Sspx-Judgment Day, Sept 14

[Amppax]

Quick question to the general phatmasses: Would anyone here consider attending an SSPX chapel regularly if/when they get regularized?

Oh and Papa Benny's the MAN!

[Amppax]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316017051' post='2304603']


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!!!

[/quote]

But that's not really the point. Someone else's poor rhetoric doesn't justify our own. Not that what you are saying is wrong in anyway, but in trying to work to achieve unity, it isn't helpful to take the attacking tone of the other side, otherwise we'd always stay in opposition.

[Papist]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316017195' post='2304605']
Quick question to the general phatmasses: Would anyone here consider attending an SSPX chapel regularly if/when they get regularized?

Oh and Papa Benny's the MAN!
[/quote]
No.

[Papist]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316017051' post='2304603']
Papist, read Wiegal's article...
[/quote]
I was speaking tongue in cheek. It can be very confusing for someone not familiar with this whole thing. There are conversations about how SSPX is inside the Catholic Church, and so on. Then are are conversations about Vatican/Pope talking to SSPX to bring them into full communion. I know a lot people who personally would get all confused if they read these.

[MithLuin]

Well, they're not in my state, so it's rather a moot point for me; I couldn't have been attending an SSPX chapel all this time even if I had wanted to. There [i]is[/i] a Traditional Latin Mass parish in the city (non-SSPX), so that's always been an option (with a bit of driving). I've visited once. In January, I'll be moving to Ethiopia, where again...no SSPX (to my knowledge).

So, should the SSPX become regularized in such a way that it's okay for your ordinary Catholic to attend, sure, I wouldn't mind visiting if someone invited me. I mean, it's not like I've ever been invited, but I could see myself going and not receiving communion under the current situation. I've visited Russian Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist and nondenominational churches, so I'm not opposed to being a visitor in someone else's church. If the SSPX and the Vatican successfully heal the wounds, I would feel comfortable receiving communion if I were to visit an SSPX parish. But as I said, I seriously doubt I would seek one out, as they are not in my area and I am happy with the many great parishes we have here.

[Aloysius]

I don't think I'd necessarily go regularly, I've never been to the SSPX chapel in Pittsburgh, I go to the diocesan extraordinary form there when I can. But I'd definitely want to go at some point.

anyway, if it's "the most ridiculous thing ever" to you, then fine; but people far above our pay grades think it's a very serious issue, because there are glaring differences between things that are said now and things that were said prior to the Council; and those things have to be dealt with in a way that expresses the continuity of Catholic doctrine. I think in reconciling with the SSPX while permitting them to be critical of certain points of theology goes a good way towards expressing this continuity; that the pastoral council proposes new directions for the Church does not mean that the previous positions are anathematized... indeed, if they were to be anathematized, there would've been a very easy way to do so: by pronouncing an anathema. that was not done, so there should still be a place in the Church for those theological positions; and I think that's what the CDF is likely expressing to the SSPX in this preamble.

the SSPX is Catholic, disobedient and in danger of schism but not yet in schism. so for them to reconcile their differences with the Holy See is perfectly natural and necessary, the "tongue-in-cheek" comment expresses a lack of understanding for the situation. it should not be that difficult to understand; it's only difficult to understand if you really want to dismiss and discredit and blacklist anything to do with the SSPX in a black-and-white way, which is not the way Rome handles them at all.

[Aloysius]

http://www.sspx.org/district_news/interview_of_bishop_fellay_after_meeting_with_cardinal_levada_9-14-2011.htm

This is very good news. If the preamble contained something that he's outright and explicitly said he would never agree to with the Vatican, he would likely be talking about rejecting it outright here and now. He cannot agree to it without consulting his confreres.

[quote][font=Verdana][size=2]This new distinction was not only announced in the press release; I have personally heard it from various sources. As early as 2005, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos told me, after I spent five hours explaining to him all the objections to Vatican II that the Society of St. Pius X had formulated: “[i]I cannot say that I agree with everything that you have said, but what you have said does not mean that you are outside the Church. Write to the pope therefore and ask him to lift the excommunication[/i].”[/quote][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]that quote attributed to Hoyos is exactly my sentiments when it comes to SSPX positions. I do not agree with them, but they do not mean that the SSPX is outside of the Church.[/size][/font]

[Papist]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1316021712' post='2304628']
, the "tongue-in-cheek" comment expresses a lack of understanding for the situation. it should not be that difficult to understand; it's only difficult to understand if you really want to dismiss and discredit and blacklist anything to do with the SSPX in a black-and-white way, which is not the way Rome handles them at all.
[/quote]
I didn't say I did not understand. I stated it can be confusing for people not familiar with all of this. My family members, for example, do not know anything of the SSPX and would be very confused if they heard they are inside the Church, they not is full communion. For that reason, I do not ever bring up the topic with them. Please don't twist my comments to aid yours.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Papist

[Aloysius]

was not trying to twist them, that was just the way I read them. sorry if I misunderstood

reconciliation within the Church is possible, it doesn't have to be reconciliation with people outside the Church.

[Papist]

I understand all that. It's just that it saddens me how this can impact many Catholics, especially the ho hum Catholics. Like you stated, this is not a black and white situation, which opens the door to much confusion and misunderstanding.

[MithLuin]

...which is why it will be nice in a month or so when we can say something more definitive about all of this rather than trying to second guess what's been going on in private talks in the Vatican for the past 2 years!

Fellay of course can't discuss the contents of the Doctrinal Preamble yet, either, so we are limited to his brief comments on its contents at this point:

[quote][font=Verdana][size=2]Today, for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion. The only thing that I can say, because it is part of the press release, is that this preamble contains “[/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=2][i]certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation of Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church’s Magisterium and to [/i]"sentire cum Ecclesia"[thinking with the Church]. [i]At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion[/i] [i]the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and of the later Magisterium[/i].” There you have it; no more and no less.[/quote][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]Saying 'Vatican II is pastoral rather than doctrinal/dogmatic' is not the same thing as saying 'We can ignore Vatican II'. Interpretation is, of course, part of what theology is all about. [/size][/font]

Edited September 14, 2011 by MithLuin

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316017384' post='2304607']

But that's not really the point. Someone else's poor rhetoric doesn't justify our own. Not that what you are saying is wrong in anyway, but in trying to work to achieve unity, it isn't helpful to take the attacking tone of the other side, otherwise we'd always stay in opposition.
[/quote]

point taken, I'll just pray


i apologize to all the SSPXers out there for my nasty attitude

[Slappo]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1316026242' post='2304658']
[font=Verdana][size=2]Saying 'Vatican II is pastoral rather than doctrinal/dogmatic' is not the same thing as saying 'We can ignore Vatican II'. Interpretation is, of course, part of what theology is all about. [/size][/font]
[/quote]


Actually... it kind of does mean we could ignore it. I could completely ignore Vatican II, become a saint, and enjoy the beatific vision, because Vatican II teaches nothing essential to the faith or to salvation (no doctrine's or dogma's). That does not mean however, that Vatican II teaches nothing beneficial to the faith or to obtaining salvation and sanctity. (Edited to say: This is all just "technically speaking", not necessarily what is in the best interest of the souls of Catholics)

Edited September 14, 2011 by Slappo

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316017195' post='2304605']
Quick question to the general phatmasses: Would anyone here consider attending an SSPX chapel regularly if/when they get regularized?

[/quote]
No way

[Luigi]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316017195' post='2304605']
Quick question to the general phatmasses: Would anyone here consider attending an SSPX chapel regularly if/when they get regularized?
[/quote]

What SWEET-FREAKIN'-PEACHES for?