Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307846059' post='2252600'] Well let me help you out. They are not in full communion. Otherwise there would be no need to "normalize" relations. Its kind of a big DUH. If they were in good standing, there would be no need for these discussions, now would there? Use some logic Nihil. Does that sound like they are in good standing? Of course not. Arguing otherwise is foolish and obtuse. WHEN they are fully obedient to Rome you can call them whatever you want. Until then you cannot consider their disobedience to be Traditionalist [/quote] The clergy and episcopate of the SSPX are: [list] [*]Not heretics [*]Not in schism [*]Not excommunicated [/list] Therefore, they are Catholics. Why should I be unable to call a Catholic a traditionalist? Just because they are canonically suspended? I think that's a weak argument, because that's all that they are. Canonically suspended. Bishop Tissier isn't even that. Is Bishop Tissier a traditionalist, but not Bishop Fellay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307846232' post='2252603'] The clergy and episcopate of the SSPX are: [list][*]Not heretics[*]Not in schism[*]Not excommunicated[/list] Therefore, they are Catholics. Why should I be unable to call a Catholic a traditionalist? Just because they are canonically suspended? I think that's a weak argument, because that's all that they are. Canonically suspended. Bishop Tissier isn't even that. Is Bishop Tissier a traditionalist, but not Bishop Fellay? [/quote] They are not in full communion otherwise there would be no need for talks Nihil. Arguing against that is futile and ignorant. [quote]“An indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is their full recognition of Vatican Council II and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. “As already affirmed in the Decree of 21 January 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways considered most appropriate, to join the parties concerned in a profound examination of outstanding issues, so as to be able to reach a full and satisfactory solution to the problems that gave rise to this painful split”.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vee Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Oooooh another of the totally in union with Holy Mother Church FSSP celebrating Mass at the Elysburg PA Carmel. Its all win. No one in their right mind would cloister themselves away when the daily Mass is celebrated by a group not in line with the Church. Who lays down their life for something invalid? They need the Real Presence and the real Mass to keep going. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oN5K_WcO5JM/SqGaJAAwJCI/AAAAAAAABI0/926l8bBqzJ0/s400/3886158750_35435512d6_b.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307846525' post='2252606'] They are not in full communion otherwise there would be no need for talks Nihil. Arguing against that is futile and ignorant. [/quote] What is the formal definition of "being in full communion"? I've never argued with that because I don't know what your formal definition is. The fact remains that they are not schismatic, not heretical, not excommunicated, and *are* Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307846232' post='2252603'] The clergy and episcopate of the SSPX are: [list][*]Not heretics[*]Not in schism[*]Not excommunicated[/list] Therefore, they are Catholics. Why should I be unable to call a Catholic a traditionalist?\ [/quote] Really if that is your criteria, then liturgical dancers are traditionalists? People who play guitar at mass? Lifeteen massers are traditionalists? none of these are heretics or in schism or excommunicated Its your argument that's weak son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307846724' post='2252609'] What is the formal definition of "being in full communion"? I've never argued with that because I don't know what your formal definition is. The fact remains that they are not schismatic, not heretical, not excommunicated, and *are* Catholic. [/quote] Not needing talks to Normalize relations. Oh and perhaps if you'd read the quotes I've provided you'd learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307846786' post='2252610'] Really if that is your criteria, then liturgical dancers are traditionalists? People who play guitar at mass? Lifeteen massers are traditionalists? none of these are heretics or in schism or excommunicated Its your argument that's weak son. [/quote] I don't think anybody implied that those are the only criteria that define a traditionalist. However, according to you apparently, being canonically suspended means it's categorically impossible to be traditionalist. You call my position weak? [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307846900' post='2252611'] Not needing talks to Normalize relations. Oh and perhaps if you'd read the quotes I've provided you'd learn [/quote] So then you are saying that the strictest, most formal definition of "being in communion with Rome" is "not needing talks to normalize relations"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307847341' post='2252613'] I don't think anybody implied that those are the only criteria that define a traditionalist. However, according to you apparently, being canonically suspended means it's categorically impossible to be traditionalist. You call my position weak? So then you are saying that the strictest, most formal definition of "being in communion with Rome" is "not needing talks to normalize relations"? [/quote] No I'm stating that your position is wrong. You are flat out and completely wrong. If their position with Rome needs normalization, they are not in good standing. IF and WHEN they do not need "talks" with Rome, then you can call them whatever you want. Calling them Traditionalists is an