The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[dominicansoul]

"Speak boastfully no longer,
nor let arrogance issue from your mouths.
For an all-knowing God is the LORD,
a God who judges deeds."


1 Samuel 2:3

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308075281' post='2253688']
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.
[/quote]

Thank you for making my point. They would do that if they were in full communion with the Church

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308082443' post='2253733']
Thank you for making my point. They would do that if they were in full communion with the Church
[/quote]
I think I very specifically conceded that they can be said to not be in full communion. That was never at any point the debate.
That being said, I'm not sure they would even if they were in a completely normal canonical situation. They don't trust most of the episcopate. Maybe someone like Cardinal Burke...

[vee]

[i]Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.[/i][i]
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.[/i][i]
Where there is injury, pardon.
[/i][i]Where there is doubt, faith.[/i][i]
Where there is despair, hope.
[/i][i]Where there is darkness, light.
[/i][i]Where there is sadness, joy.
[/i] [i]O Divine Master,[/i][i]grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;[/i][i]
to be understood, as to understand;[/i][i]
to be loved, as to love.
[/i][i]For it is in giving that we receive.
[/i][i]It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,[/i][i]
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.[/i] [i]Amen.




edited to fix spacing
[/i]

Edited June 14, 2011 by vee8

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308079378' post='2253714']
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.
[/quote]

Agreed, Schism is very painful. All those fringe groups that run off and leave the Church...I'm not sure that we really...notice...them. I'm not saying the SSPX is the Old Catholic Church or something like that (they're clearly not). But really...do you feel the pain of the SSPV? Or Catholic Restoration? These groups both split from SSPX and are sedevacantists. They're in schism with the Church, and the likelihood of them coming home is slim. I guess I'm saying that those who thought we were headed for or living through another Western Schism....became schismatic themselves, while the true Church continued on. That's not really a traditional view of a split in the Church, but rather of one group becoming schismatic.

I am glad the SSPX is not in formal schism, and that they are engaged in talks with the Vatican to clear up doctrinal issues. One can hope that they will be brought back into full communion, though this is by no means definite at this juncture. It will take continued prayers

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308087318' post='2253759']
Agreed, Schism is very painful. All those fringe groups that run off and leave the Church...I'm not sure that we really...notice...them. I'm not saying the SSPX is the Old Catholic Church or something like that (they're clearly not). But really...do you feel the pain of the SSPV? Or Catholic Restoration? These groups both split from SSPX and are sedevacantists. They're in schism with the Church, and the likelihood of them coming home is slim. I guess I'm saying that those who thought we were headed for or living through another Western Schism....became schismatic themselves, while the true Church continued on. That's not really a traditional view of a split in the Church, but rather of one group becoming schismatic.

I am glad the SSPX is not in formal schism, and that they are engaged in talks with the Vatican to clear up doctrinal issues. One can hope that they will be brought back into full communion, though this is by no means definite at this juncture. It will take continued prayers
[/quote]
SSPV yes, but only because they had a chance to be a part of the SSPX, and a part of something important, and they've squandered it. On an abstract level that makes me sad. That level gets more and more abstract the less relevant the group is. Someone like that David Bawden guy though, no. That's hardly a real schism. If it is technically that, it's not one that matters. It wasn't high profile enough.
The reason the SSPX are important (one reason at least) is that so many of their criticisms are founded in valid concerns. I don't agree with many of them (I have done my research), but there are lots of points that they make that are very worthwhile. If the SSPX became an Ordinariate for instance, their ordinary then has a bully pulpit with some serious power (and properly exercised authority) to make those worthwhile issues heard.
Imagine this scenario: Bishop Fellay is offered and accepts an Ordinariate structure. He has a group of Society priests in Glasgow. Now Archbishop Conti is restricting their celebrations of the usus antiquior Mass, which would, if I understand an Ordinariate correctly, be a huge abuse of his power. Archbishop Fellay is now a completely legitimate voice of authority, and he's going to be asked to comment on Archbishop Conti's actions. It's what we can call a teachable moment, and we've got a great teacher at this point of my theoretical scenario on one side of the equation.
(I pick Archbishop Conti because he has abused his power in the past to limit the application of Summorum Pontificum.)

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308035125' post='2253512']
"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.
[/quote]

I think your assessment is a hopeful one but seems entirely rooted in generalities, not specifics. And is it justified by the facts as we know them? You strike a very optimistic tone about the doctrinal talks in Rome but Fellay himself has said that the doctrinal talks did not accomplish anything. It is clear from his remarks on the SSPX website that there was never an intention on the part of the SSPX to compromise but rather to insist Vatican II was in error. I cannot at all agree with much of your post, certainly to find oneself in disagreement with some part of Vatican II does not allow one to form and keep one's own conclusions for fear of being a "Randian". Differing with the Church is serious business, one does not do so lightly. Much of your post I think is divorced from the realities of the situation. The hostility of the SSPX continues as witness Fellay's assaults on the beatification of JPII and his attack on the Holy Father over the upcoming Assisi conference. I keep reminding you of those facts and you keep ignoring them. As far as reading the SSPX them one may consult their website anytime and find their real problem is Vatican II itself, the new code of canon law, post Vatican II canonizations, Assisi, etc. , NOT merely misinterpretations of Vatican II. You try to "interpret" the quote I gave you in which the SSPX state that the Catholic Church is now a "new religion". I think their meaning is quite explicit and they would reject your interpretation outright. I certainly do but I will waste no more time on this subject, I have better things to do. I cannot help but observe that your interpretation is so far from the plain meaning it smacks of a modernist approach in and of itself.
The bottom line really is that one may argue in an academic fashion that the SSPX is technically not in schism, or that they are but such considerations blind one to the reality that in fact they do have a [b]schismatic mentality. [/b]This is undeniable simply because they have been governing themselves for 40 years now. When you govern yourself, you recognize no other authority. Having rejected papal authority from the outset they have no quibble in passing judgement on the Church in a variety of areas that go well beyond Vatican II. There is positively no sign they are prepared to do so now as I keep saying that they keep assaulting Benedict XVI in the areas I have designated over and over again. Those who are in communion with Rome do not make it their business to sit in judgment on Rome, it is that simple.
That applies to the SSPX as well as to the liberal Catholics. That mentality is deeply ingrained in the SSPX (as it is in the liberals) and there is no sign whatsoever they are prepared to give it up.

S.

[MithLuin]

Well, perhaps those who were schism-minded and intractable left the SSPX for the SSPV, leaving it with slightly more reasonable members today, who would be open to the idea of reunion with Rome after all these years. So, for all you know, [i]that[/i] schism is a blessing in disguise. It does strike me that a lot of these groups do splinter a lot, though. It seems difficult for them to maintain a spirit of unity.

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308093311' post='2253798']
That mentality is deeply ingrained in the SSPX (as it is in the liberals) and there is no sign whatsoever they are prepared to give it up.
[/quote]

Well, they are engaging in talks with Rome. It is quite possible that these talks are not in good faith and that they are merely looking for 'permission' to continue with business as usual, but now with approval from Rome. But it is also possible that they crave communion, and are willing to come to these talks respectfully, despite rhetoric of the past or 'at home'. There is a reason the talks are private. Can you picture certain of the liberal groups willingly sitting down for talks with Rome??

I certainly understand why someone would view these events hopefully, but I also see the positive moves thus far solely on the side of the Vatican. It remains to be seen if the SSPX leadership will reciprocate in kind. Hopefully, yes.

I do not feel the need to act as an apologist for the SSPX. They put their own spin on their actions often enough without my help. If they want to be 'more Catholic than the pope', that is their business, but I don't feel the need to engage with them. Now, should the happy event of their reunification with the universal Church come about, then...yes. Then I will do what I can to defend them. For now...I don't feel I can or should speak for the members of the SSPX, so I do not.

[Nihil Obstat]

As we know, the doctrinal talks are kept secret. The most recent interview granted by Bishop Fellay implied some amount of ambiguity at the moment. I definitely did not get a sense that nothing was accomplished. What I read instead was a clear message that interesting arguments were made on both sides, and that the situation itself is not static.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308093311' post='2253798']
I cannot help but observe that your interpretation is so far from the plain meaning it smacks of a modernist approach in and of itself.
S.
[/quote]
That's an inappropriate accusation to make. I've been extremely civil to you in this thread.


