Sspx-Judgment Day, Sept 14

[dominicansoul]

i just want to express one thing so that no one gets confused on my stance....


I'm all for having the SSPX come back into the Church and the stinkin' liberals GET OUT!!!


The more i think about it, the more i wonder how did we wind up with the wishy washy watered down version of the Church we have to deal with today...??? Answer: liberalism, modernism, politically-correct has taken prominence... how that happened I have no clue, but we need to fix things up.... the more traditionally-minded conservative people in the Church, the better....

[MithLuin]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1316530376' post='2307591']
Since the SSPX is so hung up on following pope Pius the 3493276 they probably totally discard everything after 1939 like this.


[img]http://www.divinemercysunday.com/dm3.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

It is my understanding that tradionally-minded people tend to resist changes of any sort to their traditions. Hence, a distaste for the luminous mysteries of the rosary or the 15th station. For this reason...I can't picture them saying the divine mercy chaplet

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1316538542' post='2307627']

It is my understanding that tradionally-minded people tend to resist changes of any sort to their traditions. Hence, a distaste for the luminous mysteries of the rosary or the 15th station. For this reason...I can't picture them saying the divine mercy chaplet
[/quote]

I am most certainly traditionally-minded. The Divine Mercy Chaplet is one of my most favorite prayers. I've not known any fellow traditionally-minded Catholics who dislike it. Also I do not resist [i]changes[/i] (slow natural growth) of any sort to the Church's traditions. I do however resist quick and major changes to the Church's traditions. Such changes often represent a hermeneutic of rupture. I do have respect for those who respectfully believe/argue that the abrupt change or addition to the Rosary was perhaps a type of hermeneutic of rupture. The 150 Aves complement the 150 Psalms (Rosarium Virginis Mariae §19) with the addition of the five new mysteries erases that symbolism that lasted 1000 plus years.

Edited September 20, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

153 Ave Marias, actually. But who is counting?

But it has been erased! Down the memory hole!

It is a thought crime to ever speak of this again!

[i]Sarcasm meter: 10/10[/i]

Edited September 21, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[MithLuin]

Well, I stand corrected. I just figured that doing anything with rosary beads other than saying rosaries would be looked upon with deep suspicion for some reason.

If you want to recite the 150 psalms, say the office.

[Aloysius]

the Rosary is intimately connected to the saying of the office. there are not 20 decades of the rosary; there remain 15 decades of the Rosary connected to the 150 psalms, there are 5 additional OPTIONAL mysteries. they're supplemental, additional, and optional. they are recommended for Thursdays. meaning on any given week you would do 2 full traditional 15 decade rosaries and one supplemental 5 decades.

there are indeed people who, with a hermeneutic of rupture, have tried to erase this symbolism. it is not supposed to be erased. John Paul II didn't want it erased, which is why he made them optional. but when people talk about the 20 decade rosary, they're mixing these things up.

anyway, back to the topic at hand, many have found it interesting to note the SSPX websites' daily Lefebvre quotes of recent times, indicating at least that those in charge of the site are in favor of the reconciliation:
http://www.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre_daily_quotes/september_2011_quotes.htm

that's the US site, I read somewhere that the French site has a similar direction with their quotes. here's an interesting one that was up on the 19th:

[quote][font="Verdana"][size="2"]After the Council, we have tried, in the service of the Holy See, to beg them to reform the reforms and to come back to Tradition.[/quote][/size][/font]
[font="Verdana"][size="2"]I wonder if that's the first time the term "reform of the reform" was said? I don't know the context of the quote or when it was said, but it'd be kind of funny if that was true.[/size][/font]

here's a good one for Bernard:
[quote][font="Verdana"][size="2"]We have the Pope and we have the Mass. Some say to me: “[i]Let go of the Pope, there no longer is a Pope.[/i]” I answer, “[i]I adhere to the Pope[/i].” Others say, “[i]Let go of the Mass, for the Pope wishes it[/i].” I reply, “[i]No, I will never let go of the Mass[/i].” Why? Because I am fundamentally positive that the Pope and the Mass go together.[/quote][/size][/font]

[Aloysius]

Fr. Z opines that the freedom to criticize the council is not some great revolution, but the application of Donum Veritas, a 1990 document.
[url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/copernican-revolution-not/"]http://wdtprs.com/bl...revolution-not/[/url]
While it is true that the principle is not a revolution (and that the Rorate piece was a bit of hyperbolic dramatic fluff), I think Fr. Z is wrong not to note that its application to traditionalists criticizing the Second Vatican Council is a shift in the Vatican's approach. It has seemed for a long time that the hierarchy was content to act as if there were an anathema against those who disagreed with certain points of the council; indeed, Ratzinger has noted as much when he objected to those who treated Vatican II as a "super-dogma". now, it appears they are prepared to apply the sentiments of Donum Veritas to the pastoral statements of the Second Vatican Council.

Fr. Z points to this commentary from the late Cardinal Dulles on Donum Veritas which is applicable here; this of course applies to those things which are not irreformable infallible teachings:
[quote]If, in an exceptional case, one feels justified in dissenting, the next question is what to do about it. One option is to remain silent, so as not to trouble other believers and cause division in the Church. If can be assumed that if the Magisterium has erred, it will correct itself. Many of the older textbooks recommend a [i]silentium obsequiosum[/i] (reverent silence). [i]Donum veritatis [/i]speaks of situations in which the theologian will be called “to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty that if the truth is really at stake it will ultimately prevail. [citing Dv31; 123] Today it is not uncommon to hold that dissenters who are qualified experts should make their disagreements known, with the aim of being corrected by colleagues or, alternatively, to “provoke a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.” An expressed dissent can be private, if it is shared only with a relatively small group,[b] or public[/b], if shared with a wide audience. According to Donum veritatis, theologians who have difficulty in accepting some doctrine would generally do well to enter privately into communication with a few colleagues, to see how they react, and perhaps also to make their difficulties discreetly known to hierarchical teachers, for the reasons mentioned above. The development of doctrine has sometimes been assisted by expressions of dissatisfaction with previous deficient formulations. This observation of the CDF is noteworthy, since it is relatively new for theologians to receive official encouragement to express their problems with current magisterial teaching.[/quote]

I think the SSPX's grave concerns about possible apparent rupture justify not sticking to a reverent silence. especially considering just how much the traditional liturgy and beliefs was marginalized and/or outright condemned in the years following the council. I think they're going to be required to tone-down their rhetoric so that they're respectful of the teaching offices, but their doctrinal positions will likely remain largely unchanged.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Aloysius

[MithLuin]

The one thing we do know about the 2-3 page document (that is the subject of this thread) is that it does not draw a sharp distinction between pastoral and doctrinal stances of the Magisterium. So, whatever it has to say likely applies to both (my conjecture).

Public dissent is always dicey. The Vatican does not see any need for 'loyal opposition'. That role has generally been filled by demonic forces throughout salvation history and is thus treated with grave distrust by the faithful. Silence should not be interpretted as 'doing nothing', of course.

[Aloysius]

I have a feeling that such a distinction may be precisely the type of clarification the SSPX might ask for and get from Rome.

anyway, I think "loyal opposition", as you put it, may be precisely the position the Vatican is offering to the Society, and it'd be perfectly in tune with the 1990 instruction Donum Veritas for such a position to be supported in the Church. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html