The Reunification Of The Sspx May Be At Hand

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308021612' post='2253447']
Please feel free to acknowledge my last point.
[/quote]
I'd really rather not. I'm tired of talking to you and nothing new has been said for about [ETA: at least] three pages now.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308022052' post='2253454']
I'd really rather not. I'm tired of talking to you and nothing new has been said for about [ETA: at least] three pages now.
[/quote]

Fabulous! I'll take that as you are finally realizing your error Let me then sum up

First Camster had you say [quote]Again Jim, they are not exommunicated, they are not in schism. All of the priests and three of the four bishops are suspended (one is not, and is canonically in good standing with Rome). I don't know the strictest theological definition of "being in communion", but seeing as how they are not schismatic or heretical or excommunicated, it would be false to say that they are not Catholic. Since we must believe that they are Catholic, I think it is silly and immature to refuse to call them traditionalist, which is not any sort of formal theological term.[/quote]

then of course thanks to Camster he gave you this

[quote]"Now that the excommunications of the bishops have been revoked, all the Society’s adherents, both clergy and laity, must be presumed to be in “communion with the Universal Church.” The Code of Canon law does not recognize any such thing as “a group of Catholics in an irregular state.” The Society’s adherents are either Catholics, pure and simple, or they are not. Indubitably, they are Catholics. The suggestion that the physical chapels in which the Society celebrates Mass are not “in communion with the Universal Church” is pettifoggery. Ecclesial communion involves persons, not real estate. The exact canonical status of the chapels as places of Catholic worship is merely a matter for technical canonical resolution."
Essentially, the 1983 CIC doesn't have a provision for irregular states. So, either Catholics are or are not in communion. The idea of irregular states only applies to the 1917 CIC, which doesn't hold any weight any longer, because of the promulgation of the 1983 CIC.
"[...]the only bishop of the Society ever declared “suspended” was Archbishop Lefebvre, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops dated July 22, 1976 imposing said penalty on account of the Archbishop’s ordination of seminarians in that year. The penalty became moot with the Archbishop’s death in 1991, and no such penalty was ever imposed on any of the surviving bishops, who were subjected only to the penalty of excommunication in 1988."
[/quote]

Which of course I responded to him with this

[quote]His Holiness Benedict XVI in his paternal concern for the spiritual distress which the parties concerned have voiced as a result of the excommunication, and trusting in their commitment, expressed in the aforementioned letter, to spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through requisite discussions with the authorities of the Holy See in order to reach a prompt, full and satisfactory solution to the original problem has decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, resulting from their episcopal consecration.

This act signifies a desire to strengthen reciprocal relations of trust, and to deepen and stabilize the relationship of the Society of St Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, coming at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also meant to be a sign which promotes the Universal Church's unity in charity, and removes the scandal of division.

[b] It is hoped that this step will be followed by the prompt attainment of full communion with the Church[/b] on the part of the whole Society of St Pius X, which will thus bear witness to its genuine fidelity and genuine recognition of the Magisterium and authority of the Pope by the proof of visible unity. [/quote]

Which clearly supports my position that they are not in full union with the Church yet. As being such, they cannot be considered Traditionalists of the Catholic Church when

[list][*]Their bishops very non traditionally have no diocese (no other bishop in the Church has the distinction[*]The ministry of their bishops is still suspended[*]and of course they are not in full communion with the Church[/list]
Since you refuse to respond, I'll take it that you acquiesce to the truth.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308022536' post='2253462']
Fabulous! I'll take that as you are finally realizing your error Let me then sum up

First Camster had you say

then of course thanks to Camster he gave you this



Which of course I responded to him with this



Which clearly supports my position that they are not in full union with the Church yet. As being such, they cannot be considered Traditionalists of the Catholic Church when

