Jaime Posted June 11, 2011 Posted June 11, 2011 When the SSPX submits to the Church, then they can be considered Traditionalists. Until they are fully subordinate to the Holy Father, they are not a force for Traditionalism.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 11, 2011 Author Posted June 11, 2011 From the horse's mouth: "[b]We adhere with our whole heart and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome[/b], the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth."
CatherineM Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307836357' post='2252519'] From the horse's mouth: "[b]We adhere with our whole heart and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome[/b], the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth." [/quote] Are they talking about our Pope, or their ideals of what Rome is/should be.
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307836357' post='2252519'] From the horse's mouth: "[b]We adhere with our whole heart and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome[/b], the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth." [/quote] If this were true, then why would there be any need to normalize anything? They are not in full communion and therefore cannot be considered Traditionalists. Obedience is the cornerstone of being a Traditionalist
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1307837554' post='2252525'] Are they talking about our Pope, or their ideals of what Rome is/should be. [/quote] They mean our current Pope, I believe. As far as I'm concerned, as an organization they act in good faith, even if some within do not. "It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, [b]in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations[/b]."[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307837693' post='2252527'] If this were true, then why would there be any need to normalize anything? They are not in full communion and therefore cannot be considered Traditionalists. Obedience is the cornerstone of being a Traditionalist [/quote] Their canonical situation is irregular because of their act of disobedience. They are not in schism.
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote]“An indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of St. Pius X is their full recognition of Vatican Council II and of the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. “As already affirmed in the Decree of 21 January 2009, the Holy See will not fail, in ways considered most appropriate, to join the parties concerned in a profound examination of outstanding issues, so as to be able to reach a full and satisfactory solution to the problems that gave rise to this painful split”.[/quote]
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307837847' post='2252529'] They mean our current Pope, I believe. As far as I'm concerned, as an organization they act in good faith, even if some within do not. "It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, [b]in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations[/b]." Their canonical situation is irregular because of their act of disobedience. They are not in schism. [/quote] Thank you!! We are on the same page! Disobedience does not make one a Traditionalist. Obedience does! I have no doubt that any learned friends you have would have to agree with that statement
CatherineM Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307837847' post='2252529'] They mean our current Pope, I believe. As far as I'm concerned, as an organization they act in good faith, even if some within do not. "It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests [b]under the star of the age-old Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations[/b]." Their canonical situation is irregular because of their act of disobedience. They are not in schism. [/quote] Why should they have bitterness or resentment towards the Church? They were in the wrong, not the Church. The part I highlighted is what concerns me. It still sounds like they believe they represent the "old Magisterium" as if the Church doesn't. It stills seems like it is coming from a position that the SSPX is right, and eventually the Pope will figure it out. I only see pride, not humility, coming from their side.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307838041' post='2252533'] Thank you!! We are on the same page! Disobedience does not make one a Traditionalist. Obedience does! I have no doubt that any learned friends you have would have to agree with that statement [/quote] I've never said that the Econe Consecrations were the right choice. [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1307838266' post='2252539'] Why should they have bitterness or resentment towards the Church? They were in the wrong, not the Church. The part I highlighted is what concerns me. It still sounds like they believe they represent the "old Magisterium" as if the Church doesn't. It stills seems like it is coming from a position that the SSPX is right, and eventually the Pope will figure it out. I only see pride, not humility, coming from their side. [/quote] I think you're trying to judge their hearts, and I don't think that's appropriate. Everything you said is personal conjecture and unsubstantiated. ETA: You know as well as I do that there is only one Magisterium. If they pledge themselves to the Magisterium, they know just as well that there is only one and only can be one. Edited June 12, 2011 by Nihil Obstat
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307838391' post='2252541'] I've never said that the Econe Consecrations were the right choice. I think you're trying to judge their hearts, and I don't think that's appropriate. Everything you said is personal conjecture and unsubstantiated. [/quote] No but you state that the could be a force for Traditionalism. I was clarifying that until they are obedient to Rome and accept Vatican II they will never be considered Traditionalists nor will the people who support their masses.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307839266' post='2252546'] No but you state that the could be a force for Traditionalism. I was clarifying that until they are obedient to Rome and accept Vatican II they will never be considered Traditionalists nor will the people who support their masses. [/quote] I think it's very reasonable to suggest that the SSPX had some influence on the formation of the Ecclesia Dei commission and Summorum Pontificum. I consider them traditionalists in spite of their disobedience. As I said, I believe that most, maybe all of them, have acted in good faith. I think they were wrong, but I think it was in good faith. I think most of them believed that they only did what they had to do. I see no reason to refuse to call them traditionalists. That's silly.
dominicansoul Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1307838266' post='2252539'] Why should they have bitterness or resentment towards the Church? They were in the wrong, not the Church. The part I highlighted is what concerns me. It still sounds like they believe they represent the "old Magisterium" as if the Church doesn't. It stills seems like it is coming from a position that the SSPX is right, and eventually the Pope will figure it out. I only see pride, not humility, coming from their side. [/quote] hmmm... I recognize a pattern I'm praying for them, i hope they finally do what they hafta do, and come back home. But as far as them being a "force for traditionalism.." they cant be anything in disobedience, no matter how pretty they look. Besides, we have a beautiful Order that already celebrates the Holy Mass in the extraodinary form, and they are subordinate to teh Pope and faithful to the Church. I wonder if when the SSPXers' come back, will they be incorporated into the FSSP? [img]http://www.fssp.org/objet/Imaxen.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fssp.org/album/HPR2011/dsc06706.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fssp.org/album/HM2004/pocito.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.fssp.org/album/O20020615/image034.jpg[/img]
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1307840788' post='2252551'] [img]http://www.fssp.org/album/HPR2011/dsc06706.jpg[/img] [/quote] Ooh, those columns are lovely. Where is that?
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307840508' post='2252548'] I think it's very reasonable to suggest that the SSPX had some influence on the formation of the Ecclesia Dei commission and Summorum Pontificum. I consider them traditionalists in spite of their disobedience. As I said, I believe that most, maybe all of them, have acted in good faith. I think they were wrong, but I think it was in good faith. I think most of them believed that they only did what they had to do. I see no reason to refuse to call them traditionalists. That's silly. [/quote] I see plenty of reasons. They are not in full communion with Rome. To consider them Traditionalists and not in full communion is ridiculous
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307841187' post='2252555'] I see plenty of reasons. They are not in full communion with Rome. To consider them Traditionalists and not in full communion is ridiculous [/quote] I disagree. They're traditionalists who took it a little too far in '88 (and sort of in '76), and they are still Catholic, not in schism.
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307841455' post='2252557'] I disagree. They're traditionalists who took it a little too far in '88 (and sort of in '76), and they are still Catholic, not in schism. [/quote] Also recall Bishop Tissier, who is neither in schism, nor excommunicated anymore, [i]nor suspended[/i]. He is nothing more than a bishop without a See.
dominicansoul Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307841093' post='2252553'] Ooh, those columns are lovely. Where is that? [/quote] I believe it is a Mass celebrated in Rheinau, Switzerland. I'm not sure of the name of the church. I looked through their photo albums on their website. [url="http://www.fssp.org/index.htm"]FSSP[/url] Soooooo beautiful
Nihil Obstat Posted June 12, 2011 Author Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1307841662' post='2252561'] I believe it is a Mass celebrated in Rheinau, Switzerland. I'm not sure of the name of the church. I looked through their photo albums on their website. [url="http://www.fssp.org/index.htm"]FSSP[/url] Soooooo beautiful [/quote] Those blue vestments in the last picture are my favourites though. I always love seeing a humeral veil; they're far too rare these days.
Jaime Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307841455' post='2252557'] I disagree. They're traditionalists who took it a little too far in '88 (and sort of in '76), and they are still Catholic, not in schism. [/quote] Disagreeing would mean it's a matter of opinion. Like " I disagree, I think polka music is a wonderful thing!" It's not a matter of opinion. They are not Traditionalists until they are obedient to Rome. [quote]"The remission of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a serious canonical penalty, but it has not altered the juridical position of the Society of St. Pius X which, at the present time, enjoys no canonical recognition within the Catholic Church. Even the four bishops, though released from excommunication, have no canonical function in the Church and cannot legally exercise a ministry within her".[/quote] You can sugar coat it all you want. They have to assent their will fully to the Church before they can be considered Traditionalist.
dominicansoul Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Nihil, the website describes the church as "The magnificent church from the abbey on Saint-Fintan-Rheinau Island (Switzerland)"
Recommended Posts