SSPX leader hopes Vatican will take "first step"

[dspen2005]

why should it be the vatican... what 1st step has sspx taken?? NONE!! IMHO

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Apr 5 2006, 12:08 PM']Maybe the pope WILL do something definitive at some point in the future, Cam, but while he's waiting around, people like me are on the verge of losing their faith.  Never in my life did I think I would seriously consider not going to Mass, not going to confession, not praying.  Never in my life have I felt like everything is so utterly pointless I should give up completely.

"Keep the faith!"  you might say.  My answer?  "Keep WHAT faith?"  I can't remember what the truth is anymore...[right][snapback]936620[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I will pray for you. I can definately understand your situation. I too have felt this way.

[Ora et Labora]

well...what a cheerful site. lol j/k i will pray for both of you. but i really dont think your looking past y'alls nose...rome is still orthodox. the people dont define our faith.

[Guest JeffCR07]

One point that I think has been passed over is this:

Rome [i]should[/i] take the first step - not because Holy Mother Church is wrong and the SSPX is right, but rather, the Church should take the first step [i]because she is the Church[/i]. She is the mystical body of Christ, who went to dine with tax collectors. She is the truest icon of Christ, who washed the feet of the Apostles. She is the bride of Christ, who, on our behalf spoke unto the Father, saying, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."

[ironman]

I hope the SSPX come back to Rome......it would be such a boost for the Church..........I think it'll happen in about 5 years......

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Apr 5 2006, 02:17 PM']I will pray for you. I can definately understand your situation. I too have felt this way.
[right][snapback]936855[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thank you.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Apr 5 2006, 02:48 PM']well...what a cheerful site. lol j/k i will pray for both of you. but i really dont think your looking past y'alls nose...rome is still orthodox. the people dont define our faith.
[right][snapback]936922[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The ideal is that Rome defines our faith. The practice is that anyone defines any faith. It's what Ratzinger once called the "tyranny of relativism." It feels like a dictatorship of personal opinion.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Apr 5 2006, 06:42 PM']One point that I think has been passed over is this:

Rome [i]should[/i] take the first step - not because Holy Mother Church is wrong and the SSPX is right, but rather, the Church should take the first step [i]because she is the Church[/i]. She is the mystical body of Christ, who went to dine with tax collectors. She is the truest icon of Christ, who washed the feet of the Apostles. She is the bride of Christ, who, on our behalf spoke unto the Father, saying, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
[right][snapback]937067[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your point has SQUASHED all the others! :

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 5 2006, 11:20 AM']How many parishes are there in the world again?  It would seem that it would be more up to the Ordinary to take care of what is going on....how about aiming that pent up anger at him and not the Pope.

Paruse the Code of Canon Law, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Redemptoris Sacramentum......it explains the role of the Ordinary in the life of his See.
[right][snapback]936640[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My local ordinary is extremely interested in a politically surgical removal of heterodoxy in our diocese. It will take him years. Anything I write will be gladly considered and then filed away in the garbage bin. I would have my ordinary act to upset the calm waters of religious indifference YESTERDAY, but the chosen pace is that of a turtle.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Apr 5 2006, 06:42 PM']One point that I think has been passed over is this:

Rome [i]should[/i] take the first step - not because Holy Mother Church is wrong and the SSPX is right, but rather, the Church should take the first step [i]because she is the Church[/i]. She is the mystical body of Christ, who went to dine with tax collectors. She is the truest icon of Christ, who washed the feet of the Apostles. She is the bride of Christ, who, on our behalf spoke unto the Father, saying, "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
[right][snapback]937067[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Rome has already taken the first step in trying to get the SSPX to reconcile with Rome. It's Fellay and co. that are stubbornly refusinf to reconcile - they only want to reconcile if Rome gives in to all [i]their[/i] demands. They've got things back-asswards.

[Desert Walker]

Ratzinger has clarified exactly why the excommunication was enacted. Marcel declared that the "Conciliar Church" had broken one hundred percent with its own tradition, thus becoming non-Catholic. That is what Marcel taught. He taught that the "break" was accomplished in several Conciliar actions.

1. The teaching on religious liberty (which Marcel apparently mistook for religious relativism)

2. The teaching on the "collegiality" of the pope and bishops (which Marcel apparently mistook for a heresy against papal authority)

3. The reform of the Liturgical functions of the Church (which Marcel apparently considered the equivalent of cutting the pipeline of sanctifying grace, received through the Sacraments, which sustains the Church Militant on Earth)

My list is in no way the entire picture, but I think it's a basic enfleshment of it.

Now someone please help here, because I am tempted to agree with Marcel on #3.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Regarding point three it is important to neither place history above theology nor to place theology above history. Doing so produces a false dichotomy and is contrary to both the organic nature of the Church and Holy Tradition.

We see in history a number of changes occuring in the liturgy from the primitive Church up to the present. It being most certainly outside the scope of this post (and even this website) to give a scholarly account of the entire development of Sacred Liturgy, I will simply focus on some particular points. First, we must acknowledge that prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Catholic Liturgy was split into two seperate parts. The first part occurred at the temple or in the synagogue, while the second (the liturgy of the Eucharist) took place in the home of one of the people. Following the destruction of the temple, (as well as in the diaspora during the post-Resurrection Second Temple period) the Liturgy of the Word developed slowly and grew more removed from the Judaic synagogual ritual (see the Didache). If the pre-formal liturgy of the primitive Church properly confected the sacraments, we can be sure that the liturgy of Paul VI, which has been officially ratified and upheld by the Magisterium of the Church, also properly confects the sacraments. As a second example, we can look to St. Basil's reform of the liturgy, which, according to most recent scholarship, shortened a Divine Liturgy that could have been as long as four to six hours down to about two hours (the later changes made by St. John Chrysostom did not substantially change the length of the liturgy). Pointing out the fact that all of the essential elements or parts of the Mass are retained in the Pauline Liturgy, it is safe for us to conclude that the Basilian alterations were, at the very least, [i]just as drastic[/i], and at the most, significantly moreso, than that of the current [i]Novus Ordo[/i]. Thus again, we come to the conclusion that if the Liturgy of St. Basil properly confected the sacraments, so too, then, does the Liturgy of Paul VI.

The point is that the Liturgy is organic. Changes occur, and are guided by the proper authorities. Could certain changes kill the liturgy? Sure, removing the Liturgy of the Eucharist would certainly do that. Do major changes kill the liturgy? Not necessarily. Big changes have happened in the past without doing so (and I'm inclined to think that some of the past changes have been even bigger than the Pauline). So when big changes occur, what should we do? We should look to the authority and Magisterium of the Church as the most sure guide, and that is exactly what Marcel failed to do.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff