Vatican Reminder: Sspx Ordinations Are Illegitimate

[Aloysius]

lol. yeah when it was necro'ed I kind of didn't want to bother getting involved, but I couldn't help it I guess

btw, I do believe not only that the SSPX's actions have been wrong, but also the reasoning behind their actions. HOWEVER, no faithful Catholic can deny that there were bad things going on in the Church that can explain, in part, what drove them to that extreme position that they ended up taking.

I simply try to object to the unjustly polemical attitude shown to them by so many. I see Rome as being charitable and accomodating; having talks with the SSPX in which the magisterium prior to Vatican II is taken as "“the only possible common standard", inviting the superior general to Rome on numerous occassions, specifically stating that the issue was not one of schism but was "an internal matter within the Church". there is a huge gaping divide between the way so many online Catholics treat the SSPX issue and the way Rome treats it. maybe I swing too far to the other side in these discussions sometimes, but if I do it's only to give balance and perspective.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Aloysius

[Skinzo]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1314880769' post='2298559']

I must say up until this paragraph, I was agreeing, more than disagreeing with Skinzo. On the whole, those of more traditionalist leaning have a greater tendacy to be apologists for the SSPX, perhaps stating what they are doing/have done is wrong; but nodding their head in some quasi separated agreement for the SSPX's reasonings behind their actions. I think they feel a solidarity of sorts with the intellectualness of it all, but may (or may not) disagree with 'the way they went about it'.

But Skinzo, that last paragraph really strikes me. It sounds SSPX-ish in tone. Can we not defend Holy Mother Church [u][b]AND [/b][/u]be hopefull in the ongoing talks and communications? Why does one [b][u]HAVE[/u][/b] to be skeptical? Is your faith in love, hope..and ultimately Christ that weak that you need to 'score points' by ending an otherwise decent argument with that croutons? Does talk like that really heal anything? Or does it just serve your anger and vengence (under the gise of protecting the Church)?

One has to wonder when the SSPX and Rome reconsile, if that will be good enough for you? Or will they only be "agreeing because of this or that and they really haven't changed"?

Have some more hope, brother.
[/quote]

I don't know why you would judge my "faith love and hope in Christ to be weak" based on a single paragraph. Now, that I find rather presumptuous and insulting too. And let's throw in rash judgment too. I guess you have not followed Fellay's reports on the outcome of the doctrinal talks. He has been quite skeptical about them. The two sides are quite simply very far apart. And no, I don't know why you would think I would reject a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, again another rash judgment on your part. Faithful Catholics happily accept Rome's decisions. It would be fine with me but as aware as I am of the current situation, I don't see that happening because the SSPX has defied Rome for forty years. And when you are self governing for 40 years it's pretty hard to change overnight. No, I seek no vengeance on them whatever! I used the words "schismatic mentality" because that is the exact term used by the Ecclesia Dei commission to describe the SSPX.
Read Fellay's interviews. He is quite clear that he undertook the dialogue with Rome with the intention of "teaching Rome"
If that is not arrogant, I don't know what is.

S.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Skinzo

[Aloysius]

"we hope to tell Rome what the Church has always taught and thereby to show the contradictions between this centuries-old teaching and what has been done in the Church since the Council. As we look at it, this is the only goal that we are pursuing." -Fellay

they wish to tell Rome what has always been taught in order to demonstrate their position that there is a contradiction between that and what has been done since the Council. I don't think it's so much to "teach" Rome in the sense that Rome doesn't already know these things... I see nothing in this statement that doesn't just indicate to me "we want to state our position clearly and formally."

Rome agreed that in the talks the magisterium before Vatican II would be "taken as “the only possible common standard” "... the society clearly wanted its case heard in Rome that there is a rupture of continuity. that's exactly the value of the talks, the discussion between the hermeneutic of rupture and the hermeneutic of continuity; which is a very serious and important discussion that must be had and which has some very complex and difficult issues surrounding it.

