Sspx: Preamble Signed

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1335395571' post='2423405']


i have an acquaintence who is a follower and only goes to sspx chapels, so... im very concerned for her...
[/quote]Have hope. I think Bishop Fellay is doing good work here.

Edited April 25, 2012 by qfnol31

[Skinzo]

[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]

I am not sure what your point is. The link you provide goes to a site that is entirely in French. I will however say that I wholeheartedly accept the results of the Institute's recent apostolic visitation and I hope they comply with the Roman directives in that regard.

S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[XIX]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1334717988' post='2419975']
Yeah, the FSSPX really needs to join the rest of us.
[/quote]
The Catholic Church needs a healthy SSPX as well.

[Aloysius]

to be honest, I hope the Institute of the Good Pastor asks for and gets clarification from Rome on this issue. demanding that they teach seminarians their doctrines from the Catechism and Vatican II sounds much different than the agreement they were offered before. if Benedict's vision that there is no rupture and the conciliar way represents a different pastoral approach of the same unchanging doctrine is to be taken seriously, then the Institute of the Good Shepherd should be permitted to teach entirely from pre-conciliar sources if that is in the pastoral interests of the people they are ministering to. not that teaching the good parts and how to best traditionally interpret the Council is not good, but I'm not very impressed with the apparent Roman bait-and-switching here, and you can bet the SSPX and the Orthodox will pay attention to such things. that's just my impression. of course, the visitation is just a report given to the Pope, whether any action is actually taken from Rome to enforce these suggestions will be interesting to see.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1335419493' post='2423519']
to be honest, I hope the Institute of the Good Pastor asks for and gets clarification from Rome on this issue. demanding that they teach seminarians their doctrines from the Catechism and Vatican II sounds much different than the agreement they were offered before. if Benedict's vision that there is no rupture and the conciliar way represents a different pastoral approach of the same unchanging doctrine is to be taken seriously, then the Institute of the Good Shepherd should be permitted to teach entirely from pre-conciliar sources if that is in the pastoral interests of the people they are ministering to. not that teaching the good parts and how to best traditionally interpret the Council is not good, but I'm not very impressed with the apparent Roman bait-and-switching here, and you can bet the SSPX and the Orthodox will pay attention to such things. that's just my impression. of course, the visitation is just a report given to the Pope, whether any action is actually taken from Rome to enforce these suggestions will be interesting to see.
[/quote]

Actually, the Institute was only approved on an experimental basis, and for a five year period only. That five year period expired in September 2011.

[url="http://la.revue.item.free.fr/commission_pontifical.htm"]http://la.revue.item..._pontifical.htm[/url]


S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[Skinzo]

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

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]

It's clear also from the statutues setting up the Institute of the Good Shepherd that its "constructive criticism" is subject to moderation by Rome. It's about [b]obedience. [/b]It's also about Rome's authority to interpret Vatican II.
Take note, SSPX.

S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[Skinzo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335393319' post='2423378']

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

Actually, Abp. Fellay says Hoyos told him in person in June of 2008 that he was now a schismatic:

"[b]Up to now, I stated that you were not schismatics, but henceforth I will no longer be able to say so"[/b]


[url="http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2008/09/concerning-ultimatum-from-cardinal.html"]http://www.summorump...m-cardinal.html[/url]

S.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335393570' post='2423384']
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.
[/quote]

It is judgement because we or you guys are judging them to be schismatic. It is also gossip.

[KnightofChrist]

For those who respect Fr. Z here is his take on the status of the SSPX.





[quote]

[b] [url="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-is-the-sspx-in-schism-or-not/"]QUAERITUR: Is the SSPX in schism or not?[/url][/b]



[indent][background=transparent]
Greetings! I am writing in order to ask you [b]abou the SSPX’s canonical status[/b]. I’ve heard that they [b]certianly are in schism[/b], as Bishop ___ (my bishop) said, yet I’ve also heard from you that the[b] Prefect of the Pontical Commision Ecclesia Dei has said that they’re not[/b]. My question is as follows: would there need to be any talks going on between them and Rome [b]if they are not in schism[/b]? Isn’t the point, as Pope Benedict XVI said, something about…”[b]as they discover the path to full communion[/b]“? First, that seems to imply that they are not in full communion with the Chuch. And, as noted earlier, it seems like the whole purpose of the [b]Vatican-SSPX discussions is to bring them into communion[/b]. Do you see the seeming conflicts? Nevertheless, I’d refuse to associate or attend their Masses until they learn to trust the Magisterium and learn the humility to keep their minds and hearts publicly and officially in syncronization which that of the One Chuch.[/background][/indent][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
Since the Pontifical Commission “[i]Ecclesia Dei[/i]” has competence in this area, I will opt for the position of the PCED rather than the opinion Bishop of X diocese.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
The situation is confusing. In the 1988 Motu Proprio [i]Ecclesia Dei adflicta[/i] Pope John Paul used the word “[i]schism[/i]“. It looks like a schism, to be sure. [u]But[/u] official[u]s[/u] of the PCED have affirmed over the last few years that while Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions in 1988 were schismatic acts, the SSPX did not in fact go into schism. I don’t really understand that, but [u]I will take the PCED’s word on this.[/u][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
What we need to do is pray pray pray that the SSPX will accept the CDF’s “Doctrinal Preamble” and some eventual canonical structure which could be offered to them.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
[u]I suppose that now all sort of people will jump in with over-the-top declarations that they know with certainty how wrong the Holy See is, the Pope is, the SSPX is.[/u] [b]Ho hum.[/b] Someone will forget to exercise reason and self-editing, I will delete comments and ban a couple people, and the pattern will repeat itself. Oh well… forest fires renew forests too.[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Georgia,]
[b]Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.[/b][/font][/color]

[/quote]

[dominicansoul]

[quote]
The situation is confusing.
[/quote]

He got that right!


After reading Fr. Z's segment, it does look like, indeed, the SSPX would be officially in schism if they do not come to agree with the Vatican after all this.

I trust Pope Benny will work extra hard to preserve unity. May the Holy Spirit lead and direct him and the SSPX willfully obey him...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1335453289' post='2423615']


It is judgement because we or you guys are judging them to be schismatic. It is also gossip.
[/quote]Again, it's what many have expressed to me about the Church today. It isn't gossip because we're not talking about a specific person or specific persons,just like talking about the opinions of radical feminists is not gossip. I don't mean to say this schismatic attitude abounds in all, so there are definitely good and holy people in the society. But if true reconciliation is to occur, then those who do not recognize where the Church is today ought to reexamine their points of view.

I don't really want to convince you of where any of these people stand, but there is a true and present danger in following the society before it is fully regularized that people on this forum and Catholics in general have a right to know.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1335455103' post='2423622']


He got that right!


After reading Fr. Z's segment, it does look like, indeed, the SSPX would be officially in schism if they do not come to agree with the Vatican after all this.

I trust Pope Benny will work extra hard to preserve unity. May the Holy Spirit lead and direct him and the SSPX willfully obey him...
[/quote]I sincerely hope they do. The whole problem with rejecting Vatican II has been the same problem throughout Church history. In the case of our most recent council, we don't have the same definitions that the others gave us, but councils have almost always been about more than simply definitions. Councils give direction and rules for the Church that are to be followed. In history, when people refused to follow the Church’s direction, they found themselves separated from her. The Orthodox are in this position today.

Fortunately I think that Bishop Fellay has the humility to follow the direction of the Holy Father. I very much hope that those who trust Bishop Fellay will follow his example and not turn away from this opportunity.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335460700' post='2423645']

Fortunately I think that Bishop Fellay has the humility to follow the direction of the Holy Father. I very much hope that those who trust Bishop Fellay will follow his example and not turn away from this opportunity.
[/quote]

I hope you are right. But the SSPX has denied the recent "positive" news accounts of relations with Rome:
[url="http://sspx.org/theological_commission/general_house_communique_4-18-2012.htm"]http://sspx.org/theological_commission/general_house_communique_4-18-2012.htm[/url]

And if Fellay's sermon in Winona of Feb.3, 2012 is any indication, there is still quite a journey to be made. He says again that it is Rome that must "convert", that is Rome that is outside the Church, and that Rome is Modernist! In short it's the same SSPX line that we have heard since 1974:
"On the contrary, it is our duty to continuously go there, knock at the door, and not beg that we may enter (because we are in) but beg that they may convert; that they may change and come back to what makes the Church."
And: " The key problem in our discussions with Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church. Because they say, “we are the pope, we are the Holy See” – and we say, yes. And so they say, “we have the supreme power,” and we say, yes. They say, “we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary” – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, “then, obey.” And we say, no. And so they say to us, you are protestant. You put your reason above the Magisterium of today. And we answer to them, you are Modernists"

[url="http://stas.org/publications/announcements-archive/552-extract-from-sermon-of-bishop-fellay-on-february-2nd-2012.html"]http://stas.org/publications/announcements-archive/552-extract-from-sermon-of-bishop-fellay-on-february-2nd-2012.html[/url]

S.

[Skinzo]

Sorry, mistake.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo

[Skinzo]

Ditto mistake

Edited April 26, 2012 by Skinzo