insult to all Traditionalists who are obedient to Rome.Enough said Read my quotes. I'm trying to help you out so that you stop looking so foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307847549' post='2252614'] No I'm stating that your position is wrong. You are flat out and completely wrong. If their position with Rome needs normalization, they are not in good standing. Enough said Read my quotes. I'm trying to help you out so that you stop looking so foolish. [/quote] I never said they're "in good standing." I have said, [i]once again[/i], they are [b]not heretics[/b], [b]not excommunicated[/b], [b]not in schism[/b], and that they [b]are Catholic[/b]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307847674' post='2252615'] I never said they're "in good standing." I have said, [i]once again[/i], they are [b]not heretics[/b], [b]not excommunicated[/b], [b]not in schism[/b], and that they [b]are Catholic[/b]. [/quote] If they aren't in good standing, they cannot be considered Traditionalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307847674' post='2252615'] I have said, [i]once again[/i], they are [b]not heretics[/b], [b]not excommunicated[/b], [b]not in schism[/b], and that they [b]are Catholic[/b]. [/quote] That sounds like Nancy Pelosi describing herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1307848032' post='2252622'] That sounds like Nancy Pelosi describing herself. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1307848032' post='2252622'] That sounds like Nancy Pelosi describing herself. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 Since it has never at any point been my contention that the SSPX is "in full communion" with Rome, I will quite easily concede the point. Wording from the Vatican itself seems to imply this, and since I'm not right up on the terminology, I will assume that it's being used correctly. It's unfortunate that Jim refuses to clarify, but such is life. I'm looking at [url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/document-repealing-excommunications_24.html"]this Vatican document[/url], which states: "It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity." I'm noticing that it says "thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium", etc. I notice that it does not say, for instance "establishing true fidelity", or "re-establishing", or "repairing". It says testifying. I think that implies that fidelity is present, though hindered by the scandal of division. It has to be recalled that Archbishop Lefebvre considered himself to be in an emergency situation during the Econe consecrations. We all see that they were chaotic times after the Council, and it certainly was not clear at that point what direction things were headed. If he had seen today's developments with Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae, maybe if he had seen those things earlier, the consecrations would have been done within papal approval. As it was at the time, he believed he was in an emergency situation. Maybe he was recalling the Arian crisis in which a large majority of the episcopate adhered to the Arian heresy. I think it is clear that there are some bishops today (and then) who are/were formally Modernist, and that is very unfortunate. Archbishop Lefebvre acted in my opinion a bit rashly, and his disobedience shouldn't be excused, but we can understand why he did it. Looking immediately previously to the passage I already quoted: "With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See." Notice: "it is desired to [b]consolidate[/b] the reciprocal relations of confidence". Consolidate refers to that which is already present. There is already a reciprocal relation of confidence. The Vatican has some confidence in the SSPX, and the SSPX has some confidence in the Vatican. Notice: "intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the [FSSPX] with this Apostolic See". Again, we're assuming already that a relationship exists, this reciprocal relationship of confidence we've already found. This is not a treaty between enemies. This is a mending of fences between friends with a disagreement. That is what people like Jim are trying to obfuscate. The FSSPX are not enemies of Rome. They simply are not. They are our friends, and our allies. They too are part of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. They are not heretics, they are not excommunicated, and they are not in schism. They are simply suspended, and Bishop Tissier isn't even that. Keep in mind Bishop Tissier. He is not suspended. He represents the FSSPX, as do the suspended bishops. Is he fundamentally different from them? Not really. In fact I hear he's rather closer to Bishop Williamson than Fellay, and I'm not a big fan of Williamson. Yet Tissier is not excommunicated, in schism, heretical, or even suspended. Again, the FSSPX are our friends, not our enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307847910' post='2252619'] If they aren't in good standing, they cannot be considered Traditionalists. [/quote] You're quibbling on terminology. You're acting like there's a formal definition of "traditionalist" and "full communion" and "good standing", but you're refusing to define it. The priests, bishops, and faithful attached to the FSSPX are suspended, but they remain Catholics. Why is traditionalist a label completely foreign to them? [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1307848032' post='2252622'] That sounds like Nancy Pelosi describing herself. [/quote] It's not how [url="http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410"]Cardinal Hoyos[/url] would describe Nanners the Heretic. Edited to add link. Cardinal Hoyos has himself described the FSSPX in the same way as I. It was his business to know. Edited June 12, 2011 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts