The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307859829' post='2252708']
I would dispute your first point. A doctrinal disagreement with the Church implies heresy which I think is worse than schism. "Faithful doctrinal disagreement" is a contradiction in terms.
S.
[/quote]
You're assuming that doctrinal disagreement necessitates heresy. It need not. There can be doctrinal disagreement without heresy. Look, for instance, at the debate surrounding the definition of the Immaculate Conception. Many disagreed with Duns Scotus, though once it was formally defined, faithful dissent would no longer be appropriate.

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307859843' post='2252709']
Is it traditional for a bishop to not have a diocese? Nope

Now if you want to say they celebrate the traditional rubrics of the Extraordinary form of Mass, fine. But that does not make them Traditionalists.
[/quote]
I imagine it's not. Like I said, they're imperfect due to their disobedience. However, that does not mean they are not traditionalists. Traditionalism encompasses more than disobedience to the reigning pontiff. Obedience is an important point, but it is not the only point. Your argument limits the discussion of traditionalism to obedience alone, and that is too narrow a definition.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307927846' post='2252942']
You're assuming that doctrinal disagreement necessitates heresy. It need not. There can be doctrinal disagreement without heresy. Look, for instance, at the debate surrounding the definition of the Immaculate Conception. Many disagreed with Duns Scotus, though once it was formally defined, faithful dissent would no longer be appropriate.


I imagine it's not. Like I said, they're imperfect due to their disobedience. However, that does not mean they are not traditionalists. Traditionalism encompasses more than disobedience to the reigning pontiff. Obedience is an important point, but it is not the only point. Your argument limits the discussion of traditionalism to obedience alone, and that is too narrow a definition.
[/quote]

You don't have to imagine it Joe. The first time it's ever occurred was with the SSPX.



At the core of Tradition is obedience. There is no Tradition without it. And I'm assuming now you've accepted the reality that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church. It is impossible to fully adhere to Tradition if you are not in full communion with the Church. That's it. This is one of those things that is just black and white.

That being said, I hope they come back in full communion. I hope they accept Vatican II and are obedient to the Church

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307929138' post='2252955']I hope they accept Vatican II and are obedient to the Church
[/quote]
This.

I know you (NO) don't consider those who are not faithful to what Vat. II says about music (that chant should be given pride of place) as orthodox (or at least as Traditional). How, then, can you reconcile that with considering a group who rejects the entire thing outright as orthodox and/or traditional?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307929138' post='2252955']
You don't have to imagine it Joe. The first time it's ever occurred was with the SSPX.



At the core of Tradition is obedience. There is no Tradition without it. And I'm assuming now you've accepted the reality that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church. It is impossible to fully adhere to Tradition if you are not in full communion with the Church. That's it. This is one of those things that is just black and white.

That being said, I hope they come back in full communion. I hope they accept Vatican II and are obedient to the Church
[/quote]
Which is why I've already said more than once that they are imperfect in terms of their application of Tradition, but traditionalist nonetheless, and in spite of their deficiencies.. You force me to keep repeating myself because you apparently ignore these things every single time I say them.

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307929321' post='2252960']
This.

I know you (NO) don't consider those who are not faithful to what Vat. II says about music (that chant should be given pride of place) as orthodox (or at least as Traditional). How, then, can you reconcile that with considering a group who rejects the entire thing outright as orthodox and/or traditional?
[/quote]
I have already said in numerous posts that I consider the SSPX to be imperfect in their application of Tradition with respect to obedience, but that there is more to being a traditionalist than obedience alone. Obedience is one important aspect, but one aspect among many.
As it stands too, they do not *reject* obedience to the Pope. They simply failed to apply it in their situation, which is regrettable. They do not reject any Catholic doctrines. They practice one particular aspect in a way that leaves something to be desired.

[Nihil Obstat]

Edit to remove.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Jaime]

Here's the deal Joe. I hold that if someone (like yourself) is going to be considered a Traditionalist, then I would say that they have to be a role model to others. Adhering to Tradition is a laudable thing. Someone outside of the full communion of the Church cannot ever be held as a role model.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307930266' post='2252962']As it stands too, they do not *reject* obedience to the Pope. They simply failed to apply it in their situation, which is regrettable. They do not reject any Catholic doctrines. They practice one particular aspect in a way that leaves something to be desired.[/quote]
here's what i don't understand (admittedly, i'm drinking). why are SSPX deserving of more respect than the ACC (i think that's the acronym) or the National Catholic Reporter, or politicians a la Nancy Pelosi; when many of disobedient groups do the same (according to your above statement).

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307930522' post='2252968']
Here's the deal Joe. I hold that if someone (like yourself) is going to be considered a Traditionalist, then I would say that they have to be a role model to others. Adhering to Tradition is a laudable thing. [u]Someone outside of the full communion of the Church cannot ever be held as a role model.[/u]
[/quote]

[Lil Red]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307930522' post='2252968']
Here's the deal Joe. I hold that if someone (like yourself) is going to be considered a Traditionalist, then I would say that they have to be a role model to others. Adhering to Tradition is a laudable thing. Someone outside of the full communion of the Church cannot ever be held as a role model.
[/quote]
i agree.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307930266' post='2252962']
I have already said in numerous posts that I consider the SSPX to be imperfect in their application of Tradition with respect to obedience, but that there is more to being a traditionalist than obedience alone. Obedience is one important aspect, but one aspect among many.
As it stands too, they do not *reject* obedience to the Pope. They simply failed to apply it in their situation, which is regrettable. They do not reject any Catholic doctrines. They practice one particular aspect in a way that leaves something to be desired.
[/quote]
I don't believe that this addresses my question. All papal obedience issues aside, I was only talking about the Second Vatican Council. Unless I am mistaken, they do not accept this (in fact, I think it is probably the biggest stumbling block to reunion, that they refuse to accept it, no?) unless I am mistaken, which I may well be because I don't devote much time to studying them. (And if one does not accept a thing, does he not implicitly reject it?) How can a group who refuses to accept (and therefore rejects) an ecumenical council (which is binding on all Catholics) be orthodox and not heretical? I am genuinely curious about this.
In a recent post, those who did not accept the (binding) councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were branded heretical. How do the SSPX manage to escape the same judgement?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1307930522' post='2252968']
Here's the deal Joe. I hold that if someone (like yourself) is going to be considered a Traditionalist, then I would say that they have to be a role model to others. Adhering to Tradition is a laudable thing. Someone outside of the full communion of the Church cannot ever be held as a role model.
[/quote]
Nobody is perfect. The trouble with the SSPX is that Archbishop Lefebvre's issue was was very public, and involved a great many people. In that particular area they are not great role models in my opinion, and I would not recommend that anybody does the same, however as we established, they are most certainly Catholic, and though I consider them lacking in one aspect of Traditionalism, I think that the sum of all the other aspects makes unavoidable the conclusion that they are traditionalists.
They preach orthodox doctrines. They do not preach disobedience. Their issue is based on a single event in which there were some mutually exclusive opinions, but that doesn't mean that they reject obedience to the Pope.

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1307930671' post='2252970']
here's what i don't understand (admittedly, i'm drinking). why are SSPX deserving of more respect than the ACC (i think that's the acronym) or the National Catholic Reporter, or politicians a la Nancy Pelosi; when many of disobedient groups do the same (according to your above statement).
[/quote]
Those organizations and individuals are heterodox or openly heretical. The SSPX are not. Those organizations normally can't even be bothered to pay lip service to Church doctrine.
The Reporter, for instance, publishes openly heretical columns and frequently attacks actual doctrines. The SSPX, as we established, are not heretical.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307930828' post='2252975']
I don't believe that this addresses my question. All papal obedience issues aside, I was only talking about the Second Vatican Council. Unless I am mistaken, they do not accept this (in fact, I think it is probably the biggest stumbling block to reunion, that they refuse to accept it, no?) unless I am mistaken, which I may well be because I don't devote much time to studying them. (And if one does not accept a thing, does he not implicitly reject it?) How can a group who refuses to accept (and therefore rejects) an ecumenical council (which is binding on all Catholics) be orthodox and not heretical? I am genuinely curious about this.
In a recent post, those who did not accept the (binding) councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were branded heretical. How do the SSPX manage to escape the same judgement?
[/quote]
I don't think it's as simple as saying that they reject the council itself. Certainly nobody denies that it was a validly convened council. Nobody denies that everything necessary for a council was present. I believe that the SSPX position would be satisfied with clarifying statements on troublesome portions of the Council... for instance the Pelagian terminology Pope Benedict mentioned in Gaudium et Spes.
I don't think anybody suggests that every text issued by VII is dogmatic or infallible. The SSPX want some freedom to criticize portions of the council. Rome sees some of their criticisms as going to far, I think, hence the doctrinal talks, but certainly they are permitted as Catholics to question some aspects of the council.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307927846' post='2252942']
You're assuming that doctrinal disagreement necessitates heresy. It need not. There can be doctrinal disagreement without heresy. Look, for instance, at the debate surrounding the definition of the Immaculate Conception. Many disagreed with Duns Scotus, though once it was formally defined, faithful dissent would no longer be appropriate.



[/quote]

No I don't think you have that right. There can be no disagreement over defined doctrines. The disagreements over the Immaculate Conception occurred before it was defined. That is a crucial distinction. As Benedict XVI has said the problems with the SSPX are primarily doctrinal and has to do with their acceptance of the post conciliar Magisterium and I quote again:
" This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes."
The pope has more than bent over backwards for these folks and they reward him with the usual sniping over various issues as Fellay does when he calls into question canonizations made since Vatican II and a host of other things that still dominate their website.

S.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Skinzo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307933351' post='2252991']
No I don't think you have that right. There can be no disagreement over defined doctrines. The disagreements over the Immaculate Conception occurred before it was defined. That is a crucial distinction. As Benedict XVI has said the problems with the SSPX are primarily doctrinal and has to do with their acceptance of the post conciliar Magisterium and I quote again:
" This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes."
The pope has more than bent over backwards for these folks and they reward him with the usual sniping over various issues as Fellay does when he calls into question canonizations made since Vatican II and a host of other things that still dominate their website.

S.
[/quote]

[quote]It does not seem conceivable that a call into question of the Second Vatican Council may happen. Therefore, where do these discussions might lead? To a better understanding of this? [/quote]

[quote]They concern a clarification of points that detail the exact meaning of the teaching of the Council. It is what the Holy Father started to do on December 22, 2005, by interpreting the Council within a hermeneutic of renewal in continuity. [u][b]Nevertheless, there are certain objections of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X that do make sense, because there has been an interpretation of rupture.[/b][/u] The goal is to show that it is necessary to interpret the Council in the continuity of the Tradition of the Church. -- [b]Mgr. Guido Pozzo[/b][/quote] source: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/06/monsignor-pozzo-certain-objections-of.html and[i][url="http://www.ndf.fr/la-une/08-06-2011/entretien-avec-mgr-pozzo-secretaire-de-la-commission-pontificale-ecclesia-dei"] Nouvelles de France[/url][/i]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307933351' post='2252991']
No I don't think you have that right. There can be no disagreement over defined doctrines. The disagreements over the Immaculate Conception occurred before it was defined. That is a crucial distinction. As Benedict XVI has said the problems with the SSPX are primarily doctrinal and has to do with their acceptance of the post conciliar Magisterium and I quote again:
" This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes."
The pope has more than bent over backwards for these folks and they reward him with the usual sniping over various issues as Fellay does when he calls into question canonizations made since Vatican II and a host of other things that still dominate their website.

S.
[/quote]
That's [i]precisely[/i] what I just said. There can be doctrinal disagreements before formal definitions.
Doctrinal disagreements between the SSPX and the wider Church are acceptable, since they do not reject anything formally defined.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307934231' post='2252997']
That's [i]precisely[/i] what I just said. There can be doctrinal disagreements before formal definitions.
Doctrinal disagreements between the SSPX and the wider Church are acceptable, since they do not reject anything formally defined.
[/quote]

Nope. We are obliged to accept the ordinary Magisterium which includes Vatican II and the post conciliar Magisterium of the popes as Benedict has said.
Vatican II makes that clear. The pope would not use the word doctrine if he thought the position of the SSPX was acceptable. Read the pope's letter. We have a living Magisterium not one "frozen in 1962" . Another quote of Benedict XVI on this very subject.

S.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307934663' post='2253003']
Nope. We are obliged to accept the ordinary Magisterium which includes Vatican II and the post conciliar Magisterium of the popes as Benedict has said.
Vatican II makes that clear. The pope would not use the word doctrine if he thought the position of the SSPX was acceptable. Read the pope's letter. We have a living Magisterium not one "frozen in 1962" . Another quote of Benedict XVI on this very subject.

S.
[/quote]
As we all know, Vatican II was not a superdogma. Not everything that came out of that council is dogmatic or infallible. The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it. We are certainly permitted to do the same, from a perspective of faith.
Remember that Vatican II was a pastoral council. It was not intended to be ground-shaking theologically. That it is is an unfortunate consequence of the false "spirit of Vatican II". If we want to, for instance, challenge some of the "downright Pelagian terminology" in some parts of Gaudium et Spes... well then we're in good company.

Edit: spelling.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307935040' post='2253008']
As we all know, Vatican II was not a superdogma. Not everything that came out of that council is dogmatic or infallible. The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it. We are certainly permitted to do the same, from a perspective of faith.
Remember that Vatican II was a pastoral council. It was not intended to be ground-shaking theologically. That it is is an unfortunate consequence of the false "spirit of Vatican II". If we want to, for instance, challenge some of the "downright Pelagian terminology" in some parts of Gaudium et Spes... well then we're in good company.

Edit: spelling.
[/quote]

You are still dodging and ignoring the plain meaning of the Holy Father's words. You say "The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it" That is plainly wrong. Please cite a primary source for what you attribute to the pope. The term "downright Pelagian terminology" is taken from a Remnant article which cites only a secondary source for the quotation, and it is also clear they are quoting (if in fact accurately) Cardinal Ratzinger and not Benedict XVI. When you say "we're in good company" do you mean yourself and the SSPX? ?

S.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1307936274' post='2253022']
You are still dodging and ignoring the plain meaning of the Holy Father's words. You say "The Pope himself has criticized aspects of it" That is plainly wrong. Please cite a primary source for what you attribute to the pope. The term "downright Pelagian terminology" is taken from a Remnant article which cites only a secondary source for the quotation, and it is also clear they are quoting (if in fact accurately) Cardinal Ratzinger and not Benedict XVI. When you say "we're in good company" do you mean yourself and the SSPX? ?

S.
[/quote]
Source:
Allen, John L. (2005). Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger. London: Continuum. p. 81. ISBN 0826417868.

Afaik John Allen is generally considered to be more or less fair minded. Yes, the comment occurred before he was elected to the papacy. I mentioned earlier that this was likely the case, and I confirmed it just now by looking more closely.
Unfortunately I don't have that book, however if you want to disprove me, you have the source.

Now you may retract your comment that my previous post was "plainly wrong". As I have shown, it is no such thing.
When I say in good company, it is pretty obvious that I am referring to the Pope. That was the entire point of that sentence.

[Nihil Obstat]

Addendum: That quote seems pretty widespread, in my very brief internet search. If it's in fact a false quote I'd be delighted if someone can enlighten me.