Sspx-Judgment Day, Sept 14

[bernard]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316184224' post='2305419']
Bernard, how long have you been a member of the SSPX? And can you tell us exactly how you feel about the talks with the Vatican? What do the majority of the SSPXers feel about it? Do you think its going to happen? Do you think it will be good for the Society to be regularized, or do you think it should stay the way things are now?
[/quote]


I have been going to the SSPX for 5 years.

I live pretty far from any traditional chapels, I do make it once a month but it is a six hour journey, when I don't go we are home with the old missals. I go to a CMRI chapel when I visit my parents. CMRI is the largest sedevacantist groups. My preference would be CMRI, then SSPX, then if there were no choices perhaps a diocean "EF." I would also recieve sacraments in the old rite by a priest ordained before 1969. I don't know whether the SSPX or the sedevacantists are right, I have some concerns that when we do get a real pope they (the sedes) will not accept his authority. The SSPX as it stands allows people to get the tridentine rite of mass and protest the changes while still maintaining ties to Rome in the event that a legitimate pope arises. That is, if Vatican II and the new mass are condemned surely the SSPX will fully acknowledge the pope and submit fully to his authority. Not that the other groups wouldn't but I worry about that sometimes. Explain this to show I am not a long time SSPX goer or fully immersed in the parish life there.

I think the majority of the SSPX don't like the talks, there are basically two camps in the SSPX, those who support Bp Williamson and those who support Bp Fellay. I would be in the Williamson camp who is against the talks. I think the SSPX will split if they agree and are regularized. Having said that I don't think it will happen that's why I say Bp. Fellay is in a bit of a bind. As to why I don't agree with it I'll post Bp. Williamson's comments from 2 weeks ago.



[size=4][i]"Firstly, as to the doctrinal gulf between today's Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX, it cannot be said that Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity" is a solution (see EC 208-211). If Tornielli is right, it will be interesting (not edifying) to see how Rome tries once more to prove that 2+2 can be 4 or 5, 5 or 4. Catholic doctrine is as rigid, if not always as clear to us human beings, as 2+2=4.[/i][/size]



[size=4][i]Secondly, as to the canonical arrangement evoked by Tornielli, if - unimaginably - the SSPX were to accept any kind of doctrinal compromise, then in no way could the SSPX both come under the present Holy See (2+2=4 or 5), and still "retain its characteristics" (based on 2+2= exclusively 4). The practical agreement would exercise a constant and finally irresistible pressure to make Catholic doctrine no longer exclusive but inclusive of error, which would be to adopt the Freemasons' ideology and to abandon the very reason for existing of Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX.[/i][/size]



[size=4][i]And thirdly, Tornielli may well be right that an agreement is not certain, but he and his "Vatican insider" are absolutely wrong if either of them thinks that the problem is one of "different sensitivities". Sensitivities are subjective. The central problem between the Vatican and Archbishop Lefebvre's SSPX is as objective as 2+2=4. At no point in time, reaching backwards or forwards into eternity, on no planet or star created or creatable, can 2+2 ever be anything other than, exclusively, four. [/i][/size]



[i]When all Archbishop Lefebvre's efforts had failed in the negotiations of May 1988 to obtain from then Cardinal Ratzinger a secure place for the Faith within the mainstream Church, he said some famous words : "Your Eminence, even were you to give us everything we wanted, still we would have to refuse, because we are working to christianise society, whereas you are working to de-christianise it. Collaboration between us is not possible." [/i]"

Edited September 16, 2011 by bernard

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316186072' post='2305435']
[i]When all Archbishop Lefebvre's efforts had failed in the negotiations of May 1988 to obtain from then Cardinal Ratzinger a secure place for the Faith within the mainstream Church, he said some famous words : "Your Eminence, even were you to give us everything we wanted, still we would have to refuse, because we are working to christianise society, whereas you are working to de-christianise it. Collaboration between us is not possible." [/i]"
[/quote]
What an unbelievably arrogant attitude to have. I wonder how their work is coming.

[dominicansoul]

i don't think calling them arrogant is beneficial towards the re-unification efforts...

[bernard]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1316185675' post='2305427']

Really? You're goal is not to offend? then don't call the mass a joke. B/c that is kind of offensive.
[/quote]

You're right, I apologize.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1316186369' post='2305441']
i don't think calling them arrogant is beneficial towards the re-unification efforts...
[/quote]
So then you're of the opinion that saying the man who would be pope is "working to dechristianize society" is not an arrogant point-of-view to hold?

[bernard]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1316186268' post='2305439']
What an unbelievably arrogant attitude to have. I wonder how their work is coming.
[/quote]

It's not unbelievably arrogant if the people you are speaking to suppressed the Tridentine Rite of Mass. The normative rite of Mass since 1570 and the oldest known rite in existence, traced back to the 3rd or 4th century. You'll notice a little spelling mistake and you don't notice 2000 years of Catholic tradition thrown out the back door to put in its place what?

[bernard]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1316186865' post='2305445']
So then you're of the opinion that saying the man who would be pope is "working to dechristianize society" is not an arrogant point-of-view to hold?
[/quote]
The question is not whether its arrogant its whether its true and it was. The empty churches are proof of it.

[dominicansoul]

see mikolbe's post usairways

Edited September 16, 2011 by dominicansoul

[Aloysius]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1316186268' post='2305439']
What an unbelievably arrogant attitude to have. I wonder how their work is coming.
[/quote]
their work has been pretty fruitful for a priestly society of their size (which is why it'd be really nice for them to be regularized)

Lefebvre's statement would definitely be incredibly arrogant for any layman. for a brother bishop, it was certainly not a good statement; but they're two successors to the Apostles charged with the task of transmitting the faith who had a very passionate disagreement about how to do that. the episcopal legs the Archbishop was standing on, IMO (to the chagrin of the SSPX who opposes collegiality lol) give that statement some weight. the Archbishop was desperately working to pass on what he had received. the statement about Christianization of society was likely tied in to the disagreements regarding religious freedom; should we Christianize the state or should we praise its secularization? for the Church to abandon the concept of a confessional state in favor of a secular one that gave not just tolerance but full freedom for all religions was something that to the extreme political conservatives of France was definitely de-throning Christ the King to some degree.

should the state be Christianized? what is the answer of Vatican II? what are the statements prior to Vatican II? I think this is huge in the context of the Archbishop's sentiments about de-Christianizing society.

anyway, the statement should be confined to the history books. we all know the last dialogue between the Holy See and the SSPX did not go well (from both sides, I think Ratzinger has wondered publicly before whether he did all that he could, I think Ratzinger holds himself personally responsible for ensuring that this rift gets mended because he recognizes this as a huge aspect of the danger of having a rupture between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church, if the post-Conciliar Church cannot have a place for these positions, then there it looks like an apparent rupture); we hope it will go better this time.

also, I must say that Williamson overuses his 2+2 analogy lol. I do fear he will split off, especially cause it's unlikely the society will ever give him much of a prominent role again since he's embarrassed them so much with his imprudence.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Aloysius

[Amppax]

[quote name='bernard' timestamp='1316186602' post='2305443']

You're right, I apologize.
[/quote]

thanks. apology accepted.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1316187571' post='2305457']
The statement about Christianization of society was likely tied in to the disagreements regarding religious freedom; should we Christianize the state or should we praise its secularization? For the Church to abandon the concept of a confessional state in favor of a secular one that gave not just tolerance but full freedom for all religions was something that to the extreme political conservatives of France was definitely de-throning Christ the King to some degree.

should the state be Christianized? what is the answer of Vatican II? what are the statements prior to Vatican II? I think this is huge in the context of the Archbishop's sentiments about de-Christianizing society.

[/quote]

THIS. Lefebvre and Wojtyla were very unlikely to see eye to eye politically. The French conservatives expected the state to be...Christian France. Pope John Paul II had been 'fighting the good fight' against atheistic secular communism behind the iron curtain and saw religious freedom as one of the most important things the Church could fight for! I'm not saying Lefebvre doesn't think religious freedom is a right of man, but I am saying that the two men were worlds apart politically in their views of the states role in all of this.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1316187571' post='2305457']
The statement about Christianization of society was likely tied in to the disagreements regarding religious freedom; should we Christianize the state or should we praise its secularization? for the Church to abandon the concept of a confessional state in favor of a secular one that gave not just tolerance but full freedom for all religions was something that to the extreme political conservatives of France was definitely de-throning Christ the King to some degree.