Just regarding something you said afterwards, it is not true that they reject papal authority. They rejected one particular manifestation of that authority which they considered to be inappropriate. They do not reject it as a doctrine, in fact they specifically and consistently affirm it.
There are issues of course, because their actions have not always lined up with their preaching in my opinion, but the fact is that they do not reject the authority of the pope.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308095143' post='2253807']
it is not true that they reject papal authority. They rejected one particular manifestation of that authority which they considered to be inappropriate. They do not reject it as a doctrine, in fact they specifically and consistently affirm it.
There are issues of course, because their actions have not always lined up with their preaching in my opinion, but the fact is that they do not reject the authority of the pope.
[/quote]


I've been following this thread a bit. I am not jumping into the debate (I would be in way over my head) but I was hoping for a little clarity on your position.

My understanding is that you believe that they do not reject papal authority but "They reject one particular manifestation of that authority..." So from your prospective it isn't an all or nothing kind of thing?

I guess I always though I would either believe and accept [i]all[/i] papal authority (even if the teachings go against what I believe to be true/prefer) or I choose not to, in which case I am in action rejecting papal authority (and a doctrine of the Church). This is my understanding anyway. Do you see it differently? Or perhaps I am reading this whole thing wrong.

You have gone through great lengths to defend this group, are you particularly close with them? I honestly have only encountered one member about a year ago. He was a nice enough guy, but he insisted protestant baptisms (even in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) were not valid (before knowing I was baptized in in the protestant church). What has been your experience with them?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='To Jesus Through Mary' timestamp='1308100013' post='2253824']
I've been following this thread a bit. I am not jumping into the debate (I would be in way over my head) but I was hoping for a little clarity on your position.

My understanding is that you believe that they do not reject papal authority but "They reject one particular manifestation of that authority..." So from your prospective it isn't an all or nothing kind of thing?

I guess I always though I would either believe and accept [i]all[/i] papal authority (even if the teachings go against what I believe to be true/prefer) or I choose not to, in which case I am in action rejecting papal authority (and a doctrine of the Church). This is my understanding anyway. Do you see it differently? Or perhaps I am reading this whole thing wrong.

You have gone through great lengths to defend this group, are you particularly close with them? I honestly have only encountered one member about a year ago. He was a nice enough guy, but he insisted protestant baptisms (even in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) were not valid (before knowing I was baptized in in the protestant church). What has been your experience with them?
[/quote]
What I mean is that they do not reject the doctrine of papal infallibility, or the obviously necessary application of the authority of the pope. Rather, they reject that the Econe consecrations were a legitimate exercise of papal authority. Basically they're saying "this doesn't apply here". Most of us on this site disagree with that, myself included, but it is a significant difference that should be recognized. They're not disagreeing with the authority of the pope. Just saying it did not apply at that particular moment.
I have no personal experience with the SSPX. I do correspond with one Catholic who regularly attends their Masses. There is an SSPX priory in my city which I've never visited, partially because the FSSP have a deal with my bishop that allows them to share a diocesan parish. I wouldn't say necessarily that I am defending them. More that I am sympathetic towards them and have seen in the past a great deal of misunderstandings. I took the time to learn a bit about them and saw that there were too many misunderstandings among the average Catholic that, if clarified, could go a long way towards addressing the practical implications of the rehabilitation of the SSPX. I think that too often the misunderstandings are allowed to remain, which does something to create a sort of fear of the SSPX in the average Catholic, as I said earlier, in the same way we are repelled by heresy. Yet it is not the same thing, and I want to see that cleared up.

Edited for clarity.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Amppax]

From Papa Benny:

[quote][font="sans-serif"]The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church[/font][/quote]

Edited June 15, 2011 by Amppax

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1308110641' post='2253916']
From Papa Benny:
[/quote]
All of which I have continued to affirm.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1308110641' post='2253916']
From Papa Benny:
[quote]As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church[/quote]
[/quote]
What does this mean, exactly? Seems to me that it could imply such severe consequences as causing illicit confection of the Eucharist or excommunication latae sententiae of those who are attempting to exercise the ministries that they do not legitimately hold. Am I way off on this?