Sspx-Judgment Day, Sept 14

[Aloysius]

Vatican Insider has learned that Bishop Fellay will receive a 2 page document tomorrow, which the society will then have time to consider. Acceptance of this document is considered essential to regularization.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/sspx-leaders-to-receive-document-from-the-holy-see-on-14-september/

Here's the kicker, if it is true:
[quote]The great novelty comes from the Roman side. [i]Le Figaro[/i] has learned that the Holy See could, for the first time, admit that these aspects fought by the "Integrists" are not considered as "essential" to the Catholic faith to the point of keeping outside the Church those who do not admit them. And that what has been foundational to the Catholic faith for twenty centuries is the sole [aspect] considered fundamental for communion with the Holy See, and not the interpretation from the last Council to this day.[/quote]

These are the points I would expect and/or hope for such a document to make:

1) "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful." (Summorum Pontificum)

2) What earlier generations held as [b]true[/b], remains [b]true[/b] and great for us too, and it should not be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. To believe everything exactly as it was believed prior to the Council is wholly acceptable. Because Vatican II made no anathemas, anyone who holds a theological opinion that was considered acceptable prior to the Council is still free to hold that theological opinion (this should relate to ecumenism, religious freedom, and ecclesiology, the SSPX's principal issues of contention).

3) All must recognize the Second Vatican Council as a true authoritative council of the Church and respect it as such. Theological positions which were pastorally proposed at the Council, limited strictly to what was actually said in the text of the documents and not things which have been inferred afterwards in ways that attempt to rupture from the tradition of the Church, are entirely acceptable theological positions for Catholics to hold. Any such position must be in line with the Church's teaching before the Council; if the way in which that is possible is unclear, it is for Rome to judge the cases of individual theologians. The SSPX is free to criticize theological opinions it disagrees with, so long as it recognizes the Church's authority has allowed some opinions it disagrees with, but ultimately only Rome can hold any position as unacceptable for Catholics to hold.

what do you think? do you think the Holy See will do something like I describe in point 2 (Le Figaro claims to have information that claims that it will do something like that).

remember, Benedict XVI is the pope of Christian Unity. he has a knack for game-changing moves

(I'm putting this in debate because those four letters (SSPX) spell instant debate on the internet, and I think it'd be interesting to debate what conditions Rome will require and what it should require, given this latest development)

[dominicansoul]

i believe if SSPX could finally be regularized, there will be much rejoicing on earth and in Heaven...


"The SSPX is free to criticize theological opinions it disagrees with, so long as it recognizes the Church's authority has allowed some opinions it disagrees with, but ultimately only Rome can hold any position as unacceptable for Catholics to hold."


I like this...

[CatherineM]

Didn't the head of the SSPX just say this week that they would never accept Vatican II?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

pax domine sit semper vobiscum bretheran and others...
Firstly benedictine,carmelite and dominican spirituality is as valid today as it ever was as is the holy word,church tradition and the sacrements and will never be invalid...In that what was once holy can not be made un-holy if indeed it ever was holy... the spirituality of sspx iz perfectly acceptable except there opinion that every pope after pios the tenth are invalid. i goto a latin rite mass and there on the old missal but are subject to the pope and the magesterium.

God bless you all.
Apostles " LORD there are men casting out demons in your name and there not following us ", Jesus " Whom is for you can not be against you "

P.s. since the apostles where the body of christ on earth anyone casting out demons in jesus name are valid and for the apostles not against. figure it out, read/meditate and pray the gospels, 50 times in this life if thats how many times it takes to get it. Incorporated with fervant worthy participation of the sacrements and ordinary prayer and meditation iz very powerful the holy spirit will reveal the truth. Even if you have to work part time for 10 years before you get married and live in shared houses with other christians.

Onward christian souls.

