The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307856890' post='2252689']
Hoyos was inconsistent on the subject. In his last press conference he stated that the pope "was trying to heal a schism". So he must have believed that one had happened. I have no idea how one commits schismatic acts without in fact being is schism. Some people are fond of quoting Ottaviani but they always forget that he withdrew his criticism:
"[font="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#336699"][left][size="4"][color="#006600"][color="#ff0000"]"I have [i]rejoiced profoundly[/i] to read the discourse by the holy father on the question of the new ordo missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public audiences of november 19 and 26, [i]after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized[/i]. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘doctrinal note' [on the novus ordo] and the activity of the militia sanctae mariae wide diffusion and success." -- Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani
[/color][/color][/size][size="4"][color="#006600"]----from James Likoudis and Kenneth Whitehead, [i]The Pope, The Council and The Mass,[/i] The Christopher publishing house, w. Hanover, Massachusetts, 1981, p. 74. [/color][/size][/left]
[left][size="4"][color="#006600"]And later: [color="#ff0000"]"The beauty of the church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely [i]the legitimacy of their origin[/i] protects and guards them against infiltration of errors. . . the purity and unity of the faith is in this manner also [i]upheld by the supreme magisterium of the pope through the liturgical laws.[/i]"[/color]
---ibid, ibid., p. 129, ‘letter from his eminence alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, o.s.b., in [i]Documentation Catholique,[/i] ‘#67, 1970, pp. 215-216 and 343[/color][/size][/left]
[left]S.
[/left]
[left]
[/left]
[left][size="4"][color="#006600"]
[/color][/size][/left]
[/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]
With regards to Cardinal Hoyos, the Catholic understanding of the SSPX situation has evolved over some time, and is now far more mild than it was in the past. Your inconsistency is my development in this respect, I believe.
With regards to Cardinal Ottaviani, remember that he was entirely blind by the time that this statement came out. Also remember that his secretary, Gilberto Agustoni, was an important member of the committee that drafted the New Mass. Lastly, "At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal's signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal's secretary."
It is not conclusive that Agustoni is guilty of fraud, however there is significant doubt. I'm not going to speak any more on that subject because it's all hearsay, however the fact is that there is significant doubt, and that Cardinal Ottaviani was at that point blind.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307856940' post='2252691']
Show me where the SSPX has done this
[/quote]
The SSPX as a society accepts all our popes as valid, so I don't believe that's even on the table right now. Some individual members may tend towards sedeprivationism of sedevacantism, but they do not represent the Society. As for Vatican II, as far as my understanding goes, I think they would be happy enough with a clarification from Pope Benedict on some of the more troublesome aspects. Pope Benedict himself (before he was pope, I imagine) has said that Gaudiem et Spes for instance, uses "downright Pelagian terminology".
Allen, John L. (2005). Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger. London: Continuum. p. 81. ISBN 0826417868

That, of course, is the point of the doctrinal talks. It is to determine what positions the SSPX has adopted are acceptable pluralities within the current Church, and what are rather too extreme.

Edited for spelling and clarity.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307856892' post='2252690']
I have to ask Jim, why do you refuse to treat me with respect? Why, when I am here to discuss Catholic issues, do you feel compelled to mock me and treat me with condescension? I've asked before and you've never answered. Why do you do this? What is Christian in what you are doing?
I have done nothing to deserve this treatment. Do you get a kick out of mocking other Catholics? Or mocking people younger than you? People who disagree with you?
Are you proud of yourself?
[/quote]

Reread the thread and see where the disrespect. In fact I invite everyone to read back and see where the disrespect started.

[quote]I think it's very reasonable to suggest that the SSPX had some influence on the formation of the Ecclesia Dei commission and Summorum Pontificum.
I consider them traditionalists in spite of their disobedience. As I said, I believe that most, maybe all of them, have acted in good faith. I think they were wrong, but I think it was in good faith. I think most of them believed that they only did what they had to do. I see no reason to refuse to call them traditionalists. That's silly.
.[/quote]

[quote]I think it is silly and immature to refuse to call them traditionalist, which is not any sort of formal theological term.
You're just being difficult.[/quote]

I had made no personal comments towards you prior to this. You call me immature and silly? You will not get my respect. But as usual, you feel perfectly comfortable insulting me and then get hurt when I say anything at all.

I started out this thread by saying once they are obedient to Rome, You can call the SSPX anything you want! I'll be happy when they assent their will to Rome. But I will not hold them up to be any type of role model for Traditional Catholics while there are conditions put on their ministry and on their priests.

How you find this stance to be unreasonable is a reflection on you and your ability to accept anything from me whether it be opinion or fact.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307857598' post='2252697']
Reread the thread and see where the disrespect. In fact I invite everyone to read back and see where the disrespect started.





I had made no personal comments towards you prior to this. You call me immature and silly? You will not get my respect. But as usual, you feel perfectly comfortable insulting me and then get hurt when I say anything at all.

I started out this thread by saying once they are obedient to Rome, You can call the SSPX anything you want! I'll be happy when they assent their will to Rome. But I will not hold them up to be any type of role model for Traditional Catholics while there are conditions put on their ministry and on their priests.

How you find this stance to be unreasonable is a reflection on you and your ability to accept anything from me whether it be opinion or fact.
[/quote]
I think the argument is silly and immature. I did not attack you. It has nothing to do with the fact that you presented it.
Where did I call them a role model for Traditional Catholicism? I merely said that they are traditionalists.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307857745' post='2252698']
I think the argument is silly and immature. I did not attack you. It has nothing to do with the fact that you presented it.
Where did I call them a role model for Traditional Catholicism? I merely said that they are traditionalists.
[/quote]
If I hurt your feelings by calling your argument silly and immature, I'm more than willing to modify my comment.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307857745' post='2252698']
I think the argument is silly and immature. I did not attack you. It has nothing to do with the fact that you presented it.
Where did I call them a role model for Traditional Catholicism? I merely said that they are traditionalists.
[/quote]

Right because you've NEVER EVER called me immature Nihil. For goodness sake at least have the character to stand behind what you say.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307858186' post='2252701']
Right because you've NEVER EVER called me immature Nihil. For goodness sake at least have the character to stand behind what you say.
[/quote]
I probably called you immature in the past after one of your temper tantrums. Not this thread though. I called your argument silly and immature, and I will retract that if it hurt your feelings.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307857150' post='2252693']
With regards to Cardinal Hoyos, the Catholic understanding of the SSPX situation has evolved over some time, and is now far more mild than it was in the past. Your inconsistency is my development in this respect, I believe.
With regards to Cardinal Ottaviani, remember that he was entirely blind by the time that this statement came out. Also remember that his secretary, Gilberto Agustoni, was an important member of the committee that drafted the New Mass. Lastly, "At the time, Jean Madiran, the editor of the respected French journal Itineraires, publicly accused Agustoni of obtaining the Cardinal's signature by fraud. As a result, Agustoni was fired as the Cardinal's secretary."
It is not conclusive that Agustoni is guilty of fraud, however there is significant doubt. I'm not going to speak any more on that subject because it's all hearsay, however the fact is that there is significant doubt, and that Cardinal Ottaviani was at that point blind.
[/quote]

The "Catholic understanding of the SSPX" is perhaps best stated by Benedict XVI who in his letter to his bishops underlined the fact that the problems are "doctrinal". That implies something worse than schism. Ottaviani may have been blind, but in fact he wasn't deaf and dumb. He never disavowed the letter which he would surely have done had he thought himself victim of a deception. Regardless, Ottaviani's criticisms never stooped to the level of Lefebvre as he was a faithful son of the Church. As he himself said in 1965: " [b][font="arial,helvetica"][size="5"][b][color="#000080"][size="3"]But if, nonetheless, they change, God will certainly give him the strength to place himself in the defense of the new treasure in which he believes. Once the new laws become the treasure of the Church, an enrichment of the gold reserve, then only one principle counts: to serve the Church. And this service means to be faithful to her laws."

S.
[/size][/color][/b][/size][/font][/b]

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307858401' post='2252702']
I probably called you immature in the past after one of your temper tantrums. Not this thread though. I called your argument silly and immature, and I will retract that if it hurt your feelings.
[/quote]

Listen you want to straighten out whatever bad blood we have, I'm all for it. You know how to find me outside of this thread.

My point is pretty basic with regards to this thread. No one can be considered a "Traditionalist " who is not obedient to Rome.

Once they're obedient, I will be happy to call them tradtitionalists

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307858538' post='2252703']
The "Catholic understanding of the SSPX" is perhaps best stated by Benedict XVI who in his letter to his bishops underlined the fact that the problems are "doctrinal". That implies something worse than schism. Ottaviani may have been blind, but in fact he wasn't deaf and dumb. He never disavowed the letter which he would surely have done had he thought himself victim of a deception. Regardless, Ottaviani's criticisms never stooped to the level of Lefebvre as he was a faithful son of the Church. As he himself said in 1965: " [b][font="arial,helvetica"][size="5"][b][color="#000080"][size="3"]But if, nonetheless, they change, God will certainly give him the strength to place himself in the defense of the new treasure in which he believes. Once the new laws become the treasure of the Church, an enrichment of the gold reserve, then only one principle counts: to serve the Church. And this service means to be faithful to her laws."

