The Sspx

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1761802' date='Jan 25 2009, 10:45 PM']I know they criticized JPII when he preached the mutual submission between husband and wife. (Can't find the quote right now.)[/quote]

I'm not surprised based on what I read on their website. They really seem to have it out for JPII. -Katie

[MithLuin]

Of course they don't like JPII. As Archbishop Karol Wojtyla of Krakow, he pushed for some of the ideas in Vatican II that Archbishop Lefebvre took issue with. The Council sided with the future pope, and Lefebvre was left in the position of giving in or splitting. He chose to split, though not right away (meaning, to give him some credit, he at least tried to make it work at first). SSPX doesn't just disagree with the [i]interpretation[/i] of the Council...they take issue with some of the actual decisions made by the Council. There's a lot of history and politics that go into their views and decisions, but ultimately it comes down to a question of whether or not they accept the authority of the Magisterium, and pay it more than just lip service. Hopefully, they do, and we will see some real unity in the coming months.

From what I wrote on the other thread:

It wasn't just about the celebration of the mass. The Novus Ordo is not the only part of Vatican II they...fail to accept. There is also that minor issue of religious freedom, and the proper relationship between church and state. I am not going to claim that George Weigel (certainly a fan of JPII) is a fair chronicler of the disagreement, but he had this to say:


[quote]Why was religious freedom so controversial at Vatican II?

Some Council Fathers took a philosophical position that, once its premises were granted, was at least logical. "Error" had "no rights;" states should recognize this so that justice would be serbved; therefore, the optimum arrangement between Church and state was one in which the state recognized the truth of Catholicism and gave it a privileged place in society. Others, including a vocal French missionary archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, were convinced that any Catholic endorsement of religious freedom meant endorsing the radical secularizing politics that had been let loose during the French Revolution. Still others worried that a conciliar defense of religious freedom would involve such a dramatic development of doctrine as to suggest that the Church had been gravely mistaken in the past. These concerns not infrequently overlapped in some bishops' minds.

On the other side of the issue were three clusters of bishops. The Council Fathers from the United States had lived an experience in which Catholicism flourished under a constitutionally mandated "separation" between Church and state. They did not think this way of arranging things should be considered inferior to the way things had been done in the Europe of altar-and-throne alliances. A second cluster was composed of those Western European bishops who, for theological and political reasons, were determined to distance the Church from ancien regime nostalgia. Then there were the bishops of east central Europe, many of whom had done time in prisons or under house arrest, who wanted a strong conciliar defense of religious freedom to strengthen them in their struggle against communism.[/quote]

The issue was unresolved by the end of the third session, so it was the fourth session that gave us "Dignitatis Humanae" ([url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]Declaration on Religious Freedom[/url]). Reading that document, it is clear that the Council sided with Wojtyla, the young archbishop from Krakow, and others of like mind...not Lefebvre.

While many will readily admit that Ratzinger was sharply critical of many interpretations of Vatican II that he felt to be illegitimate, he has always upheld the Council itself as legit. That is a very important distinction, and the same cannot be said of Lefebvre or SSPX. That is why the 1984 indult permitting more widespread use of the Tridentine mass was not enough to prevent the split.

[quote]Lefebvre's disdain for the revised Roman rite had never been the core of his dissent from Vatican II, which was theological, not simply liturgical.

John Paul II considered [u]Dignitatus Humanae[/u], the Declaration on Religious Freedom, to be an interpretive key to the entire Council. Archbishop Lefebvre thought that [u]Dignitatus Humanae[/u] was heresy, and believed that an established Church in an officially Catholic state was the will of Christ. John Paul II had been one of the intellectual architects of [u]Gaudium et Spes[/u]. The Pope recalled that Lefebvre, whose "theology was quite different," had an entirely different "vision of the Church." Lefebvre's refusal to be placated by the 1984 indult made unmistakably clear his conviction that Vatican II had been a colossal act of irresponsibility and infidelity, of which liturgical change was only the most obvious manifestation.[/quote]

The ordination of the 4 bishops without permission (and the subsequent automatic excommunications) happened in 1988. Both John Paul II and Ratzinger worked very hard to prevent the schism, reaching an agreement with Lefebvre on May 5th. However, Lefebvre repudiated the agreement the next day, and in June announced his intent to go forward with the ordinations. As Weigel put it, "When the final choice had to be made, he hated modernity more than he loved Rome."

[i](All quotations taken from Witness to Hope: The Biography of Pope John Paul II)[/i]

[KnightofChrist]

Hold the phone on the SSPX having to fully embrace Vatican II.

From RORATE CÆLI

[center][url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/"]What will the SSPX have to do?"Vatican II is not a dogma of Faith," Roman sources say[/url][/center]


In her article on six questions related to the Decree which remitted the sanction of excommunication of the four bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), the Vatican correspondent for French newspaper La Croix (the Catholic-owned daily), Isabelle de Gaulmyn includes some well-known facts.

However, there is some new information in the text, which we present below.

1. Possible news conference by Cardinal Castrillón:

[indent]"This week, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which is in charge of this reintegration, should explain it [the future possibilities] publicly to the press."

[/indent]
2. Letter of Cardinal Bertone. Regarding the question on whether this "reintegration encompasses an acknowledgment of the teachings of Vatican II", De Gaulmyn reveals that the decree was the object of a letter sent by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, to Curial authorities:

[indent] "This is the whole problem. The decree published on Saturday does not speak of Vatican II, but it evokes indirectly the 'problem posed at the origin'. Not more than, according to our information, the letter sent by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to the authorities of the Curia, in which he makes this gesture known."[/indent]


3. So, what about Vatican II? At least for the moment there does not seem to be any desire from those responsible for the discussions on the Vatican side to demand from the SSPX the express acceptance of one specific Council (the Second Vatican Council or, for instance, the First Lyon Council), since they may all be implictly included in more generic expressions. In the words of De Gaulmyn:

[indent]"The refusal of the teachings of the Council is the true cause of the rupture of the Integrists. For the constitution of the Institute of the Good Shepherd [IBP] by former members of the Fraternity, in 2006, its members explicitly vowed 'to have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all controversy, (...) regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or regarding subsequent reforms of the liturgy and of the law, and which seem to us hardly reconcilable with Tradition.'

"[b]Nothing of the sort this time, according to our sources: 'Vatican II is not a dogma of faith', they say. From the moment in which the bishops and priests of the Fraternity recognize the Church, and the Magisterium of the Pope, that will suffice as an implicit acknowledgment.[/b]"[/indent]


-------------

Also some words from then Cardinal Ratzinger

"There are many accounts of it [the Second Vatican Council] which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

[Tinkerlina]

The article didn't seem to definitively say that they didn't have to accept Vatican II, just that they didn't have to specifically, publically accept Vatican II if it is implicit in more general agreements. It is not going to be possible for them to come back into full communion with the Church if they reject the council. I would still think it would be wise for them to issue a public acceptance if and when they intend to accept Vatican II in order to clear up confusion. As for Cardinal Ratzinger's quote-I don't see why that has anything to do with the SSPX not having to acknowledge Vatican II. -Katie

Edited January 26, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[Apotheoun]

Whether the SSPX will have to issue a statement saying that they accept Vatican II or not will be up to the Pope and the leaders of the SSPX.

What people here at Phatmass think on this issue is really irrelevant.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1761985' date='Jan 25 2009, 10:38 PM']Whether the SSPX will have to issue a statement saying that they accept Vatican II or not will be up to the Pope and the leaders of the SSPX.

What people here at Phatmass think on this issue is really irrelevant.[/quote]
What people here at Phatmass think about most issues is really irrelevant.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1761985' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:38 AM']Whether the SSPX will have to issue a statement saying that they accept Vatican II or not will be up to the Pope and the leaders of the SSPX.

What people here at Phatmass think on this issue is really irrelevant.[/quote]

Why? As Catholics it is going to affect us and I'm already planning on lots of question from non Catholic friends-I'd like to continue discussing it, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. -Katie

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1761988' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:40 AM']What people here at Phatmass think about most issues is really irrelevant.[/quote]

Funnily enough you somehow found our thoughts somewhat engaging, as evidenced by your 4,000+ replies... -Katie

Edited January 26, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1761996' date='Jan 25 2009, 09:42 PM']Why? As Catholics it is going to affect us and I'm already planning on lots of question from non Catholic friends-I'd like to continue discussing it, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. -Katie[/quote]
Your views and interests will have a lot of importance when the Vatican appoints you as its representative in the talks with the SSPX.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1762005' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:46 AM']Your views and interests will have a lot of importance when the Vatican appoints you as its representative in the talks with the SSPX.[/quote]

Why the snippiness? Seriously. -Katie

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1761998' date='Jan 25 2009, 09:44 PM']Funnily enough you somehow found our thoughts somewhat engaging, as evidenced by your 4,000+ replies... -Katie[/quote]
Ah, don't mind Fidei Defensor, he loves reading what Phatmassers have to say.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1762007' date='Jan 25 2009, 09:47 PM']Why the snippiness? Seriously. -Katie[/quote]
I'm not snippy at all. I'm just pointing out a fact, i.e., that if the Pope doesn't want a statement on Vatican II issued by the leaders of the SSPX you -- and a lot of other Catholics -- will just have to lump it.

[Apotheoun]

Katie,

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The Pope will do what he will do. That's part of what it is to be the Pope.

Todd

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1762011' date='Jan 26 2009, 12:49 AM']I'm not snippy at all. I'm just pointing out a fact, i.e., that if the Pope doesn't want a statement on Vatican II issued by the leaders of the SSPX you -- and a lot of other Catholics -- will just have to lump it.[/quote]

Yeah, we will but there's no need for sarcasm. -Katie

[philothea]

Just looked around at the SSPX website and, man. I don't think I've been so irritated at a group of people in [i]years[/i]. Ugh.

Going to try to ignore these topics for a bit and go look at pictures of kittens instead.