[Papist]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314882224' post='2298580']

I don't know why you would judge my "faith love and hope in Christ to be weak" based on a single paragraph. Now, that I find rather presumptuous and insulting too. And let's throw in rash judgment too. I guess you have not followed Fellay's reports on the outcome of the doctrinal talks. He has been quite skeptical about them. The two sides are quite simply very far apart. And no, I don't know why you would think I would reject a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, again another rash judgment on your part. Faithful Catholics happily accept Rome's decisions. It would be fine with me but as aware as I am of the current situation, I don't see that happening because the SSPX has defied Rome for forty years. And when you are self governing for 40 years it's pretty hard to change overnight. No, I seek no vengeance on them whatever! I used the words "schismatic mentality" because that is the exact term used by the Ecclesia Dei commission to describe the SSPX.
Read Fellay's interviews. He is quite clear that he undertook the dialogue with Rome with the intention of "teaching Rome"
If that is not arrogant, I don't know what is.

S.[/quote]
Skinzo,

You make some good points, yes. However, they lose some value when they come with so much emotion.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1314882964' post='2298585']
"we hope to tell Rome what the Church has always taught and thereby to show the contradictions between this centuries-old teaching and what has been done in the Church since the Council. As we look at it, this is the only goal that we are pursuing." -Fellay

they wish to tell Rome what has always been taught in order to demonstrate their position that there is a contradiction between that and what has been done since the Council. I don't think it's so much to "teach" Rome in the sense that Rome doesn't already know these things... I see nothing in this statement that doesn't just indicate to me "we want to state our position clearly and formally."

Rome agreed that in the talks the magisterium before Vatican II would be "taken as “the only possible common standard” "... the society clearly wanted its case heard in Rome that there is a rupture of continuity. that's exactly the value of the talks, the discussion between the hermeneutic of rupture and the hermeneutic of continuity; which is a very serious and important discussion that must be had and which has some very complex and difficult issues surrounding it.
[/quote]

Once again you don't read that much of Fellay. Further on in the same interview he says:
" [font=Verdana][size=2]It is very important that the Society give this witness; that is the reason for these doctrinal talks. It is really a matter of making the Catholic faith understood in Rome and trying, why not, to make it understood even more throughout the Church.[/size][/font]"
Making the Catholic faith "understood in Rome". So Rome does not understand the Catholic faith? Because he thinks the SSPX needs to teach Rome.

S.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Skinzo

[Aloysius]

alright, well anyway I seem to be backing myself into too much of a "defend Fellay" corner, which I do not want to be in. I disagree with Bishop Fellay, though I wish him well. I think his main error lies in rejecting the hermeneutic of continuity line of thinking; I think he is within his rights to criticize certain ambiguities in the Council documents, but he should come over to a side of wanting clarification in the documents rather than trying to continue to insist that they are irreconcilable; if he can admit the ambiguity in one direction, it is just plain obstinance to refuse to admit the ambiguity can be interpretted within the light of tradition.

but as I said before the thread was necromanced, it would be just plain sanctimonious to fail to see with pity and affection the difficulty on the side of the SSPX members who are sincerely and zealously trying to pass on to the next generation the faith that was passed on to them.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314883677' post='2298595']
Skinzo,

You make some good points, yes. However, they lose some value when they come with so much emotion.
[/quote]

Sorry but I love the Holy Father and Vatican II (which like it or not is part of the tradition of the Church.) Now I can discuss grass cutting dispassionately because I don't care about it. Hard to avoid emotion when discussing things you care about.

S.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Skinzo

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314884332' post='2298604']

Once again you don't read that much of Fellay. Further on in the same interview he says:
" [font=Verdana][size=2]It is very important that the Society give this witness; that is the reason for these doctrinal talks. It is really a matter of making the Catholic faith understood in Rome and trying, why not, to make it understood even more throughout the Church.[/size][/font]"
Making the Catholic faith "understood in Rome". So Rome does not understand the Catholic faith. Because he thinks the SSPX needs to teach Rome.