S.
[/size][/color][/b][/size][/font][/b]
[/quote]
I don't think doctrinal disagreements are more serious than schism. I don't think that's correct at all. There can be faithful doctrinal disagreement, and I'm obviously not talking about the likes of Call to Action and Hans Kung.
At the end of the day, Alfredo Ottaviani handled it better than Marcel Lefebvre, in my opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre's disobedient act should not be approved of, and Cardinal Ottaviani was certainly as powerful an influence as he was able. Unfortunately, as valid as Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns may have been, as a result of his disobedience he has been marginalized for over two decades, and that is one of the tragedies of the Econe consecrations.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307858939' post='2252704']
Listen you want to straighten out whatever bad blood we have, I'm all for it. You know how to find me outside of this thread.

My point is pretty basic with regards to this thread. No one can be considered a "Traditionalist " who is not obedient to Rome.

Once they're obedient, I will be happy to call them tradtitionalists
[/quote]
As to the first, I don't believe you but I'll give it a shot anyway.

As to the second, I think you're wrong. You are trying to formalize a definition of traditionalist in order to fit your argument. A traditionalist should be obedient. A traditionalist is flawed if he is not. However, a flawed traditionalist is still a traditionalist. Just as we are all flawed Catholics, we are still Catholics. As far as traditionalism goes I consider the FSSPX to be imperfectly so due to their disobedient history, however they are still traditionalists in spite of this fact.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307858939' post='2252705']
I don't think doctrinal disagreements are more serious than schism. I don't think that's correct at all. There can be faithful doctrinal disagreement, and I'm obviously not talking about the likes of Call to Action and Hans Kung.
At the end of the day, Alfredo Ottaviani handled it better than Marcel Lefebvre, in my opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre's disobedient act should not be approved of, and Cardinal Ottaviani was certainly as powerful an influence as he was able. Unfortunately, as valid as Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns may have been, as a result of his disobedience he has been marginalized for over two decades, and that is one of the tragedies of the Econe consecrations.
[/quote]

I would dispute your first point. A doctrinal disagreement with the Church implies heresy which I think is worse than schism. "Faithful doctrinal disagreement" is a contradiction in terms.
S.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307859216' post='2252707']
As to the first, I don't believe you but I'll give it a shot anyway.

As to the second, I think you're wrong. You are trying to formalize a definition of traditionalist in order to fit your argument. A traditionalist should be obedient. A traditionalist is flawed if he is not. However, a flawed traditionalist is still a traditionalist. Just as we are all flawed Catholics, we are still Catholics. As far as traditionalism goes I consider the FSSPX to be imperfectly so due to their disobedient history, however they are still traditionalists in spite of this fact.
[/quote]


Is it traditional for a bishop to not have a diocese? Nope

Now if you want to say they celebrate the traditional rubrics of the Extraordinary form of Mass, fine. But that does not make them Traditionalists.

[Lil Red]

well, this has gone on long enough, and i'm going to bed. thread closed until the morning (if not forever).

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307858939' post='2252705']
I don't think doctrinal disagreements are more serious than schism. I don't think that's correct at all.
At the end of the day, Alfredo Ottaviani handled it better than Marcel Lefebvre, in my opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre's disobedient act should not be approved of, and Cardinal Ottaviani was certainly as powerful an influence as he was able. Unfortunately, as valid as Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns may have been, as a result of his disobedience he has been marginalized for over two decades, and that is one of the tragedies of the Econe consecrations.
[/quote]

What do you think causes schism Joe? How about doctrinal differences?

[quote]
Schism
1. A split or division between strongly opposed sections or parties, caused by differences in opinion or belief.2. The formal separation of a church into two churches or the secession of a group owing to doctrinal and other differences.[/quote]

If you would like to call Cardinal Ottaviani an Traditionalist, by all means. He has to the best of my knowledge been obedient to the Church.

BTW as a response to Tim the canon lawyer's statement, this is from th[size="2"][color="#000000"]e [/color][/size][size="4"][color="#663300"][size="2"][color="#000000"]DECREE REMITTING
THE EXCOMMUNICATION "LATAE SENTENTIAE"
OF THE BISHOPS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X[/color][/size][/color][/size][b][size="4"][color="#663300"]


[quote][/color][/size][/b] 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.

[b][size="4"][color="#663300"][/quote]

[/color][/size][/b] It is clear that Camster's canon lawyer is wrong. There is indeed another step after their excommunication was lifted. They have yet to attain full communion.
[b] [/b]