Muller Meets With Sspx's Fellay

[Amppax]

This is a good sign, I hope. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-mueller-and-bishop-fellay-have-cordial-meeting

[PhuturePriest]

The only thing I fear out of reunion is continued hurt feelings on both sides. Most people I talk to about the SSPX who aren't traditionalists have little good to say about them and have quite frankly stated they don't want them to be in full communion, and I fear that type of nonsense would continue a sense of polarization even if they were to enter into full communion.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, very encouraging. The Society's regularization is my number one hope for the Church right now.

[Basilisa Marie]

It'll only happen if they give on certain things, and nothing from them has ever given me the indication that they have the slightest thought of it. I'd love for them to be back, for there to be even more resources for Catholics who love traditional liturgy. Hopefully this is a good sign.

[Aragon]

I had lunch with a young SSPX priest the other day. They're not budging. Provisions already exist for people who want the Old Mass but will accept Vatican II and the New Mass, and those people come over individually. The Society aren't going to forsake their views. The new generation of SSPX priests and laity have been raised in an environment where their irregularity is normal, so I doubt we'll see any great change. 

[PhuturePriest]

I had lunch with a young SSPX priest the other day. They're not budging. Provisions already exist for people who want the Old Mass but will accept Vatican II and the New Mass, and those people come over individually. The Society aren't going to forsake their views. The new generation of SSPX priests and laity have been raised in an environment where their irregularity is normal, so I doubt we'll see any great change. 

 

The SSPX accept the documents of Vatican II. Not only did Lefebre approve them himself, he was a father of the Council. It's not a matter of Vatican II so much as it is the Novus Ordo that is the issue.

[truthfinder]

The SSPX accept the documents of Vatican II. Not only did Lefebre approve them himself, he was a father of the Council. It's not a matter of Vatican II so much as it is the Novus Ordo that is the issue.

Not quite; most SSPX will accept around 95% - they've got some issues with the documents on ecumenism, and I believe on the role of the bishops (ie collegiality).

[PhuturePriest]

Not quite; most SSPX will accept around 95% - they've got some issues with the documents on ecumenism, and I believe on the role of the bishops (ie collegiality).

 

As Most Reverent Bishop Schneider has said, there are some parts of the Vatican II documents which merit clarification. I think if we merely clarified some of the parts that could be taken two or more ways, the SSPX would be much more apt to accept them wholeheartedly. That being said, they still accept the Vatican II documents "in light of Tradition", in the words of Lefebvre.

Edited September 24, 2014 by FuturePacker

[truthfinder]

As Most Reverent Bishop Schneider has said, there are some parts of the Vatican II documents which merit clarification. I think if we merely clarified some of the parts that could be taken two or more ways, the SSPX would be much more apt to accept them wholeheartedly. That being said, they still accept the Vatican II documents "in light of Tradition", in the words of Lefebvre.

Yes.  I think there are those, however, who see the non-clarified and ambiguous parts as a weakening of faith - they would feel that the documents should just go out and say what you mean.  The grey area also means that not everyone has to believe the same thing, and that is very scary to them (and also to many others over the ages.)

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes.  I think there are those, however, who see the non-clarified and ambiguous parts as a weakening of faith - they would feel that the documents should just go out and say what you mean.  The grey area also means that not everyone has to believe the same thing, and that is very scary to them (and also to many others over the ages.)

IMO the most mature solution would be for the Society to be fully regularized, say with a personal prelature or something. Some situation that gives them autonomy to operate as they see necessary. Require only that they accept the Council "interpreted in the light of Tradition", as they have always been willing to do, and then maintain ongoing doctrinal talks. Say, the SSPX, the CDF, Ecclesia Dei, etc.. Perhaps form it as a permanent or semi-permanent group within Ecclesia Dei, with its purpose being to discuss and clarify any and all points of contention between traditionalists and the mainstream.

That solution requires very little except good faith from all parties. It gives the Society an influential role in the Vatican and it also gives the more hardline of the Society a mechanism by which they can ensure that their mission is not compromised.

Win-win, as far as I am concerned. But nobody asked me. :P

Edited September 24, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Aragon]

The SSPX accept the documents of Vatican II. Not only did Lefebre approve them himself, he was a father of the Council. It's not a matter of Vatican II so much as it is the Novus Ordo that is the issue.

 

No they don't. Opinions among SSPX priests will range from the Council should be scrapped entirely to 95% is okay but 5% is heresy. They outright reject the Decree on Religious Liberty. This won't change because +Lefebvre came from a radical French background that advocated an extreme form of Catholic government in reaction to their ancestors being dispossessed after the French Revolution, and at least half of SSPX priests and faithful come from a similar background.

[PhuturePriest]

No they don't. Opinions among SSPX priests will range from the Council should be scrapped entirely to 95% is okay but 5% is heresy. They outright reject the Decree on Religious Liberty. This won't change because +Lefebvre came from a radical French background that advocated an extreme form of Catholic government in reaction to their ancestors being dispossessed after the French Revolution, and at least half of SSPX priests and faithful come from a similar background.

 

Nihil knows very much about the SSPX and Marcel Lefebvre himself, so he is a better person to turn to on the situation and feelings of the SSPX.

[Aragon]

IMO the most mature solution would be for the Society to be fully regularized, say with a personal prelature or something. Some situation that gives them autonomy to operate as they see necessary. Require only that they accept the Council "interpreted in the light of Tradition", as they have always been willing to do, and then maintain ongoing doctrinal talks. Say, the SSPX, the CDF, Ecclesia Dei, etc.. Perhaps form it as a permanent or semi-permanent group within Ecclesia Dei, with its purpose being to discuss and clarify any and all points of contention between traditionalists and the mainstream.

That solution requires very little except good faith from all parties. It gives the Society an influential role in the Vatican and it also gives the more hardline of the Society a mechanism by which they can ensure that their mission is not compromised.

Win-win, as far as I am concerned. But nobody asked me. :P

 

 But for the Society 'in light of Tradition' means that those bits they view as being inconsistent with Tradition are outright rejected. It doesn't mean the hermeneutic of continuity, and they've been quite clear about that. 

 

I'm a little puzzled by this idea to be honest. We don't like it when people dissent on issues like homosexuality and contraception, but you're advocating giving an official role to a group of priests who outright reject the decree of an ecumenical council as heresy and say that the ordinary form of the Mass is a non-Catholic rite?

 

That's nothing but a traditionalist version of cafeteria Catholicism.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Aragon

[PhuturePriest]

 But for the Society 'in light of Tradition' means that those bits they view as being inconsistent with Tradition are outright rejected. It doesn't mean the hermeneutic of continuity, and they've been quite clear about that. 

 

I'm a little puzzled by this idea to be honest. We don't like it when people dissent on issues like homosexuality and contraception, but you're advocating giving an official role to a group of priests who outright reject the decree of an ecumenical council as heresy and say that the ordinary form of the Mass is a non-Catholic rite?

 

That's nothing but traditional cafeteria Catholicism.

 

They don't reject the decree of an ecumenical council as heresy. You have misgivings about the actual positions of the SSPX, I am afraid.

[Aragon]

They don't reject the decree of an ecumenical council as heresy. You have misgivings about the actual positions of the SSPX, I am afraid.

 

Where are you getting your information about the Society from? Do you know many priests and people in the SSPX? How many SSPX sermons have you listened to? How many books written by the Society have you read? 

The Society absolutely do reject religious liberty as taught in DH. Ring up your local SSPX priory and ask them yourself.
 

http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/1974_declaration_of_archbishop_lefebvre.htm

http://angeluspress.org/They-Have-Uncrowned-Him



 

Edited September 24, 2014 by Aragon