[list][*]Their bishops very non traditionally have no diocese (no other bishop in the Church has the distinction[*]The ministry of their bishops is still suspended[*]and of course they are not in full communion with the Church[/list]
Since you refuse to respond, I'll take it that you acquiesce to the truth.
[/quote]
Please stop being rude. Cam has indeed been offering me some of his knowledge in this debate, however I have most certainly been using my own critical thinking throughout every step. Part of that is because I don't agree with all of his conclusions.
Furthermore, we disagree and I consider aspects of your position to be wrong for all the reasons I've already pointed out. This debate is not going anywhere though, so I'm done.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1307951128' post='2253077']
I wasn't aware that he became a different person when he was elected pope.
He criticized Gaudium et Spes as one of the highest ranking cardinals in the Church. I think that's clear enough, don't you?


Are you suggesting that every iota of every document issued by Vatican II is entirely beyond criticism, even to the tiniest degree? Are you implying further that when Pope Benedict criticized Gaudium et Spes while he was a cardinal, that he was wrong to do so?
[/quote]

We still don't know what he actually said until we see the original article. What a cardinal says (no consideration of rank) is immaterial to what a Pope says.
In your last questions you are asking me about things I never said. Read and respond only to what I said, and don't put words in my mouth. You started out here in an earlier post citing Lefebvre's declaration of "adherence to eternal Rome" but neglected to include the parts in which he assaulted the "Rome of neo-Protestant and neo-modernist tendency." Were you not aware of those? To post a mere fragment of that declaration is highly misleading.
If you want to know the opinion of a high ranking cardinal on Vatican II I suggest you review Cardinal Ratzinger's letters to Abp. Lefebvre. Most are available on any SSPX site.

S.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308029115' post='2253497']
We still don't know what he actually said until we see the original article. What a cardinal says (no consideration of rank) is immaterial to what a Pope says.
In your last questions you are asking me about things I never said. Read and respond only to what I said, and don't put words in my mouth. You started out here in an earlier post citing Lefebvre's declaration of "adherence to eternal Rome" but neglected to include the parts in which he assaulted the "Rome of neo-Protestant and neo-modernist tendency." Were you not aware of those? To post a mere fragment of that declaration is highly misleading.
If you want to know the opinion of a high ranking cardinal on Vatican II I suggest you review Cardinal Ratzinger's letters to Abp. Lefebvre. Most are available on any SSPX site.

S.
[/quote]
As you would no doubt affirm, some types of criticism of the Second Vatican Council (for instance the example I invented) are appropriate for any Catholic. In my opinion, some of Archbishop Lefebvre's criticisms were too harsh, and I think that the popes have shared that opinion. However, it is not criticism in and of itself that is the issue. It is simply the extent. That is all I'm saying.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308030155' post='2253502']
As you would no doubt affirm, some types of criticism of the Second Vatican Council (for instance the example I invented) are appropriate for any Catholic. In my opinion, some of Archbishop Lefebvre's criticisms were too harsh, and I think that the popes have shared that opinion. However, it is not criticism in and of itself that is the issue. It is simply the extent. That is all I'm saying.
[/quote]

I think one may say as Paul VI said that the documents at times are ambiguous. But if one has such concerns then we bring them to Church authority and ask for help.
I don't think it is merely a matter of a harshness of criticism as it is a tendency of the SSPX to attribute problems to Vatican II which in no case can be ascribed to Vatican II. In this sense, I think the crazed "progressives" and the SSPX have something in common. It is not so much an imprecision of Vatican II's language as they are both trying to read things into Vatican II which are simply not there. Both camps also have the same dilemma now and that is that having rejected papal authority for 40 years now one has to wonder how they will ever come back to accept it? Once the leftwingers assaulted Humanae Vitae then they proceeded to assault everything ever after that came from Rome. The SSPX extends their attack to the validity of post Vatican II canonizations, the new code of canon law, and the list goes on. The gulf between Rome and certain warring groups in the Church is simply huge. I have yet to encounter any Catholic liberal who can argue intelligently about the documents of Vatican II. They simply don't read them. One encounters the same thing in the SSPX when they argue the "conciliar Church" is a "new religion": For example and from the website of the SSPX:

"[font="Arial"][size="2"]This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church." [/size][/font][url="http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm"]http://www.sspx.org/...ew_religion.htm[/url]

That sentence seems rather schizoid. They begin by saying the Catholic church is now a new religion. Well, to accept that one has to say then that the pope and the bishops are all in error, huge error, grievous error! Now if you actually accept that, how can you then argue "we must [font="Arial"][size="2"]respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church". I don't see how those two thoughts can exist in the same sentence. If I truly thought (and of course I don't) that the pope and bishops began a new religion at Vatican II then I would have to denounce them unequivocally. I really would not be able to hold any respect for them.

S.
[/size][/font]

Edited June 14, 2011 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308032674' post='2253506']
I think one may say as Paul VI said that the documents at times are ambiguous. But if one has such concerns then we bring them to Church authority and ask for help.
I don't think it is merely a matter of a harshness of criticism as it is a tendency of the SSPX to attribute problems to Vatican II which in no case can be ascribed to Vatican II. In this sense, I think the crazed "progressives" and the SSPX have something in common. It is not so much an imprecision of Vatican II's language as they are both trying to read things into Vatican II which are simply not there. Both camps also have the same dilemma now and that is that having rejected papal authority for 40 years now one has to wonder how they will ever come back to accept it? Once the leftwingers assaulted Humanae Vitae then they proceeded to assault everything ever after that came from Rome. The SSPX extends their attack to the validity of post Vatican II canonizations, the new code of canon law, and the list goes on. The gulf between Rome and certain warring groups in the Church is simply huge. I have yet to encounter any Catholic liberal who can argue intelligently about the documents of Vatican II. They simply don't read them. One encounters the same thing in the SSPX when they argue the "conciliar Church" is a "new religion": For example and from the website of the SSPX:

"[font="Arial"][size="2"]This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church." [/size][/font][url="http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/post-conciliar_church_a_new_religion.htm"]http://www.sspx.org/...ew_religion.htm[/url]

That sentence seems rather schizoid. They begin by saying the Catholic church is now a new religion. Well, to accept that one has to say then that the pope and the bishops are all in error, huge error, grievous error! Now if you actually accept that, how can you then argue "we must [font="Arial"][size="2"]respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church". I don't see how those two thoughts can exist in the same sentence. If I truly thought (and of course I don't) that the pope and bishops began a new religion at Vatican II then I would have to denounce them unequivocally. I really would not be able to hold any respect for them.

S.
[/size][/font]
[/quote]

"I think one may say as Paul VI said that the documents at times are ambiguous. But if one has such concerns then we bring them to Church authority and ask for help. "
There is certainly a responsibility on the part of the faithful to exercise critical thinking. Many of us are gifted with intelligent minds that allow us to form our own conclusions. Our Church authority is a wonderful thing because it helps us inform our intellects and reigns us in if we start going in the wrong direction, but I think it is a responsibility on our part to actively exercise that aspect of our natures and try to work out conclusions on our own when appropriate. I'd even go so far as to say that it's part of human nature to do so.
Otherwise we turn into similar people to the rabid Randians. They were paralytically afraid of saying anything unless they already knew Ayn Rand's line on the subject, because they were uncomfortable doing anything besides parroting [i]word for word[/i] what she herself said. There's a world of difference between parroting 'the party line' and accepting it through understanding.

"I don't think it is merely a matter of a harshness of criticism as it is a tendency of the SSPX to attribute problems to Vatican II which in no case can be ascribed to Vatican II. In this sense, I think the crazed "progressives" and the SSPX have something in common. It is not so much an imprecision of Vatican II's language as they are both trying to read things into Vatican II which are simply not there."
I think it is more likely that most in the SSPX would say that many pre-existing problems in the clergy were exposed and given power through Vatican II. I think it would be kind of juvenile to say that Vatican II 'caused' most problems, once you move past a superficial discussion of what those problems are, and I think most will recognize that. What I imagine they'd say instead is that these problems that they see were already present in certain members of the clergy and episcopate, and Vatican II simply brought those to the open. For instance, certain documents have on a lot of occasions been interpreted in a very theologically indifferentist way. This is obviously not in line with Catholic Tradition, so that interpretation must be rejected, but some ambiguities in the documents themselves allowed for those erroneous interpretations to be made.
It's a fine line, really, between pointing to linguistic imprecision and reading something original into a document. A lot of Protestants simply can't imagine how we see Mary in St. John's Apocalypse, yet since we interpret it in a Catholic manner we do see where she is clearly present. In a similar but not identical way, you may not see how the FSSPX reads whatever particular criticism you'd care to name into whatever relevant VII document to which they point, but to them it may be clear as day.
This, again, is what the doctrinal talks are for. Above all I think it is for greater clarity. There has been too much obscured while the excommunications were in place. There was too much hostility from parties on both sides, and the actual issues were often neglected and instead straw men were attacked. This is my perception of the situation. Some people in the Church likely do not want the SSPX to come back because they are afraid of what that means for their Modernist tendencies. Likewise some in the SSPX are probably afraid of being back on friendly terms with Rome because it means that they're going to have to confront a lot of problems, both potentially in their own positions, and also very much in the Modernism that has infiltrated certain dark corners of the clergy. The doctrinal talks, the way I see them, have cut through this obfuscating fog and are certainly doing a good job of getting to the real issues, so that the SSPX can exercise their fullest potential from a position of unhindered and proper authority.

"This is the reason for which we have every right to condemn the post-Conciliar revolution for the new religion that it is, while at the same time we must respect the offices and functions of those who hold positions in the Church."
You could read this, as you have, to believe that the SSPX believes that the post-Conciliar Rome is a new (and by implication non-Catholic) Church... but you can also choose to read it in the sense of the theory of two hermeneutics that has evolved recently. You I am sure condemn the hermeneutic of rupture. We might even call the hermeneutic of rupture by metaphor a 'new church', a sort of church formed in man's image. Exactly what the real Church (the hermeneutic of continuity) is not. Maybe you are reading some SSPX statements in a more hostile manner than is strictly necessary.
In quite a few instances, they are not so radical as I previously thought. Some SSPX writings are (gasp, horror of horrors) actually worthwhile reads. I likely would not recommend most or all of them to a new Catholic, or one weak in their faith, but for one with prudent judgement and a good grasp of theology, there are valuable elements in SSPX writing.
It is of course a cardinal rule of debating to actually know the other party's decision. Too often I think, and this goes back to my perception of a certain fog over the issues, we regular orthodox, non-SSPX Catholics are afraid to read SSPX articles. We kind of run from them in the same way that we are repelled by heresy. Yet they are not heresy; it is not the same thing. There might be some flaws in parts of their writings, but they are not heretics. Imperfect, yes. That's why we have doctrinal talks. I have spent just a bit of spare time reading some SSPX articles and such, and I have found a lot of common ground from which I'm sure the delegates appointed by Ecclesia Dei and the SSPX are working to come to greater understanding. Too bad the doctrinal talks are secret; I think it would have been great fun to follow along with the issues discussed, and read all the presentations made. Maybe someday in the future we'll have the opportunity to look back on transcripts or compilations of tabled documents.

[Nihil Obstat]

I am pleased with how that post turned out. I feel happy having written it.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308035613' post='2253513']
I am pleased with how that post turned out. I feel happy having written it.
[/quote]

well done

But all the loquacious language aside, they are not in full communion with the Church.

