criticism as it is a tendency of the SSPX to attribute problems to Vatican II which in no case can be ascribed to Vatican II. In this sense, I think the crazed "progressives" and the SSPX have something in common. It is not so much an imprecision of Vatican II's language as they are both trying to read things into Vatican II which are simply not there."
I think it is more likely that most in the SSPX would say that many pre-existing problems in the clergy were exposed and given power through Vatican II. I think it would be kind of juvenile to say that Vatican II 'caused' most problems, once you move past a superficial discussion of what those problems are, and I think most will recognize that. What I imagine they'd say instead is that these problems that they see were already present in certain members of the clergy and episcopate, and Vatican II simply brought those to the open. For instance, certain documents have on a lot of occasions been interpreted in a very theologically indifferentist way. This is obviously not in line with Catholic Tradition, so that interpretation must be rejected, but some ambiguities in the documents themselves allowed for those erroneous interpretations to be made.
It's a fine line, really, between pointing to linguistic imprecision and reading something original into a document. A lot of Protestants simply can't imagine how we see Mary in St. John's Apocalypse, yet since we interpret it in a Catholic manner we do see where she is clearly present. In a similar but not identical way, you may not see how the FSSPX reads whatever particular criticism you'd care to name into whatever relevant VII document to which they point, but to them it may be clear as day.
This, again, is what the doctrinal talks are for. Above all I think it is for greater clarity. There has been too much obscured while the excommunications were in place. There was too much hostility from parties on both sides, and the actual issues were often neglected and instead straw men were attacked. This is my perception of the situation. Some people in the Church likely do not want the SSPX to come back because they are afraid of what that means for their Modernist tendencies. Likewise some in the SSPX are probably afraid of being back on friendly terms with Rome because it means that they're going to have to confront a lot of problems, both potentially in their own positions, and also very much in the Modernism that has infiltrated certain dark corners of the clergy. The doctrinal talks, the way I see them, have cut through this obfuscating fog and are certainly doing a good job of getting to the real issues, so that the SSPX can exercise their fullest potential from a position of unhindered and proper authority.

"This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church."
You could read this, as you have, to believe that the SSPX believes that the post-Conciliar Rome is a new (and by implication non-Catholic) Church... but you can also choose to read it in the sense of the theory of two hermeneutics that has evolved recently. You I am sure condemn the hermeneutic of rupture. We might even call the hermeneutic of rupture by metaphor a 'new church', a sort of church formed in man's image. Exactly what the real Church (the hermeneutic of continuity) is not. Maybe you are reading some SSPX statements in a more hostile manner than is strictly necessary.
In quite a few instances, they are not so radical as I previously thought. Some SSPX writings are (gasp, horror of horrors) actually worthwhile reads. I likely would not recommend most or all of them to a new Catholic, or one weak in their faith, but for one with prudent judgement and a good grasp of theology, there are valuable elements in SSPX writing.
It is of course a cardinal rule of debating to actually know the other party's decision. Too often I think, and this goes back to my perception of a certain fog over the issues, we regular orthodox, non-SSPX Catholics are afraid to read SSPX articles. We kind of run from them in the same way that we are repelled by heresy. Yet they are not heresy; it is not the same thing. There might be some flaws in parts of their writings, but they are not heretics. Imperfect, yes. That's why we have doctrinal talks. I have spent just a bit of spare time reading some SSPX articles and such, and I have found a lot of common ground from which I'm sure the delegates appointed by Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX are working to come to greater understanding. Too bad the doctrinal talks are secret; I think it would have been great fun to follow along with the issues discussed, and read all the presentations made. Maybe someday in the future we'll have the opportunity to look back on transcripts or compilations of tabled documents.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am pleased with how that post turned out. I feel happy having written it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308035613' post='2253513']
I am pleased with how that post turned out. I feel happy having written it.
[/quote]

well done

But all the loquacious language aside, they are not in full communion with the Church.

[Jaime]

[quote]Too often I think, and this goes back to my perception of a certain fog over the issues, we regular orthodox, non-SSPX Catholics are afraid to read SSPX articles. We kind of run from them in the same way that we are repelled by heresy. Yet they are not heresy; it is not the same thing. There might be some flaws in parts of their writings, but they are not heretics.[/quote]

Show me an article from SSPX that has the imprimatur Joe. Just one please.


And by the way, this is the umpteenth time you've said "they're not heretics" . Who in this thread has ever said they were?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308060520' post='2253589']
Show me an article from SSPX that has the imprimatur Joe. Just one please.


And by the way, this is the umpteenth time you've said "they're not heretics" . Who in this thread has ever said they were?
[/quote]
An imprimatur does not make a publication orthodox, and the lack of one does not mean it is not.
The first edition of the Italian translation of YouCat had an imprimatur.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308065787' post='2253636']
An imprimatur does not make a publication orthodox, and the lack of one does not mean it is not.
The first edition of the Italian translation of YouCat had an imprimatur.
[/quote]

And what does the Imprimatur do? It means that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic teaching.

And show me where it has an Imprimatur because according to SSPX it has translation errors.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308067335' post='2253644']
And what does the Imprimatur do? It means that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic teaching.

And show me where it has an Imprimatur because according to SSPX it has translation errors.
[/quote]
The original Italian version of the YouCat? When I was reading news stories about it they mentioned the nihil obstat and imprimatur. Mistakes can be made- I hope to God that's what it was. It was a translation error, of course, but it slipped through the cracks. That's my point.
I think it must have had the imprimatur and nihil obstat, because at that point it was already being distributed, and I don't think they'd be doing so without the stamps being official at the time.

[MithLuin]

Wait, so Imprimaturs don't count now? What about Nihil Obstats?

Just a heads up, guys, but all the Catholic vs Catholic debate is supposed to be nixed.

[Mr.Cat]

I only really know one person who is a member of the SSPX, a disabled man who lives with family who has more than enough time to read and contemplate his faith, who quite frankly is the most well educated and intelligent "[i]radtrad[/i]" that I have ever encountered with a generous, benevolent, gentle, and loving personality. Even though I strongly disagreed and at times deplored his positions, then and even now, it was hard not to respect him. He has in a sense become the measure that I use for Catholics wanting to claim the "[i]traditional[/i]" conviction.

With that bit explained, this is why I took seriously his answer when I asked him what he thought about the SSPX returning. He had strong reservations about it, he objected the SSPX had become a kind of loyal opposition to the doctrinal and disciplinary developments since the second vatican council, that premature submission would simply be detrimental the hard work and sacrifice of many. He appealed to my political science background to make his case, being a common ground and relevant since it does involve the politics of the church, he claimed that subjecting a loyal opposition is tantamount to repression of the people who care enough to challenge the majority rule.

While I thought his dramatic view of the SSPX was a bit far fetched, the church clearly hasn't forgotten the sspx is there either. I haven't spoken to him about it in years although... he may like this arrangement. He made a compelling case that Benedict XVI wasn't really [i]traditional[/i] upon his election, he made a compelling case for it, not that it matters for me anymore. So I suspect he would be doubtful about it.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308070011' post='2253653']
Wait, so Imprimaturs don't count now? What about Nihil Obstats?

Just a heads up, guys, but all the Catholic vs Catholic debate is supposed to be nixed.
[/quote]
Didn't say that. I said it's not the absolute arbiter for orthodoxy.

Also just as a side note, I seriously doubt that the SSPX has submitted any of their publications to diocesan bishops for stamps.

[dominicansoul]

I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1308076863' post='2253697']
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12
[/quote]

[vee]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1308076863' post='2253697']
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12
[/quote]

CEPHAS!!!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1308076863' post='2253697']
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12
[/quote]
That's one reason that we should thank God every day that the SSPX situation didn't consolidate into formal schism. God forbid, we don't need another Western Schism. The Eastern one is painful enough as it is, 1000 years later.