S.
[/quote]
I have indeed read that entire interview, I chose the first quote but I would have been equally satisfied using that quote as well. indeed he wanted to make it understood in Rome, that is, the Catholic faith as the SSPX understands it, as it believes contradicts the current statements.

will you stop accusing me of not having read Fellay's words already? my goodness.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314882224' post='2298580']

I don't know why you would judge my "faith love and hope in Christ to be weak" based on a single paragraph. Now, that I find rather presumptuous and insulting too. And let's throw in rash judgment too. I guess you have not followed Fellay's reports on the outcome of the doctrinal talks. He has been quite skeptical about them. The two sides are quite simply very far apart. And no, I don't know why you would think I would reject a reconciliation between Rome and the SSPX, again another rash judgment on your part. Faithful Catholics happily accept Rome's decisions. It would be fine with me but as aware as I am of the current situation, I don't see that happening because the SSPX has defied Rome for forty years. And when you are self governing for 40 years it's pretty hard to change overnight. No, I seek no vengeance on them whatever! I used the words "schismatic mentality" because that is the exact term used by the Ecclesia Dei commission to describe the SSPX.
Read Fellay's interviews. He is quite clear that he undertook the dialogue with Rome with the intention of "teaching Rome"
If that is not arrogant, I don't know what is.

S.
[/quote]
I did not judge you, I asked a queston, stop deflecting.

You can be skeptical or you can have hope. not both.

which one do you have? (as it relates to this situation)

If it's the former, That's sad. If it's the latter, I pray you have the strength to let that hope permeate you and your writings.

[Papist]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1314884510' post='2298607']

Sorry but I love the Holy Father and Vatican II (which like it or not is part of the tradition of the Church.) Now I can discuss grass cutting dispassionately because I don't care about it. Hard to avoid emotion when discussing things you care about.

S.
[/quote]

I love the Holy Father too and all the 21 Ecumenical Councils.

You seem to be communicating that you are studying up on Falley and the SSPX, which I find very curious for someone who detest them.

[Mr.Cat]

I thought Catholics are supposed to faithfully follow the Pope? Wasn't that a derogatory term used by protestants? Calling Catholics "Papists"? I guess that insult doesn't work anymore?

[Papist]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1314886755' post='2298615']
I thought Catholics are supposed to faithfully follow the Pope? Wasn't that a derogatory term used by protestants? Calling Catholics "Papists"? I guess that insult doesn't work anymore?
[/quote]
Calling one's self a Papist is proclaiming publicly that being a "Papist" is a good thing and that it is not an insult. It mutes the name caller.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1314887215' post='2298619']Calling one's self a Papist is proclaiming publicly that being a "Papist" is a good thing and that it is not an insult. It mutes the name caller.[/quote]I'm sorry, did you miss the point?

[dominicansoul]

i think justifying any type of disobedience to teh Holy Father is foolhardy...

I like what a devout adn holy and orthodox Dominican told me... "the SSPX is just doing it wrong, wrong, WRONG..."

if we're going to justify any disobedience and defend the people who are actually working against the unity of the Church, then we might as well start defending Luther and all the rest of those folks back then who felt there was a state of emergency in the Church and so they left it and started their own religions...

let's justify King Henry the 8th's divorce and his subsequent take over as the head of hte Church in England, because he was acting out of a real deep love for his country, and desperately needed an heir to the throne.... he probably saw himself as a very devout Catholic, too....

lets just justify Protestantism, all the other Christian sects out there, because after all, they wholeheartedly feel that they are doing so much more for God than the bad ol' Pope and the messed up Catholic Church..

[Papist]

[quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1314888186' post='2298623']
I'm sorry, did you miss the point?
[/quote]
I guess I did. Sorry.