[Jaime]

[quote]Too often I think, and this goes back to my perception of a certain fog over the issues, we regular orthodox, non-SSPX Catholics are afraid to read SSPX articles. We kind of run from them in the same way that we are repelled by heresy. Yet they are not heresy; it is not the same thing. There might be some flaws in parts of their writings, but they are not heretics.[/quote]

Show me an article from SSPX that has the imprimatur Joe. Just one please.


And by the way, this is the umpteenth time you've said "they're not heretics" . Who in this thread has ever said they were?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308060520' post='2253589']
Show me an article from SSPX that has the imprimatur Joe. Just one please.


And by the way, this is the umpteenth time you've said "they're not heretics" . Who in this thread has ever said they were?
[/quote]
An imprimatur does not make a publication orthodox, and the lack of one does not mean it is not.
The first edition of the Italian translation of YouCat had an imprimatur.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1308065787' post='2253636']
An imprimatur does not make a publication orthodox, and the lack of one does not mean it is not.
The first edition of the Italian translation of YouCat had an imprimatur.
[/quote]

And what does the Imprimatur do? It means that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic teaching.

And show me where it has an Imprimatur because according to SSPX it has translation errors.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308067335' post='2253644']
And what does the Imprimatur do? It means that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic teaching.

And show me where it has an Imprimatur because according to SSPX it has translation errors.
[/quote]
The original Italian version of the YouCat? When I was reading news stories about it they mentioned the nihil obstat and imprimatur. Mistakes can be made- I hope to God that's what it was. It was a translation error, of course, but it slipped through the cracks. That's my point.
I think it must have had the imprimatur and nihil obstat, because at that point it was already being distributed, and I don't think they'd be doing so without the stamps being official at the time.

[MithLuin]

Wait, so Imprimaturs don't count now? What about Nihil Obstats?

Just a heads up, guys, but all the Catholic vs Catholic debate is supposed to be nixed.

[Mr.Cat]

I only really know one person who is a member of the SSPX, a disabled man who lives with family who has more than enough time to read and contemplate his faith, who quite frankly is the most well educated and intelligent "[i]radtrad[/i]" that I have ever encountered with a generous, benevolent, gentle, and loving personality. Even though I strongly disagreed and at times deplored his positions, then and even now, it was hard not to respect him. He has in a sense become the measure that I use for Catholics wanting to claim the "[i]traditional[/i]" conviction.

With that bit explained, this is why I took seriously his answer when I asked him what he thought about the SSPX returning. He had strong reservations about it, he objected the SSPX had become a kind of loyal opposition to the doctrinal and disciplinary developments since the second vatican council, that premature submission would simply be detrimental the hard work and sacrifice of many. He appealed to my political science background to make his case, being a common ground and relevant since it does involve the politics of the church, he claimed that subjecting a loyal opposition is tantamount to repression of the people who care enough to challenge the majority rule.

While I thought his dramatic view of the SSPX was a bit far fetched, the church clearly hasn't forgotten the sspx is there either. I haven't spoken to him about it in years although... he may like this arrangement. He made a compelling case that Benedict XVI wasn't really [i]traditional[/i] upon his election, he made a compelling case for it, not that it matters for me anymore. So I suspect he would be doubtful about it.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308070011' post='2253653']
Wait, so Imprimaturs don't count now? What about Nihil Obstats?

Just a heads up, guys, but all the Catholic vs Catholic debate is supposed to be nixed.
[/quote]
Didn't say that. I said it's not the absolute arbiter for orthodoxy.

Also just as a side note, I seriously doubt that the SSPX has submitted any of their publications to diocesan bishops for stamps.

[dominicansoul]

I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1308076863' post='2253697']
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12
[/quote]

[vee]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1308076863' post='2253697']
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12
[/quote]

CEPHAS!!!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1308076863' post='2253697']
I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.

I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas..."

1 Corinthians 1:10-12
[/quote]
That's one reason that we should thank God every day that the SSPX situation didn't consolidate into formal schism. God forbid, we don't need another Western Schism. The Eastern one is painful enough as it is, 1000 years later.