[Aloysius]

my point #2, and the "novelty" Le Figaro says will come from the Roman side, would mean that effectively, little to nothing would change in their belief. they would not have to accept religious freedom or ecumenism as the Council proposes them, because "what has been foundational to the Catholic faith for twenty centuries is the sole [aspect] considered fundamental for communion with the Holy See, and not the interpretation from the last Council to this day".

with such a statement, I could see Fellay recognizing Vatican II in some way, as he has done before (he recognized it "theologically" as a valid Ecumenical Council according to Cardinal Castrillion). they would, theoretically, still be free to adhere to any theological theory that was considered acceptable for a Catholic prior to the Council. if this novelty from the Roman side that Le Figaro reports to have knowledge of is true, then the only question that would remain would be whether the SSPX would accept that Rome will not condemn theological opinions that they believe are in error.

the SSPX will not "accept" the Council as it has been "shoved down their throats" (from Fellay's words), but if they don't have to accept the things they hold as contrary to traditional teaching, if they are allowed to believe in the theological positions that were acceptable prior to the Council, then they might be able to simply recognize the validity of the Council as a Pastoral Council, as it was defined in its decree.

since VII posed no anathemas, any Catholic opinion acceptable in 1961 is acceptable in 2011.

Tab, the SSPX recognizes every pope up to Benedict XVI as a valid pope, and have expelled members from their society who held to the sedevacantist position (the belief that the recent popes are not valid).

[MithLuin]

I'm not going to speculate on what Rome may or may not have said. I do know that Rome is not about to say 'Vatican II didn't count,' though I have no idea what they will require the SSPX to do.

I'm sure the contents of this document will be made public shortly, but the wording will likely be nuanced so people who have been following these procedings will want to see [i]exactly[/i] what it says, not a summary or interpretation of it.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1315967041' post='2304483']
The SSPX will not "accept" the Council as it has been "shoved down their throats" (from Fellay's words), but if they don't have to accept the things they hold as contrary to traditional teaching, if they are allowed to believe in the theological positions that were acceptable prior to the Council, then they might be able to simply recognize the validity of the Council as a Pastoral Council, as it was defined in its decree.

since VII posed no anathemas, any Catholic opinion acceptable in 1961 is acceptable in 2011.
[/quote]


can you explain what theological positions the Church doesn't accept that were acceptable prior to the Council?????????

[Aloysius]

I generally try to stay out of the details of those things, but I'm sure it would entail the pre-conciliar views on religious liberty (while we still affirm error has no moral rights, in pre-conciliar times it was also thought that error should not have civil right), the pre-conciliar views on ecumenism, the pre-conciliar views on ecclesiology (ie prior to the emphasis on collegiality). apart from their disobedience, pretty much all of the Society's theological positions were permitted, even promoted, in pre-conciliar times.

and what I'm saying is that the Church would tell the SSPX that those views are permitted for one who is in union with the Church, even if the hierarchy has a different direction on these matters now.

it would be similar to the reconciliation with the followers of Fr. Feeney, who were allowed to continue to hold to their stricter interpretation of EENS.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Aloysius

[MithLuin]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316000378' post='2304537']
Can you explain what theological positions the Church doesn't accept that were acceptable prior to the Council?????????
[/quote]

George Weigel summarized the issues the SSPX has with Vatican II to be gone over in these discussions in this Nov. 2009 article. Hope that helps.
[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0137.htm"]Not a Negotiation[/url]

[He's an American layman and biographer of Pope John Paul II who has little sympathy for the positions of the SSPX, I think. Supporters of the SSPX, at any rate, have little patience for him. [url="http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1130-chris-weigel-sspx.htm"](example)[/url] ]

At any rate, the positions in question are more political than theological....in that, Vatican II did not define new doctrines. So, it has to do with the practices of the Church more than with the beliefs.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1316013436' post='2304587']

George Weigel summarized the issues the SSPX has with Vatican II to be gone over in these discussions in this Nov. 2009 article. Hope that helps.
[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0137.htm"]Not a Negotiation[/url]

[He's an American layman and biographer of Pope John Paul II who has little sympathy for the positions of the SSPX, I think. Supporters of the SSPX, at any rate, have little patience for him. [url="http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1130-chris-weigel-sspx.htm"](example)[/url] ]

At any rate, the positions in question are more political than theological....in that, Vatican II did not define new doctrines. So, it has to do with the practices of the Church more than with the beliefs.
[/quote]


yes, i figured it was something silly... a matter on their part of obstinance rather than substance...

There is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church... the SSPXers are living in a fantasy world they have created where they believe they are the only "true" Catholics left in the world... a 40 year old childish tantrum... let's hope for their sakes they humbly obey the terms the Vatican is offering to them in order to be regulated...

[Aloysius]

oh, cause that type of rhetoric is helpful it's not just silliness, and the Vatican recognizes that there are serious issues involved. Benedict realizes that there is a very clear appearance of a rupture from tradition that needs to be fixed. I don't think Wiegel's view at all reflects the attitude of the Holy See who has seen the talks as essentially doctrinal, and considered them a joint study of the issues.

I think that many of the harshest critics of the SSPX are going to be disappointed with the solution that Benedict will work out, but we shall see. all indications appear to be that the SSPX's union with the Church will not be decided by the interpretation of the last Council to date, but by adherence to the constant traditions of the Church.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/09/14/vatican-gives-sspx-doctrinal-statement-to-sign/
[quote]While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II’s ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.[/quote]

this sounds extremely promising.

[MithLuin]

The contents of the 2-3 page letter which the SSPX are being asked to affirm are supposed to remain secret while they take a month to discuss it. So, if we're patient for just a little bit longer, we should see what is going to happen here. It seems that, should the SSPX accept the statement, they will be offered an Opus Dei-like personal prefecture. I imagine they would not have been offered this if the talks of the past two years did not go well, so my guess is that the Vatican has every expectation that the SSPX leadership will sign/affirm the doctrinal preamble.

[quote]The “doctrinal Preamble” offered today to the Lefebvrians, as foreseen yesterday by the Vatican Insider, is a concise two to three page long text, which reaffirms the fundamental principles of the Catholic faith, needed to maintain the unity of the Church. The Vatican’s spokesman, Federico Lombardi, however, said that its content is supposed to be kept secret.

The Holy See’s newsroom published a communiqué explaining that the text “mentions a few doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of the Catholic doctrine that are necessary in order to guarantee loyalty to the Church’s Teachings and to “feel cum Ecclesia”.” The note, however, left “the study and theological explanation of individual expressions or formulations in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent Teachings, for a legitimate discussion.”

The “doctrinal Preamble” therefore, does not seem to contain an explicit request for “full recognition of the Council and the teaching of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI himself.” This was affirmed by the Secretary of State, in a communiqué issued in December 2009.

([url="http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/papa-pope-el-papa-vaticano-vatican-lefebvriani-8028/"]source[/url]) [/quote]

It makes sense that they would not be asked for more assent with the Vatican than any other Catholic is asked to make. The Orthodox are used to viewing the faith as lines drawn in the sand, and as long as you are on the correct side...there is room for a variety of opinions. I suppose this 'secret' document draws the lines in the sand.

Edited September 14, 2011 by MithLuin

[Aloysius]

yes, the fact that Fellay and Levada talked about canonical solutions during their two hour meeting today indicates that there is a high probability that the SSPX will sign the preamble.

[Papist]

I don't understand. I thought the SSPX was/is inside the Church. If so, why is a reconciliation needed?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1316015390' post='2304593']
oh, cause that type of rhetoric is helpful it's not just silliness, and the Vatican recognizes that there are serious issues involved. Benedict realizes that there is a very clear appearance of a rupture from tradition that needs to be fixed. I don't think Wiegel's view at all reflects the attitude of the Holy See who has seen the talks as essentially doctrinal, and considered them a joint study of the issues.

I think that many of the harshest critics of the SSPX are going to be disappointed with the solution that Benedict will work out, but we shall see. all indications appear to be that the SSPX's union with the Church will not be decided by the interpretation of the last Council to date, but by adherence to the constant traditions of the Church.

[url="http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/09/14/vatican-gives-sspx-doctrinal-statement-to-sign/"]http://www.catholich...tement-to-sign/[/url]


this sounds extremely promising.
[/quote]


well, i highly doubt that all their rhetoric for the last 40 years that we've had to hear about has been helpful... oh wait.. it hasn't!!!



I'm just trying to make it clear that all that they have been bewailing for 40 years isn't true... Pope Benedict doesn't believe there has been a rupture in tradition... perhaps he said a few things of his own opinion as a Cardinal...but not as Pope... to say that the Post-Conciliar Church has broken away from Tradition is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of...

We all know there has been abuses, horrid abuses... but these abuses are NOT the stance of the Church, hence the word, "abuse..."

Papist, read Wiegal's article...