Sspx: Preamble Signed

[KnightofChrist]

The official current stance is that the SSPX is not in formal schism. Until the Church declares other wise we do not have the authority to declare otherwise. And unless you are now God you do not have the right nor the ability to judge the hearts of individual members of Schism.

Again, The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), fully aware of "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", during Holy Week 2008 officially confirmed that the Society of Saint Pius X "is not in formal schism" and that "there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism." We can choose to believe the Church, and the competent ecclesiastical authority on this matter or we can choose to believe laymen or those who lack the competent ecclesiastical authority to declare the SSPX to be in schism.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' timestamp='1335362760' post='2423142']

I would just like to say, thank you for saying what I was trying to say but very unsuccessfully.
[/quote]

Thanks for having the patience to read my posts! I also think you were succesful in making your point.

S.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335387591' post='2423341']
The official current stance is that the SSPX is not in formal schism. Until the Church declares other wise we do not have the authority to declare otherwise. And unless you are now God you do not have the right nor the ability to judge the hearts of individual members of Schism.

Again, The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), fully aware of "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", during Holy Week 2008 officially confirmed that the Society of Saint Pius X "is not in formal schism" and that "there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism." We can choose to believe the Church, and the competent ecclesiastical authority on this matter or we can choose to believe laymen or those who lack the competent ecclesiastical authority to declare the SSPX to be in schism.
[/quote]

I thought you were not going to beat the "dead horse" anymore? As I've noted, Cardinal Hoyos in 2009 described it as a schism. That contradicts the remark he made in 2008. Neither one was put in an "official" declaration either but were merely stated in response to questions. And as the PCED has pointed out, their responses to inquiries are NOT official declarations of the Holy See.

S.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335387591' post='2423341']
The official current stance is that the SSPX is not in formal schism. Until the Church declares other wise we do not have the authority to declare otherwise. And unless you are now God you do not have the right nor the ability to judge the hearts of individual members of Schism.

Again, The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), fully aware of "Ecclesia Dei Adflicta", during Holy Week 2008 officially confirmed that the Society of Saint Pius X "is not in formal schism" and that "there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism." We can choose to believe the Church, and the competent ecclesiastical authority on this matter or we can choose to believe laymen or those who lack the competent ecclesiastical authority to declare the SSPX to be in schism.
[/quote]KoC, no one here has made any such claim. The bishops are not in schism because their excommunications were revoked. The fraternity itself is also not in schism for other reasons, partly because they were never in schism.

That doesn't mean that some of the members don't wish that they were in schism. I'm completely for the full restoration of the society in into society. I also want them to want to be fully restored without forcing it upon them. The head of the order wants full restoration as do many members. Some don't and maintain a schismatic attitude toward the Holy Father. Anyone who has spoken on this issue has spoken to this attitude directly.

I am completely confident in the Holy Father's work and very aware of all public declarations made by him and those around him on this very matter. I assure you that I am not twenty years behind.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335389013' post='2423354']
KoC, no one here has made any such claim. The bishops are not in schism because their excommunications were revoked. The fraternity itself is also not in schism for other reasons, partly because they were never in schism.

That doesn't mean that some of the members don't wish that they were in schism. I'm completely for the full restoration of the society in into society. I also want them to want to be fully restored without forcing it upon them. The head of the order wants full restoration as do many members. Some don't and maintain a schismatic attitude toward the Holy Father. Anyone who has spoken on this issue has spoken to this attitude directly.

I am completely confident in the Holy Father's work and very aware of all public declarations made by him and those around him on this very matter. I assure you that I am not twenty years behind.
[/quote] Furthermore, they can have erroneous teachings and still be in union with the Church.

The Holy Father hasn't accepted Bishop Fellay's declaration yet so obviously something is wrong there, however small.

In addition to that, some more common members of the parishes are quite mistaken and aren't even in line with Bishop Fellay.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1335240504' post='2422503']What is very important in the current context also is to look at the other communities similar to the SSPX which have reconciled with Rome in recent years. Those communities have not been allowed "to agree to disagree". On the contrary as Mgr. Pozzo's recent letter to one of those communities shows there really is no leeway to continue criticism of Vatican II. I am referring to the Institute of the Good Shepherd. During a recent canonical visitation of the community it was found that some there are still persisting in criticism of Vatican II. Pozzo's letter states: " Rather than criticize, however rightly and constructively, the Vatican II, educators should channel their efforts in conveying the whole of the Church teachings, focussing on the hermeneutics of renovation within continuity and starting, as a base, from the integrity of the Catholic doctrine as exposed in the catechism of the Catholic Church”.
I think it is hard to see how the SSPX can be handled any differently without creating a double standard.

S.
[/quote]

From the agreement between The Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Vatican.

"The Holy See granted the members of the new institute exclusive use, as the institute’s own rite, of the earlier form of the Roman liturgy. For their part, each of the founding members personally undertook to respect the authentic Magisterium of the See of Rome with “complete fidelty to the infallible Magistrium of the Church”. [b]The members of the institute may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with Pope Benedict’s address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia, while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council.[/b]”

Source: [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]http://frat.canalhis....htm?num=126344[/url]

Edited April 25, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[dominicansoul]

...and the SSPX debate continues once again on phatmass.....


I have a question...

...if the SSPX fails to come to an agreement with the Vatican, does that then mean they will become schismatics???


[size=8][font=georgia,serif]KEEP PRAYING, PEEPS! [/font][/size]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1335391932' post='2423370']
...if the SSPX fails to come to an agreement with the Vatican, does that then mean they will become schismatics???
[/quote]According to Father Z a couple months ago, yes. I think he's right on this point.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335391006' post='2423366']
From the agreement between The Institute of the Good Shepherd and the Vatican.

"The Holy See granted the members of the new institute exclusive use, as the institute’s own rite, of the earlier form of the Roman liturgy. For their part, each of the founding members personally undertook to respect the authentic Magisterium of the See of Rome with “complete fidelty to the infallible Magistrium of the Church”. [b]The members of the institute may engage in a criticism of the Second Vatican Council that is serious and constructive and in accord with Pope Benedict’s address of 22 December 2005 to the Roman Curia, while recognizing that it is for the Apostolic See to give the authentic interpretation of the Council.[/b]”

Source: [url="http://frat.canalhistorique.free.fr/200609/Communique%20Bon%20Pasteur.htm?num=126344"]http://frat.canalhis....htm?num=126344[/url]
[/quote]Criticism here is more critique. Criticism has a negative connotation that was never present in any of the Holy Father's words.

That is, while the Society is permitted to critique the theological value of Vatican II, they are not allowed to criticize it.


From a series of Vatican Communiques:
[quote]"During the meeting of 14 September 2011 between Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei', and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, the latter was presented with a Doctrinal Preamble, accompanied by a Preliminary Note, as a fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See. This defined certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'.

"The response of the Society of St. Pius X to the aforesaid Doctrinal Preamble, which arrived in January 2012, was examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before being submitted to the Holy Father for his judgement. Pursuant to the decision made by Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay was, in a letter delivered today, informed of the evaluation of his response. The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.

"At the end of today's meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI".[/quote]

[quote]"In order to put the Holy Father's instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.

"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]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335389013' post='2423354']
KoC, no one here has made any such claim. The bishops are not in schism because their excommunications were revoked. The fraternity itself is also not in schism for other reasons, partly because they were never in schism.[/quote]

Yes, they have. Read Skinzo posts, as well as Totus Tuus. Both argue that in whatever way the SSPX is in schism. Totus uses her very limited personal experiences but employs words like "all", and how generations of children dont even know the Pope, when talking of the faithful who attend the SSPX. Skinzo has used the Motu Proprio of John Paul II to argue that the SSPX is in schism. As well as the words of Card. Hoyos that he believes play in his favor.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335389013' post='2423354']
That doesn't mean that some of the members don't wish that they were in schism. I'm completely for the full restoration of the society in into society. I also want them to want to be fully restored without forcing it upon them. The head of the order wants full restoration as do many members. Some don't and maintain a schismatic attitude toward the Holy Father. Anyone who has spoken on this issue has spoken to this attitude directly.[/quote]

Ok, so what? Unless we are now gods we cant judge which individuals of the SSPX wish they were in schism. Even more so when everyone here so far is speaking in vast generalities about persons who cannot defend themselves against personal attacks against their character.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335389013' post='2423354'] am completely confident in the Holy Father's work and very aware of all public declarations made by him and those around him on this very matter. I assure you that I am not twenty years behind.
[/quote]

No you just hold the contrary opinion opposite of the current stance of the current Pope and those he appoints to express his stance. The bishops were never in schism, even before the excommunication were lifted.

Edited April 25, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335392479' post='2423372']Yes, they have. Read Skinzo posts, as well as Totus Tuus. Both argue that in whatever way the SSPX is in schism. Totus uses her very limited personal experiences but employs words like "all", and how generations of children dont even know the Pope, when talking of the faithful who attend the SSPX. Skinzo has used the Motu Proprio of John Paul II to argue that the SSPX is in schism. As well as the words of Card. Hoyos that he believes play in his favor.

Ok, so what? Unless we are now gods we cant judge which individuals of the SSPX wish they were in schism. Even more so when everyone here so far is speaking in vast generalities about persons who cannot defend themselves against personal attacks against their character.[/quote]I'm pretty sure they're saying the same things I'm saying. Again, I know many people from the Society by virtue of my wife being a two-time former member. I also knew many in undergraduate. Every individual with whom I spoke took an attitude of wanting to be in schism because they did not trust the current Magisterium. It isn't a personal attack to say this. This is a reflection of the person every much as saying that many Protestants don't want to be Catholic.

TT and Skinzo have not said all, though a great number of these members hold that attitude. Also, Skinzo and I both argued that something special happened with the bishops that has now been revoked (except with the dead Archbishop, whose soul we can only trust to the mercy of God). Skinzo said that the society has no canonical mission, but that's different than saying they are in schism. I know many members and these members reject the Church as she stands today. Ergo, they hold a schismatic attitude. This number that I know and that espouse such a point of view isn't negligible. A person can be schismatic without being in formal schism (a very Thomistic distinction).

Furthermore, there is still some point of disagreement between Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay. If not, then they would already be fully reconciled. As it stands, they are not.

[quote]No you just hold the contrary opinion opposite of the current stance of the current Pope and those he appoints to express his stance. The bishops were never in schism, even before the excommunication were lifted.
[/quote]I'm sure I don't. The Holy Father lifted the excommunications. He never called them null and invalid.

Also, you're a few years behind. Cardinal Levada is in charge now and Cardinal Hoyos is retired. Ergo, Cardinal Levada (whose opinion I've expressed quite clearly above) is the most important at this time. Cardinal Hoyos is a few years out of date.

Edited April 25, 2012 by qfnol31

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335392094' post='2423371']
Criticism here is more critique. Criticism has a negative connotation that was never present in any of the Holy Father's words.[/quote]

So you say but it is the word that the Holy See and the Institute of the Good Shepherd chose and agreed to employ in there agreement. Also critique properly understood is the act of criticizing.

Lastly the SSPX will be in Schism when and if the Holy See declares it to be so and not a moment sooner.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335393173' post='2423375']
I'm pretty sure they're saying the same things I'm saying. Again, I know many people from the Society by virtue of my wife being a two-time former member. I also knew many in undergraduate. Every individual with whom I spoke took an attitude of wanting to be in schism because they did not trust the current Magisterium. It isn't a personal attack to say this. This is a reflection of the person every much as saying that many Protestants don't want to be Catholic.
[/quote]

If you and others want to judge these individuals that is your business.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335393319' post='2423378']
So you say but it is the word that the Holy See and the Institute of the Good Shepherd chose and agreed to employ in there agreement. Also critique properly understood is the act of criticizing.

Lastly the SSPX will be in Schism when and if the Holy See declares it to be so and not a moment sooner.
[/quote]Again, no one has said they are or necessarily will be in schism. The Holy Father is obviously the final authority on such matters.

The Holy See said discussion in their communique, which I reproduced above. I'll try to find the original, but there is no negative connotation involved. You can critique something without holding a negative view of it. If Bishop Fellay holds a negative view of the Second Vatican Council as a whole (or maybe in part), then I don't see reconciliation happening. As it stands, I know many people who reject the council in its entirety and such people are at least schismatic.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335393401' post='2423379']
If you and others want to judge these individuals that is your business.
[/quote]It isn't a judgment to repeat the words and thoughts of other people that have been directly expressed. It's not a judgment in the sense that you're using the term. Judgment implies some sort of rational response on my part that simply isn't there.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335392094' post='2423371']
According to Father Z a couple months ago, yes. I think he's right on this point.
[/quote]

i have an acquaintence who is a follower and only goes to sspx chapels, so... im very concerned for her...