should the state be Christianized? what is the answer of Vatican II? what are the statements prior to Vatican II? I think this is huge in the context of the Archbishop's sentiments about de-Christianizing society.
[/quote]

In general I find it a wise decision to stay out of discussions concerning Vatican II on the internet. I find that most people have not read the documents in their entirety but rather absorb the general mores of their local church community. I feel that such comments and discussions concerning the documents and local culture are best done in person, but I have to wonder here at your interpretation of the Council documents. It does not seem to me, in reading the documents, that the Church gives up the idea of a confessional state nor does is cannonize the secular state as the way to go over and against the previous history of the Church. It seems to me that the best state, as understood by the Church, would still be a Catholic state run by Catholic principles. As such, these principles include the social teachings of the Church about preferential option for the poor, defending the unborn, etc. However, one must also realize that principles are not absolute in themselves but rather must be applied to specific circumstances.

St. Thomas defined virtue as the mean between extremes in accordance with the circumstances. One seeks the good but must be aware of the circumstances in that what may be the good action in one circumstance may not be in another. This can be especially seen with friends. Some friends you can be very blunt and call them out on things but other friends you cannot be so blunt. In fact, doing so may make the situation worse and you must speak to them charitably and privately. Also, it is wise to also remember that the Church codifies and organizes structures around principles, not absolutes that can be expressed as categorical imperatives. By this I mean that the Church organizes things not around something that "can be willed for all people, anywhere and under all circumstances" but rather around principles of faith and reason that must be lived out culturally and according to the specific circumstances of society. A good example is actually the Incarnation-- the [i]Logos[/i] of God took on a specific human nature, expressed himself in a particular language with particular idioms, in accordance with Divine principles and reason. These principles are instantiated and so the Church must instantiate/en-flesh the principles of God in each culture in order to best express the truth to those cultures.

One such principle that the Church now expresses is often formulates as all governments must respect the right of all humans to worship God as they believe He sees fit. This is not the giving up of a Confessional State in that the Church still believes that all countries should be run according to the dictates of the True Faith of Christ handed down by the Apostles; however, the documents do say that the Confessional State may not abuse its Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. citizens. I see the same principle guiding both of these aspects. The principle is that the State should protect its citizens' religion and the true religion. This principle, however, is instantiated in different ways according to different circumstances. In a Catholic Country--like France used to be--where effectively everyone including the ruler(s) is Catholic, individuals who are going around and teaching against the Church and convincing people of heresy--that sex is bad (which was an argument in that people thought the body was bad) and that the Eucharist is not really Christ--then the government as such, Catholic rulers and those responsible for the welfare of the people, have the duty to, with the bishops, send people to discuss the faith with these heretics. If rational decisions and agreement cannot be reached after a period of good will and discussion, then such people should be kicked out or removed from the populace for denying them of their inheritance as baptized Christians. However, the principle looks different when expressed in the context in modern society. Modern Society is characterized by a plurality of religious belief in government and among the genuine populace. One cannot just have everyone who is not Catholic thrown out. Rather, the defense of citizens' religion and of the true religion is expressed as government not suppressing religious speech, debate, and gathering. Also, such a principle does not mean that government cannot also offer tax breaks/grants to religious groups, schools, and charities. In fact, such a principle may even recommend it. The way I read the Council is that they are saying something to the effect of "yes the Catholic state run truly according to Catholic principles would be best, but that is not what we have any longer. We must now express the principle of the government's role in the protection of the rights of the people and of true faith in God in a new way insofar as the truth of this principle must be expressed in modern society. How would this principle look/be expressed in a modern society? The government should respect all religious rights and liberties and support religions." This last sentence does not preclude having a Catholic State or the state being run according to Catholic principles such as subsidiarity, preferential preference for the poor, or (something that would be nicer to see in modern society) even tax breaks to Catholic Charities etc. In fact, it would even call for the state to help Catholic Schools to be even better through grants etc. without limiting their intellectual freedom.

In short, I do not see a rupture of anything from the past, through the Council, to the present. I see a principle expressed at different times in different ways in order to best communicate the truth to individual cultures in a changing world. The only rupture I see is in the failure of people to truly read the documents honestly and truly implement the documents honestly. However, this is a dishonesty I see on both sides, liberal and conservative. It is the true orthodoxy of the faith of the Apostles in Christ that tries to hold on to the truth and always express it anew to a changing culture.

Sorry for the length. I can be quite wordy on the subject of interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Aloysius]

don't have time right now for a full response because I'm going to work, but for the most part I do agree with you. my explanations of the Archbishop's mindset do not reflect my thinking on the topic, they rather express my opinion on what range of opinions are acceptable within the Church on the topic. Mith got me, I think, the point was that the phrasing about Christianization of society was likely connected to their disagreements on the idea of a Catholic state and religious freedom.

Vatican II does preserve the concept that error has no moral rights, but it introduces the idea of it having civil rights to more than simple toleration in the private sphere. There's nothing wrong with this (though it is one of those things that comes across, at face value, as the double-speak traditionalists often accuse the post-conciliar Church of, the 2+2=4 or 5 thing of Williamson; and the source of that kind of speaking in the Council was the appeasement of two opposing sides in the Council). But anyway, Lefebvre was coming from the mindset of the time when the Church would call for states to be explicitly Catholic, rather than simply call on them to conform to certain principals while remaining secular.

like I said, no time to really go in depth, but your view is a very good hermeneutic of continuity treatment of religious freedom/toleration, one that I do agree with for the most part ... but anyway, I have read the council, and I actually disagree that it is dishonesty among those who do see a rupture from tradition. it's not dishonesty, and you can bet Lefebvre (who signed the documents before he objected to them after seeing how they were being applied) and Fellay and the leaders of the Society have indeed read the council. I don't think it's at all dishonesty, I think there are very serious issues that need very in depth discussion at the highest theological levels; I very often see those issues over-simplified by apologists on both sides of the issue, of course, the anti-conciliar traditionalist Catholics and the pro-conciliar Catholics.

more to come I suppose, I really must get ready for work

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1316203744' post='2305572']
I have read the council, and I actually disagree that it is dishonesty among those who do see a rupture from tradition. it's not dishonesty, and you can bet Lefebvre (who signed the documents before he objected to them after seeing how they were being applied) and Fellay and the leaders of the Society have indeed read the council. I don't think it's at all dishonesty, I think there are very serious issues that need very in depth discussion at the highest theological levels; I very often see those issues over-simplified by apologists on both sides of the issue, of course, the anti-conciliar traditionalist Catholics and the pro-conciliar Catholics.
[/quote]

In this case, I do not think Archbishop Lefebvre was being dishonest the way many others were. Many others were being dishonest and saying that the council was designed in such a way as it was a rupture in the tradition. Lefebvre who initially signed it and then objected seemed, at least the way I understand it, to be objecting to the way people were implementing the Council against the real spirit of it on to which the Council Fathers signed. The dishonesty here comes from those who impose their own "changes" that are not an organic growth of tradition but rather are voluntaristic changes in the name of the Council. One who signed the Council in such a circumstance can in all honesty and should object to this sort of implementation of the Council and call for a tougher position from Rome. They should not go ordaining their own bishops, however. I do not think Lefebvre was being dishonest. I think that those who were imposing their will through changes not called for by the Council were being dishonest. However, I have also known many dishonest renderings of historical events that do say the Council was the direct fault and not the implementation, which having read it and knowing that Lefebvre signed it seems odd and too simplistic. I did not mean to accuse you of dishonesty or even Lefebvre but rather to point out that there is dishonesty on both sides. I do also think there is a lot of blame to go around: One side for vilifying the Council Documents in themselves and the other side for trying to change the Church according to their own vision rather than that of the Fathers. On a lighter note, in recent years there seems to be a swing back to what may have been invisioned by the Council Fathers. The use of latin in ordinary form liturgies seems to be rising, people are interested in chant, vocations are up, and devotion to the Eucharist in adoration also seems up. Also to top it off we are getting a new translation of the mass which is a more faithful rendering of the Latin

Edited September 16, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[bernard]

Lefebvre didn't sign all the documents. There were two, one on religious liberty and another that he refused to sign.